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 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has produced another 11,043 pages of Pfizer documents, one of them showing that the company had to hire an additional 2,400 employees to handle the onslaught of adverse reactions caused by its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine.”

Page 6 of FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000059 clearly states:

“Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH [marketing authorization holder] has prioritized the processing of serious cases, in order to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.”

The document goes on to reveal that Pfizer did “multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports.”

“This includes significant technology enhancements and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs). More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”

Remember when Albert Bourla denied these adverse effects and said that people who talk about them are “criminals?”

Company CEO Albert Bourla, meanwhile, has condemned anyone who dares to speak up about these revelations.

Any person who even suggests that Pfizer’s Fauci Flu shot is dangerous should be designated as a “criminal,” Bourla insisted. According to him, saying anything “negative” about the injections constitutes “misinformation” – this being a common sociopathic trait.

The Pfizer document ends with nine full pages of reported adverse events – you know, the ones that Bourla does not want any “criminals” talking about. Many of them are autoimmune-related, which makes sense in the context of vaccination.

Thousands, if not millions, of people were punished for just saying no to these deadly injections. For the “crime” of refusing to have their immune systems damaged, the non-jabbed lost their jobs, were removed from school, and in some cases, became homeless simply for trying to protect themselves.

Many are calling this whole jab situation the greatest conspiracy of our lifetime, and it really looks like it. And the sad part is that it is still not over, as people continue to face the ultimatum of either obeying Big Pharma or sacrificing their freedoms.

“While everyone’s eyes have been on Ukraine, the World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly moved forward with a ‘pandemic treaty,’” warned Strange Sounds. “This law will supersede state law for any countries who sign into it. And Republicans joined with Democrats to pass the national digital vaccine registry.”

This registry, in case you missed hearing about it, will log every American’s vaccination status with the government, that way the authorities will know who to round up for disobedience at some later date.

So, while it might seem like COVID is mostly over at this point, do not be fooled. It is far from over. The plan is to birth a new global infrastructure out of the sham that will eventually force all human beings to either take whatever injections they are told or be punished.

“The Great Reset is in full swing!” Strange Sounds further warned. “Get ready!”

In the comment section, someone wrote that people should be reminded that the government has repeatedly stated that there are too many people on the planet.

“They also believe that you are one of those too many people,” this person added.

Another wrote that the government continues to “serve up ‘goolash’ and everyone thinks it’s just awesome when no one knows the long-term effects,” referring to the injections.

*

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 Vaccines.news

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.

***

Footage posted to Twitter shows what appears to be Ukrainian soldiers calling up the mothers of dead Russian soldiers killed in action and mocking them over their loss.

Yes, really.

“Pro-Ukraine accounts on Twitter translated the videos and celebrated the heinous acts with glee,” writes Chris Menahan.

A translation of the exchange reveals that the soldier tells the mother “this fucking moron is no more,” informing her that all that was left of him was “his ass and a leg.”

The Ukrainian appeared to be using the phone that belonged to the dead Russian to call his mother.

An alleged neo-nazi Azov Battalion member named Ivan Zaliznyak uploaded the video and five others to his Telegram channel.

The clips hardly do much to bolster the narrative, relentlessly amplified by the legacy media, that the Ukrainians are the ‘good guys’.

Over the weekend, horrific footage emerged of Ukrainian fighters committing literal war crimes by shooting captured Russian soldiers in the knees and watching them die in agony.

However, that doesn’t seem to have deterred the ‘Ukrainian flag in my Twitter bio’ crowd, who seem more hopped up on signaling their virtue than ever before.

*

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 above

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published on December 28, 2021

“The PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick”. Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the RT-PCR, passed away in August 2019.

This misuse of the RT-PCR technique is applied as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, … under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian physician specialized in critical care and renowned public health analyst.

***

Summary

The PCR Smoking Gun? The CDC acknowledges (with innuendos) that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between Covid-19 and Seasonal Influenza. 

Amply documented and analyzed by numerous scientists, the RT-PCR test does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

While the CDC does not officially acknowledge that the RT-PCR test is invalid, it nonetheless calls for it to be withdrawn. 

It is worth noting that almost a year ago, in January 2021, the WHO also questioned the validity of the PCR test which it had itself put forth at the very outset of the covid crisis.

If the PCR test is invalid as intimated both by the CDC and the WHO, the 260 Million so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” collected and tabulated Worldwide since the outset of the alleged pandemic are meaningless.

There is no Pandemic. 

***

Will the RT-PCR Test in the US will be Declared Invalid?

In a bombshell decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have withdrawn the insidious PCR test as a valid method for detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2. 

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.”

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test.

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing. (emphasis added)

It has taken them almost two years to recognize that the PCR test is flawed and invalid.

Read carefully, what this CDC directive tacitly admits is that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between “SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”. We have known this from the outset.

This advisory by the CDC issued in July 2021 is to be enforced in the course of the next couple of weeks leading up to the January 1st, 2022 deadline.

Will it be carried out?? Visibly there is no transition towards “another authorized Covid-19 test”.

 .

The Covid-19 Omicron Christmas Lockdown

WHY has the CDC waited until December 31, 2021 to enforce the suspension of the invalid and flawed PCR test?  

Seasonal influenza which starts in October has contributed to driving up the number of so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”.

And in recent developments, these PCR positive cases are routinely being categorized as  “Confirmed Covid-19 Omicron Variant Cases”. It’s also a period of the year when people catch a common cold (e.g. triggered by a corona virus) which often results in a PCR positive.

This upward movement of PCR positive cases is now being used by corrupt politicians to sustain the Omicron fear campaign as well as impose the “The Covid-19 Christmas and New Year Lockdown”. 

Millions of people Worldwide are lining up to be tested as well as vaccinated to “protect themselves” against SARS-CoV-2 (which cannot under any circumstances be identified by the PCR test).

The evidence is overwhelming: It’s a killer vaccine

 

What this means is a Mea Culpa: A tacit recognition by the CDC and the FDA that the entire data base generated by the PCR test is invalid.

Almost a year ago, in January 2021, the WHO questioned the validity of the PCR test which it had itself put forth as a means to detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2 at the outset of the alleged pandemic in early 2020.


See:

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky


The Data Base of the Alleged Covid-19 Pandemic

Several billion people in more than 190 countries have been tested (as well as retested) for Covid-19 using the PCR test which is flawed and invalid.

We are talking about approximately 260 million alleged “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” (PCR positives) Worldwide.  

The pandemic is said to have resulted in more than 5 million Covid-19 related deaths.

These are nonsensical and meaningless numbers. It’s a Big Lie. 

And this data base is being used to justify the imposition of the Covid-19 mRNA “killer vaccine”, not to mention the “vaccine passport”. 

.

Bear in mind, in recent developments, the PCR test is being routinely used to allegedly “identify” the variants including Delta and Omicron, which is an impossibility as well as a lie.

Scientific nonsense. PCR positive cases (which according to the CDC could be the result of seasonal influenza) are now being routinely assigned to the Omicron Variant:

“The decision by the government to reimplement the need for a PCR test from all individuals arriving in the UK from abroad on day two, with self-isolation until a negative [PCR] test is reported, while frustrating for those travelling, is essential in order to rapidly identify cases of infection with the Omicron variant and implement prompt isolation and targeted contact tracing to limit the spread of the variant in the UK. (emphasis added, Guardian, November 27, 2021)

Health officials in New South Wales, Australia, have begun urgent testing after two people who arrived on a flight from southern Africa overnight tested positive to the coronavirus, [PCR test] (Reuters 27 November, 2021, emphasis added).

The RT-PCR Test is Flawed and Invalid: the Covid Christmas and New Year Mandates Do Not have a Leg to Stand On

  • The CDC Intimates that the PCR Test is Invalid. 
  • Does not differentiate between Covid-19 and Seasonal Influenza. 
  • Does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

If the PCR test is invalid as confirmed by the “Horse’s Mouth” (aka the CDC), the 260 Million so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” collected and tabulated Worldwide since the outset of the alleged pandemic are meaningless.

The official “covid-19 consensus” collapses like a house of cards.

There is no Pandemic. 

And what the ongoing PCR Covid-19 testing does is to drive up the numbers and spearhead the fear campaign with a view to justifying the killer vaccine and the Christmas Lockdown.

Crimes against Humanity

Video: Imagine All the People: The Covid-19 Omicron Christmas and New Year Lockdown

Add a comment. Spread the Word. Link to Bitchute 

***

For further details see:

***

Video:

on the Killer Vaccine, see Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s Analysis

Video

click the lower right corner to access full-screen .

Video: An Overview of the Covid-19 Crisis

.

 

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

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 the spirit of apparent “reconciliation and multilateralism” defining the Biden administration’s approach to conducting international diplomacy, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken handed over the “power of attorney” to the Ukrainian president to offer Russia relief from international sanctions in exchange for ending its military offensive in Ukraine.

On Sunday, April 3, confirming in an NBC News interview that Zelensky—one of the most ambitious emerging new leaders in Central Europe, not to be mistaken for an imperialist stooge—had the ability to negotiate sanctions relief for peace, Blinken, while assuming the air of magnanimity and rapprochement, revealed that President Joe Biden’s administration would support whatever the Ukrainian people wanted to do to bring the war to an end.

“We’ll be looking to see what Ukraine is doing and what it wants to do,” Blinken said. “And if it concludes that it can bring this war to an end, stop the death and destruction and continue to assert its independence and its sovereignty – and ultimately that requires the lifting of sanctions – of course, we will allow that.”

Blinken argued with overtones of diplomatic sophistry that although Putin had allegedly “failed to accomplish his objectives” in Ukraine – “subjugating Kyiv, demonstrating Russia’s military prowess and dividing NATO members” – he said it still made sense to pursue a negotiated settlement.

“Even though he’s been set back, even though I believe this is already a strategic defeat for Vladimir Putin, the death and destruction that he’s wreaking every single day in Ukraine … are terrible, and so there’s also a strong interest in bringing those to an end.”

Lending credence to ostensible “American neutrality” and “hands-off approach” to the Ukraine crisis, the Wall Street Journal—the official voice of establishment Republicans, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, that has taken the lead in publishing insider scoops during the tenure of the Biden administration while the Democratic shills, the New York Times and Washington Post, have taken a backseat out of deference for self-styled “progressives” in the White House—published a misleading report on April Fools’ Day that German chancellor Olaf Scholz had offered Volodymyr Zelensky a chance for peace days before the launch of the Russian military offensive, but the Ukrainian president turned it down.

The newly elected chancellor told Zelensky in Munich on February 19

“that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia,” the Journal revealed. The newspaper also claimed that “the pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security.”

However, Zelensky rejected the offer to make the concession and avoid confrontation, saying that “Russian President Vladimir Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO.”

Following the announcement of partial drawdown of Russian forces in Ukraine, specifically scaling back Russian offensive north of the capital, by the Russian delegation at the Istanbul peace initiative on March 29, the Ukrainian delegation, among other provisions, demanded “security guarantees in terms similar to Article 5,” the collective defense clause of the transatlantic NATO military alliance.

CNN reported on April Fools’ Day that Western officials were taken aback by “the surprising Ukrainian proposal.”

“We are in constant discussion with Ukrainians about ways that we can help ensure that they are sovereign and secure,” White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said. “But there is nothing specific about security guarantees that I can speak to at this time.”

“Ukraine is not a NATO member,” Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab told the BBC when asked whether the UK is prepared to become a guarantor of Ukrainian independence. “We’re not going to engage Russia in direct military confrontation,” he added.

While noting that Russian peace negotiations were “nothing more than a smokescreen,” Western diplomats contended that an Article 5-type commitment to Ukraine was unlikely given that the US and many of its allies, including the UK, were not willing to put their troops in direct confrontation with Russian forces. The theory that Russia would not attack Ukraine if it had Western security guarantees appears to still be a bigger risk than the US and its allies are willing to take.

As a way for Russia to “save face in the negotiations,” the Ukrainians even went to the extent of suggesting that any such security guarantees would not apply to the separatist territories in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. However, a number of US and Western officials have taken a skeptical approach to potential security guarantees, with many saying it is still premature to discuss any contingencies as the negotiations proceed.

Contradicting the misleading reports hailing Ukraine’s imperialist stooges as purported “masters of their own destinies,” President Joe Biden told the EU leaders at a summit last month in Brussels that “any notion that we are going to be out of this in a month is wrong”, and that the EU needed to prepare for a long-term pressure campaign against Russia.

US and European officials voiced skepticism over Russia’s “sincerity and commitment” towards the peace talks, underlining that only a full ceasefire, troop withdrawal and return of captured territory to Ukraine would be enough to trigger discussions over lifting sanctions on Russia’s economy.

“The notion that you would reward Putin for occupying territory doesn’t make sense … it would be very, very difficult to countenance” a senior EU official confided to the Financial Times. “There’s a disconnect between these negotiations, what really happens on the ground, and the total cynicism of Russia. I think we need to give them a reality check,” the official added.

Western countries were discussing both “enforcement of existing sanctions” and drawing up “potential additional measures” to increase pressure on Russian president Vladimir Putin, senior EU and US officials told the British newspaper. They were not discussing a possible timeframe for easing sanctions, they said.

Advising Ukrainians to hold out instead of rushing for securing peace deal with Russia, the Sunday Times reported, senior British officials were urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to instruct his negotiators to refuse to make concessions during peace negotiations with Russian counterparts.

A senior government source said there were concerns that allies were “over-eager” to secure an early peace deal, adding that a settlement should be reached only when Ukraine is in the strongest possible position.

In a phone call, Boris Johnson warned President Zelensky that President Putin was a “liar and a bully” who would use talks to “wear you down and force you to make concessions.” The British prime minister also told MPs it was “certainly inconceivable that any sanctions could be taken off simply because there is a ceasefire.” London was making sure there was “no backsliding on sanctions by any of our friends and partners around the world,” he added.

Speaking to CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday, April 3, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that

“NATO allies have supported Ukraine for many, many years,” adding that military aid has been “stepped up over the last weeks since the invasion.” The official clarified that “NATO allies like the United States, but also the United Kingdom and Canada and some others, have trained Ukrainian troops for years.”

According to Stoltenberg’s estimates, “tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops” had received such training, and were now “at the front fighting against invading Russian forces.” The secretary general went on to credit the Brussels-based alliance with the fact that the “Ukrainian armed forces are much bigger, much better equipped, much better trained and much better led now than ever before.”

In addition to a longstanding CIA program aimed at cultivating an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine, Canada’s Department of National Defense revealed on January 26, two days following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that the Canadian Armed Forces had trained “nearly 33,000 Ukrainian military and security personnel in a range of tactical and advanced military skills.” While The United Kingdom, via Operation Orbital, had trained 22,000 Ukrainian fighters, as noted by NATO’s informed secretary general.

A “prophetic” RAND Corporation report titled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” published in 2019 declares the stated goal of American policymakers is “to undermine Russia just as the US subversively destabilized the former Soviet Union during the Cold War,” and predicts to the letter the crisis unfolding in Ukraine. RAND Corporation is a quasi-US governmental think tank that receives three-quarters of its funding from the US military.

While designating Russia as an “intractable adversary,” the report notes that “Russia has deep seated anxieties” about Western interference and potential military attack. These anxieties are deemed to be “a vulnerability to exploit.”

The RAND report lists several “provocative measures” to insidiously “destabilize and undermine” Russia. Some of the steps include: repositioning bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets; deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia; increasing US and allied naval force posture and presence in Russia’s operating areas (Black Sea); holding NATO war exercises on Russia’s borders; and withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Almost all the provocative actions recommended in the RAND report have practically been implemented by the successive Obama, Trump and Biden administrations since the 2014 Maidan coup, toppling Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and consequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia.

The full RAND report says: “While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington’s pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.”

In November 2021, the US and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership. The agreement confirmed “Ukraine’s aspirations for joining NATO” and “rejected the Crimean decision to re-unify with Russia” following the 2014 Maidan coup.

In December 2021, Russia proposed a peace treaty with the US and NATO. The central Russian proposal was a written agreement assuring that Ukraine would not join the NATO military alliance. When the proposed treaty was contemptuously rebuffed by Washington, it appeared the die was cast.

The Intercept reported on March 11 that despite staging a massive military buildup along Russia’s border with Ukraine for nearly a year, “Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack on February 24,” senior current and former US intelligence officials told the Intercept. “It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the US intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade,” the senior official added.

Last April, US intelligence first detected that “the Russian military was beginning to move large numbers of troops and equipment to the Ukrainian border.” Most of the Russian soldiers deployed to the border at that time were later “moved back to their bases,” but US intelligence determined that “some of the troops and materiel remained near the border.”

In June 2021, against the backdrop of rising tensions over Ukraine, Biden and Putin met at a summit in Geneva. The summer troop withdrawal brought a brief period of calm, but “the crisis began to build again in October and November,” when US intelligence watched as Russia once again “moved large numbers of troops back to its border with Ukraine.”

Extending the hand of friendship, Russia significantly drawdown its forces along the western border before the summit last June. Instead of returning the favor, however, the conceited leadership of supposedly world’s sole surviving super power turned down the hand of friendship and haughtily refused to concede reasonable security guarantees demanded by Russia at the summit that would certainly have averted the likelihood of the war.

Considering this backdrop of the Russo-Ukraine War deliberately orchestrated by NATO powers to insidiously destabilize and internationally isolate Russia, it stretches credulity that the Ukrainian president “wields veto power” over NATO’s decision offering Russia relief from international sanctions in exchange for ending its military offensive in Ukraine, as contended by the charismatic albeit devious secretary of state.

Are readers gullible enough to assume the Ukrainian proposals for a peace treaty with Russia were put forth without prior consultation with NATO patrons and the latter cannot exercise enough leverage to compellingly persuade the impervious Ukrainian leadership to reach a negotiated settlement with Russia, particularly after the Russian peacemaker has unilaterally offered a major concession to Kyiv, focusing on liberating Russian-majority Donbas region in east Ukraine and scaling back Russian offensive in the rest of the embattled country?

*

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 Af-Pak and Middle East 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.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

First published on March 31, 2022

Do the Ukraine war and the action of the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom spell the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency? Even if the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine reach a 15-point plan, as the Financial Times has reported, there will be fallout for the dollar. For the first time, Russia, a major nuclear power and economy, was treated as a vassal state, with the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom seizing its $300 billion foreign exchange reserves. Where does this leave other countries that hold their foreign exchange reserves mainly in dollars—or the Euro?

The threat to dollar hegemony is only one part of the fallout. Complex supply chains built on the premise of a stable trading regime under WTO principles are also threatening to unravel. The United States is discovering that Russia is not simply a petrostate as they had thought but supplies many of the critical materials its industry and military need. This is apart from Russia being a major supplier of wheat and fertilisers.

Seizing Russia’s funds means that faith in the United States as the world’s banker and the dollar as the global reserve currency are in question. Why should countries maintain a trade surplus and bank it abroad if it can get seized at will? The promise of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency was that all surpluses in dollars were safe. With the seizure of the Afghan central bank’s 9.5 billion dollars, the United States has shown that it considers dollars held by another country with the US central bank fair game. It may be an economic asset in the books of a country. But it is effectively a political liability, as the United States government can seize this asset at will. The United States showed this earlier with Iraq, Libya and Venezuela. The seizure of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves by a handful of western countriesex-colonial and settler-colonial states—means that the so-called rules-based order is now based on weaponising the dollar and the west’s control over the global financial system.

Economists Prabhat Patnaik and Michael Hudson and financial experts such as Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse are now predicting a new regime in which the Chinese Yuan or its variant will emerge as the world’s new reserve currency. Why? After World War II, the Bretton Woods agreement led to the dollar becoming the world’s reserve currency. It replaced the British pound and was pegged $35 to an ounce of gold. In 1971, President Nixon removed the US dollar from the gold standard, which meant the dollar was now only backed by the United States government (Treasury) guarantees.

The dollar as reserve currency had three things going for it in post-war years. It was backed by the United States, the largest industrial producer and pre-eminent military power, even if challenged by the Soviet Union. And it was backed by West Asian oil, the largest traded commodity, priced in dollars.

The denomination of West Asian oil, particularly Saudi Arabian oil, was critical to the United States and determined by its military power. Once we understand the importance of oil for the United States, we can also understand the coup in Iran against Mohammad Mosaddegh, the 1953 coup in Iraq, and many other political events there, far more easily. Oil was the basis of the Carter doctrine, extending the Monroe doctrine equivalent to the Persian Gulf region. As cartoonists wrote, “Our oil is under their sand.” The United States’ control over West Asian oil combined with its industrial and military power ensured that the dollar remained the world’s reserve currency.

The fall of the United States as the world’s industrial power has gone hand in hand with the rise of China. A measure of China’s industrial rise can be seen from a simple statistic from the Lowy Institute based on IMF global trade data. In 2001, over 80% of countries had the United States as their major trading partner. By 2018, that figure dropped to just over 30%—128 out of 190—who had China as their major trading partner, not the United States. This dramatic change happened in less than 20 years! The reason for this change is industrial production: China overtook the United States in 2010 to become the largest industrial producer in the world. India is the fifth-largest but produces only 3.1% against 28.7% of world industrial production in China and 16.8% in the United States. It is not surprising that trade follows industrial production.

Two recent events are important in this context. China and the Eurasian Economic Union comprising Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia seem to be moving towards a new international and monetary system. India and Russia also seem to be working out a rupee-rouble exchange based on India’s need to import Russian arms, fertiliser, and oil. India had already created a similar system earlier for buying Iranian oil. This newly emerging system might also give a fillip to India’s exports to Russia. Two, Saudi Arabia has recently indicated it might designate its oil sales to China in the yuan and not the dollar. After 1974, this would be the first time Saudi Arabia would sell any oil in a currency other than the dollar. It means an immediate fillip to the yuan, as 25% of Saudi Arabia’s oil is sold to China.

The United States dominates the services, intellectual property (IP) and information technology (IT) markets. But markets for physical goods, unlike services, IP and IT, are based on a complex network of suppliers and, therefore, complex global supply chains. If the western economic war means taking out Russia’s supplies from the global market, many supply chains are in danger of unravelling. I have written about the energy war and how the European Union depends on gas piped from Russia to Europe. Many other commodities are critical for those sanctioning Russia—and those who may find it difficult to trade with Russia due to the west’s sanctions.

Strangely enough, one key element in the supply chain for manufacturing chips depends on Russia. It is a major supplier of sapphire substrates (using artificial sapphires) that go into chips. The other critical item is neon gas supplies to chip makers, whose major suppliers are in southern Ukraine. Two suppliers, one in Mariupol and one in Odessa, produce about 50% of the global neon supply and 75% of Ukraine’s supplies to the world’s chipmakers.

I earlier highlighted the danger to the European Union’s climate change plans and its shift to gas as a bridge fuel. Using batteries as the key storage element in the renewable energy route also has a substantial Russian weakness. Nickel is critical for electric batteries, and Russia is the third-largest supplier of nickel in the world. With the United States and European Union imposing sanctions, it may lead to China, already emerging as the world’s largest battery supplier, creating an even more dominant position.

The other issue that could create supply chain bottlenecks worldwide relates to palladium, platinum, titanium, and rare earth elements, which advanced industries require. These materials are on the list of fifty strategic minerals the United States needs. If we remember how the supply chains seized up during Covid-19, the coming crisis could be a lot worse. Sanctions are easy to impose, much harder to lift. And even after they are gone, supply chains will not come together seamlessly to how they were before. Remember, these supply chains have been incrementally configured over decades. Undoing them using the wrecking ball of sanctions is easy; redoing them is far more challenging.

Food supplies to the world will be hit even harder. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus produce significant quantities of fertilisers that farmers everywhere need. Russia and Ukraine are among the biggest exporters of wheat. If Russian wheat is sanctioned and Ukraine’s harvest is hit due to war, the world will not find it easy to thwart a severe food shortage.

There is no question the world is on a cusp. It will either lead to the complete destruction of the Russian economy, even if Russia achieves a quick peace in Ukraine and there is no NATO-Russia War. Or it will reconfigure a new economic order, which has been in the offing—a world order where cooperative solutions are found instead of undertaking military and economic wars for resolution.

*

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 Silent Crow News

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 3, the Ukrainian propaganda machine attempted another attack against Moscow. A few videos showing dozens of civilians who were allegedly killed by the Russian servicemen were widely spread by all the Ukrainian MSM.

The main thesis of the Ukrainian and Western media is that the Russian military left Bucha, causing huge civilian casualties. One of the main pieces of evidence was a video of the AFU driving along the city. Corpses of civilians were shown laying along the road.

The slightest analysis of the footage rose a lot of suspicions on its credibility. You can read more information HERE.

COMPARE THE TWO VIDEOS

Today, there are more interesting videos from Bucha shared by the Ukrainian military which may help to shed light on what did really happen in the town left by the Russian troops on March 30.

On April 2, a day before Ukrainian “journalists” came to Bucha to stage the horrific scenes on the streets, the National Police of Ukraine published a video of the mop up operation in Bucha.

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

The footage confirmed that:

  • there were no corpses laying on the streets. Not a single civilian confirmed that any mass shootings in the city.
  • Ukrainian demining teams who entered the town right after the Russian withdrawal had no work to do. They are seen walking on the streets along with civilians. Not a single mine left by the Russians was shown on the video.
  • Servicemen of the National Guard asked some of civilians if they need help, no of them replied asking for any immediate assistance, confirming that they are fine.

Only one man is seen killed in his car. It is not clear how did his death happen. Another victim was obviously a servicemen of one of the warring sides killed in clashes, whose corps is laying near a destroyed military equipment.

One of Ukrainian “patriots” made a comment on behaviour of the “Russian invaders”. After his own compatriots told Russian servicemen about his acute social awareness, Russian military checked his apartment but found only flags and a bunch of Ukrainian symbols. To add some drama to his case, the man claimed that the Russian soldier took him out “to kill him”, but suddenly changed his mind and brought the man to the military commander. The brave patriot only had a short peaceful conversation with Russian servicemen, with no tortures.

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

This video of the National Police of Ukraine, shot presumably on April 1 or earlier, does not really correspond to what the Ukrainian media published on April 3, trumpeting to the whole world that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation allegedly carried out a “mass massacre” of civilians.

As more photos are shared from the spot, more proves that the scene was staged appear.

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

As the main video proof from Bucha raised a lot of suspicions and was quickly disclaimed, it was accompanied by more fake photos allegedly made in the town.

Unfortunately, these attempts are even less effective and are evident lies. For example, notorious Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Arestovich published the photo of a woman tortured in Mariupol last week by Ukrainian Azov militants, claiming that she was a victim tortured by the Russians.

The photo was later deleted but was widely spread by the Ukrainian MSM, who even did not come together if it was in Gostomel or in Bucha. The Ukrainian media are trying their best to gain as much hype as possible, lying on any matter.

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

Photos of alleged Russian soldiers who staged the “genocide in Bucha” was spread in Ukrainian telegram channels.

New Evidences Shed Light On Alleged Massacre In Bucha, Kiev Region (Video, Photo)

In fact, Ukrainian media used a random photo of Yakut conscript soldiers, which was found in social networks.

These soldiers were demobilized a year ago. Now they were advised to hide their army photos so as not to be exposed in Ukrainian fakes.

Some of the victims in Bucha are people who were killed by the so-called Ukrainian territorial defense. This is confirmed by the Ukrainians themselves. The rest of the victims were killed in the shelling conducted by the AFU after the departure of Russian troops — this is indicated by a large number of craters from artillery strikes on the video.

On April 3, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that Kiev’s information about the mass killings in the Ukrainian Butcha was not true, and the footage was staged.

The Russian Defense Ministry stated that all the facts irrefutably confirm that the photos and video frames from Bucha are another staging of the Kiev regime for the Western media, as it was a case in Mariupol with the maternity hospital, as well as in other cities.

It was added that:

  • All units of the Russian troops completely withdrew from Bucha on March 30, and these shots appeared on the 4th day after that, when SBU officers and representatives of Ukrainian TV arrived there;
  • During the stay of Russian soldiers in Bucha, not a single civilian was injured;
  • 452 tons of humanitarian aid were delivered and issued to civilians by Russian servicemen in the settlements of the Kiev region.

On April 4, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Russia sees a direct threat to international security in such provocations as in the Butchs. In turn, spokesperson of the Russian President Peskov claimed that Russia categorically rejects any accusations of involvement in the deaths of people in the Ukrainian Butcha, the topic should be discussed at the international level.

Peskov added that the videos distributed by Ukraine cannot be trusted, experts of the Russian Ministry of Defense have revealed signs of video forgery and fakes, facts and time lane also undermine the reliability of the statements of the Ukrainian side.

“We would demand that international leaders not rush into sweeping accusations and listen to Russia’s arguments.” -Peskov said.

In turn, the European Union has already claimed that its readiness to tighten sanctions against Russia and strengthen Kiev’s support in defense issues, according to German Foreign Minister Anna Lena Berbock on Twitter. European officials attribute this decision to the reports of the Ukrainian authorities about the events in Bucha. London followed their example.

Surprisingly, on April 4, London has not agreed to hold a meeting of the UN Security Council on the events in Bucha in Ukraine. This was stated by the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova in Telegram.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

Big Pharma Advertising Dollars Are at an All-Time High

April 6th, 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.

***

The drug industry influences and manipulates media through advertising dollars. In 2021, drug companies spent an aggregate $6.88 BILLION on direct-to-consumer advertising (DCTA), up slightly from $6.86 billion in 2020

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that permit DCTA, making media in these countries more likely to have pro-pharma bias

The Will Smith-Chris Rock drama during the Oscars may have been nothing more than a subliminal publicity stunt for Pfizer’s upcoming alopecia drug

Over the past year, the U.S. government spent $1 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money to advertise the COVID jab, which is the most dangerous and least proven drug ever marketed, while simultaneously calling for the censorship of anyone who dared to address the risks of this novel treatment

By law, drug ads must not be false or misleading, must present a “fair balance” of information describing both the risks and benefits of a drug, must include facts that are “material” to the product’s advertised uses, and must include a “brief summary” that mentions every risk described in the product’s labeling. Few if any ads for the COVID jab have fulfilled these requirements

*

How do you control major media? The short answer — illustrated in the video above — is: through advertising dollars. Big Pharma advertising dominates, making up a large portion of a given media outlet’s revenue, and that funding gives Pharma the power to dictate what ends up in the news and what doesn’t.

While Big Pharma has frequently spent more on advertising than on research and development, over the past couple of years, ad spending has increased to new heights.1

In 2021, drug companies spent an aggregate $6.88 BILLION on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), up slightly from $6.86 billion in 2020.2 And, remember, DTCA is only permitted in two countries in the world, the U.S. and New Zealand, so media tend to be particularly biased in favor of Big Pharma those two countries.

Did Will Smith Smack Chris Rock on Behalf of Sponsors?

Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Incyte and Exact Sciences even sponsored the 2022 Academy Awards, which was “an unusual turn for the industry,” according to some biopharma professionals.3 Chances are you heard about how Will Smith smacked Chris Rock across the face. Smith supposedly took offense over a comment about his wife’s lack of hair.

Jada Pinkett Smith has alopecia areata, which is believed to be an autoimmune disorder. Isn’t it amazing, then, that Pfizer, a primary sponsor of this year’s Oscars,4 is working on an alopecia drug? They announced “top-line results” from a Phase 2b/3 trial in August 2021.5

It’s especially curious since three of the other sponsors — Eli Lilly, Incyte (partnering with Lilly) and Novartis — also have alopecia drugs nearly ready to go.6,7,8 Coincidence? Or a cleverly disguised publicity stunt for soon-to-be-released drugs? If the latter, it would put a whole new spin on the concept of subliminal advertising.

Taxpayer Money Used to Advertise Most Dangerous Drug Ever

Even more egregiously, over the past year, the U.S. government used your tax dollars to advertise the COVID jab, which is the most dangerous and least proven drug ever marketed in the history of the world. How do we know this? Well, there’s:

  • An unprecedented number of adverse reports after the COVID jab filed with the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)
  • Insurance companies are reporting unprecedented death rates. For example, OneAmerica reported the death rate among working-age Americans in the third quarter of 2021 was 40% higher than prepandemic levels;9 the Hartford Insurance Company found mortality in 2021 was 32% higher than 2019 and 20% higher than 2020, and Lincoln National reports that claims were 54% higher in the fourth quarter of 2021 compared to 2019 (compare that to an average year-over-year increase of 13.7%)10
  • Funeral homes are reporting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 compared to 2020, when the pandemic was at its peak11
  • In Germany, a large health insurance company found the death rate after the rollout of the COVID jabs was 14 times higher than what was being reported by the German government,12,13and according to a British government report, 9 out of 10 COVID deaths have occurred in people who were fully vaccinated14,15

So, the U.S. government purchased favorable media coverage for a novel and poorly tested gene transfer injection that is now killing and disabling hundreds of thousands of Americans, while simultaneously calling for the censorship of anyone who dared to address the risks of this novel treatment.

As reported by The Blaze:16

“In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS [Health and Human Services] revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including:

ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations.

These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety …

The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines … Though virtually all of these newsrooms produced stories covering the COVID-19 vaccines, the taxpayer dollars flowing to their companies were not disclosed to audiences …”

In all, the U.S. government spent $1 BILLION of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States” and “combat misinformation about vaccines,” all with “the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages.” Government also collaborated with celebrities, social media influencers and “expert” interviewees such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. As noted by The Daily Exposé:17

“In other words, Fauci, the man who has been the ‘face’ of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021, who publicly disparaged anyone who questioned the data he was using to support his recommendations, and who blithely referred to himself as ‘the science,’ was, in fact, a shill.”

The Level of Manipulation of Information Is Immense

While newsrooms claim to be completely independent from the advertising department, history and the personal experience of insiders tells us this simply isn’t true.

Take Sharyl Attkisson, for example, a five-time Emmy Award-winning network anchor, producer and reporter whose television career spans more than three decades. In 2009, she blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was manufactured and completely unfounded.

In 2014, she wrote “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.” It’s a tell-all exposé on what really goes on behind the media curtain, and it’s not pretty. The extent to which information is manipulated is far greater than most people suspect, and this is particularly true when it comes to COVID.

Years before the pandemic, Attkisson explained how false “consensus” was being created: Let’s say you hear about a new drug for an ailment you have, and you decide to do your own due diligence. Ultimately, you conclude it is safe and effective because everywhere you look, the information seems to support this conclusion. You feel good knowing you’ve done your homework, and fill the prescription. But what you don’t know is that:

In short, the “consensus” you see has been cleverly manufactured by the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of the world, in an effort to convince you of what the corporate cartels want you to conclude at the end of doing “your own research.” This way, they can sell you more of their expensive and dangerous products.

Over the past two years, this manipulation has become far more obvious and easy for people to see. Before the pandemic, it was pretty well disguised. Today, most can rattle off dozens of examples of how COVID information was manipulated and controlled, through the examples above and others, both by Big Pharma and the U.S. government.

Government Media Manipulation Has Been Routine for Years

For years, the U.S. government, regulatory agencies and public health organizations have colluded with media to control what gets reported and what doesn’t. This, too, is something that has become blatantly obvious during this pandemic, but it’s not a new phenomenon.

For example, back in 2016, a Scientific American investigation revealed how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration routinely manipulated mainstream media, stripping them of their independence:18

“It was a Faustian bargain … The deal was this: NPR, along with a select group of media outlets, would get a briefing about an upcoming announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a day before anyone else.

But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR’s reporter could and couldn’t interview … NPR reporter Rob Stein wrote back to the government officials offering the deal. Stein asked for a little bit of leeway to do some independent reporting but was turned down flat. Take the deal or leave it.”

As it turns out, NPR accepted the deal and Stein joined reporters from a dozen other media organizations to get the scoop. “Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead,” Scientific American wrote.

Considering the U.S. government’s many power grabs over the past two years, there’s no reason to assume it hasn’t been using this kind of manipulation to control media coverage of COVID-19 and the injections. Bill Gates, whose influence rivals that of nation states through his funding of the World Health Organization, has also poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the COVID campaign. As reported by The Daily Exposé:19

“Using more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media … Recipients included CNN, NPR, BBC, The Atlantic and PBS. Gates has also sponsored foreign organizations that included The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, and Al Jazeera. More than $38 million has also been funneled into investigative journalism centers.

Gates’ influence within the press is far-reaching, from journalism to journalistic training. This ultimately makes true objective reporting about Gates or his initiatives virtually impossible.”

DTCA Known to Produce Negative Public Health Effects

In 2006, experts warned that DTCA could trigger “placebo effects” and result in “negative economic, social and political consequences,”20 and in 2011, an article in Pharmacy and Therapeutics noted that the rules governing drug ads to the public were “too relaxed and inadequately enforced.”21

As reported by Forbes in 2019,22 “While DTCA has some positive effects, these commercials tend to mislead patients and can result in the breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship … According to an FDA survey, 65% of physicians said that DTCA for drugs sent confusing messages to the patients …” Importantly, drug ads must:23

  1. not be false or misleading
  2. present a “fair balance” of information describing both the risks and benefits of a drug
  3. include facts that are “material” to the product’s advertised uses, and
  4. include a “brief summary” that mentions every risk described in the product’s labeling

Have you ever seen an ad for the COVID jab that held true to these four requirements? I can’t think of one. People who have been injured by the COVID jab are now also starting to speak out, saying they feel betrayed and misled, as they were never told about the potential dangers of the shot.

One excellent example is the Substack writer Joomi’s story, “I Was Deceived About COVID Vaccine Safety.”24 Has mainstream media become too corrupted to serve its intended function? I believe so. At bare minimum, the likelihood of getting the truth on anything related to government or health, specifically, is virtually nil these days.

*

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 Statista February 25, 2022

2 End Points March 22, 2022

3 End Points March 28, 2022

4 Fierce Pharma March 28, 2022

5 Pfizer August 4, 2021

6 Incyte Press Release September 30, 2021

7 Clinical Trials. Novartis Secukinumab. March 11, 2021

8 Eli Lilly. Press Release March 26, 2022

9 The Center Square, January 1, 2022

10, 11 Zero Hedge, February 5, 2022

12 Health Impact News, February 23, 2022

13 Greater Mountain Publishing, February 27, 2022

14 UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, February 24, 2022

15 The Exposé, March 1, 2022

16 The Blaze March 3, 2022

17, 19 Daily Expose March 26, 2022

18 Scientific American October 1, 2016

20 PLOS Medicine March 2006; 3(3): e145

21, 23 P&T October 2011; 36(10): 669-674, 681-684

22 Forbes May 14, 2019

24 Joomi Substack January 15, 2022

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Pharma Advertising Dollars Are at an All-Time High
  • Tags:

The Kremlin Never Learns

April 6th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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.

***

Thinking that Ukraine had agreed, or was about to agree, to be a neutral country, Russia pulled its troops out of the Kiev area.  These troops had surrounded Kiev and occupied its suburbs. When the Russians left, a propaganda blitz erupted in the Western media and government councils that the Russians had been defeated and, angry at their defeat, slaughtered civilians, thus committing war crimes like the US committed in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Vietnam, etc.

The difference is that Washington is permitted to commit war crimes, because they are not really war crimes, just acts of promoting democracy.

Another difference is that Washington’s war crimes are real, whereas Russia’s are propaganda creations.

Nevertheless, although innocent, the Russians deserve their beating, because they are so foolish as to continually set themselves up for demonization. 

How is it possible that after all that has happened, the Kremlin did not comprehend that Russia’s withdrawal, meant as an encouragement to negotiations, would be reported as a defeat and a war crime?  Does the Kremlin have any competent advisors? The Kremlin, despite all statements to the contrary, evidentially still thinks the West is honest and will report truthfully the facts and respect Russia’s effort to find a peaceful solution. It is mind blowing that no one in the Kremlin understood that once the Russians withdrew, bodies, dead or play-acting, would be shown on Western media as proof of Putin’s war crimes. 

I don’t know why Bloomberg News is so fiercely Russophobic, but here is Bloomberg’s totally false report of Russia’s withdrawal from Bucha. The rest of the Western media is the same or worse:

“President Joe Biden said Vladimir Putin should be tried for war crimes as the U.S. and European Union consider more sanctions to further punish Russia—this time for an alleged mass killing of civilians that’s fueled global outrage. The EU condemned atrocities committed against Ukrainian civilians that were discovered as Russia withdrew from around Kyiv, including allegations of torture and executions. Ukraine said more than 400 dead civilians have been found in the towns around Kyiv. In a statement on behalf of the 27-nation bloc, EU chief foreign envoy Josep Borrell blamed the occupying Russian forces for the dead bodies seen strewn across the streets of Bucha. ‘The Russian authorities are responsible for these atrocities, committed while they had effective control of the area,’ Borrell said. ‘The massacres in the town of Bucha and other Ukrainian towns will be inscribed in the list of atrocities committed on European soil.’”  

Ukraine, allegedly considering its surrender terms in negotiations, declared the Russian withdrawal to be a Ukrainian military victory with Russian forces driven out by victorious Ukrainian freedom fighters. This is not a narrative that puts pressure on Ukraine to agree to Russia’s demands.

The Russian government has demanded that the UN Security Council investigate the real situation in Bucha, thus setting Russia up for another propaganda blow from the US dominated UN. 

There is not a single statement by Washington’s puppet, Ukraine president Zelensky, that supports the negotiations that the Kremlin is conducting.  The Kremlin prefers to lose its wars in pointless negotiations. Why doesn’t the Kremlin just go ahead and surrender?

The Russian intervention in Ukraine, had it been properly conducted, could have ended the provocations of Russia that could eventually end in a nuclear war. 

But the Kremlin, determined to show its goodness, failed to recognize that the West could not care less about facts and good intentions. What Putin’s well-intentioned and limited intervention in Ukraine has achieved is the total demonization of Putin and Russia with the President of the United States calling for Putin to be tried as a war criminal just as were German officers and officials following World War II at Nuremberg.

Real evidence is not required. In the Western  media assertion alone rules.

The war underway is a propaganda war, and the Kremlin has lost.  The Kremlin’s inability at psyops makes Russian military superiority almost pointless. 

Washington’s wars are conducted ruthlessly. Everything is bombed and blown to pieces, including weddings, funerals, kids’ soccer games. The West doesn’t understand war that doesn’t blow everything up.  What Russia could have accomplished in 3 days is now in its 41st day. 

The narrative of Russian aggression is set in stone, and the Russian military has been made to look ineffective.  The chance to end the provocations with quick and decisive action was lost.  

Will the next provocation be Finland’s entry into NATO, will it be another go at color revolution in Central Asia, or will it be a war crime tribunal with Putin, Lavrov, and Shoigu tried and convicted in absentia?

In the midst of all of this, the Kremlin continues to keep the economies of its NATO enemies alive by exporting its gas.

*

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 is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Sputnik News/Alexey Nikolsky

Russland Ist Ein Dorn im Auge des Kapitalistischen Systems

April 6th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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.

***

An die Politikerinnen und Politiker Deutschlands,

Meine Damen, meine Herren,

Als deutscher Wissenschaftler und Psychologe, der bereits vor zweieinhalb Jahren Deutschland verlassen hat, schaue ich heute mit Entsetzen auf die neue Politiker-Sekte – und  ihre Massenmedien – in meinem ehemaligen Heimatland.

Im Sommer 1941 überfiel das Deutsche Reich die Sowjetunion. Die Bilanz des Schreckens: 13 Millionen tote Soldaten, 14 Millionen tote Zivilisten, 3 Millionen tote Kriegsgefangene! Der kirgisisch-russische Schriftsteller Tschingis-Aitmatow beschreibt in seinen Erzählungen und Novellen, wie dieser Krieg über sein Heimatland hereinbrach und das Leben der Menschen total verändert hat.

Nur drei Generationen später erdreistet sich eine scheinbar geschichtsvergessene Sekte von relativ jungen deutschen Politikerinnen und Politiker, die nachvollziehbare Opposition gegen den Krieg in der Ukraine in eine antirussische Hysterie, in eine offene Feinseligkeit gegenüber dem russischen Volk und allem was russisch ist, zu verwandeln. Auch die Literatur einzigartiger russischer Schriftsteller wird inzwischen geächtet.

Diese Dämonisierung eines Volkes weckt speziell bei einem Deutschen Erinnerinngen an die schlimme Dämonisierung der Juden und aller jüdischen Dinge. Heinrich Heine schrieb bereits 1823 in seiner Tragödie „Almansor“: „Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.“

Meine Damen, meine Herren! Ich bitte Sie eindringlich, zur Vernunft zu kommen. Als Wissenschaftler und Psychologe, der sich intensiv mit der Literatur reifer und freiheitlich gesinnter Menschen auseinandergesetzt hat, bin ich zu der Überzeugung gekommen:

Russland ist ein Dorn im Auge des kapitalistischen Systems.

Gerne empfehle ich Ihnen meinen Artikel aus der „Neuen Rheinische Zeitung“ (NRhZ) vom 9. März 2016: “Können die Menschen leben ohne Krieg“. Er enthält viele wörtliche Textpassagen aus Aitmatows Novelle „Goldspur der Garben“ und wurde in mehrere Sprachen übersetzt.

 

Rudolf Hänsel
Dr. paed., Rektor a.D., Erziehungswissenschaftler,  Dipl.-Psychologe
11040 Belgrad / Serbien

*

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

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

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

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

***

More evidence has emerged to suggest that not only are the Pentagon-run biolabs in Ukraine real, but that the Pentagon is planning to use them to attack Russia.

Moscow says that records and other proof show that the U.S.-funded biolabs, which are linked to EcoHealth Alliance, the Biden crime family, and others, were going to be used for sending bioweapon-filled drones into Russia.

Russia’s Defense Ministry claims to have discovered the names of specific U.S. personnel who have been engaged in bioweapons development in the Eastern European country, though no tangible proof, according to Great Game India, has yet been presented.

“Documents testifying to the plans of the Kiev regime to use unmanned aerial vehicles capable of carrying and spraying deadly substances” are of special importance to Russian authorities, announced military spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov during a recent conference.

Konashenkov went on to state that information now held by the Russian military “prove[s] that the Kiev regime was seriously considering the possibility of using biological weapons against the population of the Donbas and the Russian Federation.”

Hunter Biden directly involved in developing bioweapons at Ukraine biolabs, says Russia

Konashenkov also claims that Russia has uncovered the names of “specific officials who took part in the creation of components of biological weapons,” though he did not name any of them.

All he would say is that they are “the heads of divisions and employees of the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as its main subcontractors.”

These bioweapons campaigns, Konashenkov went on to say, are “directly related to the son of the current U.S. president, Hunter Biden.”

This claim corroborates with revelations that came forward last week about how the Biden crime family has connections to the Pentagon contractor Metabiota, which specializes in investigating potential pandemic-causing pathogens that could be used as bioweapons.

In another conference, Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Forces, called out Biden as well for his alleged participation in financing these Ukrainian biolabs with American tax dollars.

“In the near future at a special briefing,” Konashenkov promised, more details about the investigation and the biolabs will be released.

Western media and governments are still claiming that this is all just an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and “Russian disinformation,” but it is increasingly proving to be true.

We know from the recent admissions of U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, who testified before the Senate earlier this month, that the Ukrainian biolabs do, in fact, exist, and are not just a conspiracy theory.

She told Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), however, upon him prompting her to say such, that if anything goes wrong at the labs, it is automatically Russia’s fault.

Nuland also claimed that these “biological research laboratories in Ukraine” exist as part of a collaboration with Kiev “to ensure that the materials of biological research do not fall into the hands of Russian forces.”

“This is not a war against the Ukrainian people, but is rather Putin’s dismantling (in a hostile manner) of the ‘Deep State’s Toy Factory,’ a.k.a. the Nation of Ukraine,” suggested someone at Great Game India about the situation.

“This explains all the rage of State Department, the CIA, & deep state politicians / media who are against Putin.”

Another wrote that he has personally spoken with Dr. Alan Zabrosky, who used to be the education director at the Pentagon War College, who told him that almost every general and admiral still on duty was hand-picked by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld going all the way back to 1969.

“Cheney was only 27 years old and Don Rumsfeld was 32,” this person added. “These two picked generals.”

*

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 NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

 

There is much about modern China to appreciate. Its streets are usually safe. The economy, especially in the populous eastern provinces, has seen incredible growth not witnessed at any other time in history. Extreme poverty has been greatly diminished. Just under 800 million people have been lifted out of the classification in China in the last three decades. There is widespread wealth inequality but China, according to the World Bank, is an upper-middle-income country. These are metrics of success that will be highlighted when Xi Jinping goes for an unprecedented third presidential term, later this year, to cement his reputation close to Mao Zedong’s and ahead of Deng Xiaoping, the architect of modern China.

But there is another narrative that keeps the lights burning at night at the leadership compound off Tiananmen Square.

The property sector, a key engine of growth accounting for about 25 percent of the economy, has seen it foundations crumble under the weight of billions of dollars of debt. Big tech companies have bled trillions of dollars as Beijing tried to curb their excess profits and make sure the party retained influence over them.

Xi’s rule has come at a price. What little political dissent there was has been crushed, political rivals jailed, the Uighurs  in Xinjiang are being persecuted and the Taiwanese are threatened with forceful re-unification. Xi’s targeting of corruption is in reality a ploy to silence political enemies. The gutted party hierarchy, from provincial leaders up, is unable to launch any obvious challenge.

Covid has seen Shanghai, the country’s commercial heart, go into lockdown.China prides itself on its management of the pandemic but that seems more than a touch premature. The economy was meant to emerge stronger as the rest of the world struggled with outbreaks of new strains of the virus. Now China’s economy is facing headwinds never before experienced. Most of its citizens have no memory of an economy doing anything other than growing spectacularly. Those days are over.

And the very system for the transfer of power is being upended. A conference in either October or November, the date has not been decided yet, will see Xi hail his achievements but ignore the two-term presidential limit.

This clears a path for him to stay in power until he decides to step down. The power of paramount leaders, firmly entrenched in office with the barrel of the gun pointing at their opponents, can survive tremendous buffeting, as proven by Mao.

Before Xi became leader, in 2012, the party had a workable system for the peaceful transfer of power. The two leaders who preceded Xi in office, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, strictly adhered to it. After the horrors of the cultural revolution, stability was prized. Those days, too, are over. This is how it’s meant to work. At the National Congress, a meeting normally held every five years, members to the party’s central committee are elected by carefully chosen and reliable delegates.

This committee then elects the general secretary (the president) and a body called the Politburo Standing Committee (seven currently, but can have eleven) to lead the nation for the next five years. Two five-year terms was, before Xi, considered the limit.

It’s cumbersome but it has provided stability. In 1980 Deng, then 75, said: “We must take the long-term interest into account and solve the problem of the succession in leadership.” He did not mean one man to remain leader for life.

Globally, the country’s image has been tarnished. China is trying to ride two horses on Ukraine. Refusing to condemn Russia and calling for peace. Sanctions will be imposed on China, the US threatens, if it supplies military aid to Russia or tries to help it evade the West’s sanctions. China is the glaringly obvious market for Russia’s energy and commodity exports that are being mostly, though not entirely, shunned by the West. China signed a $188 billion long-term oil and gas deal with Russia just ahead of the Ukraine invasion. Much of that money will be spent by Russia on improving its pipeline infrastructure.

But what should be a momentous year for Xi and China is not going according to script. Too many surprises. And in the leadership compound off Tiananmen Square, surprises are viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

*

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.

Geopolitical analyst Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Future of Freedom Foundation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China: Times Are Changing for a Country that Wanted to Change
  • 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.

***

An update to

How Both Putin and Biden Bungled in Ukraine

By Eric Zuesse, April 04, 2022

***

On April 4th, Russia’s RT headlined “Russia and Ukraine trade accusations over Bucha civilian deaths (TIMELINE): After footage of dead civilians in the Ukrainian city of Bucha emerged, the West immediately pointed the finger at Moscow”, and included such items as, on April 2nd,

One clip published and later deleted by Ukrainian military commander Sergey Korotkih showed Ukrainian troops in Bucha discussing engagement rules. Korotkih, formerly a citizen of Belarus, is an open neo-Nazi who went to Ukraine back in 2014 to fight in the ranks of the notorious Azov Battalion. In Russia, Korotkih is wanted on multiple murder charges. One of the fighters can be heard asking if it was OK to shoot at “guys not wearing blue armbands” identifying Ukrainian soldiers. The response was an affirmative “you bet”.

This links through to this uploaded cellphone video evidence recording that conversation, physically onsite at Bucha, as Ukraine’s forces were coming into the area to inspect and evaluate the situation and to record and display the extent of their victory there.

Furthermore, on April 4th, Russia’s Ministry of Defense alleged that:

“All units of Russian troops completely withdrew from Bucha on March 30, and these shots [videos about Bucha that were distributed to the press] appeared on the 4th day after that, when SBU officers and representatives of Ukrainian TV arrived in the area”

If this statement is true, this would prove (even without there having been the necessary independent international investigation into Ukraine’s allegations on the matter) that Ukraine’s accusations were, in fact, bald-faced lies.

If Russia’s allegations in that Bucha matter are true, then, of course, the propaganda-value of the ‘news’-reports by CNN and others regarding it will reduce with time, and perhaps even become the enduring scandal here — yet another scandal of U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media being actually instead propaganda-media. Trusting Western reports regarding Russia might then turn out to be even stupider than it was before.

Putin’s reputation in the U.S.-and-allied countries might then not suffer long-term harm from the Bucha matter. Putin’s approval-rating within Russia, itself, has risen from his low of around 60% in August 2021 to above 80% now, mainly as a result of soaring from 71% just before the February 24th invasion.

However, what’s far more important going forward will be the public opinion of him outside Russia, in the countries that never really stopped their Cold War against Russia after the Soviet Union’s 1991 end. America’s regime-change-in-Russia campaign will almost certainly not succeed by driving Putin’s approval-rating inside Russia down to where, say, Joe Biden’s in America is. But if America takes an alternative approach, such as a military coup, or a blitz invasion of Russia, perhaps the people who rule in America might ultimately succeed (in which case what happened to Ukraine after Obama conquered it in 2014 might happen, some day, to Russia itself).

The South Front Report

Then, later on April 4th, the best news-site on the war, South Front, bannered “NEW EVIDENCES SHED LIGHT ON ALLEGED MASSACRE IN BUCHA, KIEV REGION (VIDEO, PHOTO)”, and reported that,

Today, there are more interesting videos from Bucha shared by the Ukrainian military which may help to shed light on what did really happen in the town left by the Russian troops on March 30.

On April 2, a day before Ukrainian “journalists” came to Bucha to stage the horrific scenes on the streets, the National Police of Ukraine published a video of the mop up operation in Bucha.

Video Player

00:00

07:48

The footage confirmed that:

  • there were no corpses laying on the streets. Not a single civilian confirmed that any mass shootings [had occurred] in the city.
  • Ukrainian demining teams who entered the town right after the Russian withdrawal had no work to do. They are seen walking on the streets along with civilians. Not a single mine left by the Russians was shown on the video.
  • Servicemen of the National Guard asked some civilians if they needed help, none of them replied asking for any immediate assistance, confirming that they are fine.

Only one man is seen killed in his car. It is not clear how did his death happen. Another victim was obviously a servicemen of one of the warring sides killed in clashes, whose corps[e] is laying [lying] near a destroyed military equipment.

One of [the] Ukrainian “patriots” made a comment on behaviour of the “Russian invaders”. After his own compatriots told Russian servicemen about his acute social awareness, Russian military checked his apartment but found only flags and a bunch of Ukrainian symbols. To add some drama to his case, the man claimed that [a] Russian soldier took him out “to kill him”, but suddenly changed his mind and brought the man to the military commander. The brave patriot only had a short peaceful conversation with Russian servicemen, with no tortures. …

This video of the National Police of Ukraine, shot presumably on April 1 or earlier, does not really correspond to what the Ukrainian media published on April 3, trumpeting to the whole world that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation allegedly carried out a “mass massacre” of civilians.

As more photos are shared from the spot, more proves [proofs], that the scene was staged, appear.

As the main video proof from Bucha raised a lot of suspicions and was quickly disclaimed, it was accompanied by more fake photos allegedly made in the town.

Unfortunately, these attempts are even less effective and are evident lies. For example, notorious Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Arestovich published the photo of a woman tortured in Mariupol last week by Ukrainian Azov militants, claiming that she was a victim tortured by the Russians. The photo was later deleted but was widely spread by the Ukrainian MSM, who even did not come together if it was in Gostomel or in Bucha. The Ukrainian media are trying their best to gain as much hype as possible, lying on any matter. …

The Al Jazeera Report

However, at around the same time, Al Jazeera, which is owned by the Thani family of U.S.-allied Qatar, headlined “Bucha killings: ‘The world cannot be tricked anymore’,” and showed Ukraine-government-supporting alleged “witnesses” who alleged that Russian soldiers had perpetrated a “massacre” there, and urged international war-crimes trials against Russia’s leaders (and nothing against America’s leaders).

No one has — at least in any prominent ‘news’-medium — urged any war-crimes trial against any American leader: not against George W. Bush, nor against Obama, nor against Biden: no American leader at all.

Washington Post and AP Reports

Yet later in the day, America’s AP bannered “Biden: Putin should face war crimes trial for Bucha killings”, and an editorial in Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post headlined “The Bucha massacre should prompt a forceful response” and said that “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the civilian executions ‘genocide,’ and President Biden declared that Mr. Putin is ‘a war criminal.’ Those words will find meaning only with a determined prosecution.”

As-of day’s-end on the 4th, it seemed that there were corpses in Bucha, but there was no public information yet on the identities of the dead, nor on how many were civilians, how many were Ukrainian soldiers, and how many were Russian soldiers, and the ways in which each of those individuals had become killed — much less on whether any legal grounds yet existed for asserting that any “war crimes” had been perpetrated by anyone there.

And the Ukrainian account of the Bucha matter was full of faked ‘interpretations’ of the ‘evidence’ they were providing.

Nonetheless, on the morning of April 4th, Washington’s The Hill had bannered “Macron, EU official join calls for further sanctions over ‘clear’ indications of war crimes in Bucha”.

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Bucha massacre (Source: 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.

***

As spring blooms and the sun rises higher in the sky, we are going through a number of crucial transformations requiring thoughtful analysis from those of us fixated on resisting the new kind of war being waged on life as we have known it. With every passing day it becomes increasingly clear that, at its highest level, this warfare is meant to radically transform the worldwide structures of political economy. 

The crux of the warring assault has to do with the agendas of those seeking to remake the banking system. Who will dominate this process of financial re-engineering and who will be its major beneficiaries?

How will the intensification of multipolar conflicts between power blocs affect the future of how economic relations are conducted? Might this development carry with it the possibility of a reprieve from the tyranny being prepared for the largest part of the global population?

We Are Coming for You 

Those leading the assault on our way of life were able to manipulate the COVID crisis they manufactured in order to harness both media and governments to their radical agenda.

An original key to bringing about this outcome was the COVID lockdowns. The lockdowns were deliberately designed to scare and demoralize the public, discourage organized political opposition, and to attack small business and the middle class.

In this fashion the old economy was purposely set into a tailspin from which it was never intended to recover. The aim was to advance the “creative destruction” in the socio-economic sphere in order to clear the way for what “madmen” like Klaus Schwab and his lead protégé, Justin Trudeau, regularly describe as the “Great Reset.”

In this altered realm, human beings are to be genetically modified even as nanotechnology and bionic elements are to be added to some human bodies engineered to perform very specific industrial functions. The remaking of economic relationships is thus to be enhanced by the transhuman features built into the survivors of large-scale medical experimentation underway on human subjects. The precedent for the further widening of such experimentation is already established with the massive administration of mRNA injections.

The new system will allow for much greater latitude for the application of robotization and Artificial Intelligence in the operation of a depopulated society. One goal is to make the transhuman survivors of depopulation better suited to a new matrix in property relations. The ownership of property and other forms of wealth is to be even more tightly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

The plan is to make ownership of real estate and chattel more and more restrictive as renting and leasing become even more pervasive.

In the areas where purchases are to be allowed, individuals and corporate entities will probably become subject to a wide array of very specific regulations. These regulations will dictate what can or cannot be purchased, how much can be bought and sold, and so forth. The role of free choice in the workings of the marketplace will be dramatically circumscribed. Property rights and titles will be even more closely aligned than is already the case with the interests of power.

Similarly, in the envisaged reset the connection between payment and work is to be downgraded in favor of payment connected to the outcomes of social credit scoring in heavily monitored surveillance states. A key to instituting this social credit system is to institute a so-called guaranteed universal income that will not actually be guaranteed.

The process of social credit scoring will be largely based on observed behavior with a heavy emphasis on rewarding compliance with authority and punishing non-compliance.

With the imposition of a universal regime of standardized digital ID combined with cashless Central-Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC), those in control will acquire the capacity to facilitate or prevent the full array of financial transactions right down to the capacity to purchase food. The absence of cash will facilitate the making of comprehensive records covering every monetary transaction.

In Canada Justin Trudeau and his Deputy Prime Minister gave a sneak preview of what the makers of the Great Reset have in mind when it comes to the connection between finances and politics. The federal authorities revealed a great deal when they ordered financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of targeted Truckers. Trudeau and Chyrstia Freeland disclosed more of their strategizing when they went on to discuss shutting down the business licenses, driving licenses and insurance of their political opponents.

Extensions of these same tactics of economic warfare are being replicated on a global scale. Russian President Vladimir Putin became a major catalyst for the intensification of the contest of economic sanctions and counter-sanctions among competing economic blocs. Putin kicked off this change with his announcement of his government’s intention to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.

Downgrading Markets and Upgrading Political Determinants of Business Success

The favored treatment afforded especially to Pfizer and Moderna corporations by governments throughout the manufactured COVID crisis can be taken as a prototype of the kind of economic policies that can be expected in the future. The so-called private sector will remain in operation although success in business will be determined more by government dictate rather than by successful competition in free and open markets.

The advantages extended to the injection companies have been numerous and large. For instance the US government extended to these pharmaceutical firms major financial backing in order to develop their injections at Warp Speed. Most of the world’s governments eliminated and bypassed their safety regulations in order to allow companies to get their injections to the public over a period of months rather than years.

In the midst of even short and half-hearted medical trials, double-blind procedures were abandoned in the middle of tests. In spite of the fast rate of product development, the injection companies in all countries were extended indemnification from being sued for problems in their products.

Then governments went on to allocate funds for advertising campaigns to promote the new medical products as if they were “safe and effective” while they were really nothing of the sort. The government regulators turned the other way in order not to take notice of evidence amassed by the injection manufacturers that the medical products were known from their inception to be dangerous. Only a court ruling prevented Pfizer and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from hiding damning evidence from the public for 55 years.

See this.

The deep secrecy attending many facets of this genetic modification of the human genome in the name of fighting COVID-19 is a pre-eminent attribute of the current plunge into medical experimentation on human subjects. The precedent now established is probably intended to make medical experiments on human beings a major feature of the Great Reset.  

Once the offering of carrots had run its course, many governments along with their corporate patrons and clients resorted to the stick. Many governments mandated the injections by twisting the law to make employment, education, business contracts, and various licensing arrangements dependent on whether groups of workers and students took the required jabs.

The whole time the myth was maintained that the throwing away of the rule book for the protection of public health was the result of some sort of benevolent public-private partnership. The mantra of public-private relationship forms the gospel as preached by Bill Gates’ GAVI and Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum. The big problem with this model is that we have been robbed of public representation by corrupt officials such as Justin Trudeau who take their directions from the corporate sector as represented by lobbies such those in and around the WEF.

The COVID injection fiasco demonstrates the irrelevance of market forces in the Great Reset.  Supposedly the so-called private sector has some say in the process where governments make the call of who should be considered winners and losers in the realm of business. Since 2008 the corporate leviathan, BlackRock, has come to play a significant role as a proxy for the privately-owned Federal Reserve in the United States.

In the name of meeting the requirements of providing expanded credit to smooth over the financial devastation initiated by the nonsensical lockdowns, BlackRock was called upon by governments to determine what businesses and corporate sectors were to receive preferred treatment.

The Truckers and the expert witnesses they brought with them to Ottawa exposed to a worldwide audience the ignorance and hubris of WEF initiate, Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau has since become an embodiment of the kind of opportunistic politicians that are robbing the public of genuine representation. This loss of any capacity for average people to affect national policies  illustrates the emptiness of the claim we live in democracies.

In the Parliament of Australia two Senators from Queensland have taken the discourse beyond the level of the exchange that exposed Justin Trudeau and the Canadian NDP as such enemies of working-class people. Senator Garard Rennick explained that “the COVID vaccines don’t work. They don’t provide immunity and they don’t prevent transmission, hospitalization and death.”

Senator Rennick continued by illuminating the insidious cover up of vaccine injuries through “the gagging of medical professionals.” He concluded it is time to “stop vaccine rollouts, vaccine mandates and vaccine discrimination.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts named the Australian Select Committee in COVID-19 as a “protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry.” He called for some reckoning with all the fraud and murder that has combined to create the basis of monumental crimes perpetuated by the administration of the dangerous injected remedy for COVID-19.  Senator Roberts concludes,

“To the Prime Minister, to the Health Minister and the Health Department and all of those in the Senate and House of Representatives— all of you who have perpetrated this crime I direct one question: How the hell do you expect to get away with it? We are coming for you. We won’t let you get away with it. We have the stamina to hunt you down and we damn well will.”

These same sentiments are percolating to the surface in many jurisdictions where the gene modifying injections are killing and injuring many.

What Narrative Should Prevail?

Just as news about the scandalously high rates of death and injury from the COVID injections started to get major public attention, the confrontation in Ukraine dramatically shifted the focus of worldwide news coverage. 

See this.

Public attention was dramatically drawn away from the manufactured COVID crisis to other areas of conflict seemingly on the far side of the earth.

Some, including Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, have argued that the time has come to put behind us COVID controversies, including mandate issues. Others, however, argue that it is more important than ever to remain vigilant and expect the delivery of new horrors coming from the same cabal who for two years have overturned life as we have known it.

This kind of renewed assault is probably inevitable unless we can bring about some means of realizing the objectives sought by Senator Roberts. We need a method of requiring legal accountability on the part of the perpetrators of the COVID crimes including those arising from the unprecedentedly high rates of injection deaths and injuries.

The manufactured COVID crisis created the basis for the assault on the economy, small business, and middle class through lockdowns. The ongoing economic assault on our way of life continues to take us into unknown territory with growing inflation and ever increasing signs that the value of the dollar is about to collapse.

These developments should not be blamed on COVID-19. The same crew who lied to us so consistently about viral infection and spread, are now telling us that we are headed into many new storms of upheaval all because of the supposedly unprovoked Russian assertions in Ukraine. Without a careful assessment of the historical genesis of the current conflict, no sound analysis is possible.

Dr. Robert W. Malone Takes Centre State

In a speech he gave in the Washington DC area as part of the US Truckers’ movement, Dr. Robert Malone presented an overview combining analysis of the ongoing COVID restrictions combined with a geopolitical assessment of what is going on in the world. News of the convergence of the US Truckers in the US capital was largely overshadowed by the torrent of news from Ukraine. Nevertheless the inventor of the mRNA process at the basis of the Moderna and Pfizer shots gave a very impassioned and thoughtful account combining hard science and social science, domestic affairs and international issues.

Dr. Malone emphasized that the two years of round-the-clock lies to justify COVID restrictions, injections and mandates are just early “skirmishes” in an ongoing push to radically remake society along the lines being pushed by the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund.

With literally thousands of WEF graduates from its young leaders program now in the upper echelons of governments, media and business, it is becoming increasingly clear that Klaus Schwab’s organization is a major factor in the assault on our way of life. The WEF’s golden boy, it seems, is Justin Trudeau. More than half of Trudeau’s cabinet members are WEF insiders. The true headquarters of the Canadian government is thus Davos Switzerland, not Ottawa.

See video below.

Dr. Malone put an intense analytical spotlight on Justin Trudeau. He explained how Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland let the cat out of the bag when they went after the bank accounts of the Truckers and also those who contributed money to their cause. This approach to warfare against the most effective political opponents of those in power presents in microcosm a pattern being replicated on a much larger scale at the highest level of international affairs.

COVID Manipulations and Election Rigging

My effort since I began writing about COVID issues in February of 2020 has been to attempt to see as a single complex narrative, the totality of news concerning the attempted transformation of our way of life. At the highest level this push for depopulation, total information control, unlimited Artificial Intelligence and transhumanism is coming from the top echelons of the world’s primary bankers’ cartel. 

See this and this. 

While news about the celebrity virus remains at the core of this narrative, the unfolding story of our life and times often meandered into seemingly unrelated areas like cancel culture and the destruction of statues, Black Lives Matter and the burning down of city centres, as well as the controversy over election fraud in the United States. By seeing events in a broad way one can readily see that a single structure of command and control is pulling the strings and directing public attention to maximize public confusion and disorientation. 

The story of election fraud in the United States, for instance, was very much connected to how the COVID plandemic was manipulated by the likes of Mark Zukerberg to transform rules for voting. The system was rigged to allow the flooding of the system with mail-in ballots that can easily be fabricated and manipulated to bring about fraudulent outcomes.

Then the media piled on to control the story by dictating what could or could not be reported. This very aggressive version of “information censorship” essentially misrepresented any effort to expose what had really taken place. The courts continued the fraud by simply refusing to adjudicate conflicting accounts of what had happened.

Another element of the fraud was to clamp down in reporting the news in ways that favoured candidate Joe Biden over President Donald Trump. A big part of the rigged election in the United States was the suppression of coverage on Hunter Biden’s so-called LapTop from Hell. Hunter Biden is, of course, the drug-addled wayward son of current Election Fraud President, Joe Biden.

Elections cannot be legitimate if the media conspire as a regimented pack to repress information in ways that advantage one candidate over another. And yet that wrongful manipulation of the public record is exactly what transpired in the prelude to the rigged US election of November 2020.

See this.

The Laptop from Hell Helps Expose US Bioweapon Operations in Ukraine

Now the contents of Hunter Biden’s LapTop from Hell are finally being given serious attention in the US media and in the US criminal justice system. Hunter Biden was paid big money in Ukraine by Igor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky is the same Ukrainian oligarch who sponsored the electoral campaign of current Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zelensky.

Part of Hunter Biden’s business involvements in Ukraine have taken place through Metabiota Inc., a company active in financing a number of Ukrainian bioweapons facilities that fit in the same circle of intrigue involving the Pentagon, the Wuhan Lab, and the Deep State culprits Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak’s Eco-Health Alliance.

Trunews has given this story close coverage as breaking news. See this and this. 

The long and short of these revelations is that Operation COVID-19 and the breaking news coming out of Russia, Washington and Ukraine and all is very much interconnected.

Once again, the pace of strategic revelations and disclosures is overwhelming in depth and scale in spite of the extent of the coordinated censorship by Big Tech and the big media conglomerates.

A New Media Whistle Blower 

One area in bad need of whistle blowers concerns the media cartels. Martin Sharman, a British Executive of Sky News and ITV, has come forward with some important revelations on the intimidation of media outlets to create a single monopoly of uniform interpretation.


See this.

Sharman points to the British media regulator, Ofcom, as a key culprit that led the sabotage of evidence-based reporting in the big broadcasting systems. Sharman’s voice is one of many pointing to the BCC as the main global point operation in making sure a single narrative dominated worldwide coverage at every stage of the manufactured COVID crisis.

It seems the BBC is a very active propaganda operation with many channels and international outlets in many different languages. These attributes make the BBC an obvious nexus for black ops in coordinating the worldwide flow of mass communications.  Apparently criminal suspect Bill Gates was one of the operation chiefs feeding the news into the BBC nexus of global reportage.

*

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

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Dreamstime

Russia Is a Thorn in the Eye of the Capitalist System.

April 6th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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.

***

To the politicians of Germany, 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a German scientist and psychologist who left Germany two and a half years ago, I now look with horror at the new politician sect – and its mass media – in my former homeland.

In the summer of 1941, the German Reich invaded the Soviet Union. The balance of the horror: 13 million dead soldiers, 14 million dead civilians, 3 million dead prisoners of war! In his stories and novellas, the Kyrgyz-Russian writer Chingiz-Aitmatov describes how this war broke out in his homeland and completely changed the lives of the people.

Only three generations later, a seemingly history-forgetting sect of relatively young German politicians dares to turn the understandable opposition to the war in Ukraine into anti-Russian hysteria, into open hostility towards the Russian people and everything Russian. Even the literature of unique Russian writers is now being ostracised.

This demonisation of a people awakens memories, especially in a German, of the terrible demonisation of the Jews and all things Jewish. Heinrich Heine wrote as early as 1823 in his tragedy “Almansor”: “Where they burn books, they end up burning people.”

Ladies and gentlemen! I urge you to come to your senses. As a scientist and psychologist who has studied intensively the literature of mature and free-minded people, I have come to the conclusion:

Russia is a thorn in the eye of the capitalist system.

I am happy to recommend my article from the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (NRhZ) of 9 March 2016: “Can people live without war”. It contains many verbatim text passages from Aitmatov’s novella “Goldspur der Garben” and has been translated into several languages.

 

Rudolf Hänsel
Dr. paed., retired rector, educationalist, qualified psychologist
11040 Belgrade / Serbia

*

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

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

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

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

***

On January 30, 1972, British military forces opened fire on a peaceful demonstration of 15,000 in Derry, Northern Ireland leaving 14 dead and many others wounded.

This massacre became known as Bloody Sunday where the Catholic residents of Derry were protesting against the discrimination and oppression instituted by a British occupation of the territory which extended back several centuries.

Paul Doherty of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign, whose father Patrick was killed on fateful day, and Ciara O’Connor, Project Coordinator of the Museum of Free Derry, were in the Detroit area to speak and meet with local organizers. Both of these activists and scholars are committed to preserving the legacy of the civil rights and liberation movements of Northern Ireland against British occupation.

An event held on April 2 at the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Detroit’s Midtown District heard Doherty and O’Connor lecture on the events surrounding the 1972 massacre. The program was jointly sponsored by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, the Detroit MLK Committee and EMEAC.

Since the 1960s, there has been striking similarities between the African American movement demanding quality education, fair housing, universal suffrage and self-determination and the campaigns in Northern Ireland for the same objectives. There were those who preferred nonviolent resistance to discrimination and others that embarked upon an armed struggle drawing inspiration from the 1916 Easter Rising led by Irish Republican nationalist and socialist leaders such as James Connelly and the subsequent War of Independence which lasted up until 1921-22.

During 1967, the Civil Rights Association was formed in Northern Ireland. They carried out demonstrations during the period and in 1968 were met with stiff opposition from the Protestant community whose allegiance remained with the British government. Therefore, the Civil Rights Association was fighting the British Loyalists and the security forces occupying the country.

The Derry Housing Action Committee was established in early 1968 to fight discrimination and substandard conditions. These demands parallel those in the U.S. when mass demonstrations and rebellions erupted between 1964 and 1970 over the deplorable conditions of African Americans and Puerto Ricans living in various cities such as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, among many more.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was martyred on April 4, 1968. The visit by Doherty and O’Connor coincided with the 54th anniversary of the assassination of King in Memphis, Tennessee. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) were in Memphis to assist over one thousand predominantly African American sanitation workers who were on strike seeking recognition under the banner of the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Irish march on Westland Street in Bogside, January 1972 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

After the assassination of King, the Fair Housing Act was passed and signed into law by the U.S. Congress and then President Lyndon B. Johnson. Nonetheless, in the U.S. this measure, considered the last of the Civil Rights Acts passed from the late 1950s through the 1960s, has never been fully enforced since African Americans, People of Color Communities and the working poor have never enjoyed any semblance of a guarantee for quality housing.

Doherty and O’Connor noted that:

“There remains a polarization between the Catholic community in Northern Ireland and the Protestants who are seen as settlers and loyal to the British crown. We want them included as a part of the Irish culture and nation. However, no one should be forced to accept British culture. Sometimes we cannot understand our working class protestant people maintaining their allegiance to the Democratic Unionist Party. A recent census may indicate that there is a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland which could prompt a referendum on the status of the area in relationship to its continued ties with London.”

In the U.S., People of Color communities are rapidly approaching a combined majority over the European Americans. The African American, Latin American, Asian, Indigenous and Middle Eastern population groups are therefore under extreme pressure by successive Democratic and Republican administrations viewing this emerging majority as a potential threat to the racist status-quo.

Compounding the problems in Northern Ireland is the recent withdrawal by Britain from the European Union (EU). Most people in the Republic of Ireland in the South and the Northern region did not agree with many British Conservatives and other forces which voted in favor of severing ties with the EU. The question of the border between Ireland and the EU countries is still an unresolved issue in the United Kingdom.

Historic Links from the Abolitionist Movement to the Irish Liberation Struggle

This author chaired the session on April 2 and began the discussion on the role of Ireland in the struggle to end African enslavement in the U.S. Frederick Douglass, one of the leading proponents of abolition and the total freedom of African people in the U.S. travelled to Ireland in 1845. While there he gained tremendous support for the abolitionist cause and was able to reprint his Slave Narrative which was widely distributed internationally.

A review of a book entitled “Frederick Douglass in Ireland, In His Own Worlds” by Christine Kinealy, was partially read at the beginning of the program. The review was published by the Irish Times and was written by Brendan Kelly in 2018, says that:

“While Douglass’s work was unfinished at the time of his death – and remains incomplete today – his contribution to the abolition of slavery was inestimable and his personal story full of unexpected turns. In 1845, he published the memoir for which he is best known, ‘Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,’ which placed him at risk of recapture. He fled to the United Kingdom and spent several months campaigning in Ireland, speaking at events in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Waterford, Celbridge, Belfast, Lisburn, Hollywood and Bangor. Douglass heard (Daniel) O’Connell speak at a public meeting in Dublin on September 29th, 1845 and was immediately entranced: ‘It seems to me that the voice of O’Connell is enough to calm the most violent passion, even though it were already manifesting itself in a mob. There is a sweet persuasiveness in it, beyond any voice I ever heard. His power over an audience is perfect.’”

Since the U.S. Civil War and the ascendancy of the Civil Rights and Black Liberation Movements, the work of the African American people still remains unfinished. With respect to Northern Ireland, O’Connor and Doherty recognized the progress which has been made since the 1960s and 1970s, although Ireland remains partitioned between the North and South.

As in the U.S. and other geo-political regions, many activists took up arms after repressive institutions of the colonial and racist states closed all avenues of nonviolent resistance and change. In Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Vietnam, and other formerly colonial territories won their independence through mass action and guerrilla warfare.

Detroit event to commemorate Bloody Sunday (Photo by Paul Jackson) 

In Ireland, the Citizen’s Army and the Republican Army (IRA) of the early 20th century waged an armed struggle to break the colonial yoke imposed by Britain and to unite the country. James Connelly, the co-founder of the Irish Citizen’s Army, was captured and executed by the British military in 1916 after the Easter Rising. Later an Irish War of Independence began which was able to liberate vast swaths of territory inside the country. Eventually, during the early 1920s, the country was partitioned by Britain and is still divided today.

The reemergence of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), later known as the Provisional IRA, which originally grew out of the period leading up to the War of Independence (1919-1921), was a cause for concern by the British. However, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 resulted in a ceasefire between the IRA and the British government. A referendum on a power-sharing agreement was approved by the majority of voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic in the South.

Nonetheless, these developments have not resolved all of the outstanding issues related to a complete break with Britain and unification with the Republic of Ireland. In the U.S., despite the passage of numerous Civil Rights Bills and other measures, institutional racism and state repression remain major factors in the character of relations between African Americans and the majority white population.

The discussions on April 2 in Detroit illustrated once again the convergence of the struggles for civil rights and national liberation on an international scale. Ireland and the oppressed peoples of the globe will inevitably continue their organizing work until their strategic objectives are completely achieved.

*

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: Detroit Rebellion of July 1967 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

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

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

***

Foreign critics have long chafed at the “exorbitant privilege” of the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency. The U.S. can issue this currency backed by nothing but the “full faith and credit of the United States.” Foreign governments, needing dollars, not only accept them in trade but buy U.S. securities with them, effectively funding the U.S. government and its foreign wars. But no government has been powerful enough to break that arrangement – until now. How did that happen and what will it mean for the U.S. and global economies?

The Rise and Fall of the PetroDollar

First, some history: The U.S. dollar was adopted as the global reserve currency at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, when the dollar was still backed by gold on global markets. The agreement was that gold and the dollar would be accepted interchangeably as global reserves, the dollars to be redeemable in gold on demand at $35 an ounce. Exchange rates of other currencies were fixed against the dollar.

But that deal was broken after President Lyndon Johnson’s “guns and butter” policy exhausted the U.S. kitty by funding war in Vietnam along with his “Great Society” social programs at home. French President Charles de Gaulle, suspecting the U.S. was running out of money, cashed in a major portion of France’s dollars for gold and threatened to cash in the rest; and other countries followed suit or threatened to.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold internationally (known as “closing the gold window”), in order to avoid draining U.S. gold reserves. The value of the dollar then plummeted relative to other currencies on global exchanges. To prop it up, Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made a deal with Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries that OPEC would sell oil only in dollars, and that the dollars would be deposited in Wall Street and City of London banks. In return, the U.S. would defend the OPEC countries militarily. Economic researcher William Engdahl also presents evidence of a promise that the price of oil would be quadrupled. An oil crisis triggered by a brief Middle Eastern war did cause the price of oil to quadruple, and the OPEC agreement was finalized in 1974.

The deal held firm until 2000, when Saddam Hussein broke it by selling Iraqi oil in euros. Libyan president Omar Qaddafi followed suit. Both presidents wound up assassinated, and their countries were decimated in war with the United States. Canadian researcher Matthew Ehret observes:

We should not forget that the Sudan-Libya-Egypt alliance under the combined leadership of Mubarak, Qadhafi and Bashir, had moved to establish a new gold-backed financial system outside of the IMF/World Bank to fund large scale development in Africa. Had this program not been undermined by a NATO-led destruction of Libya, the carving up of Sudan and regime change in Egypt, then the world would have seen the emergence of a major regional block of African states shaping their own destinies outside of the rigged game of Anglo-American controlled finance for the first time in history.

The Rise of the PetroRuble

The first challenge by a major power to what became known as the petrodollar has come in 2022. In the month after the Ukraine conflict began, the U.S. and its European allies imposed heavy financial sanctions on Russia in response to the illegal military invasion. The Western measures included freezing nearly half of the Russian central bank’s 640 billion U.S. dollars in financial reserves, expelling several of Russia’s largest banks from the SWIFT global payment system, imposing export controls aimed at limiting Russia’s access to advanced technologies, closing down their airspace and ports to Russian planes and ships, and instituting personal sanctions against senior Russian officials and high-profile tycoons. Worried Russians rushed to withdraw rubles from their banks, and the value of the ruble plunged on global markets just as the U.S. dollar had in the early 1970s.

The trust placed in the U.S. dollar as global reserve currency, backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States,” had finally been fully broken. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a speech on March 16 that the U.S. and EU had defaulted on their obligations, and that freezing Russia’s reserves marks the end of the reliability of so-called first class assets. On March 23, Putin announced that Russia’s natural gas would be sold to “unfriendly countries” only in Russian rubles, rather than the euros or dollars currently used. Forty-eight nations are counted by Russia as “unfriendly,” including the United States, Britain, Ukraine, Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Canada and Japan.

Putin noted that more than half the global population remains “friendly” to Russia. Countries not voting to support the sanctions include two major powers – China and India – along with major oil producer Venezuela, Turkey, and other countries in the “Global South.” “Friendly” countries, said Putin, could now buy from Russia in various currencies.

On March 24, Russian lawmaker Pavel Zavalny said at a news conference that gas could be sold to the West for rubles or gold, and to “friendly” countries for either national currency or bitcoin.

Energy ministers from the G7 nations rejected Putin’s demand, claiming it violated gas contract terms requiring sale in euros or dollars. But on March 28, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was “not engaged in charity” and won’t supply gas to Europe for free (which it would be doing if sales were in euros or dollars it cannot currently use in trade). Sanctions themselves are a breach of the agreement to honor the currencies on global markets.

Bloomberg reports that on March 30, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the lower Russian house of parliament, suggested in a Telegram post that Russia may expand the list of commodities for which it demands payment from the West in rubles (or gold) to include grain, oil, metals and more. Russia’s economy is much smaller than that of the U.S. and the European Union, but Russia is a major global supplier of key commodities – including not just oil, natural gas and grains, but timber, fertilizers, nickel, titanium, palladium, coal, nitrogen, and rare earth metals used in the production of computer chips, electric vehicles and airplanes.

On April 2, Russian gas giant Gazprom officially halted all deliveries to Europe via the Yamal-Europe pipeline, a critical artery for European energy supplies.

U.K. professor of economics Richard Werner calls the Russian move a clever one – a replay of what the U.S. did in the 1970s. To get Russian commodities, “unfriendly” countries will have to buy rubles, driving up the value of the ruble on global exchanges just as the need for petrodollars propped up the U.S. dollar after 1974. Indeed, by March 30, the ruble had already risen to where it was a month earlier.

A Page Out of the “American System” Playbook

Russia is following the U.S. not just in hitching its national currency to sales of a critical commodity but in an earlier protocol – what 19th century American leaders called the “American System” of sovereign money and credit. Its three pillars were (a) federal subsidies for internal improvements and to nurture the nation’s fledgling industries, (b) tariffs to protect those industries, and (c) easy credit issued by a national bank.

Michael Hudson,  a research professor of economics and author of “Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire” among many other books, notes that the sanctions are forcing Russia to do what it has been reluctant to do itself – cut reliance on imports and develop its own industries and infrastructure. The effect, he says, is equivalent to that of protective tariffs. In an article titled “The American Empire Self-destructs,” Hudson writes of the Russian sanctions (which actually date back to 2014):

Russia had remained too enthralled by free-market ideology to take steps to protect its own agriculture or industry. The United States provided the help that was needed by imposing domestic self-reliance on Russia (via sanctions). When the Baltic states lost the Russian market for cheese and other farm products, Russia quickly created its own cheese and dairy sector – while becoming the world’s leading grain exporter.

Russia is discovering (or is on the verge of discovering) that it does not need U.S. dollars as backing for the ruble’s exchange rate. Its central bank can create the rubles needed to pay domestic wages and finance capital formation. The U.S. confiscations thus may finally lead Russia to end neoliberal monetary philosophy, as Sergei Glaziev has long been advocating in favor of MMT [Modern Monetary Theory]. …

What foreign countries have not done for themselves – replacing the IMF, World Bank and other arms of U.S. diplomacy – American politicians are forcing them to do. Instead of European, Near Eastern and Global South countries breaking away out of their own calculation of their long-term economic interests, America is driving them away, as it has done with Russia and China.

Glazyev and the Eurasian Reset

Sergei Glazyev, mentioned by Hudson above, is a former adviser to President Vladimir Putin and the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Commission, the regulatory body of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). He has proposed using tools similar to those of the “American System,” including converting the Central Bank of Russia to a “national bank” issuing Russia’s own currency and credit for internal development. On February 25, Glazyev published an analysis of U.S. sanctions titled “Sanctions and Sovereignty,” in which he stated:

[T]he damage caused by US financial sanctions is inextricably linked to the monetary policy of the Bank of Russia  …. Its essence boils down to a tight binding of the ruble issue to export earnings, and the ruble exchange rate to the dollar. In fact, an artificial shortage of money is being created in the economy, and the strict policy of the Central Bank leads to an increase in the cost of lending, which kills business activity and hinders the development of infrastructure in the country.

Glazyev said that if the central bank replaced the loans withdrawn by its Western partners with its own loans, Russian credit capacity would greatly increase, preventing a decline in economic activity without creating inflation.

Russia has agreed to sell oil to India in India’s own sovereign currency, the rupee; to China in yuan; and to Turkey in lira. These national currencies can then be spent on the goods and services sold by those countries. Arguably, every country should be able to trade in global markets in its own sovereign currency; that is what a fiat currency is – a medium of exchange backed by the agreement of the people to accept it at value for their goods and services, backed by the “full faith and credit” of the nation.

But that sort of global barter system would break down just as local barter systems do, if one party to the trade did not want the goods or services of the other party. In that case, some intermediate reserve currency would be necessary to serve as a medium of exchange.

Glazyev and his counterparts are working on that. In a translated interview posted on The Saker, Glazyev stated:

We are currently working on a draft international agreement on the introduction of a new world settlement currency, pegged to the national currencies of the participating countries and to exchange-traded goods that determine real values. We won’t need American and European banks. A new payment system based on modern digital technologies with a blockchain is developing in the world, where banks are losing their importance.

Russia and China have both developed alternatives to the SWIFT messaging system from which certain Russian banks have been blocked. London-based commentator Alexander Mercouris makes the interesting observation that going outside SWIFT means Western banks cannot track Russian and Chinese trades.

Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar sums up the plans for a Eurasian/China financial reset in an article titled “Say Hello to Russian Gold and Chinese Petroyuan.” He writes:

It was a long time coming, but finally some key lineaments of the multipolar world’s new foundations are being revealed.

On Friday [March 11], after a videoconference meeting, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and China agreed to design the mechanism for an independent international monetary and financial system. The EAEU consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is establishing free trade deals with other Eurasian nations, and is progressively interconnecting with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

For all practical purposes, the idea comes from Sergei Glazyev, Russia’s foremost independent economist ….

Quite diplomatically, Glazyev attributed the fruition of the idea to “the common challenges and risks associated with the global economic slowdown and restrictive measures against the EAEU states and China.”

Translation: as China is as much a Eurasian power as Russia, they need to coordinate their strategies to bypass the US unipolar system.

The Eurasian system will be based on “a new international currency,” most probably with the yuan as reference, calculated as an index of the national currencies of the participating countries, as well as commodity prices. …

The Eurasian system is bound to become a serious alternative to the US dollar, as the EAEU may attract not only nations that have joined BRI … but also the leading players in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as ASEAN. West Asian actors – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon – will be inevitably interested.

Exorbitant Privilege or Exorbitant Burden?

If that system succeeds, what will the effect be on the U.S. economy? Investment strategist Lynn Alden writes in a detailed analysis titled “The Fraying of the US Global Currency Reserve System” that there will be short-term pain, but, in the long run, it will benefit the U.S. economy. The subject is complicated, but the bottom line is that reserve currency dominance has resulted in the destruction of our manufacturing base and the buildup of a massive federal debt. Sharing the reserve currency load would have the effect that sanctions are having on the Russian economy – nurturing domestic industries as a tariff would, allowing the American manufacturing base to be rebuilt.

Other commentators also say that being the sole global reserve currency is less an exorbitant privilege than an exorbitant burden. Losing that status would not end the importance of the U.S. dollar, which is too heavily embedded in global finance to be dislodged. But it could well mean the end of the petrodollar as sole global reserve currency, and the end of the devastating petroleum wars it has funded to maintain its dominance.

*

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 first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Lebanon Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh has denied statements made that the bank was bankrupt.  Salameh has led the bank for 30 years and claims it is going about its legally-mandated role despite losses in the financial sector.

“Despite the losses sustained by Lebanon’s financial sector, which are being addressed in the recovery plan that is currently being prepared by the Lebanese government in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund, the Banque du Liban is still exercising its role entrusted to it under Article 70 of the Monetary and Credit Law, and will continue to do so,” he said.

His denial came after Deputy Prime Minister Saade Shami said, “Unfortunately, the state is bankrupt, as is the central bank, so we have a problem … the loss has occurred.”  He had been speaking about the state’s inability to contribute significantly to bridging financial sector losses, “which means it has no liquidity.” He added that the losses will be distributed among the state, the Banque du Liban, banks, and depositors. Cash withdrawals in foreign currency in Lebanon have been strictly limited since 2019 due to the ongoing economic crisis.

Riad Salameh refused to appear before Judge Ghada Aoun to answer questions about his possible money laundering activities. According to France24, the investigation rests on several apartments owned by Riad Salameh in Paris. He is also accused of smuggling money out of Lebanon. Salameh’s brother, Raja, and his Ukrainian business partner, Anna Kosakova, are also accused of money laundering. The Judge has referred the case against both Salamehs to Judge Noula Mansour of the 1st court of Mt. Liban.  The Swiss have frozen Riad Salameh’s accounts and accused him of stealing $300 million of Lebanese money. He also faces accusations of money laundering, stealing, and tax evasion from the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, and Luxembourg, while those countries have frozen his accounts.

Since 2019, Lebanon has been experiencing the worst economic crisis since the end of the civil war (1975-1990).  The financial collapse incurred by the banking system is estimated by the government at about $69 billion.

Lebanon’s economic crisis ranks among the world’s top three crises since the mid-19th century, according to the World Bank’s Regional Director, Saroj Kumar Jha, who on Monday described the current crisis as the worst in Lebanese history.

In March 2020, Lebanon’s economy collapsed after it defaulted on about $31 billion of Eurobonds, with its currency sinking more than 90 percent against the dollar on the black market.  Talks with the International Monetary Fund continue as inflation in the country soared an annual 215 percent in February.

Lebanon’s gross domestic product plummeted to $21.8 billion in 2021 from about $52bn in 2019, while the economy contracted about 58 percent between 2019 and 2021, making it the largest contraction in a list of 193 countries.

About 80% of Lebanon’s population now lives under the poverty line, with 36% in extreme poverty, according to the UN, and people can’t access basic goods, including food, water, healthcare, and education, while widespread power outages are common due to fuel shortages.

The financial implosion was caused by decades of political corruption and bad banking policies. The wealthy ruling elite has become richer, while the citizens have become poorer. This social inequity caused violent street riots as protesters demanded the government step down.  Lebanon is ruled by a sectarian political system by which various religious sects control power and money.

On Monday, the ‘Lebanon Reform, Recovery, and Reconstruction Framework’ meeting were chaired by Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, and in joint coordination between the UN, EU, and the World Bank in Beirut.  Jha, of the World Bank, said, “the national reform program led by Mikati, but if this program does not do well, it will lead to a greater deflation of the economy and will lead to a crisis in economic and social conditions.” He believes that “there is a need for a reform plan that includes a financial program, debt repayment, restructuring the financial and banking sector, and developing social protection systems.”

Mikati said,

“The government is working through the relevant authorities in the public sector to unify a single and comprehensive vision for development, recovery, and reform among those concerned, and we are close to completing the unification of this vision to implement the necessary reforms.”

Lebanon needs to carry out various reforms and measures to secure financial assistance and unlock billions of dollars of aid from donor countries and institutions, such as the International Monetary fund.

Lebanon applied for a $10bn IMF bailout package in May 2020 but stalled due to internal bickering among the various political factions in the country and a lack of consensus on the size of the debt and losses on the balance sheet of the central bank. A proposed government financial rescue plan earlier this year estimated a roughly $70 billion hole in the financial sector.

On Saturday, a Turkish ship carrying 58 truckloads of humanitarian aid arrived in Tripoli under the coordination of the Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency carrying 960 tons of food.

On hand to greet the arriving aid was Turkish Ambassador Ali Baris Ulusoy, head of Lebanon’s High Relief Committee Maj. Gen. Muhammad al-Khayr, and Tripoli Port manager Ahmet Tamir.  Ulusoy confirmed 524 tons of food have arrived last week, and 80 tons of food were delivered to the Lebanese Armed Forces at the Port of Beirut on Friday.

Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said,

“I had previously said that there should be a probe into the central bank governor and all ministries and funds, but the prosecution of a single person exclusively is rejected and this is not justice.”

He stressed that President Michel Aoun’s term should not be extended, and he called for “reevaluating” the 1989 Taef Accord, which was a plan to eliminate the sectarian political system in Lebanon, which many feel is the root cause for much of Lebanon’s ills.

Many experts feel sectarianism will not end until religious groups stay out of politics, and political parties are formed and run based on a political ideology.

“The constitution stipulates that the President cannot renew his term and this is what I advocate. We must elect a new president two months before the end of President Michel Aoun’s tenure,” al-Rahi said in an interview on LBCI television. He added, “We want a president who can unify the Lebanese and who can carry the constitution and implement it without fear.”

“In the presence of new faces, we can achieve change. The era of blocking roads has ended. Elect those whose loyalty is for Lebanon, not for foreign forces; elect those who are not running after money,” the patriarch urged.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

Selected Articles: Massacre in Bucha. Was It a False Flag?

April 6th, 2022 by Global Research News

Massacre in Bucha. Was It a False Flag?

By Jens Bernert, April 05, 2022

Civilians were shot in Bucha, Ukraine, as reported by the Kiev government on April 3, 2022. The Russian army had withdrawn from the village on March 30. On March 31, the mayor of Bucha had reported joyfully and good-humoredly about the Russians‘ withdrawal in a video. There was no talk of deaths yet. They came later.

Is the US on a Course to Replace Putin and Crash the Russian Economy? Biden, Zelensky and the Neocons

By Philip Giraldi, April 06, 2022

News on April 1st, admittedly April Fools’ Day, suggests that Ukraine has staged helicopter launched missile attacks on a fuel storage depot inside Russia, which, if true, could produce a massive escalation from the Kremlin. It would be a typical neocon maneuver to dramatically increase the level of the fighting and draw the United States into the conflict.

Falsification of Images, Incoherent Information? Russia Willing to Investigate Bucha’s Tragedy

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, April 05, 2022

According to the official Kremlin’s position, the Russian government categorically denies any involvement by its forces in operations that killed civilians in Bucha. Spokesperson Dmistry Peskov stated on Monday, April 4, about the case, making it clear that Moscow, in addition to denying participation in the massacre, supports the immediate launch of high-level investigations on the occurrence.

Foreign Cash Flow into Russia to Hit Record Despite Sanctions

By Paul Antonopoulos, April 06, 2022

Considering the price levels, especially for oil, Russia’s revenue from oil sales in March reached historic highs, something that was not expected when the West launched its economic war against Moscow. None-the-less, it appears that the yuan, China’s currency, will be the biggest winner during this crisis between Russia and the West.

Russiagate: The Smoking Gun. “The FBI was an active participant in the conspiracy to destroy Trump.”

By Peter Van Buren, April 05, 2022

Following Hillary’s exoneration over her emails and mishandling of classified information, the FBI launched its Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia, based in whole or large part on the infamous Christopher Steele dossier. The public now knows the dossier was paid for and stocked with falsehoods by the Clinton campaign.

Fake News in Kiev Heralds Cruel April. A Major Battle Is Approaching.

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, April 05, 2022

An indignant Moscow has angrily demanded a United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday over the allegations of atrocities by Russian troops in areas around Kiev through the past month. Prima facie, this allegation is fake news but it can mould misperceptions by the time it gets exposed as disinformation. 

Concerns as India Relaxes Rules Around Gene-edited Crops

By Bharat Dogra, April 05, 2022

The Indian government relaxed regulations around gene-edited crops on March 30 – despite scientists’ warnings about the ‘largely unknown’ environmental impact and health impacts. Only last year, hundreds of thousands of rural workers took to the streets by foot, horses, and tractors.  Three controversial farm bills implemented were successfully overturned.

US Military Doctor Testifies She Was Ordered to ‘Cover Up’ Vaccine Injuries

By Baxter Dmitry, April 05, 2022

Dr. Theresa Long, a medical officer with the United States military, has testified in court that she was ordered by a superior to suppress Covid-19 vaccine injuries following the Biden regime’s mandate. The DoD downplayed Dr. Long’s conclusions, saying the increase in vaccine injuries was caused by a “glitch in the database.”

The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda

By Robert J. Burrowes, April 05, 2022

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.

The WHO as a “Proxy World Government”? Abolition of the Nation State? Say NO to “Global Tyranny”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel and Peter Koenig, April 05, 2022

In the shadow of the Ukraine war, the WHO is preparing – unnoticed by the public – an “international agreement on the prevention and control of pandemics” binding under international law. The negotiations in Geneva have already begun. Originally, the “transfer of power” was planned for 1 May 2022, i. e. all 194 member states of the WHO would then be forced to implement the measures decided by the WHO, such as lockdowns or general compulsory vaccination.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Massacre in Bucha. Was It a False Flag?

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 Food and Drug Administration last week authorized Americans 50 and over to get a fourth Covid vaccine dose. Some of the FDA’s own experts disagree with the decision, but the agency simply ignored them. It will convene its advisory committee this Wednesday to discuss future vaccine needs. That’s like having lawyers present arguments to a judge who’s already issued a verdict.

Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, sits on the advisory committee. Hey told CNN last month that he hadn’t seen enough data to determine whether anyone needs a fourth dose whose immune system isn’t seriously deficient.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The Institute of International Finance believes that Russia’s current account surplus is likely to reach $200-240 billion this year. Experts note that Moscow’s balance of payments has historically been determined by the export of energy resources, raw materials and import of goods. Considering the price levels, especially for oil, Russia’s revenue from oil sales in March reached historic highs, something that was not expected when the West launched its economic war against Moscow. None-the-less, it appears that the yuan, China’s currency, will be the biggest winner during this crisis between Russia and the West.

Banks are now asking customers to open accounts in China’s national currency and this trend is being observed not only in Russia, but across the world. As early as 2019, Moscow and Beijing adopted the decision to gradually abandon the dollar in trading with each other. But, at the time, these were just the intentions and the first step: overall, Chinese banks still have large reserves of American dollars.

Now, China’s Foreign Ministry has raised the topic of switching to payments with Russia to the ruble or yuan. Discussions about transferring payments in the national currency of energy commodities are already underway. Beijing is pushing for a similar strategy in Southeast Asia and in its dealings with Arab countries. For example, Saudi Arabia is unhappy with Washington’s policies and calls the dollar a black hole. As a result, Riyadh and Beijing could change the payment currency of oil from dollars to yuan

Ten years ago, China began promoting the use of the yuan internationally and has achieved some limited success. It is recalled that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that events in Ukraine could change China’s financial trajectory and that Beijing can take advantage of the situation and start expanding the yuan.

According to the IMF, the yuan is the fifth largest reserve currency in the world, with central banks holding the equivalent of about $319 billion in reserves. Within the global economy, this figure is not so large: the yuan accounts for only about 2.5% of the total reserves of central banks. By comparison, the dollar accounts for more than 50% of reserves and the euro 19%. At the beginning of the year, Bloomberg reported that the Chinese currency had become the fourth most popular means of payment in the world.

Currently the yuan is used as a reserve currency in about 75 countries. The yuan could become the new international currency because China has a strong economy and the country produces everything from simple goods to high tech weapons.

In effect, it is Western policies that led Russia to expand trade with the East. For example, India and Russia are discussing the creation of a payment mechanism in rubles and rupees.

One way or another, Russia-China bilateral trade will quickly grow under the current circumstances. China has one of the largest reserves of rubles, with the Russian currency accounting for 13.8% of its foreign exchange reserves. In addition, China is Russia’s main trading partner, with the volume of transactions between the two countries exceeding $148 billion last year.

However, on a number of important issues – for example, the supply of parts for aircraft, Beijing has so far not adopted a specific decision. According to Reuters, China has reportedly recommended that its four largest oil and gas companies reduce their participation in Russian projects. China’s Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Although experts say the reason the yuan is so unpopular in international trade is because the Chinese government does not have a positive global image, this ignores the fact that China’s multilateralization and diversification of economic relations are still underdeveloped. In this way, so long as China’s economy goes strength to strength, the Russian economy and ruble will be able to weather the full effects of the West’s economic siege, something that was unlikely anticipated when sanctions were enthusiastically imposed.

For a long time, the maintenance of a cheap national currency was beneficial to Beijing thanks to the large volume of exports of goods valued in US dollars. However, the role of the Chinese currency in foreign trade with Russia will depend on its will and most importantly on Beijing’s ability to operate independently and autonomously from the West. Both Russia and China appear to be on the correct and accelerated path towards de-Dollarization.

*

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.

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.

***

 

There are many backstories surfacing from what is going on in Ukraine and Washington that have been largely ignored amid the drumbeat of casualty counts combined with claims and counter-claims from the two sides. Two stories that I believe have received insufficient attention are the US government’s three decades long obsession with weakening and de facto destroying the Russian state and the dominant neocon plus associate liberal democracy promoter role in what has become American foreign policy.

To be sure, anyone who doubts that the US is currently on a course to not only replace President Vladimir Putin but also to crash the Russian economy is delusional. Washington has been trying to deconstruct the former Soviet Union ever since 1991, beginning with President Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe in spite of a pledge not to do so and his unleashing the oligarchs who looted the country’s natural resources under President Boris Yeltsin. The pressure continued under the beatified President Barack Obama, who appointed as Ambassador Michael McFaul, who saw his mission as connecting with dissidents and opposition forces inside Russia, a role incompatible with his promotion of US interests and protecting US persons.

And then we had the redoubtable President Donald Trump undoing confidence building agreements with Russia followed by the current disaster that is unfolding before our very eyes. One should not ignore the fact that the fighting in Ukraine came about largely because the Biden Administration refused to negotiate seriously regarding the mostly reasonable demands that the Kremlin was making to enhance its own security. Former US arms inspector Scott Ritter cites a reported comment by a senior Biden Administration official which sums up the current policy, such as it is:

“The only end game now is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations.”

Indeed, President Joe Biden’s recent disastrous trip to Europe can likely be characterized as one wishes to see it and the media has certainly done considerable spinning, but Biden left behind a legacy of various gaffes and lapsus linguae that made clear that the US is in the game to defeat Russia however long it will take to play out. And Biden has considerable support from brain dead congressmen like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who has called for someone to murder Putin, lamenting “Is there a Brutus in Russia?”

On his trip, Biden revealed that he expects US combat troops to go to Ukraine’s assistance and he has also taken delight in denouncing Putin as a “killer,” a “thug,” a “murderous dictator” and a “man who cannot remain in power.” In so doing, he has openly called for Putin’s removal from office, i.e. regime change, while also opening the door to an obvious false flag operation in his unwillingness to reveal when questioned by a reporter how the US might respond if Russia were to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. That he has taken those positions means that it will be impossible to restore manageable relations with Moscow post Ukraine. It is a heavy price to pay for something that is little more than posturing.

The chemical weapon issue is particularly important as President Donald Trump bombed Syria with cruise missiles in the wake of a fabricated report that Bashar al-Assad had used such weapons in an attack on Khan Shaykhun in 2017. It turned out that the anti-regime terrorists who were occupying the city at the time had themselves staged the attack and deliberately blamed it on the Syrian government to produce an expected US response.

Based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would conclude that the neoconservatives and their liberal democracy promoting friends are working hard from the inside to make something like a war with Russia happen. Note in particular that we are talking about war with shooting and deaths, not just a reincarnation or extension of the Cold War of yore. News on April 1st, admittedly April Fools’ Day, suggests that Ukraine has staged helicopter launched missile attacks on a fuel storage depot inside Russia, which, if true, could produce a massive escalation from the Kremlin. It would be a typical neocon maneuver to dramatically increase the level of the fighting and draw the United States into the conflict.

In addition to that, I know I am not the only one who has noticed the pace and focus of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskys’ widely promoted appeals to groups and world governments to come to his country’s aid, to include establishment of a no-fly zone. The appeals are slick, convincing and carefully focused, with Zelensky being framed as a “hero” fighting valiantly against savage invaders. To put it mildly they are way beyond the capabilities and experience level of a former comedian, whose performances featured erotic dancing and playing a piano with his penis, corruptly placed on the presidential hotseat by a billionaire oligarch Israeli citizen.

The US media is, of course, lavishly praising Zelensky, but I would bet that he has a cadre of American and possibly Israeli neoconservatives working diligently behind him to get it right, coaching him on what to say and do. There might be US government players also in on the act, to include NED (National Endowment for Democracy), CIA information specialists, State Department media consultants and observers from the National Security Council. Indeed, there is as much a war going on over the airwaves and internet to influence thinking internationally as there is fighting taking place on the ground.

One should conclude that the CIA is playing the central role in the “Russia Project” because of its ability to shield what it is doing from scrutiny. Based on previous operations to overthrow governments in various places, one might assume that the so-called covert action approach is multi-level. It consists of media placements that are intended to sway opinion both inside and outside Russia and produce unrest, the identification and recruitment of Russian government officials when they travel overseas, and the support of dissidents both internally and externally who share a negative view of Moscow and its policies. A major component in the approach is to obtain Western liberal support for harsh sanctions and other repressive measures against the Kremlin based on the fraudulent proposition that Putin and his associates are out to destroy “democracy” and “freedom.” Ironically, Americans are less “free” and also poorer because of the actions of their own government since 2001, not because of Vladimir Putin.

As was the case with Iraq, Afghanistan and the long list of American interventions, it is the neocons who are in front demanding a powerful military response, both to Russia and, inevitably, to Iran. What is particularly noticeable is how the neocons and their liberal democracy promoting counterparts have in several areas dominated the foreign policies of both parties. Leading neocon Bill Kristol, who called the Biden speech “a historic call to action on par with Ronald Reagan[‘s] ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall speech,’” recently also contributed “There would be no real prospect of an awakening in the United States and Europe were it not for the stand the Ukrainians have made. We would still be denying the threats we face. We would still be turning away from the urgency of the task we face. We would even, I daresay, still fail to appreciate the preciousness of the freedom and decency we have the obligation—and the honor—to defend. It is the Ukrainians who have shown us what free men and women can do, and what they are sometimes required to do, in defense of that freedom. It is the Ukrainians who have shown the world that we are in a new period of consequences. It is the Ukrainians who have given us the example of what it means today to fight back against brutality, and to fight for freedom.”

Kristol is, as so often, full of flag waving, chest puffing nonsense, peddling the notion that the United States has an obligation to police the world. Another leading neocon and regular Washington Post and The Atlantic contributor Anne Applebaum puts it this way and in so doing expands the playing field to include much of the world: “Unless democracies defend themselves together, the forces of autocracy will destroy them. I am using the word forces, in the plural, deliberately. Many American politicians would understandably prefer to focus on the long-term competition with China. But as long as Russia is ruled by Putin, then Russia is at war with us too. So are Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Hungary, and potentially many others.”

It would be nice, for a change, to end an article on a high note, but high notes are hard to find these days. If there is anything beyond Ukraine to demonstrate the insanity of US foreign policy it would have to be, inevitably, recent news out of Israel. US Secretary of State Tony Blinken was recently in Israel trying in part to sell the possibility that the Biden Administration might actually come to a non-proliferation agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. Israel strongly opposes any such move and its lobby in the US led by various neocon think tanks has been working hard to kill any deal. So, what did Blinken do? He asked Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett for suggestions of what might be done in lieu of an actual agreement. Naftali reportedly suggested harsher sanctions on Iran. Cut it any way you want, but the renewal of 2015’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is beneficial for both the United States and all of Iran’s neighbors, and here the US senior-most representative involved in the negotiations is asking the head of a foreign government to tell him what to do. Something is very wrong in Washington.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

In Canada the CBC has suffered a tremendous loss of audience and credibility by making itself a publicity operation for the COVID officialdom whose key figure heads include Justin Trudeau. Seeking the votes of Ukrainian nationalists in Canada, many of whom are apparently quite comfortable with the Nazi elements in the current Ukrainian government, some members of Trudeau’s WEF cabinet are busy designing Canada’s version of anti-Russian war propaganda. See this.

Mélanie Joly, a young leadership graduate of the WEF and Canada’s current Minister of Foreign Affairs, is prominent among those preparing the basis for Canada’s propaganda blitz to lionize Zelensky and demonize Putin. Not surprisingly she characterizes her work misleadingly as a counter-propaganda initiative.

Minister Joly is quoted in the following citation under the title, “Demand Wartime Censorship.” Blacklock’s Reporter explains,

“Cabinet must regulate the internet in Canada to curb Russian disinformation, says Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly. A federal ban on Kremlin-funded TV is not enough, said Joly: “My mandate as foreign minister is really to counter propaganda online.”  (emphasis added)

See this.

In aid of my continuing emphasis on the Honourable A. Brian Peckford’s efforts to restore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its function as a beacon national inspiration in our failing polity, I wrote the following open letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly

The Honourable Mélanie Joly,

Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada
5  April, 2022

Dear Minister Joly;

I concur with Eva Lyman and The Honourable A. Brian Peckford that the federal government of Canada must put its own house in order by living within the rule of law including through adherence to our pre-eminent national law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  As the former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador observed in his letter of 30 March, 

“The truth is being suppressed. The Charter is being violated and cannot be excused with using Section 1. It’s intent was not for use in a circumstance like a virus with a 99% recovery rate and less than a 1% fatality rate, but rather in a circumstance where the country was in peril.”

After two years the Charter violations continue by, for instance, federal travel bans that have made Canada a national prison for those who have opted not to take mandated injections that have been shown to be notoriously unsafe and ineffective.

In a recent speech you made at the United Nations Human Rights Commission, you emphasized, Minister Joly, that human rights are universal. You also emphasized that the protection of human rights is a key aspect of international law. The protection of human rights is also a key domestic function of national governments. In Canada the primary legal means for implementing this protection is the enforcement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a key part of Canada’s constitution that the Trudeau Liberals violate every day.

Canada’s growing reputation as a human rights violator was recently highlighted at the European Parliament where Prime Minister Trudeau was recently asked to “spare” the assembled parliamentarians of “his presence.” He was diplomatically asked to leave. 

A Member of the European Parliament declared that Trudeau’s invasive violations of the human rights of his own citizens has “made him a disgrace to any democracy.” Another MEP, who, like Eva Lyman, has lived under Soviet tyranny, called the current Liberal government of Canada “a dictatorship of the worst kind.” The MEP continued, under Prime Minister Trudeau’s “quasi-liberal boot… Canada is becoming a symbol of civil rights violations.”

Clearly these comments in the European Parliament resonated widely throughout the international community in a way that will certainly harm the credibility of Canada when your government tries to present itself as a champion of international human rights. The widening awareness that Canada’s federal government is facing growing internal criticisms for violating human rights and civil liberties, will no doubt be noticed outside the country as well as inside. 

It will not go unnoticed that one of those leading the criticism is a former Canadian Premier who helped draft and enact the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981-82. Indeed, the Honourable A. Brian Peckford is backing up his position by heading up a legal case whose objective is to restore the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its proper status as the lead embodiment of national authority in the Canadian rule of law.      

In my 71 years of life I do not remember any other time when Canada has been the target of this level of harsh criticism from elected officials in an important international body. It is not a big stretch to surmise that the unwillingness of the Trudeau Liberals to place the federal government within the framework of the Canadian Charter of Rights set a course leading to such a harsh rebuke in an important arena of international affairs. 

It must be quite shocking for you to find Canada placed in such a position of international infamy during your watch as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Your government could send an encouraging signal to the world and to Canadian citizens generally by voluntarily dropping mandates to re-enter adherence to the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe the restoration of the Charter as a leading beacon in the enactment of laws and policies by the Canadian government would lead you away from your apparent preoccupation with censoring freedom of speech and expression in promoting your government’s approach to the conflict in Ukraine. I don’t recall seeing any genuine debate in Parliament about what Canada’s policy should be in this conflict. There can be no doubt that the period of severe decline in the integrity of Parliamentary governance in Canada has been accompanied by the period when parliamentarians have failed to uphold the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadian governance.  

You are quoted as declaring Minister Joly, “My mandate as foreign minister is really to counter propaganda online.”

See this.

Who do you believe entrusted you with such a mandate? Who appointed you arbiter of what constitutes propaganda and what constitutes honest reporting. How much honest reporting do we see these days in Canada now that our country is seen by some as a symbol of civil liberties violations and a dictatorship of the worst kind?

I humbly suggest that, under the present circumstances, you would serve yourself, the Canadian government, the Canadian people, and the international community best by setting yourself the task of safeguarding freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of movement in these difficult times. Please, Minister Joly, use your considerable influence to restore the rule of law in Canada especially by elevating the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its proper status as a beacon of Canada’s national values and priorities.

Yours respectfully

Anthony J. Hall

*

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

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Canada’s War Propaganda, Censorship and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Massacre in Bucha. Was it a False Flag?

April 5th, 2022 by Jens Bernert

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 CNN: 

“Lviv, Ukraine (CNN) The lifeless bodies of at least 20 civilian men line a single street in the town of Bucha near the Ukrainian capital. Some lie face down on the pavement while others are collapsed on their backs, mouths open in a tragic testament to the horrors of Russian occupation.

.

The hands of one man are tied behind his back with a piece of white cloth. Another man lies alone, tangled up in a bicycle by a grassy bank. A third man lies in the middle of the road, near the charred remains of a burned-out car.
The shocking images of the carnage in Bucha were captured by Agence France-Presse on Saturday, the same day Ukraine declared the town liberated from Russian troops. Accounts of alleged Russian atrocities are emerging as its forces retreat from areas near Kyiv following a failed bid to encircle the capital.
.
The town of Bucha has endured five weeks of near-constant firefights. Now officials and human rights groups are blaming the civilian deaths on the departed Russian forces.
 .
“Corpses of executed people still line the Yabluska street in Bucha. Their hands are tied behind their backs with white ‘civilian’ rags, they were shot in the back of their heads. So you can imagine what kind of lawlessness they perpetrated here,” Bucha mayor Anatoliy Fedoruk told Reuters on Saturday.”

***

In contrast, the following report points to a false flag, which is yet to be verified.

At this stage the matter requires  further investigation as to what actually happened.

***

Civilians were shot in Bucha, Ukraine, as reported by the Kiev government on April 3, 2022. The Russian army had withdrawn from the village on March 30. On March 31, the mayor of Bucha had reported joyfully and good-humoredly about the Russians‘ withdrawal in a video. There was no talk of deaths yet. They came later.

Video, Youtube (Upload 1. April 2022): „The mayor of Bucha, Anatoliy Fedoruk, confirmed the city’s liberation from Russian troops on March 31.“

Many of those killed wore white armbands, like those apparently worn by the Russian soldiers who occupied the site as a distinguishing mark.

It is speculated that many of those killed were people who had put on a white armband in solidarity with these Russian soldiers. Some of the people may also have been specifically branded as “traitors“ with an armband during the massacre, which was apparently perpetrated by Ukrainian units.

The murdered people were then abused on April 3 as part of a false flag operation by attributing their deaths to the Russians who had previously occupied this place. That the massacre was carried out only after the Russians had left, by Kiev-Ukrainian units, is shown by the already mentioned video with the mayor, who was in a good mood one day after the Russian withdrawal and had no dead to mourn in his place.

The fact that “traitors“ in Ukraine are going down the tubes, unfortunately, was already known a month ago by the BILD journalist Julian Röpcke, a great supporter of the Kiev government as well as a friend of the Azov battalion, from Ukraine. The propaganda with the dead themselves is reminiscent of the approach in the Syrian war.

Translation of Bild’s Journalist’s Statement:

“Phew … what can I say … Ukrainians do gruesome things with captured Russian soldiers & traitors. But I won’t post that here. It’s fundamentally wrong, but it happens and anyone who criticizes it should ask themselves what they would do in such a situation.“

Addendum:

A video released by the Ukrainian National Police (April 2, 6:52 p.m.) purported to show the “cleansing of the city from the occupiers.“

Russian troops had already left by that time (compare also the March 31 video of the mayor mentioned above).

There are no civilian corpses in this video.

One would expect the (alleged) Russian atrocities announced on April 3 to be shown or addressed there.

*

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 Blauer Bote Magazin.

Featured image is from 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.

***

The alleged massacre of civilians in Bucha is one of the most talked about topics around the world in recent hours. Russia has been repeatedly accused by Western governments and mainstream media, and there are already calls for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be prosecuted for war crimes and human rights violations. However, there is a series of controversies in the case, from possible falsifications in the images released by Ukrainian forces to incoherent information about the dates of the massacre, which demands a deep investigation.

According to the official Kremlin’s position, the Russian government categorically denies any involvement by its forces in operations that killed civilians in Bucha. Spokesperson Dmistry Peskov stated on Monday, April 4, about the case, making it clear that Moscow, in addition to denying participation in the massacre, supports the immediate launch of high-level investigations on the occurrence. The Russian authorities also committed to take the discussion forward to the UN Security Council in order conduct an international investigation in the grave tragedy.

Furthermore, Peskov made it clear that the Russian government does not trust the veracity of all the information contained in the videos and photos of dead civilians released by the Ukrainian government. There are reports from Russian experts pointing out possible forgeries and frauds in the content of the videos.

Other Russian officials also commented on the case, pointing out that there is evidence that the videos were forged or performed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, for example, claimed during a meeting with UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Martin Griffiths that the Ukrainian press had released fake videos about Russian operations in Bucha, and that there had been a staging organized by Kiev’s forces in the region days after the departure of Russian troops.

In the same vein, the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, said that the videos and photos released by the Ukrainian press and the Western statements about them appear to be a “custom-made story”. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu also spoke out, claiming that the case is a production by the Kiev regime for Western media that sounds like a provocation against Russia. Finally, the head of the Russian Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, also expressed distrust about the veracity of the material released by Kiev and requested a procedural assessment on the possible massacre of civilians.

Despite the distrust, which seems justified in the face of a long history of fake news and information warfare on the part of the NATO-Kiev axis, Moscow seems open to hearing contrary opinions, which is precisely why the government seems so interested in launching an investigation, both using its official experts and international agents convoked by the UNSC. It is possible that, in addition to the obviously fake and staged videos, there is also real material, with actual images of dead people. The Kremlin’s main point is that, regardless of whether the videos and photos are real or not, there is no Russian involvement in cases of massacre of civilians.

Considering the evident victory of the Special Operation in Bucha region, there would be no strategic advantage for the Russian military to shoot civilians, which would cause unnecessary harm to the country. Now, Zelensky, Biden and other Western leaders are calling for Putin to be condemned by international courts and planning an increase in sanctions. So, it does not seem at all reasonable that Russian forces would have deliberately planned and carried out a massacre of civilians, considering that these would be the obvious consequences of such acts.

Another point that needs to be mentioned is that there is an evident time lapse in the case. The Russians withdrew from Bucha on 30 March. The Ukrainians entered Bucha on March 31, and the “retake” of the city was announced by the mayor on the same day. Azov’s paramilitaries entered the city only on April 1. So how were the “bodies in the streets” found only on April 3?

If international society is really interested in the truth, it must heed the Russian request for an investigation at the UNSC. If Western governments refuse to cooperate with the investigation, it will be possible to conclude that they have something to hide. The UN must remain neutral and commit itself to the search for the truth of the facts, even if this truth is unpleasant for the West.

*

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: Destroyed car in Bucha with a dead person inside, 2 April 2022 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Falsification of Images, Incoherent Information? Russia Willing to Investigate Bucha’s Tragedy
  • 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.

***

Biden’s recent European tour left a trail of miscalculations and missteps. And he was not helped by the travels of Secretary of State Antony Blinken either.

If Biden and Blinken are trying to convince the world that the battle against Russia is a generational battle between democracy and autocracy – childishly framed as a Manichean battle between good and evil – then the clumsiest step may have been the least reported. Unlike Biden’s unscripted mistakes, Blinken was acting from the script.

On March 27, Secretary of State Blinken attended a foreign ministers’ meeting in Israel. There he met with his counterparts from Egypt, the United Arab Emirate, Bahrain and Morocco: hardly a meeting of democracies that condemn autocracy. Most of these countries are autocracies: sometimes brutally repressive ones.

Most ironically, perhaps, is sitting at the table with Morocco. One of the core principles the US says it is defending in Ukraine is that countries cannot change the borders of others by force and cannot annex territory. Morocco should not be invited to that table. Morocco changed borders by force and annexed Western Sahara. Though the UN and the International Court of Justice have ruled in favor of Western Sahara’s right to self-governance, the US has endorsed the annexation and officially recognized Western Sahara as part of Morocco.

Biden made of series of mistakes that were unscripted and dangerous. It is worrisome if they were mistakes; it is more dangerous still if they were not.

The US continues to warn that Russia is considering using chemical weapons despite the little reported revelation by the Pentagon that “There’s no indication that there’s something imminent in that regard right now.” On March 24, Biden drew a red line: if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, it “would trigger a response” from NATO. As Obama proved in Syria, red lines are dangerous. Knowing the red line that would bring NATO into the war can motivate US allies to stage false flag chemical attacks to finally bring the US to their aid.

But that may not have been the biggest danger in Biden’s mistaken language. Answering questions – so, on his own without a script – Biden said “The nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use.” Then, elaborating, he said “It would trigger a response in kind,” seemingly announcing that the US would respond to a Russian chemical weapons attack with a chemical weapons attack of their own: worrisome if it was a mistake; dangerous if it was not.

The second mistake came the very next day. Speaking to the 82nd Airborne Division in Poland, Biden said,

“And you’re going to see when you’re there. And you – some – some of you have been there. You’re going to see – you’re going to see women, young people standing – standing the middle of – in front of a damn tank, just saying, ‘I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.’ They’re incredible. But they take a lot of inspiration from us.”

With that mistake, Biden seemed to undo war saving guarantees that the US was not sending troops into Ukraine to fight Russia. Without explaining what Biden did mean, the White House explained that that’s not what he meant. A White House spokesperson clarified,

“The president has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position.”

Again, if it was a mistake, that is worrisome; if it was not, that is dangerous. And maybe it was not. Or, at least, not exactly. When asked about the comment, Biden accusingly answered, “You interpret the language that way.” He went on to claim that he was talking about “helping train the troops in – that are – the Ukrainian troops that are in Poland.”

With that off script explanation, Biden seemed to admit that the US was currently, not only arming Ukrainian soldiers, but training them in Poland to use those weapons to kill Russians in Ukraine. From the Russian perspective, that may be a very provocative admission that Biden went off script to make.

So, the script writers and fixers had to be brought in again. This time, they had to clean up the word “train.” It turns out they’re not training them, they are only “liaising” with them. Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby was brought out to de-escalate Biden’s remarks. In a master class on euphemism, Kirby explained that US troops were “liaising” with Ukrainian troops in Poland:

“It’s not training in the classic sense that many people think of training. I would just say it’s liaising.”

The next day, the third mistake came. And it was the biggest. This time Biden called for a coup in Russia. Before he ended his speech that day, Biden added the call,

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

The White House speech writers and fixers struggled with this one because the meaning was too clear to accuse commentators of misinterpreting the language. Biden “was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” the White House translated.

“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.”

But, demonstrating the disconnect between the President and his staff – and that you cannot trust the clarifications of his staff – Biden held his ground and said that that’s not what his point was. During a press conference, a reporter asked, “Do you believe what you said – that Putin can’t remain in power?  Or do you now regret saying that?  Because your government has been trying to walk that back.” Biden responded,

“I’m not walking anything back.  The fact of the matter is I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing, and the actions of this man – just – just the brutality of it.” He then added that “I wasn’t then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change.”

Biden is right to express moral outrage over the war in Ukraine. But, by the same moral principle, he should express outrage at Truman for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan. And he should express outrage at a series of presidents for the war that killed between 1.2 and 3.2 million Vietnamese. He should express moral outrage at Reagan for his murderous Central American wars, at Clinton for Yugoslavia and at Bush for Iraq. He should express moral outrage at his own vote in support of Iraq and at the Obama-Biden administration for the continuation of Iraq and Syria, not to mention Libya and the support of the war in Yemen. In fact, if he does not express moral outrage at every president since he was born, then he is expressing a principle, not of morality, but of exceptionalism and hypocrisy.

And it should not be surprising that Biden is personally calling for a coup. He has an extensive track record with coups while in the White House. The Obama-Biden administration occupied the White House during the June 2009 coup in Honduras and the 2010 attempted coup in Ecuador. It financed and supported the 2010 Haitian elections. They knew about and supported the 2012 coup in Paraguay, interfered repeatedly in Venezuela and were, at best, silent in Brazil when Dilma Rouseff was removed from office. Most importantly in the current context, Biden approved of the 2014 coup in Ukraine. In the intercepted call between Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland and American ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that demonstrates the US role in the coup, when Pyatt says the West needing to “midwife this thing,” Nuland says that Biden, himself, would be willing to do the midwifery.

So, the largest in a series of mistakes should come as no surprise: Biden has a long history of supporting US efforts at regime change.

*

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.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

Featured image is from OneWorld

World Hunger and the War in Ukraine

April 5th, 2022 by No Cold War

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

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

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

***

The war in Ukraine, along with sanctions imposed by the United States and Western countries against Russia, have caused global food, fertiliser, and fuel prices to ‘skyrocket’ and endanger the world food supply. This conflict is exacerbating the existing crisis of global hunger and imperils the living standards and well-being of billions of people – particularly in the Global South. 

War in the ‘breadbasket of the world’

Russia and Ukraine together produce nearly 30 percent of the world’s wheat and roughly 12 percent of its total calories. Over the past five years, they have accounted for 17 percent of the world’s corn, 32 percent of barley (a critical source of animal feed), and 75 percent of sunflower oil (an important cooking oil in many countries). On top of this, Russia is the world’s largest supplier of fertilisers and natural gas (a key component in fertiliser production), accounting for 15 percent of the global trade of nitrogenous fertilisers, 17 percent of potash fertilisers, 20 percent of natural gas.

The current crisis threatens to cause a global food shortage. The United Nations has estimated that up to 30 percent of Ukrainian farmland could become a warzone; in addition, due to sanctions, Russia has been severely restricted in exporting food, fertiliser, and fuel. This has caused global prices to surge. Since the war began, wheat prices have increased by 21 percent, barley by 33 percent, and some fertilisers by 40 percent.

The Global South is ‘getting pummelled’

The painful impact of this shock is being felt by people around the world, but most sharply in the Global South. ‘In a word, developing countries are getting pummelled,’ United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently remarked.

According to the UN, 45 African and ‘least developed’ countries import at least a third of their wheat from Russia or Ukraine – 18 of those countries import at least 50 percent. Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, obtains over 70 percent of its imports from Russia and Ukraine, while Turkey obtains over 80 percent.

Countries of the Global South are already facing severe price shocks and shortages, impacting both consumption and production. In Kenya, bread prices have risen by 40 percent in some areas and, in Lebanon, by 70 percent. Meanwhile, Brazil, the world’s largest producer of soybeans, is facing a major reduction in crop yields. The country purchases close to half of its potash fertiliser from Russia and neighbouring Belarus (which is also being sanctioned) – it has only a three month supply remaining with farmers being instructed to ration.

‘The United States has sanctioned the whole world’

The situation is being directly exacerbated by U.S. and Western sanctions against Russia. Although sanctions have been justified as targeting Russian government leaders and elites, such measures hurt all people, particularly vulnerable groups, and are having global ramifications.

‘They’re preventing fertilisers from getting to producing countries,’ said Antonio Galvan, president of the Brazilian national soybean farmers association, Aprosoja. ‘How many millions are going to starve to death because of the lack of these fertilisers?’

Nooruddin Zaker Ahmadi, director of an Afghan import company, made the following diagnosis: ‘The United States thinks it has only sanctioned Russia and its banks. But the United States has sanctioned the whole world.’

‘A catastrophe on top of a catastrophe…’

The war in Ukraine and associated sanctions are exacerbating the already existing crisis of world hunger. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation found that ‘nearly one in three people in the world (2.37 billion) did not have access to adequate food in 2020.’ In recent years, the situation has worsened as food prices have risen due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and related disruptions.

‘Ukraine has only compounded a catastrophe on top of a catastrophe,’ said David M. Beasley, the executive director of the UN World Food Program. ‘There is no precedent even close to this since World War II.’

‘If you think we’ve got hell on earth now, you just get ready,’ Beasley warned.

Regardless of the different opinions on Ukraine, it is clear that billions of people around the world will suffer from this hunger crisis until the war and sanctions come to an end.

*

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 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.

***

An indignant Moscow has angrily demanded a United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday over the allegations of atrocities by Russian troops in areas around Kiev through the past month. Prima facie, this allegation is fake news but it can mould misperceptions by the time it gets exposed as disinformation. 

A Tass report says: “The Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday that the Russian Armed Forces had left Bucha, located in the Kiev region, on March 30, while “the evidence of crimes” emerged only four days later, after Ukrainian Security Service officers had arrived in the town. The ministry stressed that on March 31, the town’s Mayor Anatoly Fedoruk had confirmed in a video address that there were no Russian troops in Bucha. However, he did not say a word about civilians shot dead on the street with their hands tied behind their backs.” 

Even more surprising is that within minutes of the “breaking news”, western leaders — heads of state, foreign ministers, former politicians — popped up with statements duly kept ready and only based on the videos, seconds-long videos and a clutch of photos, ready to pour accusations. No expert opinion was sought, no forensic work was done, no opportunity given to the accused to be heard. 

French President Emmanuel Macron broke his election campaign where he’s in a dead heat with Marine Le Pen for reelection in next Sunday’s poll to brand the alleged Russian atrocities as “war crime”. So did German Chancellor Olaf Scholz who is in big trouble too as Germany is posting inflation at +7.3 percent in March. 

There’s nothing unusual about beleaguered politicians catching hold of bogeymen. Intelligent minds like Macron and Scholz’s must be realising by now their flawed policies leading inexorably to such a strategic defeat at the hands of Russia. But the big question is: Why such theatrics just at this point? 

The fake news surfaced even as the Phase 2 of Russia’s special operation is slated to begin within the  week in the eastern Donbass region. Something like 60-80000 Ukrainian troops, rated to be the best units of the armed forces, have been encircled in Donbass. 

The Russian feint paid off in pinning down the Ukrainian forces in Kiev through past month. By the time the truth dawned on the Kiev set-up ( and their western “advisors), the damage was done. The enormity of the resultant situation needs some explanation. 

The above map reproduced from the Novosti (unfortunately, in Russian language) on the exact ground situation as of April 3 and the commentary by Ivan Andreev, an experienced war correspondent who covered the Russian operations in Syria, gives the salience of the cauldron in Donbass where the crème de la crème of the Ukrainian forces numbering several divisions are entrapped, isolated by opposing forces from their logistical base and other friendly forces. 

The cauldron is fairly large, marked in blue and black stripes on the map in the upper reaches of the Donbass region in the direction of Kharkiv. The massive Russian column that retreated from the Kiev region a week ago is manoeuvring in a big arc toward that cauldron bypassing Chernihiv in the north and the cities of Sumy and Kharkiv (near the Russian border in the northeast). 

The Ukrainian forces are well-armed and have fortified themselves heavily but are unable to escape from the entrapment. Nor is it feasible for Kiev to send reinforcements as the countryside to the west through consists of largely open farmlands (all the way to the Dniepr River). The Russians have air supremacy and it is impossible to hide any enemy movements from their roving eyes.

The Russian forces have put out of action all nearby airports and destroyed the nearby Ukrainian oil reserves systematically through Phase 1 of the operation. As I wrote in a previous blog, three days ago, Russian forces dealt a devastating blow: “Notably, the Mirgorod military airfield in central Poltava Region, a strategically important hub, has been taken out of action and several Ukrainian combat helicopters and aircraft found in its camouflaged car parks, as well as fuel and aviation weapons depots have been destroyed.” 

Equally, Kharkiv has been surrounded and “in a high-precision strike with the Iskander operational-tactical missiles on the defence headquarters in the city on Thursday, “more than 100 nationalists and mercenaries from Western countries” were confirmed as killed.” 

Nonetheless, the Ukrainian forces are expected to put up a good fight rather than surrender — although surrounded, without air cover, and having no scope to rotate forces or enough fuel to engage in maneuver warfare and with ammunition running out. 

To be sure, a major battle is approaching, the most decisive in the entire Russian special operation so far. The catch is, the cauldron also has plentiful settlements of ethnic Russian population (including Russian passport holders) and the offensive will be a long grind patiently executed to avoid civilian casualty or destruction of civilian infrastructure.

That is to say, Phase 2 may last anywhere up to a month or so to be completed. Make no mistake, the Russians have to win here (which they will) as they will also be breaking the back of the Ukrainian armed forces. Despite all the bluster by Zelensky, Kiev will realise the enormity of the defeat and his western mentors will see the writing on the wall too. 

To be sure, a whole month lies ahead where the western strategy will be to incessantly manufacture fake news, intensify the information war. Even some false flag operation may be staged under the supervision of western intelligence operatives. 

In a worst case scenario, Kiev may even play its last card — chemical weapons. Russia has publicised details of locations where Ukraine has kept stockpiles of chemical weapons. The US is known to have supplied as military aid special gear (gas masks, protective clothing, etc.) to cope with chemical weapons and given special training for collective protection.

The alacrity with which Macron and Scholz consumed the fake news is a harbinger of a new phase in the information war. Succinctly put, there is a sober awakening in Paris and Berlin that the Russian operation is successfully meeting the set objectives. 

“April”, TS Eliot wrote in his masterpiece The Wasteland, “is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain.” But the dark irony of this year’s “Aprilness” is going to be that the fecundity and renewal here will be about Russia’s regeneration in a world of both history and the myths spawned by quarantined western minds.  

*

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 troops prepare to fight Russian forces in Donbass (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

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

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

***

 

President Biden’s 5.8 trillion dollars fiscal year 2023 budget increases “discretionary” spending to 1.6 trillion dollars. The remaining 4.2 trillion dollars of spending consists of “mandatory” spending, including on Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. The discretionary spending is divided between 813 billion dollars for “defense” and 769 billion dollars for the rest.

Since Biden’s budget increases military spending and does not call for major new government programs, some have described it as “centrist.”  Calling a 5.8 trillion dollars tax-and-spend monstrosity “centrist” shows how far the center of American politics is from the principles of limited government.

Little of Biden’s proposed defense budget will be spent to defend the American people, although it will defend the ability of defense contractors, lobbyists, and war party propagandists to continue littering Northern Virginia with “McMansions.” Biden wants to spend yet more to continue the US’s counterproductive intervention in Ukraine, as well as on NATO and other programs aimed at challenging Russia. Biden’s budget also proposes spending 1.8 billion dollars to “support a free and open, connected, secure and resilient Indo-Pacific Region” and another 400 million dollars for the Countering the People’s Republic of China Malign Influence Fund. How would Biden react if China started spending money to challenge the US’s influence in the Western Hemisphere?

Biden’s budget spends 33.2 billion dollars to support law enforcement. Federal spending on local law enforcement violates the Tenth Amendment and takes a step toward nationalizing the police. A national police force would be a grave danger to liberty.

Biden also proposes spending 1.7 billion dollars on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so it can, among other activities, crack down on gun trafficking. A crackdown on gun trafficking allows the agency to harass gun owners and firearms dealers. Biden’s “centrist” budget also provides funding to crack down on hate crimes. Criminalizing thoughts has no place in a free society.

Biden claims he has reduced spending. However, the only reason spending is down is because Congress has stopped passing multitrillion dollar covid relief bills. Biden’s budget proposes reducing the deficit by raising taxes. Among Biden’s tax proposals is a new 20 percent tax. Biden’s “billionaires tax” breaks new ground in theft by taxing unrealized capital gains — in other words, taxing income that taxpayers did not actually receive!

Biden’s budget estimates an increase in the federal debt to 44.8 trillion dollars in ten years. Of course, the final spending bill approved by Congress will likely spend more on welfare and warfare then Biden is proposing. The spending will force the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low, further eroding the dollar’s purchasing power and thus increasing demand for welfare and yet more government spending.

America may soon pay the price for attempting to fund a massive welfare-warfare state with fiat currency, America’s ham-fisted intervention in the Ukraine-Russian conflict has caused more countries to seek alternatives to the dollar. This increases pressure for the dollar to lose its world reserve currency status. When that happens, the US will face a major economic crisis featuring hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and the growth of authoritarian political movements. The only way these problems can be avoided is if the people demand the federal government stop trying to run their lives, run the economy, and run the world.

*

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

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

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

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

***

Read Part I:

Russiagate: The Smoking Gun

By Peter Van Buren, April 04, 2022


Part I of this article showed a conspiracy to smear Donald Trump with false allegations of collusion with Russia took place, with Hillary Clinton at its head. Part II today will show the FBI was an active participant in the conspiracy to destroy Trump. The facts are not in dispute. We are left only to decide if the FBI acted incompetently and unprofessionally, or as part of a conspiracy.

The first part of the smoking gun may have been hiding in plain sight for some time now. In June 2018 Inspector General for the Department of Justice Michael Horowitz released his report on the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, including FBI Director Comey’s drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even complete. In a damning passage, Horowitz found it was “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors… for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey’s boss, is criticized for meeting privately with Bill Clinton as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. “Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem… and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.” Lynch then doubled-down, refusing to recuse herself from the Clinton case, creating “public confusion.”

The report also criticizes FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, “Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Another Strzok document stated “we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message,” thought that was never prosecuted.

Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton’s in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as “the President” and in a message told a friend “I’m with her.” The FBI also allowed Clinton’s lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to  possible crimes committed by Clinton.

If that does not add up to a smoking gun that the FBI conspired pre-dossier to help Hillary Clinton, how about this?

Following Hillary’s exoneration over her emails and mishandling of classified information, the FBI launched its Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia, based in whole or large part on the infamous Christopher Steele dossier. The public now knows the dossier was paid for and stocked with falsehoods by the Clinton campaign. The unanswered questions from that investigation themselves comprise a second smoking gun of FBI conspiracy. For example:

  • Why did the FBI not inquire into Steele’s sources and methods, which would have quickly revealed the information was wholly false? Why was the FBI unable to discover Steele (and later, Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, who gave false info to the FBI about Trump and Alfa Bank) were double agents working for and paid by the Clinton campaign?
  • When the FBI found the target of its first FISA warrant out of the dossier, Carter Page, was actually a paid CIA asset, why did they hide this information from the FISA court instead of dropping Page? Why did this not cause them to question the credibility of Steele, a master spy who couldn’t even identify his source was actually a CIA asset? Steele claimed the Russians offered Page an insanely huge bribe, billions of dollars, to end U.S. sanctions if Trump became president. Page clearly could never have played a significant role in ending sanctions. Why did the FBI find those statements credible enough to pursue the warrant?
  • Why did the FBI cite an open-source press article by Michael Isikoff claiming Trump had Russian ties as part of its FISA warrant application against Page without finding out who Isikoff’s source was? The source of course was Christopher Steele, who was interviewed in a hotel room booked by Fusion GPS who was paid by Clinton. The FBI nonetheless claimed an article from Yahoo! corroborated the dossier, a cite unlikely to pass muster on an undergrad term paper. Were they really fooled?
  • Why did the FBI not discover the dossier’s false claim Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet with Russians? Robert Mueller was able to conclusively dismiss the report. Confirming Cohen in Prague would have been a cornerstone of the FBI’s larger case, but the matter was left open until Mueller.
  • Why did the FBI not question Sussmann about the source of his DNS data, some of which came directly from inside the White House? Why would a private citizen have such information?
  • When Sussmann, claiming to be a concerned citizen with White House DNS data, first approached the FBI, why was he assigned to meet with the FBI’s General Counsel, its lawyer, and not a case agent? Was something other than his information, such possibly FBI collusion with fraud, being validated?
  • Why was the CIA investigation referral saying Hillary was behind Russiagate ignored by the FBI? The memo was addressed to Director James Comey, who claims he has no knowledge of it, and Peter Strzok, who should have been the action officer but did nothing?
  • Why did Kevin Brock, the FBI’s former intelligence chief, say “The fact pattern that John Durham is methodically establishing shows what James Comey and Andrew McCabe likely knew from day one, that the Steele dossier was politically-driven nonsense created at the behest of the Clinton campaign. And yet they knowingly ran with its false information.”
  • Despite the investigation being run by the FBI, why was it CIA Director John Brennan who briefed (LINK) Obama on the Hillary connection in July 2016 and not Comey?

If any of those questions seem kind of obvious, that is the point. The cover stories only had to hold for a short time, enough to infect the media, enough to make things seem plausible for the FBI. Team Clinton and its co-conspirators were so certain they would win the election they felt none of their tricks needed to stay hidden much past victory. The story is waist-deep rotten.

At this point you can believe the multiple ops paid for and run by Clinton people were uncoordinated events, or that they were part of the broad campaign Hillary was an active participant in, and about which John Brennan warned Barack Obama, and which the CIA warned the FBI, not knowing they were in on it. You can believe the FBI acted incompetently and unprofessionally (yet consistently, no breaks went Trump’s way), or as part of a conspiracy.

What you cannot do any more is pretend this did not happen, and that the person most involved came close to being elected president because of it. If you worry about democracy, worry about that.

*

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.

In preparing this article, it was fascinating to review the many shameful articles written in 2016 and 2017, the crazy days when every hinted rumor was worth a Breaking! designator. But one piece stood out, from Forbes in 2017. Hillary denied paying for the dossier, and the truth — the campaign paid the law firm Perkins and Coie who paid Fusion GPS who paid Orbis who paid Steele — was not known. The Forbes journalist wrote “If ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, Russia Gate is turned on its head as collusion between Clinton operatives (not Trump’s) and Russian intelligence. Russia Gate becomes Hillary Gate.” The article went on to say how James Comey refused to comment on Fusion GPS and the dossier in May 2017. Comey by then knew the real story and remained silent, even as the press was still running with the idea the dossier had been paid for by anonymous Democratic donors. If only we’d known.

The Late-Deceased Paradigm on Russia/China

April 5th, 2022 by Ray McGovern

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 sooner the geniuses of the Washington Swamp get it through their ivy-mantled brains that driving a wedge between Russia and China is not going to happen, the better the chances the world can survive the fallout (figurative and literal) from the war in Ukraine.

Today’s Swamp geniuses read their textbooks about how Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were adroit in taking advantage of the seething hostility between Russia and China a half-century ago. They leveraged that mutual loathing, and the fear that their rival might draw the U.S. onto its side, into a triangular paradigm that brought tangible benefits to the world. It was a balance of terror. But it was an insurable (“trust but verify”), strategic balance.

One benefit facilitated by the Nixon/Kissinger policies toward China and Russia was the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic-Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972, which remained the cornerstone of strategic stability for three decades until Bush junior quit the treaty. Amb. Chas Freeman (from the Chinese side) and I (from the Soviet side) were deeply involved in all this.

When less ideological, more enlightened leaders emerged in Beijing and Moscow, they began to recognize how mutually debilitating their rivalry was, and the hostility started to wane. Nevertheless, little did we imagine that as soon as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues. Putin also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves and crowed that relations had reached “unparalleled heights.”

That’s right; 2004. Putin’s strong initiative to cultivate close ties with China is hardly new. Years later, it has paid off handsomely, and has been facilitated by the inept “diplomacy” of the rising Juniors that President Biden has working for him. The Antony Blinkens and Jake Sullivans of this world – out off a mix of arrogance and ignorance – have greased the skids for the Russia-Chinese united front the US now faces on the explosive situation in Ukraine. Wet-behind-the-ears though they were, I was still amazed to see this dynamic duo talk down to their Chinese counterparts a year ago in Anchorage, and then brief Biden on how Russia had a huge problem with China.

After the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva on June 16, Biden’s team could not hustle him onto the plane before he gave the media these bon mots:

“Without quoting him [Putin] – which I don’t think is appropriate – let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is … seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world. … let me choose my words. Russia is in a very, very difficult spot right now. They are being squeezed by China. …”

At Putin’s post-summit presser he was asked if he had reached “a new level of trust with the US president”. Putin quoted Leo Tolstoy in response:

“Tolstoy once said, there is no happiness in life, only lightening flashes (зарницы) of it – cherish them. I believe that in this situation some kind of family trust is not possible. However, it seems to me we have seen “lightening flashes” (“зарницы” промелькнули) of it.”

Putin and Xi Try Giving Biden a Tutorial

In the wake of the June summit, the presidents of Russia and China spared no effort to demonstrate that their strategic relationship “in its closeness and effectiveness, exceeds an alliance.” See, for example, the video they released of the first minute of their virtual summit on Dec. 15) They were at pains to demonstrate that the triangular relationship has become isoscolese, with the US on the short end – in effect, two-against-one. As if to make things even clearer, Dec. 15 was also the day Moscow chose to give the US a draft treaty embracing Moscow’s far-reaching proposals for European security.

In the weeks that followed, the Biden administration reacted more positively than I had expected – both in its alacrity in moving so rapidly to begin negotiations (as Moscow had pretty much demanded) and in its willingness to discuss reinstating key provisions of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty abandoned by President Trump in 2019. Taking into account Putin’s many warnings that the deployment of missile-sites in Romania and Poland could threaten Russia’s ICBM force, I thought he might take “half a loaf,” especially since it had become clear that Ukraine was not destined for NATO membership anytime soon). In short, I thought Putin would see some of Tolstoy’s “flashes of light” toward resolving at least some of his security concerns.

‘Misunderestimating’

By invading Ukraine, Putin proved that reasoning wrong; he went for the whole nine yards, so to speak. In retrospect, I can identify three factors to which I failed to give sufficient weight:

  1. The bulk of Ukrainian forces were deployed in positions from which they could attack Donetsk and Luhansk with little or no warning. There were unconfirmed reports that they planned to attack in March, and Putin has mentioned this as a factor.
  2. I underestimated the reaction of top Russian officials at watching for eight years their compatriots – thousands of them also Russian citizens – being shelled by Ukrainians led by the likes of the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion. There is an understandable emotional element here. Every sentient Russian knows that the Nazi’s killed 26 million Soviet citizens during WWII, and that the Stepan Bandura-led Ukrainian Nazis did Hitler’s dirty work in Ukraine.
  3. But I believe most important was my reluctance to give full credibility to Chinese-Russian claims that their strategic relationship “exceeds in closeness and effectiveness” a traditional alliance; that, indeed, it has “no limits”. It was a mistake to see this as primarily rhetoric – and to avoid giving weight to how things looked from Beijing – as in, “after Russia, we’re next.”

The Chinese government-controlled Global Times took strong umbrage at Biden’s gran gaffe in Poland, which seemed to invite the Russian people to overthrow Putin, and accused Washington of trying to similarly overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.

“Just as the US has tried to separate Russians from Putin, it has also tried to separate the Chinese people from the Chinese leader of the Communist Party of China, and has always failed because Washington’s decision-makers just don’t understand that their hegemonic ambitions and hostile moves toward Russia and China threaten the peoples of Russia and China, not just any specific individual or political group, said experts.”

Certainly not lost on the Chinese was the recent release of the Pentagon’s updated National Defense Strategy, which identifies China as Enemy No. 1, not Russia. And Chinese officials have certainly been briefed on this remarkable article by the deputy director of The Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Matthew Kroenig: Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China: Pivoting to Asia and forgetting about Europe isn’t an option.

What Did Xi Know and When Did He Know It?

Given the critical importance of how united Russia and China really are when push comes to shove, this question seems of transcendent importance – not least for any assessment of President Putin’s frame of mind. Is he still cool, calculating? Or does the invasion of Ukraine suggest the opposite; that he has lost it? Among the Chinese specialists from whom I seek counsel, there is resistance to the thought that Putin forewarned Xi (perhaps during his Feb. 4 visit to Beijing) of his plan to invade Ukraine shortly after the Beijing Olympics. Many experts on China are reluctant to conclude that Xi was told in advance, and that he gave Putin a waiver from Westphalia, so to speak.

Clearly, the implications are serious. In my view, were Putin not to have been assured of Xi’s support, he would have been unhinged to attack Ukraine on Feb. 24. In other words, were Putin to have blindsided Xi, that would bespeak dangerous recklessness.

A Waiver on Westphalia: We Now Do ‘On the Merits’

I think it has become clear that Xi did give Putin a waiver on Westphalia, despite China’s bedrock “principled stand” on non-interference in the affairs of other countries per the Treaty of Westphalia. I know a lot less about China than about Russia, but I find it hard to believe that China’s recent support – so far, at least – for what Putin has done would be as strong and unwavering, were Xi to have been blindsided.

One straw in the wind flew into a Global Times report on Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s Wednesday meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi last Wednesday. Not surprisingly, both sides used the in-person meeting to “highlight the continuing efforts to strengthen the strategic partnership, amid the Ukraine crisis and other ongoing crises such Afghanistan”. What caught my eye was the the sentence that followed:

There have been frequent meetings and communications between the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers in 2022. The two held a phone conversation on February 24 when they exchanged views on the Ukraine issue.

February 24, of course, was invasion day. There is no sign that Wang took Lavrov to the woodshed for Putin’s invasion, or complained at having been kept in the dark. The Global Times continued:

On April 1, President Xi told EU leaders that “China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear-cut. China always stands on the side of peace and draws its conclusion independently based on the merits of each matter. China calls for upholding international law and universally recognized norms governing international relations, acts in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and advocates the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.”

I added the bold above for emphasis. One might have expected a reference to Westphalia rather than “the merits of each matter.”

Bottom line: Rapprochement between Russia and China has grown to entente. Someone needs to tell Biden. Proceeding on the assumption that the “world correlation of forces” has not undergone a sea change tips the balance still more in Washington’s disfavor.

*

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

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Featured image is from OneWorld

 

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

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

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

***

The Indian government relaxed regulations around gene-edited crops on March 30 – despite scientists’ warnings about the ‘largely unknown’ environmental impact and health impacts. 

Only last year, hundreds of thousands of rural workers took to the streets by foot, horses, and tractors.  Three controversial farm bills implemented were successfully overturned.

But the fight for India’s food sovereignty is now up against multinational cooperations pushing advances in gene manipulating technology, such as CRISPR or ‘gene-silencing pesticides‘ – which could open a pandora’s box of unintended consequences to the health and the environment.

Conflict 

Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava, is the founder of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and the Vice-Chairperson of the National Knowledge Commission says: 

“There are over 500 research publications by scientists of indisputable integrity, who have no conflict of interest, that establish harmful effects of GM crops on human, animal, and plant, health, and on the environment and biodiversity.”

A recent paper by Indian scientists showed that the Bt gene in both cotton and brinjal leads to inhibition of growth and development of the plant. On the other hand, virtually every paper supporting GM crops is by scientists who have a declared conflict of interest or whose credibility and integrity can be doubted.

Developers have previously been able to avoid regulations around gene-silencing crops by branding the products as “transient” or providing only “temporary genetic modification”, though this has been refuted by a number of scientific studies that have shown the RNAi pesticides can last up to 80 generations – warned a previous report by Friends of the Earth.  

Irreversible 

“The central government departments that have been acting as peddlers of GM technology-probably in collusion with MNCs marketing GM seeds—have shown little respect for the law.” his report says.

In a recent review called Food Without Choice published in the Tribune, Prof. Pushpa M. Bhargava warned:

“The ultimate goal of this attempt in India of which the leader is Monsanto is to obtain control over Indian agriculture and thus food production. With 60 percent of our population engaged in agriculture and living in villages, this would essentially mean not only control over our food security but also over our farmer security, agricultural security, and security of the rural sector.”

Dr. Bhargava’s strong stance against GM crops is supported by other eminent scientists in various parts of the world. A group of eminent scientists organized under the Independent Science Panel has stated in very clear terms:

“GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns. If ignored, could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected now.”

Bioweapons 

The Independent Science Panel (ISP) is a panel of scientists from many disciplines and countries, committed to the promotion of science for the public good. In a document titled ‘The case for a GMO-free Sustainable World,’ the ISP has stated further:

“By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics.”

This was highlighted in 2001 by the ‘accidental’ creation of a killer mouse virus in the course of an apparently innocent genetic engineering experiment.

New techniques such as DNA shuffling, are allowing geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory. This opens up the possibility of releasing millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution.

Rejected 

Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools for genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bioweapons.

Several scientists involved in studying the implications and impacts of genetic engineering got together at the International Conference on ‘Redefining of Life Sciences’ organised in Penang, Malaysia, by the Third World Network. They issued a statement (the Penang Statement, or PS) that questioned the scientific basis of genetic engineering.

This statement said: “The new biotechnology-based upon genetic engineering makes the assumption that each specific feature of an organism is encoded in one or a few specific, stable genes so that the transfer of these genes results in the transfer of a discrete feature.

“This extreme form of genetic reductionism has already been rejected by the majority of biologists and many other members of the intellectual community. Largely because it fails to take into account the complex interactions between genes and their cellular extracellular, and external environments that are involved in the development of all traits.

Risks 

The report continued: “It has thus been impossible to predict the consequences of transferring a gene from one type of organism to another in a significant number of cases.

“The limited ability to transfer identifiable molecular characteristics between organisms through genetic engineering does not constitute the demonstration of any comprehensive or reliable system for predicting all the significant effects of transposing genes.”

The world is becoming increasingly concerned about the serious health risks and numerous other adverse impacts of genetically modified crops and genetically modified organisms. Yet billion-dollar GMO multinationals have tried once again to evoke confusion and uncertainty in order to avoid regulation.

Their claim that gene-edited crops should not be subject to the same restrictions as GM crops is an attempt to find a loophole in-laws that are put in place to protect against the risks and dangers related to GMOs.

Mutagenesis 

In July 2018, the highest court in Europe ruled that gene-edited crops using CRISPR should be subject to the same strict rules and restrictions as GMOs. 

The court ruled: “Considering that the risks linked to the use of these new mutagenesis techniques might prove to be similar to those that result from production and release of a GMO through trans-genesis, since the direct modification of the genetic material of an organism through mutagenesis.

“These new techniques make it possible to introduce genetically modified varieties at a rate out of all proportion to those resulting from the application of conventional methods of mutagenesis.

“The European Commission and the European governments must now ensure that all new GMOs are fully tested and labeled and that any field trials are brought under GMO rules.”

Illegal 

A review of the legal and scientific facts surrounding this debate by Dr. Janet Cotter and Dr. R. Steinbrecher had concluded:

“It is clear that gene-edited crops and animals need to be assumed as GMOs in the same way as current GM crops.”

With gene-editing, researchers can add, delete or modify bits of an organism’s genome. Welcoming the court verdict. Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU’s food policy director stated:

“Releasing these new GMOs into the environment without proper safety measures is illegal and irresponsible, particularly given that gene-editing can lead to unintended side-effects.”

Despite this growing recognition of the risks of gene-edited crops, attempts have been speeded up in India by powerful lobbyists to gain backdoor entry for GM crops using gene-editing.

Their attempts appear to be succeeding as the central government and ministry of environment issued a notification on March 30 exempting some gene-edited crops and organisms from earlier rules framed for GM crops.

Future 

SND1 and SND2 genome-edited products, free from exogenous introduced DNA, are to be exempted from 1988-89 rules for GM organisms and will be taken out of the existing approval processes for these.

Those involved in protecting Indian agriculture from the onslaught of GM crops have already stated that these changes made recently are risky and unscientific and that these should be challenged legally.

Another view is that the existing 1988 rules should in fact be strengthened in such a way that such arbitrary changes are not possible in the future.

Without thorough regulations in place to assess and protect against the potential risks of gene-manipulating technologies, the government’s decision to relax laws around gene-editing will do little more than further entrench its role as a major driver of biodiversity loss and health problems.

*

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.

Bharat Dogra is an Honorary Convener and Campaigner with Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man over Machine (Gandhian Ideas for Our Times) and India’s Quest for  Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food. 

Featured image is from Pixhive

Ukraine and the Empire of Lies

April 5th, 2022 by Kurt Nimmo

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.

This article was first published on April 5, 2022

***

The United States government and its unofficial state media—Fox, ABC, CBS, NYT, The Washington Post, etc.—are pushing war propaganda to enflame the situation in Ukraine. The corporate media is megaphoning government lies, fake news, misinformation, and irrational fear-mongering of anything Russian.

Truth is squashed in the Empire of Lies and paved over with official narratives.

Russia is determined to destroy Ukraine, mass murder its civilians, assassinate its president, and gobble up the entire country like its communist predecessor.

We hear this every day.

Putin is Hitler and the Russians are barbarians looking to re-establish the Soviet Union’s hold over Eastern European territory.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jacques Baud isn’t an armchair warrior. He is a former colonel of the General Staff in Switzerland, an ex-member of Swiss strategic intelligence, and a specialist on Eastern countries. He served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations; in addition, he served with NATO and was assigned to work on stopping the proliferation of small arms in Africa. Baud was trained in the techniques of US and British intelligence services.

“He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine,” Baud’s bio posted on the Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement website states.

Baud’s account of the military situation in Ukraine and the political motivation of the Russian Duma, or parliament—and not specifically Vladimir Putin—in regard to Ukraine are at complete odds with the sensationalistic propaganda put out by corporate-state media.

Thanks to an English translation of the original French of Baud’s “La Situation Militaire en Ukraine,” we learn that the US, France, Canada, and the UK, are indeed interested in a new Cold War (and the massive profit such murderous ventures accumulate for the elite and stockholder without a conscience). The fulcrum of this new “cold” war is the ethnic conflict in Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe.

Screenshot from cf2r.org

The central issue of Ukraine in the wake of the US State Department’s engineered “color revolution” regime change in 2014 is the status of autonomy for the two proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk (referred to “Luhansk” in the West). The corporate media narrative, a bald-face lie, states that these two republics are demanding separation from Ukraine.

“In fact,” writes Baud, “these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language—because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the American-sponsored overthrow of [the democratically-elected] President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language in Ukraine.”

This decision caused a storm in the Russian-speaking population. The result was fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which was carried out beginning in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and some horrific massacres of the Russian population (in Odessa and Mariupol, the most notable).

Another lie cooked up by the neolibs and their warmongering compatriots, the neocons (the Democrat version is rife within the Biden administration), was that Russia was arming the “terrorists” (as the Ukrainian government calls them).

The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.

Following the Minsk 1 Agreements to end the conflict in Donbas, then president, Petro Poroshenko, turned around and brazenly “launched a massive ‘anti-terrorist operation’ (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements,” Baud writes.

Minsk 2 “did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very few who actually have) will note that it is written that the status of the Republics was to be “negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution within Ukraine.”

That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded the implementation of the Minsk Agreements while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of Ukraine.

On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass before then. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.

If you scan the headlines in the US, you get the picture of brave Ukrainian soldiers and citizens fighting against the advancing Russians, led by the mad autocrat Putin determined to wipe Kyiv off the map. In fact, as Baud points out, the Ukrainian military has long been in shambles, “undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoy[ing] the support of the population.”

According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country. (See links to sources in original.)

Because of this situation, the government resorted to using its nationalist and racist militias to wage war against the people in Donbas and elsewhere in eastern and southern Ukraine. NATO attempted to clean up the violent and fascist nature of the nationalist militias—and presumably cover up their terror activities against ethnic Russians—but this was a mission impossible.

In 2020, the militias comprised around 40 percent of Ukraine’s military forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. “They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities.”

These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic…[and] are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France. [….]

The war propaganda media has avoided or played down the fact the nearly half of the forces fighting in the Donbas are avowed racist nationalists determined to ethnically cleanse all Russians from Ukraine. When Putin talked about the “de-nazification” of Ukraine, he was talking about these militias.

Minsk 1 and 2 were thrown in the dustbin of history. On March 24, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the current president, a former actor and comedian, “issued a decree for the recapture of the Crimea, and began to deploy his forces to the south of the country,” Jacques Baud continues, mapping the outbreak of the war.

Both NATO and Russia conducted large military exercises. The war propaganda media in the West portrayed the Russian exercises as a preparation for an invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, in direct violation of the Minsk Agreements, “Ukraine was conducting air operations in Donbass using drones, including at least one strike against a fuel depot in Donetsk in October 2021. The American press noted this, but not the Europeans; and no one condemned these violations.”

During a February trip to Moscow, the French leader, Emmanuel Macron, said he would relay Russian concerns to Zelenskyy the following day.

But on February 11, in Berlin, after nine hours of work, the meeting of political advisors to the leaders of the “Normandy format” ended without any concrete result: the Ukrainians still refused to apply the Minsk Agreements, apparently under pressure from the United States. Vladimir Putin noted that Macron had made empty promises and that the West was not ready to enforce the agreements, the same opposition to a settlement it had exhibited for eight years.

A few days later, the enfeebled president of the United States, Joe Biden, declard Russia would most certainly invade Ukraine. “How did he know this?” Baud asks.

It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass had increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacted or intervened. It would be said later that this was Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries have deliberately kept silent about the massacre of the Donbass population, knowing that this would provoke a Russian intervention.

“On 18 January, Donbass fighters intercepted saboteurs, who spoke Polish and were equipped with Western equipment and who were seeking to create chemical incidents in Gorlivka. They could have been CIA mercenaries, led or “advised” by Americans and composed of Ukrainian or European fighters, to carry out sabotage actions in the Donbass Republics,” Baud notes. (Emphasis mine.)

For many, the documented involvement of the CIA and its commandeered US Army special forces represents a red flag something is fishy about the narrative coming out of Washington and Langley. (See “Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion.” Yahoo News, March 16, 2022.)

“As the battle lines hardened in Donbas, a small, select group of veteran CIA paramilitaries made their first secret trips to the frontlines to meet with Ukrainian counterparts there, according to former U.S. officials,” Yahoo reported. In other words, the CIA had direct contact with ethnic cleansing nationalist fanatics, same as a previous administration had direct contact with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet presence in that country.

“The Ukrainian military has [allegedly] claimed to have killed three Russian generals, including at least one reportedly eliminated by sniper fire. Yahoo News could not independently verify whether the Russian commanders were killed by CIAtrained troops. (Emphasis added.)

Prior to the “invasion,” during a period of escalated shelling of civilians, the Russian Duma recognized the independence of the two Donbas Oblast republics, and this resulted in the republics asking for assistance against the ethnic cleansing and terror operation by the Neo-Nazi militias and a reluctant, conscription evading regular army.

The Empire of Lies, guilty of unheard of murder and sabotage unleashed around the world after the end of WWII, has pushed its false narrative fast and hard, as it did with its offensive operations against Iraq, Syria, and Libya. The corporate propaganda media excels at the art of war propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies.

In order to make the Russian intervention seem totally illegal in the eyes of the public, Western powers deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware…

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun intense shelling the civilian population of Donbass, forcing Vladimir Putin to make a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or to stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed.

Baud goes on to explain how the Russian military is going about demilitarizing the country—one of Russia’s main objectives, the second being “de-nazification,” that is to say military action against fanatical Ukrainian nationalists attempting to ethnically cleanse Ukraine of its ethnic Russian minority. Much of the Ukrainian army was deployed to the south in preparation for military action to retake the Crimea. Due to this, the Russians were able to encircle much of Ukraine’s military and its ideologically rabid nationalist militias.

Image on the right: The bombing of Maternity Hospital in Mariupol (Source: OneWorld)

The author explains in detail the de-nazification plan and the bombing of the Maternity Hospital in Mariupol. “According to CNN, 17 people were wounded, but the images do not show any casualties in the building and there is no evidence that the victims mentioned are related to this strike. There is talk of children, but in reality, there is nothing. This does not prevent the leaders of the EU from seeing this as a war crime. And this allows Zelensky to call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.”

According to Baud’s report, the militias had occupied the building, ran off the staff at gunpoint, and used the hospital as an observation post and anti-tank firing position (likely using US-supplied Javelin missiles).

The problem is that the paramilitary militias that defend the cities are encouraged by the international community not to respect the rules of war. It seems that the Ukrainians have replayed the scenario of the Kuwait City maternity hospital in 1990, which was totally staged by the firm Hill & Knowlton for $10.7 million in order to convince the United Nations Security Council to intervene in Iraq for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

Western politicians have accepted civilian strikes in the Donbass for eight years without adopting any sanctions against the Ukrainian government. We have long since entered a dynamic where Western politicians have agreed to sacrifice international law towards their goal of weakening Russia.

Baud is correct to conclude the US and its “partners” in Europe are deliberately distorting the picture for ideological reasons. The plan is very similar to what was used in the past.

Some Western politicians obviously wanted there to be a conflict. In the United States, the attack scenarios presented by Anthony Blinken to the UN Security Council were only the product of the imagination of a Tiger Team working for him—he did exactly as Donald Rumsfeld did in 2002, who “bypassed” the CIA and other intelligence services that were much less assertive about Iraqi chemical weapons. (Emphasis in original.)

Saddam Hussein did have chemical and biological weapons—provided by US corporations, as I documented two decades ago. However, he had no intention of targeting the United States, and instead concentrated on restless Kurds. As for the fallaciously touted weapons of mass destruction, George W. Bush made a comedy routine out of the widely debunked claims that resulted in the extermination of more than a million Iraqis.

“What makes the conflict in Ukraine more blameworthy than our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya?” Jacques Baud finally asks of complicit politicians and a tone-deaf and ignorant public.

What sanctions have we adopted against those who deliberately lied to the international community in order to wage unjust, unjustified and murderous wars?… Have we adopted a single sanction against the countries, companies or politicians who are supplying weapons to the conflict in Yemen, considered to be the “worst humanitarian disaster in the world?”

*

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

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

The Detectives: Hunting Toxic Chemicals in the Arctic

April 5th, 2022 by Nancy Bazilchuk

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.

***

At first, it was a simple question: what exactly did oil pollution do to grey seals off the coast of Norway?

It was the early 1980s, and a young Norwegian ecotoxocologist, Bjørn Munroe Jenssen, was asked by Conoco Philips to find the answer.

The oil company was just beginning to look for oil in an area of the North Sea called the Halten Bank, off the coast of mid-Norway.

Jenssen and his colleagues knew that oil spills could contaminate seal fur, especially the pups.

“And actually more than 50% of them were polluted by these small tar balls, when they lie and rest, their fur gets contaminated. But we don’t think there are any large effects of that because it’s external contamination,” Jenssen said in the newest episode of 63 Degrees North, NTNU’s English-language podcast.

But Jenssen and his colleagues wondered if there were other contaminants getting into the bodies of the animals. So they did some blood tests. And what they found shocked them.

The poison book

Humans have been making and using chemicals for millennia, but their production skyrocketed in the 20th century. One chemical in particular, DDT, was discovered to be a potent insecticide by a Swiss chemist, Paul Herman Müller, in 1939. Its use during the Second World War saved many lives, by killing insects that carried malaria and typhus. Muller won the Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery.

But as the use of these and other chemicals increased, biologists began to see that they could have unintended and potentially Earth-shattering consequences.

In September, 1962, an American marine biologist and author Rachel Carson
Carson published a book documenting just how damaging pesticides were to the environment. She privately called it “the Poison Book.” This work would help spawn the environmental movement across the Western world. It was called Silent Spring.

In spite of Carson’s work, chemical use continued to grow. They were used for everything from controlling insects and weeds to making materials fire-resistant. DDT had been banned, but many other chemicals were in widespread use.

Rachel Carson’s book made national news. This clip is from The New York Times from 22 July 1962, page 86.

Blood and blubber

The blood and tissue tests that Jenssen and his colleagues did contained an alphabet soup of substances.

We found that there were associations between blood levels of contaminants and levels of thyroid hormones, which are hormones that are very important for growth, for thermal regulation, for producing energy, and so on.

“We started to look for other contaminants like the PCBs, polychlorinated biphenols, and pesticides, like the old DDT, which was used a lot, and they were regulated in Norway at that time, but not globally,” he said. “And we found actually quite high concentrations of these compounds in the seals…. in their blood or in their blubber we examined. We even found levels in the brains of these small newborn pups.”

Then it was just a question of determining if the chemicals were affecting the contaminated animals.

The answer turned out to be: Yes.

“We found that there were associations between blood levels of contaminants and levels of thyroid hormones, which are hormones that are very important for growth, for thermal regulation, for producing energy, and so on,” Jenssen said. “So we thought that that might be a very important effect that could affect the survival or the health of the pups.”

Riding the wind

Jenssen didn’t just find these chemicals in seal pups. When he subsequently did tests on animals in arctic Norway, he found a huge spectrum of chemicals in them too — in everything from polar bear milk to Greenland shark blood.

But were all these chemicals coming from? They weren’t being generated in the Arctic, because there’s almost no industrial activity there.

What researchers gradually came to understand was that many of these pollutants can ride the wind or travel in ocean currents. If they are spilled or released somehow, some can vaporize and get carried into the atmosphere, where they ride the prevailing winds north. They might condense on their journey, and get deposited on the ground again, only to be vaporized when it’s warm enough.

And once they arrive in the Arctic, they tend to stay there, trapped in the snow, or as we now know, contained in the fat or blubber of the animals that live there.

And as Jenssen and other researchers have found, they have significant effects on the hormones of the animals that are contaminated.

Native populations and health problems

Jon Øyvind Odland is a gynaecologist and global health researcher at NTNU and at UiT — the Arctic University of Norway.

As Bjørn Munroe Jenssen was documenting the kinds of chemicals that were accumulating in animals, particularly in the Arctic, Odland thought he would look at what was happening with native peoples in the far north.

Native people living in the far north who eat a traditional diet typically eat foods that are high in fat. And many of these substances concentrate in fats.

So when Odland studied native peoples in Chukotka, in eastern Russia, he found that they too, had high levels of contaminants in their blood. What’s more, they found a clear association between these high levels of contaminants and the effectiveness of childhood vaccines.

This posed a difficult challenge: Traditional diets are in many ways much healthier for people living in these most northerly areas. If native people switch to a more Western diet, they can develop other health problems, such as type II diabetes and heart disease.

“It’s the Arctic dilemma,” Odland said in the podcast. “The pollutants follow the food, the best nutrition you can get.”

Zooplankton on painkillers

Ida Beathe Øverjordet was one of Jenssen’s graduate students, studying mercury in the Arctic. Now she’s working at SINTEF, Scandinavia’s largest independent research institute, and continuing her work on pollutants in the Arctic.

Ida Beathe Øverjordet takes samples as part of her work studying where and how pharmaceuticals are found in the Arctic. Photo: Lacie Setsaas, SINTEF Ocean

Recently, she and her colleagues decided to see if they might pharmaceuticals in arctic creatures like tiny zooplankton in samples they took in Svalbard, the Norwegian archipelago at 79 degrees North latitude.

It’s well known that pharmaceuticals find their into rivers, streams and lakes from treated wastewater in industrialized countries, but Øverjordet wondered if pharmaceuticals might somehow have also found a way to hitchhike to the north.

And they found them.

“We found quite high levels actually of painkillers, like ibuprofen and diclofenac. And also antibiotics and antidepressants we found in these tiny creatures living in the Arctic,” she said.

Listen to 63 Degrees North to learn more about the fate of these chemicals — and how science is helping policymakers do the right thing.

*

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.

Sources

Bourgeon, Sophie; Riemer, Astrid Kolind; Tartu, Sabrina; Aars, Jon; Polder, Anuschka; Jenssen, Bjørn Munro; Routti, Heli Anna Irmeli. (2017) Potentiation of ecological factors on the disruption of thyroid hormones by organo-halogenated contaminants in female polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the Barents Sea. Environmental Research. vol. 15

Ciesielski, Tomasz Maciej; Hansen, Ingunn Tjelta; Bytingsvik, Jenny; Hansen, Martin; Lie, Elisabeth; Aars, Jon; Jenssen, Bjørn Munro; Styrishave, Bjarne. (2017) Relationships between POPs, biometrics and circulating steroids in male polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Svalbard. Environmental Pollution (1987). vol. 230.

Nuijten, RJM; Hendriks, AJ; Jenssen, Bjørn Munro; Schipper, AM. (2016) Circumpolar contaminant concentrations in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and potential population-level effects. Environmental Research. vol. 151.

Treskina, Natalia Albertovna; Postoev, Vitaly; Usynina, Anna A.; Grjibovski, Andrej; Odland, Jon Øyvind. (2021) Sociodemographic factors influencing the health of pregnant women: Changes in the arctic countries over the past decades. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. vol. 2021 (6).

Chashchin, Valery; Kovshov, Aleksandr A.; Thomassen, Yngvar; Sorokina, Tatiana; Gorbanev, Sergey A.; Morgunov, Boris; Gudkov, Andrey B.; Chashchin, Maxim; Sturlis, Natalia V.; Trofimova, Anna; Odland, Jon Øyvind; Nieboer, Evert. (2020) Health risk modifiers of exposure to persistent pollutants among indigenous peoples of Chukotka. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH). vol. 17 (1).

Featured image: Bjørn Munro Jenssen nets a grey seal pup. Photo: Private

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.

***

Joe Bidensparked a global uproar” on March 26, declaring Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power.” He also said “this battle will not be won in days or months, either. We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.”

This was public confirmation that the U.S. goal in Ukraine is “regime change” in Russia, no matter how long, or how many Ukrainian and Russian lives it may take—or how many people become refugees, or how the world economy will be damaged.

“The words of a president matter,” Biden said. “They can move markets. They can send our brave men and women to war. They can bring peace.” In this case Biden’s words helped move markets for the military-industrial complex and big U.S. energy companies. They were not intended to bring peace.

Biden’s remarks came after a triple summit in Brussels of NATO, the European Union and the G7 big capitalist countries. There he “coaxed a display of unity” among U.S. allies, but “limited practical outcomes… underlined the limited options,” according to Agence France Presse-AFP. European powers stopped short of sanctions against Russian gas supplies, the report said, “fearing the consequences for their own energy security.”

“Why I asked for this NATO meeting,” Biden said, “is to be sure that, after a month, we will sustain what we’re doing, not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year,” according to the AFP report. Speaking afterwards in Warsaw, Poland, Biden expressed the aggressive tone he hoped for in Brussels – to fire up his most militant NATO ally, and chat with members of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division stationed there.

PR War “Off Message”

Biden’s statement “went further than even U.S. presidents during the Cold War,” according to a Washington Post report: It “immediately reverberated around the world as world leaders, diplomats, and foreign policy experts sought to determine what Biden said, what it meant—and, if he didn’t mean it, why he said it.” White House aides “were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change.” But “they did concede it was… off message,” the report said.

Message control is a key weapon for U.S. war planners and their Ukrainian clients. CIA Director William Burns testified March 3 that “we have had a great deal of effect in… demonstrating to the entire world that this is premeditated and unprovoked aggression…” The effort involves a super-professional message management operation, described by Dan Cohen, that “has produced a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda aimed at stirring up public and official support.” The international effort is led by PR Network of the UK.

The PR campaign helped the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry produce a set of “key messages.” It ruled out use of the terms “civil war in Donbas,” “internal conflict,” “conflict in Ukraine” and “Ukrainian crisis” to describe the Ukrainian government’s war against the secessionist republics of the Donbas region. The UN Human Rights Office estimates that 14,200 people, including 3,404 civilians, have been killed in combat in eastern Ukraine since 2014.

The estimated death toll also includes 4,000 members of Ukrainian forces (illustrative photo)

Ukrainian army shelling Donetsk (Source: Shutterstock)

Recent U.S. Regime Change Wars

U.S. message managers try to avoid comparison to recent U.S. regime change wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia. It was 23 years ago that NATO countries, without UN Security Council authorization, ordered attacks on Yugoslavia—NATO’s first target in Europe after the collapse of the USSR. The air strikes lasted 78 days, from March 24 to June 10, 1999.

About 1,000 NATO aircraft hit Serbia and Montenegro with thousands of cruise missiles and 80,000 tons of bombs, killing thousands and destroying countless buildings, hundreds of miles of roads, railroads and airfields, bridges, schools and hospitals. It also bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese citizens.

The Chinese government protested vigorously without escalating the crisis, getting a U.S. apology and several million dollars of reparations.

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

The Yugoslav city of Novi Sad on fire after U.S.-NATO bombing in 1999. [Source: wikipedia.org]

“This war did not come out of nowhere,” commented Serbian filmmaker Emir Kusturica. “This is a continuation of something sown long before. You can see the continuity of Russophobia in the West.” He added that NATO’s military intervention was followed by a color revolution that led to the overthrow of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. The same coup strategy was then used in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. NATO’s objective was the disintegration of the Yugoslav state. This is happening now against Russia, Kusturica said.

Biden’s message includes intense demonization of the Russian President, calling him a war criminal and a “butcher,” among other things—not likely to facilitate peace talks. That has not been the top priority for Washington, which has used Poland as a prime staging area for countless tons of military hardware, as well as mercenaries recruited from around the world.

A picture containing snow, sky, outdoor, day Description automatically generated

Tanks and other weapons in Poland destined for Ukraine. [Source: defensenews.com]

New Round of Peace Talks

Russian and Ukrainian delegations will hold a new round of face-to-face negotiations between March 28 and 30, reported China’s Xinhua news agency. Since February 28, the two sides have held three rounds of face-to-face peace talks and a series of online discussions, failing to reach a major agreement.

The new round of talks will take place after the Russian military announced on March 26 that “the main tasks of the first stage of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine had been completed.” That stage focused on securing eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine as Russia’s priorities—not taking Kyiv or other cities outside eastern Ukraine. The U.S. has interpreted the Russian message as a “scaling back” of its original war objectives. It could also be interpreted as a new opportunity for peace.

Some observers have said China could play an effective mediator role in peace talks, since it has substantial trade with all parties—Russia and Ukraine, the EU countries and the U.S. China has “Belt and Road” projects in numerous European countries, including Ukraine, giving it an interest in an early resolution to the conflict. But U.S. pressure on China to “switch sides” against Russia complicates the issue.

The Chinese newspaper Global Times editorialized March 27 that “NATO, under the leadership of Washington, is the real initiator and driving force behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine… What the U.S. really needs is tense and conflicting Russia-Europe relations,” the editorial said. “It is NATO’s eastward expansion that has triggered Ukraine’s desire to join NATO and greatly triggered Russia’s concerns over territorial security, which directly led to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict…”

Global Times raises the question: “do major European countries like Germany and France ‒ also NATO members—really hold a stance over the Russian-Ukrainian conflict that is in line with Washington’s interests? Unlike the past security crises in Europe, the EU will become the biggest victim of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It will have to bear the brunt of the conflict. Therefore, as the Ukraine crisis develops, the differences between the U.S. and Europe will become inevitable once the public opinion in major EU countries changes.”

NATO leaders at the Brussels summit called on all states, including China, to abstain from supporting Russia’s “war effort,” Global Times reported, “and to refrain from any action that helps Russia circumvent sanctions. They also said China is engaged in spreading lies and misinformation to support Russia.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said “We oppose groundless accusations and suspicion against China, and will not accept any pressure or coercion.”

A “Permanent State of Precarity”

Economist Michael Hudson agrees with the Chinese analysis, adding that U.S. policy is to control the world, and “to sort of repeat in Ukraine and Europe what it was doing in Syria and Libya.” John Mearsheimer, the noted exponent of the realist school of international relations, says “the West bears primary responsibility” for the disaster in eastern Europe, which “will cause a wrecked global economy.” In the global south, with much of the world’s population, many countries rely on grain imports from Ukraine and Russia, and worry about major shortages caused by supply chain disruptions.

South Africa’s ANC Youth League spokesperson, Sizophila Mkhize, told Breakthrough News on March 25 that “Our countries were invaded, led by the western countries, led by NATO itself; and we did not hear anyone say ‘pray for Libya,’ for instance… They could have avoided this war, like the president of South Africa said. But they’re arrogant, they’re self-serving and they’re selfish. And they don’t care about many of the lives that are going to be lost.” She added that “we have also realized the racism with which the people of Africa who were trapped in Ukraine were treated.” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has offered to help mediate the crisis.

Ajamu Baraka of Black Agenda Report says

“The war being waged against global humanity by the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination is a hybrid war that utilizes all the tools it has at its disposal—sanctions, mass incarceration, coups, drugs, disinformation, culture, subversion, murder, and direct military engagement to further white power.”

He adds that on the heels of the 2008 financial crash and the crisis of the Covid pandemic, today millions “are experiencing a permanent state of precarity with evictions, the continued loss of medical coverage, unaffordable housing and food costs, and a capitalist-initiated inflation.” He says U.S. rulers hope that “with the daily bombardment of war images, U.S. workers and the poor will embrace rising costs of gas and even more increases in the cost of food.”

The Brown University Costs of War Project estimates that the wars waged by the United States in this century have cost millions of lives, at least $8 trillion and counting, with another $8 trillion that will be spent over the next ten years on the military budget if costs remain constant from the $778 billion just allocated. The Costs of War Project also notes that “38 million people have been displaced by the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines.” Are the architects of NATO expansion ready to accept responsibility for more huge numbers of Ukrainian refugees?

Source: codepink.org

CodePink’s Open Letter

The anti-war group CodePink says “The U.S., which played a major role in exacerbating the conflict that led up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, must now play a major role in the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to achieve a ceasefire.” It adds that the United States must be ready to make compromises and support negotiations between Ukraine and Russia by committing to the following:

  • Rejection of a no-fly zone over Ukraine;
  • No NATO expansion;
  • Recognition of Ukraine as a neutral country;
  • Sanctions on Russia to be lifted;
  • Support for an international security agreement to protect the interests of all people on the European continent to remain free from war and occupation;
  • Support for Ukrainian demilitarization to the degree that missiles would be banned;
  • Supply humanitarian aid to Ukraine and support Ukrainian refugees.

*

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.

Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: A Ukrainian servicemen stands by a burned military vehicle near Sytniaky, Ukraine, March 3, 2022. Photo courtesy General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine/Facebook.

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.

***

Dr. Theresa Long, a medical officer with the United States military, has testified in court that she was ordered by a superior to suppress Covid-19 vaccine injuries following the Biden regime’s mandate.

The DoD downplayed Dr. Long’s conclusions, saying the increase in vaccine injuries was caused by a “glitch in the database.”

On March 10, Liberty Counsel, the law firm representing thirty members of the military who are fighting the military vaccine mandate, returned to federal court to defend the preliminary injunction Judge Steven Merryday granted two military plaintiffs that allowed them to skirt the military vaccine mandate.

The Department of Defense (DoD) asked the judge to set aside the injunction while the case was on appeal.

Judge Merryday is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Per DailyExpose: During the all-day hearing, Liberty Counsel presented compelling testimony from the Navy Commander of a surface warship and three military flight surgeons, Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, Lt. Col. Teresa Long and Col. (Ret.) Stewart Tankersley, M.D. In contrast, the DOD declined to present witnesses.

Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver said in an interview with the Blaze’s Daniel Horowitz on Monday that there have been three hearings now in this case, and the DoD has not yet offered a single witness. Instead of witnesses, the government “sends these declarations,” Staver explained. He said the judge has urged them to bring live witnesses to court so they can be cross examined, but they just refuse to do it. “So they send these declarations that some JAG attorney writes, and somebody in the military signs off on them.”

Staver said that the information the DoD has been presenting in court is “outdated, wrong, and would really be subject to dismantling under cross examination.” He added that cross examinations of his witnesses have only made their case stronger. “So they really don’t have anything to cross examine our witnesses with,” he said.

Staver told Horowitz that Judge Merryday has chastised the DoD lawyers during the hearings, telling them they have “a frail case,” and are “acting as though they are above the law.”

Dr. Theresa Long, a flight surgeon who holds a master’s degree in Public Health and is specially trained in the DMED, gave emotional testimony on March 10.

She and two other flight surgeons reviewed DMED last year and made some stunning discoveries about the high incidence of apparent vaccine injuries among members of the military.

According to the whistleblowers, certain disorders spiked after the vaccine mandate went into effect, including miscarriages and cancers, and neurological problems which increased by 1000 percent.

Dr. Long testified that she was contacted by high level officer the night before the hearing, and told not to discuss her findings regarding the explosive military medical data in court. The whistleblower reportedly said she felt threatened after she tried to get her superiors to address the findings, “fearing for her life and for the safety of her children.”

Since the whistleblowers came forward with the DMED data, the DoD has thrown cold water on their conclusions, saying the increase in vaccine injuries was caused by a “glitch in the database.”

Politifact contacted Peter Graves, spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency’s Armed Forces Surveillance Division, who said the data for 2021 is correct, but for some reason, the data for the five years prior was inaccurate. Graves told PolitiFact by email that the division reviewed data in the DMED “and found that the data was incorrect for the years 2016-2020.”

In other words, for five straight years, the data was seriously corrupted and none of the DoD’s data analysts figured this out, and then it fixed itself on its own in 2021. The DoD has since put out new numbers showing more illnesses among the troops for the years prior to 2021.

Staver asked Long a question about the DMED data during the hearing, and she answered: “I have been ordered not to answer that question.”

Judge Merryday reportedly asked Long: “Ordered by who?,” and the doctor explained what happened the night before the hearing.

Staver then asked Long if the information the military ordered her to withhold was relevant and helpful for the court and the public to know. She said, “yes,” and Staver asked her why.

Long reportedly paused and choked back tears as she told the judge: “I have so many soldiers being destroyed by this vaccine. Not a single member of my senior command has discussed my concerns with me … I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about it. I’m OK with that because I am watching people get absolutely destroyed.”

Dr. Long also testified that the data shows that deaths of military members from the vaccines exceed deaths from COVID itself.

Staver later told Horowitz that the DoD’s order for her not to discuss DMED amounted to witness tampering, especially since Long has whistleblower protections.

“They not only violated the Whistleblower Act, they potentially intimidated a witness and tried to change that witness’ testimony,” he said during the Conservative Review podcast on Monday.

The doctor said she is constantly contacted by people who have been injured by the genetic vaccines, and that many of those injured are pilots, who are expected to meet high fitness standards. Long told Staver that in just one afternoon she heard from four pilots who had just gotten MRIs back showing that they had myocarditis.

Morale is tanking in the military, she testified, with soldiers are in despair over the pressure to get the vaccine, and some are even having suicidal thoughts.

Long said she was aware of at least two people who have committed suicide over the pressure, and the threat of punishment for refusal.

She said the current regime’s policies are undermining “good order and discipline.”

In addition to Dr. Long, an unnamed Navy commander testified about his commander’s attempts to punish him for refusing the experimental injections.

On February 2, Judge Merryday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Navy from punishing the Commander because of his vaccination status. Judge Merryday ruled the Navy violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

When the court ordered the Commodore to comply with the law, he filed an affidavit saying he had “lost confidence” in the Commander because the Commander had not taken the COVID shots.

The judge then entered a preliminary injunction, and the DOD and the Navy filed a motion asking the court to set aside his injunction, arguing that due to their “lost confidence” in the commander, his ship could not deploy.

However, at the time the ship was allegedly unable to be deployed, the commander was actually far out to sea testing the ship and training the crew.

While many Commanders fail to complete these operations timely, the Commander completed the mission early and the ship deemed “safe and ready.”

In a dramatic moment, the Commander said he should not have to be there in court defending religious freedom. “Generals and admirals should be here saying what I am saying today to uphold religious freedom. Our religious freedoms are being attacked.”

Also testifying last week was Dr. Pete Chambers, a Purple Heart recipient who is in the Texas National Guard defending the southern border where 10,000-20,000 illegal immigrants are flooding through every week. “My job is to keep our soldiers safe,” Chambers said.

Chambers was hoping to retire from the military in 2023 after nearly 40 years of service, but his adverse reaction to the Moderna shot derailed his plans.

Trusting the military that the shots are “safe and effective,” and not knowing at the time that aborted fetal cells were used in the testing and/or development, he took the shot. He now suffers from demyelination, a condition affecting the central nervous system caused by the injection.

After his Moderna injury, Dr. Chambers met Lt. Col. Long. They reviewed the DOD’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), the military equivalent to the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where he discovered other military members also developed a demyelination disease after the COVID shots.

Chambers, a military flight surgeon and one of only six Green Beret surgeons, was told that his job was to get soldiers to vaccinated. His superiors told him that religious exemptions would be automatically denied. “Soldiers will try. Soldiers will fail,” this commanders said.

He pointed out that shots are not effective in preventing infection, and estimated that about 75-80% of soldiers getting infected are “double vaxxed” compared to only about 15% of soldiers who are not vaccinated.

Like Long, Chambers also testified that many soldiers are being injured by the COVID shots, and that “this is not normal.”

Dr. Stewart Tankersley, a flight surgeon who retired in September 2021 at the rank of Colonel, testified that the injections are neither safe nor effective.

Tankersley said he has personally treated over 200 COVID patients with no fatalities, and the group of doctors with whom he is associated has treated over 18,000 COVID patients with deaths only in the single digits.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in the military or civilian world, the lack of dialogue, the suppression of scientific dialogue.” Tankersley said on the stand.

Dr. Tankersley explained one of several reasons there are so many injuries from the COVID shots. The mRNA vaccines require a Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) as a delivery mechanism because the RNA quickly degrades without being encased in the LNP. The combination bypasses the natural immune system and creates inflammation that can inhibit the body’s innate immunity.

Dr. Tankersley testified that the shots are neither safe nor effective. He also testified that there are safe and effective treatments for COVID, including nasal rinsing and ivermectin.

Liberty Counsel argued that the DOD’s position that the only one way to combat COVID and ensure military readiness is to force the injections and kick out the unvaccinated is “untenable,” and that the mandate is undermining military readiness and harming morale.

Staver said: “I am honored to serve the brave men and women of the military. I am dismayed by the abuse and propaganda forced upon them from the White House and the Department of Defense. The truth will prevail, and freedom will win.”

*

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 TEUT

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.

***

When a principle of ancient jurisprudence, which is also a central procedural right in modern legal systems, is no longer valid, then a democratic state system – also referred to as a “silent dictatorship” by evil tongues – outs itself as an “open dictatorship”. Already in the past two years, only one opinion was valid, the so-called scientific and medical opinion about the worldwide threat of a newly created, supposedly deadly virus and its “eradication” by means of a gene-modifying treatment.

Now come the news coverage of a terrible war in the heart of Europe. And again the legal principle “Audiatur et altera pars – let the other part be heard” is disregarded: Oral and written reports from the other side are prevented or even banned. How long will a nation of free citizens, who already feel that something urgently needs to change in society, put up with this? The citizens want to live, work, sleep and look the youth in the eye in peace again.

Non-violent change of existing power relations seems inevitable

No one will use the word “revolution” because it is associated with individual and collective violence. But a change in the existing power relations seems inevitable. And the new social order to be shaped must be developed by the citizens themselves – in absolute freedom, without any coercion from outside. Free citizens are perfectly capable of negotiating together how they want to arrange their lives in order to live together in peace, tranquillity and equality.

Armed struggle in the form of individual terror or collective armed violence is out of the question! The world already has enough of that: Therefore, a “revolutionary process” must be non-violent!

However, history shows that in most cases it is not possible to directly set fellow citizens in motion for a humane, peaceful and free society. The instilled fear of harmless fellow citizens and the distrust of enlightened people is difficult to overcome. If existing power relations were overthrown somewhere, the “rebels” usually set up copies of the earlier forms of rule, only with other names and other ideological dressings.

Enlightenment and the problem of education

Consequently, one must continue to enlighten and convince people. The purpose of enlightenment efforts is to purify human consciousness of individual and collective prejudices. In addition, their acquired fears of harmless fellow human beings and supposed authorities must be removed. Psychology with a psychologically guided “people’s university” would be the appropriate tool to enable people to adequately assess themselves, the political situation and the necessary social- and culture-changing measures. This can also lead to collective actions of “civil disobedience” and strikes.

More important than enlightenment, however, is the problem of education. The insight of depth psychology made clear the immense significance of education for the emergence of a humane world.

The educational methods of the past created the type of human being that could cause the tragedy of history.

The authoritarian principle, for centuries regarded as the unquestionably valid basis of educational behaviour, throttled people’s sense of community already in their childhood years and endowed them with that readiness for aggression through which a violent world could remain in a state of violence.

If pedagogy in the parental home and school renounces the authoritarian principle and the use of violence, it will be able to educate people who do not have a “subject mentality” and will therefore not be a docile tool for those in power in our world.

The task set is difficult, but it can be solved!

*

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 a 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.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Democratic State System. The “Silent Dictatorship” Has Become An “Open Dictatorship”. The “Revolutionary Process” must be Non-violent!
  • Tags: ,

It is Illegal to Recruit Canadians to Fight for Ukraine

April 5th, 2022 by Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War

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

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

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

***

It’s reprehensible that the Trudeau government is failing to enforce its own laws on the recruitment of Canadians to fight in foreign wars. Here is the law.

  1. 11(1) Foreign Enlistment Act:

Recruiting

  • 11(1) Any person who, within Canada, recruits or otherwise induces any person or body of persons to enlist or to accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state or other armed forces operating in that state is guilty of an offence.

In Hamilton, a portal has been set up to “Fight For Ukraine.” Its creator, businessman Chris Ecklund, stated in an interview with the Hamilton Spectator, “This is not a recruiting tool.” However, the website contains a direct link to the International Legion of the Defence of Ukraine, a body set up by Ukrainian President Zelensky to recruit foreigners for combat in Ukraine. By his own admission in the article, Ecklund admits to aiding and counselling those who intend to fight for Ukraine and to help the wounded return to Canada.

In addition, Ecklund’s portal lists the Ukrainian Embassy and two consulates in Canada, in Toronto and Edmonton, for Canadians to contact who wish to join the Ukrainian International (Foreign) Legion. According to the Foreign Enlistment Act, embassies are limited as well to recruiting their own nationals for foreign wars.[1]

The conflict in Ukraine is a very serious crisis, that has the potential of spreading into a wider European and even world war. It’s important, therefore, that Canada play a useful role in de-escalating the conflict, rather than fuelling the fighting, as it is now, with funding, lethal arms, and mercenaries.

The Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War calls for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine through de-escalation, dialogue, and international diplomacy.

We note that, in the wake of the war hysteria over Ukraine that is gripping this country, respect for the rule of law is being over-ridden by government officials and is escalating the conflict. Therefore, we call on the Government of Canada to enforce its own laws preventing the recruitment and enlisting of Canadians in the International Legion of the Defence of 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.

Notes

[1] (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the action of foreign consular or diplomatic officers or agents in enlisting persons who are nationals of the countries they represent and not Canadian nationals, in conformity with the regulations of the Governor in Council.

Featured image is from FAIR

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 Wayne County judge on March 29 granted a motion by Treasurer Eric Sabree extending the ban on owner-occupied homes being placed in jeopardy of seizure and public auction.

This decision came in the aftermath of a campaign by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition (MNC) and other housing groups in the city of Detroit.

A resolution was passed on March 29 by the Detroit City Council in favor of an extension after numerous people spoke out at the municipal legislative meeting calling on people to participate in the demonstration the following day at the Wayne County Treasurer’s Office in the Greektown district of Downtown. Although this resolution was passed without opposition, the MNC is calling for a permanent solution to the housing crisis in Detroit and throughout the county.

Detroit Moratorium NOW! Coalition demonstration outside Wayne County Treasurer on March 30, 2022 (photo by Roslyn Ogburn)

Activists gathered outside at 400 Monroe, the Wayne County Treasurer, on March 30 welcoming the extension of the halt to foreclosures and auctions of owner-occupied homes, however, emphasizing that renters and those owing taxes prior to 2017, are also in dire need of protection from homelessness. Auctioning of owner-occupied homes among other properties in Detroit has not resulted in any revitalization of neighborhoods where people are still leaving in the thousands every year.

MNC has been waging a struggle against property tax foreclosures since 2015 when it was announced that tens of thousands of households were being threatened with home seizures. A citywide effort in 2015-2016 ushered in the current period where homeowners were allowed to make arrangements for paying property tax arrearages.

Later in 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Covington & Burling, a private law firm. Although an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon in 2018, the ruling did not provide any real relief for those who had lost their homes years before due to the role of the financial institutions, real estate firms, the failure of city, state and federal agencies to protect homeowners and the general population which suffered due to the lost of population and tax incomes. Homeowners were over assessed at least $600 million due to the actions of the banks and the municipal administration. The City of Detroit agreed to publicize existing housing assistance programs. Nonetheless, the fact that the residents of the overwhelming majority African American population in Detroit are facing once again a property tax foreclosure crisis indicates clearly that the legal agreement did not encompass any permanent solutions to the crisis. (See this)

In fact, the MNC demanded that the deadline for applying for assistance under the 2018 agreement be extended. This served to save the homes of over 1000 households. The offices of the MNC served as a base where over 100 people volunteered to knock on doors and publicize the fact that those eligible for housing relief receive the assistance they needed. Even though the corporate-imposed Mayor Mike Duggan and Wayne County took credit for the saving of these homes for working class and poor residents, there has not been any serious effort to genuinely address the housing crisis in Detroit and Wayne Country.

Next Steps in the Housing Crisis

Wayne County Treasurer Eric R. Sabree issued a statement on March 29 saying:

“Our number one priority remains keeping people in their homes and to many Wayne County taxpayers are still suffering significant economic hardship due to the COVID-19 crisis. We also know that while many have applied for property tax relief from certain programs, they needed more time to compile the appropriate paperwork. So, we continue to make some allowances considering the pandemic.”

This language could have easily been lifted from the MNC press release issued the previous week and years before. However, the point is to deal with the broader crisis of housing and economic underdevelopment across the U.S.

The so-called Great Recession of 2008-2010 can be viewed as the modern-day manifestation of the housing crisis, although the actual problems extend back many decades to the inherent racist character of the Federal Housing Act and the Federal Highway Act enacted from the 1930s to the 1960s. In Detroit, tens of thousands of African Americans, Latin Americans and Asian Americans had been dislocated from the areas now known as Downtown and Midtown.

Since the beginning of the 2000s, predatory lending, overinflated property values and consequent property tax assessment padding has exacerbated the institutional discrimination against nationally oppressed peoples. During the period after 2008, African Americans throughout the U.S. lost up to half or more of their household wealth which was derived from home ownership. The subsequent economic collapse in 2008-2009 impacting the banks, automotive companies, insurance firms and the demographic composition of urban areas, has never been adequately addressed by successive administrations in the White House. Therefore, the crisis remains and with the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout, this question will remain for the unforeseeable future.

In the ruling issued by the Wayne County Third Judicial Circuit Court on March 29 notes:

“The parcels of property previously removed from foreclosure by Court Order of February 22, 2022 are no longer in forfeiture for the reason that the delinquent taxes, interest, penalties and fees have been paid, and the properties have been redeemed are owned by persons who qualify for and have been granted a hardship extension in which to pay the forfeited taxes, interest, penalties and fees…. Are subject to other considerations which in the judgment of the Treasurer are best not foreclosed at this time.”

These words from Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy M. Kenny are important in the present period. However, residents of Detroit voted by an 81% margin in the 2021 municipal elections to establish a Reparations Commission to propose compensation for historical discrimination. The housing crisis and the dislocation of more than a million people over the last seven decades could serve as a beginning point in paying reparations to African Americans and other people of color communities.

A National Problem: Housing is a Human Right

The situation involving housing rights are acute in cities like Detroit where homeowners are being threatened with foreclosures and renters are subjected to higher rates and threats of evictions. The Eviction Lab at Princeton University, which tracks these issues on a national level, reveals that the crisis remains despite the statistics indicating that the problem has not accelerated to the anticipated levels of increase.

Princeton Eviction Lab graph on COVID-19 evictions

This is undoubtedly related to the anticipated worsening social crisis in municipalities if evictions are allowed to proceed at astronomical levels. Housing advocacy groups have not relented in their demands for moratoriums on evictions and promoting the notion that housing is indeed a human right.

According to Eviction Lab in a recent report:

“Eviction filings have increased since the end of the CDC moratorium but remain well below normal levels in nearly all jurisdictions we monitor. Why might this be? It is too soon to say definitively, but several plausible explanations bear investigation. First, emergency rental assistance (ERA) may be deterring filings. The scale and pace of ERA distribution increased markedly over the summer of 2021. The Treasury Department reported that state and local ERA programs delivered approximately $1.6 billion in June. By October, that was up to $2.86 billion, an increase of nearly 80%. The Department of the Treasury expects that $25–$30 billion of ERA funds will be spent or obligated by the end of 2021. Improvements in the distribution of these funds may have helped to encourage landlord participation in these programs and prevented eviction cases from being filed.”

In Detroit MNC intervened beginning on September 1, 2021 with press conferences and rallies along with direct pressure on those agencies designated to distribute housing assistance funding through the COVID Emergency Rental Assistance (CERA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP). These funds belong to the poor and working people in need.

Moreover, housing within any modern industrialized society should be considered a fundamental right. Until this is accepted by the political institutions governing the U.S., there will continue to be a crisis in housing and other essential services for people across the country.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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: Detroit hunger striker over property tax foreclosure and lack of support, Tamira Kemet speaks out against housing crisis (Photo by Abayomi Azikiwe)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Foreclosures Moratorium Extended for One Year in Detroit and Wayne County
  • Tags: ,

Reawakening of Consciences: “The threat of a Third World War is weighing on all of us”. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

By His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, April 04, 2022

They have told us that President Putin invaded Ukraine to support his expansionist ambitions, but in reality the main purpose of Russia’s military operation is to prevent the aggression of the deep state and NATO. Putin is fighting against the same globalist elite that holds us all hostage.

New Study Finds Persistent Heart Abnormalities Among COVID-19 Vaccinated Children

By Guy Hatchard, April 04, 2022

A follow up study conducted at the Seattle Children’s Hospital of children suffering myocarditis following their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was published in the Journal of Pediatrics on 25 March 2022. The study followed up 16 male children, with an average age of 15 years, 3 to 8 months after their initial diagnosis with myocarditis within a short time frame following mRNA vaccination.

Frontline Doctor Says Fetal Deaths Up Nearly 2,000 Percent Since COVID Jab Rollout

By Emily Mangiaracina, April 04, 2022

Dr. Peterson Pierre is warning expecting mothers to “look out” for their own kids, since the CDC is not changing their COVID shot recommendations, despite the spike in preborn deaths.

“The withdrawal from Kiev is Russian escalation. It’s the…transformation from a psychological operation to a textbook war”

By Marko Marjanović and Mike Whitney, April 04, 2022

It is undeniable that how the Russians were prosecuting the war at the start and how they are prosecuting it now is entirely different. Not just in the way they fight (small detachments vs combined arms) or advance (mad dash vs deliberate) but also on the map itself. Where before they were pouring forces into six different axes of advance they have now pulled back along many of them or even abandoned them entirely to focus on just the two Donbass axes.

Israeli Apartheid: It Is Time for the Canadian Government to Take Action

By Jim Miles, April 04, 2022

Michael Lynk is the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied after the 1967 nakba.  He is Associate Professor of Law at Western University in London, Ontario, where he teaches labour law, constitutional law and human rights law. His report, “Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert”, was published recently.

Gearing Up for the Big Reveal: HHS Releases FDA Gene Editing Guidance, May Soon Admit mRNA COVID Shots Are Actually Gene Therapy Products

By Kevin Hughes, April 04, 2022

Medical professional and veteran pharmaceutical drug development expert Dr. Jane Ruby told host Stew Peters during a recent episode of “The Stew Peters Show” that the FDA has been actually creating guidance documents since 2015 and that these documents tell pharmaceutical companies how they want them to run studies and look at safety and efficacy in gene editing or human genome editing.

Bucha Massacre and Genocide of Ethnic Russians in Ukraine

By Nauman Sadiq, April 04, 2022

The Russian defense ministry said earlier on Sunday that all Russian troops had left the city of Bucha in the Kyiv region as far back as March 30, while the “evidence of crimes” surfaced four days later, when Ukrainian security forces and allied ultra-nationalist militias arrived in the city.

When Is mRNA Not Really mRNA?

By Dr. Robert Malone, April 04, 2022

What is pseudouridine, why is it being injected into you, and why should you care.

Russia Would be ‘Blown Off the Face of the Earth’ if It Used WMDs Against Ukraine. Fox News Sean Hannity

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, April 04, 2022

War propaganda by the mainstream media whether by CNN, FOX news, the BBC or the New York Times all follow a narrative, a script produced by the Military-Industrial complex (MIC) for endless conflicts around the world.  A perfect example was recently demonstrated by long time FOX news TV host Sean Hannity who is clearly a propagandist for the MIC and Israel had recently threatened Russia with annihilation if it used any sort of weapons of mass destruction in its war on Ukraine, a war that was instigated by the US and its NATO allies.

Russiagate: The Smoking Gun

By Peter Van Buren, April 04, 2022

We are looking for two smoking guns now in connection with Russiagate. Today’s Part I will show Hillary Clinton herself sat atop a large-scale conspiracy to use the tools of modern espionage to create and disseminate false information about Trump.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Reawakening of Consciences: “The threat of a Third World War is weighing on all of us”.

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 Whitney: You think that the Russian Army was spread-too-thin to achieve its strategic objectives in Ukraine, and you point to the (Russian) army’s withdrawal around Kiev to make your point. (“Russia’s effort was very clearly too diluted over too many axes and sectors.”) But, now, you think that things have changed and Russia has started to make the correct military decisions. How have Russia’s plans changed and how will it​ affect upcoming clashes with the Ukrainian Army?

Marko Marjanović: It is undeniable that how the Russians were prosecuting the war at the start and how they are prosecuting it now is entirely different. Not just in the way they fight (small detachments vs combined arms) or advance (mad dash vs deliberate) but also on the map itself. Where before they were pouring forces into six different axes of advance they have now pulled back along many of them or even abandoned them entirely to focus on just the two Donbass axes.

There are two possibilities why that is so. One is that they always intended to start by doing A and then shift to B. The other is that they tried A, saw that it wasn’t working, and came up with B that would solve the problems of A.

I think the second is the correct explanation. They are trying something else now because what they tried first didn’t succeed. Yes, they had spread themselves too thin along too many axes. You could see that in the south for example where the relatively small force breaking out from Crimea then spread itself between storming Mariupol, trying to envelop Donbass from the south, and advancing across the Dnieper into southwestern Ukraine. I am not singling out the south because of its significance but because it was such a blatant example of overstretch. You have a force that already represents just 20% of the Russian maneuver strength in the theater and this force then additionally splits itself between three competing objectives. That’s crazy. It is also here that you saw the very first adjustments with much of the territory across the Dnieper abandoned to free up more units for Donbass.

The reason Donbass was crying out for units so badly was that so many were headed to Kiev. Russia has five Military Districts but the Northern one is based around the Northern Fleet so only four have large land forces. All the units from two of these Districts, the Eastern and Central, were tied up in the Kiev operation as well as the premier 1st Guards Tank Army of the Western District covering their southern flank around Sumy. Fully 50% of the Russian strength was in the drive on Kiev. Now, it is true that these forces tied down Ukrainian units that could conceivably be used elsewhere, but I do not think so little of Russian generals that I think they would have sent 50% of their force on a mission no more ambitious than to “tie down” enemy forces. Especially after seeing how insanely ambitious goals were assigned to the depleted southern forces.Also, since the Russian withdrawal from Kiev is now in full swing before Donbass has even been encircled it doesn’t look like Russian generals value “tying down” enemy forces all that much.

What the outcome of concentrating everything against the large Ukrainian army in Donbass will be I can not say, but I can give you some parameters. If the Russians are able to encircle it and capture thousands that will be a big victory for them. But if the Ukrainians can only be pushed out gradually and slowly that will be a victory for their side. An inconclusive outcome would be if the Ukrainians are able to flee and reposition as it would mean they had preserved their force but had not won time or inflicted attrition.

What I can tell you is what the consolidation means for Twitter and the footage coming out of the war. There will be no more videos of burned Russian supply convoys or of Russians catastrophically defeated because they were sent too far ahead in a too-small package.

The key takeaway is that until now the Russian military was failing because the military-political leadership was having it prosecute a bad and poorly prepared plan. It is only now that its plan is actually a good one that we will get to see how good or bad this military is at the tactical level. It may still fail but it now won’t be because of bad generalship.

MW: You say Russia kicked-off the fighting under the misguided belief that they could minimize the amount of damage and death but still prevail in the conflict. I find this analysis very persuasive, especially when you say: “The initial plan was focused on testing if the Ukrainian state could be made to unravel without having to go after its military and killing tens of thousands of Ukrainian servicemen.” That plan seems to have failed illustrated by the fact that the war continues to drag on with no end in sight. Now that Russia has changed its military approach, do you think they need to change their overall objectives as well? (Demiliterisation and DeNazification) These goals seem more aspirational than realistic, or do you disagree?

MM: A month into this war Russian-Ukrainian bloodshed on a large scale now seems normal to us, inevitable even, but we mustn’t lose sight of what the world was like before February 24. Just a month before, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had declared the idea of a Russo-Ukrainian war “unacceptable” and a “medical diagnosis”. A war between these two intertwined peoples seemed unthinkable, including because Moscow kept insisting there was a taboo on fratricidal war between East Slavs.

We would err to dismiss this as entirely hypocritical and insincere. There are good reasons to believe this taboo was a real thing for Moscow and a real hang-up for the Russian leadership. In this context launching the “special military operation” as a full-on war with tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians already baked into the plan was something the Russian leadership couldn’t force itself to do. In such a context, to be able to make a move against Kiev at all you would almost have to talk yourself into believing there was at least a small chance that it could be done in a way that avoided any major fighting.

So, we can deem the initial plan misguided, but possibly for the Russian leadership it was the crutch they needed to embark on this enterprise at all. They could not justify full-on war to themselves from the get-go. To get over the hangup they needed to package the chance of war with the chance of success without major bloodshed. Incidentally, waging the kind of operation that might somehow shock the Ukrainian state into collapse demanded a totally different arrangement of forces than would a conventional military campaign. Whereas a by-the-books military campaign would have dictated focus on the enemy military, concentration of forces, and movement as a combined-arms mass, the needs of the psychological operation demanded prioritizing Kiev, a broad front, and lighting speed. So that is how the Russians started.

Now why they weren’t better prepared to more quickly and more skillfully switch from waging psychological shock to conducting a war if the need arose is a different question.

I don’t know what de-militarization or de-Nazification mean. I don’t know that Russia knows what they mean. I think these alleged demands are aired to give voice to Russian wrath. They are not practical demands for Ukraine to meet. They are slogans meant to ensure the war continues.

I see no evidence as of yet that Russia has given up on any war goals it entered into the war with. People do not understand that the withdrawal from Kiev is Russian escalation. It’s the final step in the transformation from waging a dreamy psychological operation to waging textbook war. So far when Russia has hit a wall in Ukraine it has always escalated to the next order of business. I don’t mean just in this war but looking at it holistically since 2014.

If the war stalls again Moscow will be at another crossroads. Whether to wind down the fighting or escalate again by placing the homefront on a war footing and issuing a call to arms.

I don’t know which of the two Putin would or will pick. I don’t know why he has been reluctant to mobilize the Russian society for the war so far. But I do think that if he does so the nature of his regime will have to change. There can be no more of this ‘enigmatic tsar’ business where he springs a massive “special military operation” as a surprise on the Russian public. It is a very monarchical, almost pre-modern way of doing things. A situation where the King’s wars are his own private affairs that he owes nobody an explanation for. But that also nobody not in his employ is called to sacrifice for. If the Russian volunteer and conscript will be asked to pull his chestnuts out of the fire, then the payback will have to be far greater transparency from now on.

Not having placed Russia on a war footing would seem to offer the option to Putin to trade away captured territory sans Donetsk and Lugansk for some weak assurances and declare victory. However, I think that would place his rule on rather shaky ground. The economic warfare that the Empire and its vassal swarm have unleashed has preempted that possibility. Putin has already lost the economics camp. Have so little to show for everything the war triggered or sped up, and he will have lost the patriotic camp as well.

I don’t think a peace treaty with Ukraine is possible. I think Putin made sure of that when he recognized Donetsk and Lugansk. At most there could be an armistice and a frozen conflict, which in practice would mean partition. Regime change would be preferable to Moscow as it would solve a lot of legal problems, but either outcome is acceptable to the patriot camp in Russia. Especially if the captured territory includes Odessa.

That leaves the problem of governing the captured territories. Where are the pro-Russians? Has the war soured them on Russia, or are they keeping their heads down because they don’t know if the Russian presence is permanent? However, I would caution against reading too much into the “pro-Russian” label. Just because you are a Ukrainian who finds that an Iron Curtain running between Ukraine and Russia is unnatural and a travesty does not mean that you favor an Iron Curtain running halfway across Ukraine splitting you off from your brethren on that side either. Put these “pro-Russian” Ukrainians under Moscow and they will be pro-Ukrainian Russians.

Ukrainians are also the reigning world champions in protest and unarmed insurrection. They are quite ungovernable. Even for Kiev. Additionally win or lose, this war will have provided them with a very useful national myth. In launching the “special military operation” Vladimir Putin has quite likely completed their national formation. Can Russia even run southern Ukraine without having its administrative buildings permanently besieged by unruly crowds?

After the American Civil War, the US successfully reintegrated the South after over 300,000 Southerners perished in a brutal war. However, the US was reintegrating the South into a project that was visibly on the up and up. Are we so sure that Russia is on the up and up? Economically it is not. I think many are naive about what Russia’s banishment from the global division of labor will mean for its living standards and productivity. Many are also too optimistic about how eager first-tier Chinese companies will be to cooperate with the Russians.How eager were Russian companies to work with sanctioned Iran? Quite possibly the Chinese will be no more eager to risk secondary sanctions than had been the Russians. Robbed of its economic prospects Russia could go back to being the austere militaristic Sparta it was from 1945 to 1991. That however is a project that Russians (of a more naive generation) already got fed up with once. Also, this time around there isn’t even the ideology of radical egalitarianism and the cult of the ordinary working man to tie it all together. What Southerners were being drafted into after 1865 is not similar to what the Ukrainians would be inducted to.

So then is everything already lost for Russia? No, I don’t think so. Not at all. If there is enough will, if there is enough endurance then anything is possible. The Empire has given Russia the green light to swallow Ukraine if it can, the rest is up to her. Perhaps Ukraine and Ukrainians can eventually be re-assimilated into an all-Russian nation after all. However, that is a project that is going to take decades. At 69 and probably without fully realizing it, Vladimir Putin on February 24 opened an entirely new chapter in Russian history. One that he is not going to be around to see how it ends.

*

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 interview was originally published on The Unz Review.

Special thanks to Riley Waggaman at Edward Slavsquat, Substack and his excellent post; “I am in awe of the sheer ruthlessness of Russia’s withdrawals”, Edward Slavsquat, Substack

Marko Marjanović is the editor of Anti-Empire.com.

Mike Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The withdrawal from Kiev is Russian escalation. It’s the…transformation from a psychological operation to a textbook 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.

***

A follow up study conducted at the Seattle Children’s Hospital of children suffering myocarditis following their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was published in the Journal of Pediatrics on 25 March 2022.

The study followed up 16 male children, with an average age of 15 years, 3 to 8 months after their initial diagnosis with myocarditis within a short time frame following mRNA vaccination.

The authors used Electrocardiograms and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) to examine abnormalities in the heart such as myocardial scarring, fibrosis, strain, and reduced ventricular muscle extension which can be associated with reduced capacity to pump blood and increased risk of heart attack.

The authors found that although there was some measure of resolution after 3 – 8 months most subjects still had some persistent abnormalities.

“Although (initial) symptoms (such as chest pain, and exercise intolerance) were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment (solely with NSAIDS such as ibuprofen), we demonstrated persistence of abnormal findings on CMR at (3-8 months) follow up in most patients, albeit with improvement in extent of LGE (a measure of the heart’s capacity to pump efficiently).”

The authors warned:

“The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis. A meta-analysis including 8 studies found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.”

For those who wish to review a detailed evaluation of this study by a medical expert, you can watch this video

Wider implications for New Zealand

The latest Medsafe Adverse Effects Report #41 lists 12,000 people who have experienced chest discomfort and 6,000 shortness of breath (all ages) following mRNA vaccination, both classic symptoms of myocarditis. The authors of the small study reported above concluded:

“In the cohort of adolescents with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis, a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects.”

It is clear that little has been done in New Zealand to follow up those affected by adverse effects. Many reporting to EDs or GPs with chest pain, tachycardia, or shortness of breath have been told that everything will be OK without clinical assessment. In many cases these symptoms were not even registered with CARM.

Even though the Seattle study had few participants, it red flags the possibility of subsequent cardiac events. It raises the possibility that sub clinical adverse effects of mRNA vaccination may have serious longer term impacts on health. Until now these have been classified as non-serious in NZ. Persistent reports of cardiac events in the weeks and months following mRNA vaccination among ostensibly fit and healthy people of all age groups and genders, but especially men, can no longer be ignored or dismissed as unrelated. They need to be investigated.

This underlines the fact that the Pfizer mRNA vaccination roll out has been undertaken in the absence of long term follow up testing which often requires the use of sophisticated equipment such as CMR and MRI. Moreover heart disease is not the only category of serious illness whose incidence may be increased by mRNA vaccination as other recent studies suggest. Possible long term adverse effects include cancer, kidney and liver disease, and neurological conditions. A recent court-ordered document release shows Pfizer and probably our government is aware of cases.

But our government is still persisting with advertising suggesting that mRNA vaccination is safe and effective. This is not supported by research. mRNA vaccination comes with some serious risks. Moreover the government was well aware of the risks from the start. In an internal document released under OIA dated 10th February 2021 and signed by Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins, Covid Response Minister discussing provisions for the vaccination of border workers, point 57 says:

“current data suggests severe adverse reactions are less than 1.1%”

Following 10 million injections, as we have had in NZ, that would amount to more than 100,000 adverse reactions (a figure not inconsistent with the grossly under reported 55,000 adverse reactions registered with CARM). Did either Ashley Bloomfield, Jacinda Ardern, or Chris Hipkins ever hint to the public or the media that this was the expected outcome? No they did not. They told the public the vaccine was completely safe and effective. They hid facts. More than this, Jacinda Ardern deleted the 33,000 reports of adverse effects that were posted on her FB page. She gaslighted the public.

Shocking deficiencies in advice given to government

In the light of the study at Seattle Children’s Hospital and other recent findings of potential long term health issues associated with mRNA vaccination, we will now look at the very recent official advice given to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A letter dated 13 March 2022 (attached) has been sent by the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group (the David Skegg committee) to The Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall Associate Minister of Public Health. The letter is entitled Vaccine Mandates and aims to review the government’s strategy for minimising harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, to health, society and the economy. The Committee assured the Minister: “we have been able to take a completely fresh look at the evidence.”

The signatories to the letter are Dr David Skegg an epidemiologist, Dr Maia Brewerton a clinical immunologist, allergist, and immunopathologist, Professor Philip Hill an epidemiologist and public health expert, Dr. Ella Iosua a biostatistician, Professor David Murdoch a clinical microbiologist, Dr Nikki Turner an immunologist interested in preventive child health. All are vaccine advocates.

Point 29 calls for more measures to encourage children to be vaccinated.

Point 12 of their letter asserts: “As we now deal with a large Omicron outbreak, vaccination is undoubtedly reducing the numbers of people who are becoming seriously ill and require hospital treatment.”

However current NZ data discussed in articles at the Hatchard Report reveal that the rates of hospitalisation are equivalent for vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Not a single scientific reference is included in this letter. 

Not a single reference is made to adverse effects of vaccination (currently running at 30-50 times higher than that of any previous vaccine).

Not a single reference is made to any need for informed consent prior to vaccination. The theme running throughout the letter is a need to normalise the use of vaccination mandates when they are needed in New Zealand going into the future.

The right of employers to enforce vaccine mandates is described as common.

High vaccination rates are said to reduce absenteeism and the collapse of public services and commercial businesses.

The letter admits that the protection provided by the Covid-19 vaccines wanes after a few months and says the term booster should be avoided. It recommends the needed number of mRNA vaccinations should be described as a course, and raises the imminent desirability of a fourth vaccine dose for at least some people.

Point 28 says: “For some cases, it would be appropriate for vaccination to be a condition for new employment.” This clause recommends the broad use and normalisation of vaccine requirements in New Zealand for many illnesses and in many service sectors.

Unaccountably the letter says “Encouraging vaccination in the general population was not one of the specific objectives of vaccine mandates.” It also says that vaccine hesitancy has been much less in New Zealand than other countries and that people “have been prepared to accept redeployment and redundancy”. In essence denying the obvious coercion involved in mandates.

The letter recommends that mandates continue in use for health care workers, aged and disabled caregivers, corrections workers, and border staff. There will be a review in six months time.

The overall content of the letter appears to suggest that vaccines have been the key element ensuring low Covid-19 incidence. It completely fails to discuss the obvious point that this success has been achieved through border controls and contact tracing, NOT mRNA vaccination.

Conclusion

The long term health effects of mRNA vaccination are becoming more obvious through published research findings. Meanwhile the government advisors have their heads in the sand. Their careers have been built upon vaccination and now it seems they are prepared to ignore the obvious deficiencies of mRNA vaccination to save the government.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The United State’s top commander in Europe called for establishing a permanent land and air NATO presence on its eastern front and also stepping up the alliance’s air policing and its maritime presence in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, testifying Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, said the alliance’s rotational policy to deter the Kremlin has “got to change” to meet the challenges posed by Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine.

Poland, the Baltic nations and members bordering the Black Sea “are very willing” to accept permanent NATO ground and air forces “from Tallinn to Sofia” and an increased naval presence “from the Arctic to the Aegean,” Wolters said.

Speaking Tuesday at an Atlantic Council forum, the presidents of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia also called for an end to rotating “trip-wire” NATO forces to defend its eastern front. They too called for permanent stations from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

“This is a pivotal moment in Europe with generational implications,” Wolters said.

As he did before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Wolters told the House committee he expected other allies and partners to follow Germany’s lead in meeting the NATO threshold of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on national security.

This is happening “from Turkey in the southeast to Norway and Finland in the north,” he said. Germany’s, Canada’s and Finland’s decision to buy the F-35 Lighting II Strike Fighters provides the alliance with a “tremendous improvement” in aircraft capability to defend Europe, he added.

Terming Russia’s attack on Ukraine as an “unconscionable and illegal use of force,” Celeste Wallander, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for international security affairs, said the administration is committed to bolstering Ukraine’s security through “months of sustainment.”

She told the House panel “this fight is going to extend” and the Biden administration is drawing down weapons stocks to ship to Kyiv and working with Congress to buy more weapons.

When asked, Wolters said anti-armor, anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles were Ukraine’s most pressing needs to stop and roll back the invasion, but “conditions change constantly.” Wolters said so far necessary supplies are flowing “by, with and through” Poland and Romania, but there are challenges that are being dealt with.

“This is America’s effort,” he added.

Like the directors of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the top general of Cyber Command, Wolters called the sharing of intelligence with Ukrainian counterparts and NATO allies bordering it “revolutionary” in its breadth and speed. “I’m comfortable, and I will always say that, but I want it to speed up. …It needs to continue to get faster.

Quoting Army Gen. Paul Nakasone, head of Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, Wolters said, “a great cyber offense starts with a great cyber defense.” That sentiment is at the heart of apparent Russian failures to successfully use cyber against the Ukrainians before the invasion and after.

Wallander and Wolters praised Transportation Command for delivering U.S. forces and equipment rapidly to Europe. Wolters said the command was able to move an entire armored combat brigade from Georgia to Germany in a week.

“That speed is unmatched,” he said.

Wallander said there were now 100,000 American service members either stationed or deployed to Europe or its waters. Washington is committed “to defend every inch of allied territory,” she said.

She said in addition this was the first time NATO implemented its strategic defense plan, moving large number of forces on and to the continent in response to a crisis.

Wolters added aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea have played a critical role in the air defense architecture of the continent.

“We have seen NATO, EU and global partners unite to collectively push back against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and efforts to undermine the rules-based international order,” Wolters said in his opening statement.

Wallander said even on the information front Moscow is suffering setbacks. “This is in contrast to 2014” when the Kremlin annexed Crimea and sent men, equipment and other aid to separatists in eastern Ukraine.

“The Russian narrative is non-plausible to the international community,” she said.

“Everything we’re doing in the information sphere needs to continue” and be strengthened, Wolters added.

Wallander said the administration is continuing to work with Slovakia and other former Warsaw Pact countries now in NATO on sending Russian-built S-300 air defense systems to Kyiv and having spare parts and additional systems shipped to Bratislava as replacements.

On sending Polish-owned MiG-29s to Ukraine, Wolters aid, “nations still continue to look at the issue.”

*

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.

John Grady, a former managing editor of Navy Times, retired as director of communications for the Association of the United States Army. His reporting on national defense and national security has appeared on Breaking Defense, GovExec.com, NextGov.com, DefenseOne.com, Government Executive and USNI News.

Featured image: U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa commander, speaks during an all-call at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey on Dec. 6, 2018. US Air Force Photo

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EUCOM Commander Calls for Permanent Land, Air Presence on NATO’s Eastern Front
  • Tags:

How Both Putin and Biden Bungled in Ukraine

April 4th, 2022 by Eric Zuesse

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.

***

Vladimir Putin’s repeatedly pre-announced goals for Ukraine, and for his invasion of Ukraine, consistently contained two main points:

(1) to permanently block Ukrainian membership for Ukraine in the anti-Russian military alliance NATO; and, (2) to “denazify” Ukraine.

On 21 March, AP reported that “Zelenskyy said that Kyiv will be ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the eastern Donbas region held by Russian-backed separatists after a cease-fire and steps toward providing security guarantees.”

This milestone was the very first time that Ukraine’s President Zelensky said that there might be circumstances under which “the status of Crimea and the eastern Donbas region held by Russian-backed separatists” could even possibly be negotiated by Ukraine’s government.

All Ukrainian-government leaders, after U.S. President Barack Obama perpetrated in Ukraine a violent coup which overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected and neutralist President, and installed a U.S.-controlled rabidly anti-Russian government in Ukraine, in February 2014, have said that Ukraine will never consider the status of those two former regions of Ukraine to be negotiable — that they’re both parts of Ukraine, regardless of what the residents there want (which, clearly and overwhelmingly, after that coup, has been NOT to be ruled by that regime). (It definitely was a coup — NOT an authentic revolution — that installed it.)

So: Zelensky was now saying that “after a cease-fire and steps toward providing security guarantees,” Zelensky would negotiate “the status of Crimea and the eastern Donbas region held by Russian-backed separatists.”

This was the first major change-in-position by EITHER side in the present conflict; and the fact that it was being made by Ukraine was indisputable proof that militarily Russia was winning the war, up to that moment in time. (Subsequently, however, the war-situation is far less clear; Ukraine might be winning it.)

The deeper, and continuing, deadlock is (2) denazification of Ukraine.

In my news-report on March 21, “Why The Question Of Which Side Is ‘nazi’ Blocks Any Peace Settlement”, was explained WHY that issue is so extremely unlikely to be able to be agreed-upon between Zelensky and Putin — and, therefore, why Russia will either have to accept defeat in this war, or else defeat Ukraine 100% militarily before there will be any capitulation by Ukraine in this conflict.

However, even if  Russia defeats Ukraine in this war, Russia’s own national-security situation (which is the ultimate reason that can justify ANY nation’s participation in any war) will be substantially reduced by the war, for the following reasons:

On March 14th, Chris Hedges very realistically summed up the war-situation (both present and future) as follows:

The decision [by Biden) to destroy the Russian economy, to turn the Ukrainian war into a quagmire for Russia and topple the regime of Vladimir Putin will open a Pandora’s box of evils. Massive social engineering — look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya or Vietnam — has its own centrifugal force. It destroys those who play God.

The Ukrainian war has silenced the last vestiges of the Left. Nearly everyone has giddily signed on for the great crusade against the latest embodiment of evil, Vladimir Putin, who, like all our enemies, has become the new Hitler.

The United States will give $13.6 billion in military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, with the Biden administration authorizing an additional $200 million in military assistance. The 5,000-strong EU rapid deployment force, the recruitment of all Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, into NATO, the reconfiguration of former Soviet bloc militaries to NATO weapons and technology have all been fast tracked.

Germany, for the first time since World War II, is massively rearming. It has lifted its ban on exporting weapons. Its new military budget is twice the amount of the old budget, with promises to raise the budget to more than 2 percent of GDP, which would move its military from the seventh largest in the world to the third, behind China and the United States.

NATO battlegroups are being doubled in size in the Baltic states to more than 6,000 troops. Battlegroups will be sent to Romania and Slovakia. Washington will double the number of U.S. troops stationed in Poland to 9,000. Sweden and Finland are considering dropping their neutral status to integrate with NATO.

This is a recipe for global war.

On April 2nd, Russia’s RT bannered “Finland can join NATO without referendum – president”, and reported:

The president of Finland, which borders Russia, has claimed that the widespread support for NATO membership expressed in recent opinion polls could pave the way for joining the US-led military bloc without a referendum. The attitude of the Finns towards NATO membership took a U-turn following Moscow’s attack on Ukraine. …

Support for NATO membership reached a record-high 62% in Finland this month, according to a poll by Yle. A poll commissioned by Helsingin Sanomat and released this week shows that 61% of Finns want their country to join the bloc.

This indicates a complete reversal of public opinion after Moscow sent its forces into Ukraine – according to Yle, previous polls showed that Finns were against NATO membership.

Putin’s goal to block Ukrainian membership for Ukraine was part of his broader goal to shrink NATO (its membership) by reversing NATO’s inclusion of the half of its member-countries that were added after 1991, which was when the Cold War ended on the Soviet Union’s side but secretly continued on the American side, and NATO therefore has expanded (even after the supposed end of the Cold War on — also —America’s side) to include in NATO virtually all European countries right up to Russia’s western border. (This produces a Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-reverse crisis now, but one which will be far longer and more drawn-out.)

On April 3rd, NATO invited not only Finland but also Sweden (both being officially neutral during the Cold War till now) to become members.

Consequently: Russia’s precipitate invasion of Ukraine, which was intended by Putin to shrink NATO, might instead lead to further expansion of NATO — even if  Russia will win the war in Ukraine.

This is not, however, to say that Putin made the wrong decision to invade Ukraine, but that he did it at the wrong time. Biden had forced him to invade in order for Putin to prevent American nuclear missiles from ultimately becoming installed into Ukraine just a 5-minute flight-time away from nuking Moscow and thereby (in post-2006 U.S. strategic thinking) able to ‘win’ a U.S.-planned World War III by blitz-invading Russia so fast as to disable Russia’s entire retaliatory capability.

I had therefore expected Putin to invade Ukraine, but not before Zelensky would finally unleash the 60,000 Ukrainian troops on the Ukraine-Donbass contact-line (border) for them to race into its former Donbass region in order to slaughter its people (who had voted over 90% for the democratically elected and internationally neutralist Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown) and to retake its land — restore it to Ukraine. If Putin had done that (waited, in order NOT to have started this war), then though many of the residents in Donbass would have been killed, and the war there would have been devastating, Russia would have been able to respond immediately and send its troops in within no more than a week to conquer and destroy almost all of those 60,000 invading Ukrainian troops (plus their civilian hostages or “human shields” in Donbass), and the international “optics” of the situation would then have been vastly less bad for Russia than has resulted from Russia’s having invaded first — invaded “preemptively.” Perhaps, in that situation, NATO’s own future would be its shrinkage, instead of (as now seems to be not only possible but even likely) its accelerated expansion. (In addition, the international image then of Zelensky would now be vastly worse, because he would have been the first to invade.)

Consequently, Putin invaded at the wrong time.

He clearly was scared by what Biden and NATO were doing in this matter, by their backing Ukraine all the way, rushing weapons into Ukraine — continuing the Obama-installed coup-regime of Ukraine as being an American vassal-nation. On December 9th of 2021, Reuters headlined “Russia keeps tensions high over Ukraine” and (styled as a news-report no commentary) said “Moscow has an interest in keeping tensions high.” On December 15th they bannered “Russia hands proposals to U.S. on security guarantees”, which were demands (Putin’s “red lines”), not ‘proposals’.

On December 17th IBT bannered “EU threatens Russia sanctions as NATO backs Ukraine”, and reported that NATO and almost all of the EU rejected Russia’s demands. NATO’s chief emphasized Russia would have no say, whatsoever, on whether or not Ukraine becomes a NATO member. RT headlined December 20th, “Russia promises ‘military response’ to any further NATO expansion.” Then, on the 26th, it was a “‘life-and-death’ issue for Russia”. (It was — and is — an “existential” issue, as viewed by the Russian people, and has been referred-to as such by Putin.)

However, Biden himself has likewise vastly miscalculated in this matter, because of reasons that were well-described by Alasdaire Macleod in his March 31st article “Edging Towards A Gold Standard”. The response by Biden (and by the leaders of all of America’s vassal-nations) to impose upon Russia the sanctions that now have been imposed, will harm the entire world’s economy — not ONLY Russia’s — and could very well turn out to benefit greatly Russia’s economy; but, definitely, NOT the economies of the nations that are cooperating with those sanctions.

On the other hand, if the allegations that were published in CNN’s April 3rd “Bodies of ‘executed people’ strewn across street in Bucha as Ukraine accuses Russia of war crimes” turn out to be true, then Putin’s own reputation will be so negatively affected that he will lose this global conflict personally, even if Russia itself turns out to have won it. If that article is true, then he might even end up being prosecuted as an international war-criminal (as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden — and Ukraine’s post-coup leaders Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, and Zelensky — definitely ought to be, but never will be).

Read updates:

Update: How Both Putin and Biden Bungled in Ukraine. Analysis of the Bucha Tragedy

By Eric Zuesse, April 06, 2022

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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.

***

One of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) is warning pregnant women that the COVID jab rollout has coincided with a nearly 2,000 percent increase in fetal deaths, as compared to the rate during previous vaccines.

In a “Frontline Flash” segment entitled “Huge Preborn Death Spike” released Monday, Dr. Peterson Pierre presented statistics showing that the rate of fetal death per vaccine administered in the U.S. had, in fact, massively increased since the COVID shots were made available.

Pierre noted that according to the CDC, since the COVID shot rollout, there have been 550,000,000 shots administered, and 3,725 fetal deaths. This means, he pointed out, that for every 147,651 shots, there has been one fetal death.

He contrasted this with statistics from the period between 2006 and 2019. During this time, there were reportedly “4 billion shots administered,” and “1,369 fetal deaths, which equals to” one fetal death for about every 3 million shots.

“So if you do the math, you realize that since the COVID shots have been available, there’s been a 1,925 percent increase in fetal deaths,” he continued.

Pierre then urged expecting mothers to take heed of these numbers, for the sake of their children.

“Now, expecting moms, it doesn’t matter what the FDA or the CDC says. It doesn’t even matter what your doctor says,” he went on. “Because in spite of this data, the recommendation to get [COVID] shots has not changed.”

“You need to look out for your own kids. You are their protector. You have a lot to think about. That decision rests with you, not with anyone else.”

A stunning 23 of 32 pregnancies during which mothers received a Pfizer COVID shot resulted in “spontaneous abortions” (miscarriages), according to Pfizer and the FDA’s forced response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (32 is the number of pregnancies with known outcomes according to reports given to Pfizer), as was reported last year.

Regarding the effect of the COVID shots on “fertility problems,” the CDC has acknowledged that “results from ongoing long-term studies are not yet available.”

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 Shutterstock

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

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

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

***

Michael Lynk is the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied after the 1967 nakba.  He is Associate Professor of Law at Western University in London, Ontario, where he teaches labour law, constitutional law and human rights law.[1]  His report, “Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert”, was published recently.[2] In the report he stated,

“a political regime which so intentionally and clearly prioritizes fundamental political, legal and social rights to one group over another within the same geographic unit on the basis of one’s racial-national-ethnic identity satisfies the international legal definition of apartheid.”

The report identifies the many facets of the apartheid system, ranging from the “wall”, checkpoints, an over riding military presence through to “to arbitrary and extra-judicial killings, torture, the denial of fundamental rights, an abysmal rate of child deaths, collective punishment, an abusive military court system, periods of intensive Israeli military violence in Gaza and home demolitions.” Gaza is identified appropriately as an “open air prison”.

The perspective of most Canadians supports this idea as seen through a series of polls conducted through Independent Jewish Voices (IJV – Canada) and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.[3] In contrast to the opinions of ‘regular’ Canadians, the main political parties and their leaders do not acknowledge the apartheid status as indicated by their own native son, and by several international human rights groups.

All the mainstream political parties in Canada still support the defunct two state solution, the result of the secret negotiations of the Oslo Peace Process which ultimately resulted in the creation of a quisling Palestine Authority under Abbas and a ‘process’ leading towards more and more settlements on Palestinian land.  The socialist NDP come closest to recognizing Palestinian concerns as NDP Foreign Affairs critic Jack Harris said of Israel’s recent Sheikh Jarrah demolitions and the subsequent protests,

“Escalating violence in East Jerusalem as a result of the ongoing illegal occupation is deeply troubling. The demolitions, forced removal of Palestinians from their homes, and blocking access to popular gathering spots must end. Israel needs to put a stop to the illegal evictions and de-escalate, and Canada must increase efforts to seek a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict.” [4]

The only follow through was a call to limit arms sales to Israel, a small step in the right direction but still wholly insufficient to change the apartheid system.

The other political parties continue to use the language of the mainstream media, ranging from the mild verb ‘clash’ to describe the overwhelming force of the Israeli military, to the extreme use of the old reliable terrorist designation for a people defending not just their native land, but their very homes.   There are several reasons these stale views remain embedded in the Canadian political landscape at the top levels.

One of the simplest reasons is that when it comes to elections, most Canadians are concerned only with short term domestic items that have been sensationalized by one party against another, the most common being as usual the economy – and within that – jobs.  The main parties have their set lines for the few questions on foreign policy, most of which support the agenda of NATO, the Five Eyes, and all aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

The majority of debate concerns the economy, even having environmental concerns, social concerns, and foreign wars all subsumed under that category.   The average voter is led by the media to express their concerns about jobs and wages over any other category – although the recent “truck convoy” – that was not supported by a clear majority of Canadians – may bring false tirades about “freedom” to the next election.

Speaking of which, the NDP very recently signed an agreement with the minority Liberal government of Justin Trudeau to not allow a non-confidence motion  to succeed in parliament, nor to bring one forward for the next three years.  As they usually do the Liberals are copying some of the NDP’s easier social policies while the NDP support the government in order to engage those policies – but they do not extend to any benefits for foreign policy concerning the apartheid nature of Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Other aspects, mostly unseen by the average voter, are issues relating to power and control.  Canada and Israel have economic and military/security agreements with Canada being on the receiving end of Israel’s field tested methodology and materials.  The domestic Jewish vote is not large on a percentage basis, but has power financially and more importantly emotionally with the familiar canard about calling out anti-semitism anytime anyone criticizes Israel.

The IHRA definition of anti-semitism, readily criticized, has been formally adopted by the Canadian federal government in a non-binding vote.  Many larger city centers and provinces have not adopted the definition (Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Toronto) along with many  universities.

While the majority of Canadians want to have stronger actions taken against Israel, including tasking them with war crimes (see note 3), the Canadian political hierarchy remains stuck in its decades old media wash about “terrorists” versus “civilization” while the real conflict is about a colonial settler society (of which Canada’s settlement is a prime example) militarily dominating an indigenous population within an apartheid regime.

Canada’s UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk has it right.  It is about time the Canadian government gets it right, on side with Lynk and the majority of Canadians.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] see: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine

[2]  https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights

[3] https://www.ijvcanada.org/survey2020-3/ and https://www.cjpme.org/survey2020

[4] https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/ndp-takes-major-turn-by-condemning-israeli-attacks-on-palestine

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 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance for human gene therapy products.

Entitled “Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing; Draft Guidance for Industry,” the document provides recommendations to sponsors developing human gene therapy products incorporating genome editing of human somatic cells.

Medical professional and veteran pharmaceutical drug development expert Dr. Jane Ruby told host Stew Peters during a recent episode of “The Stew Peters Show” that the FDA has been actually creating guidance documents since 2015 and that these documents tell pharmaceutical companies how they want them to run studies and look at safety and efficacy in gene editing or human genome editing.

Genome editing is an area of research seeking to modify genes of living organisms to improve the understanding of gene function and develop ways to use it to treat genetic or acquired diseases.

“And you know this is why I want to reiterate that it’s so incredibly important to stop calling it a vaccine. You’ve heard Dr. David Martin say you’re using the words of the criminals. By continuing to call it a vaccine, you’re really saying you don’t have to use as many safety studies, you don’t have to do as much follow up [when developing a vaccine]. You’re putting them off the hook,” said Ruby.

At least one Big Pharma executive has already admitted that the mRNA vaccines are actually a form of gene therapy. It may not be long before federal agencies like the HHS and the FDA do the same.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are really for gene editing

The host of “Live with Dr. Jane Ruby” and “The Dr. Jane Ruby Show” pointed out that the mRNA vaccines are really for gene editing and these were seen in the vials that had been analyzed. She added that Big Pharma companies like Moderna and Pfizer have also talked with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which is the equivalent of the FDA, to let them live with just 50 percent of the vials containing mRNA and the rest as a sort of leeway that they can do anything they want.

Peters noted that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) shots can’t be called vaccines because they don’t protect people or provide immunity from anything. He added that the COVID-19 shots have negative efficacy and that you are more likely to get sick after the injection.

“They are also not experimental shots. They’re not experimenting with anything. They experimented with this stuff way back when they develop this stuff. These are not experimental. This is a planned bioweapon,” Peters explained.

Peters added that the so called adverse events or side effects are actually intended and planned consequences.

“If you let them keep calling it a vaccine and you’re not calling it gene editing, human genome editing, they’re getting away with not looking at safety and efficacy,” stressed Ruby, who added that the FDA itself has laid out certain parameters in the new guidance document.

CRISPR snips out portion of human gene

Ruby said gene editing technology like CRISPR is chemically snipping out a portion of the God-given human genes in a line and a double strand of DNA to insert something else. She warned that a person has no idea what is going to happen to their body over the years when they undergo gene editing. (Related: Dr. David Martin tells Clay Clark: mRNA vaccines are gene therapy designed to harm and enslave humanity – Brighteon.TV)

She added that Moderna and Pfizer are now actively seeking the approval for emergency use authorization of mRNA jabs for six-month-old babies.

It’s all about control, according to Ruby.

“That’s why they want you to keep taking it. It’s a priming mission. The more graphene you get into your body, the more you are filled with what is going to potentially be self assembling circuitry for the ability to control functions in your body from an external source. And I’m not getting conspiracy theories. I’m actually basing this on a whole host of evidence documents. It’s more than just patents. This is known information,” Ruby explained.

*

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

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

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

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

***

This story may read almost as a joke. But it’s the truth.

On March 20, Reuter reports that Washington has asked Turkey, one of the NATO Alliance’s most important member, mostly for her strategic location, to transfer to Ukraine their Russian top of the line and cutting edge S-400 Triumph Air Defense System (ADS).

The US and NATO wanted Ukraine be equipped with efficient anti-aircraft missiles, but were unwilling – or afraid? – to supply Ukraine with the US Patriot system. Maybe because they did not want to get directly “seriously” involved in the war, or more likely, they were afraid that their Patriot system could end up in the hand of the Russian military.

So what?

The Russian S-400 is categorized by experts as “superior to the American Patriot”.

The S-400 has a 4,800 km/h target speed and can reach enemy aircraft, ballistic missiles and AWACS planes at 400 km and 250 km; the medium-range 120 km, and the short-range 40 km. AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System. It is a mobile, long-range radar surveillance and control center for air defense.

Compare this with the US-made Lockheed Martin Patriot system which has an operational range of 40 km and can intercept targets at altitudes of up to 24.2 km whereas interceptors from THAAD system have an operational range of more than 200 km and can hit the targets at altitudes of up to 150 km.

Due to its relatively short-range target reach, the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has successfully demonstrated the interoperability of two key US ADS — Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

Even the combination of the two is considerably inferior to Russia’s S-400.

So, why would Washington offer Turkey an inferior system to give up its Russian S-400?

Turkey has already been “sanctioned” for having purchased a Russian ADS, being a NATO member. It’s the “sanctions game” all over again. Turkey, like most countries, is getting seriously tired of this desperate US sanctioning for every country that refuses to follow Washington’s tune. But Turkey said NO. Period.

Washington has repeatedly affirmed it won’t reverse any of these “sanctions” until Ankara completely removes all S-400s and their components from Turkish soil. But Turkey stands solid.

The following timeline presents the main developments on the issue over the past year and their impact on Turkey’s relations with the United States, its NATO ally.

July 25, 2017 – President Tayyip Erdogan says Turkey has made progress in plans to procure the [Russian] S-400 missile defense system and signatures have been signed.

Dec 12, 2017 – Russia has offered Turkey partial financing for Ankara’s purchase of their ADS, Interfax news agency reports, citing a Russian presidential aide.

Dec 27, 2017 – The head of Russia’s Rostec corporation, Sergei Chemzov, says the S-400 contract is worth $2.5 billion, according to Kommersant daily.

Dec 29, 2017 – Turkey and Russia have signed an accord regarding supply of the systems, CNN Turk and other media said.

June 19, 2018 – A U.S. Senate committee passes a spending bill including a provision to block Turkey’s purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets unless it drops the plan to buy the S-400s.

March 28, 2019 – U.S. Senators introduce a bipartisan bill to prohibit the transfer of F-35 fighter aircraft to Turkey until the U.S. government certifies that Ankara will not take delivery of the S-400s.

April 3, 2019 – Turkey proposes to the United States to form a working group to determine that the S-400s do not pose a threat to U.S. or NATO military equipment.

June 7, 2019 – The United States decides to stop accepting any additional Turkish pilots to train on F-35 fighter jets.

End of story?

Not quite, as the US, desperate to win this argument, keeps pushing Turkey in one way or another to get rid of the S-400 Air Defense System and purchase instead the considerably inferior Patriot system.

But Turkey keeps saying nyet.  See this Forbes report.

*

It is laughable how Washington cannot accept defeat, even if there is no chance to reverse Turkey’s opinion – and knowing that Turkey is a crucial, maybe the most crucial NATO member.

Already in 2017, in an action of mistrust, NATO has removed all nuclear power heads from Turkish soil and transferred most of them to Italy, making Italy thereby a de facto nuclear power. NATO countries may use their nuclear war heads on their soil in cases of self-defense.

Turkey is playing both cards: a crucial NATO member, and an ally of Russia. Erdogan has always an eye to the east and maybe the other one to the west, attempting to say “good-bye”- yet still not quite.

What is interesting and yes, laughable is that Washington even tries to convince Turkey to trade her way superior Russian S-400 system against the US Patriot, which would be deployed to Defend Ukraine against Russia:

In recent weeks several proposals have been made to arm Ukraine with Russian-built military hardware from the arsenals of NATO member states.

Now, American officials are proposing that NATO member Turkey could potentially arm Ukraine with the much more sophisticated Russian-built S-400 missiles it took delivery of in 2019.

“It is the very system, made by Russia, that American officials punished Turkey — a NATO ally — for buying from Moscow several years ago,” the New York Times noted. “Now American diplomats see a way to pull Turkey away from its dance with Russia — and give the Ukrainians one of the most powerful, long-range antiaircraft systems in existence.”

What the US media fails to address: How effective (from a strategic standpoint) would a Russian produced S-400 Air Defense system be in “defending Ukraine against Russia”??

Why on earth would Ukraine want a Russian air-defense system, which automatically communicates with its producer, so whatever move the Ukraine military would attempt to make with an S-400 system, Russia would immediately know about it?

India has also purchased the Russian S-400 in November 2021. They call it a “Game Changer.” They are excited about their acquisition, stationing it in the west of the country. Is it there that they need most air defense power? See this 5-min video.

Why would the US make a foregone futile attempt to convince Turkey to ship their S-400 system to Ukraine, and that in return for lifting US sanctions and for having to purchase the inferior US Patriot air defense system? It’s a mystery, other than the US desperation – one of a sinking ship – is getting so great, that the don’t know any more what they are doing.

*

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.

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

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

Britain Unable to Pay for Russian Gas Deliveries

April 4th, 2022 by Free West Media

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.

***

Britain is the only country to have imposed sanctions on Russia’s Gazprombank, through which payments for Russian natural gas are made. It is thus unable to pay for Russian gas after President Putin’s decree that this commodity must be paid for in rubles.

Foreign-currency accounts on the Moscow exchange for Gazprom customers were opened where currencies can be converted into rubles, but Britain has opted out of this arrangement. Europe has meanwhile not been able to present a united front regarding the US-imposed sanctions regime against Russia. Some countries will be hit harder than others. Hungary has already signalled its intention to ignore sanctions.

Slovakia, Bulgaria and Moldova have now agreed to pay in rubles while Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have rejected payments in Russian currency. Other countries are still trying to arrange deliveries.

Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the Russian president Vladimir Putin, reminded the media of Britain’s hardline position:

“London wants to be the leader of everything anti-Russian. It even wants to be ahead of Washington! That’s the cost!”

On March 31, Putin signed a decree requiring gas buyers from “unfriendly countries” to open special ruble and foreign currency accounts with Gazprombank to pay for gas supplies.

Researchers at Goldman Sachs have calculated that US exports of LNG are already at capacity and therefore US energy supplies would not make up for the shortfall. Moreover, the EU does not yet have the infrastructure to receive larger volumes of LNG imports.

This weekend, the Russian gas giant officially halted all deliveries to Europe via the Yamal-Europe pipeline, critical to European energy supplies.

The cost of gas in the UK increased dramatically in just a month. It shot up by 81 percent at once, while electricity prices jumped by 36 percent. “Millions of Britons were plunged into poverty overnight,” according to Bloomberg as electricity prices hit a record on Friday.

The Governor of the Central Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, called it “a truly historic shock to the real income of the British, and more severe than it was in the 1970s” and the head of the National Energy Action (NEA) charitable organization, agreed with him, describing it “as the biggest price shock of our time”.

Instead of engaging in diplomacy, the UK will be selling Ukraine anti-ship missiles to protect Odessa from Russia. Britain is working on a plan to supply Ukraine with anti-ship systems, reported The Times.

Johnson believes that if the Russian ships are sunk, it will help to disrupt the assault on Odessa. He believes that the Russian army could not occupy Kiev thanks to the British NLAW anti-tank systems. British authorities are discussing the delivery to Ukraine of Harpoons and loitering ammunition designed to protect against shelling from ships of the Black Sea Fleet.

British Defense Secretary Wallace said that the authorities also plan to supply Ukraine with long-range artillery and other weapons.

The EU will meanwhile have to pay 230 billion euros just for the increase in energy prices caused by their anti-Russian sanctions. Europeans now face stagflation – a combination of simultaneous economic decline and high inflation, according to both the Minister of Finance of Germany, and ECB President Christine Lagarde.

*

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

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

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

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

***

In a  speech to a meeting on socioeconomic support for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on March 16, Russian President Vladimir Putin succinctly elucidated the salient reasons for pre-emptively mounting a military intervention in Ukraine in order to forestall NATO’s encroachment upon Russia’s security interests, and cited the genocide of ethnic Russians by ultra-nationalists as a principal reason for invading Ukraine.

“We are meeting in a complicated period as our Armed Forces are conducting a special military operation in Ukraine and Donbass. I would like to remind you that at the beginning, on the morning of February 24, I publicly announced the reasons for and the main goal of Russia’s actions.

“It is to help our people in Donbass, who have been subjected to real genocide for nearly eight years in the most barbarous ways, that is, through blockade, large-scale punitive operations, terrorist attacks and constant artillery raids. Their only guilt was that they demanded basic human rights: to live according to their forefathers’ laws and traditions, to speak their native Russian language, and to bring up their children as they want.

“Kiev was not just preparing for war, for aggression against Russia – it was conducting it … Hostilities in Donbass and the shelling of peaceful residential areas have continued all these years. Almost 14,000 civilians, including children have been killed over this time … Clearly, Kiev’s Western patrons are just pushing them to continue the bloodshed. They incessantly supply Kiev with weapons and intelligence, as well as other types of assistance, including military advisers and mercenaries.”

In the 2001 census, nearly a third of Ukraine’s over 40 million population registered Russian as their first language. In fact, Russian speakers constitute a majority in urban areas of industrialized eastern Ukraine and socio-culturally identify with Russia. Ukrainian speakers are mainly found in sparsely populated western Ukraine and in rural areas of east Ukraine.

Ethnic Russians constituted the social and political elite of Ukraine in the heyday of the Soviet Empire, but were reduced to second-class citizens following the break-up of the Soviet Union in the nineties. The state-sponsored persecution of ethnic Russians intensified across Ukraine following the colored revolution in January 2005, dubbed the Orange Revolution, orchestrated by the Western powers and their Ukrainian collaborators, subversively toppling the democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

But the real ethnic cleansing of Russians in Ukraine began after the 2014 Maidan coup, once again ousting pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and NATO powers initiated an eight-year war of attrition against Russia in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region by nurturing the Ukraine’s infamous Azov Battalion, officially part of the National Guard of Ukraine, that has been widely acknowledged as a neo-Nazi volunteer paramilitary force connected with foreign white supremacist organizations.

Azov Battalion was initially formed as a volunteer group in May 2014 out of the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine gang, and the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly (SNA) group. As a battalion, the group fought on the frontlines against pro-Russia separatists in Donbas, the eastern region of Ukraine.

A few months after recapturing the strategic port city of Mariupol from the Russia-backed separatists, the unit was officially integrated into the National Guard of Ukraine on November 12, 2014, and exacted high praise from then-President Petro Poroshenko. “These are our best warriors,” he said at an awards ceremony in 2014. “Our best volunteers.”

The unit was led by Andriy Biletsky, who served as the leader of both the Patriot of Ukraine (founded in 2005) and the SNA (founded in 2008). In 2010, Biletsky said Ukraine’s national purpose was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [inferior races].” Biletsky was elected to parliament in 2014. He left Azov as elected officials cannot be in the military or police force. He remained an MP until 2019.

These forces were privately funded by oligarchs – the most known being Igor Kolomoisky, an energy magnate billionaire and then-governor of the Dnipropetrovska region. In addition to Azov, Kolomoisky funded other volunteer battalions such as the Dnipro 1 and 2, Aidar and Donbas units.

The Mint Press News recently reported:

“Zelensky’s presidential bid in 2019, which saw him win 73% of the vote, was successful on the basis that he was running in order to combat corruption and create peace in the country but, as the leaked documents known as the Pandora Papers revealed, he himself was storing funds in offshore bank accounts. Zelenskyy’s campaign was at the time boosted and bankrolled by Israeli-Ukrainian billionaire Igor Kolomoisky – who was himself accused of stealing $5.5 billion from his own bank.

“Muslims seem to be a major issue for the Azov Battalion. The Islamophobia present not only in Azov, but also in the National Guard of Ukraine, came through strongly on social media as the official National Guard site glorified the Azov Battalion as they dipped their bullets in pig fat. The video was directed at Muslim soldiers from Chechnya who are fighting on the side of Russia and were described as orcs by the National Guard on Twitter.”

In June 2015, both Canada and the United States announced they will not support or train the Azov regiment, citing its neo-Nazi connections. The following year, however, the US lifted the ban under pressure from the Pentagon, and the CIA initiated the clandestine program to nurture ultra-nationalist militias in east Ukraine. In October 2019, 40 members of the US Congress signed a letter unsuccessfully calling for the US State Department to designate Azov as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO).

In Feb. 2019, the Nation Magazine published a detailed think piece: “Neo-Nazis and the Far Right are on the March in Ukraine,” elaborating Ukraine’s far-right militant groups’ xenophobic and white supremacist political ideology.

“Then-Speaker of Parliament Andriy Parubiy cofounded and led two neo-Nazi organizations: the Social-National Party of Ukraine (later renamed Svoboda), and Patriot of Ukraine, whose members would eventually form the core of Azov.

“Even more disturbing is the far right’s penetration of law enforcement. Shortly after the Maidan coup in 2014, the US equipped and trained the newly founded National Police, in what was intended to be a hallmark program buttressing Ukrainian democracy. The deputy minister of the Interior—which controls the National Police—is Vadim Troyan, a veteran of Azov and Patriot of Ukraine.

“In 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation making two WWII paramilitaries—the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—heroes of Ukraine, and made it a criminal offense to deny their heroism. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust, while the UPA slaughtered thousands of Jews and 70,000-100,000 Poles on their own volition.”

Despite all the evidence of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Russians by the neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine to the contrary, the establishment media is abuzz with reports of alleged genocide of Ukrainians by the withdrawing Russian forces in the outskirts of the capital. Hundreds of dead bodies “buried in mass graves” were found in Bucha, a town 37 km (23 miles) northwest of Kyiv, allegedly massacred by the Chechen contingent of the Russian forces occupying the area.

Denying the spurious and unsubstantiated allegations of purported war crimes and genocide by Russian troops, Russia’s chief investigator Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Russian Investigative Committee, ordered a probe be opened on the basis that Ukraine had insidiously spread “deliberately false information” in order to malign Russia’s month-long military campaign in Ukraine.

In addition, Russia has requested a United Nations Security Council meeting on April 4 over purported war crimes by Russian forces in Ukraine’s Bucha, Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy said on Sunday.

“In light of the Ukrainian radicals’ provocation in Bucha, Russia has requested a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Monday, April 4,” he wrote on his Telegram channel. “We will unmask Ukrainian provocateurs and their Western patrons.”

The Russian defense ministry said earlier on Sunday that all Russian troops had left the city of Bucha in the Kyiv region as far back as March 30, while the “evidence of crimes” surfaced four days later, when Ukrainian security forces and allied ultra-nationalist militias arrived in the city.

Baselessly leveling spurious accusations of alleged genocide and ethnic cleansing without a shred of evidence in order to vilify regional and global adversaries has become a preferred tool in the psyops’ arsenal of the corporate media in the recent years.

Following the rise of China as a major economic power in the 21st century, the mainstream media was similarly tasked by the security establishments to demonize the global rival by blowing out of proportions the sheer fabrication of alleged “genocide and ethnic cleansing” of Uyghur Muslim’s in China’s western Xinjiang province in order to drive a wedge between the rising industrial power and the energy-rich Islamic World.

Unlike several hapless Islamic countries in the Middle East, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, that went through US military occupation or interventions through regional proxies and where countless large-scale massacres have taken place creating millions of refugees, no such massacre or forced displacement of ethnic Uyghurs has ever been recorded in China’s Xinjiang, not even by the corporate media, the foremost purveyor of presumed Uyghur persecution in China.

After the deadly Urumqi riots in July 2009 between the Han and Uyghur ethnic groups in Xinjiang’s provincial capital in which scores of rioters on both sides were killed, China went through a series of violent terror attacks that rocked Xinjiang and the rest of China in the following years.

Dozens of civilians were hacked to death at a busy train station in China’s south. A Uyghur drove a car into crowds at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Forty-three died when militants threw bombs from two sports utility vehicles plowing through a busy market street in Urumqi. When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Xinjiang in 2014, bombs tore through an Urumqi train station, killing three and injuring 79.

After experiencing the spate of terror attacks, Chinese authorities initiated de-radicalization programs in Xinjiang in which Uyghurs were encouraged to participate, as in the Western countries where Muslim immigrants were kept under surveillance and suspects with history of violent crimes were asked to attend de-radicalization programs in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack when anti-Muslim paranoia was at the peak.

Most of the aforementioned terror attacks in China were claimed by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a fanatical transnational terrorist organization of Uyghurs that has taken part in jihadist insurgencies as far away as Afghanistan and Syria. The militant group has been declared a proscribed terrorist outfit by China, the United Nations and many regional countries, though the Trump administration removed its terrorist designation in 2020.

Much like the Uyghur diaspora in the Western countries being patronized by the security agencies and the corporate media to malign a global rival, there is another clandestine organization of Chinese dissidents based in the US that until the November 2020 presidential election enjoyed the protection of the US deep state and was used as a trump card to mount psychological warfare against the Chinese government.

Falun Gong was founded by its leader Li Hongzhi in China in the early 1990s. Today, Falun Gong maintains an informal headquarters, Dragon Springs, a 400-acre compound in upstate New York, located near the current residence of Li Hongzhi. Falun Gong’s performance arts extension, Shen Yun, and two closely connected schools, Fei Tian College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, also operate in and around Dragon Springs.

Since 1998, Li Hongzhi has settled as a permanent resident in the United States and maintains high-level contacts not only in the governments of the US and China but also enjoys immense political clout among Chinese diaspora across the world, thanks to the deep pockets of several billionaire Chinese oligarchs that Falun Gong boasts in its ranks, who generously contribute to finance the clandestine organization’s anti-China propaganda operations.

Forget about criticizing the secretive society, up until the elections it wasn’t even permitted to mention the name of Falun Gong on mainstream news outlets. It was simply described as “a religious and spiritual movement” that teaches “meditation techniques” to its members in all the information available in the public domain about the objectives and activities of the religio-political cult.

But in an explosive article for the New York Times in October 2020 to dispel a flurry of reports about the “Chinagate scandal” implicating the Biden campaign in the run-up to the US presidential election, Kevin Roose blew the lid off on the subversive organization and its media outlet, the Epoch Times, widely followed by Trump supporters, and alleged:

“For years, The Epoch Times was a small, low-budget newspaper with an anti-China slant that was handed out free on New York street corners. But in 2016 and 2017, the paper made two changes that transformed it into one of the country’s most powerful digital publishers.

“The changes also paved the way for the publication, which is affiliated with the secretive and relatively obscure Chinese spiritual movement Falun Gong, to become a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation.

“First, it embraced President Trump, treating him as an ally in Falun Gong’s scorched-earth fight against China’s ruling Communist Party, which banned the group two decades ago and has persecuted its members ever since. Its relatively staid coverage of U.S. politics became more partisan, with more articles explicitly supporting Mr. Trump and criticizing his opponents.

“As the 2016 election neared, reporters noticed that the paper’s political coverage took on a more partisan tone. ‘They seemed to have this almost messianic way of viewing Trump as the anti-communist leader who would bring about the end of the Chinese Communist Party,’ Steve Klett, who covered the 2016 campaign for the paper, said.

“Where the paper’s money comes from is something of a mystery. Former employees said they had been told that The Epoch Times was financed by a combination of subscriptions, ads and donations from wealthy Falun Gong practitioners.

“Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist of the White House, is among those who have noticed The Epoch Times’s deep pockets. Last year, he produced a documentary about China with NTD. When he talked with the outlet about other projects, he said, money never seemed to be an issue. ‘I’d give them a number,’ Mr. Bannon said. ‘And they’d come back and say, We’re good for that number.’”

*

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 Af-Pak and Middle East 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: Destroyed car in Bucha with a dead person inside, 2 April 2022 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

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.

***

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been pushing for a fourth dose of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine, but its reports have not been fully outright about the possible side effects that could affect people in the long term. Buried deep in its latest papers, the WHO said it is now looking into reports of hearing problems as an adverse effect of the shots.

The organization has reported 367 cases of tinnitus among those who have received at least one shot of the COVID-19 vaccine, and the condition is characterized by ringing in the ears, usually within days after the vaccine is administered to the patient.

Those who have experienced this side effect ranged in age from 19 to 91 and from 27 different countries, including Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom. Almost 75 percent of these reports came from women.

In addition to the tinnitus cases, the WHO also reported 164 individuals who have new hearing loss after receiving the vaccines as of February 22.

In a newsletter, the WHO said: “A recent signal detection activity at the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) identified hearing loss (including sudden cases) and tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination as a preliminary signal to be further assessed.” Other symptoms the patients experienced included headache, dizziness and nausea.

Some patients were able to recover quickly, but there are also others who had to undergo “steroid treatment” to address the side effects. Moreover, multiple patients described their tinnitus after vaccination as “unrelenting and life-altering” that could also last for months.

The WHO said it needs to continue monitoring reports of these side effects to make a final determination on the steps to address them further. In its newsletter, it mentioned that awareness of the possible link may help healthcare professionals and those vaccinated to monitor symptoms and seek care.

“As there is still only limited data in the literature providing evidence for this link, further monitoring is required,” the WHO stated, which came after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the fourth dose of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. (Related: Fauci claims fourth COVID dose is “entirely conceivable.”)

FDA approves fourth vaccine dose

The FDA has already authorized a second booster shot for both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for individuals over 50, bypassing its own advisory committee – the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – on the matter. According to CNBC, the move came just two weeks after Pfizer and Moderna initially requested authorization for the fourth shot.

The vaccines are meant to go along with the original two doses and the first booster shot, which means that people who have had the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will have to be inoculated for the fourth time.

Additionally, the FDA also authorized Pfizer boosters for those aged 12 and up and with compromised immune systems. A second Moderna booster is also required for those ages 18 and up with a compromised immune system.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also quickly signed off on the decision, allowing those that are eligible for a new round of boosters. Additionally, the CDC recommended that those who received two doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine get third shots using Pfizer or Moderna.

However, those who received the J&J vaccine with the second shot of Pfizer or Moderna are not yet eligible for a third dose unless they are over 50 or have compromised immune systems. All of the new boosters are also to be administered at least four months after their last shot.

Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA office responsible for vaccine safety and efficacy, said the drug regulator did not call for an advisory meeting due to the decision being “relatively straightforward.”

“This fourth booster dose is something that evidence that we have now from Israel suggests that by getting this, one can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in this population of older individuals,” he said during a call with reporters after the decision was made. (Related: CDC sends notice after pharmacies RESIST order to give the immunocompromised a fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose.)

Dr. Paul Offit, a committee member, criticized the drug regulator for moving forward without holding an open meeting with the American public, who should hear how experts weigh the data and make recommendations to the FDA. While the vaccine advisory committee’s recommendations are non-binding, they do help provide transparency for the public.

*

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

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

When Is mRNA Not Really mRNA?

April 4th, 2022 by Dr. Robert Malone

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 the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.” “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. – J. Robert Oppenheimer, Scientific director of the Manhattan Project (quoting from the Bhagavad Gita)

Last January, Stew Peters decided to roll out the thesis that I have personal responsibility for the morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines consequent to my pioneering work in developing the ideas and reduction to practice of using synthetic mRNA as a transient “gene therapy” method, with the entry level application being for vaccine purposes.  This has been echoed by many angry social media detractors seeking to find someone to blame for the lies and adverse events that have been associated with these mRNA vaccines.  Mindful of those critics, this Substack essay focuses on some of the differences between what was originally envisioned and the current molecules that are being injected into our bodies. The first section of the essay sets the stage by summarizing (for a general readership) how the whole idea of gene therapy was developed, and then describing how and why this lead to the idea of mRNA as a drug and as a method of generating a vaccine response. The second section gets quite technical, and provides detailed information intended for a scientific audience. The conclusion is written for a general audience.

Gene Therapy, Transhumanism, and the origins of mRNA as a drug or vaccine

The core idea captured in the original nine patents which stem from my work between 1987 and 1989 was that there are multiple key problems with the idea of permanent “gene therapy” as originally envisioned by Richard Roblin, PhD and academic Pediatrician Dr. Theodore Friedman in 1972.  The modern embodiment of this concept can be found in the many writings from the WEF and others concerning “Transhumanism” and use of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology.  To really understand all of this requires a brief journey through the history and logic of “gene therapy”.

The January 2015 UC San Diego News center piece entitled “Friedman Recognized for Pioneering Gene Therapy Research: School of Medicine professor receives prestigious Japan Prize” nicely summarizes the underlying logic of “Gene Therapy” as envisioned by Friedman and Roblin.

“Though posed as a question, Friedmann and Roblin firmly believed the answer was yes, citing emergent thinking, new studies and growing data that suggested “good DNA” could be used to replace defective DNA in people with inherited conditions.

“In our view,” they wrote, “gene therapy may ameliorate some human genetic diseases in the future. For this reason, we believe that research directed at the development of techniques for gene therapy should continue.”

Though Friedmann said initial response to the paper was “not overwhelming,” it’s now commonly cited as a major milestone in the scientific beginnings of gene therapy research, though Friedmann said it was the Asilomar conference three years later (scientists set safety standards for recombinant DNA technology) where interest really “exploded.”

The idea of gene therapy, which quickly captured the public imagination, was fueled by its appealingly straightforward approach and what Friedmann has described as “obvious correctness”: Disarm a potentially pathogenic virus to make it benign. Stuff these viral particles with normal DNA. Then inject them into patients carrying abnormal genes, where they will deliver their therapeutic cargoes inside the defective target cells. In theory, the good DNA replaces or corrects the abnormal function of the defective genes, rendering previously impaired cells whole, normal and healthy. End of disease.”

Nice theory, what could possibly go wrong?  The article continues-

“In 1968, Friedmann, working at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland with the late Jay Seegmiller (a founding faculty member of the School of Medicine) and others, showed that by adding foreign DNA to cultured cells from patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, they could correct genetic defects that caused the rare but devastating neurological disorder. The condition was first described by William Nyhan, MD, a UC San Diego professor of pediatrics, and medical student Michael Lesch in 1964.

The feat was a powerful proof-of-concept, but subsequent efforts to advance the work to human clinical trials stalled. “We began to realize that it would be very complicated to take this idea and make it work in people,” Friedmann said, who joined the School of Medicine faculty in 1969.

In 1990, a 4-year-old girl with a congenital disease called adenoside deaminase (ADA) deficiency, which severely affects immunity and the ability to fight infections, became the first patient treated by gene therapy. White blood cells were taken from her, the normal ADA gene was inserted into them using an engineered and disabled virus and the cells re-injected. Despite initial claims of success, Friedmann said the experiment was eventually deemed a failure. The girl’s condition was not cured, and the research was found wanting.

A report commissioned by National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus, MD, was highly critical of the entire gene therapy field and the ADA effort in particular, chiding investigators for creating a “mistaken and widespread perception of success.” Friedmann says he took the Varmus report “personally. I felt awful. It almost made me feel like I had been deceiving myself and my colleagues for more than two decades about the promise of gene therapy.” But he also knew there were “many more good people doing gene therapy research than rogues” and continued diligently and conscientiously to pursue his own research.

Nonetheless, media attention and hype about gene therapy continued to be rampant, fueled in part by over-enthusiastic opinions by some scientists. Things crashed in 1999 when an 18-year-old patient named Jesse Gelsinger, who suffered from a genetic disease of the liver, died during a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Gelsinger’s death was the first directly attributed to gene therapy. Subsequent investigations revealed numerous problems in the experimental design.”

The history of the Varmus report provides an early glimpse of the way things work at NIH and the US HHS.  The Scientist appointed to head up the commission to review the science of “Gene Therapy” was none other than my graduate mentor Dr. Inder Verma, who had long been one of the leading proponents of gene therapy, and was subsequently forced to resign from the Salk Institute over a decades long record of what might most gently be called ethical lapses. But this was the scientist appointed by the overall Director of the NIH to “independently” investigate the scientific rigor and merits of the field.  One hand washes the other.

What is awry with the original “gene therapy” concept?  There are multiple issues, and here are a few-

1) Can you efficiently get genetic material (“polynucleotides”) into the nucleus of the majority of cells in the human body so that any genetic defects (or transhuman genetic improvements) can be made?  In short, no.  Human cells (and the immune system) have evolved many, many different mechanisms to resist modification by external polynucleotides.  Otherwise we would already be overrun by various forms of parasitic DNA and RNA- viral and otherwise.  This remains a major technical barrier, one which the “transhumanists” continue to overlook in their enthusiastic but naïve rush to play god with the human species.  What are polynucleotides?  Basically, the long chain polymers composed of four nucleotide bases (ATGC in the case of DNA, AUGC in the case of RNA) which carry all genetic information (that we know of) across time.

2) What about the immune system? Well, this was one of my breakthroughs way back in the late 1980s.  What Ted (Friedman) originally envisioned was the simple idea that if a child had a genetic birth defect causing the body to produce a defective or not produce a critical protein (such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency), this could be simply corrected by providing the “good gene” to complement the defect. What was not appreciated was that the immune systems of these children were “educated” during development to either recognize the “bad protein” as normal/self, or to not recognize the absent protein as normal/self.  So, introduction of the “go od gene” into a person’s body would cause production of what was essentially a “foreign protein”, resulting in immunologic attack and killing of the cells which now have the ‘good gene”.

3) What happens when things go wrong and the “good gene/protein” is toxic? Well, in the current vaccine situation this is essentially the “Spike protein” problem.  I get asked all the time “what can I do to eliminate the RNA vaccines from my body”, to which I have to answer – nothing.  There is no technology that I know of which can eliminate these synthetic “mRNA-like” molecules from your body.  The same is true for any of the many “gene therapy” methods currently being used.  You just have to hope that your immune system will attack the cells that have taken up the polynucleotides and degrade (chew up) the offending large molecule that causes your cells to manufacture the toxic protein.  Since virtually all current “gene therapy” methods are inefficient, and essentially deliver the genetic material randomly to a small subset of cells, there is no practical way to surgically remove the scattered, relatively rare transgenic cells.  Clearance of genetically modified cells by the cellular immune system (T cells) is the only currently viable method to remove cells that have taken up the foreign genetic information (“transfection” in the case of mRNA or DNA, or “transduction” in the case of a viral vectored gene).

4) What happens if the “good gene” lands in a “bad place” in your genome? It turns out that the structure of our genome is highly evolved, and we are still relative neophytes in our current level of understanding.  Despite having sequenced the human genome. The method of “insertional mutagenesis” (sticking genetic information in the form of viral DNA or other ways) has long been one of the leading methods to generate new insights into genetics – from fruit flies to frogs to fish to mice.  When new DNA is inserted into chromosomes it can cause many unexpected things to happen.  Like development of cancers, for example. This is why there is so much concern about the possibility that the mRNA-like polynucleotides used in the “RNA vaccines” may travel into the nucleus (where the DNA chromosomes reside) and insert or recombine with a cellular genome after reverse transcription (RNA-> DNA).  Normally, with DNA-based gene therapy technologies, the FDA requires genotoxicity studies for this reason, but the FDA did not treat the “mRNA vaccine” technology as a gene therapy product.

Based on these risk considerations, the original idea behind using mRNA as a drug (for genetic therapeutic or vaccine purposes) was that mRNA is typically degraded quite rapidly once manufactured or released into a cell.  mRNA stability is regulated by a number of genetic elements including the length of the “poly A tail”, but typically ranges from ½ to a couple of hours.  Therefore, if natural or synthetic mRNA which is degraded by the usual enzymes is introduced into your body, it should only last for a very short time.  And this has been the answer which Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have provided to physicians when asked “how long does the injected mRNA last after injection”.

But now we know that the “mRNA” from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines which incorporates the synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine can persist in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection.  This is not natural, and this is not really mRNA.  These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body.

Key findings from this seminal work by Katharina Röltgen et al include the following:

Regarding pseudouridine and mRNA

What is pseudouridine (shorthand symbol Ψ)?  Pseudouridine is a modified nucleotide mRNA subunit that is prevalent in natural human mRNAs, and the biologic significance and regulation of the modification process is still being determined and understood.  This modification occurs naturally in the cells of our body, in a highly regulated manner. This is in sharp contrast to the random incorporation of synthetic pseudouridine which occurs with the manufacturing process used for producing the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (but not CureVac) COVID-19 “mRNA” vaccines. The “state of the art” of understanding of the biology of natural pseudouridine modifications is summarized circa late 2020 in this excellent review published in the journal Annual Review of Genetics by Erin K Borchardt et al.  The open source version (not paywall protected) can be found here. Hang on, because we are about to dive into some serious immunology, molecular and cell biology.

Abstract as follows:

“Recent advances in pseudouridine detection reveal a complex pseudouridine landscape that includes messenger RNA and diverse classes of noncoding RNA in human cells. The known molecular functions of pseudouridine, which include stabilizing RNA conformations and destabilizing interactions with varied RNA-binding proteins, suggest that RNA pseudouridylation could have widespread effects on RNA metabolism and gene expression. Here, we emphasize how much remains to be learned about the RNA targets of human pseudouridine synthases, their basis for recognizing distinct RNA sequences, and the mechanisms responsible for regulated RNA pseudouridylation. We also examine the roles of noncoding RNA pseudouridylation in splicing and translation and point out the potential effects of mRNA pseudouridylation on protein production, including in the context of therapeutic mRNAs.”

A more recent (peer reviewed) publication in the journal Molecular Cell has shed light on some of the mechanisms of action associated with natural pseudouridine modification.  It appears that, in the natural context, various highly regulated cellular enzymes (for example PUS1, PUS7, and RPUSD4) act on specific mRNAs and specific locations within those mRNAs while they are being made in the cell to modify the normal uridine nucleotide subunit to form pseudouridine.  These modifications occur at locations associated with alternatively spliced RNA regions, are enriched near splice sites, and overlap with hundreds of binding sites for RNA-binding proteins.  Latest data indicate that pre-mRNA pseudouridylation is used by human cells to regulate human gene expression via alternative pre-mRNA processing.

Relevant to the “mRNA” vaccines, the Borchardt review makes the following surprising statement, which is consistent with the Cell paper cited above which demonstrates that the synthetic “mRNA” being used for these vaccines persists in patient lymph node tissue for 60 days or longer-

“An exciting possibility is that regulated mRNA pseudouridylation controls mRNA metabolism in response to changing cellular conditions.”

That is a technically precise way of saying that incorporation of pseudouridine is one factor that controls how long an mRNA stays around in your body.

The review proceeds with the following alarming (from the context of the unregulated incorporation of Ψ into the molecules used for vaccine purposes) statement:

“The biological effects of Ψ must originate in chemical differences between U and Ψ, which primarily affect RNA backbone conformation and the stability of base pairs. Because Ψ can form stable pairs with G, C and U in addition to A, it has been proposed as a “universal” base pairing partner. Despite intensive study of the structural effects of Ψ on short, synthetic RNA oligos, it is currently impossible to predict the structural outcome of site-specific RNA pseudouridylation in longer RNAs. The systematic investigation of sequence-context effects on the stability of Ψ-containing duplexes is an important step towards accurate predictions. It will be important to determine the structural consequences of RNA pseudouridylation in cells, which is possible using improved methods to probe RNA structure in vivo.”

Furthermore,

“The effect of Ψ on the yield of functional protein depends strongly on the specific codons used. The mechanisms underlying this sequence dependence are unknown, highlighting how much remains to be understood about the translational consequences of mRNA pseudouridylation in cells.”

Finally, relevant to the immunosuppression being observed after multiple mRNA vaccine boosters (which is increasingly referred to as an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS disease), Borchardt et al teach the following:

“Innate Immunity

Cells are equipped with innate immune sensors, including various Toll-like receptors (TLRs), retinoic acid inducible protein (RIG-I), and protein kinase R (PKR), which detect foreign nucleic acid. RNA modifications have been thought to provide a mechanism for discerning “self” RNA from non-self RNA, and indeed, incorporating RNA modifications, including pseudouridine, in foreign RNA allows for escape from innate immune detection. This makes RNA modification a powerful tool in the field of RNA therapeutics where RNAs must make it into cells without triggering an immune response, and remain stable long enough to achieve therapeutic goals. In addition, the presence of modified nucleosides in viral genomic RNA could contribute to immune evasion during infection.

TLRs Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) are membrane-associated proteins which detect various pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPS) and subsequently stimulate production of proinflammatory cytokines. The RNA-sensing TLRs, TLR3, TLR7 and TLR8 reside within endosomal membranes. TLR3 recognizes dsRNA, while TLR7 and TLR8 recognize ssRNA. Upon target recognition, TLRs activate a signaling cascade that results in the expression of proinflammatory cytokines and interferon. In vitro transcribed RNA is immunostimulatory when transfected into HEK293 cells engineered to express either TLRs and inclusion of Ψ in the RNA suppressed this response (most pronounced for TLR7 and TLR8).

RIG-I Retinoic Acid Inducible Protein (RIG-I) is a cytosolic innate immune sensor responsible for detecting short stretches of dsRNA or ssRNA with either a 5′-triphosphate or 5′-disphosphate group (a feature common to various RNA viruses). Activation of RIG-I relieves its autoinhibition, releasing its CARD domains to interact with MAVS and set off a signaling cascade that ultimately results in expression of immune factors. Inclusion of Ψ in a 5′-triphosphate capped RNA abolishes activation of RIG-I, providing another mechanism for pseudouridine-mediated suppression of innate immune activation. Further, the polyU/UC region of the HCV genome is also potent activator of RIG-I and complete replacement of U with Ψ in this RNA fully abrogates downstream IFN-beta induction, despite RIG-I still binding to the modified RNA, but with reduced affinity. Durbin et al present biochemical evidence that RIG-I bound to pseudouridylated polyU/UC RNA fails to undergo the conformational changes necessary to activate downstream signaling.

PKR RNA-dependent Protein Kinase (PKR) is a cytosolic resident innate immune sensor. Upon detection of foreign RNA, PKR represses translation through phosphorylation of translation initiation factor eIF-2alpha. Molecules which activate PKR are varied, but include dsRNA formed intra- or inter-molecularly, and 5′ triphosphate groups. Inclusion of Ψ in various PKR substrates reduces PKR activation and downstream translation repression relative to unmodified RNAs. For example, a short 47-nt ssRNA potently activates PKR when synthesized with U but not with Ψ (~30-fold reduction with Ψ). Ψ also modestly reduced PKR activity when this short RNA was annealed to a complementary unmodified RNA 170. Likewise, in vitro transcribed, unmodified tRNA acted as much more potent activator of PKR than tRNAs transcribed with pseudouridine. It should be noted that it is unclear whether a fully pseudouridylated tRNA adopts canonical folding and what impact this may have on PKR recognition of this substrate. Finally, transfection of an unmodified mRNA caused a greater reduction in overall cellular protein synthesis in cell culture compared to the same mRNA fully pseudouridylated. Consistent with this result, fully pseudouridylated mRNA reduced PKR activation and subsequent phosphorylation of eIF-2alpha.”

Regarding the consequences for the use of mRNA as a drug for therapeutic or vaccine purposes, Borchardt et al conclude that

“Pseudouridine likely affects multiple facets of mRNA function, including reduced immune stimulation by several mechanisms, prolonged half-life of pseudouridine-containing RNA, as well as potentially deleterious effects of Ψ on translation fidelity and efficiency.”

Conclusion

Based on this information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues by Katharina Röltgen et al.  Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology.  Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance.  To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance”.

In conclusion, based on these data it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules administered to so many of us creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which distinguish them in a variety of aspects which are clinically relevant.  These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.

The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population.  Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and matrix-interrelated.  Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence.

When will we ever learn.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

Corrupt Indonesia Embraces COVID Boondoggle

April 4th, 2022 by Henry Makow

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.

***

Ted Hilbert a permanent resident from Luxembourg and Fatoni Rahman, an Indonesian citizen,  are suing the Indonesian president Joko Widodo and the Ministry of Health to stop the Covid-19 vaccination mandates currently enforced.

They object to the government’s Covid-19 policy, particularly the vaccine mandate as a requirement to access government administration services/public transportation and be allowed entry to public spaces as well as facing fines for being unvaccinated.

The plaintiffs provide evidence to demonstrate how President Widodo’s mandated vaccination policy violates a number of Indonesian laws, has failed to prevent Covid-19 transmission. They request that the vaccine mandates now be stopped.

In January 2021 the first batches of the Emergency Use Authorized poisons arrived in the country. These (Sinovac, Novavax, Pfizer, AstraZeneca  and subsequently Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V) would be mandatory.

To encourage vaccine uptake Jokowi “received” his first Sinovac dose at the  presidential palace on the 13th January 2021. Nobody saw whatever was in that vial actually being injected into the President (and, of course, nobody could verify if that was the Sinovac vaccine).

Still, despite the media stunt, uptake in the general population was not high –  even with incentives (see this).

So the population needed to be pushed a  little harder.

By mid-August 2021 malls in Jakarta announced that visitors had to be  vaccinated – see this (this also extended to domestic/international travel by sea/air).

Prior to this, Jakarta’s deputy governor requested financial penalties for vaccine refusers (see this).

Almost overnight the situation changes – vaccine clinics are everywhere with hundreds of people lining up to get jabbed. Now Jakarta is 99.98%  vaccinated and Bali, a popular travel destination, 83.13% vaccinated. See this.
But it’s halal right?

Indonesia is 87.2% muslim  so great emphasis has been placed on the vaccines being halal to resolve any hesitancy.

This is completely untrue as ALL of the vaccines contain and/or have been tested with HEK-293 (Human Embryonic Kidney cells – aborted foetal  tissue…amongst other questionable ingredients such as chimpanzee  adenovirus: see this.

All vaccine ingredient listings: https:// www.precisionvaccinations.com/vaccines/). All are haram (forbidden) under  Islamic law (see this) and can NEVER be halal with the “pandemic” 0.05%  Infection Fatality Rate (see this).

The Muslims have been sadly duped…..along with everyone else.

Many citizens are now fully conditioned by the fear-based propaganda and despite receiving up to three vaccine doses are STILL wearing masks (often  double masked) and practising social distancing.

You CANNOT wake them up – even with the needless and dangerous  vaccination of children (see this).

Light at the end?

Vaccination clinics have been destroyed in Aceh . There’s resistance to Jokowi’s vaccine agenda in Madura.  There are increasing reports of children dying from the Covid vaccines,  doctors becoming sick after the jab (see this), deaths from vaccination (see this) and those reporting adverse reactions.

The Government dismisses reports of vaccine injuries/deaths as fake news,  refuses to provide official health data to justify the vaccine program and  proclaims the vaccines are both safe and effective.

With high levels of government corruption, it’s important that news of the  lawsuit goes global – especially with the greater threat of  trans-humanist modification  and population culling.

The vaccines contain what appears to be nanotech/ parasitic organisms.

I pray that the Indonesian people will actively pursue action and justice  against their wicked leader and his accomplices.

*

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 henrymakow.com

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

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

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

***

War propaganda by the mainstream media whether by CNN, FOX news, the BBC or the New York Times all follow a narrative, a script produced by the Military-Industrial complex (MIC) for endless conflicts around the world.  A perfect example was recently demonstrated by long time FOX news TV host Sean Hannity who is clearly a propagandist for the MIC and Israel had recently threatened Russia with annihilation if it used any sort of weapons of mass destruction in its war on Ukraine, a war that was instigated by the US and its NATO allies.  However, it is fair to say that Tucker Carlson is the only one on FOX news who is against any form of aggression against Russia but Sean Hannity on the other hand, is more unhinged than ever before, even more so when he advocated for the war on Iraq. Hannity recently debated former congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as he started off by mentioning that he was a supporter of the Reagan and Trump doctrines of providing lethal weapons to the mujahidin (or Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan or just bombing “the hell out of people” in the Middle East. Hannity is what you would call a classic propagandist:

So, I am a supporter, Tulsi, of the Reagan doctrine and the Trump doctrine. Reagan doctrine is providing Stinger missiles to the mujahidin when the Soviets invaded in the `80s. They were successful. They pushed the Soviets out. Supporting the Nicaraguan freedom-fighting Contras over the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega.

I’m also a supporter of the Trump doctrine which is bomb the living hell out of people, don’t put an American boot on the ground, maybe some intel boots there, but that’s about it, and with pinpoint accuracy. Push buttons from all over the United States and we’ll hit any target we want, we’ll blow the caliphate out of existence.  Trump did it. Soleimani off a tarmac. Al Baghdadi and associates, and the al Qaeda leader in Yemen.  It sounds to me like you don’t believe in that. We’re not putting one American boot on the ground and my argument would be, if we don’t — if Putin is successful here, God only knows where his territorial ambitions will take him next

Gabbard’s response was an honest assessment of those policies:

Yeah, Sean, you know all the things that you just talked about and explained there frankly are tactics. Those are tactics to accomplish what. And the “what” is really the central question here that needs to be answered is, what is our objective? What is the objective of the United States? What actions and objective best serves the interest of the American people? That’s the question — that’s the thing that that President Biden and his administration has failed to detail, outline or even identify. And it’s frankly why we’re seeing how he’s at NATO right now trying to clean up the mess that he made with these food shortages and all these things coming around as a result of the sanctions policies that that he put in — that he put in place.

So, any time you look at so many of our foreign policy disasters in the past, we see they have come about because our leaders have failed to outline what is it exactly we are trying to achieve and how does it best serve the interest of the American people

Hannity’s closing statement on Gabbard’s opinion should be no surprise because this is the same person who advocates for war in every region of the world in order to protect US interests.  Hannity’s response is in typical jingoistic form as he concluded his debate with Gabbard by warning Russia that it will be attacked if they used biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on Ukraine, he said that if Vladimir Putin wanted to negotiate, it would have done it a long time ago. He’s not willing to. And if — and if he wants to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, he’s got to know that his entire country is going to be blown off the face of the earth.  I pray to God we never get to that point, but that’s always been a threat and it remains a threat here and we can’t cower in fear based on the fact that we’ve had mutually assured destruction, pretty much for all lifetime.”  

Hannity said that Ukraine needs weapons to fight Russia which Kiev can pay back later, but what is worst, in his opinion he believes that Iraq should “provide funding for every American soldier killed over there”or in other words, the Iraqi government should pay some sort of reparations for US soldiers who were killed in Iraq although the US was the aggressor:

I’m not even sure that Zelenskyy will survive this. I think it’s — I think we’re at a tipping point. Right now they need the weapons. We can negotiate them paying us back later, but we should pursue it. I still think we should pursue it with Iraq if you want my frank opinion, and I think they should provide funding for every American soldier killed over there”

Here is the debate between Tulsi Gabbard and Sean Hannity:

Hannity supported the war in Iraq from the start as he supports a war with Iran now.  In June 2019, Hannity called on former US President Donald Trump to “bomb the hell of out Iran” after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a US surveillance drone near the Hormozgan province.  Hannity went on to say that “a strong message needs to be sent that a huge price will be paid if you take on the United State of America,” he continued “simple peace through strength, and it works.”

On January 3rd, 2020 One of Iran’s most respected and admired top generals, Qasem Soleimani, a commander of the Quds force which is part of the IRGC was assassinated by a US drone strike near Baghdad International Airport with help from Israelis.  Former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a tweet that “General Soleimani fought heroically against ISIS, Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al. If it weren’t for his war on terror, European capitals would be in great danger now. Our final answer to his assassination will be to kick all US forces out of the region.”  Soleimani did fight against terrorists, On January 6th, 2020, CNBC reported that “the U.S. and Iran, though adversaries, are mutual enemies of ISIS and effectively fought against ISIS to crush the terrorist group’s de facto state in Iraq and Syria”, but regarding Soleimani, Hannity claimed that “tonight the world is safer as one of the most ruthless, evil war criminals on Earth has been brought to justice.”

Hannity even claimed that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks was waging a war on the US and that American lives are in danger because of him exposing US war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.  Hannity criticized former US president Barack Obama for his failure to arrest Assange, but that all changed in 2016 after Wikileaks published leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) involving Hillary Clinton where Hannity praised Julian Assange for showing the world “how corrupt, dishonest and phony our government is” then a month later, Hannity said that Wikileaks exposed “everything that conspiracy theorists have said over the years” about Hillary Clinton is true.”

Sean Hannity, one of the most highly paid television hosts in the US media is also a hypocrite. In a recent episode, Hannity claimed that censorship is not the answer which in all fairness is correct.  Hannity reported on the censorship taking place between Big Tech monopolies such as Twitter and YouTube and with what he calls “the media mob” including CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times.  He in on point about the rise of cancel culture especially in the US and Europe.  Here is the news segment:

However, Hannity does not follow the rules of journalistic principals as this video clearly shows him insulting and censuring a Palestinian-American writer and political analyst Yousef Munayyer during the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas. Notice the ‘Sympathy for the Terrorists’ on the bottom right side of the screen.

I have to say that this is propaganda at its finest.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

Not so Black and White: Belfast in the 1960s

April 4th, 2022 by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

For those not familiar with the vicissitudes of Northern Ireland, Kenneth Branagh’s 2021 film Belfast may not give one a full idea of the terrible things that happened there over a period of three decades- euphemistically known as ‘the Troubles’. Many died in a war of colonial origins involving Irish nationalists, Protestant loyalists and unionists, and the direct involvement of the British Army and Government.

However, that was then and this is now. A quieter, slowly changing, more peaceful air hangs over Northern Ireland since 2005 when the IRA announced the end of its armed campaign.

Despite some flare-ups, the peace is holding and hopefully creating the conditions for a more tempered mutual understanding of two communities that underwent so much division for so long. Branagh’s film sits neatly into that crevice arguing for a basic human understanding and empathy, to encourage unity and mutual acceptance and understanding.

Brannagh’s Oscar-winning screenplay (seven nominations at the 94th Academy Awards, winning for Best Original Screenplay) tells the story of nine-year-old Buddy from a working-class Ulster Protestant family. He lives on a terraced street of mixed Protestant and Catholic families who all know each other well and get on with each other well. A group of Protestant loyalists attack the homes and businesses of the Catholics, as well as putting pressure on Buddy’s father to participate in the violent sectarianism which he refuses to do. Buddy becomes very attracted to a fellow high-achieving Catholic classmate, Catherine, and they become friends. Buddy’s father works in England and comes home as regularly as he can while his wife struggles with their accrued debts.

Brannagh’s story avoids sectarian rhetoric and shows us that the Catholics and Protestants had much in common: their working class struggles with poverty and emigration.

Apart from historical differences of origin, and Unionist politics notwithstanding, the people had much in common culturally to unite them. Throughout Irish history since the 18th century Protestants have been leaders of movements that emphasised British heritage, as well as movements that asserted Irish identity.

These similarities have created confusion even amongst the people themselves as the visual differences between Catholic and Protestant are not obvious in Ireland.

Thus, Buddy tries to figure out the differences, through tutelage, about the sorts of names and spellings Catholics use as distinct from Protestants. One example of naming traditions stands out from recent history – the TV debate between Mr Ken Maginnis (the Ulster Unionist security spokesman) and Mr Martin McGuinness (Sinn Fein’s senior negotiator), reported in the Irish Times in 1997.

The debate highlighted the similarities as much as the differences between two politicians who used different spelling versions of the same name (Mac Aonghusa). (The name, Aonghus (One Strength), resulted in not one, but two famous drinks, the other being Hennessy’s brandy (the O’hAonghusas). Both Maginnis and McGuinness are formed from the colonial phonetics of a coloniser who could not speak Gaelic, confronted with the colonised who could not read or write. They simply wrote down what they heard, often accurately recording the local accents. Over time the names became shibboleths for different sets of ideas, both names being determined by the coloniser.

Although descendants of colonists who arrived from Britain in the early 17th century, by the 18th century many had, in the words of Albert Memmi’s famous theory of the ‘coloniser who refuses’, formed the Irish Volunteers (local militias) in Ireland in 1778. The Volunteers were made up of Anglican Protestants, Presbyterians and a limited number of Catholics. Taking advantage of the British preoccupation with the American Revolutionary War, the Volunteers paraded fully armed and demanded an end to the tariffs that Irish goods had been subject to upon entering Britain (unlike British goods which could be imported freely into Ireland). Many of the Volunteers were concerned with “securing Irish free trade and opposing English governmental interference in Ireland. This resulted in them pledging support for resolutions advocating legislative independence for Ireland whilst proclaiming their loyalty to the British Crown.”

Orangemen marching in Bangor on the Twelfth of July 2010

In the pre-partioned Ireland of the 19th century many Protestants were nationalists. For example, Thomas Davis, the Irish nationalist, was well known for a doctrine of nationality that he propagated through the newspaper, The Nation, of which he was one of the founders. He described his tenets as “a nationality that would embrace all creeds, races and classes within the island […] which would establish internal union and external independence”. As a Protestant of mixed English and Anglo-Irish parentage, his nationalist views and writings put him into conflict with the colonial strategies of the empire. By proclaiming the slogan “gan teanga, gan tír” (no language, no nation) he tried to redress some of the worst effects of colonial policies.

Indeed, the six counties of Northern Ireland had communities of Irish speakers. The census figures of 1851 and 1891 demonstrated the presence of Irish-speakers respectively as follows: Antrim 3,033 (1.2%) and 885 (0.4%); Armagh 13,736 (7.0%) and 3,486 (2.4%); Derry 5,406 (2.8%) and 2,723 (1,8%); Down 1,153 (0.4%) and 590 (0.3%); Fermanagh 2,704 (2.3%) and 561 (0.8%) and Tyrone 12,892 (5.0%) 6,687 (3.9%). There were minor Gaeltachtaí (Irish-language communities) in Tyrone, the Sperrins (Derry), the Antrim Glens and Rathlin Island that had all but died out by the 1940s.

In the aftermath of the 1916 Easter Rising many of the revolutionaries were interned in a camp at Frongoch in Merionethshire, Wales. There were some Protestant internees, such as Arthur Shields, Harry Nichols and Ellett Elmes (Dublin); Sam Ruttle (Tralee and Kildare) and Alf Cotton (Tralee and Belfast) whose background in the Volunteers, Citizen Army and Conradh na Gaeilge demonstrated the non-sectarian outlook of the revolutionary movement.

The first president of Ireland, Douglas Hyde (1863-1949), was the son of a Church of Ireland (Anglican) minister and had been influenced by nationalist circles while studying for a Doctorate of Laws in Trinity College. However, it was his speech “The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland” in 1892 that heralded a qualitative change in the struggle to maintain and develop the popular basis of support for the Irish language. Hyde elaborated on his call for de-Anglicisation, which he emphasised, was not conceived out of Anglophobia:

“When we speak of ‘The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation’ we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in the English people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English.”

Maybe because of his Church of Ireland background, Douglas Hyde stayed away from direct involvement in politics but had he been alive he would have most likely supported the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), signed on 10 April 1998 which established in law basic principles such as:

“The British government would uphold the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide between the Union with Great Britain or a united Ireland.

The people of the island of Ireland, North and South, had the exclusive right to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent.

The Irish government would try to address unionist fears of a united Ireland by amending the Irish Constitution according to the principle of consent.”

In other words, there would be no change to the status of Northern Ireland without the express consent of the people.

On 28 July 2005, the IRA announced the end of its campaign, and promised complete decommissioning of all its weapons, to be witnessed by clergymen from Catholic and Protestant churches.

A republican mural in Belfast during the mid-1990s bidding “safe home” (Slán Abhaile) to British troops. Security normalisation was one of the key points of the Good Friday Agreement. (Jimmy Harris – Flickr) Mural in Beechfield street, Short Strand, Belfast, with the Gaelic text Slan Abhaile, taken 1995.

In 2007, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) agreed to share power with republican party Sinn Fein, and Paisley and McGuinness became First Minister and Deputy First Minister. McGuinness said after Paisley’s death: “Our relationship confounded many. Of course, our political differences continued; his allegiance was to Britain and mine to Ireland. But we were able to work effectively together in the interests of all our people”.

More recently Linda Ervine (whose brother-in-law is the former UVF commander and politician David Ervine) started the Turas Irish Language Project in east Belfast 10 years ago. She noted that the programme has gone from strength to strength as Protestant, loyalists and unionists in Belfast are learning the Irish language in increasing numbers.

Whatever the decisions the Protestant people make about their future in the UK or a united Ireland the cultural similarities born of sharing the same place will remain of utmost importance. Ervine notes:

“I think what was interesting at the time – now this was 11 years ago – the Protestant women were really intrigued, because we’d never had the opportunity, and the Catholic women were much more interested in the royal wedding that was coming up and what Kate’s dress was going to look like.”

Branagh’s film Belfast is an important reminder that all our futures are dependent on what unites us rather than what divides us.

*

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.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Currently working on a book entitled Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery. It looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals.

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

All images in this article are from the author

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 Federal Election Commission has fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for lying about the funding of the infamous, and discredited, Russian “dossier” used in a smear attempt against Donald Trump weeks before he shocked the world with his 2016 presidential victory.

The election agency said that Clinton and the DNC violated strict rules on describing expenditures of payments funneled to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through their law firm.

A combined $1,024,407.97 was paid by the treasurers of the DNC and Clinton campaign to law firm Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s information, and the party and campaign hid the reason, claiming it was for legal services, not opposition research.

Instead, the DNC’s $849,407.97 and the Clinton campaign’s $175,000 covered Fusion GPS’s opposition research on the dossier, a basis for the so-called “Russia hoax” that dogged Trump’s first term.

The memo said that the Clinton campaign and DNC argued that they were correct in describing their payment as for “legal advice and services” because it was Perkins Coie that hired Fusion GPS. But the agency said the law is clear and was violated.

It added that neither the campaign nor the party conceded to lying but won’t contest the finding. “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission’s finding of probable cause to proceed” with the probe, said the FEC.

The FEC, in a memo to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which filed its complaint over three years ago, said it fined Clinton’s treasurer $8,000 and the DNC’s treasurer $105,000.

The memo, shared with Secrets, is to be made public in a month.

Dan Backer, who brought the complaint on behalf of the foundation, which focuses on free speech and the First Amendment, told Secrets,

“This may well be the first time that Hillary Clinton — one of the most evidently corrupt politicians in American history — has actually been held legally accountable, and I’m proud to have forced the FEC to do their job for once. The Coolidge Reagan Foundation proved that with pluck and grit, Americans who stand with integrity can stand up to the Clinton machine and other corrupt political elites.”

Clinton has in the past defended her campaign’s spending for the information and the work of her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, with Fusion GPS, which compiled the dossier and hired former British spy Christopher Steele to dig further on Trump.

Trump has assailed the dossier as full of lies, and the FBI has called it fake, but only after the damage settled in on the president.

Republicans have continued to press for charges against Clinton.

Backer, with Washington’s Chalmers & Adams law firm, held out hope for further action against the former first lady. He said, “Hillary Clinton and her cronies willfully engaged in the greatest political fraud in history — destroying our nation’s faith in the electoral process, and it’s high time they were held accountable. I hope this is only the beginning.”

Read the document here.

*

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.

Russiagate: The Smoking Gun

April 4th, 2022 by Peter Van Buren

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.

***

 

We are looking for two smoking guns now in connection with Russiagate. Today’s Part I will show Hillary Clinton herself sat atop a large-scale conspiracy to use the tools of modern espionage to create and disseminate false information about Trump. Part II to follow will show the FBI was an active participant in that conspiracy.

In summer 2016 Hillary Clinton’s private email server and her improper handling of classified information was the political story. Consensus was the election was Hillary’s to lose, that her opponents in general and especially the Trump clown show, could not stop her. Despite the MSM’s heroic attempts to downplay the importance of the emails, the issue lingered in the public mind, often aided by Hillary’s own contradictory statements. The emails nagged at the Clinton campaign — her unsecured server lay exposed during her SecState trips to Russia and China, and the deepest fear was that her internal communications might appear one day on Wikileaks, ending her career.

Clinton fought back. The initial shot was fired on July 24, 2016 by campaign manager Robby Mook, who was the first to claim there was a quid pro quo between Trump and Russia. “It was very concerning last week that Donald Trump changed the Republican platform to become what some experts would regard as pro-Russian,” Mook said, referring to a false story from the GOP convention just a few days earlier. The New York Times sent up a warning flare to all MSM media the next day announcing Clinton was making the Trump-Russia allegation a “theme” of the campaign.  As if she knew just what was coming next, Hillary took that as her cue to claim the Russians were trying to destroy her campaign, a theme which soon morphed into the Russians were trying to help Trump. That soon became Trump and Putin were working in collusion to elect Trump as a Manchurian candidate.

Image on the right is from TruePublica

A prime driver behind all this was a mysterious “dossier.” The jewel in the crown was a “pee tape,” blackmail, kompromat, Moscow held to control Trump. Word was a former MI-6 intelligence officer named Christopher Steele compiled the dossier, giving the whole thing credibility. America media openly speculated on Trump’s imminent arrest for treason, with Twitter aflutter with phrases like tik-tok, walls closing in, and the like. The FBI’s James Comey and CIA’s John Brennan briefed the newly-elected Trump on the dossier simultaneously with the full contents spilling into the media. Talk shifted to impeachment, alongside claims Hillary might still deserve to be president.

We know now the dossier was fiction. Steele’s raw information was provided by the Clinton campaign, with his chief source working for the Brookings Institute. Steele worked as a double-agent, feeding Clinton-paid for fake info to the FBI pretending he was an FBI informant with sources deep inside Mother Russia. The dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign.

We also now know the Clinton campaign, via one of its lawyers, Michael Sussmann, gathered Internet DNS data on Trump and used that to create a fully fictional story about Trump using a secret server connected to the Alfa Bank to communicate with his Russian “handlers.” Sussmann also peddled a false story about Russian smartphones connecting into the Trump White House. We know Sussmann hid his relationship to Clinton from the FBI, pretending to be a “concerned citizen.” Sussmann is under indictment by Special Counsel John Durham, and in his own defense filing does not dispute the basic facts. He only claims his lying was immaterial.

Both the dossier op and the DNS op were funded by Clinton campaign money laundered through its lawyers at Perkins Coie and then contractors Fusion GPS and Orbis. In both instances the false information created was peddled to the FBI (and CIA) by a Clinton-paid stooge pretending not to be affiliated with the campaign, Steele as an FBI informant and Sussmann as a “concerned citizen.” Both ops used a sophisticated information sub-op, feeding the media as if Steele and Sussmann were not the source and then having Steel and Sussmann step in to serve as anonymous confirmers, an inside loop. In both instances the FBI took the bait and opened unprecedented full-spectrum investigations into first Candidate Trump, and then President of the United States Trump.

Four years after all that, on October 6, 2020, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified documents revealing then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Obama on or about July 28, 2016 on Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie Candidate Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

The highly-redacted document says “We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. Cite alleged approved by Hillary Clinton on July 26 a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Source: Fox News

Ratcliffe in 2020 also revealed in September 2016 the CIA forwarded to the FBI an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections in order to distract the public from her email scandal.”

The MSM at the time dismissed these two important disclosures as unverified disinformation. The problem with simply waving away these documents is the very high threshold for information to actually reach the president. Every day a near-infinate amount of information is collected by the CIA. A tiny percentage of that is culled for the standing Agency briefings the president receives. An even tinier subset is seen as important and credible enough to be personally briefed by the CIA Director face-to-face with the president.

Rarely is there near-time “verification” with intelligence. There is however “confidence,” how sure the CIA is the information is true, and the Director would not waste his boss’ time with that of low or medium confidence (and neither would the Agency do the same in sending its referral on to the FBI.) Knowing what we know now about Clinton campaign funding of the ops and Clinton personnel involvement, Brennan’s confidence is better understood. And it is important to remember Brennan openly supported Hillary; he was not the guy to dish dirt on her. He was making sure his boss, Barack Obama, had a heads up if the whole thing was ever exposed.

There is also the matter of Ratcliffe, who hand-selected the documents to declassify, lending them more credibility. Why play high stakes with information Radcliffe knew to be false?

One last concern has been that the CIA source appears to be foreign, and therefore suspect. The CIA is legally prohibited from spying on Americans in America, particularly something as sensitive as a presidential campaign. Even if tipped off by an American, the CIA would need to go overseas and recreate the info with a foreign source. That the information was available through a foreign source also suggests strongly Moscow had eyes on inside the Hillary campaign. Perhaps through her email?

Both ops ran on Clinton’s money and Clinton’s people. The smoking gun of Brennan’s notes ties it all to Hillary herself.

*

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.

Joe Biden’s Democracy Gaffe

April 4th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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 does not pay to be too moralistic in politics.  Self-elevation can lead to tripping up.  Sermonising even as your stable needs cleaning can enfeeble the argument. But Bidenism, this gaffe-prone ideology currently doing the rounds in a barely breathing administration, has identified the simplest of binaries to work with.

In his State of the Union address, US President Joe Biden took the slicer to the world of politics and placed them into two tidy camps in a tradition that would have impressed the Bolshevik ideologue, Andrei Zhdanov.  “In the battle between democracy and autocracy, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security.”

In this supposed morality tale and cartoon strip, the wicked Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin does battle with the heroic democracy that is Ukraine, all simplified into roles where virtue combats satanic vice.  There is no room for debate, for contrast, for history.  Awkward realities are never allowed to intrude.

Putin, Biden insisted, “sought to shake the foundations of the free world, thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways.”  The President, in contrast, had been busily building “a coalition of freedom-loving nations” across Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa to oppose that man in the Kremlin.  Like a student proffering a glowing report card, Biden spoke of spending “countless hours unifying our European allies.”

This child-in-cradle view of the world was not going to go down well with other powers.  Leaving aside Putin as the feted gargoyle of tyranny, such talk about autocracy and democracy jars in a good number of countries.  A few see themselves as US allies.  It would have made the eyes of Egypt’s strongman President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, roll.  It would have caused members of the House of Saud more than a bit of irritation, even if Biden has failed to make good an election promise to reassess Washington’s relationship with the bone saw butchers in  Riyadh.

In Warsaw, on March 26, the US President was at it again, adding a few more streaky remarks about this “dictator bent on rebuilding an empire”.  This time, he went just that bit further.  “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”  When stated in a country increasingly gagging to get at Russia in whatever way it can short of total war, this was imprudent.  Biden may well have said one thing, but he was also telling Poland, a NATO ally, that it could not ship MiG-29 jets to the Ukrainians.

A sweat might have also broken across the brows of those in the Pentagon.  The US military is confident that Putin, if placed in a situation of being directly threatened, might resort to the nuclear option.  It did not impress French President Emmanuel Macron, who stated in response that, “We want to stop the war that Russia launched in Ukraine, without waging war and without escalation.”  Biden’s coalition of freedom lovers suddenly seemed rocky.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was left with the task of qualifying and unscrambling.  No, the United States did not, he claimed in a press conference on March 27, “have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter.  In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country of question.  It’s up to the Russian people.”

This astonishing analysis, so separated from the truth of US foreign policy over the years, glossed over the invasion of Afghanistan to oust the now returned Taliban (that regime change went so well); the open endorsement of Juan Guaidó’s leadership credentials in Venezuela against the established government; military assistance to rebel factions in Libya and, as a consequence, the public mauling and murder of long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi and his country’s de facto partition; and that real treat of an effort: the invasion of Iraq and the eventual capture and execution of Saddam Hussein.

Blinken’s summation is particularly rich given Washington’s own meddling in Ukrainian-Russian affairs.  Such conduct seemed animated by a notion held by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: democracy is only good for a country so long as it returns the right candidate.  Falling short, Washington should provide a correcting hand.

One happy to offer that helping hand was Victoria Nuland, famed for her “Fuck the EU” call with US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, in February 2014.  It is telling that she is currently Biden’s Undersecretary for Political Affairs.  As Assistant Secretary of State, Nuland shamelessly contemplated Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Washington’s replacement for the elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych.  Three weeks later, the pro-Russian Yanukovych was ousted.

Umbrage was also taken with the European Union’s partiality towards former heavyweight boxer Vitaly Klitschko as prime ministerial material.  “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government,” a snootily dismissive Nuland told Pyatt. “I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.”

With such machinations exposed, US officials can be safely saddled with responsibility for overthrowing an elected government (democracy, but just the wrong sort) and aiding to precipitate a civil war that saw the deaths of 13,000 people, impoverished a country, and laid the seeds of sorrow that are now returning a terrible harvest.

Troublingly, Biden’s amnesiac coverage of the issues has found an audience.  The reaction to his Warsaw gaffe in some quarters was far from negative.  It took only a few days for the New York Times to feature a letter from one Tomasz Kitlinski of Lublin in Poland, who was delighted at the suggestion of ridding the world of Putin.  The President “was absolutely correct and doesn’t need diplomatic sophistries to defend his discourse.”

Another letter in the same column showed the danger of such rhetoric, the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is school of thinking.  “President Biden states that Vladimir Putin ‘cannot remain in power’,” writes Richard Kooris of Austin, Texas, “and yet he refuses to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine or allow Poland to make MiG-29 fighter jets available to Ukraine, ostensibly out of fear of igniting a wider (or nuclear) conflict.”

The general tone of the readership, at least those pruned from the email stash sent to the Gray Lady, suggested that Biden was merely uttering the truth, gaffe or otherwise.  Edward Luce, in the Financial Times, suggested that the Warsaw stumble was revealing, in so far as it was “hard to picture the circumstances in which the US would reincorporate Russia into the global economy while Putin is still there.”  The only question remains how far Washington will go to make matters worse, scuttling the prospects of a durable, realistic peace between Kyiv and Moscow.

*

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

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Dear Readers,

As everyone faces difficult times, the company which deals with the fulfillment of book sales on behalf of Global Research is no longer able to provide its services. We are unfortunately suspending the sale of print books until further notice.

Meanwhile, PDF versions are still available for purchase.

Thank you for your valuable support.

***

Pakistan PM Imran Khan Saved from a US Planned Regime Change

By Steven Sahiounie, April 04, 2022

Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan will remain in office after the no-confidence motion to be voted on today was rejected. President Arif Alvi has dissolved the National Assembly after the Deputy Speaker suspended the session and rejected the no-confidence motion on grounds of it being part of a ‘foreign conspiracy, and Khan has asked his nation to prepare for elections.

When Did Hitler Realise that Nazi Germany Would Lose the War?

By Shane Quinn, April 04, 2022

It can be interesting to analyse when the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler began to doubt in a German victory during World War II – and when these uncertainties turned to a feeling that the Wehrmacht, with increasing probability, would lose the war.

Pakistan’s Imran Khan Takes on America

By Dr. Ejaz Akram, April 04, 2022

After a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and loss of credibility over Ukraine, the era of US unipolarity seems to be entering its terminal phase, marked by lashing out ferociously in all directions. The most recent of these offensives occurred last week when the government of Pakistan alleged that Washington was trying to engineer regime change in Islamabad.

Video: The CIA — 70 Years in Ukraine

By Douglas Valentine and Regis Tremblay, April 04, 2022

For 70 years the CIA has been working to undermine and occupy Ukraine to bring down Russia using such things as paramilitaries, right wing Nazi groups, corrupt politicians and businessmen, coups, and warfare in the eastern Ukraine region of the Donbass.

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, April 04, 2022

It is important to be aware that the official figures (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage (1 to 10%) of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day that passes.

“We are Human Guinea Pigs”: Alarming Casualty Rates for mRNA Vaccines Warrant Urgent Action

By F. William Engdahl, April 04, 2022

Far from the much-touted miracle substance proclaimed by WHO, Gates, Fauci and others, the Pfizer, Moderna and other possible mRNA vaccines clearly hold potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences. Little wonder some critics believe it is a disguised vehicle for human eugenics.

Propaganda 101: Ukraine 2022. “The Invasion of Ukraine by Russia did not Happen out of the Blue”

By Colin Todhunter, April 03, 2022

Back in 2014, the proposed (but never implemented) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was part of the broader geopolitical game plan to weaken Western Europe by making it even more dependent on the US and to divide the European continent by side-lining Russia.

Europe’s Suicide on the Altar of War: Increased Military Spending and Rising Energy Prices

By Manlio Dinucci, April 03, 2022

Prime Minister Draghi pulls straight on increasing military spending, with the full support of the President of the Republic. For Italy, this means going from the current 26 billion euros a year to at least 38 billion a year, or from 70 to over 100 million euros a day spent on public money.

Mainstream Media

Peeping Pigs and Propaganda by Omission

By Edward Curtin, April 03, 2022

While there is much talk these days about “fake news,” omitting important news is perhaps as widespread and egregiously harmful to an informed public.  The following report tries to remedy the way the mainstream media have for years ignored one of the oddest but more important news stories of the last sixty years.

Ukraine: Countering the Spin. “The Propaganda War”. Max Blumenthal

By Michael Welch, Yves Engler, Glenn Michalchuk, and Max Blumenthal, April 03, 2022

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, we will feature major instances of the holes in journalistic coverage not addressed by those who want “to help inform Canadians so they can protect themselves from disinformation.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Pakistan PM Imran Khan Saved from a US Planned Regime Change

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 Convention on Genocide may offer people some defense against mass murder. If a genocide is provably in progress the Convention requires intervention by its signatories to stop the crime. But the intervention may lead to war. Unscrupulous political forces try to use the pretext that a genocide is underway to invade a country or make war. So one country’s declaration that there is a genocide in another, carries a serious risk.

On February 3rd 2022, the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project served the Attorney General of Canada with “an application for judicial review for the Government of Canada’s acts and omissions in relation to the ongoing genocide against members of the Uyghur population, in the north west region of People’s Republic of China known as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region…”(1) The application is asking a federal court in Montreal to investigate Canada for the government’s reluctance to label China’s treatment of its Uyghur population a genocide.

This attempt to control Canada’s foreign policy occurs within a context of American foreign policy ramping up its military stance against both Russia and China. U.S. President Biden has signed into law a 777.7 billion dollar military funding budget for 2022 (three times the military budget of China).(2)

Taking the Government of Canada to court, a minority lobbying group (according to the legal application there are only about 2000 Uyghurs in Canada).was basically ignored by the media excepting the financially oriented Forbes(3) in the U.S., and Canada’s Toronto Star.(4)

Given difficulties in applying the Convention on Genocide to North American governments this is a rare and exceptional move. Where in Canada are cases challenging the Government for not declaring its historical treatment of First Peoples a genocide? Has no one challenged the Government in court for its complicity in the U.S. 1990 effort to bomb Iraq into the stone age? It caused the loss of 600,000 children. Or for participation in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and destruction of that country’s civilian infra-structure? Slobodan Miloševic charged Canada among other NATO countries with genocide. He was imprisoned at the international court and his life ended before he was found innocent.

The Convention is not being employed to prohibit the destruction of war and conquest. This legal application‘s attempt to control Canada’s policy facilitates an American policy which has declared China’s treatment of the Uyghurs a genocide. It risks the Canadian people to war so it bears some examination.

There is evidence which suggests extreme persecution by the Republic of China of its minority group Uyghurs as well as of attempts to assimilate it into the population as a whole.(5)

There is suppression of Uyghur peoples and a frightening degree of digital surveillance as a population control which make the more odious forms of population control we’re accustomed to in the West (one thinks of Pinochet’s Chile, the dirty war in Argentina etc.), unnecessary. Of current concern is the recognition of “Terror Capitalism” where a targeted group is data mined for its resources and behavior, then placed at the service of corporate or state corporate profit. “The People’s War on Terror,” in Uyghur Xinjiang China has provoked an extreme example.(6)

The reader may remember that this principle persecution of the Uyghurs in China began in 2014 as a result of the Uyghur independence movement which brought about state suppression of what were identified as terrorist actions. There is also evidence of the U.S. training Uyghur fighters for its uses both inside China and outside.(7) U.S. policy is most easily encapsulated by the location of the East Turkestan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM), a Uyghur independence organization, based in Washington D.C.. In 2020 ETNAM filed a complaint against China at the International Criminal Court, for genocide.

Certainly oppression of the Uyghurs should be stopped. Still there is an absence of the mass murder, or an open intention to destroy the group, factors which often trigger the Convention’s application to crimes such as the Rwandan genocide of 1994 which NATO countries ignored at the time, or the death march of the Turkish Armenian genocide in a program which took decades for NATO countries to recognize, or the contemporary actions of Israeli Zionists toward Palestinians who were formerly their hosts.

Faced with mounting pressure from NATO media, and faced with U.S military escalations of anti-China policies, then faced with the report of China’s “genocide” against the Uyghurs from its own Subcommittee on International Human Rights, Canada’s House of Commons declared China involved in a genocide of its Uyghur people.(8)

The website, The Canada Files, was early to note that five of the eight Subcommittee members are members of Parliament’s Uyghur Friendship Committee.(9) The Subcommittee took testimony almost exclusively from U.S. funded entities such as the aforementioned Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project which is paid by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED).(10)

To belabor this, the U.S. Uyghur Human Rights Project was formed and funded by the Uyghur American Association, which in turn is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which receives millions annually from the U.S. Congress. NED is a U.S. State Department funded entity. It’s paid to further U.S. government policy. For Canadian advocacy, the relatively recent Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project in Ottawa is also directly funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project legal brief of February 3rd 2022 summarizes the Parliamentary Subcommittee’s report at length, validating the application with its own testimony, among others.

The legal application makes a point of declaring that the U.S. has already decided China is committing genocide against its Uyghur population. But then many admirable luminaries of Canada’s human rights establishment have decided this as well, including former General Romeo Dallaire, and the Washington based NewLines Institute and Montreal based Raoul Wallenberg Center which teamed to issue a report assuring the world of China’s genocide against the Uyghurs.(11)

Canada’s Government dealt with Parliament’s vote by not denying or affirming a recognition of a Uyghur genocide but by suggesting that the assignment of the term “genocide” and its investigation would be more appropriately handled by the United Nations.(12)

As a result of Canada’s commitment to treaties of international law, as opposed to U.S. Rule, the Government is being taken to court. Is it being forced to comply with U.S. policy? Is it being forced by an organization in the pay of the U.S. government? Declaration by a Canadian judge that the Uyghurs are undergoing genocide could force the Liberal government’s hand and the Convention on Genocide could require armed intervention.

In response to Parliament’s vote, China which doesn’t accept that it’s committing a genocide at all, has questioned Canada’s treatment of First Peoples. China has avoided questioning an historical American example of the U.S. Civil War which put an end to the South’s independence by armed force. It doesn’t mention modern U.S. treatment of Black resistance, the assassinations and murder of innocents, false imprisonments and extremes of racism not found in accounts of Uyghur persecution. There are no reports of Uyghurs being lynched or (to remember Fred Hampton) shot in their beds by state security forces.

In trying to find some perspective for considering the degree of persecution and injustice which demands use of the term “genocide,” we have for current reference the direct threats of extinction of all the Muslims in India by and from Hindu extremists. Then there are the millions of Muslim Rohingya in foreign refugee camps and the ongoing danger to those who remain in Myanmar. There is the ongoing tragedy of the people of Gaza and all Palestinians in Israel. Canada is not partaking in a military alliance threatening any of these countries. Preferring international law Canada was able to support The Gambia taking Myanmar to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.(13)

Economically NATO countries are competing with China which may be gradually assuming global financial supremacy. For example, Chinese neocolonialism in Africa is successfully reinvesting in African infra-structure while Euro-American interests are increasingly under the protection of the U.S. military.

On February 4th U.S. Democrats in the House passed a bill called “The America Competes Act”(14) to fund semiconductor production among other technological enhancements of U.S. domestic industry in direct competition with China’s industry, and linked to it specific protections of China’s Uyghurs. The Act includes funding on a broad front to counter Chinese business/political interests on all continents, and it funds Taiwan. It is a manifesto of economic warfare. In it, the issue of Uyghur human rights is specifically used to justify the competitive advancement of U.S. business interests. The Act reveals U.S. policy intentions toward China in the near future.(15)

The persecution of the Uyghurs is used to the benefit of China as well. The Atlantic Council‘s report, “Finance & Genocide: Development Finance and the Crisis in the Uyghur Region”(16) clarifies the developmental aspect of oppression against the Uyghurs, and the investment by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, in Chinese companies which use slave labor and other practices against the peoples of the region.(17)

Apparently war crimes and enslavement even to the point of genocide, pay the victimizers.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, nightslantern.ca.

Notes

1. “Notice of Application, T-190-22: Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project vs. Attorney General of Canada,” Larochelle Avocats, Feb. 3, 2022, Federal Court of Canada, Montreal.

2. “Biden signs enormous US military budget into law,” Dec. 27, 2021, Al Jazeera.

3. “Canadian Government To Be Reviewed For Its Response To The Uyghur Genocide,” Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab, Feb. 13, 2022, Forbes.

4. “Court case aims to force Canada to acknowledge Uyghur genocide and act against China,” Jeremy Nuttall, Feb. 5, 2022, The Toronto Star.

5. “Xinjiang China,” J.B. Gerald, Nov. 10, 2019, 2019 suppressed new nightslantern.ca [ access: < https://www.nightslantern.ca/2019bulletin.htm#nov10>].

6. “China’s high-tech repressing of Uyghurs is more sinister – and lucrative than it seems, anthropologist says,” Nahlah Ayed, Feb. 17, 2022, CBC radio.

7. “The real truth on Uyghurs which is used to taint China,” Andre Vitchek, Oct. 11, 2019, Newsbred.

8. “Parliament declares China is conducting genocide against its Muslim minorities,” Robert Fife , Steven Chase, Feb. 22, 2021, The Globe and Mail.

9. “Subcommittee report declaring “Uighur Genocide” dominated by researchers and groups funded by CIA cut-out, National Endowment for Democracy,” Aidan Jonah, Feb. 22, 2021, The Canada Files.

10. “Globe & Mail fearmongers about foreign influence while ignoring US government funding to Uighur Rights groups in Canada,” Yves Engler, March 14, 2021, Yves Engler.

11.“China / Canada,” J.B.Gerald, July 5, 2021, 2021 Suppressed News / nightslantern.ca [ access: < https://nightslantern.ca/2021bulletin.htm#jul5ca> ].

12. “Parliament declares China is conducting genocide against its Muslim minorities,” Robert Fife , Steven Chase, Feb. 22, 2021, The Globe and Mail.

13.The Gambia with the support of 42 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation who are signatories of the Convention on Genocide, as well as with intervenor status of the Maldives, the Netherlands and Canada, is trying to find out if Myanmar has committed genocide against Burma’s Rohingya. The trial is currently complicated by the military junta’s takeover of Myanmar’s government which jeopardizes the validity of the court action.

14.‘‘America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength Act of 2022,’’ or the 5 ‘‘America COMPETES Act of 2022,’’ Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, January 25, 2022, U.S. House of Representatives.

15.“Bill to boost US businesses includes new protections for China’s Uyghurs,” Alim Seytoff ( Roseanne Gerin), Jan. 26, 2022, Radio Free Asia.

16.“Finance & Genocide: Development Finance and the Crisis in the Uyghur Region,” Laura T. Murphy, Kendyl Salcito, Nyrola Elimä, February 2020, Atlantic Council.

17. “World Bank investment arm complicit in China’s repression of Uyghurs, report says,” Jalil Kashgary & Alim Seytoff, Feb. 17, 2022, Radio Free Asia.

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.

***

Throughout the pandemic, a large contingency of doctors, researchers, and non-mainstream media outlets have been pounding the table over natural immunity as an alternative to vaccination to protect against Covid-19, with the obvious conclusion that vaccine passports are moot if a large percentage of the population has a higher degree of protection than even the vaccinated because they’ve already had the disease.

And as time has gone on, ‘the science’ has validated this theory – with even Bill Gates admitting recently that “the virus itself, particularly the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine.”

As the Epoch Times notes, On March 1, the scientific journal Clinical Infectious Diseases published a peer-reviewed article titled “Risk of reinfection after seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2: A population-based propensity-score matched cohort study.” This Swiss study “observed a 94% reduction in the hazard of being infected among SARS-CoV-2 seropositive participants, when compared to seronegative controls, >8 months after serology assessment.”

This level of protection (natural immunity) from SARS-CoV-2 infection (94 percent) is comparable to that of the Pfizer vaccine but lasts longer (eight months and counting).

Yet, the official US government response – led by Dr. Anthony Fauci and echoed worldwide – has excluded virtually all mention of natural immunity as a relevant mitigation against Covid-19, which would of course render vaccination, booster shots, and vaccine passports moot for tens of millions of Americans.

And so, with Fauci pretending like he’s never heard of natural immunity for the past two years, here’s a flashback to the ‘good doctor’ discussing explaining that “The most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.”

Fast forward years later, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) says that when he directly asked Fauci about natural immunity, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert did not “have a real firm answer.”

Almost 20 months into the pandemic, it is shocking that the chief medical advisor to the president does not have a firm grasp on the effectiveness of natural immunity, but still promotes freedom-robbing vaccine mandates.  This administration clearly does not want the public to question whether natural immunity is more effective than vaccines. As President Biden revealingly declared, the vaccine mandate ‘is not about freedom or personal choice.’ This administration’s decision to disregard the effectiveness of natural immunity and demand vaccination ignores current data and is an assault on all Americans’ civil liberties.” -Sen. Ron Johnson

Tell me you’re a big pharma / WEF shill without telling me you’re a big pharma / WEF shill…

*

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 ZH