West Remains Divided on Sanctions Against Russia

February 22nd, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin officially announced on February 21 Moscow’s recognition of the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). This was to the shock, annoyance and frustration of the Western bloc as the move once again divided their reactions and responses to the Ukraine crisis. For now, though, there has been no self-reflection as to why Putin was left with no other choice but to recognize the LPR and DPR.

Following Putin’s announcement, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel sent out near identical tweets claiming that the recognition of the LPR and DPR “is a blatant violation of international law, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the Minsk agreement.” Both tweets added that “the EU and its partners will react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine.”

However, shortly after these tweets were made, the EU announced that it will not immediately impose sanctions on Russia as it would rather wait and see if there is any invasion. This was in stark contrast to a seething French President Emmanuel Macron, who immediately demanded targeted sanctions as he likely feels embarrassed and frustrated that Moscow’s recognition occurred a day after it was announced he had, in principle at least, secured a meeting between Putin and his American counterpart Joe Biden.

None-the-less, the current impasse regarding Ukraine and the recognition of the Donbas republics is a crisis that the EU never made a serious attempt of resolving. Not wanting a repeat of the Cyprus debacle which remains unresolved nearly half a century after Turkey’s invasion, Moscow was left with no choice but to recognize the republics to ensure security for civilians in the face of an ever-increasing Ukrainian military threat.

In fact, even the disjointed European response to Putin’s action once again demonstrates that the EU is not a serious institution in foreign policy matters. Although Macron was certainly furious, it is noted that he specifically called for “targeted” sanctions, whilst his Italian and German colleagues are already lobbing for potential sanctions to exempt the energy sector. This suggests that the EU will impose sanctions mostly out of “principle” (according to their Western liberal ideology) to show tokenistic support for Kiev, and not because they actually want to. If this is the case, it can be expected that any sanctions will be weak.

Washington, despite its never-ending rhetoric of an imminent Russian invasion, had a Biden administration official meekly say that the presence of Russian troops in Donestsk and Lugansk alone may not lead to the “swift and severe” sanctions that the White House has been warning about for months now. As much as it can be officially denied, US officials know that Ukrainian forces have refused to end their violence and extremism. It is recalled that an ethnic Greek was killed only last week by Ukrainian soldiers for speaking Russian – this is just one example of thousands of non-Ukrainians being persecuted, tortured or killed by Kiev’s racist forces.

The reluctance so far to apply sanctions has also brought forward a new debate in the West. POLITICO quoted a US official saying: “Russian troops moving into Donbas would not itself be a new step. Russia has had forces in the Donbas for the past eight years.” According to the outlet, the British government and foreign policy analysts (i.e. war hawks) view this idea with contempt.

In effect, even the US with all its bombastic and aggressive rhetoric against Russia is hesitant to apply sanctions in the current situation. This is the appropriate course of action since it was the West that failed to push and demand Ukrainian President Volodimyr Zelensky to implement the Minsk agreement to resolve the crisis in Donbas. Rather, the EU as an institution enabled Ukraine’s provocations despite calls from individual member states like Greece to include Russia in the European security architecture (correction to here) and resolve the Donbas crisis on the basis of the Minsk agreement.

Had the Minsk agreement been implemented by Ukraine, Zelensky would not be in a position where Lugansk and Donetsk have been permanently lost from Kiev’s authority. Instead, Zelensky opted to continue with the aggressive Ukrainization of all minority groups in the country (with European silence). This left Putin no choice but to recognize the republics to ensure the security of all Russian-speakers, which are of all ethnic backgrounds. If Putin had not made this step, non-Ukrainian minorities would continue to be targeted by Kiev’s racist military and paramilitary forces without recourse.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russia is unwaveringly committed to its humanitarian, political, and security principles, which indicates that it just drew a red line in Donbass that neither the US nor its Ukrainian proxies should dare to cross.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya defended his country’s recognition of Donbass’ breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) as independent states in a speech before the Security Council on Monday. It concisely summarized the reasons that President Putin gave in his nearly hour-long address to the Russian people. In short, he explained that Russia gave post-“Maidan” Ukraine’s US-supported coup authorities the benefit of the doubt that they’d implement the UNSC-backed Minsk Accords, only to be proven wrong after Kiev once again recently initiated another round of civil war hostilities last weekend.

This position wasn’t naïve like some critics claimed at the time but was driven by the principled desire to encourage dialogue between the warring sides in accordance with Russia’s position towards all other conflicts across the world like in Syria, Yemen, etc. Ambassador Nebenzya also drew attention to the fact that the DPR and LPR already declared independence prior to the Minsk Accords so Russia’s recognition thereof doesn’t change the fact that Kiev is still obligated to implement them since Moscow isn’t officially regarded as a party to that conflict. This hints at a grander strategic end game for Ukraine than what Russia had previously envisioned as explained by the author in his latest analysis here.

It’s beyond the scope of the present piece that discuss it so intrepid readers should review it if they’re interested. Moving along, Russia’s top representative to the UN then touched upon the US’ destructive role in sabotaging the Ukrainian peace process. Ambassador Nebenzya blamed it for encouraging Kiev to eschew its international legal obligations to enter into talks with the separatists aimed at eventually granting their regions a constitutionally enshrined “special status” per the Minsk Accords. The influx of foreign arms and instructors emboldened Kiev to dispatch 120,000 troops along the line of contact and ultimately initiate last week’s third round of civil war hostilities that prompted Russia’s recognition.

Nevertheless, Ambassador Nebenzya is still cautiously optimistic that everything can be pulled back from the brink of a wider war so long as the US-led West finally deters Kiev from continuing its aggression against the Donbass Republics whose security is now guaranteed by Russia following the new military pact between them and Moscow. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seems to have already realized the hopelessness of directly attacking Russian forces in his country’s former territories after telling the nation on Tuesday that he considers a “full-blown war” between the neighboring countries to be unlikely.

Should he actually be sincere, which remains to be seen, then that would strongly suggest that his American patrons ordered their proxies to stand down, at least for the time being. In his final remarks, Ambassador Nebenzya reaffirmed the immediate humanitarian motivations behind Russia’s decision to recognize the Donbass Republics, defiantly telling the US-led West that Moscow’s “desire to save those lives…is more important than all threats of yours.” This confirms that Russia is unwaveringly committed to its humanitarian, political, and security principles, which indicates that it just drew a red line in Donbass that neither the US nor its Ukrainian proxies should dare to cross.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Russia Recognizes Two Donbass Republics to Stop Ukraine’s Violence

February 22nd, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new federal decree this Monday, February 22, recognizing the independence of the People’s Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, which since 2014 have been fighting against the ethnic persecution promoted by the Ukrainian armed forces in the region of Donbass. With this attitude, the Russian Federation changes its way of seeing the conflict, no longer analyzing it as a civil war, but as a confrontation between different national states.

“I give it necessary to make a decision that should have been made long ago – to immediately recognize the sovereignty and independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic”. These were the words of Vladimir Putin when he signed the decree recognizing Lugansk and Donetsk as sovereign states. The move was applauded by the population in the Donbass region, which for eight years have been waiting for international recognition of their freedom. As expected, the measure was immediately supported and followed by other non-aligned countries, such as Cuba, Serbia, Venezuela, among others, which significantly expands the possibilities of insertion of the sovereign republics of the Donbass in the international scenario, both from a political and diplomatic perspective as well as from a commercial one.

During his speech, Putin emphasized that Ukraine is part of Russian history and that the formation of the Ukrainian state was due to a political initiative by Moscow during Soviet times, which makes it unjustifiable for Ukraine to promote any kind of persecution against Russians in its territory, making legitimate the revolt of the Russian-speaking population, for which political separation from the post-Maidan genocidal government became the only possible option. These were some of his words in this regard:

“Ukraine is not just a neighbor to us, but an inherent part of our history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades…our family, people we have blood and family ties with (…) Modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia, more precisely by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process was started immediately after the 1917 Revolution (…) As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine’. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed in archival documents, including hard Leninist directives on the Donbass, which was literally squeezed into Ukraine”.

In addition, the president also commented on the rumors that Ukraine would be resuming a military nuclear program and reaffirmed Moscow’s official position that an integration of Kiev to the western military alliance (NATO) means a frontal threat to the Russian state, which cannot be accepted without reaction. In this sense, it is possible to understand that there is a central political reason for the late recognition of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics: the initial plan was to keep them integrated into Ukraine, but the situation became intolerable, and the recognition of independence became inevitable, being a  reaction to the endless maneuvers of Ukrainian forces.

It is a major change in strategy on the part of Russia, but which still preserves the country’s initial focus, that is to avoid any military incursion into Ukrainian territory. Until now, Russia had dealt with the war in Donbass as a civil conflict, supporting popular militias only through diplomatic means. This was due to a view of Lugansk and Donetsk as parts of the Ukrainian territory, which needed to be integrated into Kiev under basic rules of coexistence and guarantee of humanitarian protection.

As the situation escalated, Russian aid to the republics became an unavoidable necessity, but sending troops to the region would promote an “invasion” of Ukrainian sovereign space. So, Moscow acted strategically to maintain the legality of its actions and benefit the population of Donbass: it recognized both republics, which also allowed the deployment of peacekeeping troops with the consent of local governments. In other words, Russia found a way to intervene in the conflict without promoting an invasion of Ukraine. The local militias, who until now had few resources to face the violence of the Ukrainian state, will have the support of the Russian armed forces to prevent further attacks and protect the civilian population.

Russia has not committed any illegal act under international law. The United Nations permits the use of military force for the self-defense of others. With the recognition of the new states, Moscow has the right to protect them from any aggression.

In fact, Ukraine, influenced by NATO and the US, believed that it would provoke an invasion of its territory with its aggressions in the Donbass, starting a war with Russia in which it hoped to receive Western support. But this did not happen, as Russia found a way to help the republics legally and without territorial invasion. And, of course, NATO will not intervene to prevent this mission from taking place. So once again Ukraine has been deluded and will now deal alone with its own mistakes.

On Russia’s part, despite the apparent change in plans, the central focus of Russian strategy for the Donbass remains the same: to neutralize the conflict without incursions against Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Is NATO a Threat to Russia? Chronology of US-NATO Led Wars

February 22nd, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The western media is bombarding us with threats of imminent war, even giving out deadlines for when the invasion of Ukraine is to begin. NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg appears mild-mannered and quietly wonders out loud why Russian President Putin would think that NATO could be a threat to Russia.

NATO has been in numerous wars in Europe, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. They were not protecting member states from attack, but on the offense and instigating conflicts far from Europe and the North Atlantic.

The first NATO attack was on Bosnia in 1995 involving 400 aircraft and 5,000 personnel from 15 nations.  1,026 bombs were dropped during the operation, 708 of which were precision-guided. On 19 occasions, depleted uranium munitions were used against targets around Sarajevo. The uninterrupted bombing of Yugoslavia lasted 78 days and involved 38,400 sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties. By the end, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević had capitulated.  The NATO bombing was illegal, as it was done without the authorization of the UN Security Council.

The next NATO attack was on the former Yugoslavia in 1999.   NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defense against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case. The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.

The official story: A group of Saudi Arabian men, with an Egyptian master, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen living in Afghanistan, attacked the World Trade Center in 2001 in New York City.  This was the only time in NATO history that Article 5 was invoked.

This states an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.  Instead of attacking Saudi Arabia, the chief exporter of Radical Islam globally, NATO attacked Afghanistan and made innocent civilians there pay the price of the Saudi killers. The War in Afghanistan was a conflict that took place from 2001 to 2021. It began when the US and NATO invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban-ruled Islamic Emirate. The war ended with the Taliban regaining power after 19 years and 10 months-long insurgency against allied NATO and Afghan Armed Forces.

The reestablishment of Taliban rule was confirmed by the US and on 30 August 2021, the last American military plane departed Afghanistan, ending almost 20 years of western military presence in the country. According to the Costs of War Project, the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan; 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military, and police.

Next, we have the NATO attack on Iraq for regime change. The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.

From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted an important support operation in Iraq. Even though Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and had never harbored or supported Radical Islam in Iraq, NATO didn’t like Hussein because he was anti-Israel.  US President George Bush fabricated intelligence reports and sold the idea of a US-NATO attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq.  The result is that regime change at the barrel of a gun left the country permanently destroyed, with a sectarian government the US imposed on Iraq reminiscent of Lebanon and still lacks electricity, water, and medical care. The Iraq Body Count project figure of documented civilian deaths from violence is 183,535 – 206,107 through April 2019.

NATO next turned its sights on Libya.  After Gaddafi gave a speech identifying the Al Qaeda terrorists being used to create regime change, NATO intervened with a bombing campaign to ‘save humanity’. After 11 years, Libya is still trying to fight off the Radical Islamic terrorists who were initially supported by the west. Before NATO’s intervention, Libya produced some 1.6 million barrels a day and boasted Africa’s largest proven crude oil reserve. The country is destroyed and may never recover, such as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Amid the NATO attack on Libya for regime change, came the directive to begin another regime change project in Syria.  Hillary Clinton orchestrated the use of weapons confiscated from the Gaddafi government, shipped to Turkey, and then trucked across the border at Idlib and supplied to the terrorists.  The same Radical Islamic terrorists used in Libya were used by the US-NATO war machine in Syria.  Even Libyan-Irish Mehdi al Harati commanded in Idlib.  Syria was saved from destruction by the entrance in 2015 by the Russian military who were asked by the Syrian government to prevent turning Syria into an Al Qaeda haven.  The US and NATO member Turkey have both invaded and occupied Syria as they prop up the terrorists, who they dub ‘rebels’, against the Syrian and Russian military.

Russia has every reason to distrust and is wary of the intentions of NATO.  Russia is being pushed into a corner with missiles right on its border aimed at Moscow.  NATO is not only a military group, but by its definition, it is a political group.  NATO promotes liberal western-style democracy.  Russian politics don’t conform to the NATO-approved style.  When will NATO begin a destabilization program against Moscow?  The time-honored US-NATO war machine manipulations can begin at any time, and the western media will portray peaceful protesters asking for freedom as the victims of a Russian police crackdown.  The dialog has already been written in Washington and London long before the first shots would be fired.

Russia’s western border is NATO’s eastern flank. American and British military advisors serve in Ukraine, and US missile defense systems sit in Poland and Romania, while NATO troops conduct exercises in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  Russia is asking for a binding promise that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO, plus the removal of all NATO troops and weapons from 14 Eastern European countries that have joined the alliance since 1997.

Yeltsin had prophetically warned that NATO’s enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would ‘not shift one inch eastward from its present position’ once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany; however, those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed document but remembered in Moscow.  Due to unrelenting US pressure, NATO’s borders have advanced until they are next door to Russia and Ukraine.  President Putin has every right to be demanding assurances to guard his country’s national security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is NATO a Threat to Russia? Chronology of US-NATO Led Wars
  • 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In retrospect, Hitler’s worst strategic debacle that ultimately cost the Nazi Germany the Second World War was invading Russia before crushing the British peril following the precipitous rout of the French military in June 1940. The only reason the megalomaniac Fuhrer didn’t initially commit enough military resources into crossing the English Channel and dismantling the Anglo-American Empire once and for all was that ruling elites of the two nations were tied together by blood relations.

Kaiser Wilhelm, the last deposed emperor of the House of Hohenzollern that ruled Germany until the end of the First World War, was the eldest grandchild of British Queen Victoria. Wilhelm’s first cousins included King George V of the United Kingdom and many princesses who, along with Wilhelm’s sister Sophia, became European consorts. Similarly, the German social elites of the Second and Third Reich regarded the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy of the United Kingdoms as kinsmen not to be harmed.

In the Second World War, the Nazi air force did mount Luftwaffe attacks on a limited scale targeting Britain’s industrial infrastructure, but the tiny island boasting imperial legacy was simply not a match for the Third Reich’s military strength without the assistance of its trans-Atlantic ally, the United States, with vast natural resources, territorial possessions spanning the whole of the North American continent besides Canada, technologically innovative manpower and logistical difficulty of mounting an invasion. Thankfully, Britain was spared the pulverizing force of the Nazi Blitzkrieg experienced by France and Eastern Europe.

According to a 1978 essay by German historian Andreas Hillgruber, the Russia invasion plans drawn up by the German military elite were colored by hubris stemming from the rapid defeat of France at the hands of the invincible Wehrmacht and by traditional German stereotypes of Russia as a primitive, backward Asiatic country, having Turco-Mongol ancestry, a fallacious superiority complex predicated on the Nazi social Darwinism and the cherished myth of the German and Anglo-Saxon racial superiority.

Had Hitler skimmed through the European history as a major in high school and been aware of the Napoleonic army’s harrowing fate in its botched Russia campaign in 1812, he would never have committed the blunder of invading Russia to create so-called Lebensraum or “living space” for the German race.

Russia defeated the forces of Napoleon and Hitler through “strategic depth” of its vast territorial possessions spanning almost the entire northern landmass of Eurasia, by letting them advance into Russian territory, extending their supply lines, burdening logistics and mounting ferocious guerrilla warfare campaign that decimated the morale and military capabilities of the most invincible armies of their eras.

Russian fatalities during the Second World War ranged from 20 to 27 million, according to various estimates, including over 8 million military fatalities. In comparison, the United States lost 400,000 soldiers during the war. Clearly, Russia paid the most sacrifices and defeated Nazism while the United States misappropriated the credit for salvaging the world from the menace of fascism in the imagination of the subjects of the Anglo-American Empire.

Before the end of the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and send a clear message to the leaders of the former Soviet Union, which had not developed its nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

The Pentagon publicly confessed to over 30 Broken Arrows [1], serious nuclear accidents, including accidentally dropping atom bombs on populated areas in the US and Europe that thankfully didn’t explode, though the real number of such nuclear accidents is calculated to be in thousands, particularly at the height of the Cold War during the sixties when such apocalyptic “accidents” were everyday occurrence.

Thus, the United States came close to making the planet uninhabitable for the rest of humanity due to its unfettered nuclear arms race and the global domination agenda that subtly continues to this day, as is obvious from the escalation of hostilities against Russia and China and the current stand-off in Ukraine.

As for Ukraine’s aspirations for joining NATO and the alliance’s eastward expansion along Russia’s western borders, the ostensible cause of the escalation, it’s pertinent to mention that the trans-Atlantic military alliance NATO and its auxiliary economic alliance European Union were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of the former Soviet Union which was geographically adjacent to Europe.

Historically, the NATO military alliance, at least ostensibly, was conceived as a defensive alliance in 1949 during the Cold War in order to offset conventional warfare superiority of the former Soviet Union. The US forged collective defense pact with the Western European nations after the Soviet Union reached the threshold to build its first atomic bomb in 1949 and achieved nuclear parity with the US.

But the trans-Atlantic military alliance has outlived its purpose following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now being used as an aggressive and expansionist military alliance meant to browbeat and coerce the former Soviet allies, the Central and Eastern European states, to join NATO and its corollary economic alliance, the European Union, or risk international economic isolation.

Regarding the mainstream media’s contention that Russia has amassed 100,000 troops along Ukraine’s borders, thus portending imminent invasion, the United States, too, has permanently deployed over 100,000 forces, not to mention strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons, in Europe since the end of the Second World War, including 50,000 troops at sprawling Ramstein Air Base [2] and several other military bases in Germany.

Does that mean the United States has invaded and occupied Europe? Of course, it has in the garb of establishing Pax Americana across the world. If the United States has purported “strategic interests” across the Atlantic Ocean in Europe, then is it too hard to imagine that Russia could also have vital security interests along its western borders in Ukraine?

In Europe, 400,000 US forces were deployed during the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European powers developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.

During the last year, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe, deploying strategic armaments aimed at Russia and provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and the South China Sea, veritable “territorial waters” of Russia and China, respectively.

Wouldn’t it be a cause of immense consternation for the US military strategists and policy-makers if Russia or China deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable strategic bombers and provocatively exercised “freedom of navigation” right by deploying nuclear submarines in the Gulf of Mexico straddling the US borders?

Ukraine is Russia’s backyard whereas the distance between New York and Kiev is over 7,500 kilometers. What’s the purpose of deploying thousands of US troops equipped with strategic armaments in the Eastern Europe if not to intimidate and insult Russia? Despite the obvious contradiction between tangible reality on the ground and parallel universe of media narratives, the corporate media would project Russia as an aggressor and the United States as a peace-maker.

Not only the disenfranchised masses of Ukraine but underprivileged proletariats of all the former Soviet constituent republics in Eastern Europe share historical, political and cultural bonds with Russia. The collective security of Eurasian nations is Russia’s responsibility as a successor to the former Soviet Union.

The imperialist stooge, Volodymyr Zelensky, elected president through sham electoral process in bourgeois democracy called Ukraine, represents nobody but the avaricious and exploitative entrepreneurial oligarchs wanting to expand family businesses and attract foreign investments by pandering to corporate interests of Western Europe and North America.

He is a figurehead beholden to the deep state, the top brass of the military trained and educated at premier Western military academies, the West Point and Sandhurst, and conducting joint military and naval exercises alongside NATO forces deployed in the Eastern Europe.

Centralized governments across the world are run by behemoth state bureaucracies. Politicians are merely show pieces meant to lend legitimacy to supposedly “elected governments” and to cater to interests of business elites which they really represent.

Disenfranchised masses are least bothered whether government is being run by autocrats or by “elected representatives” of the bourgeoisie, though the political and business elites often get restless and mobilize their support base to demand a share in the power pie.

The national security and defense policies of modern nation states are formulated by civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed as the deep state. Whereas trade and economic policies are determined by corporate interests and business cartels within the framework of neocolonial economic order imposed on the post-colonial world by corporate America following the signing of the Bretton Woods Accords at the end of the Second World War in 1945.

Purportedly democratic governments, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process, are reduced to performing ceremonial gimmicks and are meant only to serve as showpieces to legitimize militarist and capitalist exploitation.

Excluding the self-styled global hegemon, the imperial United States, the rest of the Western powers might have been colonial powers before the Second World War but they are no longer “powers” in global politics.

In fact, they can more aptly be described as Western regimes that serve no other purpose than act as Washington’s client states via the framework of transatlantic NATO military alliance to maintain the charade of multilateralism. With the second largest army in NATO after United States, Turkey has more military power and political sovereignty than the servile lackeys of Washington: the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

After the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

The European colonial powers were so utterly devastated following the Second World War that let alone keeping their Asian and African colonies, they was finding it hard to keep European countries united and economies running.

Thus, the age of colonialism didn’t end due to colonial powers voluntarily relinquishing control over colonial possessions, as peddled by Orientalist historians, rather they didn’t have the military and economic capacity to forcibly suppress liberation movements kicking off all over the colonial world.

In the medieval era, although monarchs were chosen by hereditary title, their throne rested on unequivocal support of military aristocracy. As kings didn’t have standing armies of their own beyond several legions of praetorian guards. Feudal barons provided the bulk of forces from private militias in times of wars and insurrections.

Thus, the deep state and its monopoly over politics, specifically in the domain of national security and defense policy, was in-built in the Western governance system since the time of the imperial rule, and insidiously continues in the neocolonial era.

Ironically, the first military dictator to establish a standing army of 50,000 men in Europe was none other than infamous Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England with an iron fist for a brief period of time from 1653 to ’58, albeit with far-reaching consequences. As his model of military autocracy was subsequently widely adopted across Europe and the United States, albeit in a barely disguised veneer of hereditary monarchy, military aristocracy and, at times, dubious parliamentary democracy.

In conclusion, military aristocracy held real power in the medieval times, as it provided foot soldiers and cavalry units to monarchs in times of war. With the advent of standing armies in 17thcentury, the power transferred to generals, who were typically princes or belonged to the nobility.

The United States of America is credited with building the first plebian army, as it couldn’t trace a royal lineage so settler colonists, having the blood of indigenous Red Indians on their hands, were raised to higher ranks, who first wreaked havoc across Latin America in the 19th century by invoking the Monroe Doctrine, and then unleashed a reign of terror in the wider world in the 20th century by invoking the Truman Doctrine that enunciated raison d’etre of the American-led neocolonial world order as containment of the Soviet-led communism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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.

Notes

[1] When the US Air Force accidentally dropped an atomic bomb on South Carolina

[2] What the US Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad?

Featured image: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 6, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has now cleared Muhammad Aziz and Khalil Islam who were wrongfully convicted of Malcolm’s 1965 murder.

Vance and other government authorities, however, refused to investigate the FBI, NYPD, CIA, and other government agencies for their role in his killing.

In recent months, the corporate media have made much of the exoneration of two members of the Nation of Islam (NOI) previously convicted of assassinating Malcolm X. After spending many years in jail, Muhammad A. Aziz (Norman Butler) and Khalil Islam (Thomas Johnson-now deceased) were cleared of the previous conviction upon the intervention of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., at the behest of lawyers from the Innocence Project.

Recent scholarship has identified others for the murder, although none of these suspects is still alive. The judge vacated the convictions after DA Vance acknowledged that authorities had not revealed to the defense exculpatory material in the hands of the FBI and the police.[1]

Vance concluded in his comments to the court that the bulk of these materials cannot now be found and no longer exist. Government officials and the corporate media have made no concerted effort to find out whether the records are merely lost but discoverable. Have they in fact been destroyed?

Is this merely bureaucratic inertia or were specific orders given to prevent the material from ever becoming exposed? We are left with the undisputed fact that members of the NOI killed Malcolm X after an extended period of growing alienation and antagonism between Malcolm and the higher-ups in the NOI.

But we also know that Malcolm X was the target of a government campaign to discredit and destroy him and that the FBI and NYPD had infiltrated the NOI as part of a strategy of exploiting divisions within it and to fulfill their goal of destroying the radical Black movement by having its “Black Messiah” killed.

This is something that Malcolm himself understood—but which government authorities today are still unwilling to acknowledge, even as they exonerate those wrongfully convicted for Malcolm’s death.

Was Malcolm X More Than a Civil Rights Leader?

Malcolm X was one of the most important Black leaders of the 20th century. It was primarily through Malcolm X that the radical tradition of Pan-African internationalism returned to the mainstream of the struggle for Black Liberation in the 1960s. Malcolm X was a thinker and a theoretician of Black liberation. A skillful organizer and propagandist, Malcolm X sought the answers to important questions which remain to be answered if the struggle for Black liberation is to be rebuilt in the opening decades of the 21st century.

What were some of the political questions that confronted Malcolm X in the last months of his life? First, who exactly were the enemies of Black liberation?

Malcolm’s answer: a racist, Euro-American imperialism operating internationally under the aegis of NATO. How was that enemy to be defeated?

Malcolm’s answer: by the construction of a grand alliance of the world’s dispossessed people of color to which African-Americans would affiliate through the Organization of Afro-American Unity, conceived as a regional affiliate of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

To do this, Malcolm X asserted that the Black freedom struggle was a human rights movement, not a civil rights movement, a national liberation struggle entitled to international recognition and protection under international law.

Malcolm X was particularly sensitive to the question of Zionism because 1959 was the year of his first trip to the Arab World and East Jerusalem. He established direct and lasting contacts with Muslim leadership there.

He received Arab activists and Muslim scholars from the East at New York’s Mosque Number 7 for the remainder of his sojourn in the NOI. In 1964 Malcolm returned to the Arab World, not only making Hajj but travelling to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Gaza and publicly taking up the cause of Palestinian liberation and anti-Israeli imperialist expansion.

Malcolm X in Mecca and His Conversion to True Islam

Malcolm X in Mecca in 1964. [Source: thoughtco.com]

On that same trip, he spent time with African revolutionaries in Tanzania, Ghana, and Egypt where he received a deeper briefing on the relationship between Zionism and Western imperialist interests.

Malcolm X was a staunch opponent of Zionism. He famously polemicized against it in “Zionist Logic,” an article published in The Egyptian Gazette in 1964.[2] In the document, Malcolm X noted the parallels between the subjugation of Palestinians and Africans.

He pointed out the strategic value of Israel to world imperialism, “The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.”

Black Zionism, Reparations, and the "Palestine Problem" | AAIHS

Source: aaihs.org

Malcolm X Was a Pan-African Internationalist Human Rights Leader

Malcolm X helped shift the focus of Black struggle away from Civil Rights assimilation toward Black Liberation.

He strove to give the African-American an international personality as a legitimate liberation movement. To do this he had to forge solid links with the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces in the international arena. He received his strongest support from leadership based in the “Casablanca” axis which itself was firmly based on Afro-Arab solidarity.

Through their efforts, he was accorded diplomatic status at the OAU Heads of State Summit Conference in Cairo in July 1964 and was able to present a memorandum to that body which presented a clear alternative assessment of the condition of African-Americans compared to the United States government’s position.

He was also able to garner support for his idea of going to the United Nations and the World Court to indict the United States Government for violations of international law in its treatment of African-Americans. Although many countries which privately supported Malcolm were fearful of publicly following up on their commitments to help him in the face of the unquestioned power of the United States, his activities in Africa were a game changer.

The most useful aspect of Malcolm X’s two trips to Africa in 1964 was that the leadership and masses of that continent were notified that there were other opinions and analysis of the U.S. racial situation than those spread by the United States Information Agency (USIA). Malcolm X was successful in establishing his analysis as that against which subsequent spokespersons and USIA releases were judged in Africa.

As the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the left wing of the civil rights movement, would also do later, Malcolm shifted the Black conceptual framework in ways favorable to Palestinian self-determination and opposition to the Zionist Project. The Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) concept on the domestic front emphasized Black collective self-defense against racist violence and independent Black politics outside of the framework of the two-party duopoly. The OAAU was an organization founded by Malcolm whose purpose was to to fight for African-American human rights and promote solidarity with African anticolonial movements.

Why Was Malcolm X an Enemy of the State?

The emergence and growth of the American security state paralleled the development of the Black Freedom struggle in the 20th century.

As the excesses of late capitalism fueled the development of industrial unionism, labor radicalism, and truly revolutionary activity, the nascent security state increasingly saw Black militancy as part and parcel of an alien presence which must be extirpated from the American body politic.

Led for decades by J. Edgar Hoover, the activities of the FBI grew in scope and sophistication in direct proportion to the maturation of the Black Freedom struggle into a mass movement which could potentially threaten the perpetuation of the capitalist order.

In the 20th century, whenever Black radicals of whatever stripe made important gains in the organization of the mass of Black people around a freedom agenda, the FBI under Hoover moved to monitor, infiltrate and repress the Black movement. Using “dirty tricks,” Hoover would sow discord and internecine conflict leading to the discrediting and death of Black leadership.

Les Payne, in his seminal work on Malcolm X, summed up this process as it played out in its initial manifestation against Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois:

With fixed intentions of exploiting existing divisions within the Black community and stimulating others, J. Edgar Hoover drew up a plan that, on the one hand sought to destabilize Du Bois’s group efforts against segregation and, on the other, aimed to thwart all attempts by Garvey’s UNIA to empower Negroes by other means.[3]

Payne goes on to note the parallels and the central role of the FBI in stoking conflict between the NAACP and Garvey. This tactic brought Garvey down, goaded the post-World War II mainstream Negro leadership to alienate and attack Du Bois and Robeson and, lastly, was the catalyst which brought the rivalry between the NOI and Malcolm to a murderous conclusion.

Garvey and Du Bois were ultimately taken down by a direct and ostensibly legal prosecution by the State. Such might also have been the fate of Malcolm X save the assassin’s bullet obviated the necessity of a legal smokescreen.[4]

Was There a Program Initiated by the Security State to Discredit Malcolm X and Destroy the OAAU?

J. Edgar Hoover initiated the FBI program of destruction of the OAAU in a memo to the New York and Philadelphia field offices dated July 2, 1964. In it, he said in part:

There is indication that Little [Malcolm X] has aligned himself with subversive groups and this matter must be immediately investigated and, if feasible, a counterintelligence program will be initiated to publicly discredit Little. [5]

The antagonistic scrutiny of Malcolm X and the OAAU by local and federal security branches of government was an extension of monitoring first directed at the NOI during World War II. It was part of an even earlier trend to ferret out popular Black leadership and movements which had the potential for a mass-based movement of Black nationalism or more generally of Black equality.

A young J. Edgar Hoover moved successfully to destroy the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and discredit the leadership of Marcus Garvey. During World War II, Hoover kept a file on Black organizations which he monitored with reference to communism and German, Italian and Japanese fifth columnists.[6]

The Justice Department in 1942 charged Elijah Muhammad with sedition because of his alleged identification with the “pan colored” propaganda of the Japanese and his contact with an agent of that government sent to secure allies in the Black community.[7]

Elijah Muhammad spent several years in jail as a result of his refusal to be drafted into the wartime armed forces. As an important functionary of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X had been the subject of FBI surveillance since 1952.

With other members of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X‘s name had been added to the FBI’s security index. The FBI opened its surveillance file on Malcolm X because of statements attributed to him in prison in 1952 in which he allegedly stated that he was a communist.

Was the Takedown of Malcolm X a Trial Run for COINTELPRO?

Prior to the COINTELPRO program, the FBI had a major rationalization for investigation and disruption of movements like Malcolm X’s. The FBI carried out extensive surveillance of the Civil Rights Movement and its offshoots through its Communist Infiltration Program, COMINFIL.

In March 1956 Hoover reported to an Eisenhower cabinet meeting that the Black Muslims was one of the “organizations presently advancing integration [sic]” and “figuring in the rising racial tensions.”[8] The NOI was described as a group which used “violently anti-white rhetoric” and expressed support for the Mau Mau in Kenya and the Vietminh of North Vietnam.[9]

Kenneth O’Reilly reported that the FBI tried to have the NOI put on the attorney general’s list of subversive organizations and jail its leaders for Smith Act and Selective Service violations. However, Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., refused. Nevertheless, he approved wiretaps which became the basis of widespread monitoring of Muslims.[10]

Later during the OAAU period, the FBI investigated Malcolm X because of his association with individuals who had alleged Communist Party links or had been previously put on the FBI’s Security Index.

Thus, the OAAU came in for immediate scrutiny because of Malcolm X’s association on his first trip to Ghana with Julian Mayfield, who was already on the FBI’s Security Index.

The initial interest and support of the Socialist Workers Party, the extensive coverage he received in that party’s newspaper, The Militant, and the frequent reports of Socialist Workers Party leadership’s attendance at the OAAU rallies created a certainty within the FBI that Malcolm X was engaged in a subversive enterprise.

Source: themilitant.com

Other supporters of Malcolm X had significant leftist backgrounds which triggered the paranoia of the FBI. Prominent among the guests at the initial rally of the OAAU were people like William Epton, former Harlem branch member of the Communist Party and at that time a member of the Progressive Labor Party, Conrad Lynn, a lawyer with a reputation for defending leftist causes, and intellectuals like John Oliver Killens.

They were suspected because of association with, or previous memberships in, organizations designated as communist fronts. In fact, not long before the assassination, the FBI anticipated that a real possibility existed that they might be able to indict Malcolm X for his “subversive activities.”[11]

Ironically, the FBI also had solid information that the Communist Party was in no way aligned with or encouraging Malcolm X. In an FBI report based on its surveillance of the Communist Party, an informant reported on the New York District meeting of the CPUSA at the Hotel Woodstock on March 16, 1964. In commenting on Malcolm’s break with Elijah Muhammad and his new organizational efforts, several speakers worried about Malcom X’s ideas concerning violence and expressed the opinion that he was hurting the integrationist program.

The Security State Even in Malcolm’s Time Was Bigger and Broader Than Hoover and the FBI

“Dirty tricks” had been initiated against Malcolm X and the Muslim Mosque, Inc., by the FBI.

As indicated in the outline of a plan contained in a memo from the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) in Detroit to Hoover, dated April 10, 1964, a phony letter was drafted over Malcolm’s signature and sent to Muhammad’s followers in Detroit to cause “disruption and deeper disputes between Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm Little of Muslim Mosque, Inc. (MMI).”

The FBI’s Chicago field office also reported creating a rift between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad.[12] The MMI and the OAAU were well infiltrated by agents and informants of the FBI and other government intelligence organizations, including Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, and the New York City Police Department’s Bureau of Special Services (BOSS).

Gene Roberts, a bodyguard of Malcolm X in the OAAU, later surfaced as a New York City police officer assigned by BOSS to surveillance of the OAAU. Roberts was later at the center of the New York Panther 21 trial, turning state’s evidence as an undercover agent who had penetrated that organization.

Ironically, Roberts had reported to his superiors one week before Malcolm’s assassination what he and several OAAU members thought was a dry run of the assassination. At the OAAU rally immediately preceding the one in which Malcolm X was assassinated, a disturbance was created by two men as one cried “Get your hand out of my pocket!”

Roberts’s superiors informed him that they would “get on” this information. In fact, there is no information to suggest that the police did anything positive to follow up on this lead.[13]

McKinley Welch, another BOSS agent, had infiltrated Mosque No. 7 in New York, and when Malcolm X left the NOI, Welch’s superiors ordered him to infiltrate the OAAU.[14]

The Big Red News article cited states that the head of BOSS in 1965, Anthony Ulasewicz, later bragged about BOSS’s counterintelligence campaign against Malcolm X. Ulasewicz was later convicted as a “bag man” in the Watergate scandal.[15]

Family members of Malcolm X have revealed a letter written by a New York police officer that they say shows the NYPD and the FBI were behind the 1965 assassination of the famed Black leader.[16]

Domestic surveillance agencies are not the only ones which have been implicated in government measures to remove Malcolm X’s influence from the Civil Rights Movement. The State Department viewed Malcolm X’s activities in Africa and his strategy of citing the United States for infractions of African-Americans’ human rights in international forums as a threat to national security. Declassified government documents indicate that the State Department asked the CIA division that was later implicated in the overthrow and assassination of several Third World leaders to “take covert action against Malcolm X.”[17]

These documents further indicate that on August 11, 1964, Benjamin H. Read, executive secretary for Secretary of State Dean Rusk, contacted Richard Helms, CIA Deputy Director for Plans, who was in charge of both the Domestic Operations Division and the African Operations Division, urging Helms to use the Clandestine Services Division to investigate Malcolm X.

Read identified Malcolm X to Helms as a popular African-American revolutionary who, according to information received by Read, had been fomenting domestic riots in July 1964 (no doubt a reference to the Harlem riots of that period). Read was also concerned that Malcolm’s plan to go to the United Nations and charge America with genocide might seriously damage the reputation of the United States as a cultural and racial “melting pot.” The only other nation to be so charged, besides Nazi Germany, was apartheid South Africa.[18]

By late 1964 the State Department was alarmed at the progress Malcolm X was making with his petition strategy. He had made friends among Third World diplomats and United Nations representatives, especially among the more radical members of that organization and those of the radical Casablanca Group of African countries.

Malcolm X’s friendship with Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah was about to pay dividends in Malcolm’s UN petition strategy. As surveillance documents indicated, he had also cultivated a friendship with Alex Quaison-Sackey, Ghana’s Ambassador to the UN, who was about to be elected president of the General Assembly. FBI surveillance also indicated that Malcolm’s petition campaign had been supported by such members of the Security Index as author James Baldwin, believed by the FBI at that time to have helped Malcolm draft the petition itself.

Revolutionary Algeria was implicated in Malcolm’s plans, as the FBI believed that Mahmoud Boutiba, a propagandist for the government of Ahmed Ben Bella, was a personal adviser to Malcolm X of long standing.[19]

CIA documents indicate that the State Department took up the matter of Malcolm X’s UN petition idea with President Lyndon Johnson, who in turn asked J. Edgar Hoover to secure further information. Hoover in turn contacted Burke Marshall of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, who initiated inquiries with Malcolm X’s biographer, Alex Haley, and other civil rights leaders about Malcolm X’s foreign ties and financial resources.

When Hoover’s investigation failed to turn up any legal improprieties on Malcolm’s part, Read again approached Helms, asking him to use the Clandestine Services Division to penetrate Malcolm X’s foreign connections before the UN petition became a crisis for the Johnson administration. There is no record of the CIA acting on Read’s request.[20]

However, FBI documents indicate that the FBI’s Newark field office reported to Hoover its attempts to develop new contacts in the Newark NOI Temple in the months immediately preceding Malcolm X’s assassination. Malcolm’s alleged assassins came out of that Temple.[21]

By his second trip to Africa, Malcolm X had developed the belief that the U.S. government was prepared to destroy his movement. While still in Africa, Malcolm X noted the actions of the United States government to isolate Africans from him and to convince them that he was not concerned about Africa.

It raised his ire that the United State Information Agency (USIA) was publicizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Africa as a refutation of his positions. He was quite angry that U.S. diplomats and some Black civil rights leaders were travelling in Africa misrepresenting the opinions of African-Americans regarding Africa.

With the record of FBI concern and surveillance available, Malcolm’s concerns were not without substantial foundation. Certainly, the increased level of government surveillance of Malcolm X and the accelerated U.S. State Department activity in Africa to counter his inroads there buttressed his fears, as did his belief that U.S. agents in Cairo had poisoned him.[22]

From Malcolm X to COINTELPRO and Beyond

The program instituted by the FBI known as COINTELPRO was not initiated until several years after Malcolm X’s assassination. But from its August 1967 description of its program to disrupt and “neutralize” so-called “Black Nationalist hate groups,” it appears that the FBI program of discrediting Malcolm X was one of its earliest trial runs.

In the August 1967 document, the goals of COINTELPRO in relationship to Black nationalism are described as:

  1. Prevent a coalition of militant Black Nationalist groups.
  2. Prevent the rise of a “Messiah” who could unify, and electrify, the militant Black Nationalist Movement.
  3. Prevent violence on the part of Black Nationalist groups…Through counterintelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence.
  4. Prevent militant Black Nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability…
  5. A final goal should be to prevent the long-range growth of militant Black Nationalist organizations, especially among the youth. (Stanford 1986, p. 182) [Emphases added.]

Why Was Malcolm Perceived As a Threat to National Security?

The FBI’s COINTELPRO was a pre-emptive strike at the legacy of Malcolm X to prevent the transformation of the Civil Rights Movement into a viable movement of national liberation.

COINTELPRO formally came into existence in August 1967 with goals directly addressed to nullifying the legacy of Malcolm X. By the end of the 1970s, SNCC, Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), a black nationalist group,, the Black Panther Party, and the American Indian Movement (AIM) were either repressed into non-existence or rendered impotent with large numbers of their cadre incarcerated as political prisoners or at least disillusioned and no longer active.

By 1980, those who had avoided the dragnet were deep underground in a small ad hoc grouping of fugitives known as the Black Liberation Army.

Black Liberation Army | Colorlines

Black Panther Party members march in formation. [Source: colorlines.com]

Because of state repression, the generation of Black youth who came of age in the 1980s initially had no knowledge of Malcolm X, and his legacy was in danger of being lost. However, Malcolm X’s legacy survived the nadir of the early 1980s as he was rediscovered by a new generation of youth.

Malcolm’s life itself was a political statement in so many ways. His formative experiences reflected those of the first generation of Black folks to experience the urban industrial order and his imprisonment reflected the predicament of Black youth in the post-industrial age.

His political mentoring was a collective process, rooted in the Garveyism of his family, the religious nationalism of the Nation of Islam, the radical Pan-African internationalism of the Harlem intelligentsia, and the revolutionary praxis of the Afro-Asian liberation movements which hosted him on his trips to Africa. Sunni Islam facilitated Malcolm’s understanding of the fundamental unity of humankind and helped him to recognize the proper relationship between spirituality and activism.

Malcolm scared the security state because he was a harbinger of the maturation of a new social force born in the post-industrial ghetto which had the potential to make revolution real in the United States. Anyone with that potential is marked as a subversive—an enemy of the state—who must be targeted for destruction. Malcolm X was not the first so targeted nor will he be the last.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

William W. Sales, Jr. is Associate Professor and past Chairperson of the Department of African American Studies and Director of the Center for African American Studies at Seton Hall University. A recognized expert on Malcolm X, Dr. Sales is the author of two books, From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (South End Press 1994) and Southern Africa/Black America: Same Struggle, Same Fight (Black Liberation Press, 1977). William can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. New York Times, November 18, 2021, p. A1. 
  2. “Zionist Logic,” The Egyptian Gazette, September 17, 1964. 
  3. Les Payne and Tamara Payne, The Dead Are Arising: The Life of Malcolm X (New York: Liveright, 2020), p. 51. 
  4. Garvey, Du Bois, Robeson, and others had in common with Malcolm the commitment to see the plight of African-Americans in internationalist and anti-imperialists context. Du Bois sought commitments from the Allies at Versailles after World War I to promote the welfare of colonized Black Africans. Garvey demanded from the League of Nations the diplomatic recognition that the UNIA represented the welfare of Africans everywhere. In 1941 with Du Bois and others, Robeson founded the Council on African Affairs. Later in the 1940s he joined Du Bois to petition the United Nations to investigate human rights violations against the African-American people. In 1951 Du Bois and Robeson supported William Paterson’s Civil Rights Congress petition to the United Nations entitled We Charge Genocide. In each of the cases just cited, state-sponsored repression was swift and effective against the leaders and organizations promoting expanding the arena of the Black Freedom struggle to international organizations. 
  5. FBI, Memo from Director, FBI to SAC New York, Philadelphia, “Organization of Afro-American Unity,” OAAU Surveillance File (Internal Security, Miscellaneous100-442235-July 2, 1964 p. 2). Earlier “dirty tricks” had been initiated against Malcolm X and Muslim Mosque, Inc., by the FBI, as indicated in the outline of a plan contained in a memo from the SAC Detroit to Hoover dated April 10, 1964, in which a phony letter was drafted over Malcolm’s signature and sent to Muhammad’s followers in Detroit so as to cause “Disruption and deeper disputes between Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm Little of Muslim Mosque, Inc.” 
  6. Kenneth O’Reilly, “Racial Matters”: The FBI’s Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972(New York: Free Press, 1989), p. 18. 
  7. Ibid. 
  8. Ibid., p. 42. 
  9. Ibid. 
  10. Ibid. 
  11. FBI Surveillance File, July 2, 1964. 
  12. Big Red News, July 28, 1990, p. 2. 
  13. Elaine Rivera, “The Man Who Spied on Malcolm X,” New York Newsday, July 23-24, 1989. 
  14. Interview with Muhammad Ahmad (Max Stanford), New York, NY, December 28, 1987. 
  15. Big Red News, July 28, 1990, p. 2. 
  16. The Washington Post, February 22, 2021,.The 2011 letter by now-deceased officer Raymond A. Wood stated that Wood had been compelled by his supervisors at the New York Police Department to coax two members of Malcolm X’s security team into committing crimes, leading to their arrests just a few days before the assassination. They were then unable to secure the entry to New York’s Audubon Ballroom, where Malcolm X was speaking when he was killed.Wood maintained that the arrests were part of a conspiracy by the NYPD and the FBI to murder Malcolm. 
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid. 
  20. Ibid. 
  21. FBI, “Memo From SAC, Chicago, to Director,” Muslim Mosque, Inc. Surveillance File (April 10, 1964). 
  22. One is left to wonder regarding Army surveillance of Malcolm, given the experience of Dr. King in the period immediately before his assassination. Memphis Commercial Appeal, March 21, 1993, excerpt from March 21, 1993, edition. The intelligence branch of the United States Army spied on the family of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for three generations. Top secret, often illegal, intrusions into the lives of Black Americans began more than 75 years ago and often focused on Black churches in the South and their ministers. The spying was born of a conviction by top Army intelligence officers that Black Americans were ripe for subversion—first by agents of the German Kaiser, then by Communists, later by the Japanese and eventually by those opposed to the Vietnam War. At first, the Army used a reporting network of private citizens that included church members, Black businessmen such as Memphis’s Robert R. Church, Jr., and Black educators like the Hampton Institute’s Roscoe C. Simmons. It later employed cadres of infiltrators, wiretaps, and aerial photography by U2 spy planes. As the Civil Rights Movement merged with anti-war protests in the late 1960s, some Army units began supplying sniper rifles and other weapons of war to civilian police departments. Army Intelligence began planning for what some officers believed would soon be armed rebellion. 
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Malcolm’s Growing Socialist, Anti-imperialist, Anti-Zionist and Pan-African Outlook Made Him Target of the “Deep State”—Like So Many Others Under COINTELPRO
  • Tags: , ,

NATO Expansionism in Europe

February 22nd, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“NATO’s enlargement in the last decades has been a great success and has also paved the way for a further enlargement of the EU”: this was reiterated last Saturday at the Munich Security Conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In order to fully understand his words, it is necessary to reconstruct this “great success” story in its essential terms.

It begins in the same year – 1999 – in which NATO demolishes Yugoslavia with war and, at the Washington summit, announces that it wants to “conduct crisis response operations, not provided for in Article 5, outside Alliance territory”. Forgetting that it had committed itself to Russia “not to expand even one inch to the East”, NATO began its expansion to the East. It includes the first three countries of the former Warsaw Pact: Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. Then, in 2004, it extends to seven more: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (formerly part of the USSR); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia (formerly part of the Warsaw Pact); Slovenia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation). In 2009, NATO incorporates Albania (formerly a member of the Warsaw Pact) and Croatia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation); in 2017, Montenegro (formerly part of Yugoslavia); in 2020, North Macedonia (formerly part of Yugoslavia) In twenty years, NATO expands from 16 to 30 countries.

In this way, Washington achieves a triple result. It extends the military alliance close to Russia, even inside the territory of the former USSR, and maintains the levers of command: the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is, “by tradition”, always a US general appointed by the US president and the other key commands also belong to the US. At the same time, Washington ties the Eastern countries not so much to the Alliance, but directly to the US. Romania and Bulgaria, as soon as they entered, immediately made available to the United States the important military bases of Constanta and Burgas on the Black Sea. The third result obtained by Washington with the enlargement of NATO to the East is the strengthening of its influence in Europe. Out of the ten Central-Eastern European countries that joined NATO between 1999 and 2004, seven joined the European Union between 2004 and 2007: the United States superimposed NATO on the EU, which expanded to the East, over Europe.

Today 21 of the 27 countries of the European Union belong to NATO under US command. The North Atlantic Council, the Alliance’s political body, according to NATO rules decides not by majority but always “unanimously and by common accord”, i.e. in agreement with what is decided in Washington. The participation of the major European powers in these decisions (excluding Italy, which obeys by keeping silent) generally takes place through secret negotiations with Washington on give and take. This involves a further weakening of European parliaments, in particular the Italian one, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

In this framework, Europe finds itself today in an even more dangerous situation than during the Cold War. Three other countries – Bosnia Herzegovina (formerly part of Yugoslavia), Georgia and Ukraine (formerly part of the USSR) – are candidates to join NATO. Stoltenberg, spokesman for the US before NATO, declares that “we keep the door open and if the Kremlin’s goal is to have less NATO on Russia’s borders, it will only get more NATO.”

In the US-NATO escalation, clearly directed to explode a large-scale war in the heart of Europe, nuclear weapons come into play. In three months, the U.S. begins mass production of the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, which will be deployed under U.S. command in Italy and other European countries, probably also in the East even closer to Russia. In addition to these, the U.S. has in Europe two land bases in Romania and Poland and four warships equipped with the Aegis missile system, capable of launching not only anti-missile missiles but also cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. They are also preparing intermediate-range nuclear missiles to be deployed in Europe against Russia, the invented enemy that can, however, respond destructively if attacked.

To all this is added the economic and social impact of growing military spending. At the meeting of defense ministers, Stoltenberg triumphantly announced that “this is the seventh consecutive year of increased defense spending by European Allies, increased by $270 billion since 2014.” More public money diverted from social spending and productive investment, while European countries have yet to recover from the 2020-21 economic lockdown. Italian military spending has exceeded 70 million euros per day, but it’s not enough. Prime Minister Draghi has already announced “We must provide ourselves with a more significant defense: it is very clear that we will have to spend much more than we have done so far”. Very clear: let’s tighten our belts so that NATO can expand.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Niemand wird die Fortschritte der zivilisatorischen Entwicklung bestreiten; doch das Problem der Gewalttätigkeit ist von der Menschheit nicht gelöst worden. Hinsichtlich der Bändigung der Gewalt scheinen wir uns noch ganz am Anfang der Humanisierung zu befinden. Die maßlose und die gemäßigte Brutalität – historische Faktoren ersten Ranges – prägen unserem Zeitalter nach wie vor ihren Stempel auf. Eine Epidemie der Machtgier und Brutalität in Politik und Wirtschaft führt immer wieder zu Katastrophen wie Krieg und Terror, die Millionen von Menschen dahinraffen wie die Pest des Mittelalters. Nicht nur die Ereignisse der vergangenen 120 Jahre mit zwei Weltkriegen und unzähligen weiteren Kriegen, sondern auch die Vorkommnisse der beiden letzten Jahre im Zusammenhang mit der von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO ausgerufenen Corona-Pandemie haben uns einen gründlichen Anschauungsunterricht über die geschichtliche Bedeutung der Macht und der Gewalttätigkeit gegeben. Ein neueres warnendes Beispiel ist der gesellschaftliche Umbruch, der sich vor unser aller Augen in Kanada unter Premier Trudeau ereignet: aus einer Demokratie oder „stillen Diktatur“ wird in kürzester Zeit die Herrschaftsform einer „offenen Diktatur“. Und das deshalb, weil die Bürger oder Untertanen der Regierung nicht mehr blind gehorchen, ihre Freiheit einfordern und ihr individuelles und kollektives Recht auf Widerstand gegen die Tyrannei wahrnehmen.

Keinem die Macht übergeben! 

Seit wir Kenntnisse über den Menschen haben, wissen wir, dass der Mensch stets nach einem besseren Leben strebt, nach Frieden und Freiheit. Im Vordergrund steht der Friede: kein Krieg, keine Gewalt. Und so lange der Bürger schweigt, sich von der Obrigkeit alles gefallen lässt, die Steuern zahlt und zur richtigen Zeit ins Militär einrückt, haben wir die so genannte Demokratie – in gewisser Weise die stille Diktatur.

Sobald der Bürger aber seine Ängstlichkeit abwirft und den Kadavergehorsam aufgibt, das heißt, den Regierenden nicht mehr blindlings gehorcht, sondern den Mut aufbringt, sich seines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen und auf seinen gesunden Menschenverstand zu vertrauen und dann auch noch seine Freiheitsrechte einfordert und gegen jegliche Unterwerfung und Tyrannei aufbegehrt, wird aus der stillen Diktatur oder Demokratie ohne jede Hemmung ganz schnell eine offene Diktatur oder Tyrannei – wie das Beispiel Kanada zeigt.

Wer bisher Probleme damit hatte, dass Leo N. Tolstoj bereits vor über 100 Jahren die regierenden Politiker unter anderem als „die grausamsten“ Menschen bezeichnete, die häufig herrschen, den wird das Beispiel Trudeau oder auch der Umgang der australischen Regierung mit dem Tennisstar Novak Djokovic eines Besseren belehren. Auch stellt sich die Frage, wo der weltweite Aufschrei der regierenden Politiker anderer Demokratien und ihre Distanzierung vom brutalen Vorgehen der kanadischen Regierung gegen ihre Bürger bleibt? Oder will man es sich mit dem Kollegen Justin Trudeau – wie viele andere westliche Politiker ein Zögling von Klaus Schwabs Davoser Kaderschmiede – nicht verderben?

Das Problem beginnt damit, dass freie Bürger anderen Menschen die Macht über ihr Leben geben. So werden in der westlichen Welt alle vier bis fünf Jahre korrupte Politiker in hohe Regierungsämter gewählt und die Bürger schauen zu ihnen auf wie Kinder zu respektablen Autoritäten. Doch die Politiker verbinden mit dieser Zuschreibung umgehend Herrschaftsansprüche, schaffen ein Verhältnis der Über- und Unterordnung und setzen gegenüber den Bürgern ihren Willen durch – präziser gesagt: den Willen oder die Anweisungen ihrer Auftraggeber, einer finsteren globalen Finanz-„Elite“.

Hoffnungsschimmer nach Friedrich Schiller: „Nein, eine Grenze hat Tyrannenmacht!“

Der freie Mensch, der sich gemäß Naturrecht seiner Menschennatur bewusst ist und sich von keinem anderen Wesen unterjochen lässt, wird sein Recht auf Widerstand gegen die Tyrannei wahrnehmen. Das Naturrecht, das dem Menschen allein schon deshalb zusteht, weil er Mensch ist, sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit sowie körperliche Unversehrtheit und Unantastbarkeit der menschlichen Würde müssen unveräußerliche Grundlage einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaftsordnung sein. Alle Bürger sind dazu aufgerufen, den „alten Urstand der Natur“ wiederherzustellen! (Friedrich Schiller in der Rütli-Szene seines letzten Dramas „Wilhelm Tell“)

Der Mensch, der aufsteht, hat nichts gegen den Machthaber. Der Mensch in der Revolte hat sich der Umgestaltung, der Änderung verschrieben. Er kämpft nur um eine gerechtere Ordnung, ein gerechteres Zusammenleben unter den Menschen. Er hat nichts gegen den Machthaber, er tut ihm nichts. Er kämpft nur um sein Recht, während die andere Seite – in der ganzen Geschichte – immer brutal ist, gemein. Nimmt er dieses individuelle und kollektive Recht auf Widerstand nicht in Anspruch, könnte das warnende Beispiel Kanadas in der westlichen Welt Schule machen.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor a. D., Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Das warnende Beispiel der kanadischen Regierung unter Premier Trudeau: Von der „stillen“ zur „offenen Diktatur“

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

No one will deny the progress of civilisational development; but the problem of violence has not been solved by mankind. With regard to the taming of violence, we seem to be still at the very beginning of humanisation. Immoderate and moderate brutality – historical factors of the first order – continue to leave their mark on our age. An epidemic of greed for power and brutality in politics and economics leads again and again to catastrophes such as war and terror, which sweep away millions of people like the plague of the Middle Ages.

Not only the events of the past 120 years with two world wars and countless other wars, but also the events of the last two years in connection with the Corona pandemic declared by the World Health Organisation (WHO) have given us a thorough visual lesson in the historical significance of power and violence.

A more recent warning example is the social upheaval taking place before our very eyes in Canada under Prime Minister Trudeau: a democracy or “silent dictatorship” is rapidly turning into an “open dictatorship”. And this is because the citizens or subjects no longer blindly obey the government, demand their freedom and exercise their individual and collective right to resist tyranny.

Handing over power to no one!

Since we have knowledge of man, we know that man always strives for a better life, for peace and freedom. Peace is in the foreground: no war, no violence. And as long as the citizen remains silent, puts up with everything from the authorities, pays the taxes and joins the military at the right time, we have the so-called democracy – in a way, the silent dictatorship.

But as soon as the citizen throws off his timidity and abandons cadaver obedience, that is, no longer blindly obeys those in power, but has the courage to use his own intellect and trust in his common sense, and then also demands his rights of freedom and rebels against any subjugation and tyranny, the silent dictatorship or democracy without any inhibition very quickly becomes an open dictatorship or tyranny – as the example of Canada shows.

Anyone who had problems with the fact that Leo N. Tolstoy, more than 100 years ago, described ruling politicians as, among other things, “the cruellest” people who often rule, will be disabused of this notion by the example of Trudeau or the Australian government’s treatment of tennis star Novak Djokovic. The question also arises as to where the worldwide outcry of the governing politicians of other democracies and their distancing from the brutal actions of the Canadian government against its citizens is? Or do they not want to spoil things with their colleague Justin Trudeau – like many other Western politicians a pupil of Klaus Schwab’s Davos cadre?

The problem starts with free citizens giving other people power over their lives. Thus, in the Western world, corrupt politicians are elected to high government offices every four to five years and citizens look up to them like children to respectable authorities. But politicians immediately associate this ascription with claims to power, create a relationship of superiority and subordination and impose their will on citizens – more precisely, the will or instructions of their patrons, a sinister global financial “elite”.

Glimmer of hope according to Friedrich Schiller: “No, a limit has tyrant power!”

The free human being who, according to natural law, is aware of his human nature and does not allow himself to be subjugated by any other being, will exercise his right to resist tyranny. Natural law, to which man is entitled simply because he is human, says that there is something that is right by nature. Liberty, equality and fraternity, as well as physical integrity and the inviolability of human dignity, must be the inalienable basis of a liberal social order. All citizens are called upon to restore the “ancient primordial state of nature”! (Friedrich Schiller in the Rütli scene of his last drama “Wilhelm Tell”)

The man who stands up has nothing against the man in power.

The man in revolt is dedicated to transformation, to change. He fights only for a more just order, a more just coexistence among people. He has nothing against the ruler, he does nothing to him.

He only fights for his right, while the other side – throughout history – is always brutal, mean.

If he does not make use of this individual and collective right to resist, Canada’s cautionary example could set a precedent in the Western world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr Rudolf Hänsel is a retired headmaster, educationalist and graduate psychologist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Innate Warmongering: Seeing Conflict in Ukraine as Inevitable

February 22nd, 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

US President Theodore Roosevelt never had much time for peace, seeing its returns as distinctly less than those of war.  Despite his love of military conflict and its touted benefits, he was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering peace in the Russo-Japanese War.  But for old Teddy peaceniks were sissies, degenerates, and probably sexually dubious.

The intoxicant that is war tends to besot its promoters, however balanced they might claim to be.  On February 21, the Australian public broadcaster, the ABC, seemed to embrace a subliminal message in its programming, notably on the issue of war.  The standard reference?  The outbreak of the Second World War.  September 1939.  Poor Poland, and benighted UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

The blind, the daft and the reality television viewer may have missed the programming point, but others could not have.  Russian forces are posed on the borders of Ukraine.  In the presses of Australasia, Europe and the United States, there is more talk of war than that of diplomacy.  There is the prospect of much death and many body bags.  Instead of running documentaries, statements or messages on how war might be averted, thereby yielding the floor to diplomacy, the message of conflict has become inexorably clear.

This is perhaps the most visibly sickening feature of the enterprise.  It is a reminder that war has a seductiveness, acts as a paralytic agent, dulling sensibility whilst arousing other senses.  The opposite is never as inspiring because it is always constructively dull: negotiations, peace, averting death and the cracking of skulls.  Best encourage powers to shred a few people, slaughter the residents of a village or two, and crow about the evils of the enemy.  Add some political garnish: they died in the name of democracy; they were killed because they needed to be enlightened by the rules-based order.

The message of war was promoted with unbending consistency when it came to the certifiably criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by US-led forces.  It was very much in keeping with the rules-based order according to President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Australia’s own yappy John Howard.  War would take place, whatever the evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities.

Having decided that invading Iraq would be good copy, the Murdoch Press Empire went to work softening minds and adding Viagra to war adventurism.  Of the stable of papers run by Rupert Murdoch, only one of the 175 – the Hobart Mercury – did not support the war.  The project certainly bore rewards in terms of moving opinion.  A Gallup International survey’s findingsreleased on February 4, 2003 revealed that 68 percent of Australians backed military action against Iraq.  Of those Australians surveyed, 89 percent expected war to be imminent.  This was, pure and simple, an incitement to conflict, a hardening of the resolve.

While it is not NATO, or the United States, that is contemplating an invasion of Ukraine, a country meshed with Russian history and influence, the language of predictability, the undeviating lingo of war, has come to heavily shade the workings of diplomacy.  In London, Washington and Canberra, we are already seeing the position that war will take place.

Speaking to CBS, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was as good as convinced that “provocations created by the Russian or separatist forces over the weekend, false flag operations” suggested a state of advanced preparedness for invasion.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in his address to the Munich Security Conference, conceded to not fully knowing “what President [Vladimir] Putin intends but the omens are grim and that is why we must stand strong together.”  Should Russia invade, Johnson promised, Russian individuals would be sanctioned, along with “companies of strategic importance to the Russian state”.  Raising capital on London capital markets would be made all but impossible “and we will open up the matryoshka dolls of Russian-owned companies and Russian-owned entities to find the ultimate beneficiaries within.”

Western press outlets are also aiding in this, using, for the most part, images and material of moving tanks and personnel supplied by the Russian Ministry of Defence.  Even mocking opinions expressed by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the “invasion date” have been spun as tangible proofs of coming war.

As New Lines Magazine points out, “the West is doing such an eloquent job of broadcasting the reality of Russian military might” for the Putin regime.  In a conversation with one of the magazine’s authors, the editor of a British “mid-market tabloid” thought that “this invasion stuff is probably all nonsense.”  But no matter.  “Boris needs this to run and run.”

The headlines and titles of various papers are all too drearily reminiscent of 2003.  “We may be just hours away from war in Europe,” shrieked Mark Almond on February 15 in the Daily Mail.  Some hours have passed since then, but there is no sign of the journalist being held accountable for this nakedly hysterical effusion.

The Scottish Sun was even more blood thirstily confident, with its February 13 issue trumpeting that there was “48 hours to war.”  Moscow’s “bombing blitz may be early as Tuesday after Prez talks deadlock.”  That same day, The Sunday Telegraph insisted that Russia was plotting an imminent “‘false flag attack to provoke war.”

The script for invasion, in other words, has already been written, and not necessarily or entirely from the pen of the Russian leader.  The pieces are all in place: the assumption of invasion, the promised implementation of sanctions and limits on raising finance, and strong condemnation.  A fever has taken old, and it promises to carry away much life and sensibility.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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 epthinktank.eu

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Innate Warmongering: Seeing Conflict in Ukraine as Inevitable
  • Tags: , ,

Video: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

By His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, February 22, 2022

Carlo Maria Viganò is an archbishop of the Catholic Church who served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 19 October 2011 to 12 April 2016. Archbishop Viganò has spoken out against The Great Reset and the Globalist Agenda 2030 publicly many times. He now gives his full support to the Canadian truckers and the worldwide Freedom movement.

Ukrainian Minister: Inappropriate to Say “Russian Invasion” Is About to Happen

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 22, 2022

An interesting event occurred during this third weekend of February. The Ukrainian defense minister said that it is not appropriate to talk about an immediate Russian invasion, contrary to much of the hegemonic discourse in the Western media.

Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’

By Flat White, February 21, 2022

The Canberra Freedom Convoy is an awful lot bigger than the mainstream press would like you to believe. Although they have been in Canberra for nearly two weeks, today’s rally grew to an extraordinary size with the lawn outside Parliament House filling to hold tens of thousands.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison Commits $804 Million Over a Decade for the Antarctic

By Prof. Michelle Grattan, February 21, 2022

The funding, including for drones, helicopters and vehicles, will enable Australia’s to penetrate inland areas of its claimed territory of East Antartica previously unreachable. In strategic terms, Australia has had a watchful eye on China’s increasing involvement in recent years in the Antarctic and in Antarctic politics.

UK Covering Up Thousands of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

By Arsenio Toledo and John O’Looney, February 21, 2022

An investigation by the Daily Expose has found that thousands of deaths caused by the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine have been covered up in the United Kingdom by many government and public health agencies.

Justin Trudeau is a “Groomed Politician” Controlled by Klaus Schwab on Behalf of “Big Money”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 21, 2022

Klaus Schwab made the following statement in January 2016 at the Davos annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, less than three months after Justin Trudeau’s accession to the position of Prime Minister of Canada following the November 2015 elections.

The Right to Protest in the Stolen Indigenous Territory Called Canada

By Kim Petersen, February 21, 2022

What does the sacred obligation of a nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples look like for Trudeau? On 7 February 2020, the Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade reported a RCMP raid with helicopters, snipers, police dogs, and tactical teams.

Dr. Ryan Cole: COVID Vaccines Cause Catastrophic Damage to Organs

By Ramon Tomey, February 21, 2022

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America’s Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs.

As U.S. Threatens War with Russia, Biden Administration Unveils Imperial Strategy for Indo-Pacific That Could Lead to War with China

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, February 21, 2022

The new strategy starts by repeating familiar clichés about America’s supposed humanitarian intentions in Southeast Asia and role in providing the security that “allowed regional democracies to flourish,” while ritualistically condemning Chinese aggression “spanning the entire globe.”

The Political Persecution of Julian Assange: Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

By Saturday Morning, February 21, 2022

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being made an example of by the US government to deter investigative journalists from exposing state abuses, the current UN Special Rapporteur on torture says.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

Video: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

February 22nd, 2022 by His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Carlo Maria Viganò is an archbishop of the Catholic Church who served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 19 October 2011 to 12 April 2016.

Archbishop Viganò has spoken out against The Great Reset and the Globalist Agenda 2030 publicly many times.

He now gives his full support to the Canadian truckers and the worldwide Freedom movement.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An interesting event occurred during this third weekend of February. The Ukrainian defense minister said that it is not appropriate to talk about an immediate Russian invasion, contrary to much of the hegemonic discourse in the Western media. In fact, as time goes on, it becomes more difficult to endorse the anti-Russian narrative that Moscow is preparing to start a war at any moment, which leads officials to look for other arguments in order to justify their measures.

During a speech, Defense Minister of Ukraine, Oleksiy Reznikov, commented on Sunday, February 20, that he does not consider it appropriate to say that a Russian invasion is about to happen these days, as Washington has been saying in recent weeks. These were some of his words:

“Today, as of this hour, Russia has not formed yet a strike force in any city where it surrounded Ukraine. Therefore, it is inappropriate, in my opinion, to talk about the attack tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. But this does not mean that the risks are low, and it does not mean that there is no threat. I want to remind our partners that the threat has existed since 2013”.

On the same occasion, Reznikov stated that his country is “ready” to face any kind of confrontation with Russian troops, which is undoubtedly just a way to alleviate the collective fear in public opinion, considering the huge difference in military power between both countries. In the midst of the recent increase in Ukrainian tensions, the possibility of a new war has given rise to fear, mistrust, and polarization, which has become a real problem within the Ukrainian society itself. In this sense, the minister’s words can be interpreted as an attempt to appease society, both affirming that the risks of invasion are lower than they “seemed” so far, and affirming that Kiev is prepared for this type of confrontation.

It is interesting to note how the words of the Ukrainian defense minister do not in any way represent a break with Western discourse – there is only an attempt to make it more believable, despite apparent contradictions. Recent pronouncements by NATO and US government officials about the “imminence” of a Russian invasion have undoubtedly compelled international society and especially the Ukrainian people into an atmosphere of fear, but this effect is temporary.

With the absence of any invasion, it was expected that in the medium term the fear would end, and public opinion would begin to see inconsistencies in the Western discourse, which could generate a wave of opposition to the anti-Russian measures. In this sense, Reznikov tried to reach a rhetorical middle ground: the invasion plan exists, but it is not for now. In a way, his words contradict the speech of the main western leaders, but at the same time, make the narrative about the invasion plan more “feasible”.

On the same day, the Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, stated during an interview with US media that there is no threat of war. The diplomat emphasized that Russian troops are stationed within Russia’s own sovereign territory, keeping their distance from the autonomous republics, despite recent incursions by Kiev. Antonov explained that Moscow does not claim sovereignty over the Donbass, so there is no possibility of military intervention in the region: “We are not trying to seize any territory of another country. I would like to confirm that Donetsk and Lugansk are part of Ukraine”.

The recent attacks on Donetsk and Lugansk bring even more tensions to the Ukrainian situation as a whole. Kiev is trying to provoke a Russian reaction in Donbass, but Moscow, despite being concerned about the humanitarian situation of the Russian-speaking population, refuses to act in an invasive way, as it recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty over the autonomous republics. The Russian government continues to maintain its strategy of peaceful and legal resolution, calling for Kiev to comply with international agreements and to be punished for the crimes against human rights that are being committed, without, however, considering any form of military intervention.

In the end, the Russian diplomat’s words seem more credible than the Ukrainian minister’s: this is not a long-term invasion plan – simply, there is no such a plan. Once again, public opinion will be maneuvered and a new fallacious discourse will be spread, but this does not change the fact that there is no future for this narrative. At some point, it will no longer be possible to use the argument of the “invasion” that never occurs.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from rt.com

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Watch the video below.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” I believe millions of Canadians feel as though they have been sucker punched by their government again, and again, and again over the last two years.

On January 15, 2022, the Trudeau Liberals went one step too far, and we are now seeing the ramifications of a government thinking it could get away with its insanity indefinitely.

When the Prime Minister decided to bring greater restrictions by forcing vaccine mandates on essential workers as a requisite for crossing the border, he unleashed his personal hell in the form of a freedom movement driven by hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country.

As most other jurisdictions in the country and around the world were loosening restrictions, Justin Trudeau was mandating more. Whoops!

What has emerged out of the increasingly oppressive state control has been glorious. The effects of which may not be fully visible for weeks or even months to come. There has been a transformation in the spirit of the people where hope and joy has replaced fear and sorrow.

As the largest convoy in history rolled across the country, the Canadian people were filled with hope for tomorrow. Men, women and children cried tears of joy and relief waiving their hands and our flag as the convoy drove past them responding with loud, resounding and assuring blasts of their horns.

As photos, videos, art and music of the Freedom Convoy filled our social media pages, an uncontrollable sense of expectation and anticipation began to mount for its eventual arrival in our nation’s capital.

I live in downtown Ottawa. From the very first moment the trucks arrived, I went outside almost every single day to walk around, speak to the demonstrators and to capture footage of what I was witnessing.

I have been so moved and impacted by these heroes. These men and women have ignited a spirit of unity, hope and peace with their love for our country, its and people and freedom.

As I would walk through the streets lined with massive semis covered in signs declaring freedom, I could not wipe the smile from my face.

What took place over these last three weeks in Ottawa was a celebration by the people and for the people. The Freedom Convoy was a symbol of the nation’s unwillingness to let the government continue to infringe on Charter rights and freedoms unjustifiably.

One night, I walked up to the Wellington St. to the intersection right in front of the Peace Tower. The trucks were blowing their horns continuously for about ten minutes. Many of the people around me were crying, some were pacing and waving the Canadian flag as the horns continued to blow. It was emotional. It felt as though the truck horns were sending off a cry and interceding for the millions of Canadians who have felt voiceless, ignored and abused by their government over the last two years. I will never forget that experience.

When I walked around during the day, I could actually see full smiling faces. It was beautiful. There were more Canadian flags on the streets and on Parliament Hill in the last three weeks than I have seen during any Canada Day celebration.

The truckers would walk around at night picking up garbage, they shovelled snow off of the sidewalks, they stood guard around the National War Memorial to ensure no one disrespected it with foolish actions. I have never before witnessed such honour and respect for this city from a mass demonstration.

At night, it was a party. A party for freedom. Music would play, people would dance and there was a tangible sense of joy in the air.

Over the weeks, the demonstration grew, multiplying in size on the weekends as Canadians traveled to Ottawa to witness and take part in this epic stand for freedom.

I believe the Prime Minister and his advisors felt things shifting. As more and more Canadians began to vocalize their opposition to the government’s unjustified prolonging of pandemic mandates, Justin Trudeau got scared. He knew that in order to save face, he had to shut down the surging display of dissent.

He vigorously attempted to shut the protest down with the help of state sponsored broadcasters by maligning and name-calling the protestors very early on, characterizing them as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.” After coming out of hiding, he and his party tried to paint a picture of the entire group as racists and white supremacists who were terrorizing the city and holding its residents hostage. Nothing could have been further from the truth. And because the truth does prevail, his attempts to quell the demonstration verbally, failed.

I do believe the Prime Minister was strategically and intentionally trying to get a visceral reaction. He wanted to provoke and build upon the division he had already fostered in the country, but thankfully, the truckers never took the bait. They responded continuously with peace, love and resolve.

So, what else could the Prime Minister do to quash this movement? Declare a state of emergency in order to bring down the hammer.

As of right now, most of the trucks have moved out of the downtown core. People continue to gather to peacefully protest in opposition to the incredible amount of state force, which has descended upon the city.

By invoking the Emergencies Act, Trudeau isn’t stopping a crisis, he’s creating one.

Hundreds of heavily armed police officers are lined up in streets ready to use force on any protestor who pushes it too far. Images of masked up and helmeted police standing face to face with freedom protestors are making their way around the world, and the responses have largely been of shock, horror and ridicule.

It never had to get to this point. All they wanted was to be heard and to have the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of Canadians restored. But, the Prime Minister had his mind made up about these freedom loving Canadians before they even arrived. These truckers are literally the backbone of our economy and he wouldn’t even give them the time of day. Instead, he ridiculed, demonized, slandered and targeted them with vile words of hate and derision.

To my fellow Canadians, the trucks may be gone from the streets of Ottawa, but the . It is up to us, the people, to pick up the baton and run with it. This is our country. It does not belong to a few politicians. We have the right to express ourselves, to speak, assemble and protest peacefully.

Though it may look like Justin Trudeau is getting away with authoritarian actions right now, he will not. Truth and justice will prevail; it is only a matter of time. He turned against his own people in order to protect his image and seat of power. But something has changed in this country. The people have stepped out of isolation and have stood together as a force to be reckoned with.

I am so filled with hope and optimism about the future of this nation in the hands of a freedom loving people.

Good days are ahead. Keep pushing and keep standing together. You are being seen and heard, not only in Canada, but around the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Uncancelled

Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’

February 21st, 2022 by Flat White

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison Commits $804 Million Over a Decade for the Antarctic

UK Covering Up Thousands of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

February 21st, 2022 by Arsenio Toledo

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An investigation by the Daily Expose has found that thousands of deaths caused by the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine have been covered up in the United Kingdom by many government and public health agencies.

“Health authorities around the world are manipulating figures in an attempt to hide from the general public that the COVID-19 injections are causing the fully vaccinated to develop Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS),”the Daily Expose reported.

According to the Daily ExposePublic Health England (PHE), Public Health Scotland (PHS) and the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) have all been actively attempting to hide the actual number of deaths caused by the COVID-19 vaccine from members of the press who actually want to report the truth regarding this matter. (Related: COVID cover-up: UK media refuses to report that 4 of 5 coronavirus deaths over the past month occurred in the vaccinated.)

One Freedom of Information Act request released earlier this month has found that the British government has only admitted to 15 deaths in England and Wales caused by COVID-19 vaccinations. As the Daily Expose‘s investigation shows, this is wildly inaccurate.

Data from the PHE covering June 14 to 21, 2021 show that, of the 35 deaths due to COVID-19 reported that week, four were unvaccinated, seven were partially vaccinated and 24 were fully vaccinated.

Journalists from the outlet tried to contact various PHE branches as well as Members of Parliament and Health Secretary Sajid Javid for some kind of clarification regarding this data, but they did not receive a reply. PHE also refused to publish its data on COVID-related deaths for the following week, instead changing the frequency of reporting to biweekly rather than weekly.

PHS, PHE’s equivalent in Scotland, has also tried to hide data showing that the vast majority of people who tested positive for COVID-19 are fully vaccinated and boosted. According to PHS data on “PCR-confirmed COVID-19” cases by vaccine status, 11,192 unvaccinated, 3,245 partially vaccinated, 24,987 fully vaccinated and 46,951 fully vaccinated and boosted individuals tested positive for the coronavirus in the four weeks from Jan. 8 to Feb. 4.

Fully vaccinated Brits succumbing to VAIDS

The UKHSA is the main government agency responsible for “public health protection and infectious disease capability.” The agency was created in April 2021 to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

The agency’s data shows that the immune systems of fully vaccinated individuals are declining rapidly. According to the Daily Expose’s analysis of UKHSA data, all fully vaccinated individuals over the age of 30 will have, on average, lost nearly 100 percent of their immune system’s ability to fight off COVID-19 within 13 weeks of being fully vaccinated.

The immune systems of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are a lot stronger, but data shows they’re still experiencing total immune system failure within 27 weeks after being fully vaccinated.

“It remains the case that the surveillance report includes rates per 100,000, which can be used to argue that vaccines are not effective,” said Office of Statistics Regulation Director-General Ed Humpherson in a tacit admission that the vaccines do not provide protection.

Humpherson insists that the UKHSA’s data does not prove that the immune systems of the fully vaccinated are deteriorating, claiming that “I know that this is not the intention of the surveillance report, but the potential for misuse remains.”

But if the COVID-19 vaccines were functioning as intended, none of the data released by the UKHSA or any other British government agency should even be able to remotely support an argument that the vaccines are ineffective.

Humpherson said that the use of UKHSA data to prove the vaccines are ineffective is “a misuse of government data.” This is an admission that all government data must be used exclusively to prove that the vaccines are effective, and any data that departs from this narrative shall be “readjusted” by his office.

“Nobody who is vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna is fully vaccinated at all. If they were fully vaccinated, then they would not get infected with COVID, would they?” wrote the Daily Expose.

“If they were fully vaccinated, then they would not need a booster and another booster, would they? Fully vaccinated people are fully duped, fully conned and are on the way to having their genes fully corrupted and their immune systems fully compromised. The one thing they are not is fully vaccinated.”

Watch this interview with John O’Looney, a funeral director in the U.K., as he talks about the surge in deaths caused by the COVID-19 vaccines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At 10 pm last night Saturday evening after two days of crackdown from the police onto freedom convoy protesters and this unfolding scene at the corner of Queen Street and Bank Street in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, police secured a safety perimeter using high metal fences before one protester broke it open at one of the ends.

When police noticed the breach, this person quickly fled away southbound on Bank while other protesters took on the task of putting the fence back in place and securing the perimeter.

The gesture quickly de-escalated the tension and police officers dismissed the incident before going back into position.

The freedom convoy truckers protest that has lasted since the last weekend of January was dismantled this weekend, three weeks into the demonstration against Covid-19 vaccine rules.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

“COVID Social Murder”

February 21st, 2022 by Konrad Rękas

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

It is too early to fully sum up the period of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic.  However, we already know today that the optimists who believed that the pandemic crisis would undermine capitalist legitimacy and restore class solidarity and national states power – were wrong. 

On the contrary, global neoliberalism is even stronger thanks to the pandemic and has increased its profits.  It has obtained it not only through exploitation, but directly through the social murder of the working class and especially older, retired people.

The issue of the reproductive role of activities previously excluded from the analysis of the work-capital relationship – gains additional importance in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

Critics agree that it exposed many of the weaknesses of the capitalist system and the free market and the ineffectiveness of states objectified by the Capital.  How be it, the conclusions and forecasts based on the 2020-2022 experience differ significantly.  Only few authors, instead of foretelling the end of capitalism misunderstanding perhaps the last great attempt intended to secure its survival – looked more closely and deeply at the course of the so-called pandemic.

Although it has benne noticed (or more precisely – overestimated) the breakdown of the capitalist supply chain, exposing the weaknesses of the care system, subjected to financialisation.  However, the detailed analysis shows that the effects of the pandemic in the socio-economic sense are distributed following the inequalities in the labour-capital relations, including the racial and gender factors.

Hidden sacrifices

People of colour are among the most vulnerable frontline workers who have been unable to benefit from homeworking protection or abstention wages.

Global inequality has also strengthened.

Temporary suspension of part of the labour activity of Northern societies – is compensated by the hard work of exploited workers of the South to maintain the supply of goods.

Especially in the US, the few shields against COVID-19 have not covered majority of Black people, Latinx and Indigenous, especially women, additionally burdened with increased household chores, virtual learning, etc. In the UK, under the name of “key workers” simply concealed the sacrifice of the lives of the low waged ones, the modern proletariat: care home workers, sales assistants in supermarkets, cleaners, drivers, couriers and many others. They are often retirees, people with disabilities, and immigrants.

With no proper access to the public healthcare they were just sacrificed to make the COVID myth credible.

In the UK, procedures are in place to deal with people over 80 who are in care homes. In the case of positively tested COVID, nurses were not allowed to give the elderly even a glass of water, let alone medication. It was a planned and organized genocide, only to improve the health of the British pension system.

These deaths add up to the accumulation of the time of the pandemic.  And these groups have been pushed even lower than previously.

Meanwhile, the fortunes of the top 1% continue to grow.

The workload of housework has increased dramatically, especially for women.  And the periodic slowdown or even suspension of growth cannot be perceived as a permanent breakthrough, especially considering attempts to restore production and keep consumption unchanged.  The so-called pandemic reminded that the policy of capital never hesitates from the Social Murders in Engels’ terms.

The gigantic profits achieved by the Amazon or the Tönnies and others are obtained not only by increasing exploitation but also directly risking the lives of workers.

Exploitation home delivered

In turn the situation of many transferred to homeworking should be considered as another example of extending the capital-labour relationship to activities previously unproductive.

Work from home imperceptibly exceeds the time frame of office hours. The value of labour is consistently transferred towards capital, and the burden on the worker increases at the expense of other aspects of his life.  The so- called pandemic only accelerated and strengthened the tendency to housewifization of women.

Social reproduction is financialised and marketised, but value of labour put in – is consequently excluded from the standard wage system.  In fact, a person chained to Facebook or Netflix (which was and is the intensified everyday life of the pandemic) – unknowingly becomes an exploited worker of great capital.

In fact, we live and function in times when our pleasures have become imperceptibly addictive, and with it – become our work.  And what is even worse – the exploited one.

Becoming aware of this is the first step to getting organised, and organisation is the basis of resistance.

This unfortunately, will be more and more difficult, as Giorgio Agamben rightly supposes that the alleged weakness of the state is in fact a screen for a paradigm shift, but in the opposite direction to that assumed by the wishful thinkers.

Present “state of exception” would henceforth be a permanent formula, increasing inequalities.

And since the neoliberal state appears only an agent of capital – any potential strengthening of the Government would not take place at expense of the capital, but for its benefit.  If something lasts two years, it has long been no longer an “emergency” or a “transition period” – but a new normality.  The new normality of old liberal capitalism, always with workers’ blood on its hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There is absolutely no way that the longest-serving and most philo-Semitic leader in modern history would ever countenance treading in Hitler’s genocidal footsteps by carrying out a second Holocaust. It’s arguably anti-Semitic to even insinuate as much since this suggests that the Jewish people and their Israeli representatives can’t recognize the ‘new Hitler’ when they see him, instead being inexplicably duped by President Putin into even going as far to praise him as their ‘very close and true friend’ while non-Jews were supposedly able to see through his alleged tricks right away.

The Washington Post first reported that U.S. representative to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva Bathsheba Nell Crocker sent a letter to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet alleging that “credible information” suggests that Russia is planning to round up many categories of Ukrainians into what amounts to concentration camps. The letter supposedly claims that Russia would “likely target those who oppose Russian actions, including Russian and Belarusian dissidents in exile in Ukraine, journalists and anti-corruption activists, and vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons.” The US also predicts that “Russian forces will likely use lethal measures to disperse peaceful protests or otherwise counter peaceful exercises of perceived resistance from civilian populations.”

The US’ Report About Planned Russian Concentration Camps In Ukraine Is Fake News

Source: OneWorld

In other words, US intelligence agencies are all but saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a modern-day Adolf Hitler whose country is about to follow in the genocidal footsteps of Nazi Germany. The reference to his speculative plot to detain and potentially even kill countless members of “vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons” strongly alludes to a modern-day Holocaust in the making considering Ukraine’s historical Jewish population. All of this implies that the Russian leader is a Slavic supremacist who must be stopped no matter the cost. The problem with this portrayal is that it’s completely false, thus discrediting the basis upon which the US just reportedly made its dramatic predictions. Their targeted audience isn’t aware of this though which is why many people might ultimately be misled by this information warfare campaign.

The first thing to remember is that President Putin isn’t who he’s misportrayed as being. Far from being a Slavic supremacist, he’s consistently supported his country’s growing Muslim minority as documented by the author in a detailed Twitter thread from earlier this month citing numerous examples from the official Kremlin website across the Russian leader’s 22 years in office. While he feels very strongly about “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians” like he elaborated upon in an extensive article last summer, he nevertheless insists that Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has no desire whatsoever to incorporate Donbass into the Russian Federation. The second-mention policy was recently reaffirmed by Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov in his latest interview with CBS News where he reminded everyone that “I would like to confirm that Donbas and Lugansk is a part of Ukraine.”

This brings the analysis around to debunking the cause of the current crisis, which isn’t a Russian-Ukrainian territorial one like the US-led Western Mainstream Media has misportrayed it as but is actually a RussianUS missile crisis. In short, NATO’s eastward expansion; the US’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and Open Skies Treaty; and deployment of strike weapons closer to Russia’s borders risks neutralizing Moscow’s nuclear second-strike capabilities, thus placing the Eurasian Great Power in a position of nuclear blackmail vis-à-vis the US. Russian intelligence also warned that the US might be planning to deploy more strike weapons – including hypersonic ones and perhaps to Ukraine too – to the region under the pretext of defending Ukraine if Kiev or mercenaries initiate a third round of civil war hostilities in Donbass.

This explains why Russia so urgently shared its security guarantee requests in late December, which include legally binding commitments not to further expand NATO; not to deploy strike weapons near Russia’s borders; and to return to the continental military status quo enshrined in the now-defunct 1997 Russian-NATO Founding Act. With these national security red lines in mind, one can then better understand why a so-called “Russian invasion of Ukraine” wouldn’t ensure Moscow’s relevant interests. If the Eurasian Great Power is provoked into militarily responding to regional provocations out of self-defense, including to protect its citizens in Eastern Ukraine, then it could simply employ air, artillery, and/or missile assets to neutralize imminent and/or hot threats from that neighboring nation without having to resort to a very costly full-fledged so-called “invasion”.

The world’s geographically largest country that’s already rich in natural resources has no interest in obtaining any more territory, let alone occupying potentially tens of millions of people from Europe’s poorest country, many of whom have been misled through the influence of “negative nationalism” into largely hating it. The economic and security consequences of fulfilling the US-led West’s dark political fantasy are simply much too high to make such a military adventure worthwhile, which is why it isn’t being seriously considered. This speculative “vanity project” would actually end up being President Putin’s ultimate folly, which he and his strategists know very well. These reasonable observations discredit the claim that Russia’s planning to “invade and occupy Ukraine”, which in turn removes the basis upon which the US reportedly predicted that it’ll practically carry out a second Holocaust.

About that, Russia and Israel are actually de facto allies as confirmed by the plethora of factual information cited by the author in the text of one of his latest analyses that can be read here. The self-proclaimed Jewish State’s Foreign Minister also basically proclaimed neutrality in the New Cold War by refusing to take anyone’s side: not Russia’s, Ukraine’s, nor the US’. Additionally, Axios exclusively reported earlier this month that Israel requested Russia’s assistance with evacuating its citizens in the event that Moscow clashes with Kiev. Ukraine is so upset by all of this that its Deputy Foreign Minister just publicly lamented Israel’s “lack of political support”. If there are people who would certainly recognize the “new Hitler”, it’s Israelis, Jews, Holocaust survivors, and their descendants, yet Tel Aviv hasn’t jumped on the US-led West’s Putin-bashing bandwagon by comparing him to that Nazi monster.

That very powerfully discredits the US’ latest accusations much more than anything else possibly can. Bearing in mind the “politically correct” dogma that pervades Western society nowadays, one might even wonder whether those who claim to know who the “new Hitler” is better than Israelis, Jews, Holocaust survivors, and their descendants are “anti-Semitic” in a way even if they’re not conscious of it since it’s condescending to imply that President Putin fits this bill when even those who were most cruelly victimized by that Nazi monster don’t agree. To the contrary, their political representatives continue cultivating ever-closer strategic relations with his country, which President Putin enthusiastically reciprocates as the proud philo-Semite that he is by standing in solidarity with Israel’s global campaign against anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and other forms of historical revisionism.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that Russia felt that it had to stage a so-called “minor incursion” into Ukraine throughout the course of neutralizing imminent and/or hot threats from there that endanger the country’s national security red lines, it’s ridiculous to imagine that it’ll round up countless people into concentration camps where they might then be murdered. While it’s true that militaries across the world always prepare for contingency operations, including scenarios in which they might be compelled to deal with unconventional threats to their mission posed by various individuals and movements, the very idea that President Putin – who was praised by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett as “a very close and true friend of the State of Israel” for all that he’s done throughout his career in support of the Jewish people – would authorize concentration camps is absurd.

There is absolutely no way that the longest-serving and most philo-Semitic leader in modern history would ever countenance treading in Hitler’s genocidal footsteps by carrying out a second Holocaust. It’s arguably anti-Semitic to even insinuate as much since this suggests that the Jewish people and their Israeli representatives can’t recognize the “new Hitler” when they see him, instead being inexplicably duped by President Putin into even going as far to praise him as their “very close and true friend” while non-Jews were supposedly able to see through his alleged tricks right away. That disgustingly implies that the Jewish people have a lower level of intelligence than others, so much so that they don’t even realize that they’re purportedly being led by Russia like sheep to the slaughter in Ukraine, which is itself a form of anti-Semitism. All of this proves that the US’ latest report about Russia’s plans is fake news.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Baiting the Bear Is Becoming a Dangerous Game

February 21st, 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

What the so-called Russian experts and politicians all forget is that the US does not have troops scattered about in Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and other Eastern European late comers to NATO because Washington cares about these countries and feels morally obliged to protect them from Russia, which does not want them. In truth, Washington doesn’t care a hoot about Ukraine, Poland, Romania and neither do Americans. 

The reasons for Washington’s presence in Eastern Europe are entirely different.  One reason is that Washington wants the countries as locations for missile bases such as Washington has placed in Poland and Romania.  These bases are on Russia’s borders leaving no response time to nuclear missiles launched from them.  The bases give Washington the advantage in a confrontation to back down Russia.

Another reason is that the NATO countries provide customers for the US armaments industry. Washington keeps pressure on NATO members to “do their part” and spend more on their own defense. So much of the analysis and commentary about the current situation in Ukraine presents Washington and NATO as rescuers on white horses riding to the defense of states threatened by Russia. If Russia really were a threat, Washington and NATO would not be so aggressive.

The Soviet Union had Eastern Europe as a buffer.  Most Russian experts at the time concluded that the Warsaw Pact was a net drain on Soviet resources.  Responsibility for these countries today is the last thing Russia wants.

All Russia wants is for the US to get military bases off her doorstep.  This is a reasonable demand, and compliance with it would relieve the tensions that otherwise could break out in war.  Washington’s aggressive policy seems designed for one reason only: to cause a war.

Few people understand that the US sanctions against Russia are based entirely on lies and are in effect acts of war.  That Russia has tolerated them is interpreted by Washington as Russian weakness.  The reason Russia gets so much abuse is that she doesn’t do anything about it.

The narrative is that Russia invaded Ukraine by accepting the vote in Crimea to be reunited with Russia. Until 1991, Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783.  The vast majority of the people who live there are Russian.  Between 1991 and 2014 when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in a coup, Crimea was occupied by Russia as Russia’s Black Sea naval base is there.  The Russian forces were already there, because Russia had a long term lease on the area.

It was the US that invaded Ukraine while the Kremlin was preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics.  The US plan was for the puppet government it installed to revoke the lease and kick the Russians out of their naval base.  It was an audacious plan that had no chance of success.  To prevent Americans from understanding the situation, the narrative was started that Russia invaded Crimea.

There are Americans who pose as Russian experts who maintain that Putin has territorial ambitions to restore the Soviet empire.  These people are not experts. They are liars.  If Putin has territorial ambitions, why did he not reincorporate Georgia into Russia?  Why has he refused for 8 years to honor the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia?  The Donbass area, like Crimea, is historically part of Russia. Both were transferred to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by the Soviet government, but Russians, not Ukrainians live there.

In US universities and think tanks, researchers’ analyses come to conclusions consistent with the views of those who fund their research. This is why there are no more Stephen Cohens who give an independent objective analysis of the real situation.  Indeed, in the US today an objective analysis is considered to be pro-Russian and the author is said to be a Russian agent.

As a result, we get a one-sided story.  The problem with one-sided stories is that the implication is the other side is entirely to blame and hasn’t a leg to stand on.  This is the position that Russia finds herself in, and it is the reason that the West doesn’t listen to a word she says.  It is very dangerous to ignore Russia when she says she finds the situation intolerable.  Russia seems at times to be masochistic, but sooner or later she will bite back.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world and we are pleased to see moves to deescalation and dialogue.— Justin Trudeau

So said Canada’s prime minister Trudeau about the farmer protests in India. One assumes that “anywhere” includes Canada. Nonetheless, Trudeau has rejected dialogue with the peaceful trucker convoy, and instead of deescalation he turned to his “final option,” the Emergencies Act that seemingly permits police violence against Canadians.

It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples, one that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation.— Justin Trudeau

What does the sacred obligation of a nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples look like for Trudeau? On 7 February 2020, the Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade reported a RCMP raid with helicopters, snipers, police dogs, and tactical teams.The invasion was carried out by heavily armed RCMP despite the Wet’suwet’en having made it clear that they are unarmed and peaceful. The Wet’suwet’en had also made it clear through the unanimity of the hereditary chiefs that they do not want a pipeline going through their unceded territory.

Carleton University criminology professor Jeffrey Monaghan questioned police legitimacy and police violence against legitimate dissent by the Wet’suwet’en. The professor considers the RCMP unreformable and called for its dismantling.Police violence is Canada’s method of settling differences. This is now being witnessed against truckers and their supporters.This is how peaceful protest is handled by Trudeau’s government:

And the tweet below says it all for police (at this point shouldn’t police be called for what their actions reveal them to be?: goons) tactics as they barge on horseback through crowds of people and end up trampling a woman with a walker.

The peaceful protest was turned violent by police on Trudeau’s order.

The below image is sure to immortalize Trudeau’s push for power.

The trampled upon woman, identified as Roberta Paulsen, is one of the growing list of victims of Trudeau’s Emergencies Act. Rebel News reporter Alexa Lavoie was hit three times with a club by a cop who then shot a tear gas canister at her leg from point-blank range.This is Trudeau’s legacy: the lengths one man, backed by his party, will go to force people to surrender autonomy over their bodies, and in the case of Indigenous peoples, their land.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The clip as cued begins with a representative of the International Crisis Group speaking of stern if not draconian measures taken by countries with an “authoritarian drift,” then shifts to Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly who proceeds without the faintest indication she’d heard the words immediately preceding her own.

She not only used language that will be repeated in her nation’s parliament to justify and perhaps extend the enforcement of the Emergencies Act but that could, with a resumption and intensification of national protests, even be used to request a NATO Article 5 intervention (as of course she didn’t fail to repeat the government claim that arms had been found on one occasion), which begins with these words:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….

Video: Munich Security Conference 2022

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website.

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

Featured image: Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly meeting with Canadian combat troops in Latvia last November. Photo: CBC.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America’s Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs.

Cole elaborated on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used as the main component in the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We’re giving a gene sequence into the bodies of human beings, and that sequence goes into our deltoid where we’re informed that it has a little anchoring protein. Once that is translated and makes a little protein, it’s on the surface of your cell [and] it stays there,” he said. “Well, guess what – it doesn’t. This spike protein doesn’t just stay in the deltoid. [It] circulates in your blood [and] lands in multiple organs in the body.”

He cited studies performed on lab animals that involved the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone being injected into their bodies. The animals injected developed the same diseases present in the respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems of those with COVID-19.

The pathologist shared three examples of organs being damaged by the spike protein. Lung cells affected by the spike protein turned purple and blue due to the excess inflammation – which was caused by the spike protein binding to the ACE-2 receptors in the lungs. “[That’s the] inflammatory response, [your] immune system attacking your own body,” Cole said. (Related: Dr. Ryan Cole explains how the COVID vaccines compromise the immune system.)

He added that aside from the lungs, the spike protein also crosses the blood-brain barrier to disrupt and inflame blood vessels in the brain.

“The brain fog you hear about from COVID-19 patients? Guess what, you [also] hear about it in the post-vaccinated, damaged individuals as well.”

Furthermore, Cole pointed out how the spike protein negatively impacts the heart – which has led to an increase in cardiac inflammation in younger Americans injected with the shot.

“The pericardium [is] the sac that surrounds your heart. That’s inflammation that doesn’t belong there. Once you have heart damage, the heart does not heal itself. Once a heart cell is damaged, it’s damaged forever. It doesn’t replace itself with another heart cell, it replaces itself with a scar.”

“You want to give [children] a [COVID-19 vaccine] shot and we see about 200 times increase in myocarditis in our society right now? Let’s give a kid a toxin and ruin [their] heart for life? Insanity. We need to stop the insanity immediately,” he said.

Vaccines compromise the immune system

The CEO and medical director of Cole Diagnostics in Idaho later echoed his criticism of the spike protein used in the COVID-19 vaccines. He told Veronika Kyrylenko of the New American during a January interview that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the shots is responsible for compromising the immune system.

“It’s a spike protein that’s toxic to the human body, causes the same disease as the virus and is predisposing people to auto-immune attacks and potentially short-term cancer risks,” Cole said.

According to the pathologist, human cells possess toll-like receptors (TLRs) that classify whether a foreign object in the body is harmful or not. Vaccines turn off some of these TLRs, compromising the immune system’s alert mechanism as a result. Some of the receptors that get deactivated by vaccines include TLR7 and TLR8 in charge of viruses, and TLR3 and TLR4 which keep cancer in check.

“When the shots go into the body, they turn some of these TLRs off. Normally they have to be on,” said Cole.

Cole also mentioned how the vaccines inhibit tumor-suppressing genes. According to the pathologist, the spike protein binds to the P53 gene that suppresses tumors. The spike protein’s S1 subunit also binds to the TMPRSS-2 gene linked to prostate cancer in men and the BRCA genes linked to breast cancer.

“We’re giving a shot that makes a spike protein. That’s a toxin that [latches] to cancer genes in bad ways and turns off other pattern receptors. We don’t know how long the immune system is suppressed after these shots and how long these receptors are shut off.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Already threatening war with Russia, the White House this month has unveiled a new imperial grand strategy for the Indo-Pacific that raises the prospects of war with China.

The new strategy starts by repeating familiar clichés about America’s supposed humanitarian intentions in Southeast Asia and role in providing the security that “allowed regional democracies to flourish,” while ritualistically condemning Chinese aggression “spanning the entire globe.”

According to the report,

…from the economic coercion of Australia to the conflict along the Lines of Actual control with India to the growing pressure on Taiwan and bullying of neighbors in the East and South China Seas, our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) harmful behavior. In the process, the PRC is also undermining human rights and international law, including freedom of navigation, as well as other principles that have brought stability and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific.

The U.S. mission over the next decade, as outlined in the report, is to stymie the PRC’s efforts to “transform the rules and norms that have benefitted the Indo-Pacific and the world.” The way to achieve this goal is to a) support a strong India—considered an engine of regional development—as a “partner in a positivist regional vision;” b) fortify the anti-China Quad alliance between the U.S., India, Japan and Australia—which the U.S. has promised to deliver nuclear powered submarines to; c) increase support for Taiwan’s self-defense and d) push for North Korea’s denuclearization while extending coordination with South Korea and Japan to respond to North Korea’s alleged provocations.

The U.S. also plans to a) promote democracy in Burma; b) expand U.S. embassies including in the Pacific Islands; c) enforce a rules-based approach in the maritime domain and promote a free press; d) deepen relationships with allies such as South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam, and e) encourage Japan and South Korea to strengthen their ties with one another.

Pacific Deterrence Initiative

At the heart of the Biden administration’s strategy is a vow that the U.S. will “increase the scope of its military exercises and operations” in the Indo-Pacific, build greater maritime capacity, “deploy more advanced warfighting capabilities,” bolster cyber warfare, artificial intelligence and regional undersea capabilities, and work with Congress to fund the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI).

A picture containing outdoor, water, transport, aircraft Description automatically generated

An MQ-9 Sea Guardian drone flies over the U.S. Navy’s littoral combat ship Coronado during a drill in the Pacific Ocean. [Source: defensenews.com]

Signed by President Biden in December, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provisioned a whopping $7.1 billion for the PDI, whose aim is to ensure that U.S. military forces “have everything they need to compete, fight, and win in the Indo-Pacific,” according to Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and James Inhofe (R-OK)[1], top ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who first promoted the PDI in Congress.

Everything they need includes a new Aegis missile facility on Guam that would assist in naval operations. The PDI also calls for stationing offensive missiles, previously banned by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, along a string of densely populated islands that includes Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines.

Source: pncguam.com

In addition, the PDI aims to: a) develop and launch space-based radars linked to the Aegis missile system in Guam and another system on the island of Palau, b) develop “discreet intelligence surveillance” capacities, and c) improve training ranges and joint exercises with Allies in the Pacific.

Map Description automatically generated

Missile defense assets the U.S. currently has deployed in the Western Pacific. [Source: thedrive.com]

The drive.com reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been employing contractor-owned and operated aircraft in recent years to conduct overwater surveillance missions in the Pacific, which the PDI will further enable an expansion of.

Reductio ad Absurdium

The absurdity of the White House’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is evident in the fact that the U.S. already outspends China on the military by at least three times.

China is considered an aggressor—on a global scale—when it has only one international military base—which it acquired in 2017 in Djibouti in response to a major U.S. military facility there—and has not invaded another country since 1979 when it invaded Vietnam.

Source: chappatte.com

The U.S. has at least 750 overseas military bases, including 23 in Japan alone—and has invaded at least a dozen countries since 1979, killing countless civilians in that time.

In Southeast Asia, the U.S. waged aggressive wars in Korea and Vietnam that killed millions of civilians during the Cold War, and fought covert dirty wars in Laos, Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia that killed many more.

The condemnation of China’s “bullying behavior” in the South China Seas ignores the fact that China’s efforts to reclaim the Spratley and Paracel and Diaoyu Islands (Senkakus to Japanese)—which the U.S. claimed the right to defend under the U.S.-Japan treaty of Mutual Cooperation—are legitimate.

The islands were effectively stolen from China as booty of Japan’s victory in the 1895 Sino-Japanese War.[2] Japan has further spurned two Chinese offers—in 1990 and 2006—to jointly develop the resources of the islands which potentially include oil and gas.[3]

Map Description automatically generated

Source: apjjf.org

China in the report is blamed for economic coercion directed against Australia for levying tariffs—which the U.S. has done to China. China’s grievances against Australia were very real—interference in China’s internal affairs in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan and its spearheading a crusade against China in international forum.

China is also blamed for border skirmishes with India, though China does not recognize the boundary between the two countries that was drawn up by a British colonial official Henry McMahon after signing a treaty with Tibet in 1915 that China had rejected.

India is presented in the report as a great partner for the U.S. and progressive nation compared to China, when the New York Times has reported on the incitement of Hindu violence by Prime Minister Narendra Modi towards Muslims and erosion of human rights under his rule.

The silence on India’s human rights abuses—extending to its mistreatment of Muslims in occupied Kashmir—and playing up of China’s abuses towards Muslims in Xinjiang points to a clear double standard that undermines any moral imperative behind U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

The Tragedy of U.S. China policy

The greatest tragedy of U.S. policy is that China has never been antagonistic to the U.S.

Premier Xi Jinping in 2015 proposed a win-wing strategy in which both the U.S. and China accommodate one another’s interests and pursue common development along with their own interests as nation-states.

US Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping

Then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping display shirts with a message given to them by students at the International Studies Learning School in Southgate, outside of Los Angeles, on 17 February, 2012. [Source: iseas.edu.sg]

Charles Freeman Jr, a thirty-year veteran of the diplomatic corps who served as an interpreter for Richard Nixon’s historical visit to China in 1972, told me several years ago that the U.S. policy of a military buildup, or Asia Pivot policy, first enacted by Barack Obama, was misdirected because it “provided a military response to an economic problem.”

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was focused more on internal security, the defense of the Chinese homeland against neighbors with a history of invading, and on countering the powerful U.S. naval and air forces constantly mapping and probing its coastal defenses.

“A better response to China’s economic rise,” Freeman said, “would have been to try and leverage China’s prosperity to our own,” and “build better supply chains,” which he said, “corporate America was already attempting to do.”

The Obama administration could have also “worked to settle competing claims to islands on the South China seas and negotiated on a united basis with China.” Instead, it undertook “provocative measures,” including “mock attack runs on Chinese installations,” which were “not much appreciated by the Chinese,” and led to Chinese counter-measures that included sending ships off the coast of Hawaii and Guam.”[4]

Little has changed in the Biden era, except that the scale of U.S. provocations has now increased, along with the dangers of World War III breaking out.

The domestic political climate has become even more Sinophobic—with the media having used the Beijing Olympics as another opportunity to rail against China and its supposed evil.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Notes

  1. Not surprisingly, both Inhofe and Reed have been lavishly funded by aerospace and defense industries, along with oil and gas in Inhofe’s case. Reed has been a strong champion of drones, having received generous financial backing from leading drone-maker, General Atomics
  2. Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019), 200; Han Yi-Shaw, “The Inconvenient Truth Behind the the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,” The New York Times,September 19, 2012, https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
  3. Ivy Lee and Fang Ming, “Deconstructing Japan’s Claims of Sovereignty Over the Diaoyu Islands,” The Asia Pacific Journal, December 30, 2012, https://apjjf.org/2012/10/53/Ivy-Lee/3877/article.html 
  4. Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars, 201, 202. 

Featured image: President Biden at a virtual summit with China’s President Xi Jinping. [Source: axios.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As U.S. Threatens War with Russia, Biden Administration Unveils Imperial Strategy for Indo-Pacific That Could Lead to War with China
  • Tags: , ,

America’s War?

February 21st, 2022 by Eric Margolis

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

World War III? Or a bad, expensive joke?

Russia has declared a nuclear test alert. The Ukraine crisis is beginning to become very scary.

When the old Soviet Union broke up, I and other moderates called for the former Moscow-dominated states of East Europe to become neutral. Otherwise, East-West conflict would, I warned, be inevitable (see my book ‘War at the Top of the World’).

Instead, the rabidly anti-Russian US war party drove NATO east to the former Soviet borders, making a major confrontation near certain.

We are there today, playing Russian roulette with nuclear weapons.

Washington is beating the war drums and sounds borderline hysterical, warning ‘the Russians are coming.’ Moscow scoffs at the whole business, saying President Joe Biden is trying to divert attention from the big economic and political mess in the US.

Nothing like a jolly little war to distract public opinion at a time when rightwing forces are fast gaining ground in the US and now, of all places, in placid Canada.

The trucker’s blockade that shut down the Canada-US border cost Ottawa billions in lost trade, seriously damaged the image of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and showed that less than 100 ZZ Top look-alike truckers could hold Canada to ransom.

It was also a vivid rehearsal for what the hard right may have in store for November elections. The mob assault on the Capitol on 6 January was only a trial run.

Meanwhile, back in darkest Ukraine, pro- and anti-government factions are trading occasional shells while the US government in Washington claims war is imminent.

The facts on the ground do not support such alarmism. Russia may have up to 150,000 troops positioned around Ukraine (similar to the same strategic advantage that Germany enjoyed over Poland in 1939) but all these units are so far positioned inside Russia. Most of the NATO troops rushed to the east are from outside their home territory.

Crimea and Ukraine were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and then Crimean Tatars, until annexed by Russia’s Catherine the Great in 1783. They remained an integral part of the Russian Empire until the 1920’s, and, after a brief bout of independence after WWI, until the Communist era.

But one must remember that in the 1930’s, Josef Stalin and his ‘Jewish Himmler,’ Lazar Kaganovitch, murdered some six million Ukrainians by starvation or shootings in an effort to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism and independent farming. This was likely the worst atrocity in Europe until 1944 – done by the key US/British wartime ally. Small wonder the invading Germans in WWII were initially greeted as liberators.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, an ally of billionaire George Soros, now claims that Moscow will stage a false flag operation to justify invading Ukraine. It’s true, Russia just about invented such ploys in the 1919-1920 period when Moscow’s secret police rounded up and crushed the anti-communist opposition. KGB has always loved such deft operations.

But who is Blinken to make such allegations? British media revealed that George W. Bush and UK PM Tony Blair discussed painting US aircraft in UN colors, then buzzing Iraqi anti-aircraft units to provoke a false flag attack on the UN, justifying a US-British attack against Iraq. In fact, the entire Iraq invasion was based on a farrago of lies, double-dealing and torture.

Right on cue, former US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (born Nudelman), remerges to press for war against Russia. She spent US$5 billion engineering the overthrow of Ukraine’s former elected government which leaned towards Moscow.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: NATO soldiers during a parade to mark Independence Day in Kiev © Sputnik / Mykhailo Markiv


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Truths and Lies About Pledges Made to Russia

February 21st, 2022 by Guy Mettan

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The information war surrounding tensions between NATO and Russia over Ukraine often leads to distortions of historical reality.

In particular, it is necessary to correct numerous articles that claimed that the pledge made by the United States to Gorbachev in 1991, according to which NATO “would not move an inch in the East” in exchange for German reunification and the withdrawal of Red Army troops from Eastern Europe, was a “myth” forged by the Kremlin in order to neutralise or even invade Ukraine.

This thesis is based on an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2014, at the time of the Ukrainian crisis, and reaffirmed in a book published last November. Its author, Mary E. Sarote, is a member of the most influential think tank in US imperial politics, the Council on Foreign Relations, whose opinions are more propaganda than impartial study.

For this so-called “myth” could not be truer. It is essential to be aware of it if we want to both understand what is happening and find a negotiated solution to the conflict.

On February 9, 1990, James Baker, then U.S. Secretary of State, said exactly this:

“we consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should provide a guarantee that German reunification will not lead to an expansion of the NATO military organisation to the east.”

The next day, Chancellor Helmut Kohl echoed,

“We consider that NATO should not expand its sphere of activity.”

In December 2017, the National Security Archive at George Washington University published memos, minutes and telegrams from that time, from which it emerges that Western assurances appear in numerous documents recorded or written during chancellery exchanges in 1990 and 1991. All the details can be found on the university’s dedicated website, under the heading “NATO Expansion: what Gorbachev Heard. Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner. Slavic Studies Panel Addresses ‘Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?’”

Former American ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, also confirmed these facts in his various publications. Guarantees have therefore been given, even if they are not contained in a treaty signed in due form.

But you have to be willing to take note and recognise that a word is a word.

It was only later, with the rise of the neoconservatives, that President Bill Clinton decided to ignore them and succeeded, in 1997, in expanding NATO eastwards by admitting new members in exchange for a $4 billion “bribe” to his friend Boris Yeltsin, as Yeltsin later called this gift.

At that time, the most resolute anti-Russian in the American administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the famous book “The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives”, in which he explains why the United States should definitely grab Ukraine, foresaw what would happen today:

“If Russia is dismissed or rejected, it will be filled with resentment and its vision of itself will become more anti-European and anti-Western.” And he urged Clinton to hurry: “The longer we wait, the louder Moscow’s objections will be,” he predicted in the mid-1990s, while warning against an overly abrupt expansion.

This danger was not overlooked by the father of the Soviet Union’s containment, George Kennan. In a 1997 New York Times article, he prophesized the current situation by writing that, following the breach of the given word to Gorbachev, the admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO would be “the biggest mistake of post-Cold War American politics and would only serve to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in the Russian public.”

Since then, NATO has only made things worse, admitting seven new states in 2004 and promising membership to Ukraine and Georgia in April 2008, before encouraging the latter to attack South Ossetia in August of the same year. This was barely ten months after Putin’s speech at the Munich conference, in which he had expressed the wish that NATO should stop expanding. In 25 years, NATO has doubled the number of its members, all in the East.

At the same time, it accumulated aggressions by brazenly lying and twisting international law: the Gulf War in 1991 (with the fabricated affair of the babies thrown out of Kuwaiti incubators); the dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1992, the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999 and secession of Kosovo (justified by the pseudo-massacre of Raçak and the so-called Operation Horseshoe imputed to Serbia); the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001; the Iraq war in 2003 (started thanks to Colin Powell’s lies to the UN); the destruction of Libya and the assassination of Gaddafi (falsely accused of slaughtering his own population) in 2011; the attempted destruction of Syria and the overthrow of its president between 2011 and 2019; the war in Yemen since 2015, carried out under Saudi flag and considered by the UN to be the most important humanitarian catastrophe of our time.

It is therefore very difficult to regard the American-led NATO as an innocent and harmless bridge club.

It should therefore come as no surprise that, after the US-organised coup in February 2014 to overthrow democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose mistake was to wish for Ukraine to seek a balance between Russia and Europe, Russia regained control of Crimea while the Donbass provinces rebelled against this forfeiture.

The United States and NATO are of course free to renege on their word and continue their aggressive course at the risk of starting a war. But at least the public has the right to know why and how it has come to this without being misled about who is really responsible for what would be a real mess for Europe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

At around 5 a.m. on February 20, units of the Ukrainian Army 79th airborne assault brigade crossed the Seversky Donets River and attacked the positions of the LPR People’s Militia near the village of Pionerskoe. With massive artillery support, Ukrainian soldiers attempted to assault one of the observation posts.

Fierce clashes broke out. The Ukrainian Army suffered losses and was forced to retreat.

As a result of the aggression of the Ukrainian Army, five residential buildings were destroyed and civilian casualties were reported.

According to the official information two residents of the village were killed (In the video, journalists point to the remnants of a torn and burned resident of the house, – “Here are the ribs, here are the intestines…”).

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

Fighting on the outskirts of Donetsk intensified during the day of February 20.

The Ukrainian Army shelled the Trudovskih area, in the outskirts of Donetsk. A large fire was reported in Alexandrovka. Donetsk airport and the city are also under fire.

As a result of the shelling, the pumping station was damaged. Several villages were left with no water supply.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

The Ukrainian Army has intensively shelled the strongholds of the 7th separate motor rifle brigade on the Svetlodarsk front line at the junction of the defense areas of the 1st and 2nd corps of the LDPR People’s Militias.

At the moment, the military escalation in the Donbass region calmed down late in the evening of February 20 and the night of February 21. The decline in the UAF activity began from about 8-9 p.m. on February 20.

On the night of February 20, a terrorist sabotage group of the Ukrainian Army was revealed in Donetsk. They planned to blow up electrical substations, gas pipelines and filtration stations on the territory of the DPR.

During their detention, the saboteurs opened fire. As a result of the fire exchange, two soldiers of the Ukrainian Army Special Forces were severely wounded.

According to local reports, the Ukrainian Army attempted to make passages in the mine-explosive barriers of the LDNR on the Svetlodarsk front lines.

Some experts note that the Ukrainian Army is operating according to the military manuals of the U.S. and U.K. armies. According to such documents published in the 80s, in a conflict similar to the current situation in Eastern Ukraine, civilian facilities, including kindergartens and schools, should be destroyed at the first time. This, according to the Anglo-Saxon military scholars, should create an irresistible moral impact on enemy soldiers who will be destructed from the defense of their positions, ad will be busy thinking on how to save and evacuate their loved ones. Such a strategy is specific to the armies of Great Britain, the United States, Israel, and now Ukraine. The armed forces of other states with warring military contingents, for example, Turkey, France, Russia, Iran, Portugal, Italy do not have such manuals.

Amid the ongoing military escalation on the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine, all the major power in Europe and overseas are preparing to the war.

The Guardian reported that the Western allies are conducting secret negotiations on the volume of weapons supplies to the Ukrainian guerilla warriors, who will begin to fight against Russian troops after the “invasion, occupation and change of government in Kiev.”

On February 19, more units of the US Armed Forces and military equipment were delivered at Rzeszow-Yasenki Airport. Among other equipment, the transfer included M1097 Avenger, based on HMMWV, two containers with 8 FIM-92 Stinger missiles.

Russia does not stay still.

On February 20, in the afternoon in the Crimea, dozens of T-72B3M tanks equipped with additional protection against ATGM moved from the places of permanent deployment in Bakhchisarai towards Perekop, to the border with Ukraine.

The Russian Defense Ministry closed most of the airspace over the Sea of Azov from February 21 to the end of February 26.

The most advanced weapon systems of the Russian army, including the innovative “Terminator” tank support fighting vehicles, are flocking to the Ukrainian border.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

On February 20, warships of the Russian Navy entered the Sea of Azov. They include large amphibious warships of Project 775 Novocherkassk, Caesar Kunikov and Project 1171 Saratov.

The Russian Army is deploying mobile field hospitals in Shebekino, Belgorod region.

As the tensions grow, the U.S. loses no chance for provocations against Russia, including on the diplomatic field.

The US Embassy in Moscow has issued a warning to Americans about possible terrorist attacks in Russia, in shopping malls and the subway for example.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

The Russian Foreign Ministry was extremely surprised by such information, which for some reason was not received by the diplomatic and special services of the Russian Federation, as required by signed international agreements. The sides have to transmit any information about the upcoming terrorist attacks on the other side’s territory. Moscow has always been committed to this obligation. For example, information about the Boston terrorists was transmitted to the United States from 2011 to 2013.

Spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova: “We have a question to the US Embassy in Moscow: did you transmit the relevant data to your Russian colleagues through partner channels? If no, what is one to make of this?”

The U.S. claims are a sign that, within their decision to attack directly on the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom and their satellites are preparing terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia.

The Ukrainian Army activity in the last 3 days, on February 17-20, that had followed the withdrawal of Russian troops on February 15-16, suggests that Kiev received an order to instigate the military conflict. However, by February 20, the Russian Federation had concentrated a significant military force, which apparently frightened not only Kiev, but also Washington and Brussels. Liz Truss’s hysterical statements that the Russian Federation plans to occupy not only the whole of Ukraine, but the Baltic States as well, they are a signal of awareness of the real power of the Russian army.

The DPR/LPR and the Russian Federation have already suffered multimillion losses from the aggression of Ukraine and NATO. According to preliminary data, the cost of evacuation measures alone, initial accommodation and provision of financial assistance to refugees from the DPR/LPR in Russia amounted to at least 200 million US dollars. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

All images in this article are from SF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War
  • Tags: ,

Paralysing Afghanistan: Washington’s Regime Change Agenda

February 21st, 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Nation states are habitually doomed to defeat their best interests.  Conditions of mad instability are fostered.  Arms sales take place, regimes get propped up or abandoned, and the people under them endure and suffer, awaiting the next criminal regime change.

Nothing is more counter-intuitive than the effort to isolate, cripple and strangulate the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.  For all the talk about terrorism and concerns about failing regimes, the Biden Administration is doing every bit to make this regime fail and encourage the outcome it decries. Along the way, a humanitarian catastrophe is in the making.

Prior to the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021, foreign aid constituted a mainstay of the economy, covering roughly three-quarters of public spending.  After August 15, an almost immediate cessation of funding took place, led by the United States, and those less than noble institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  But it did not stop there.  Billions of dollars in Afghanistan’s own funds were frozen.  (For the US alone, this amounted to $9.4 billion.)

This particularly nasty bit of statecraft was justified by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson as necessary to coerce the Taliban into good conduct.  Releasing such reserves was “no guarantee that the Taliban will actually use it effectively to solve problems.”

Johnson should know, given his government’s profligate tendency of waste and dissoluteness during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Ever one to relish hypocrisy, he claimed that Britain and its allies needed “to ensure that that country does not slip back into being a haven for terrorism and a narco-state.”  Ironically, the sanctions and asset freezing regime will be an incitement to just that.

The move did not only paralyse the Central Bank of Afghanistan but impose dramatic limits on the use of bank accounts by Afghans.  Loans have been left unrepaid, the amount in deposits has declined, and the liquidity crisis has become acute.  In November 2021, the UN Development Programme observed that the economic cost of a banking collapse in the country “would be colossal.”

The UNDP also remarked that the banking situation had to be “resolved quickly to improve Afghanistan’s limited production capacity and prevent the banking system from collapsing.”  Unfortunately, the organisation’s Afghanistan head, Abdallah al Dardari, was wishing to do the impossible.  “We need to find a way to make sure that if we support the banking sector, we are not supporting the Taliban.”

This foggy-headed reasoning typifies much policy towards Afghanistan, dooming humanitarian programs and other measures of assistance.  It also renders Washington, and its allies, culpable in fostering famine, starvation, and death.  As long as they can focus their attention on the wickedness, and lack of competence, of the Taliban regime, this monumental bit of callous gangsterism can be justified.  The Afghan civilian can thereby be divorced from the government official disliked and disapproved of by foreign powers.

With pestilential force, this contorted line of thinking finds its way into the heart of the US State Department, which has expressed its desire to cooperate with the UNDP and other institutions “to find ways to offer liquidity, to infuse, to see to it that the people of Afghanistan can take advantage of international support in ways that don’t flow into the coffers of the Taliban”.

In January, the crisis was becoming so grave as to compel the UN Secretary General António Guterres to describe a landscape of catastrophe: the selling of babies to feed siblings, freezing health facilities overrun by crowds of malnourished children and people “burning their possessions to keep warm.”  Without a full-fledged effort by the international community, the Secretary warned, “virtually every man, woman and child in Afghanistan could face acute poverty.”

A modest request was made: that Afghanistan receive $5 billion in aid.  The UN chief has also urged the release of international funding to pay the salaries of public sector workers and aid the distribution of health care, education “and other vital services.”

The international community, or at least a portion of it, is certainly not listening.  Sanctions continue to be the mainstay of the treatment of Afghanistan, as orchestrated through the UN Security Council.  Perversely, this is done, in the words of the Australian Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs to “promote the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan.”  This is darkly witty stuff indeed, given that sanctions are, by their very purpose, designed to destabilise and target governments, while impoverishing the populace and creating desperation.

What President Biden has done this month is tinker with the freezing order by decreeing the release of $7 billion.  But there is a huge catch: half of the funds will be reserved to satisfy legal claims brought by the families of US 9/11 victims; the rest will be placed in a designated humanitarian fund for Afghanistan.  In doing so, a foreign government has effectively determined how to deal with a country’s national assets and foreign reserves, effectively initiating a de facto theft.

Many a famine and societal collapse has been a product of engineered circumstances.  “This impending mass murder of Afghan civilians,” argue the undersigned luminaries of a note published in CounterPunch, “is preventable.”  For those on a list including Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk and Tariq Ali, the Biden Administration should “immediately end these cruel and inhumane policies by lifting the sanctions, unfreezing Afghanistan’s foreign assets, and increasing humanitarian aid.”

For those wedded to the canard and moral excitement of the “rules-based” order, causing a degree of horrendous harm comes as second nature.  Having lost Afghanistan, as every great power has tended to do, revenge is being sought.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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 theintercept.com

‘NATO-led Nazification of Ukraine’’

February 21st, 2022 by Steve Sweeney

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian communists called for a united anti-fascist front against the NATO-led “nazification of Ukraine” as Western leaders gathered in Munich to discuss the escalating crisis in the Donbass region over the weekend.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation repeated its assertion that the aim of Washington and Britain is “not only the final enslavement of Ukraine and the bleeding of Russia.”

They are also “implementing a project to undermine the economic potential of the European Union and reduce its influence in the modern world,” according to a central committee statement.

“The war in the centre of Europe, the forced sanctions against Russia, the fall in economic activity in the EU will ensure an increase in the competitive capabilities of the United States,” it claimed.

NATO’s eastward expansion and the drive to war with Ukraine has divided some of its member states, most notably France which remains angry over its treatment in the AUKUS security deal between Britain, the US and Australia.

Germany, which is also the final destination of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has also adopted a more cautious approach, initially refusing to send weapons to Ukraine with Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for diplomacy.

As tensions escalate Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of a “genocide” in the Donbass region as its citizens began a mass evacuation.

Explosions in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics are blamed by them on Ukrainian forces, which include Neo-nazi units and mercenaries, but Western governments have claimed they are “false flag” operations staged by Russia-backed separatists.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated his support for Ukraine and told world leaders that it was time to “wean ourselves off dependence on Putin’s oil and gas.”

And he insisted that Nato would continue its eastward expansion, having admitted 14 new countries since 1999, a clear breach of agreements made with Russia.

But the CPRF warned that capitalist powers in the US and Europe were “ready to contribute bloodshed and aggression” in the region as they promote fascism in Ukraine.

“In the middle of the last century, humanity paid for such a policy with millions of victims. The Soviet people alone lost 27 million lives of their sons and daughters in the fight against fascism,” it said.

It said there is no point in dialogue with “the heirs of Bandera and Shukhevych” — former fascist leaders celebrated by the Ukrainian government.

Emergency measures were necessary including the evacuation of women, children and the elderly and for Mr Putin to recognise both the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics as independent states, the CPRF said.

It also called for “a decisive political offensive” against the rehabilitation of fascism and for support from global anti-fascist and anti-war movements.

“It is time for everyone to realise that the mechanisms of democracy in Ukraine have been abolished. After the coup d’etat of 2014, the real politics on its territory is increasingly dictated by aggressive nationalist gangs,” the party said.

“The task of denazification of Ukraine should become the most important concern of the world community.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Passage

I Will Not Force a Medical Treatment on Anyone

February 21st, 2022 by Laura Van Luven

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

I’ve always loved the holidays, but last year was bittersweet. As 2021 came to a close, I walked away from a comfortable career where I once did good in the world. Unsure of how we would make ends meet and wondering if I’d just made a huge mistake, I knew only that I couldn’t continue working in Public Health.

Since graduating from nursing school in 2008, I’d dreamed of being in this field. I thought of Public Health as a noble mission that made peoples’ lives better, improving the overall health of individuals, families, and communities. I was drawn to this broad, holistic approach. After a decade of working overseas, I found a position with a Minnesota public health agency focused on maternal and child health. For the first couple years, it was almost exactly as I’d hoped. But when the pandemic hit, I saw a totally myopic focus on one respiratory illness and a near complete disregard for any other aspect of health.

For the first time in my career, I was told to ignore suffering and forget best practices. Every day, I felt like a fraud.

My first two years on the job were not without their frustrations, but I loved what I did. As a family health nurse, I visited new mothers and infants that our agency had deemed at risk. I was proud of the relationships I formed and humbled when parents allowed me into their homes. I saw people who lived on a knife’s edge economically, socially, and psychologically. They trusted me with some of their deepest fears.“Is my baby ok? Am I a good enough parent? How will we get by?” I was in awe of my clients who stood in the face of poverty, loneliness, uncertainty, and fear but worked hard and sacrificed everything for their infants. Whether I was helping a new mother to breastfeed, find English classes, muster the courage to call a therapist, or access a food pantry, I felt grateful to be doing this work.

In March 2020, as rumblings of the pandemic picked up, I overheard the nurses commenting that the public schools were closing indefinitely. I thought about the families on my caseload that had kids in school. How would they manage without special education services, how would they manage with work? Many parents didn’t speak much English; did they know what was going on and how to find help? What about kids on free/reduced price meals? “But we know that this virus is not deadly for kids,” I said to one of them. “I know, but they can spread it to the teachers,” one nurse responded. My heart sank and I got a pit in my belly that has been there ever since.

The epidemiologist on staff explained the concept of “flattening the curve” by drawing a graph in blue marker on a white board in the conference room. I suspect it’s still there to this day. Who would see it? Everyone was sent home.

We were told not to come into the office except to pick up any needed supplies and to stay 6 feet away from others when we did. We were to schedule ‘phone visits’ with our clients and check in on them virtually. I spent my final day of in-person work furiously searching for essentials to give my families who couldn’t afford “stocking up.”

From the abrupt halt of home visiting and the laughable direction that we counsel new mothers and assess infants online to vaccine mandates that bred mistrust and fear, I watched my vulnerable families founder and fail. Throughout 2020 and then in late 2021, I voiced my concerns to leadership about the loss of trust in public health. “Harm will happen,” I was told. “Public Health addresses the immediate physical danger first, then deals with the repercussions.”

I watched for 18 months as our new ‘public health’ policies exacerbated inequality, drug abuse, child endangerment, and mental illness. My director responded by accepting more grant money to address these very issues. I was implementing policies that negatively affected the poor and racial minorities while our agency was declaring racism a public health crisis and receiving dollars to fight it. I was helping to trap people in isolation and despair while a coworker wrote about the impending mental health crisis and won a grant from the American Rescue Plan.

I was watching our agency coerce people to take vaccines, which severely decreases trust, and then use federal grant funds to address vaccine hesitancy. While the families I saw were losing their livelihoods, my director was posing for pictures with the governor who enforced the closure of their workplaces. Tolkien’s character Galadriel reminds us, “The hearts of men are easily corrupted.”

One family that I had been working with for over a year was already on the edge of isolation and poverty. The mother stayed home with the four kids, including two young babies, while the dad worked a minimum wage job. They had recently become US citizens and were taking a shot at the American Dream. Their two elementary school-aged children were now home, and mom had to find a way to feed them breakfast and lunch. She did not read English and did not understand she could still access school meals. The school district required families to be physically present at the school and provide proof that they were residents of the district — each day — in order to take home meals. For a woman with 4 small children and no access to a vehicle, this was impossible.

I emailed the school to ask if I could vouch for the family and deliver the meals for the kids. I was denied. The family went without until the father was completely without work and now had the time to go and pick up the meals.

Many of the families I served were undocumented immigrants and unable to file for unemployment or rent assistance. Most lost their income overnight. Head Start closed, forcing low-income parents to leave children with unlicensed childcare providers so that they could attempt to find a new job in an “essential” industry.

One mom told me her 18-month-old would cry when she left him with an old lady in an apartment full of kids. He seemed ‘different’ ever since she started leaving him there, but didn’t feel she had any other choice. As these children were placed in potentially unsafe situations, many in the laptop class would remark to me that they enjoyed the cost savings of not having to put their kids in full time daycare.

It was no surprise to me when the American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency of pediatric mental health in October 2021. Many who work closely with children felt as though we were screaming into the void that this would happen and were just met with the response “children are resilient.” People had confused resilient with adaptable. Children will adapt to any environment they are placed in, including toxic ones. This does not mean they are innately resilient; the problems often manifest in adulthood, particularly when they come to have their own children. The current sharp decline in the mental health of children is only the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

One family I worked with had 5 children, 4 of whom had special needs. Their mother was single and relied on special-ed services at the school. When the schools closed, she became a prisoner in her own home. She was unable to leave because she could not handle that many children in public by herself. Her mother used to help, but was at high risk for Covid complications and stayed away for many months. She told me that to use her WIC and EBT she would park in front of grocery stores and beg the workers to take her card and use her PIN in order to pay for her groceries.

Summer came and she was unable to take her kids outside because the one who was nonverbal would run through the neighborhood. I called her every week for nearly a year and I would hear the desperation in her voice. She would yell at the kids in the background and tell me she felt like she was going crazy; her children had been without therapies for months. She tried to get online counseling for herself, but it was hard to find the space in her home for privacy.

Another mother had struggled with suicidal ideation and major depression for years. She had a difficult time making it to her counseling appointments. At one point when I called her, she told me she had been in the bathroom the week prior with a bottle of pills. Thinking about her children caused her to put it down. I thanked her for her courage and we came up with a plan and made an appointment with her psychiatrist. Then I hung up the phone and cried. When I caught up with her a few months later, she told me that she had turned to drugs to cope. With 3 young kids, one of whom would later be diagnosed with autism, she was overwhelmed when their Head Start program closed.

Families were terrified of catching Covid and some skipped appointments for themselves or their children because they perceived clinics as dangerous. I discovered later that one family was refusing to allow their boys, ages 6 and 8, outside to play because of the fear of catching Covid from the air. They stayed in the small, cluttered apartment for many weeks watching TV and playing video games. When I saw them in summer, they had gained significant amounts of weight. One mother described symptoms of mastitis and I pleaded with her to go to urgent care but she refused because she was too afraid of Covid. Another young mother would not take her child to get his 18-month vaccines because of a fear of contracting Covid. I tried to explain that pertussis is far more dangerous to her child, but the fear had taken root.

I had always understood that the role of Public Health was to give accurate information to the public and support them in making healthy choices. We were supposed to use facts and data to dispel fear. But now, Public Health began to routinely distort and exaggerate data to fit their narrative. Emails between the Minnesota Health Department and Governor Walz’s staff appear to do just this. The communications director at our own local agency asked us to find a young healthy person who had ended up hospitalized in order to illustrate the dangers of Covid to young people. Since the actual dangers to young healthy people were quite rare, we never found anyone in our community to fit her profile. But someone else did.

How could I convey to the mother with mastitis that the urgent care was safe if I, myself wasn’t permitted into her home for breastfeeding support because it was “too risky?” If I was not permitted to go into a home in order to weigh and assess a newborn baby, why should a mother not be concerned about taking him to the clinic for his vaccines? It felt completely disingenuous and I started to experience deep moral distress.

Every time I asked what the goal was to return to visiting families in their homes, I was given the same answer: “Let me check into it.” Who had decided to stop in-person nursing services? I couldn’t always tell because no one seemed to want to take that responsibility. The State Health department had told us to do what we were comfortable with as an agency. Sometimes I was told it was the safety and compliance officer, sometimes it was the director of public health.

Many of the nurses themselves did not want to return in person — which I understood. For the first time in my career, I didn’t have to worry about childcare, rush hour, or getting up in time to take a shower before work. I didn’t have to sit in a cramped, hot, smelly apartment with someone’s boogery child crawling all over me. I was pregnant with my fourth child and far more comfortable staying home. But that convenience didn’t make up for the guilt I felt.

The families that were part of our program made it possible for people like me to stay home. They went to work in grocery stores, restaurants, packing school lunches, construction, and working as nursing assistants in long-term care.

Then the vaccines came. Many had already recovered from Covid and found it to be mild, myself included. They were wary of the vaccine or felt they didn’t need it because they had already had the illness. But Public Health insisted through a variety of coercive means, that in order for us to feel safe around these people, they must get vaccinated.

A few days after my baby was born, our agency received its first shipment of the long awaited mRNA vaccines. We were short-staffed, so I called my manager and let her know that I would be willing to return 1-2 days per week to give vaccines. I was determined to do my part in ending the pandemic in order to get back to normal for the families on my caseload (not to mention my own family). I recall telling people that they were 95% protected from ever getting Covid at all. It was a hopeful and exciting time that was extremely short-lived.

Within months, we had people asking us just to give them a filled out vaccine card so that they could enter lotteries and earn incentives from Krispy Kreme. One of our nurses had someone tell her he would give her his stimulus check if she would just fill out the card. Of course, we declined these requests and bribes. By April, we were told by the state health department that we could start opening a 10-dose vial for 1 person and waste the other 9 doses, something that was unconscionable just weeks prior.

Then things started to turn even more sinister.

One afternoon, a young man sat down at my vaccine station in an angry manner. I asked what was going on, he said, “I’m only here because my work is telling me I have to get this to keep my job.” I set down my alcohol swab and removed my gloves saying “I’m sorry sir, but I can’t give you this vaccine if you are being coerced.” (At that time, I understood this to be the policy of public health.) He looked surprised. I told him that he appeared capable of making his own medical decisions and I could not take part in coercion. He and I chatted for a while about his personal risk factors for Covid, the known potential side effects of the vaccine, etc. In the end, he decided that he did want it after all, so I put my gloves back on and gave it to him. But the incident haunted me.

After that, I tried to avoid working at Covid vaccine clinics. But there was one that I ended up working at in September at a local community college. While sitting there with nearly no one showing up, I recounted this story to the nurse I was with to see what she thought about it. “We are at the point where people need to be forced,” was her reply. My heart sank. I never wanted to be part of forcing medical treatments on anyone.

Tears streamed down my cheeks as I turned in my resignation letter in November 2021. It had been an honor to be invited to do the work that I did, but I felt that I no longer belonged nor was welcome in my workplace. As I cleared out my desk, I came across infographics on the importance of babies seeing faces, the dangers of too much screen time, and notes from trainings that described the detrimental effects of social isolation. These were relics of a time when the well-being of children was the singular focus of my work, but that era in public health seemed to have passed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Laura Van Luven is a Registered Nurse living in the Twin Cities, MN. She has also practiced nursing in East Africa and Pittsburgh, PA. She and her husband spend most of their energy trying to give their 4 young children as normal a childhood as possible.

Featured image is from BI

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In the early evening of February 12, 2022, a Russian Pacific Fleet naval exercise turned very real. The purpose of the exercise was, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, to practice the “search and elimination of a hypothetical enemy’s submarines in the areas of their possible deployment.” The exercise involved a mix of surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. According to the Russian MoD, an Il-38 anti-submarine warfare aircraft, operating in the vicinity of Urup, an uninhabited island in the eastern Kuril chain, spotted what looked like a Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine belonging to the US Navy (the USS Missouri, a Virginia-class submarine,had recently conducted a port visit in nearby Japan).

The crew of the Il-38 reported the contact information to a nearby Russian submarine, which began tracking the unknown vessel. The Russian submarine in turn handed over responsibility for responding to what appeared to be a violation of Russian territorial waters (the suspected submarine was located several miles inside Russia’s territorial limit) to a Russian destroyer, the Marshal Shaposhnikov, which immediately instructed the suspected US submarine to surface.

Over the course of the next three hours, the Marshal Shaposhnikov played a game of hide and seek with the suspected US submarine, eventually deploying what the Russian MoD called “approved measures in accordance with the documents governing the Russian Federation border protection” (more than likely some form of underwater explosive) which eventually caused the suspected US submarine to “rapidly depart the area” after “employing countermeasures” to help mask its location.

The Russian MoD summoned the US Naval Attache in Moscow to issue a formal complaint; for its part, the US Navy denies any of its submarines were in Russian waters.

While one cannot rule out that the Russian MoD was tracking a non-US submarine, a whale, or inflating the event (the US and Russia are, after all, engaged in a high-stakes war of words over Ukraine), the fact of the matter is that the details provided by the Russian MoD, when examined alongside the known history of classified US submarine operations, make the likelihood that the Russians had, in fact, chased off a Virginia-class submarine quite high. My own experience backs this theory up.

When the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) was formed, back in the spring of 1988, to implement the provisions of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the Department of Defense gathered some of the best and brightest from its stable of Cold Warriors. OSIA was headed by Brigadier General Roland Lajoie, a veteran Soviet Foreign Affairs Officer with multiple tours as a defense attaché in Moscow and the former commander of the US Military Liaison Mission (USMLM) in Potsdam, East Germany, responsible for monitoring the activities of the Soviet Group of Forces, Germany (a dangerous job – on March 24, 1985, Major Arthur Nicholson, assigned to the USMLM while Lajoie was in command, was shot and killed by a Soviet sentry while attempting to gain entry into a restricted area; Lajoie himself was injured when a Soviet truck rammed his vehicle while he observed a Soviet training exercise.) Lajoie assembled a cadre of military experts in Soviet affairs who shared his resume.

I was one of the officers brought in to help form OSIA. As a junior lieutenant, I lacked the first-hand experience of the Cold War veterans I was now serving with. In a time of peace, where medals for valor were rare, one learned how to glean an individual’s experience level by reading the ribbons on his or her chest – an occupation medal meant service in Berlin (USMLM), while a joint service decoration usually implied embassy duty as an attaché. Some of these soldiers wore the Soldier’s Medal – the highest award for heroism during peacetime. One of these awards was issued to an officer for rescuing classified documents from the US Embassy in Moscow when it caught fire in 1977. He did so to prevent the documents from falling into the hands of Soviet KGB officers who had entered the embassy disguised as firefighters.

There was a class of military professionals, however, who stood apart – the naval officers and petty officers whose uniforms were adorned with the Presidential Unit Citation, or PUC. The PUC is awarded to units of the uniformed services of the United States, and those of allied countries, for extraordinary heroism in action against “an armed enemy.” The unit must display such “gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions” so as to set it apart from and above other units participating in the same campaign. It is the unit equivalent of the Navy Cross – the second highest award for individual heroism in combat.

The PUC is not a peacetime decoration, and yet none of those who wore this ribbon had any corresponding military campaign ribbons indicating service during wartime. What I later found out was that they had all served on US Navy attack submarines that had been involved in some of the most secret Cold War operations targeting the former Soviet Union. These operations were of an intelligence nature, involving the penetration of Soviet territorial waters to tap communications cables, photograph Soviet ships and port facilities, and to track Soviet submarines. If caught, the submarine could have been sunk by the Soviet navy. This is why, in a time of ostensible peace, the sailors who crewed these submarines were decorated for their actions as if they had been in combat, because, effectively, for them there was no distinction.

It was the memory of these naval professionals that I first thought of when I read the news reports about the Russian navy chasing away a suspected US nuclear attack submarine that had penetrated Russian territorial waters near the eastern Kuril Islands, in the northern Pacific Ocean.

Heroic actions deserving of the award of a PUC in peacetime were not limited to the Cold War-era. Indeed, in 2013, a PUC was awarded to the crew of the USS Jimmy Carter, a modified Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine specially configured for intelligence collection operations. In 2017, the USS Jimmy Carter returned from another deployment flying the Jolly Roger flag, indicating that it had carried out a successful operation.

There is no doubt in my mind that on February 12, 2022, a US Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine, more than likely the USS Missouri, was engaged in an intelligence collection mission involving the tracking of Russian anti-submarine warfare operations. If the USS Missouri followed in the footsteps of its Cold War brethren, this mission most likely involved penetrating Russian territorial waters to gain access to a particular intelligence target. During this mission, the USS Missouri was detected and, after failing to covertly break contact, was compelled to deploy countermeasures and flee in a manner which would have allowed the Russian navy to confirm its identity using sonar identification techniques.

It is not shocking that this incident took place – based upon the record of the USS Jimmy Carter, the US Navy has continued to conduct dangerous intelligence-driven missions in the Pacific Ocean using nuclear attack submarines. What is worrisome, however, is that these operations have continued at a time when US-Russia tensions are high, and diplomatic efforts are underway to lessen the potential for broader conflict. The ramifications that would accrue if the Russians, as they had every right, opted to engage and destroy what they reasonably could have assumed was a hostile penetration of their territorial waters, are unthinkable.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Valentines’ Day 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared the 1988 Emergencies Act in response to the Trucker Freedom Convoy in Ottawa and US-Canada border protests in Windsor (ON), Emerson (MB), Coutts (AB), Osoyoos and Surrey (BC). This stunning political development ignored the House of Commons in favour of making the announcement at a press conference.

Prior to the September 2021 election, Trudeau spoke of “consequences” for the unvaccinated.

He described vaccine passports as a reward for Canadians who “did the right thing,” and said he had “little patience” and “no sympathy” for those who were “anti-vaxxers.”

In the weeks and months after the election, the unvaccinated learned what type of punishment the Prime Minister had in mind.

Unvaccinated travelers were no longer allowed to board a plane or train.

Unvaccinated workers in many job sectors were fired, and prohibited from collecting employment insurance.

In Quebec, the unvaccinated couldn’t go to Walmart or Costco, and the government considered imposing a tax on those who refused to get the shot.

In New Brunswick, unvaccinated people could be refused entry to a grocery store. Premier Blaine Higgs pledged to make life “increasingly uncomfortable” for the unvaccinated, prohibiting entry to liquor and cannabis stores.

When Prime Minister Trudeau mandated on January 15 all truckers crossing the border must be vaccinated, he sparked a protest.

An estimated ten percent of Canadian truckers were unvaccinated. Factoring in American truck drivers, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the American Trucking Associations estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers could be taken off the roads by the vaccination requirement. The mandate would trigger huge supply chain issues and disrupt the economy. As well, the Trudeau minority government announced plans to require vaccination for all inter-provincial trucking.

In protest, a Metis woman and a Jewish-Canadian truck driver forged a trucker convoy drive to Ottawa.

The idea took off. Once the 50KM long convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 29, its first official event was a prayer service. It was opened by two clan mothers, one Dene and one Cree. Others leading the prayer service included an Iraqi-born Arab Shia Muslim and an Afro-Canadian evangelical Quebecois pastor from Montreal, and a white Mennonite pastor from Ontario.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau went to an undisclosed location. He occasionally emerged to name-call those in the convoy white supremacists, Nazis, homophobes, racists, misogynists, transphobic and more.

An orphan protester with a black mask walked outside the Parliament Buildings carrying a Confederate flag. He was shunned by all he met. A Confederate flag? To what end? To incite the original eleven Confederate States of America (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina) who fought against the Union in the American Civil War (1861-65) to secede from the USA in 2022?

Canadian and American mainstream media were eager to report about the lone balaclava-clad Confederate flag protester. They implied truckers in Ottawa longed to establish slavery well north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Spectator World reported convoy protesters disavowed the Confederate flag balaclava clad protester, asking him to leave. Could the masked man waving a confederate flag be an agent provocateur? A $6,500 reward was issued by convoy protesters to identify the mystery man with the swastika.

Back in the early 1980s, Mark MacGuigan, Secretary of State for External Affairs, spoke to a passionate group of peace protesters at a hall in downtown Vancouver.

They were protesting the Cruise Missile and nuclear arms race. As I listened to MacGuigan, suddenly, a masked grim reaper costumed with an outstretched 8-foot arms stood on stilts above the seated crowd. The Dickensian reaper accusingly pointed its fingers at MacGuigan who left the stage.

That night on the local Vancouver TV stations, there was news footage of the grim reaper chasing MacGuigan into his waiting limousine. Its ghoulish mask and stilts made for great political theatre. Former Vancouver City Councillor, David Cadman, remembers people in the peace movement asked around to find out who the masked reaper was. I was told phone calls were made to far-left Marxist and anarchist groups in the Vancouver area. But no one knew who the reaper was. News headlines shifted focus away from peace protesters concerns about the nuclear arms race and cruise missiles. Now, the Vancouver peace movement was blamed for intimidating a member of the Federal cabinet. How convenient for the government. Could the masked grim reaper on stilts have been an agent provocateur?

After all, we have seen this before. Violent protesters at economic Summit protests in Quebec turned out to be government agents. Handcuffed and lying on the ground, their police boots gave them away as agents infiltrating and violently undermining the peaceful protests.

Former elite RCMP sniper Daniel Buford, charged with protecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been part of the Ottawa convoy.

He recently warned that firearms were stolen in Peterborough, and that people in the convoy needed to be vigilant to prevent anyone from planting weapons in any of the trucks on Parliament Hill. Buford was arrested this afternoon. There are reports that firearms have been seized from protesters in Coutts, Alberta. But, history has shown that sometimes government agents will go to any length to frame and discredit those engaging in peaceful protest or civil disobedience. Just ask the RCMP who burned down a barn in Quebec and blamed the barn-burning on the FLQ.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contends the Emergencies Act is required because the Freedom Convoy involves activities that are “directed toward or in support” of terrorism. He has said in Parliament that his declaration is “proportionate” to what is happening in Ottawa and across the nation. Yet, the “national emergency” had already been resolved peacefully with local law enforcement at the Ambassador Bridge from Windsor to Detroit on February 13, and subsequently at the Coutts, Alberta-Sweetgrass, Montana border on February 15. The latter involved reports showing footage of protesters and police shaking hands and giving each other hugs.

Rosemary Barton of the CBC alleged the protesters were trying to overthrow the government. She must not be familiar with world history.

The Truckers Freedom Convoy is no storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789. It bears no resemblance to the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 when Lenin, with armed workers, sailors and soldiers clashed with government forces. Playing ball hockey, honking horns and staying away from the Parliament Buildings is no way to overthrow a government. Nonetheless, the Liberal minority government’s key ally in Parliament, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, warned the truckers were engaged in “an act to overthrow the government.”

In other reports by Canada’s national broadcaster, security expert David Shipley suggested the Russians were behind the trucker convoy protest.

Some in the media have dubbed the truckers protest as Canada’s January 6. In any event, no one in the trucker freedom convoy has barged into the Parliament Buildings. They waited in vain for Prime Minister Trudeau to give them a hearing. Trucker freedom convoy leaders wanted to air their grievances and have a discussion with the Prime Minister. But Justin Trudeau, despite his long history campaigning on empathy, had no interest in understanding, or listening, to what these ordinary working-class citizens who’ve provided basic essential services to the nation for the past two years had to say.

Trudeau must have forgotten his March 2021, tweet “While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.” Having arrived in Ottawa, helping the truckers however he can was the last thing on the Prime Minister’s mind.

Questioning the media “Narrative,” Rex Murphy wrote in the National Post: “In Ottawa, the sky isn’t falling, despite what the political elite would have you believe,” underscoring “Trudeau’s Monumentally Misguided Emergency Measures are an Insult to Canadians.” While the Wall Street Journal in an Editorial cautioned the Prime Minister, “you’ve lost the political plot. Time to adopt a new strategy more tolerant of the need to return to life not dominated by pandemic fear and government commands.”

Image on the right is licensed under CC0

Pierre Trudeau (1975).jpg

Before February 14, 2022, only once had a Canadian government sought Emergencies Act powers. This was when Justin Trudeau’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed the War Measures Act to deal with the FLQ Crisis. In October 1970 British diplomat James Cross and Quebec Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte were kidnapped. Although negotiations led to Cross’s release, Laporte was murdered by FLQ kidnappers.

Since January 29 in Ottawa, there have been parking tickets issued to truck drivers by the Ottawa Police. There have been a couple of people arrested for carrying gas cans to truckers who run their engines overnight to keep warm. (Carrying gas to refuel a vehicle is a new punishable offense). When Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson wrote to the convoy leaders asking that all trucks be removed from residential neighborhoods, the truckers agreed. Unlike the FLQ Crisis, no one had been kidnapped. No one has been murdered.

The overwhelmingly peaceful protests in Ottawa have featured children playing on bouncy castles, protesters playing ball hockey, hourly singing of the national anthem, dancing to House of Pain’s “Jump Around,” linking arms and singing “We Are The World,” feeding the homeless, cleaning downtown streets of litter, shoveling snow – and yes honking. These protests have been mild compared to other acts of civil disobedience over the past century.

In 1914, the War Measures Act was passed in Parliament and in effect during the First World War, and was enacted again during World War II.

From May 15 to June 16, 1919, there was the Winnipeg General Strike. More than 30,000 strikers brought economic activity to a standstill in what was at the time Canada’s third largest city. Numbers of people died. There was gunfire.

In response to the Winnipeg General Strike no War Measures Act was declared.

In late 1934, unemployed workers planned to trek from Vancouver to Ottawa. In Regina in mid-June 1935, eight elected representatives of the trekkers were invited to Ottawa to meet R.B. Bennett on June 22. The meeting turned into a shouting match, with Bennett accusing Trek leader Arthur “Slim” Evans of being an “embezzler.” Evans, in turn, called the Prime Minister “a liar” before the delegation was finally escorted out of the building and on to the street. Back in Regina, trekkers were thwarted by the RCMP in attempts to travel east by car, truck or train.

On July 1, 1935, there was a clash between trekkers and police in Regina. Charles Miller, a plainclothes policeman, died, and Nick Schaack, a Trekker, later died in the hospital from injuries sustained in the riot. Prime Minister R.B. Bennett characterized the On-to-Ottawa Trek as “not a mere uprising against law and order but a definite revolutionary effort on the part of a group of men to usurp authority and destroy government.” The Federal Minister of Justice Hugh Guthri falsely stated on July 2 in the House of Commons that “shots were fired by the strikers, and the fire was replied to with shots from the city police.” During the lengthy trials that followed, no evidence was ever produced to show that strikers fired shots during the riot.

The War Measures Act was not declared.

In May 1962, a meeting of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan passed a resolution vowing physicians would close their practices if Medicare came into force. “Keep Our Doctors” committees were established throughout the province and a campaign, backed by the Regina Leader-Post was undertaken, with warnings that most doctors would leave Saskatchewan if socialized medicine was introduced. On July 1, 1962, the doctors strike began and 90% of the province’s doctors shut their offices. The strike by doctors lasted 23 days, and numbers of people died for lack of care.

The War Measures Act was not declared.

In 1990, for 78 days between July and September, Mohawks blocked the Mercier Bridge. There were numbers of violent confrontations between the Mohawk and non-indigenous commuters. 31-year-old Sûreté du Québec Corporal Marcel Lemay died after he was shot in a gun battle between SQ and Mohawk warriors. Mohawk elder Joe Armstrong, age 71, was struck in the chest by a large rock and died of a heart attack the next day. Routes 132, 138 and 207 were all blocked to the blockaded Mercier Bridge. (24)

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

In 1993 in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, more than 700 people were arrested in 1993 during a peaceful three-month anti-clearcutting protest on Vancouver Island. They objected to the B.C. government’s logging plan for the Clayoquot, which would have allowed some form of logging in two-thirds of the 350,000 hectares of forest, home to some of Canada’s largest and oldest trees. Logging companies said the protests imperiled economic growth.

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

In the summer of 2021, after news of unmarked graves of First Nations children were reported in Kamloops, nearly fifty churches across Canada were vandalized, and desecrated, over 30 burned down by arsonists.

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

And in 2020 and 2021, Black Lives Matter and anti-colonialism protesters variously 1) toppled a statue of Prime Minister John A. MacDonald in Montreal, decapitating his head, 2) toppled statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II in Winnipeg, and 3) Captain James Cook in Victoria, among others. Those opposed to the Trucker Freedom Convoy were outragedthat Terry Fox was draped with an upside-down Canadian flag, and was holding a “Mandate Freedom” poster. Yet, the Terry Fox statue by Parliament Hill remains unharmed, the flag and poster removed.

Ironically, while truckers protest a mandatory vaccine mandate for driving trucks across the Canada-US border, those charged with keeping the peace near Parliament Hill – the Ottawa Police – are not required to get vaccinated. They can opt to take COVID tests instead.

Back in 2013 at a Liberal fundraiser, Justin Trudeau, in response to a question about which country he admired the most – said China. “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime. There is a flexibility… having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.”

In passing the Emergencies Act, Justin Trudeau may hope to turn the Canadian economy around, vaccinating our way to an economic boom with his newfound “flexibility,” freezing protesters bank accounts, cancelling their licenses to drive, and doing whatever else he wants to crush dissent. (Many hundreds of police are beating and arresting protesters as I write this). But, when political power is fueled by political calculations to divide citizens between an “in-group” and an “out-group,” at what point does the damage done to society become permanent?

During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, “I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.”

Trudeau is getting pushback. Seven provinces have registered their opposition, stating the Prime Minister has not satisfied them that the nation is faced with “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that … seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it,” as outlined in Section 3 of the Act. That development was reported, among others, by signatory to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford.

Speaking to protesters gathered in Ottawa, Peckford expressed his firm opposition to the actions of the Liberal government. He added that former Charter signatories – Premiers Peter Lougheed, Alan Blackney, and Angus MacLean – would also view the actions of the Prime Minister as unconstitutional. Peckford emphasized key provisions of the Charter guarantee every citizen “the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province” and “the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ray McGinnis is author of Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored. Read other articles by Ray.

Featured image is from Dissident Voice

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.

We will be contacting and refunding readers who have purchased our books in print format. Meanwhile, PDF versions are still available for purchase. We hope to be able to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your valuable support.

***

Open Letter to Novak Djokovic. You Are a Role Model for All Free People

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 20, 2022

For many weeks now, I have been following from here the fear pandemic unleashed worldwide by a diabolical financial “elite” and the compulsion to be vaccinated with a gene-altering so-called vaccine. I was always very curious about your statement and your behaviour as an exceptional Serbian athlete and role model not only for the youth worldwide.

Zelensky’s Munich Speech Implies That Ukraine’s Becoming Increasingly Desperate

By Andrew Korybko, February 21, 2022

The entire Ukrainian state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered ‘Russian invasion’.

NATO No Longer a Defensive Alliance Is a Tool of Aggression

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 21, 2022

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO who answers to Washington declared today (Feb 19) at the Munich Security Conference that “if the Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on its borders, it will only get more NATO.” He says NATO is beefing up its forces “across the alliance,” that is, in the NATO countries on Russia’s borders.

The True Story of Trudeau’s First War Measures Act of 1970

By Matthew Ehret-Kump and Benoit Chalifoux, February 20, 2022

Due to the current activation of the Emergency Measures Act by Justin Trudeau on February 14 in response to the Freedom Convoys and blockades both in Ottawa and across various provinces of Canada, I thought it fitting to republish the text in full here. Where part one deals with some important contextual backstory, part two breaks down the facts of the October Crisis inside job itself.

The Mind Control Police: The Government’s War on Thought Crimes and Truth-Tellers

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, February 20, 2022

In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Time for UK Government to Come Clean on Ties to U.S. Torture Program

By John Kiriakou, February 20, 2022

We Americans have had a painful and difficult national debate over the past 20 years relative to torture. Torture was official U.S. government policy from 2002 until at least 2005, and that iteration was not formally outlawed until passage of the McCain-Feinstein Amendment in 2015.

Breaking: Decisive Night for Eastern Ukraine. The Shelling of Donbass by UAF

By South Front, February 20, 2022

The failure of the information campaign aimed at provoking an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine on February 15-16 did not bring the Ukrainian regime and its patrons to their senses.

Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, February 20, 2022

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

Will Washington Launch a Mass-Casualty “False Flag” to Sabotage Nord Stream?

By Mike Whitney, February 20, 2022

February 16 has come and gone without incident. The information spread by US officials and the media proved to be wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine nor did any of the unverified warnings turn out to be true.

Video: Anti-COVID Mandate Protest in the US

By mistersunshinebaby, February 20, 2022

“We Are Guaranteed Equal Protection Under the Law So Why Are the Unvaccinated Being Treated Differently Than the Vaccinated?”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Novak Djokovic – You Are a Role Model for All Free People

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Last June, the Associated Press reported [1] the largest warship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances. The blaze began around midnight and firefighters tried to contain it, but their efforts failed to save the 207-meter Kharg, which was used to resupply other ships in the fleet at sea and conduct training exercises. The Fars News Agency reported 400 sailors and trainee cadets on board fled the vessel, with 33 suffering injuries.

The ship sank near the Iranian port of Jask, some 1,270 kilometers southeast of Tehran on the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf. Photos circulated on Iranian social media showed sailors wearing life jackets evacuating the vessel as a fire burned behind them.

Meanwhile, a massive fire broke out at the oil refinery serving Iran’s capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. Similarly, last April, an Iranian ship MV Saviz believed to be an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base and anchored for years in the Red Sea off Yemen was targeted in an attack suspected to have been carried out by Israel.

Among the major attacks to target Iran, none have struck deeper than two explosions in July 2020 and then again in April last year at its Natanz nuclear facility. Former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service Yossi Cohen offered the closest acknowledgment yet that his country was behind the attacks targeting Iran’s nuclear program and the assassination of a military scientist.

While Cohen was being interviewed in investigative program Uvda of Israel’s Channel 12 in a segment aired last June, the interviewer, journalist Ilana Dayan, offered a detailed description of how Israel snuck the explosives into Natanz’s underground halls.

The man who was responsible for these explosions, it became clear, made sure to supply to the Iranians the marble foundation on which the centrifuges were placed, Dayan said. “As they install this foundation within the Natanz facility, they have no idea that it already includes an enormous amount of explosives.”

They also discussed the November 2020 killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian scientist who began Tehran’s military nuclear program decades ago. While Cohen on camera didn’t claim the killing, Dayan in the segment described Cohen as having “personally signed off on the entire campaign.” Dayan also described how a remotely operated machinegun fixed to a pickup truck killed Fakhrizadeh and later self-destructed.

A joint American-Israeli program [2], involving a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and targeting Iran’s power stations, industrial infrastructure, and missile and nuclear facilities has been going on since early 2020 after the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in an American airstrike at the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.

Besides pandering to Zionist lobbies in Washington, another purpose of these subversive attacks has been to avenge a string of audacious attacks mounted by the Iran-backed forces against the US strategic interests in the Persian Gulf that brought the US and Iran to the brink of a full-scale war in September 2019.

In addition to planting limpet mines on oil tankers off the coast of UAE in May 2019 and the subsequent downing of the American Global Hawk surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf by Iran, the brazen attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia on September 14, 2019, was the third major attack in the Persian Gulf against the assets of Washington and its regional allies.

The “sacrilegious assault” on the veritable mecca of the oil production industry was an apocalypse for the global oil industry, because the Persian Gulf holds 800 billion barrels, over half of world’s total 1,500 billion barrels crude oil reserves.

The subversive attack sent jitters across the global markets and the oil price surged 15%, the largest spike witnessed in three decades since the First Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, though the oil price was eased within weeks after industrialized nations released their strategic oil reserves.

Alongside deploying several thousand American troops, additional aircraft squadrons and Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Abqaiq attack, several interventionist hawks in Washington invoked the Carter Doctrine of 1980 as a ground for mounting retaliatory strikes against Iran, which states:

“Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Although the Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed the responsibility for the September 2019 complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Washington dismissed the possibility. Instead, it accused Tehran of mounting the strikes from Iran’s territory.

Obviously, the audacious attack was Iran’s retaliation in sheer desperation to the Trump administration reneging on its predecessor’s pledge and unilaterally canceling the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018.

It’s noteworthy that the Iran nuclear sanctions that were re-imposed by the Trump administration in 2018 after the revocation of the JCPOA were “third-party sanctions,” implying that any state or business organization doing business with Iran wouldn’t be permitted to engage in commercial activities with the US government and commercial enterprises based in the US, thus practically excluding Iran’s economy from the global financial system led by the US.

After being elected president, Biden has kept his statements deliberately ambiguous in order to fill the gaps in his Iran policy. Nevertheless, even if we assume Biden is sincere in restoring the nuclear pact, considering the influence of Zionist lobbies in Washington, which literally forced the Trump administration to abandon the deal in May 2018, Biden would find it a daunting task to follow through on his pacifist rhetoric with tangible policy decisions.

His predecessor Donald Trump repeatedly complained during the four years of his presidency that the Iran nuclear deal, signed by the Obama administration in 2015, was an “unfair deal” that gave concessions to Iran without giving anything in return to the US.

Regrettably, there is a grain of truth in Trump’s statements because the Obama administration signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in July 2015 under pressure, as Washington had bungled in its Middle East policy and wanted Iran’s co-operation in Syria and Iraq to get a face-saving.

In order to understand how the Obama administration bungled in Syria and Iraq, we should bear the background of Washington’s Middle East policy during the recent years in mind. The decade-long conflict in Syria that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian resistance axis comprising Iran, Syria and their Lebanon-based proxy Hezbollah that posed an existential threat to Israel’s regional security. Therefore, in accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iran-allied forces worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the jihadists’ cause, hence they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting air strikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the horrific Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015.

Then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona terrorist attack in August 2017.

Keeping this background of the quagmire created by the Obama administration in Syria and Iraq in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that the Obama administration desperately needed Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to salvage its botched policy of training and arming jihadists to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria that backfired and gave birth to the Islamic State that carried out some of the most audacious terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Thus, Washington signed the JCPOA in July 2015 that gave some concessions to Iran, and in return, former hardline Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki was forced out of power in September 2014 with Iran’s tacit approval and moderate former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was appointed in his stead, who gave permission to the US Air Force and ground troops to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces and allied militias to subdue the Islamic State in Mosul and Anbar.

The Iran nuclear deal, however, was neither an international treaty under the American laws nor even an executive agreement. It was simply categorized as a “political commitment.” Due to the influence of Zionist lobbies in Washington, the opposition to the JCPOA in the American political discourse was so vehement that forget about having it passed through the US Congress, the task the Obama administration faced was to muster enough votes of dissident Democrats to defeat a resolution of disapproval so that it couldn’t override a presidential veto.

The Trump administration, however, was not hampered by the legacy of the Obama administration, and since the objective of defeating the Islamic State had already been achieved in October 2017, therefore Washington felt safe to unilaterally annul the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 at former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s behest, and the crippling “third-party sanctions” were once again imposed on Iran’s oil and financial sectors.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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.

Notes

[1] Iran’s largest warship catches fire, sinks in Gulf of Oman

[2] Long-Planned and Bigger Than Thought: Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The entire Ukrainian state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered ‘Russian invasion’.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Munich Security Conference on Saturday in a dramatic speech that implies how increasingly desperate his country has become. Comparing the Russian Federation to Nazi Germany and fearmongering about World War III has become standard fare among Moscow’s many critics so it isn’t surprising that Zelensky resorted to the same. He meant to scare his audience so that they consider scaling up their military and economic assistance of his country, which suggests that he isn’t satisfied with the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of aid he’s already received this year alone.

According to Zelensky, Ukraine deserves even more because it serves as a so-called “shield” for protecting Europe. Nonetheless, he’s against it being considered a “buffer” between Russia and the West since he insists that his country should be part of the latter, including through NATO membership. About that, he called the alliance out and told it to finally be honest about Ukraine’s membership prospects. Even if it never joins, though, he said that it’ll always defend itself against any threat. This shows that Zelensky is very unhappy with everything that’s recently transpiring, especially the evacuation of all US-led Western military forces and most of their diplomats in recent weeks.

Moreover, he’s also very upset at them always talking about this or that date of a so-called “Russian invasion”. Reports have claimed that such hysteria already cost Ukraine several billion dollars but the reality is probably a lot more, including in terms of decreasing investor confidence in the country’s future. That’s probably why Zelensky proposed a “Stability and Reconstruction Fund” for Ukraine as well as a “lend-lease” military-technical program. He likely doesn’t expect all that much more free aid and therefore wants to make it known that Kiev is ready to cut deals in exchange for more. This further confirms how desperate the country has recently become.

Zelensky lamented several times throughout the course of his speech that Ukraine seems to be considered a peripheral country among many Europeans, who apparently haven’t paid all that much attention to it until the recent undeclared USprovoked missile crisis in Europe. That likely explains why he suggested that Ukraine play a front and center role in creating what he described as a new European security architecture. To that end, he proposed convening a meeting between the UNSC, Ukraine, Germany, and Turkey. He also said that his country might abandon the Budapest Memorandum’s obligations for Kiev not to develop nuclear weapons since he claims that its terms have been violated.

That last-mentioned aspect of his speech leaves no question to the fact that Ukraine is unprecedentedly desperate to receive more US-led Western support in all respects otherwise Zelensky wouldn’t have flirted with going nuclear, which is delusional in any case but was nevertheless meant to generate hysterical headlines the day after for redirecting global attention to Kiev’s case (not that it wasn’t getting enough already). It’s unlikely that the Ukrainian leader wrote his speech himself so observers can interpret his words as representing the concerns of his country’s military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”).

This insight suggests that the entire state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered “Russian invasion”. Zelensky’s country has been hung out to dry at no cost to the US-led West itself but with unprecedented costs to Ukraine in every respect, especially economic and financial. While it remains unclear whether the US will give the green light for Ukraine to initiate a third round of all-out civil war hostilities and thus probably prompt a Russian military response in self-defense, there’s no doubt that its ties with Kiev are very complicated.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

NATO No Longer a Defensive Alliance Is a Tool of Aggression

February 21st, 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO who answers to Washington declared today (Feb 19) at the Munich Security Conference that “if the Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on its borders, it will only get more NATO.” He says NATO is beefing up its forces “across the alliance,” that is, in the NATO countries on Russia’s borders. See this.

This is an extremely aggressive response to Russia’s concern about missile bases placed on her borders. To speak frankly, Stoltenberg is inviting a Russian attack before she finds herself with more missile bases on her borders.

As if this isn’t enough and with Russia already concerned with the unwillingness of the West to abide by any agreements, treaties, and international law, the president of Ukraine declared today at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine was on the verge of renouncing the Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine agreed to abstain from nuclear weapons in exchange for its independence from Russia.  As Ukraine has already broken the Minsk Agreement, there is no reason for Ukraine to keep to the Budapest Memorandum. See this.

So, Russia goes to the US and NATO and says frankly: “You are making us uncomfortable by putting missile bases on our borders and by your plans to bring Ukraine into NATO.  This is not something we can accept.  Here is our proposal for mutual security.”  And the reply is more NATO military expansion and Ukraine developing nuclear weapons.

There was never any possibility of any success of Russian negotiations with Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a sovereign country and cannot make its own decisions.  Ukraine is Washington’s pawn used to cause trouble for Russia. Russia brought this upon herself by standing aside while Washington overthrew the Ukraine government and installed a Washington puppet.  Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg, and the rest of the crew have made it completely clear that they intend to make Russia less secure.  The West thinks that this is riskless because all the Russians will do is complain and ask for more negotiations.  Washington has Russia trapped in the self-defeating process of answering Washington’s accusations. 

Perhaps Biden, Blinken, and Stoltenberg are right.  But on the other hand, what would you do if you were the government of a vast country allied with China and armed with a military force that can walk through any force NATO can muster as if it were a wet paper bag?  Would you sit there wasting time and energy in negotiations that only make things worse while your enemies build up their forces on your borders and Ukraine acquires nuclear weapons?  

You would only if you were foolish.

I don’t know what Putin has learned.  I have learned that previous Russian and Soviet governments were correct in realizing that Russian security required buffers.  There are solid reasons Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Central Asia were integral parts of Russia and the Soviet Union. The Soviet government formed the Warsaw Pact (East European countries) as a buffer to NATO, which was formed first.  The weak Yeltsin government, by agreeing to strip Russia of her buffers, has produced the insecurity that Putin has tried to resolve peacefully.

Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg, Inc. have made it clear that there will be no peaceful resolution except the Kremlin’s acceptance of Washington’s hegemony.  As I have written for years, Russia’s choice is surrender or fight.  

I still think peace is achievable, but not until there is a demonstration of judicious Russian force. The West needs to understand that Russia means it when she says she has had enough.

What would be an example of judicious force?  Perhaps this:

  • The Kremlin accepts the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia like Crimea.  This would end the violence in Ukraine as not even the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are stupid enough to attack Russia.
  • The Kremlin announces that Ukraine is in no danger from Russia unless Ukraine becomes a NATO member, accepts US missile bases, or begins developing nuclear weapons, in which case Ukraine will be destroyed.
  • The US missile bases in Poland and Romania will be removed or Russia will remove them.
  • There will be no further strengthening of NATO military forces in NATO countries bordering Russia.  Any such forces will be destroyed upon arrival.

The red lines would be clear.  If the West crosses them, it will be the West that is responsible for the violence. 

If nothing of this sort is done, Washington will keep pushing until Russia has to take far more drastic action that would bring a much greater chance of nuclear war.  

It is clear from Washington’s negative response to Russia’s demand that her security concerns be addressed that negotiations are pointless.  Washington controls the Western media, and the media spins the outcome to Washington’s satisfaction.  More negotiation just means more Russian frustration.

It is difficult for the Kremlin to act in Russia’s interest because of the Russian fifth column consisting of the Atlanticist Integrationists. These are influential people and organizations who are more concerned to be a part of the West than they are with Russian sovereignty.  Globalism is everywhere, including in the Russian government and economic establishment.  Russian economists have been indoctrinated by their Western counterparts that Russia needs foreign exchange in order to develop the Russian economy.  Consequently, they think energy sales to Europe should be billed in dollars or euros, which strengthens the dollar and the euro instead of the ruble.  It is a sad situation when a country’s economists recommend a policy that strengthens the enemy’s currency instead of its own.

Washington is relying on the Atlanticist Integrationists and the Western-financed NGOs, which the Russian government foolishly permits to operate against itself inside Russia, to make it difficult for Putin to meet the challenges that Washington is bringing in order to weaken and destabilize Russia.

Russia cannot negotiate away either the US military/security complex’s need for an enemy to justify its power and budget or Washington’s desire for hegemony.  This is the reality that Putin faces.

Putin and Lavrov keep trying to rely on reason and fact, but in the West reason and fact have lost their influence.  Reason is a “white construct” that white people who are “systemic racists” use to oppress people of color.  Biologically-based gender is not even a fact.  A physical man can declare himself a woman, and a physical woman can declare herself to be a man. Employers, schools, even the military have to accept the self-declaration of gender regardless of fact, or courts rule they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act and are discriminating on the basis of sex.

The Western world has replaced reason and fact with narratives.  Narratives are official explanations that no matter how false carry the imprimatur of truth. To challenge them can be life-threatening.  We are not yet shot in the back of the head in the Lubyanka.  Instead, we are declared to be “domestic terrorists,” “Russian agents,” “disinformation agents,” “enemies of democracy.”  We are deplatformed, fired from our jobs, our medical licenses are taken away, we are arrested and our property seized for protesting a narrative as is currently happening to the Canadian  protesters.  

Independent scientists of the highest reputation have proven that the Covid narrative is incorrect, that the mRNA vaccines are more dangerous to most people than Covid itself.  Yet the scientific facts do not correct the narrative.  Instead, the narrative bans the facts.  

How is it possible that Putin and Lavrov expect to negotiate with a culture in which reason and fact do not exist? Why do they continue in this folly? Is the reality they face too much to accept compared to the pretend world of negotiation?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

Western Media Continues to Flog a Dead Anti-China Horse

February 20th, 2022 by Kim Petersen

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

When it comes to the ever ascending techno-economic colossus of China, it is year-round open season in the West for monopoly media and government officials to invoke whatever opprobrium, throw it against the wall and hope it sticks, if not repeat the defamation. Evidence does not matter. It can be cooked up. And the same story can be repeated ad nauseam because if someone hears it often enough, it must be true, … right?

The Beijing-hosted Winter Olympics are happening, and this provided an opportunity for Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai to meet with gathered western media and clarify misconceptions or doubts about her narrative. But that is not how western monopoly media operates. Still she met with two journalists, Sophie Dorgan and Marc Ventouillac, from the French sports newspaper L’Equipe.

The Associated Press notes of the interview that Peng was “prepped and ready to talk for the first time with western media about allegations she made of forced sex with a former top-ranked Communist Party official.” It comes across as saying she would produce canned responses. Given the hullabaloo that exploded after her Weibo social-media post, many people would want to forgo such an interview. But Peng had opened a can of worms with that post, a post she soon after deleted. It was incumbent that she clear the air much more than she had done hitherto. Going into such an interview cold turkey was not in the cards. Besides, it is normal and recommended that athletes prepare for an interview.

AP writes of a “restrictive interview arranged with Chinese Olympic officials.” Isn’t every interview/interaction restricted in some sense? So what was the purpose of the adjective “restricted”? And since it is taking place at the Olympic venue, wouldn’t arrangements best be made by Olympic officials from China? But the AP framing is pointed: behind the scenes, Chinese officials were controlling the process. Does China not have a responsibility to look out for one of its citizens, whether Peng is at fault or not through her own (mis)handling of the situation? There is nothing sinister in this.

One of two L’Equipe journalists, Marc Ventouillac, told AP “he is still unsure if she is free to say and do what she wants.”

“It’s impossible to say,” he said in English. “This interview don’t give proof that there is no problem with Peng Shuai.”

In other words, Ventouillac doesn’t know. How could he know? There is nothing substantial for AP to seize on here.

So instead AP writes,

China’s intent, however, was clear to him [Ventouillac]: By granting the interview as Beijing is hosting the Winter Olympics, it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest, so it doesn’t pollute the event.

Really? First, how was the Chinese intent clear? Second, when AP writes “it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest,” the phrasing “it appeared” does not speak to clarity or certainty. It instead appears that the AP is backing down from its stance on Ventouillac’s clarity of Chinese intent. Third, where does the phrase “Chinese officials hope” come from? Did the journalists interview Chinese officials? This was not stated anywhere. If not having spoken to Chinese officials, then how would the French journalists know what Chinese officials were hoping for? This is pure conjecture without any substantiation. Is this journalism?

AP tries a different take:

“It’s a part of communication, propaganda, from the Chinese Olympic Committee,” Ventouillac told The Associated Press on Tuesday, the day after L’Equipe published its exclusive.

More questions are raised by this. What communication was that? Who communicated it? What exactly was stated in the communication? Why is this communication termed propaganda? Is there anything meaningful in this short quotation by AP? If not, then why was it not edited out of the article? It appears that the propaganda is coming from AP.

More supposition follows:

With “an interview to a big European newspaper, they [China] can show: ‘OK, there is no problem with Peng Shuai. See? Journalists (came), they can ask all the questions they wanted.’”

Why not? I don’t think China cares so much about the ruckus stemming from the Weibo post. It is small potatoes compared to allegations of US presidents, current and past, involvement in sexual scandals. But, understandably, Peng would like to clear the air, and China would like to help out an athlete who has been a good ambassador on the tennis court.

However, AP puts a different spin on this:

“It’s important, I think, for the Chinese Olympic committee, for the Communist Party and for many people in China to try to show: ‘No, there is no Peng Shuai affair,’” Ventouillac said.

Speaking of small potatoes, how does a social media faux pas stack up against allegations, patently false though they are, of genocide? If there is nothing more to the issue than a regrettable posting on her social media account that blew up into an international fiasco, then of course Peng would like to put the issue to rest.

The Women’s Tennis Association is unconvinced, saying that the L’Equipe interview “does not alleviate any of our concerns” about the allegations she made in November. First, what concern? The AP piece makes it sound like a concern about the allegation and not about the well-being of the player. Second, what concern is an allegation of a crime committed outside the WTA’s jurisdiction to the WTA? Is the WTA an international forensics and prosecutorial agency now? Third, is it any business of the WTA, especially since Peng has stated she wanted to be left in peace?

Simon has two demands: “As we would do with any of our players globally, we have called for a formal investigation into the allegations by the appropriate authorities and an opportunity for the WTA to meet with Peng — privately — to discuss her situation.” We would like to meet privately with Peng. Privately, so she should appear before the WTA brass alone? The WTA is not alone; Simon stated “we.” Why can Peng not bring anyone to accompany her? A lawyer would be a good start. And what if she doesn’t want to meet?

Two other key words here are “would do.” Has the WTA ever acted in such capacity before, beyond words?

When 19-year-old tennis star Jelena Dokic, a victim of parental abuse, asked the WTA to not issue credentials to her parents, the WTA keenly stressed that Dokic’s personal arrangements were “a private matter.”

Nonetheless, although Peng’s matter is public now (and social media is not a medium if you want privacy), are the details of Peng’s matter not private as far as the WTA is concerned?

What did the ATP, the men’s equivalent of the WTA, do when one of its former star players, the phenotypically Black James Blake, was assaulted by a white New York plains clothes officer James Frascatore? I never heard the then ATP president, Chris Kermode, issue any statements of concern for Blake. I am unaware of any ATP calls for a formal investigation into alleged, and subsequently confirmed, police brutality.

Nowadays, German tennis star Alexander Zverev finds himself dogged by allegations of domestic violence made by a former girlfriend. All the ATP has done publicly in this matter is issue new domestic abuse guidelines. I have not heard of ATP concern for the player or the alleged victim.

The WTA has come up with its own framing of the incident. WTA chief executive Steve Simon stated, “Peng took a bold step in publicly coming forth with the accusation that she was sexually assaulted by a senior Chinese government leader.”

That is Simon’s framing. First, was the Weibo post a big step or big mistake by Peng? Second, when you put out a statement, then get it right. Simon’s statement is factually inaccurate. The “senior Government leader” has been retired for a few years. It should have read a former senior vice premier of the State Council. Is Kamala Harris ever called a leader of the United States? Simon has willfully positioned Peng’s paramour, Zhang Gaoli, in the leadership position in China. Had anyone outside of China ever heard of Zhang before Peng’s Weibo post?

Conveniently appearing at the end of the AP piece are the following:

  1. Ventouillac said Peng “seems to be healthy.”
  2. Originally 30 minutes were allotted for the interview, but it lasted nearly an hour.
  3. Ventouillac said the journalists had asked all the questions they wanted.
  4. And, “There was no censorship in the questions.”

Telling is what was unmentioned in the AP article: that Peng denies an assault as having happened.

Is that clarity? I submit that there remains a question still answered: why did she write of being forced to have sex in the first place? She denies it having been the case, but she put it out there in social media. Hence, the once posted allegation is something that anti-China types can and will latch onto to besmirch the nation.

It is not up to the WTA, ATP, IOC, AP, US, EU, NATO, IMF or whichever entity to force Peng to do anything she is uncomfortable with. She is not a criminal. At worst, she was engaged in thoughtless mischief. If she says it never happened, everyone has to accept her at her word. Peng is the only one who knows with 100 percent certainty her truth. If need be, she knows that there are plenty of people out there who would listen to her story.

Meanwhile in Washington, there is a “leader,” a sitting president with an accusation of sexual assault against him. Tara Reade has never backed down from her allegation against Joe Biden, but the domestic US mass media has given him a pass, belying the two-faced nature of American media when it comes to the alleged malfeasance of American officials versus the allegations of wrongdoing against a officials in a state-designation enemy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Media Continues to Flog a Dead Anti-China Horse
  • 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dear Mr. Novak Djokovic,

Since I will not be able to reach you personally, I am addressing you with an Open Letter.

I am a German scientist and psychologist and have been living in your home country Serbia for more than two years.

For many weeks now, I have been following from here the fear pandemic unleashed worldwide by a diabolical financial “elite” and the compulsion to be vaccinated with a gene-altering so-called vaccine. I was always very curious about your statement and your behaviour as an exceptional Serbian athlete and role model not only for the youth worldwide.

When I read your new statement today in the German newspapers,

“Rather miss trophies than be forced to get a COVID vaccine” (1)

and on BBC:

“I am not against vaccination but would sacrifice trophies if told to get vaccinated.” (2)

I was thrilled and would like to congratulate you on your courage. The whole of Serbia will be proud of you. For me, you are not only a role model for free youth, but for all free people. I wish you all the best in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Rudi Hänsel

Educationalist and graduate psychologist
Belgrade / Serbia

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.a

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) https://www.welt.de/sport/article236910447/Novak-Djokovic-Keine-Impfung-Keine-Turniere-Den-Preis-zahle-ich.html

(2) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60354068

Featured image is from Flickr

The True Story of Trudeau’s First War Measures Act of 1970

February 20th, 2022 by Matthew Ehret-Kump

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The following two part series was co-written with Paris-based journalist Benoit Chalifoux and myself (first published in Canadian Patriot #4 in 2013) documenting the inside job run by Anglo-Canadian intelligence networks during the first Trudeau dictatorship of Canada in October 1970.

Due to the current activation of the Emergency Measures Act by Justin Trudeau on February 14 in response to the Freedom Convoys and blockades both in Ottawa and across various provinces of Canada, I thought it fitting to republish the text in full here. Where part one deals with some important contextual backstory, part two breaks down the facts of the October Crisis inside job itself.

It is also worth noting that the driving force behind the border blockades and the Ottawa protests which are spreading across the world are not the same process. Facts on the ground in Windsor and Manitoba demonstrate that unlike the freedom convoy, the border blockades are not organic and carry many signatures of stage-managed operations put on with a complicit media and fools to justify such an unjustifiable crackdown.

Sovereignty or Technocracy: A Tale of Two Revolutions

Until 1947, Canada was known as “The Dominion of Canada”.  While its title of “Dominion” has changed, Canada is still not an independent nation, but a Monarchy ruled by the British Queen and Privy Council. Until the 1960s, the French Canadians, who form the overwhelming majority of the population of Quebec, were in the main confined to manual labour and low-level clerical jobs, while the upper echelons of society were occupied by the descendants of the British colonial elite. The question for honest leaders in Quebec at that time was “How can a society so long kept economically and culturally underdeveloped be brought into a state of self-government, skills and dignity”?

Faced with that conundrum, Quebec Premiers Paul Sauvé (1959), Jean Lesage (Liberal Party 1960-65) and Daniel Johnson Sr. (Union nationale 1966-68) had, between 1959 and 1968, instituted policies that had led to a great economic revolution in Quebec centered on scientific and technological progress. This was done by the creation of an advanced engineering culture of Quebec and an international outlook towards ending colonialism under French President Charles de Gaulle’s leadership.

This was, however only one current that shaped the 1959-68 period of Quebec. There was a second, much more evil current that also shaped that period. WIthout an understanding of both currents, then no comprehension of the true purpose of the October crisis of 1970 and its effects were at all possible.

The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Society

The De Gaulle-Johnson-Lesage nation-building momentum had been an inspired attempt to outflank the British Malthusian movement that was then attempting to impose the program which Fabian Society leader H.G. Wells described in detail in his 1930 book the “New World Order” of depopulation, eugenics, and one world government. In his book, H.G. Wells states:

“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go… We are living in the end of the sovereign states… In the great struggle to evoke a westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.”

Later on, in 1932, Wells, ever the devout eugenicist stated that all progressives and social reformers must become “liberal fascisti… enlightened nazis.”

October Crisis - 5- Georges

The strategy of the synarchist figures who ran both the October Crisis and the secularization of Quebec was to bring society under a system of perfect predictability and control outlined by Wells and other Fabian socialists decades earlier. For this deconstruction of pre-existing values to occur, Wells and other Fabian thinkers reasoned that society would have to be purged of its traditional Judeo-Christian values, love for the general welfare, and especially scientific and technological progress. In this sense, all forms of individualism that Wells refers to, which are in harmony with patriotic nationalism are simply causes of uncertainty and uncontrollable change in the mind of a social engineer and hence must be purged. Only a materialist society motivated by selfish impulses under a system of fixed resources can be controlled in a predetermined fashion. The outcome of this social purging came later to be known as the “rock-drug-sex baby boomer counterculture”. Quebec, during this period was a battleground for the soul of western civilization.

Using the hypocrisies and corruption in the old Duplessis order as a moral lever to direct social anger towards the existing established order, the social engineering program that had been gaining steam from 1946-1960 under the control of Georges-Henri Levesque at the Université Laval, blew up with what had later come to be dubbed the ‘Quiet Revolution’.

While the nation-builders attempted to guide this transformation into a constructive direction, terrorist separatist groups such as the FLQ were created throughout the 1960s leading to the implementation of the War Measures Act on October 16th 1970, and then to the Emergency Measures Act under the leadership of Fabian Socialist Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Trudeau had been recruited to the Fabian Society under his tutelage of Fabian Leader Harold Laski at the London School of Economics from 1947-49 before being set up in the Ottawa Privy Council Office which has been a control center of Canada since Confederation). The latter act, somewhat less drastic than the War Measures Act, was voted up by the Canadian Parliament on December 1st 1970, and remained in force for five months.

Introducing Pierre Vallières

Many of the resources utilized in the following report are derived from a book written by a journalist called Pierre Vallières, L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977). Beyond what he writes in this book, Pierre Vallières himself is an important clue in the true story behind the true top down agenda of the Synarchy which organized the various intelligence organizations that effectively ran the October crisis.

Vallières was a major player in the events of October 1970. He came from the separatist left wing, and was a leading member of the Front de Libération du Quebec (FLQ), the movement that was held responsible for the bomb attacks, and the kidnapping of British diplomat James Cross, and Quebec’s Deputy Premier, Pierre Laporte. Vallières’ connection to the FLQ and his first hand account of the events surrounding the October Crisis are only truly useful if we take into account what he leaves out. By intentionally omitting a series of important facts, Vallières deflects the reader of his book from acquiring a sense of causality in the same way that September 11 “Inside job” reports may seem impressive in their knowledge of the mechanics of controlled demolitions, yet always leave out the role of the Saudi and British governments (through BAE Systems) in sponsoring the operation.

It is for that reason that it is vital to take into consideration the higher dynamics that Vallieres omits before plunging into the important mechanics which Vallière’s work accurately portrays regarding the fallacy behind the official narrative surrounding the FLQ and the October Crisis. Thus, before proceeding, we must first look at a relationship between Pierre Vallières and a magazine called Cité Libre.

The Cité Libre-Vallières-Trudeau Connection

Cité Libre was an influential journal foundedby none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Gérard Pelletier while both young men were employed in the Ottawa Privy Council Office in 1951. Cité Libre served as an important organizing tool used to attract young leftist élites of Quebec around an existentialist “personalist” ideology [1]  and plan for overthrowing the catholic regime of Maurice Duplessis and the Vatican influenced Union National party that ran Quebec from 1945-1960. In fact, Vallières even received the reins of Cité Libre directly from Trudeau in 1965 taking over Trudeau’s job as Editor-in-Chief and thus freeing Trudeau up to become a federal Member of Parliament under the newly re-organized Liberal Party banner. The Federal Liberal Party had, by that time, been purged of all C.D. Howe influences, and had become the chosen host which leading Fabians and Rhodes scholars chose to take over to advance their agenda. The Liberal Party was chosen due to the simple fact that the Fabian Society of Canada (New Democratic Party) demonstrated itself incapable of gaining the necessary political power [2].

October Crisis - 8 Cite libre roster

Within merely five years of this transfer of editorship of Cité Libre, Vallières was credited for leading Quebec into a state of crisis, while Trudeau (by now Prime Minister) used the chaos of Vallière’s organization as an excuse to implement the greatest psychological trauma on the Quebec population in history by declaring Martial Law. This act also served to break the will of may Gaullist forces who were still resisting the technocratic Fabian reforms as late as 1970.

Several other Cité Libre operatives who rose to prominence in Quebec or Federal politics leading up to or after the October crisis include René Levésques, founder of the Parti Quebecois, Gérard Pelletier, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Marc Lalonde, Jean Marchand and Jean-Pierre Goyer.

Jean-Pierre Goyer was a frequent contributor to Cité Libre becoming an MP alongside Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier in 1965, and then becoming appointed Solicitor General by Trudeau, overseeing the entire RCMP during the October Crisis. When the RCMP became too scandal ridden to be of any use, having been caught creating FLQ cells, robbing dynamite, conducting extortion and theft throughout the 1970s, Goyer played an instrumental role in creating CSIS alongside Trudeau`s right hand man and Privy Council Clerk Michael Pitfield in 1984. Pitfield himself had been active with the Cite Libre nest in the early 1960s translating the group’s influential “Manifesto pour une politique fonctionelle” of April 1964.

October Crisis - 9- 3 doves

Jean-Louis Gagnon not only served as Managing editor of La Presse (alongside Gérald Pelletier), but Deputy Cabinet Minister and then head of Information Canada under Trudeau during the period of the October Crisis, while Gérard Pelletier was appointed Pierre Trudeau`s Secretary of State. The Oxford trained Marc Lalonde became Principle Secretary to Trudeau (and later his Justice Minister), Jean Marchand (who was dubbed by the Quebec press as one of the “Three Doves” (Pelletier and Trudeau being the other two) also became a Cabinet minister during this period. The vast majority of Cité Libre figures who rose to prominence were members of the Fabian Society’s Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (renamed NDP in 1960) before joining the Liberals.

This is the same group that brought in a cybernetics overhaul to the Canadian government [3] as well as the Malthusian Canadian branch of the Club of Rome, whose Privy Council sponsorship under Trudeau, Pitfield and Lalonde directed government funds to the study which later came to be called Limits to Growth (1972). It was this fraudulent work that became the gospel of the neo-Malthusian revival and was used to justify the “post industrial paradigm of depopulation, and empire.

As you will come to realize in due course by the mere presentation of the elementary facts regarding the October Crisis of 1970, everything you have ever been told about the FLQ and the greater October Crisis which resulted from their activities is a lie.

*

 

Notes

[1] The personalist ideology which formed the basis of Cité Libre was built around the thinking of Jacques Maritaine and Jean Mounier. Maritain and Mounier were part of the “Catholic” variety of the discrete collaborators with Vichy during WWII, after the integrist Pope, Pius XII, had signed a Concordat deal with Hitler. Maritain was an Ultramontane integrist type of fascist who revived Thomas Aquinas with the purpose of instituting a “New Middle Ages” with the collaboration of the Dominicans. Maritain and Mounier were the leaders of the very Catholic “Ordre Nouveau” under Vichy. (See Pierre Beaudry’s Synarchy report on the DOMINICAN FASCIST YOUTH MOVEMENT in Book II: The Modern Synarchy Movement of Empire www.amatterofmind.org/Pierres_PDFs/SYNARCHY_I/BOOK_II/2._SYNARCHY_MOVEMENT_OF_EMPIRE_BOOK_II.pdf.) Maritain was the most important French philosopher of the war years in France and later in America. The entire Maritain, Mounier, and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange salon at Meudon was anti- De Gaulle, during and after the war. They were “Catholic personalist communitarians” who oriented against individualism and materialism for the benefit of the Revolution Nationale of Petain.

[2] Before 1960, the New Democratic Party was known since its 1933 creation as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF was created as the political party of the League of Social Reconstruction, founded in 1932 by six Oxford Rhodes Scholars (F.R. Scott, Eugene Forsey, King Gordon, Escott Reid, David Lewis and Graham Spry), and two Fabians (Frank Underhill and Leonard Marsh). The purpose of the LSR and its spawn CCF was to implement a scientific dictatorship under the model set forth by H.G. Wells as a “solution” to the great depression of 1928-1933. It is thus not a coincidence the first CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth was a leading advocate of eugenics. F.R. Scott became a leading recruiter and lifelong controller of Trudeau upon the laters’ return to Canada in 1950. The LSR, CCF leadership worked closely with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs and founded the Canadian Forum.

[3] Speaking of his love for Cybernetics and systems analysis at a Harrison, Ontario Liberal Conference on November 21, 1969, Trudeau said:

“We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”

It was Trudeau, Pitfield, Lalonde, Maurice Lamontagne and  Rhodes Scholar Governor General Roland Michener, along with a batch of Malthusians from the Privy Council Office who founded the Club of Rome Canada in 1970 which established the zero growth depopulation agenda which would be pursued for the next 40 years by the oligarchy.


The October Crisis of 1970: A Carefully-Prepared Plot

By Benoit Chalifoux and Matthew Ehret-Kump

The list of structures and institutions that follows shows clearly that some in official circles had anticipated the October 1970 crisis, which crisis had been concocted to lead into the War Measures Act and a consolidation of power in the hands of the “new technocratic elite” that had taken control of the Quiet Revolution after the death of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson in 1968 and the ouster of both Jean Lesage and Charles de Gaulle from political power in 1969.

The purpose of the following report, which relies heavily upon accounts by Pierre Vallières, taken from his 1977 book L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977) , is not to establish the cause of the October Crisis, but to sufficiently demonstrate that the official narrative commonly used to explain this period is not true. Not only that, but as the facts will show, the cause of these terrible events were organized by more powerful institutions both within and above the Canadian government.

At the Federal Level (Ottawa)

  • Based at Ottawa, the Strategic Operations Centre (SOC), was the channel from the army to the Trudeau Government.  Its existence became publicly known only in 1975, like that of the Centre national de planification des mesures d’urgences (C.N.P.M.U.), that worked closely alongside the SOC.  In the light of what we now know, one can well imagine that the tasks of those centres was to draft, and implement, scenarios that could lead to promulgating the War Measures Act.
  • Establishment of the Comité du 7 May 1970:  set up by the Federal Government in the wake of the elections on April 29th 1970, as we shall shortly see.  The decision was disclosed only on December 23rd 1971, by the Toronto daily The Globe and Mail.

In Quebec

  • Opération Essai (Operation Trial), derived from an initial plan, first drafted in 1960, by the Planning and Operations Section of the Quebec Command.  That same year, 1960, Jean Lesage became head of the Quebec Government, and launched the «Quiet Revolution» which was a process that had a bipolar character. This process became a key battle ground between two opposing forces. The first had aimed at installing a technocratic elite in Quebec while secularizing the province in preparation for a new Malthusian culture that could be reconstructed to the will of the oligarchy. The opposing force was represented by those nation-building, largely Catholic forces then centered around Lesage and Daniel Johnson who desired to direct the revolutionary energy then embracing Quebec around an anti-imperial strategy of republicanism and technological progress.
  • 1966:  the Infantry, Air Force and Navy were regrouped, and a new Mobile Army Command was set up at the Federal Military Base of Saint-Hubert.
  • 1969:  the Mobile Army Command set up its Civil Emergencies Section, whereby contacts with the army were to be restricted to carefully selected political figures.
  • 7 June 1970:  Michel Côté, the City of Montreal’s Head of Litigation, was secretly appointed to head the Combined Anti-terror Team – Escouade combinée anti-terroriste or C.A.T..  His job was to keep an eye on Jean Drapeau, then Mayor of Montreal.

Chronology of the October 1970 crisis

The chronology below challenges the official thesis, and points up a great many contradictions.

  • 1966:  Daniel Johnson is elected Quebec Premier giving the anti-Malthusian catholic forces a new opening to regain their lost power on the continent. This coincides with the rise of Robert F. Kennedy to greater prominence in preparation for his 1968 announcement of his plans to revive his brother`s policies in his bid for the Presidency.
  • 1967:  Charles de Gaulle visits Quebec on Johnson’s invitation at which point deals are struck between the two leaders based on advanced technology, infrastructure, space technology and cultural programs. Many components of this arrangement were based upon the French-Quebec assistance of technology and training to former African colonies now gaining their independence. The French President was invited to return at the end 1968 for the Francophone Summit.

October Crisis -pre 10- degaulle johnson

  • 26th September 1968: Daniel Johnson dies under unusual circumstances mere hours before the unveiling ceremony of the Manicouagan-5 Dam that Johnson had put into motion a decade earlier alongside then Premier and nation builder Paul Sauvé. Officially, he suffered a fatal heart attack. By 1969, De Gaulle is forced out of office in an anarchistic mock referendum in France. De Gaulle himself had survived over 13 assassination attempts run largely by the Montreal-based Permindex which was also at the center of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Two of the three previous Union National Premiers before Johnson met identical fates and died of heart attacks while in office in a period of 6 months. Maurice Duplessis died on September 7, 1959, while Paul Sauvé died on January 2, 1960.

October Crisis -10- three premiers

  • 1968: Daniel Johnson’s two greatest enemies: Pierre Trudeau and Rene Lévesques, both agents of the of the technocratic reforms of the Quiet Revolution steered by Georges Henri Lévesque’s Université Laval are set up to polarize Canada between two false notions of nationalism and install a new form of Malthusian power structure on both provincial and federal levels. Trudeau is set up as Prime Minister and Lévesques founds the Parti Quebecois (two weeks after Johnson’s death), later to emerge as Premier of Quebec (1976-85). The PQ absorbs many of the saner independence forces who advocated Johnson’s formulation of “Independence if necessary, but not necessarily independence”.
  • 1968-1970:  violent demonstrations break out in Montreal.
  • The Civil Emergencies Section predicts « grave disturbances » during the April elections, and states that the army might have to be called out to « protect the democratic vote ».
  • April 29th 1970: Provincial elections held whereby the separatists win 23% of the vote.
  • February and June 1970:  two kidnapping plots are uncovered by the Montreal police force (police de la Communauté urbaine de Montreal, CUM).  One plot, to be launched in June 1970, was to be an FLQ attack on the US Consulate, launched by FLQers Lanctôt and Marcil.
  • 27 May 1970:  an article in La Presse appears, on the army’s rôle in putting down civil disturbances in Canada.  According to the article, military operations were be run out of the Saint-Hubert base.

In Pierre Vallières’ view « by late summer 1970, everything was in place, and liaison between the army and the police forces concerned had moved onto a weekly, sometimes daily basis ».  He adds that « by June, the contents of the October manifesto had already been printed in some newspapers, following the abortive ‘Lanctôt-Marcil’ plot against the US Consulate; the FLQers demands had become known, and, finally, the FLQ’s operational bases (save for the flat rented in September in Northern Montreal by Cossette-Trudel) had been dismantled or had become known to the police.  The FLQ-1970 was under control in October, and no surprise was possible ».

James Cross is kidnapped

  • 5th October 1970:  the British diplomat James Cross is kidnapped.  The police’s first step is to go straight to the Greek Consul’s place of residence!  The kidnappers’ trace is lost.  The kidnappers demand that the FLQ’s manifesto be published, and that their political prisoners be freed.
  • 7th October:  one o’clock in the afternoon.  Mrs. Cross is shown police photographs and identifies Jacques Lanctôt as one of the kidnappers.
  • 8th October:  the FLQ manifesto is published, but negotiations continue over the freeing of political prisoners.

Pierre Laporte is kidnapped:  the crisis intensifies

  • 10th October (five forty in the afternoon):  the Quebec Justice Minister announces that the authorities have decided to categorically reject the demands made by Cross’ kidnappers, nor will they free the political prisoners
  • 10th October (six eighteen in the afternoon):  Pierre Laporte, Vice-Premier of Quebec  and Minister of Labour and Immigration, is kidnapped in front of his home, just as he was about to play ball with his nephew.  Pierre Laporte was second in command of the Quebec Government, and as such, was, allegedly, afforded special police protection.  But the first thing the police did – having been notified of the kidnapping within two minutes of the event – was, yet again, to go straight to the wrong place!
  • Vallière reports that « the  six eyewitnesses of the kidnapping of Pierre Laporte (his nephew, his wife and their neighbours) are unanimous:  the kidnappers were ‘clean cut’ and well dressed, a fact sergeant Desjardins confirmed to journalists that evening (…) Another witness, who worked in a petrol station on Taschereau boulevard, stated that shortly before the Minister was kidnapped, strangers had asked him how to get to rue Robitaille. ‘I thought they were policemen’, he said, because one was carrying something that looked like a walkie-talkie’ ».
  • Night of October 12th to 13th:  the Army Mobile Command sends an emissary to Quebec’s Justice Minister, Jérôme Choquette, demanding he sign, in the name of the Bourassa cabinet, a letter requiring intervention by the armed forces.  The cabinet was not then prepared to sign, and Choquette announces he would continue his efforts to persuade the reluctant elements.
  • 15th-17th October:  « for appearances’ sake» the Canadian Parliament debates the opportunity of proclaiming the War Measures Act.  The Opposition puts up a show of protest until Saturday October 17th.  Pierre Laporte’s body is thereupon discovered, « proving » a posteriori that the measures unleashed on October 16th had been needful.
  • 15th October (two in the afternoon):  the Canadian army begins to deploy in Quebec, at Bourassa’s request.
  • 15th October (nine in the evening):  Bourassa ups the ante, and lays down a six-hour deadline for the kidnappers to hand over James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
  • 16th October (in the night):  Quebec Premier Bourassa signs a letter written by Federal Justice Minister Marc Lalonde, instituting the War Measures Act.  Several thousand soldiers were already deployed in the streets of Quebec and in the Federal Capital Ottawa.  Through the War Measures Act – whose application need not be voted up by Parliament and that has NEVER been abrogated since – the curfew came down, civil liberties were suspended, and, inter alia, search of private domicile without warrant became lawful.  Over four hundred people were arrested.
  • 16th October (four in the morning):  Meeting in Council, the Governor General, the Queen’s direct representative in Canada, approves the proclamation of a state of emergency, pursuant to which the War Measures Act comes into force automatically.
  • 17th October (four in the afternoon):  a member of the Cell that calls itself “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” (this is the name of a French Canadian regiment but that was not, oddly enough, at Dieppe in WWII, where many French Canadians died) calls into the CKAC radio station.  Purportedly, this is a third and heretofore unknown FLQ cell.  The caller announces that Pierre Laporte has been murdered.  The earlier communiqués had all come from the FLQ cell known as Libération, that held James Cross, and that spoke on behalf of the Chenier Cell, the members of which were presumed to be the Pierre Laporte’s kidnappers. The Libération cell, that seemed to find the “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” business disturbing, put out a communiqué at mid-day, calling upon the press to blow the whistle on a “montage” (coup monté) by the Federal Government.  The police prevented that communiqué from being published until December 8th.
  • Pierre Laporte’s body is found in the boot of the very car used to kidnap him (witnesses had taken down the car’s registration number at the time) later in the evening on the Saint-Hubert military base (!), right next to the Army Mobile Command.  Given the prevailing State of Emergency, who, I ask, could have driven the car onto the base without being stopped and searched ?  Credibility is stretched well beyond the breaking point here.

October Crisis -11-laporte

  • In the hours following on the death of Pierre Laporte, the authorities put out a description of Paul Rose and Marc Carbonneau, but not that of Jacques Rose, Francis Simard or Bernard Lortie.  Paul Rose, Jacques Rose and Francis Simard (presumed to be members alongside Bernard Lortie of the Chénier cell, while Marc Carbonneau and Jacques Lanctôt were part of the Libération cell holding James Cross) had been on police files and monitored since no later than 1968.  The three had been in Texas (or perhaps Mexico) since September 1970, and had raced back to Quebec after James Cross was kidnapped.  The many trips by Chénier cell members during the time Pierre Laporte was held (and the temporary gaoling of Jacques Rose and Francis Simard between October 15th and 17th) lead one to presume that it could only have been someone quite different keeping watch over the Minister, and that the actual role played by the cell in kidnapping and murdering him was secondary, perhaps even notional.
  • 19th October:  the house where Pierre Laporte was held and murdered, or so goes the official thesis, is « discovered »:  5630 rue Armstrong at Saint-Hubert, near the aforesaid military base bearing that name.  That very house had been ransacked by police whilst the Minister might have been there, but nothing was turned up.  Bourassa told Mrs. Laporte on 14th October that the police had found the place her husband was being held:  « he will be freed within hours, we await the opportunity to do so without endangering [him] ». The question remains:  was that safehouse 5630 rue Armstrong?
  • 2nd November:  the Federal Minister John Turner proposes an Emergency Measures Bill, based on the War Measures Act.  The Emergency Measures Act was voted up on December 1st and came into force for five months.
  • 3rd December:  the Emergency Measures Act is signed into law by the Queen.  The crisis was, at least apparently, over.  Why the fresh Emergency Measures ?

At that very moment, James Cross is freed, and his kidnappers in the Libération cell are given a safe-conduct to Cuba.

  • Late December:  Paul and Jacques Rose, as well as Francis Simard are arrested.  The coroner’s report is based upon unsigned confessions.  Paul Rose never acknowledges, not even verbally, the confession attributed to him.  Although he was actually firmly in police custody at the time, to avoid any risk whatsoever that he spill the beans in open Court, he was, unbelievably, tried in absentia !
  • 31st March 1971:  Paul Rose, Bernard Lortie and Francis Simard are sentenced to life imprisonment. Jacques Rose, who was tried later, was acquitted.  The Prosecution Service declines to appeal.  Jacques Lancôt and Marc Carbonneau were already in exile in Cuba.

If we are to go by the explicit terms of the War Measures Act, the entire country was about to go down in murder and mayhem.  The truth is rather different:  the FLQ was a tiny, two-cell organisation with a total membership of about ten !  But we read, at Article 2 of the War Measures Act:

“EVIDENCE OF WAR

The issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated, and of its continuance, until by the issue of a further proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection no longer exists.”

Until 1970, the War Measures Act, first promulgated in 1914, had been proclaimed only twice before:  when Canada entered the World War I, in 1914, and World War II, in 1939.  Here, we are to take the  Governor General’s personal opinion, as “conclusive evidence” of a State of War, that absolutely did not exist.

What did the victim himself think about all this?  All that is known for certain, is that in none of his letters to Robert Bourassa whilst kidnapped did Pierre Laporte ever refer to the FLQ, nor did his wife, or most of his friends, ever buy the official story. A Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) report dated March 3rd 1971 states that Mrs. Laporte’s opinion was that the authorities had executed her husband.

There is a dreadful similarity between the Laporte kidnapping and murder, and that of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978, down to the detail of the police wandering about in circles in the vicinity of the safehouse.  In both cases, subsequent events show that the real intention was never to free the kidnap victim, but to use the crisis to shift the balance of power in the country, in favour of rentier-finance interests.

The Material Ease of Terrorists

It is rather astonishing that so many players from that time, have risen to positions of material ease and social prominence.  Precisely at the point the synarchy has launched a fresh wave of strategy of tension in Europe and the Americas, they appear to want to keep a tight grip on the main players in the events of October 1970, in order to avoid their disclosing what really went on.

Ex-FLQer Jacques Lanctôt now owns his own publishing house, with a large stock-in-trade on cultural, sociological and psychological issues, and essays on the separatist movement.  On March 28th 2004, Télé-Quebec broadcast a documentary called Hostage (Otage), comprised of interviews with Jacques Lanctôt, who kidnapped James Cross, and the Cross family. The documentary was finished in early 2004. Lanctot is now a leading journalist with Canoe Inc. which is owned by Quebecor (whose Vice Chairman is none other than Brian Mulroney)

From 1996 to 2002, Paul Rose had achieved such a miraculous boost of success that he became the head of the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party of Quebec! This Party merged with the Union des Forces Progresistes which in turn merged with two other organizations to become Quebec Solidaire which currently holds 7.6% of the seats in Quebec’s National Assembly. On March 14, 2013 Quebec Solidaire spokesman MP Amir Khadir introduced a resolution into the National Assembly to honour Paul Rose.

CSIS’s ‘Trudeau Files’ Erased in 1989

On June 15, 2019 the strange fact was made public by Canada’s National Post that the entire 40 year CSIS/RCMP dossier compiled on Canada’s most famous Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was destroyed by Canada’s top spy agency… in 1989.

How this embarrassing fact could have gone un-noticed for so long is tied to access to information laws in Canada which make all government dossiers available on any public or private citizen 20 years after their deaths. In 2019, historians searching for a story filed early applications to read this long awaited dossier which was supposed to be awaiting scrutinizing eyes in the Archives of Canada. The answer they received from CSIS and the National Archives was that the massive treasure of documentation was destroyed because it did not “meet the threshold set out by the CSIS Act to justify being kept in service’s active inventory. The file also fell short of criteria for preservation set out by the national archives”.

Based upon the facts laid bare in the above text and earlier report, it can safely be said that the true reason for CSIS’s destruction of the Trudeau Files had everything to do with devastating information on the role played by Canada’s third longest standing Prime Minister within the context of Britain’s geopolitical “Great Game” against the world.

The role his son is playing as a pawn within this Great Game in carrying out the dictatorial legacy begun by his father 50 years ago can only be understood from this vantage point.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from The Canadian Patriot

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

We Americans have had a painful and difficult national debate over the past 20 years relative to torture. Torture was official U.S. government policy from 2002 until at least 2005, and that iteration was not formally outlawed until passage of the McCain-Feinstein Amendment in 2015. (The torture program was a highly-classified secret from 2002 until I revealed it in a nationally-televised interview in December 2007.)

In truth, torture has been illegal in the U.S. since at least the end of World War II. In 1946, the U.S. Government executed Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American prisoners of war. In January 1968, the Washington Post ran a front-page photograph showing an American soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner.

A picture containing person, outdoor, ground, group Description automatically generated

Source: time.com

On the day the photo ran, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered an investigation. The soldier was arrested, tried, convicted of torture, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Torture was clearly a crime in 1946 and in 1968. But somehow, due to the legalistic gymnastics of the Bush Administration, torture was somehow magically legal in 2002. The law hadn’t changed; Americans had. It took us until 2015 to come to our collective senses again.

What Americans generally don’t discuss is the position and actions on torture of our closest friend and ally, the United Kingdom. There is very little in the American media addressing the UK position on torture and whether the UK participated in “enhanced” interrogations during the so-called War on Terror.

Certainly, there has been reporting on British actions in Northern Ireland during the “troubles” there. We know, for example, about the “hooded men”—Northern Irish men who were arrested and held without charge by British officers, hooded, kept in stress positions, deprived of sleep, deprived of food and water, and in some cases thrown out of low-flying helicopters. (Sound familiar?)

But precious little has been said about UK cooperation with the U.S. Government against al-Qaeda members and their allies.

British troops hold captive in Iraq. [Source: irishtimes.com]

With that said, we can still draw conclusions based on what little the UK Government has revealed. In 2020, for example, a UK court denied a request by two members of Parliament and a human rights organization to publicly investigate the role of the British intelligence services in torture and rendition.

The judges declared that the MPs and the human rights organization Reprieve did not have standing to force the case, and that only the actual victims of torture and rendition would have standing. They did not address the fact that many of those who had allegedly been tortured were either missing or dead because of, well, torture and rendition.

In an earlier hearing related to the same case, judges heard that there were at least 15 people who had alleged that they had been tortured by British intelligence officers, but very few details from those cases were ever made public.

Only one name was revealed at the time—that of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a Libyan national snatched by the CIA in Thailand in 2004 with “help” from the British MI-6. Belhaj was rendered to Libya, tortured again, and sentenced to death, although he somehow survived the experience. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May eventually apologized to him.

Even if British intelligence officers did not personally torture Belhaj or other prisoners, they must answer for their cooperation with the United States and other countries where torture was used. And they must account for the information they used in other cases when that information was collected through torture.

The UK, like the U.S., maintains close relationships on, and “memoranda of understanding” on, counterterrorism with countries including Jordan, Libya, and Lebanon, countries known to use torture.

In the words of Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former Director of Counterterrorism, “You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind” to believe that some of these countries would not use torture, despite promises to the contrary. Why won’t the British government promise to not use information gathered through the use of torture? Its people are still waiting for an answer.

The UK, like the U.S., is an original signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Its tenets are actually quite simple. The agreement bans, “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

It doesn’t get much more clear than that. Now it’s up to the UK government to come clean.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

John Kiriakou was a CIA analyst and case officer from 1990 to 2004.

In December 2007, John was the first U.S. government official to confirm that waterboarding was used to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners, a practice he described as torture.

Kiriakou was a former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former counter-terrorism consultant. While employed with the CIA, he was involved in critical counter-terrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but refused to be trained in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” nor did he ever authorize or engage in such crimes.

After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm the existence of the CIA’s torture program. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing.

John can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from redress.org

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The failure of the information campaign aimed at provoking an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine on February 15-16 did not bring the Ukrainian regime and its patrons to their senses.

Since the night of February 16, the shelling of the DPR and LPR by the UAF has sharply intensified. By the afternoon of February 17, the frequency of the attacks reached the intensity of 2014-2015.

(some of the Videos are dysfunctional scroll down for text and analysis)

Today, the UAF artillery carried out 18 massive attacks on the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). For example, during one of these attacks on the village of Shakhty Izotov, 16 mines were fired from an 82mm mortar launchers. In total, about 300 rounds of heavy artillery and mortars were fired.

For example, in the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), the following attacks were recorded in just one hour:

  • at 7.55 p.m Katerinovka – Molodezhnoye: AGS-17 (8 shots);
  • at 8.15 p.m. Zolotoe 4 – Zolotoe 5: ATGM (2 shots), SPG-9 (3 shots);
  • at 8.35 p.m Geevka – Slavyanoserbsk: AGS-17 ( 25 shots);
  • at 9.10 p.m. Crimean – Sokolniki: SPG-9 (4 shots), heavy machine gun.

On the night of February 18, the shelling intensified. This night may become a decisive one.

According to some recent reports, a complete evacuation from the village of Alexandrovka near Donetsk has been announced. All the civilians were ordered to leave the village.

On the night of February 18, fighting continued on almost all front lines: Donetsk, Gorlovka, Debaltseve-Svetlodarsk, Pervomaiskaoe, Western part of the Bakhmutka highway.

Tanks and heavy artillery of the UAF began theirs attempts to break through the defense positions near the village of Nikolaevka.

At about 1 a.m. local time, the mobile network was cut off in some of the front regions under the UAF control.

The OSCE has recorded numerous shellings by the UAF along the front lines. The UN Deputy Secretary General said that the current escalation is the largest since 2014.

The Western MSM continue to escalate the situation by publishing paint-styled maps showing the ways of the Russian invasion of the territory of Ukraine.

The White House declares “Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine.”

Everything may seem logical. The situation on the front lines has significantly escalated, Russia replied that it was not satisfied with the U.S. response to the proposal of the security guarantees in Europe. But the ground facts are that all attacks on civilian objects on February 17 were carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In its turn, on the morning of February 17, Kiev published fake videos and photos that allegedly showed a shell fired by the LPR militants hit a kindergarten in Stanytsia Luhanska.

BREAKING: Decisive Night For Eastern Ukraine (Videos, Photos)

A few hours later, these statements were exposed by objective geo-analysis, which made it possible to calculate the trajectory of the projectile and revealed that the shot was carried out from the territory under the Kiev control, particularly from the deployment site of the UAF 79th brigade. It is also suspicious that the windows were not broken.

On the afternoon of February 17, the LPR announced the arrival of Western journalists to the Kiev-controlled part of Donbass to provide “informational support for the UAF offensive operation”. According to the same scheme that the West tried to apply in 2008 in Georgia, foreign journalists in the Donbass region have the task of covering the Ukrainian offensive on the territory of the republics in the “right” way.

Foreign reporters in the kindergarten:

BREAKING: Decisive Night For Eastern Ukraine (Videos, Photos)

BREAKING: Decisive Night For Eastern Ukraine (Videos, Photos)

BREAKING: Decisive Night For Eastern Ukraine (Videos, Photos)

BREAKING: Decisive Night For Eastern Ukraine (Videos, Photos)

At the same time, a significant part of the Russian military forces that conducted military exercises in the Russia’s Western regions returned to their permanent location in other Russian regions, including Siberia and the Far East.

Apparently, it was the withdrawal of part of the Russian troops from the West of the country, including Crimea, that triggered the aggressive actions of the Kiev regime.

Kiev considered that Russia had demonstrated weakness in the face of the United States and its allies, and now there is a unique chance to solve several Ukrainian problems at once by military methods. At the same time, it does not matter whether the military fortune will be on the Kiev’s side during the battles in the East of the country.

At the cost of thousands of lives of Ukrainians, both citizens of Ukraine and residents of the DPR/LPR, the Kiev regime is trying to keep the U.S. front going, receive new multibillion-dollar financial support from the United States and NATO countries, kill as many civilians in the DPR/LPR as possible and divert the attention of its own citizens and military personnel from the catastrophic socio-economic situation in the country.

It doesn’t matter what the end result is. In any case, the MSM propaganda machine will show the picture that the Kiev regime and their overseas patrons need.

The bonus for Zelensky will be that, by sacrificing his country, he will ensure the guaranteed death of the most passionate serviceman of the Ukrainian army, who could well turn their bayonets against him. A significant part of the motivated UAF servicemen who are currently deployed in the East of the country consists of nationalist extremists from the Western regions. In Ukrainian domestic political solitaire, they are the ones who pose a dangerous threat to Zelensky’s rule.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian war is inevitable, the last questions are the date and the consequences for Europe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

All images in this article are from SF

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

One of the earliest pioneers in the field of alternative cancer therapies who uses, among other things, low-cost, re-purposed drugs including anti-parasitic and diabetes drugs to heal cancer patients, Dr. Chang details the serious problems with the current medical paradigm that inhibits mainstream use of his successful “cocktail” approach to healing cancer patients.

Dr. Chang’s book, Beyond the Magic Bullet, the Anti-Cancer Cocktail: A New Approach to Beating Cancer, is available here.

Watch the interview below.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This interview was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Current Medical Paradigm Suppresses Healing Cancer with “Cocktail” Approach. Dr. Raymond Chang
  • Tags: ,

Ottawa: The Freedom Convoy. Evidence of Police Violence and Brutality

February 20th, 2022 by Global Research News

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling amidst major protests worldwide.

A mass movement against COVID mandates is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with the Freedom Convoy movement. 

All COVID mandates must be immediately suspended. They are not intended to “protect people’s lives” as claimed by our government. IT’s A BIG LIE. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The so-called pandemic is a criminal undertaking.

Below are video reports from Ottawa confirming acts of police violence and brutality which the mainstream media will not be reporting upon.

Police Brutality was ordered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who is in blatant violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are divisions with the police force.

The Freedom Convoy is Telling the Police to Go Home, to Refuse to Implement the Illegal actions ordered by Justin Trudeau.

Spread the word Worldwide.

Our Message to Trudeau: STEP DOWN. “Indefinite Political Quarantine for Justin Trudeau”

Global Research, February 20, 2022

@kayleeanderlum Screen recorded a live stream currently in Ottawa. SHARE THIS!! A peaceful protest turning into violence by those who are here to protect us?!? #ottawacanada #WeAllPlayforCanada #RBCPodiumPose #ToyotaWave #CloseYourRings #freedomconvoy2022 #freedom ♬ original sound – ALL Girl Mom

@frankiegotz #peacefulprotest #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #ottawa #ottawacanada #freedom #police #protester #fyp #pageforyou #page4u #4yourpage ♬ original sound – frankiegotz

@andrialogic #ottawa #canada #ottawapolice #emergenciesact #ontario #AVrboForTogether ♬ original sound – Andria

&nbsp

@canloyst To serve and protect. #policebrutallity #canada #ottawa #freedom #peacefulprotest #endtheviolence #freedomconvoy #convoytoottawa #holdtheline #convoy ♬ original sound – Can

@jamesofhighwire What?! How is this happening?! #policeviolence #ottawa #freedomconvoy2022 ♬ original sound – James Miller

@amandapinkyneil Ottawa right now.. #help #ottawa #canada #police #brutality ♬ original sound – Amanda Pinky Neil

@frankiegotz #peacefulprotest #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #ottawa #ottawacanada #freedom #police #protester #fyp #pageforyou #page4u #4yourpage ♬ original sound – frankiegotz

@mattbelair The elderly woman who was trampled was chanting, “peace, love and happiness” before the police trampled her. #ottawapolice #ottawapolicetyrants #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy ♬ original sound – mattbelair

@allisonslindsay #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoycanada #freedomconvoy #freedom #policebrutallity #holdtheline #ottawa #canada ♬ original sound – Allison

 

 

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Ottawa: The Freedom Convoy. Evidence of Police Violence and Brutality

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Truckers’ Freedom Convoys that touched down in Ottawa on January 29 have helped set in motion a worldwide showdown. The ante was raised in this showdown as the Truckers’ action in Ottawa sparked a series of supportive actions cutting off the flow of traffic at some crossing points along the Canada-US border. The ante was increased again on February 14 when the minority government of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced its intention to ask Parliament to approve the so-called Emergency Act, the outgrowth of the former War Measures Act.

The invocation of the most consequential of Canada’s Emergency Acts serves to highlight how a medical crisis can suddenly morph into a civil liberties crisis. This transition demonstrates that a genuine showdown with significant global implications is developing in Canada. Essential to this showdown is the question of how “the law” is to be shaped, interpreted and enforced.

Will “the law” continue to be exploited as an instrument available to protect elites and to further concentrate the disproportionate and disreputable distribution of wealth and power? Or will “the law” be liberated from the grasp of its usurpers to become a facilitator of liberty and justice for the overall citizenry?

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

Such emergency measures are always advanced in the name of protecting the public. The reality is, however, that emergency measures are often more likely to subject average people to greater levels of risk and danger especially from the actions of their own governments. This sad reality is now especially true in the totalitarian plutocracy that Trudeau seems determined to create with his ruthless wedging and creation of artificial divisions.

Beginning in early 2020, many emergency measures enactments were used to give false justification to the actions of protagonists seeking to advance their own self-interest by aggressively manufacturing the overhyped COVID crisis.

Now the COVID pushers and their attending fear mongers seem, for the moment at least, to be moving away from the emergency measures advanced in the name of protecting public health. Instead, the politicians and the chain of command that directs them from places like Davos Switzerland are resorting to a different category of emergency measures.

The new variants in the ongoing emergency scam are meant to impose coercive restrictions and punishments on those citizens deemed to be outside the realm of compliance. Compliance apparently now includes refraining from honking horns to signify that one is harboring grievances against inept government officials like Justin Trudeau.

The Peter Pan Prime Minister 

Those who have commandeered the instruments of law enforcement are seeking to counter the sequence of events initiated by the Truckers’ historic pilgrimage along the Trans-Canada Highway. This pilgrimage was accompanied by an unprecedented outpouring of hope and appreciation from the Canadian people, many of whom found ways to urge the Truckers to do their bidding in the nation’s capital.   

Once the Truckers got to Ottawa they kept true to their promise that they would do their best to be heard by the government in power. By and large they conscientiously went about the business of trying to influence the national government. Instead of being invited to take part in dialogue, the Truckers were met with a flurry of vindictiveness, hatred, and insults from a power-tripping yet cowardly Justin Trudeau.

The supposedly triple-jabbed Trudeau is showing he is prepared to put the country quite literally on a war footing in order to stand his ground. His attempt at a Rambo-like stance seems to be based on his original position that the federal Liberals must avoid any dialogue with the Truckers, let alone any compromises that might water down Trudeau’s misguided pandemic policies.

Trudeau’s approval rating dropped precipitously to 16% in the wake of his verbal assaults on the Truckers and the people across Canada who showed great appreciation for their initiative. Perhaps he is invoking the Emergency Act to fend off even those in the Liberal Party who understandably would want to drag him from office. 

Some followed Trudeau’s lead of intransigence towards the Truckers. For instance, rather than promote the establishment of some middle ground, the city government of Ottawa came up with its own emergency measures enactment.

Then the government of Ontario invoked an emergency measures response largely in reaction to a Truckers’ blockage of northward-flowing traffic across the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. This bridge carries about a quarter of Canada-US trade and is a crucial corridor in what remains of the shared North American automotive industry still significantly based in the adjoining cities of Windsor and Detroit.

On Valentines Day Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked for the first time since its creation in 1988 the outgrowth of the War Measures Act. In 1970 the War Measures Act was invoked by the current PM’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Trudeau Senior’s actions have been interpreted as a response to kidnappings conducted by the extreme wing of the Quebec independence movement. It has been argued, however, that Trudeau worked with covert operatives to set up false flag kidnappings in order to justify his crackdown on his political enemies in Canada’s oldest province.

[Reference, Robin Mathews, “Lies Damned Lies and the Globe and Mail,” Dialogue Magazine, Vol. 35, no 2, winter 2021-2022, opp. 38-39]

Many have observed that Trudeau basically made a fool of himself in his efforts of self-justification when he denied the Truckers any opening even for conversation with representatives of the federal government. Again and again Trudeau demonstrates he wants to turn Canadians against one another even as he ludicrously promotes his self-image as a champion of “inclusion.” See this.

When they arrived in Ottawa the Truckers scored much higher in the court of public opinion than the Peter Pan Prime Minister who seems caught somewhere in the NeverNever Land of his own infantile fantasies. It seems he shares some of Michael Jackson’s predispositions.

One can well anticipate the possibility of the formation of a public safety movement within the segment of Canadian police and Armed Forces who might very well refuse to take orders from Justin Trudeau. Trudeau’s own high-level criminality is being avidly discussed inside and outside the Armed Forces. See this. 

Financing Terrorism? 

Part of the current discussion about Trudeau’s fitness for high office involves his political decision to reject the applicability of Canada’s self-described “supreme law.” The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Canadian equivalent to the US Bill of Rights, is a prominent part of Canada’s supreme law. As Prof. Michel Chossudovsky observes,

Justin Trudeau is not only in blatant violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he is now threatening Canadians who uphold the basic tenets of Canadian democracy.”

In demonstrating his point about Trudeau’s threats, Prof. Chossudovsky cites former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford. In 1981 and 1982 Mr. Peckford helped draft and enact the Charter. Brian Peckford is presently leading a court challenge criticizing Trudeau’s political decisions that violate the rights and freedoms of Canadians as constitutionally protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Peckford has indicated,

“When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing, ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country 

In a press conference many of the most shocking aspects of Trudeau’s war on the Truckers were described by Christia Freeland. Freeland is one of the most influential figures in the cabinet of the Liberal minority government. Like Trudeau and NDP Leader, Jagmeet Singh, Freeland is a World Economic Forum alumnus.  

Ms. Freeland is also currently on the WEF Board during a time when WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, stated that:

I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now… (Klaus Schwab) (emphasis added)

Click here or image to access Video 

 

With all this influence from the Great Reset’s headquarters in Davos, what room is left for average working people to have any say whatsoever in the formulation of the Canadian government’s policies?

Freeland is reported in Rebel News to have announced,

“the government has ordered banks to review their relationships with anyone involved in the blockades and report them to the authorities. As of today, any bank or financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend any account without a court order and will be protected from civil liability “for actions provided in good faith.”

“This is about following the money,” stated Freeland. “This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades and occupations. We are today serving notice. IF your truck is being used in these illegal blockades and occupations, your corporate accounts will be frozen. The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your semitrailers home.”

The implications of authorizing banks to freeze or suspend private and corporate accounts without the need to provide notice or proof is all-too indicative of where we seem to be headed. Will we allow our government to dive even deeper into the depths of totalitarianism?

The Liberals are advancing the war on the middle class. Even after the disastrous lockdowns, government intentions to cancel insurance policies seem like a formula for yet further destruction of small businesses.

The Trudeau government is moving in this draconian direction on the basis of claims that has not been proven to meet any of the criteria set by the legal text of the Emergency Act. Will our corrupt judges once again do a dive on this issue like they did on challenges to the extremely destructive, futile and totally unscientific lockdowns?

Just like the vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for the abundant deaths and injuries caused by the COVID clot shots, so it seems the banks are establishing the precedent that they too cannot be sued for the damage their arbitrary actions do to customers. How many other financial sectors will line up now to get their own indemnification deals with Canada’s dangerous and unpredictable national government?

The whole initiative is framed as the “broadening of the scope of Canada’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules.”

See this.

So there it is. The Truckers and their supporters are to be made subject to laws involving “terrorist financing.” What comes next? Will it be the prolonged incarceration of Truckers in Canadian dungeons. Such government barbarity would resemble the nightmare experiences of Biden’s human trophies captured in the wake of the January 6 entrapment at the US Capitol Building?

How is it possible not to see Justin Trudeau as a fanatical zealot who is waging a war that will surely undermine the national security of Canada and Canadians? Who can intervene to take Trudeau’s finger off the political nuke he is flippantly aiming at us all?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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 The Daily Signal

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At the time of writing, the Trudeau government is carrying out a major and ongoing police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented prior to the vote on the National Emergency which was scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were arrested and are in police custody. Former RCMP bodyguard of Justin Trudeau Daniel Bulford was arrested on February 18th.

.

Declaration of the Freedom Convoy

Issued on Saturday, 19th of February:

“The Freedom Convoy 2022 is shocked at the abuses of power by the law enforcement in Ottawa. The police have horse-trampled on demonstrators and deployed riot control agents. They have also beaten peaceful protestors with batons and with the stock of their guns. We have therefore asked our truckers to move from Parliament Hill to avoid further brutality. To move the trucks it will require time. This has been communicated with Ottawa Police, and we hope that they will show judicious restraint. The truckers are moving, and the use of more force will only be used to punish people, and not to preserve or establish order.” (emphasis added)

.

Violent Actions and Brute Force by Police: See Videos below

 

@mattbelair Ottawa police attack and beat a war veteran. #ottawapolice #ottawapolicetyrants #freedomconvoy #truckersconvoy2022 ♬ original sound – mattbelair

@benswann___ Police in Ottawa Trample Peaceful Protestors With Horses #Protesters #Trampling #Ottawa ♬ original sound – Ben Swann

 

@motolashes What happened to the lady Trampled by #Ottawa Police horse #Canada #FreedomConvoy2022 #unitedwestand #mainstreammedialies #thinktwicecanada ♬ original sound – LASHES

.

Chaos and Divisions Within the Police Forces

There is currently a state of chaos and a lack of leadership within Ottawa’s Police Services (OPS). The operation against the Freedom Convoy is conducted by the Ottawa Police, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police. The Sureté du Québec is also involved.

There are divisions both within the Ottawa Police force and the Ottawa City Council. It’s a situation of utter chaos.

Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly “resigned” on Tuesday February 15 following Trudeau’s announced intent to apply the Emergencies Act. Visibly he was pressured to resign. Press reports intimate that “he was fired”.

Peter Sloly was accused of “mishandling”.

While police forces are currently involved in acts of violence and brutal repression, large sectors of the Ottawa Police and the RCMP had from the outset expressed their solidarity with the Freedom Convoy. See below.

@tristasuk Beautiful people handing out roses to the Ottawa police, truckers and everybody else!♥️ #valentinesday #truckerconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #protest ♬ You Send Me – Aretha Franklin

@ottawapolicelover #freedomconvoy2022 #truckersfreedomconvoy #canada #police #officerdown @ottawapolice @OfficialTorontoPolice #wearecoming #ftrudeau #novaccineforme #f ♬ original sound – Sloly Quit

.

Chaos at the Ottawa City Council

Was the firing of police chief Peter Sloly ordered by the Trudeau government?

“Ottawa Councillor. Diane Deans went to the [Ottawa police services] board to fire previous police chief Peter Sloly, sources said.”

“After that, she and the board tried to hire a new interim police chief from southern Ontario without a competition

Members of the Ottawa City Council were not consulted.

Former Waterloo police chief Matthew Torigian  was contacted and hastily offered the job:

“A former Waterloo police chief who was hired for Ottawa’s top job, only to have the person who hired him turfed from her position, has withdrawn from the job.”

A contract was offered to Matthew Torigian on February 15, as interim Ottawa Police chief to lead Trudeau’s police operation against the Freedom Convoy. He never came to Ottawa. Two days later he resigned and requested for his two day contract to be rescinded.

.

A Major Police Operation against the Freedom Convoy Without a Duly Appointed OPS Police Chief

Following the firing of Peter Sloly and Matthew Torigan’s refusal, OPS Deputy Chief Steve Bell was put in charge “as interim chief until further notice”. By whom? He was not duly approved by the Ottawa City Council. (Read CTV report).

.

The Biggest Mess in Ottawa Municipal Politics

Following the removal of Councillor Diane Deans (as chair of the OPS board) who screwed up on the appointment of Matthew Torrigan, a new police board chair was hastily appointed, who immediately confirmed his unbending support for Steve Bell as the de facto interim police chief:

“El-Chantiry’s first act as chair of the police oversight board was to confirm [that] Interim Chief Steve Bell will remain in his current position as police deal with the ongoing occupation of downtown streets.

…  “You are the interim chief and that’s going to be until another time when we have this discussion. For the time being we need you to focus on the operation, we need the membership to know there’s the stability here.”

(quoted by CTV)

.

WOW. This Is the Chronology

  • “Diane Deans went to the board to fire previous police chief Peter Sloly” (quoted in CTV report, emphasis addedand then proceeded to hire a new interim Police Chief without consultations with the OCC, and “without a competition” (Tuesday, February 15)
  • Matthew Torigian was contacted by Deans and was hastily offered the job of interim police chief (Wednesday)
  • Councillor Diane Deans is removed from the Ottawa Police Services Board (heated OCC debate on Wednesday Evening)
  • Torigian resigns following the scandal with Councillor Diane Deans (Thursday, February 17)
  • Councillor Eli El-Chantiry is appointed chair of the OPS Board  (Thursday)
  • Upon Torgian’s resignation, Steve Bell is then hastily “approved” (without consultations with the OCC) by Councillor El Chantiry as “interim Police Chief” (Thursday)
  • Steve Bell’s designated mandate is to coordinate by far the largest Ottawa police operation in Canadian History, against The Freedom Convoy Movement (Thursday Evening, February 17)

.

Ad hoc de facto “Interim Police Chief” Steve Bell

Following  Trudeau’s announcement to apply the Emergencies Act, Ottawa Deputy Police Chief Steve Bell called a Press Conference confirming his commitment to “ending the protest movement”.

Below is the statement of the ad hoc de facto “interim police chief” Steve Bell pointing to “lawful techniques” against an “unlawful” protest movement in defiance of the Ottawa City Council. (Thursday, February 17, 2022)

 

.

 

Who Are the Criminals?

The ongoing Police Operation in Ottawa is an illegal and criminal act against Canadians ordered by a corrupt Prime Minister who is acting on behalf of prominent members of the financial establishment. 

Ironically, the intrusion of Big Money interests in the conduct of Canadian politics was raised during the House of Commons Question Period (19 February, 2022).

.

The Criminalization of Justice

On February 15, following the statements of Trudeau and Freeland, An Ottawa judge frozen the bank accounts and digital “wallets” of convoy leaders”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Divisions and Chaos Within the Ottawa Police. Violence and Brute Force Ordered by Trudeau Government

Israel: “A Russian Speaking State”

February 20th, 2022 by Hans Stehling

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Israel a “Russian-speaking state,” saying the two countries share a common history and extensive family ties.

Israel is home to the world’s largest population of Russian-speaking Jews, with ethnic Russian Jews as well as Jews from former Soviet countries making up some 17% of the country’s population. The community, which has its own distinct cultural and political identity, has been influential in Israeli society in the three decades since the first wave of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union.

The Russians in Israel are Russian citizens who are immigrants to Israel from Russian communities of the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, and their descendants. They are mostly members of mixed families, some of them are non-Jewish members of Jewish households living in Israel. A few are descended from Russian Subbotnik families, who have migrated to Israel over the past century. People of full or partial non-Jewish ethnic Russian ancestry number around 300,000 of the Israeli population from the immigrants from the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, and the number of Russian passport holders living in Israel is in the hundreds of thousands.

Most Russian people in Israel have full Israeli citizenship and are involved in the country’s economy on all levels. Russian Jews have been very dominant in Israeli politics, due to large number of Russian Jews occupied in the official positions of Israeli Government. Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, claimed ancestry from former Soviet Union’s Moldova. Many Russian Jews maintain their ties with Russia, and play an important role in the relationship between Russia and Israel.

Israel–Russia relations refer to the bilateral ties between the State of Israel and the Russian Federation. Israel is represented in Russia through an embassy in Moscow and a consulate-general in Yekaterinburg. Russia is represented in Israel through an embassy in Tel Aviv and a consulate in Haifa.

Russia is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East. For many years, Israel served as a sanctuary for Russian Jews. This was especially the case during the aliyah from the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1990s. Israel and Russia were on opposing sides during the Cold War. However, the relationship between Israel and Russia began to improve significantly from the early 2000s onwards, with the election of the more pro-Israel Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and in 2001 with election of the more pro-Russia Israeli leader Ariel Sharon.

Israel is part Russophone and considered to be the world’s only part-Russophone country outside of the former Soviet states. The Russian language is the third-most widely spoken first language in Israel after Hebrew and Arabic; Israel has the thirdlargest number of Russian speakers outside of the post-Soviet states, and the highest as a proportion of the total population. Over 100,000 Israeli citizens live in Russia, with 80,000 Israelis living in Moscow, while hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens reside in Israel, from around 1.5 million native Russian-speaking Israelis.

In 2011, Putin said:

“Israel is, in fact, a special state to us. It is practically a Russian-speaking country. Israel is one of the few foreign countries that can be called Russian-speaking. It’s apparent that more than half of the population speaks Russian”.

Putin additionally claimed that Israel could be considered part of the Russian cultural world, and contended that “songs which are considered to be national Israeli songs in Israel are in fact Russian national songs”. He further stated that he regarded Russian-speaking Israeli citizens as his compatriots and part of the ‘Russian world’.

Notwithstanding the above, for years NATO has allowed Israeli military and espionage contractors, free access to become essential suppliers to NATO’s critical security network in Britain, Germany and the EU – whose national defence systems must now be considered compromised and ineffective thereby giving Putin, Netanyahu (and his successor), the keys to the security of all 27 EU Member States.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Oriental Review

The Saudi Led War against Yemen, Backed by the U.S. (2015- )

February 20th, 2022 by Massoud Khodabandeh

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Negotiations between the western powers and Iran are continuing concerning a new nuclear deal.  Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Massoud Khodabandeh to gain insight not only about the negotiation, but a wide array of topics connected to Iran and the Middle East. Khodabandeh is a regular writer and contributor on Middle East issues in print, broadcast and documentaries. He co-authored the book ‘The Life of Camp Ashraf – Victims of Many Masters” with his wife Anne Singleton.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): We have seen the Houthis launching several attacks on the UAE and Saudi Arabia.  In your opinion, are these attacks in reply to the Saudi-led coalition massacres, or is it political pressure by Iran against Saudi Arabia and the USA to change the conditions of negotiations?

Massoud Khodabandeh (MK): If we look at history, we can see that there is consensus among all parties that the Houthis started fighting for the things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, an end to corruption, regular utilities, fair prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis. It is also true that they wanted an end to Western influence which to their view was the main cause of all the above problems.

In 2015 a Saudi-led coalition – backed by the United States – intervened militarily in Yemen in a bid to fight the Houthis and restore their favorite President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s government, who, facing the uprising of Yemeni citizens, had to run away and hide in Riyadh. The UAE is also officially part of this hostile coalition. It is important to observe that the UAE is both under Western pressure to do her bit to help the invading coalition but also vulnerable to any disturbances in the country’s position as both a trade and military base for the US, UK and nowadays increasingly Israel.

After nearly 7 years of resistance against these invaders, the Houthis – rather say the Yemenis – are now in a position to effectively push back against one of the most brutal bombing and siege campaigns in the recent history of the region. This is of course not without the help of Iran, but Iran also has legitimate interests in the region, not least the security of oil exports and the security of the Persian Gulf.

Let me explain.

If Yemen becomes a subsidiary of a US/Saudi coalition, if pipelines and roads are put in place to export Saudi (and UAE, also perhaps Kuwaiti, Iraqi and Qatari) oil from Yemeni ports and if the Gulf of Aden (and the Red Sea) is secured for western tankers but not for Iranian tankers, then not only will Iran have a strategic problem, it is more than likely that the historic desire of western powers to start a war in the Persian Gulf (involving the separation of southern parts of Iran from the mainland) would certainly be on the table. This scheme has always been left on a back burner as any disturbances in the Persian Gulf would result in disruption to over 1/3 of the world’s oil supply.

Hence Iran has legitimate security issues. Other non-western countries are also looking at this geopolitical phenomenon with interest; just remember last year and how a simple accident in the Suez Canal disrupted the flow of Chinese (and other) goods to Europe and beyond. The Gulf of Adan, Yemen, Djibouti, and the Red Sea are not somewhere you can just invade to change its fabric without huge consequences.

SS: We have seen attempts to have a peace deal between Riyadh and Tehran. In your opinion, will these peace talks between the two regional powers, Tehran and Riyadh, go through and if so will this end the war on Yemen?

MK: First of all, Iran and the KSA are not at war (let’s hope they never will be), therefore there is no need to negotiate peace. Although the leaders of the KSA have historically always been conservative as well as pragmatic, in recent years the kingdom has been invited (or pushed) to play a more hostile role against Iran. The KSA has of course been backing the enemies of Iran for years (for example, Saddam Hussain during the 8 years of war and financing and supporting anti-Iranian terrorist groups like the Mujahedin Khalq and others) to balance regional power. Even though Iran has not been the cause of imbalance or at least not as persistently. Confronting Iranian interests in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (the axes of resistance if you will) and confronting Iran in Yemen have always been on the Saudi agenda. But although there has been push and pull, it is clear that Iran is not the loser in this confrontation on either front, and the KSA is not getting the Western backing she hoped for.

There are clear indications that the KSA and her Persian Gulf allies are coming to the conclusion that a new treaty or at least a new approach (i.e. diplomacy based on mutual understanding and addressing the needs of both sides) with Iran and her allies like China, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, would perhaps be more effective than confrontation. The KSA’s leaders have also seen that the Iranians are more inclined to respond positively and negotiate when their neighbors are working with them directly rather than bringing outside powers into the region. Iran’s policy is based on independence rather than ‘who has got the bigger backer’ and as time progresses, the other regional powers are seeing the benefit of this line of action for their own stability and prosperity.

The KSA and Iran certainly have the potential to work very closely together. Their hostility is a concept imported into the region, and both Iranian and Saudi officials know this well. As they move forward – a first negotiation step was started recently in Baghdad – they will certainly get closer together on a variety of subjects. The interests of Saudis and Iranians in the region are in many aspects the same – security and the stability of governments – and many of their differences have simply been brought in from other parts of the world and imposed on them.

The legitimate concerns of both Iranians and Saudis (and the UAE) in Yemen are not separate from their concerns about the wider Persian Gulf, Gulf of Adan and Red Sea areas. These can easily be addressed and resolved. In fact, the immediate result of such an understanding should be both Iran and the KSA getting together to help the Yemenis build a democratic process of governance as well as rebuilding the war-torn country. That is true in both Iraq and Syria and in much-needed cooperation between neighboring countries that has unfortunately not been achieved, perhaps due to foreign interference.

SS: The Israeli occupation is escalating politically and military against Iran and its allies like Syria, Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance, and others. Does Israel want a war with Iran, or are they just trying to put pressure on Washington to not make a new Iranian nuclear deal?

MK: There is a theory within the Israeli elite that we (i.e. Israel) have to be at least 50 years ahead of any other country in the Middle East. If we (Israel) cannot advance as rapidly as we need, then the only way is to send the other back 50 years. That happened – or at least was tried – in Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. If you recall history, what George W Bush was intending to do was to start with Iran as part of his Axis of Evil, but he was persuaded at the time that this would be too risky. Better to start with Iraq and Afghanistan and then surround Iran. Even then many Israeli officials were not happy and wanted him to attack Iran; essentially to fulfill their need to have Iran sent back fifty years.

Now, after all these years, Iran is not a country that either Israel, or the USA and her allies, could attack without dire consequences. Israel’s population – if we count every Israeli passport holder as part of the population – is less than half Iran’s capital, Tehran city. It is not feasible for them to even provoke Iran to war. Remember that Iran hit the American Base ‘ein Al-Assad’ in Iraq in retaliation against the assassination of their general Qassem Soleimani. This demonstrated very clearly that Iran will not hesitate to hit back against any attack on its territory. It is however true that the Israelis, through their powerful lobbies in the US and UK, are doing their best to stop any rapprochement between Iran and Western countries.

What is more important now is that the existence of Israel – in its current manifestation as an apartheid occupation force in the region – will be under serious threat if Iran and the KSA become partners rather than rivals.

As they say Israel is adamant to fight the Iranians, and others in the Middle East, to the last American soldier. Israel by itself however does not have a passion for doing anything themselves. Their provocative incursions into Syria and Lebanon are nothing more than an effort to engage the US and UK. It is simply not going to happen.

The only exit strategy for the people in Israel is to accept to submit to internationally recognized laws and norms: put pressure on their rulers to end the apartheid, have a fair and meaningful democratic process of Governance (to start with accept the system of one person one vote) and join the rest of the international community.

SS: The Iranian nuclear deal meetings have got to a crucial point.  In your opinion, is it possible to get to a new nuclear deal, and if not, will this lead to war, or more regional tension between Iran and its alliances and the West?

MK: Let’s start from beginning. It was the USG which tore up the JCPOA agreement and spat at their own signature on camera (demonstrated in a performance by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, in a rally organized by the anti-Iranian Mujahedin Khalq Terrorist Organization, which was deported from Iraq and is now based in Albania). The door has always been left open by the rest of the signatories to allow the Americans to come back to their obligations and they are on the cusp of an agreement in Vienna. However, if they don’t come back the agreement will continue, under United Nations scrutiny and observations, with or without the US. There is no “new nuclear deal” as such and what is being discussed is how the west can get back to lifting sanctions against Iran and how Iran can go back to the original nuclear restrictions. I believe there will be an agreement; although Israel is determined to torpedo the negotiations, America’s benefits will outweigh Israeli pressure.

Whether or not the US and Iran come to an agreement in Vienna, the JCPOA will come to an end in less than 2 years. Iran is not holding back on advancements because of this deal and the West will not stop their sanctions but will continue them under other pretexts and labels – human rights, missiles, defense, terrorism, etc., you name it. The only time sanctions will actually be lifted is when Western countries realize that sanctions are hurting their own economies more than hurting Iran’s economy. I believe that with Iran joining the Shanghai treaty and the fading of the US dollar as dominant international currency this is not going to be too far off. Iran’s currency has stabilized in the last couple of years thanks to a variety of reasons. These include the opening of Iranian trade routes to Mediterranean ports as well as trade through Tajikistan and other neighboring countries. Only a few years ago, Iran’s import/export trade was at the mercy of the UAE from where Iran’s currency could be manipulated easily. Now, bilateral pacts with Russia, China, India, South Africa etc. are helping this stabilization.

I would conclude by pointing out that there has been a shift of power in the Middle East – as there has been a global shift. The dust is settling, and a new world and Middle Eastern order is on the horizon. Both the winners and losers of this change – if we can call it losing or winning as it is not as black and white as that – are coming round to the reality that accepting the new order is much better for everyone than trying to disrupt and disturb and try to bring back what is not deliverable.

I firmly believe that the tension between the axes of resistance and the West is coming to its end. The West is no longer in a position to dictate to these countries and frankly they really don’t need to be dictated to either. In the post neo-colonial world and in particular due to recent rapid changes in the world of business and technology, the interests of all parties can be negotiated and protected over negotiation tables not the field of battle. I am not downplaying this – it will not be easy. It will not happen overnight, but it is certainly both a possible and desirable way forward for all parties.

SS: In your opinion, could the new Iran nuclear deal, if successful, lead to the lifting of Syrian sanctions as well?  Is the situation in Syria tied into the Iran negotiations at all?

MK: Remember, the sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussain’s Iraq are still in place and have not been lifted. New Western sanctions are being imposed on Russia and China every day. It is important to acknowledge that:

  1. Unilateral sanctions, especially US ones, are imposed because the military option is either not possible or has been tried and failed.
  2. Sanctions are only effective as long as they can be implemented and maintained. The days of effective unilateral sanctions are numbered. Monopolies are being replaced by alternative means. The use of non-dollar currencies, alternative financial transfer mechanisms and treaties that do not involve either US or EU are being introduced.
  3. Sanctions will only be lifted when they are more harmful to the Western countries than the ones imposed on.

Having said that, the Iran nuclear deal has a great message. It is a success story of moving forward in a direction that preserves everyone’s interests. History shows us that every war ends. Every conflict is resolved with a treaty signed by diplomats. The Syrian situation is no different. The people of Syria may have lost a lot in lives and livelihoods, but they have gained a lot as well. The self-esteem, the confidence, the new examination of the world and their place in it has most definitely created the springboard Syrians need to accelerate into a better future. This time more and more standing on their own feet and relying on their own powers. Syrians certainly don’t lack the drive, the history or the knowledge needed for this.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European-Soviet (re: EU-Russia) relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US-UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe.” Christof Lehmann

February 16 has come and gone without incident. The information spread by US officials and the media proved to be wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine nor did any of the unverified warnings turn out to be true. So far, neither the media nor the administration has produced a scintilla of evidence that Russia actually planned to invade Ukraine or that the presumed invasion was “imminent.” The whole thing may have been a hoax concocted by Washington to advance their regional agenda; we just don’t know for sure. What we do know, however, is that no one from the administration, the media or the intelligence agencies have offered any explanation, apology or retraction for their errant predictions. Of that, we can be 100% certain.

What are we to make of this? Why would the administration stake its credibility on a prediction that was so far-fetched? And why did the media participate in the ruse when they clearly had no hard evidence to back up the claims? Did they really think Putin is so cognitively-impaired that he’d order his troops into Ukraine just to follow Washington’s loony script?

No, of course not.

Then why did they do it?

Perhaps the warnings were intended to divert attention from other suspicious goings-on that are presently taking place in Ukraine. For example, why are Ukrainian oligarchs and deep-pocket elites fleeing the country en masse? Here’s the story from 24-7 News Agency:

“Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights. According to Ukrayinska Pravda, about 20 charters and private planes have taken off from Kiev over the past day.

According to the newspaper, the planes of Rinat Akhmetov and Boris Kolesnikov took off from Ukraine today… A private plane for 50 people was also ordered by the deputy of the Opposition Platform – For Life (OPPL) party, millionaire Igor Abramovich. According to Ukrainska Pravda, this plane is supposed to take relatives of fellow party members, as well as business partn Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights”. (“ Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights”, 247 News)

Get the picture? The “big money” guys are getting out now while there’s still time. But, why? Are they concerned about the fictitious Russian legions storming Kiev or were they tipped off by insiders who have knowledge of upcoming events? Which is it?

And why is the CIA bailing-out at the same time? That seems a bit suspicious, don’t you think? Check out this clip from an article in Tass titled: “US temporarily relocates its CIA station from Kiev“:

“US authorities have temporarily relocated the employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from Kiev, The New York Times reported on Tuesday citing sources. According to the sources, the CIA station was “temporarily relocated” from Kiev on Tuesday… According to its sources, the relocation of the CIA employees may complicate gathering intelligence on Russia’s alleged “activity” in the country.”

The article doesn’t explain why the CIA shut its offices and vamoosed, so we have to assume that they know something that the rest of don’t. But what would that be?

Typically, people do not evacuate unless they are in danger, right? So, the agents at the CIA facility must have been briefed on upcoming events would put their lives in danger. In other words, the CIA and Kiev’s business elites are making for the exits before the storm hits, which suggests they were tipped off by someone who knows Washington’s plan. But who could that be, and how do these oddball developments fit with the “Russian invasion” fiasco? Is there a connection?

Yes, there is, but first, let’s put the “Russian invasion” meme in context. Many of the people who saw through the fakery are feeling pretty proud of themselves today, and for good reason, after all, they were right and the media was wrong. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the bigger picture which is that the war-drums are beating as ferociously today as they were before the predictions proved to be wrong. Why?

It’s because the media is still preparing the public for either a confrontation with Russia or something even worse. Take a look at this sampling of Wednesday’s headlines:

So, the media is still ramping up the pro-war propaganda even though Russia never invaded Ukraine. What does that tell you?

It tells you the crisis is not over. It tells you that the media is still whipping the public into a Russophobic frenzy. It tells you that Uncle Sam has something else up his sleeve that no one really expects; a surprise event that will shake things up and reframe the narrative in a way that benefits Washington and hurts Russia. That’s what we can conclude from Wednesday’s headline news. War is still on the docket.

Readers of this column know that we think that Washington’s real objective is not Ukraine at all, but Nord Stream, the natural gas pipeline that connects Germany to Russia. Here’s what makes the pipeline so important:

Nord Stream creates the critical infrastructure needed to connect Europe’s industrial powerhouse (Germany) to Russia’s vast energy reserves. The link strengthens commercial ties paving the way for warmer relations, the easing of cross-border regulations and a gradual merging of the two continents into the world’s most expansive and prosperous free trade zone. Nord Stream represents the energy component of China’s Belt and Road initiative that will draw Europe and Asia closer together via an expansive high-speed rail system that reduces shipping costs, boosts foreign commerce and shifts the world’s center of gravity eastward to Asia.

Bottom line: The emergence of an EU-Asia free trade zone means an end to the present global power structure in which the US plays the dominant role. It points the way to a new multipolar world order in which all the states are treated with greater equality and justice. But does anyone seriously think Washington is ready to relinquish its power and accept a place among the family of nations?

No, that’s not going to happen. Not without a fight at least.

Just take a look at the Nord Stream fracas. Washington has opposed Nord Stream since its inception in 2015 and piled on the sanctions at every opportunity.

Recently, however, Biden lifted the sanctions because they are so unpopular among the German people who need a source of clean energy to make up for the shortfall from (decommissioned) nuclear power plants. The problem for Washington is that– aside from the sanctions — there are few ways to prevent the pipeline from coming on line.

That means Washington will have to resort to more extreme measures like coercion, incitement and false flags. Check out this excerpt from an article at Tass on Tuesday:

“A Lugansk resident alerted the State Security Ministry about finding an object that resembles a homemade explosive device in a trash bin at the Friendship of the People’s Park

The bomb was made of a cell phone, a detonator, two TNT slabs weighing a total of 400 grams and damage agents, such as pieces of steel rods. The ministry said it had reason to believe the detonation of the device was planned for the time of a rally devoted to veterans that was scheduled for the morning of February 15.

The ministry said Ukraine’s subversive groups may have been involved in the attempted attack as they seek to destabilize the situation in the LPR. The detonation of the explosive device amid a large crowd in downtown Lugansk could have inflicted injuries to civilians, the ministry said.” (LPR’s security forces foiled terrorist attack in Lugansk“, Tass)

Would a terrorist event of this size convince Putin that he needed to send in the troops to defend the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine?

Probably not, but it does help to show how a terrorist attack can be used to justify retaliation and maybe even war. Let’s say, for example, a small nuclear device or chemical weapon was detonated in Kiev killing hundreds of civilians and maiming thousands more. What would happen?

Would the world be shocked and horrified?

Of course.

And would political leaders around the world condemn the action and pledge to bring the perpetrators to justice?

Yes, they would.

And would the media fuel the public hysteria and use it to promote a response that advanced the interests of elites?

Yes, again.

And would members of the Ukrainian Security Services — acting in concert with their US Law Enforcement allies– quickly round up a small cell of terrorists (allegedly) linked to Russian intelligence or Russian military, thus, placing the blame squarely on Putin’s shoulders?

Indeed, they would. In fact, these frame-ups of alleged terror suspects are so commonplace in the US that rogue FBI agents have turned “entrapment” into an art-form. There’s no reason to believe the practice cannot be exported to Ukraine. In short, there’s no doubt that these same “alleged Russian” patsies would be swiftly processed and severely punished without ever seeing the inside of a courthouse.

And how would that effect the crisis in Ukraine?

It would provide a justification for the Ukrainian army to invade the Donbass and wipe out thousands of ethnic Russians who were in no way connected to the terrorist bombing. That, in turn, would force Putin to send his troops across the border to end the fighting and restore the peace. And that’s when Washington would repudiate Russia’s action by calling it “an Invasion”. Which would put additional pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to abandon the German-Russo pipeline project and prevent the launching of Nord Stream. This is how a false flag can be used to achieve one’s geopolitical objectives. Here’s an excerpt from an article at RT:

“Ukrainian commandos trained by Britain are planning a “series of terrorist attacks” in the Donbass to use as cover for a false flag operation.. Local militia spokesman Eduard Basurin said on Wednesday that Kiev will stage a provocation to accuse Russia of invading the country….

Basurin, however, insisted that he had “reliable information” suggesting six groups of saboteurs from the 8th Special Purpose Regiment of Ukrainian Armed Forces (VSU) had been trained by specialists from the UK and deployed near the line of contact. Their targets would allegedly include gas and water supply as well as power stations.

The purpose of their supposed provocation is to accuse Russia of ‘false flag’ attacks to prepare “aggression” against Ukraine, and to create panic among the local residents, he added….

In December, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu alleged that American private military companies had begun shipping “unidentified chemical components” to towns in the Donbass as a potential precursor to an attack…

Last week, Washington accused Russia of planning a ‘false flag’ attack in the separatist-controlled territory as a pretext for invading Ukraine. The allegation echoed claims of the Ukrainian government and came after CIA Director William Burns visited Kiev. Russia has rejected it as baseless, and called US insinuations of a planned invasion “fake news.” (“Ukraine planning ‘false flag’ Donbass incident”, RT)

What’s interesting about this article, is that all three parties are accusing each other of fomenting the same illicit plan. That suggests that they all think that a false flag operation is probable in the current circumstances. In other words, the likelihood of a catastrophic mass casualty event used as a pretext for war, is no longer dismissed as a far-out conspiracy theory among the main participants in the conflict. Rather, they see it as the anticipated course of action. We agree with that conclusion. Here’s more from an article at PBS:

“The U.S. accused the Kremlin on Thursday of an elaborate plot to fabricate an attack by Ukrainian forces that Russia could use as a pretext to take military action against its neighbor. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the scheme included production of a graphic propaganda video that would show staged explosions and use corpses and actors depicting grieving mourners.

The plan for the fake attack on Russian territory or Russian-speaking people was revealed in declassified intelligence shared with Ukrainian officials and European allies in recent days. It is the latest allegation by the U.S. and Britain that Russia is plotting to use a false pretext to go to war against Ukraine.

The White House in December accused Russia of developing a “false-flag” operation to create pretext for an invasionThe U.S. has not provided detailed information backing up the intelligence findings. (“U.S. intel suggests Russia is plotting false flag attack in Ukraine as pretext for invasion”, PBS News)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Russia gains nothing from a false flag in Ukraine because Russia’s sole objective is to join the US in signing legally-binding agreements limiting the expansion of NATO and eliminating nuclear missile sites in Romania and Poland. That’s it. That’s all Putin wants. So, how does a provocation help to achieve those ends?

It doesn’t. The only one who benefits from a violent incitement is the United States. For Washington, a false flag is perhaps the last opportunity to block Nord Stream and prevent the steady erosion of its global power. And whether a provocation of this kind smacks of desperation or not, is completely irrelevant. The US remains fully-commited to doing whatever it takes to maintain its dominant place in the global order. Here’s how political analyst Christof Lehmann summed it up more than a decade ago:

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European-Soviet (re: Russia) relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US-UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

There it is in black and white. Washington is not going to roll-over and play dead while new centers of power crop-up across the planet. That’s not going to happen. The US is going to identify the nations that could cause them problems and do everything they can to crush them. That’s how Empire’s work. They don’t wait to be knocked off their pedestal. They take the bull by the horns and act preemptively. Paul Wolfowitz articulated the nuts and bolts of US foreign policy like this:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

This is the core doctrine that guides US foreign policy: Identify potential threats to US hegemony and then obliterate them without mercy. That suggests a false flag in Ukraine is more than likely, it’s probable.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Experienced foreign policy analysts such as Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, and Pepe Escobar, while agreeing that the Biden administration is clearly guilty of provoking Russia over Ukraine, are divided over whether it will lead to war. 

All agree that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine and that it is clearly justified in demanding safe borders by insisting U.S./NATO withdraw troops and missiles from the countries surrounding it, stop NATO’s “open door” policy, stop putting nuclear weapons in Europe, etc.

Clearly such demands are consonant with the U.S.’s own historical demands for safe borders, evidenced most clearly in the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 when the world nearly suffered a nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba.  And equally obvious is the fact that the American posture today is hypocritical in the extreme and can only be accepted by propagandists and those ignorant of history.

The Biden administration must assume that most people are ignoramuses and that its obvious belligerence and blatant propaganda will pass as some sort of defense of freedom, even when the U.S. engineered a Ukrainian coup d’état in 2014 in support of Neo-Nazis when Biden was President Obama’s Vice President.  But that was nearly eight years ago, which is an eternity in a country of amnesiacs.

Whether this U.S. persistent aggression is a propaganda charade or not, it is a most dangerous game. 

In December 2021, Russia claimed that the U.S. was preparing a false flag event to provoke a Russian response.  This was dismissed or ignored by the western media as absurd.  Recently, however, the Biden administration has been pounding the message that it is Russia that is preparing a false flag event to blame on Ukraine in order to justify a Russian invasion.  The western press, led by The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, and the Washington Post – stenographers for the CIA, British intelligence, and the Pentagon – have become more hysterical by the day pushing this lie without any evidence whatsoever.  It is sardonically comical. If evidence doesn’t exist, of course, it can be manufactured, as with “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, etc.  It’s easy as pie. To call these media the Yellow Press is an understatement.

When Russia accuses the U.S. of using “information terrorism,” it is of course correct. 

For we are living in a MKULTRA mind control operation with multiple facets. 

Ukraine, Covid, economic warfare, etc. – a hydra-headed monster whose goal is total control of regular people, who are treated as morons incapable of reason and the most basic logic.  Toward confirming and strengthening this premise, the media provide a daily menu of mixed and contradictory messages meant to confuse, confound, and mess with people’s sense of their own ability to understand the world.

If the public is to be convinced that the Russians have started a war, it will be attempted not so much through words as through images, as Gustave Le Bon predicted long ago in his book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.  In analyzing the “crowd mind” in 1895, he was addressing the anxiety the middle class was feeling because of popular unrest.  The fear of popular unrest, such as the truckers Freedom Convoy in Canada and the Yellow Vests in France, is today a major factor in the propaganda war waged by the elite press.  Call it class warfare.

Le Bon argued that the crowd thinks in images, not words, and it is through images that the rulers can control them.

Freud agreed with his basic premise that people in groups occupied an “hypnotic state,” while adding that this was also true for individuals who craved illusions.  Pessimistic as it was, Le Bon’s point about the crowd thinking in images – “The image itself immediately calls up a series of other images, having no logical connection to the first” – was picked up by all the influential propagandists, including the American father of the euphemistically named “public relations” industry, Edward Bernays.  Today it is all about images, still and moving ones.

Thus, one can expect to see the media using photos and film to create an emotional response in the population to convince it that Russia, not the U.S. is the villain in this standoff.  

Yet again, it may not be a standoff, for it is possible that the Biden administration is really intent on war because they have become completely untethered from reality and think such a war is winnable.

Perhaps they think they can entice Russia to take their bait and do something that can be spun as an “invasion” of Ukraine.  This would run counter to Russia’s longstanding, patient diplomatic efforts to resolve these matters and to convince the U.S./NATO that the unipolar era is over and now that it is a multipolar world there must be an end to the encircling of Russia with U.S./NATO troops and weapons.

We shall see.  I don’t know whether there will be a major war or not, but I know how it will be managed.

I’ll give you six guesses, as does The New York Times with its newly acquired word game, Wordle.  The Grey Lady also knows the answer.  It’s not “censor,” for that’s six not five letters and they’ve censored the words already.  It’s not “slave,” for they have prohibited that word since some people might find it offensive or get the idea that censorship is used to create slaves to the lie.  It is, as required, five letters and begins with the letter “I”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 


He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dr Stephen Malthouse is a rare and great physician. He has walked a straight, intelligent, and  honest path, even through the last two years, when so many fell short. I am very aware of and grateful for his sacrifice and dedication in working for a better future for all of us.

Dr Malthouse’s 6-minute message to Canada’s Freedom Rally is super!

Thanks Bright Light News on the front line.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Stephen Malthouse’s Message to the Ottawa Freedom Convoy: “It’s a Murder Shot”
  • Tags:

Video: Anti-COVID Mandate Protest in the US

February 20th, 2022 by mistersunshinebaby

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Investment giants BlackRock and The Vanguard Group stand to benefit from their ownership stakes in most of the corporations that imposed COVID vaccine mandates, and in some of the technology firms developing vaccine passports.

After the U.S. Supreme Court last month froze the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large private employers, some companies — including Boeing, General Electric and Starbucks — dropped plans to implement the mandate.

Others, based on guidance issued in 2020 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, left the mandates in place.

Most of the large employers that opted to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees, even though the Supreme Court ruled they didn’t have to, have something in common: BlackRock and The Vanguard Group have ownership stakes in them.

BlackRock and Vanguard, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, also are among the top three shareholders of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — which means the two investment giants stand to benefit from these companies’ soaring profits and the resulting rise in those companies’ stock prices.

BlackRock and Vanguard don’t just benefit from sales of COVID vaccines. As it turns out, they also have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets.

BlackRock: the ‘fourth branch of government’?

Combined, BlackRock and Vanguard manage more than $15 trillion in global assets.

To put this figure into perspective, that amounts to more than three-fourths of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and more than triple the GDP of the European Union’s economic powerhouse, Germany.

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with more than $9.5 trillion in assets as of July 2021, while Vanguard held more than $7 trillion in assets as of January 2021.

Notably, Vanguard is the largest stockholder in BlackRock (7.61%), while BlackRock is the biggest stockholder in Vanguard (13.06%) — though the actual ownership structure of these companies has been described as “dark.”

In an August 2021 article about the two firms, Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out that, far from the appearance of competition promised by capitalism, BlackRock and Vanguard own significant shares in companies that ostensibly compete directly with each other, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft, or Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

This influence extends to the media. BlackRock alone owns significant shares in supposed “competitors” such as Fox News, CBS, Comcast (NBC), CNN, Disney (ABC), Gannett (USA TODAY and 250 daily newspapers throughout the U.S.), Sinclair Media (whose television stations reach72% of the American public), and the Graham Media Group (Slate, Foreign Policy).

BlackRock is also politically influential and well-connected, having been chosen by the Obama administration to buy up toxic assets following the 2007-2008 financial collapse.

In 2020, BlackRock received a no-bid contract from the U.S. Treasury Department to manage a $454 billion fund, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), for businesses adversely impacted by the COVID lockdowns early that year. It wasn’t the first timeBlackRock had been granted a no-bid contract from the federal government.

BlackRock along with other firms also is engaged in a real estate purchasing spree, buying up entire neighborhoods of single-family homes and converting them to rentals, driving up home prices by reducing supply on the marketplace.

BlackRock’s real estate strategy echoes the words of the World Economic Forum: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

This level of power and influence promoted none other than Bloomberg in 2020 to characterizeBlackRock as the “fourth branch of government.”

BlackRock, Vanguard among top 10 stockholders in most companies mandating vaccines

It is unclear to what extent BlackRock and Vanguard are able to dictate the vaccination policies of the companies in which they hold a stake — but what is clear is that the two investment firms are among the top 10 stockholders in most of these companies.

Here’s a rundown of major U.S. employers that continue to mandate COVID vaccines for their employers, and these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard (all ownership figures are accurate as of this writing):

  • Abbvie, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, mandated its employees either get vaccinated or undergo weekly tests and continue to follow anti-coronavirus measures. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.80% and 4.47%, respectively.
  • Albertsons, a grocery store chain, required its office employees to get vaccinated and offeredits staff a $100 incentive to get the vaccine. BlackRock is its third-largest stockholder (0.85%), and Vanguard is the sixth largest (0.43%).
  • American Express imposed a vaccine requirement for employees in its U.S. offices. Vanguard is its top stockholder (5.78%), while BlackRock is the third largest (3.68%).
  • Anthem Inc., a health insurer, requires employees to be fully vaccinated to physically enter the company’s offices, offered financial incentives to its workforce to get vaccinated and requires new candidates to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.38% and 4.68%, respectively.
  • AstraZeneca requires its U.S. employees and visiting clients to be vaccinated. Three of the top 10 mutual funds holding shares in AstraZeneca PLC are managed by Vanguard.
  • AT&T, in two separate policies, required company managers (by Oct. 11, 2021) and unionized employees (by Feb. 1), to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.58% and 5.10%, respectively.
  • Blackstone, an investment management company, mandated employees be vaccinated and boosted in order to return to the office. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 5.57% and 3.14%, respectively.
  • CapitalOne required employees in office-based positions to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.62%), and BlackRock is its fourth largest (4.79%).
  • Carhartt, a clothing and apparel company, issued a vaccine mandate for its employees. It is one of the few exceptions on this list, as it is privately owned.
  • Centene, a healthcare provider, required its workforce to be vaccinated, and gave employees up to 10 days’ paid leave and a $1,000 discount on health premiums as incentives. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (10.25%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.34%).
  • Chevron issued a vaccination requirement for employees who travel internationally, expatriate employees, offshore workforce in the Gulf of Mexico and some onshore support personnel. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.98%) while BlackRock is the third-largest(4.57%).
  • Cigna, a healthcare and insurance company, required employees working remotely who visit the physical worksite to be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and employees whose roles can only be performed onsite to be vaccinated as of Oct. 18, 2021, with an alternate option for two weekly COVID tests. Employees also were offered a $200 incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard is Cigna’s largest stockholder (7.62%) while BlackRock is its fourth-largest (4.52%).
  • Cisco allows only vaccinated “critical workers” to go to the office, and claims that 90% of its employees are vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.54% and 4.87%, respectively.
  • Citigroup required employees be vaccinated before returning to its offices, claiming it has reached 99% compliance. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.00% and 4.75%, respectively.
  • Columbia Sportswear required employees in its corporate headquarters to get vaccinated as of Feb. 1, placing those who didn’t comply on unpaid leave and commencing a termination process against them. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (5.39%) and BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.15%).

Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle previously said his company was “thrilled” with the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate.

  • CVS Health has a no jab, no job policy, requiring corporate staff and employees who interact with patients to have been fully vaccinated as of Oct. 31, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.79% and 4.41%, respectively.
  • Deloitte, one of the Big Four accounting firms, requires its staff to be vaccinated. It is another exception in that it is a partnership firm and not publicly traded.
  • Delta Air Lines indirectly imposed a vaccine mandate for its employees, charging those who are not vaccinated a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge. CEO Ed Bastian previously saidthe company is “not opposed” to mandates and claimed 90% of Delta’s employees were vaccinated as of October 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two stockholders, at 10.15% and 4.63%, respectively.
  • DoorDash permits only fully vaccinated employees to voluntarily return to the office, even as its office return is delayed indefinitely. Vanguard is its third-largest stockholder (3.26%), while BlackRock is the tenth largest (1.57%).
  • Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, requires all employees be vaccinated. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (6.86%), while BlackRock is the third biggest (4.04%).
  • Emergent BioSolutions, a pharmaceutical company that produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and which attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, requires employees be vaccinated. The company’s federal contractallowed it to keep a “reasonable quantity” of COVID vaccine doses for its “employees and critical subcontractors, and their respective immediate families.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 10.07% and 9.81%, respectively.
  • The Equinox Group, which owns SoulCycle and a chain of gyms, required employees to provide one-time proof of vaccination. It is an exception in that it is privately owned.
  • Facebook, now known as Meta, requires employees coming to work at any of its U.S. locations to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its top stockholder at 7.30%, while BlackRock is the third largest, at 4.28%.
  • The Ford Motor Company imposed a vaccine mandate on its U.S. salaried employees. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.18% and 4.53%, respectively.
  • Frontier Airlines required employees be vaccinated or regularly take COVID tests, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its fourth-largest stockholder (1.29%).
  • Gap required employees in its New York, Bay Area and Albuquerque hubs be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and conducts weekly $1,000 drawings for vaccinated employees as an incentive. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.20%), while BlackRock is fifth largest (2.51%).
  • Gilead Sciences Inc., a pharmaceutical company, requires all workers and contractors to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second-largest and fifth-largest stockholders, at 7.96% and 6.30%, respectively.
  • Goldman Sachs requires anyone entering its offices be fully vaccinated, as of Sept. 7, 2021, while those who are not vaccinated are obliged to work remotely. Booster shots are mandatedfor employees physically working in its offices, as well as for visitors,  starting on Feb. 1. In January, the bank also required staff to receive twice-weekly COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 7.34% and 4.76%, respectively.
  • Google, also known as Alphabet, Inc., in a policy described as “compassionate,” gave most of its unvaccinated employees in the U.S. a Jan. 18 deadline to get vaccinated or be placed on paid administrative leave for 30 days. After 30 days, those who are still not vaccinated are placed on unpaid leave for up to six months, after which they will be dismissed. In November 2021, some employees at Google circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s widened vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.21% and 4.32%, respectively.
  • Hasbro implemented a vaccine requirement for its employees. Vanguard is its largeststockholder, at 11.01%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.69%.
  • Hawaiian Airlines required its U.S. workers to be vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021. On Feb. 2, a judge denied a bid by seven Hawaiian Airlines employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. BlackRock and Vanguard are their two biggest stockholders, at 14.41% and 9.71%, respectively.
  • Hershey implemented a vaccine mandate for its salaried employees that went into effect Oct. 4, 2021. Recently, the company announced a “small number” of employees who did not get vaccinated or receive an exemption were “separated from the company.” Frontline employees received four hours’ pay as an incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are the company’s two biggest stockholders, at 8.86% and 6.93%, respectively.
  • Hess, a petroleum company, mandated vaccination for its U.S. employees. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (9.39%), while BlackRock is fourth largest (4.45%).
  • Humana, a healthcare company, enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its employees, requiringthem to be vaccinated as of Oct. 22, 2021. The company offered employees rewards points as part of an existing employee incentive program to encourage them to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder at 7.39%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.32%.
  • IBM, the developer of New York State’s digital vaccine passport, the Excelsior Pass, allowedonly fully vaccinated U.S. employees to physically return to the office, as of Sept. 7, 2021, and mandated employees be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8, 2021, or face an unpaid suspension. In December 2021, some IBM employees circulated an open letter questioning the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are IBM’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 7.94% and 4.87%, respectively.
  • Intel employees were given until Jan. 4 to get vaccinated or apply for an exemption, while employees who would not get vaccinated and who were not granted an exemption were to be placed on unpaid leave in April. This policy was, however, recently “paused.” Vanguard and BlackRock are Intel’s two largest stockholders, at 7.94% and 5.33%, respectively.
  • Jefferies, a financial services company, allows only vaccinated individuals into its physical offices and outside company events, while non-vaccinated employees can continue working remotely. The company recently claimed over 95% of its global workforce has been vaccinated and said boosters would soon be required as part of the company’s “JefVaxPass strategy.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.84% and 6.46%, respectively.
  • Johnson & Johnson enacted a no-jab, no-job policy, and required all of its employees and contractors to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 4, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.46% and 4.67%, respectively.
  • KraftHeinz enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its U.S. employees and implemented a vaccine mandate as of January. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (4.21%), while BlackRock is the fourth largest (2.43%).
  • Lyft required corporate employees physically working in or entering its offices, but not its drivers, to furnish proof of vaccination to enter offices, as of Aug. 2, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.18%), while BlackRock is the fourth biggest (3.47%).
  • McDonald’s required its corporate workforce, but not its restaurant-level workers, to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (8.33%), while BlackRock is the third largest(4.56%).
  • MGM Resorts International requires salaried employees and all new-hires be fully vaccinated even if working remotely, while unvaccinated hourly employees can provide weekly negative COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.76% and 3.96%, respectively.
  • Microsoft required proof of vaccination for all employees, vendors and guests entering its physical locations in the U.S. as of September 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.75% and 4.35%, respectively.
  • Moderna requires all U.S. employees be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-largest stockholders, at 6.34% and 4.61%, respectively.
  • Morgan Stanley required employees to get vaccinated before returning to its New York offices, and required staff to disclose their vaccination status by July 1, 2021. The policy was extended to contingent workers, clients, and visitors visiting its New York City and Westchester County, New York locations, as of July 12, 2021. As of August 2021, the company claimed 90% of its employees were vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-biggest stockholders, at 6.27% and 3.81%, respectively.
  • NBCUniversal required U.S.-based workers returning to the office be fully vaccinated and provide details about their vaccination status, while a full return to the office has been indefinitely postponed. NBCUniversal is fully owned by Comcast, whose largest and third-largest stockholders are Vanguard (8.26%) and BlackRock (4.12%).

Comcast, in turn, has required all of its employees to get vaccinated.

  • Netflix implemented a vaccine requirement for its U.S. offices and filming locations. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.14%), while BlackRock is the sixth largest (4.03%).
  • The New York Times Company requires proof of vaccination for employees who voluntarily wish to return to the office, and is eyeing a full return to the office in the first quarter of this year. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 9.25% and 7.32%, respectively.
  • Nike requires office-based employees be vaccinated, and in January made headlines for firinga vaccinated employee who refused to furnish proof of vaccination to a third-party verification service hired by the company. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.88% and 4.62%, respectively.
  • Novartis, a pharmaceutical company, requires U.S. staff to be vaccinated. Vanguard mutual funds are four of the top 10 mutual funds holding stock in Novartis AG.
  • Pfizer required all U.S. workforce and contractors to get vaccinated or participate in weekly COVID testing. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.77%), while BlackRock is its third largest(4.63%).
  • Pioneer Natural Resources mandated vaccination for its new-hires and offered a $1,000 incentive to employees who get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (9.53%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.57%).
  • PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) required staff visiting any physical office or client location to be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and introduced a work-anywhere policy for its U.S. employees, allowing them to work remotely in perpetuity. PwC is an exception in that it is not publicly traded — it is the fourth biggest privately owned company in the U.S.
  • Roblox, a tech company, requires U.S. employees to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its seventh biggest stockholder (1.96%).
  • Roche, a pharmaceutical and medical equipment company, requires U.S. employees be vaccinated. The company is largely family-owned, but Vanguard mutual funds are two of the five largest mutual funds holding shares in Roche Holding AG.
  • Salesforce, a cloud software provider, requires office employees be vaccinated, but allows the majority of its global workforce to choose remote work. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.07%); BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.28%).
  • TJX, the parent company of retail chains such as HomeGoods, Marshalls and T.J. Maxx, required U.S. “home and regional office associates” be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and mandated a booster shot by Feb. 1. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.17%), while BlackRock (4.13%) is the third largest.
  • T-Mobile US announced it will fire corporate employees who are not fully vaccinated by April 2. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 3.28% and 2.38%, respectively.
  • Twitter requires employees be vaccinated and demonstrate proof of vaccination prior to returning to the company’s offices in San Francisco and New York City. In May 2020, the company announced an indefinite work-from-home option for its workforce. Vanguard (8.35%) and BlackRock (4.49%) are its second- and third-largest stockholders, respectively.
  • Tyson Foods mandated vaccination for its employees, and in Nov. 2021, announced 96% of its workforce was vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 11.38% and 4.91%, respectively.
  • Uber requires U.S. office staff be vaccinated in order to return to the office, but did not extend this requirement to its drivers. Vanguard (4.07%) is its second-largest stockholder, while BlackRock (2.50%) is the fourth largest.
  • United Airlines implemented a no-jab, no-job policy and required employees be vaccinated five weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fully approved a COVID vaccine or five weeks after Sept. 20, 2021, whichever came first. In December 2021, a court declined a bid by some United employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are the airline’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 10.16% and 4.28%, respectively.
  • UPS required office workers in some of its U.S. locations get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 8.39% and 4.60%, respectively.
  • Valero required new hires at its Louisiana and Texas refineries to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (10.98%), while BlackRock (5.58%) is its third biggest.
  • Verizon required non-union employees — representing most of its workforce — provide proof of vaccination as of Dec. 8, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 7.44% and 4.71%, respectively.
  • ViacomCBS requires all of U.S.-based employees working onsite during the company’s “Yellow Phase” be fully vaccinated, while the company is “still assessing” whether this mandate will be extended into its “Green Phase,” when most staff will physically return to the office. Vanguard (10.29%) is its largest stockholder, while BlackRock (5.03%) is third largest.
  • Walgreens required employees in the company’s U.S. support offices be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30, 2021, or enroll in a COVID testing program. Vanguard is the top stockholder of the Walgreens Boots Alliance (6.61%), while BlackRock is third largest (4.22%).
  • Walmart implemented a no-jab, no-job policy for corporate staff, but not for store or warehouse employees. It has, however, offered a $150 incentive to store and warehouse workers to get vaccinated. The company claimed the “overwhelming majority” of its employees who were mandated to get vaccinated, have done so. Notably, the company enforced a vaccine mandate for shoppers in Canada, generating criticism. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (4.31%), while BlackRock is the third largest (2.30%).
  • The Walt Disney Company required much of its U.S. workforce be vaccinated, though the company was obliged to pause this policy for its Florida employees after state lawmakers barred employers from requiring workers to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are Disney’s two biggest stockholders, at 7.15% and 4.24%, respectively.
  • Warner Media, a subsidiary of AT&T, required salaried and non-union U.S. employees to get vaccinated before returning to the office in September 2021, while proof of vaccination is required to enter a WarnerMedia office building.
  • The Washington Post requires all employees, including new employees, to provide proof of vaccination, implementing a no jab, no job policy. The newspaper is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, which is fully owned by Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon, whose two largest stockholders are Vanguard (6.19%) and BlackRock (3.51%).

What about the two asset management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard?

Of the two, only BlackRock has implemented a vaccine mandate, allowing vaccinated staff to return to the office in July 2021.

Vanguard has not implemented a mandate, but offered a $1,000 incentive to its employees to encourage them to get vaccinated.

Vaccine passport technology — another way BlackRock, Vanguard profit from vaccines

BlackRock and Vanguard also are stakeholders in tech companies involved in the development of digital vaccine passports or “digital wallets” and technology that can track and allocate “personal carbon allowances.”

These companies include:

  • Apple, which is collaborating with several U.S. states to make official documents such as drivers’ licenses and medical records available digitally via Apple Wallet. Vanguard is its top shareholder (7.35%) and BlackRock is its third-biggest (4.12%).
  • Mastercard, which supports the Good Health Pass vaccine passport initiative that is also backed by the ID2020 alliance, and promoted technology that can be embedded into the DO Card, a credit/debit card that can keep track of one’s “personal carbon allowance.” Its top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.82%) and BlackRock (4.13%).

In turn, Mastercard is the fifth largest investor in Doconomy, a Swedish “FinTech” firm that is also heavily involved in the development of the DO Card.

Doconomy, in turn, collaborates with another Swedish “FinTech” firm, Klarna, in providing 90 million customers with “carbon footprint insights” based on their Doconomy transactions. While Klarna is privately held, its top investors include BlackRock and Visa.

  • Oracle is a backer of the SMART Health Card, which is gaining prominence in the U.S. as a de facto national digital vaccine ‘passport’, and also is a provider of cloud services to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its top two stockholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, with 5.16% and 2.99%, respectively.
  • Thales Group, is a founding member of the Security Identity Alliance, which is a stakeholder in the UN’s Legal Identity Agenda Task Force that has set the establishment of digital identification for all by 2030. Thales Group has also developed a “smart health card” and digital ID wallet technology.

While the government of France, which has imposed among the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in Europe and has used ‘vaccine passports’ to shut the unvaccinated out of many public spaces and activities, is Thales’ top shareholder (25.7%), Vanguard is the sixth largest, at 1.31%.

No moral core . . . no moral purpose

In podcaster Joe Rogan’s interview last month with Dr. Robert Malone — the interview that triggered the exodus of musicians and others from Spotify — Malone described companies like BlackRock and Vanguard as “large massive funds that are completely decoupled from nation states” and that “have no moral core … no moral purpose,” their only purpose being a “return on investment.”

As it turns out, BlackRock and Vanguard — and Moderna — also have ties to Spotify.

BlackRock is Spotify’s seventh-largest shareholder (1.37%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund holding Spotify Technology SA.

Baillie Gifford, a Scotland-based asset management firm in existence since 1909, is the top institutional stockholder (11.60%) in Spotify — and the top stockholder of Moderna (11.29%), the company that carries the largest overall weight in the firm’s portfolio, at $12 billion in holdings.

Other major Baillie Gifford holdings — including some companies listed above among those mandating COVID vaccines — include Tesla (second highest at 6.3% of its portfolio’s value), Amazon (fourth highest at 3.8%), Spotify (seventh highest at 2.8%), Netflix (ninth highest at 2.6%), Meta (12th, 1.4%), Microsoft (16th, 1.3%), Anthem (21st, 1.2%), Alphabet Inc. (22nd, 1.1%), BioNTech (29th, 0.9%), Mastercard (39th, 0.6%), DoorDash (45th, 0.6%), Salesforce (53rd, 0.5%), and Lyft (93rd, 0.2%).

Baillie Gifford, through its Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, also maintains a significant stakein Palantir (0.2% of the firm’s net asset value, or NAV).

As reported by The Defender, Palantir developed the Tiberius vaccine allocation planning systemoperated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal (which terminated the contracts of nonprofits opposed to vaccine mandates) and a Facebook board member, also is a co-founder of Palantir and serves on its board of directors.

Palantir’s top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.08%) and BlackRock (3.31%).

In turn, the top stockholders of BioNTech, Pfizer’s partner in the development of its COVID vaccine, include Baillie Gifford (biggest stockholder, 2.69%) and BlackRock (seventh highest, 0.59%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund with holdings in BioNTech (0.92%), and Baillie Gifford the ninth biggest (0.23%).

Tangled web of corporate connections raises host of questions

BlackRock and Vanguard are poised to continue expanding— as far back as 2017, Bloomberg predicted that by 2028, these two companies would be managing $20 trillion worth of investments.

The size and scope of the firms’ investments raise questions about how much influence BlackRock and Vanguard can wield over the formulation of corporate policies by the companies in which the two firms are heavily invested.

This ever-growing influence has led some analysts to describe the two firms as “kingmakers,” arguing their growing voting share in an increasing number of corporations would “hand them a de-facto veto on all major corporate decisions by 2040.

To what extent do companies mandating COVID vaccines have the best interest of their employees in mind? Or are these companies implementing policies under the guise of “protecting” employees, when in fact they are more concerned about appeasing major investors?

What else might these companies do, if “encouraged” in some way by major stockholders?

Moreover, do mandatory (or strongly encouraged) vaccination policies reflect the worldview of funds such as BlackRock and Vanguard, and their managers — in much the same way major corporations have embraced purportedly “green” policies which only barely cloak potentially totalitarian restrictions on civil liberties, such as “personal carbon allowances” and digital “vaccine passports”?

The answers may lie, in part, in the words of BlackRock CEO and chairman, Larry Fink.

In his 2022 annual letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent and ethical source of information — more so than government, the media and NGOs.”

Fink said, “workers demanding more from their employers is an essential feature of effective capitalism” — an interesting viewpoint given that the BlackRock and Vanguard strategy to control as many corporations as possible, including competing ones, would seem to contradict the principles of capitalism, competition, and a free market.

Fink also warned that “companies not adjusting to this new reality and responding to their workers do so at their own peril.”

In other words, employees and workers of companies that have imposed vaccine mandates should take comfort in such policies, as their employer appears to know what’s best for them — at least according to Fink.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

It has become something of a habit in both the American and Canadian media to insist that the Canadian trucker protest against vaccine mandates is an “illegal protest.” They are “illegal border protests,” one American news affiliate proclaims. Canada’s National Post dutifully refers to the protests in its headlines as illegal acts. The term “illegal” has been used a multitude of times by Liberal Party politicians in the House of Commons. The premier of Ontario—one of Canada’s most hysterical politicians—not only paints the protests as illegal but as a “siege.” Other opponents of the protests refer to them as an “occupation” and as an “insurrection.”

“Lawbreaker” as a Political Slur

So why the obsession with labeling the protests illegal? The idea, of course, is to cast suspicion on them and portray them as harmful and morally illegitimate. We could contrast the rhetoric surrounding the trucker protest with that of the Black Lives Matter protests. In the case of the BLM protests, illegal acts were downplayed and ignored, with one obvious riot labeled a “mostly peaceful” protest. when it comes to protests and other acts of which the regime approves, legality is never an issue.

The regimes of the world, of course, like to use legality as a standard for judging human behavior because the regimes make the laws. Whether or not the laws actually have anything to do with human rights, private property, or just basic common sense is another matter entirely. Thus history is replete with pointless, immoral, and destructive laws. Slavery has been lawful throughout much of human history. Temporary slavery—known as military conscription—is still employed by many regimes. In the US, the imprisonment of peaceful American citizens of Japanese descent was perfectly lawful under the US regime during World War II. Today, employers can face ruinous sanctions for hiring a worker who lacks the proper immigration paperwork.  Worldwide, people can be jailed in many jurisdictions for years for the “crime” of possessing an illegal plant.

During covid, the reality of arbitrary law came very much to the fore when unelected health bureaucrats and lone elected executives began ruling by decree. They closed businesses, shut people up in their homes, and imposed vaccine and mask mandates. Those who refuse to comply—and businesses who refuse to enforce these edicts—are condemned as lawbreakers and subject to punishment.

The Moral Limits of “Law and Order”

All of these legal provisions, acts, and sanctions represent mockeries of basic natural rights rather than protections of them. The notion that laws can be perversions of true justice has long been obvious to many. In fact, the disconnect between morality and legality is a fundamental aspect of Western civilization. The basic notion is very old, but the idea’s endurance in the West was reinforced by the fact that Christianity began as an illegal religion and early Christians were often considered to be criminals deserving of the death penalty. It should be no surprise, then, that Saint Augustine declared an unjust law to be no law at all and compared kings to pirates: the decrees of pirates, of course, are not worthy of obedience or reverence. And if kings are like pirates, kingly decrees are of equal respectability. This same tradition fueled Saint Thomas Aquinas’s support for regicide (in certain cases). Needless to say, regicide has been always and everywhere declared illegal by the would-be targets.

Yet, unfortunately, declaring something to be “illegal” remains an effective slur. There is no shortage of people who proudly consider themselves to be blind supporters of “law and order” and who insist “lawbreakers” are axiomatically in the wrong. Their simple-minded refrain is “if you don’t like the law, change it” and many of these people naïvely believe that acts of legislators and regulators somehow reflect “the will of the people” or some sort of moral law. The opposite is often the reality.

Thankfully, in the United States, the value of lawbreaking is so “baked in” to the historical narrative that it’s difficult to ignore, even today. The American Revolution was fundamentally a series of illegal acts. The Declaration of Independence was little more than a declaration of a thoroughly illegal rebellion. In response, the king sent men to the colonies to enforce law and order. The American response to this attempt to enforce the law was to kill the government’s enforcers. Less violent acts committed by American rebels were equally criminal, ranging from the Boston Tea Party to a multitude of assaults on tax collectors committed by Samuel Adams’s Sons of Liberty.

Modern shills for the regime have unsurprisingly tried to redefine this conflict as one of a tussle over democracy. “Those American revolutionaries fought for democracy,” the claim goes. Thus, by their definition, no one is ever allowed to rebel in a jurisdiction that has occasional elections. (The reality is that the American rebellion was about the protection of human rights. Elections had little to do with it.)

Fortunately, it will take more than cheap slogans about democracy to undo the fact that the national origin story is about having contempt for the laws of one’s political leaders.

In much of the world, however, rebellion against unjust laws is not regarded with equal amounts of reverence. In Canada, for instance, the national origin story is largely about following the rules and politely asking one’s overlords for autonomy. This is bound to affect how one sees the roles of law and disobedience.

It Is Often Prudent to Follow Unjust Laws

This isn’t to say that open rebellion is necessarily wise. Avoiding illegal acts is often—if not usually—the prudent thing to do. We often follow the law simply to stay out of jail and avoid attracting the attention of regulators and government enforcers. For those who prefer spending time with their families to spending time in prison, this only makes sense. Moreover, disobeying unjust laws can often bring even more unjust laws as a result.

It is one thing to follow the law for prudential reasons. It is another thing entirely to assume the law brings with it some sort of moral imperative. Few laws do. Yes, there are laws against murder, but murder is just one case where the letter of the law happens to often match up with what is fundamentally moral and right. Countless laws lack such solid standing.

When we hear government officials or media pundits refer to something as “illegal” or unlawful, all this should really do is cause us to ask if the defense of these laws is actually prudent, moral, or necessary. Some laws are well founded in basic protections of property rights and other human rights. But many laws are nothing more than the fruits of political schemes to help the regime maintain power or to reward its friends at the expense of others.

We can always expect the regime and its supporters to try to outlaw things they don’t like. And once such things are illegal, we’ll hear all about the evils of the “lawbreakers” any time those lawbreakers threaten the prestige or power of the regime. (Lawbreaking in favor of the regime, of course, is always tolerated.) It’s a highly successful trick they’ve been using for thousands of years.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ryan McMaken is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wireand Power and Market, but read article guidelines first.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In the Age of COVID, We’re Reminded an Unjust Law Is No Law at All
  • Tags:

Moscow’s Coercive Diplomacy Is Working

February 20th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The upshot of the Russian response, transmitted to Washington on Thursday, regarding security guarantees may look as if the stalemate is heading toward a war. Moscow has rejected the US’ call for ‘de-escalation’ by pointing out that the Russian troops are deployed on Russian territories; it also rejects the threat of sanctions, which it says is a contrived attempt to “exert pressure and devalue Russia’s proposals on security guarantees.” 

Second, Russia is concerned over “the growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly near Russian borders, while our ‘red lines’ and core security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, are still being ignored”. 

Third, Russia believes that in order to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine,“it is fundamentally important” to implement an array of steps, including the halt of arms supplies to Ukraine, the recall of all Western advisers and instructors from that country as well as cessation of NATO countries’ joint exercises with the Ukrainian armed forces. 

Finally, Russia reiterated that its demands for legally bound guarantees (stopping NATO’s expansion, refusing to use strike weapons systems near Russian borders, and returning the bloc’s military infrastructure in Europe to its status in 1997) are being ignored. 

However, the latest word from Moscow is that negotiations will continue on European security issues although Moscow’s core demands have not been met. A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is being scheduled for next week at a European venue. 

This is a pragmatic decision. For Moscow, the secondary issues relating to issues of military security, arms control and strategic stability look generally solvable and could even be put together as an agreement. After all, these issues were originally Russian proposals, which Washington had previously ignored and is now willing to discuss. 

For the US too, this is a realistic approach, since, after all, the development of hypersonic missiles by Russia has changed the strategic balance in the latter’s favour and there is no point deploying intermediate nuclear forces in Europe in the changed circumstances! 

On the other hand, both superpowers sense the importance of good optics which can only create some gravitas for the political track in the near term that may help address the core issues.

Does it mean that the crisis has peaked? The point to be noted here is that the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was never really there. However, below that threshold, a Russian intervention in Donbass region is a one hundred percent certainty  if the Ukrainian forces launch an attack against the separatist forces. 

The catch is, if Russian intervention takes place, all bets are off, because an entirely different dynamics might appear. Conceivably, Moscow will act with a scenario in mind to ensure that pending a durable settlement in Ukraine, the security of the millions of ethnic Russians (many holding Russian passports) will never again be in jeopardy, or held hostage by the right-wing neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalist forces mentored by the Western intelligence who dominate Kiev.

Therefore, a Russian offensive westward upto the Dnepr River may become necessary to create a buffer zone.  In fact, an evacuation of the elderly, women and children from Donbass to the Rostov region in southern Russia began today. The Kremlin has been ringing alarm bells in the past 48 hours that the possibility of an attack on Donbass is “quite real.” 

It is from such a perspective that the Duma’s recommendation to President Putin to recognise the two breakaway “people’s republics” in Donbass needs to be viewed. Putin has said he doesn’t intend to act on it now. In reality, it gives underpinning for a Plan B in case conflict erupts in Donbass, or if the US gameplan is to bog down Russia in protracted negotiations, or if Washington remains obdurate vis-a-vis Moscow’s demands for security guarantee.

Washington has conceded some ground, though. Apart from showing readiness to discuss the issues of European security, the US has withdrawn its military advisors and trainers from Ukraine, Biden has committed that US will not militarily intervene in Ukraine even if it is attacked or faces defeat and surrender, and that US will not deploy missiles. 

Russia’s coercive diplomacy seems to be working! Time is on its side because this is about national security and national defence, no matter what efforts that entails or how long they must continue. Contrary to western propaganda, Russian public trusts Putin’s judgment and leadership. There’s no dent in his public rating.

On the other side of the Atlantic, however, setting aside the usual bluster in the American propaganda, the political reality is that according to the latest CBS poll, 53% of Americans think US shouldn’t take sides in a conflict and 33% think Ukraine is simply not America’s business. And even American analysts concede that Russian economy has the capacity and resilience to withstand US sanctions. 

Therefore, we may expect, as the noted Russian security analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told Kommersant paper today, “the next phase of the game of nerves may be a diplomatic one… On the whole, another phase of manageable tensions is to be expected.” But even here, the advantage lies with Russia. 

For a start, China has given robust support to Russia and on Wednesday, called on Washington to “accommodate Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns over security and play a constructive role for all parties to seek a political settlement to  Ukraine issue on the basis of Minsk-2 agreement, rather than hype up and sensationalise and escalate tensions.” 

On the contrary, despite Washington’s tall claims that the US and European allies are moving in “lockstep” (to borrow Biden’s expression) and the 24×7 efforts by US officials to take the allies along, the picture that emerges is that the fault lines that have been there in the recent years in the western alliance system are surging and cracks are appearing due to the immense strategic burden of a confrontation with Russia, the spectre of a war in Europe and a massive refugee flow that will ensue, and all the attendant uncertainties for Europe’s post-pandemic economic recovery. 

The stance of France and Germany, the two most important European players, must be causing anxiety in Washington. Both President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Moscow and held lengthy talks with Putin. Macron also showed his discontent over the US’ overlordship by telephoning Chinese President Xi Jinping on February 16. 

Macron showered fulsome praise for the “splendid and successful opening ceremony” of the Olympic Winter Games and conveyed France’s full support for China’s “effort to make a success of the Olympic”! 

Xi in turn complimented Macron that “since assuming the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) this year, France has done a lot to enhance EU solidarity and strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy.” 

Macron went on to pledge that “France will make all-out efforts to advance the positive agenda between the EU and China, and work together with China to ensure the success of the EU-China Leaders’ Meeting and push forward the development of EU-China relations.” The two leaders reached consensus over a six-point agenda for bilateral cooperation for the next stage. 

Macron also took the initiative to schedule an EU-China summit meeting on April 1 against the backdrop of China’s deepening ties with Russia and amidst the war hysteria in the US over a Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Reports have appeared that due to opposition from some European countries, Washington has had to drop from the sanctions package the s-called “nuclear option” — Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT payment mechanism, effectively cutting it off from the international banking system. 

All these undercurrents in play put pressure on the Biden administration. While in Moscow, Scholz who had met Biden in Washington before that, affirmed publicly in the presence of Putin that so long as they remained in power in Berlin and Moscow, for all practical purposes, there is no question of the NATO admitting Ukraine as a member.

Put differently, so long as Russia regards Ukraine’s NATO membership as a casus belli, the alliance will not move in that direction. That is to say, unless Moscow changes it mind, there’s no NATO membership for Ukraine (or Georgia.) We could be hearing the crunchy sound of ice cracking on the frozen lake.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine prove the vaccine caused their deaths. Pathological findings suggest there may be a way to distinguish SARS-COV-2 infection-induced myo/pericarditis from vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Vaccine-induced heart injury can be sub-clinical, but how often?

Pathologists who examined the autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine concluded the vaccine caused the teens’ deaths.

The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, “Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,” in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.

The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose.

There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e. no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies).

These boys died from the vaccine.

Histopathological examination of their cardiac tissue revealed an important new finding: Neither heart demonstrated evidence of typical myocarditis.

Instead, the authors found evidence of microscopic changes consistent with a different form of heart injury called toxic cardiomyopathy. They wrote:

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.”

The authors further explained what they observed under the microscope:

“Their histopathology does not demonstrate a typical myocarditis … In these two post-vaccination instances, there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation.

“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.

“Stress cardiomyopathy is a catecholamine-mediated ischemic process seen in high catecholamine states in the absence of coronary artery disease or spasm. It has also been called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ and ‘broken heart syndrome.’”

The pathologists determined there was a different mechanism of heart injury at play in these two boys, distinct from a purely infectious process that would result directly from a viral infection like COVID-19.

This is an important finding. There may be a way to distinguish cardiac injury resulting from a SARS-COV-2 infection from cardiac injury where the vaccine predisposes the patient to stress cardiomyopathy before contracting COVID-19.

However, the authors are careful not to assume that cardiac injuries from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines can always be sorted out under the microscope.

They explain that stress cardiomyopathy, or “broken heart syndrome,” may also occur in a rare hyperinflammatory state that is known to occur in COVID-19 infection as well:

“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”

The authors admit this pathological finding may also occur as a result of MIS-C, a known complication of SARS-COV2 infection.

Learning more about this condition requires a biopsy of heart tissue, or in this case an autopsy. We know very little about the nature of myocarditis in people who are clinically stable because heart biopsies are not conducted on them and autopsies are rarely done on patients who die from COVID-19.

There still is no practical way of screening for cardiac injury beyond assessing symptoms.

Unfortunately, the two boys did not have symptoms of myocarditis (fever, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea) prior to their cardiac arrest and death. One complained of a headache and gastric upset which resolved. The other had no complaints.

This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms.

How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?

These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves.

Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?

The CDC believes the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis not significant

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents who get the COVID-19 vaccine is “extremely rare” and “most cases are mild.”

But those assurances conflict with the agency’s own data.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented this disquieting information (see chart below) during its June 23, 2021 meeting convened specifically to address the risks of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine:

Myocarditis slide

This slide is important for two reasons.

First, the incidence of this potentially lethal condition is significantly higher in the vaccinated (“Observed” column) compared to the background rate (“Expected” column), especially in males in the 18- to 24-year-old age range.

In the 12- to 17-year-old male cohort, the risk of myo/pericarditis is at least 11 times higher than the background rate.

With more than 2 million doses administered at the time when these cases of myo/pericarditis were identified, we can be confident these data represent an undeniable safety signal.

The second reason this slide is important is this: The CDC is drawing directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system specifically designed to monitor for safety signals when vaccines are administered to the public.

As of Feb. 15, the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”

In essence, the CDC is acknowledging that reports of deaths and other adverse events following vaccination exist in VAERS but do not comprise any risk because causality has not been verified.

Then why did the ACIP choose to accept VAERS as a legitimate source of information on myo/pericarditis in their calculations?

The CDC released its conclusions immediately following the ACIP meeting:

“The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment.”

But how do they know this?

One month after this comforting statement from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in this letter to Pfizer that the agency was not able to adequately assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s product:

“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.

“Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”

Commenting on the FDA’s letter, Dr. Meryl Nass said,

“The FDA is saying that neither an analysis of the data in VAERS or of any of the other taxpayer-funded databases will provide sufficient assessment of the risk of this product.”

“This is a joke,” said Nass, adding:

“All this data, plus software, plus a team of analysts, and the FDA says it can’t assess the risk of myocarditis, despite identifying thousands of cases?

“Furthermore, unsaid, but implied by the FDA, is that if the FDA is incapable of assessing the risk of myocarditis despite thousands of reported cases, it cannot or will not be capable of assessing the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.”

If the FDA is not able to perform adequate surveillance of safety signals around vaccine-induced myocarditis, who will?

The FDA assigns this unenviable but essential task to Pfizer itself (again, from the FDA’S letter to Pfizer):

“Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies…”

Is myocarditis ‘extremely rare’ after COVID-19 vaccination? 

As of Feb. 4, VAERS reported 495 cases of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds. VAERS data show that as of Feb. 10, there were 2,239 reported cases of myocarditis in people under the age of 30.

However, a widely cited CDC-sponsored study (Lazarus et al) concluded the incidence of adverse events is 10 to 100 times higher than are reported to VAERS.

More recent calculations estimate that adverse events are underreported by a factor of approximately 41.

From these estimates, we can conclude there may have been approximately 20,000 cases of myocarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds since Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization and was rolled out to this age group..

The VAERS data from June 11, 2021 from the table above show 132 cases of myo/pericarditis were observed in 2,039,000 doses given to 12- to 17-year-old males. This is approximately 6.5 cases in 100,000 doses.

This study from Hong Kong found the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000. This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from this study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) system (37.7 12-17 year olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second dose). This is more evidence that significant underreporting is in play in the VAERS system.

Will most of these teens “recover on their own”? How many other vaccinated people have varying degrees of “broken heart” syndrome that remain asymptomatic, undiagnosed and unreported?

These new findings indicate that no one can answer these questions right now — especially not the CDC and the FDA.

If the FDA has admitted it cannot assess the risk of myocarditis using the surveillance systems in place, how then is the CDC able to assure us that the risk is low enough to continue to proceed with a vaccination campaign that now includes 5- to 11-year-old children?

The FDA has abdicated its responsibility for monitoring the safety of these vaccines to the vaccine manufacturers.

The CDC is using VAERS data in its own analyses while urging the public to discount all adverse events, including deaths, that appear in the very same database.

There isn’t any regulation happening here. Our regulatory agencies have become mouthpieces for the very industry they are tasked to oversee.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Regardless of the war propaganda – the dreams of young Ukrainians do not differ from the hopes and expectations of their peers from other peripheral parts of the world.  Maybe just a little more prematurely grown bitterness and distrust in them.  Perhaps they are also more divided than the neighbouring youth – not only by social and class barriers, but also by a different historical or linguistic experience.  This is confirmed by the research carried out last year by the Research Centre PULS from Odessa.

Internal break

Everyday frightening the world with war in Ukraine distracts from the country’s everyday problems.  And yet people, especially those aged 14-18, do not live there “between one Putin’s invasion and another”.  Although, of course, living in the information society, additionally strongly politicised – they are forced to receive information and stimuli of a political and ideological nature at least passively.

And so, for example 72% of respondents consider human rights issues important.  However, are they respected in their own country?  Well, 42% think so, but another 39% teenagers are convinced that not at all.  Moreover, the closer to adulthood – the more doubters.  The inhabitants of the south of the country clearly have more reasons to doubt, especially Russian-speaking and students.  Is it the heritage of ethnic tensions that have continued since 2014 – or is it also the result of these areas’ recent turbulent pasts?

As few people in the West know, on 2nd May 2014 in Odessa, during the attack of extreme Ukrainian nationalists on participants of a demonstration in defence of the right to use the Russian language – 46 Russian-speaking people were intentionally burned in the Trade Union House, and over 200 were injured.

Meanwhile, about 35 percent. young Ukrainians have never heard of these events from less than 8 years ago!  Obviously, this proportion is decreasing among those living in the South and East of the country.  52% surveyed describes the incident as a “tragedy”.  In turn, in Western Ukraine 24% young Ukrainians agree that the death of their countrymen was just “a victory over pro-Russian separatists”.

There is no place for “aliens”?

A study aimed at detecting the level of xenophobia sheds additional light on this far-reaching polarization.  It must not be forgotten that an important and controversial element of Ukrainian historical policy is the official cult of anti-Soviet armed organizations that actively collaborated with Hitler during the Second World War and participated in the Holocaust organisation.

The official role model for Ukrainian schoolchildren is Stepan Bandera, in the 1940s the leader of the Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, personally responsible for the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews and other minorities, as well as people suspected of Communism and leftist views.

After the war, Bandera avoided punishment, cooperating with American and British intelligence before being murdered in 1959 by a Soviet agent.

Does Ukrainian youth really follow the thought of the one demanding from his supporters “You will not hesitate to commit even the greatest crime, if the good of the Cause demands it” and “With hatred and deceit you will receive the enemies of Your Nation”?

Unfortunately, at least partially yes – 35% teenagers do not see a place in Ukraine for Russians, 26 percent. for Arabs, 25 percent would not like Jews to be the inhabitants or even tourists in the Ukrainian state.

In this specific popularity ranking, almost exclusively Americans (25%) are more widely accepted as “close friends”, while 75%of respondents can only imagine other Ukrainians as close family members.  Several years of intense nationalist and jingoist propaganda have done a lot of evil…

Run as far as possible!

But after all young Ukrainians are no different from their peers, knowing well that their future in own country, still subjected to the oligarchs’ rule – is at least questionable.  55% of teenagers plan emigration, of which 28% are ambitiously dreaming of the United States, 16% would realistically be satisfied with work or studies in neighbouring Poland, and 11% in the Czech Republic.  Why do they want to emigrate?  Has the situation in Ukraine not improved after 2014 and the victory of pro-Western forces?  39% did not see any positive changes, 17% believe that it is even worse, and only 21 percent. believes there has been an improvement.

And would they themselves support that coup (“revolution”)?  36% can’t answer, 33% would certainly not go to that Maidan and 31% perhaps would follow parents demonstrating then in Kiev against the Government and for European integration.

How many Ukraines?

Research confirms that, unlike in the Western media, there is no single Ukraine, and the differences between the inhabitants of individual regions are significant and potentially antagonising.  72% of teenagers, when asked about the level of trust, replied that in any relations with others they will maintain a high degree of distrust and scepticism. 55% see no possibility, sense or need of any political and social activity.  46% agree that “not everyone in Ukraine today can freely express their views”.  But in same time between 91 and 98% of the respondents declare themselves unequivocally Ukrainian – although 42% think that this can be both a source of pride and shame.  And to complete the picture, it is worth adding that in the South, East and the Centre of the country between 40 and 61% declare themselves bilingual, both Ukrainian and Russian, while this indicator in Western Ukraine drops to only 5%compared to a 94% advantage solely of Ukrainian.

No future – no hope?

Modern Ukrainians are not only subjected to geopolitical pressure from Russia, but still have a number of historical and cultural ties with her.  At the same time, there is intensively implemented economic and civilizational transformational dictate of Western Liberal Capitalism.  The internal situation is the aftermath of several decades of oligarchy, and earlier of the Soviet state quasi-capitalism.  

Subjective lack of prospects is therefore accompanied by a natural increase in frustration, channelled through stimulating xenophobia and emigration pressure, again primarily in the interests of Western labour markets.  Ukrainian youth are discouraged, do not see any sense in their own activity, and see own future primarily outside the country.  Neither of these problems can be solved by war propaganda, nor by sending these young people to the front to kill and die at the hands of the similar peers from Russia or the Donbass.  Meanwhile, the only response to embittered and disillusioned young Ukrainians from the US and the UK – remain guns, the vision of marvelous capitalism and the promise of a minimum wage job in the West…

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Notes

The research was conducted by the independent Research Centre PULS, Odessa, Ukraine in cooperation with the International Expert Club, on April 4-21, 2021, on a sample of 1,200 respondents aged 14-18, representative of the main sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, type of settlement, macro region. Response Rate: RR3 = 61. The statistical error of the sample (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed: 2.9% for indicators close to 50%, 2.5% for indicators close to 25%, 1.7% for indicators close to 10%, 1.3% for indicators close to 5. The actual sampling error for controlled quota and uncontrolled (non-quota) characteristics does not exceed 2.3%.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Young Ukrainians – Everyday Fears, Military Propaganda and Chauvinism
  • Tags:

“Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”.

February 19th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The title of this January 2022 most important article is “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs.”  It is written by very credentialed medical researchers.  It presents an extremely detailed analysis that proves COVID vaccines are very unsafe. 

Here, I focus on the findings showing a relationship between the vaccines and cancers.  Everything below is directly from the paper.  It is difficult reading, but the messages are very important.

Screenshot from Authorea

Abstract

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the widely perceived public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease had no precedent, but desperate times seemed to call for desperate measures. The mRNA vaccines utilize genetically modified mRNA encoding spike proteins. These alterations hide the mRNA from cellular defenses, promote a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke higher overall spike protein production.

However, both experimental and observational evidence reveals a very different immune response to the vaccines compared to the response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. As we will show, the genetic modifications introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these differential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reports in the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. [emphasis added]

VAERS Signal for Cancer

Cancer is a disease generally understood to take months or, more commonly, years to progress from an initial malignant transformation in a cell to development of a clinically recognized condition. Since VAERS reports of adverse events are happening primarily within the first month or even the first few days after vaccination [209], it seems likely that the acceleration of cancer progression following vaccines would be a difficult signal to recognize. Furthermore, most people do not expect cancer to be an adverse event that could be caused by a vaccine.

However, as we have outlined in our paper, if the mRNA vaccinations are leading to widespread dysregulation of oncogene controls, cell cycle regulation, and apoptosis, then VAERS reports should reflect an increase in reports of cancer, relative to the other vaccines.

This is in fact what VAERS reports reflect, and dramatically so. Table 1 illustrates events involving the most common cancers reported to VAERS in the US, cancers either newly identified or stable disease newly progressing. It compares reports related to COVID-19 vaccination to reports related to all other vaccinations over the 31-year history of VAERS information collection. To obtain this table, we searched the online resource, for search terms indicating cancer, such as “cancer,” “carcinoma,” “mass,” “neoplasm,” etc., and summed over all hits related to a particular organ, such as “lung.” These data were collected on December 12, 2021.

Notably, there were three times as many reports of breast cancer following a COVID-19 vaccine, and more than six times the number of reports of B-cell lymphoma. All but one of the cases of follicular lymphoma were associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Pancreatic carcinoma was more than three times as high.

This cannot be explained by reference to a disproportionately large number of people receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year compared to all other vaccinations. The total number of people receiving a non-COVID-19 vaccination is unknown, but over the 31 years history of reports VAERS contains it is unquestionably many orders of magnitude larger than the number receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year. Overall, in the above table, twice as many cancer reports to VAERS are related to a COVID-19 vaccination compared to those related to all other vaccines. That, in our opinion, constitutes a signal in urgent need of investigation.

Table 1:  Number of events in the VAERS database from 1990 to December 12, 2021, where several terms indicating cancer occurred in association with COVID-19 vaccines or with all other vaccines, along with the ratio between the two counts. Counts were restricted to data from the United States. Note that counts for all the other vaccines are totals for 31 years, whereas the COVID-19 counts are for a single class of vaccines over less than one year.

[I cannot reproduce Table 1 here, but here is the bottom line finding: Total of 735 cancer cases in the CDC VAERS database compared to a total of 368 cancer cases from all other vaccines. This produces a ratio of 2.00 of COVID to all other vaccines. I urge readers to access the article and examine the considerable data in Table 1. The data give a compelling case for being concerned about the COVID vaccines.]

Discussion

There has been an unwavering message about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 from the public health apparatus in the US and around the globe. The efficacy is increasingly in doubt, as shown in a recent letter to the Lancet Regional Health by Günter Kampf.  Kampf provided data showing that the vaccinated are now as likely as the unvaccinated to spread disease. He concluded: “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.”

In this paper we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections. Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations. Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike mRNA to produce high levels of spike-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences. Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

Given the current rapidly expanding awareness of the multiple roles of G4s in regulation of mRNA translation and clearance through stress granules, the increase in pG4s due to enrichment of GC content as a consequence of codon optimization has unknown but likely far-reaching consequences. Specific analytical evaluation of the safety of these constructs in vaccines is urgently needed, including mass spectrometry for identification of cryptic expression and immunoprecipitation studies to evaluate the potential for disturbance of or interference with the essential activities of RNA and DNA binding proteins.

Conclusions

It is imperative that worldwide administration of the mRNA vaccinations be stopped immediately until further studies are conducted to determine the extent of the potential pathological consequences outlined in this paper. [emphasis added] It is not possible for these vaccinations to be considered part of a public health campaign without a detailed analysis of the human impact of the potential collateral damage. It is also imperative that VAERS and other monitoring system be optimized to detect signals related to the health consequences of mRNA vaccination we have outlined. We believe the upgraded VAERS monitoring system described in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. study, but unfortunately not supported by the CDC, would be a valuable start in this regard.

In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions. [emphasis added]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Mercola

Canada Data Showing Vaccinated Mostly Infected

February 19th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Just more data that dispel the propaganda that COVID vaccines work:

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense