COVID mRNA Vaccines: Two Pilot Incapacitations

August 13th, 2023 by Dr. William Makis

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Aug. 9, 2023 – United Airlines UAL1309 SRQ-EWR pilot had a heart attack and lost consciousness in flight!

Aug. 7, 2023 – TigerAir Flight IT237 (CTS-TPE) Sapporo, Japan to Taipei, Taiwan, co-pilot had a medical emergency right after landing plane in Taipei (click here).

Recent Pilot Incapacitations 

July 19, 2023 – Eurowings Discover Flight 4Y-1205 (HER-FRA) Heraklion to Frankfurt, pilot incapacitated, first officer took control, landed safely

July 16, 2023 – 2006 Piper Meridian, flying from Westchester NY, crashed at Martha’s Vineyard Airport after pilot had medical emergency upon final approach and passenger took control of the plane and attempted a landing

Jun.7, 2023 – Air Canada Flight ACA692 (YYZ-YYT) Toronto to St.John’s, First Officer became incapacitated, deadheading Captain assumed duties

Jun.4, 2023 – Cessna Citation N611VG flying Tennessee to Long Island, fighter jets spotted pilot slumped over in cockpit unconscious, plane crashed and all onboard died

May 11, 2023 – HiSKy Flight H4474 (DUB-KIV) Dublin to Chisinau (Moldova), 20 min after liftoff pilot became “unable to act”, plane diverted to Manchester

May 4, 2023 – British Charter TUI Airways Flight BY-1424 (NCL-LPA) Newcastle to Las Palmas Spain pilot became ill, plane diverted back to NCL.

April 4, 2023 – United Airlines Flight 2102 (BOI-SFO) – captain was incapacitated, first officer was only one in control of the aircraft.

March 25, 2023 – TAROM Flight RO-7673 TSR-HRG diverted to Bucharest as 30 yo pilot had chest pain, then collapsed

March 22, 2023 – Southwest Flight WN6013 LAS-CMH diverted as pilot collapsed shortly after take-off, replaced by non-Southwest pilot

March 18, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS739 FDF-YUL first officer was incapacitated about 200NM south of Montreal

March 13, 2023 – Emirates Flight EK205 MXP-JFK diverted due to pilot illness hour and a half after take-off

March 11, 2023 – United Airlines Flight UA2007 GUA-ORD diverted due to “incapacitated pilot” who had chest pains

March 11, 2023? – British Airways (CAI-LHR) pilot collapsed in Cairo hotel and died, was scheduled to fly Airbus A321 from Cairo to London

March, 3, 2023 – Virgin Australia Flight VA-717 ADL-PER Adelaide to Perth flight was forced to make an emergency landing after First Officer suffered heart attack 30 min after departure.

Recent Pilot Deaths

Pilot death – May 2023 – 4 Singapore Airlines pilots died suddenly in May 2023

Pilot death – May 9, 2023 – United Airlines and US Air Force Pilot Lt. Col. Michael Fugett, age 46, died unexpectedly at his home

Pilot death – May 3, 2023 – Air Transat and Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, age 48, died suddenly during layover in Croatia

Pilot death – April 13, 2023 – Phil Thomas, graduate of Flight Training Pilot academy in Cadiz, Spain (FTEJerez) died suddenly.

Pilot death – March 17, 2023 – 39 year old Westjet Pilot Benjamin Paul Vige died suddenly in Calgary

Pilot death – March 11, 2023 – British Airways pilot died of heart attack in crew hotel in Cairo before a Cairo to London flight (name & age not released

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a video released in 2018 prior to her election as Prime Minister in 2022, Giorgia Meloni blasted France (for its  usurpation of Niger’s and the 13 other former French West and Central African colonies’ wealth) especially President Macron about the shameless and continuous imposition of the French backed franc CFA in these countries.

As Prime Minister what position is she going to take against France. Arguably, the CFA franc (CFA – French acronym for Franc of the Financial Community of Africa) has for the last 50 years prevented the former French colonies to develop on their own. Despite Africa’s riches of natural resources, they have hardly moved up on the latter of economic development. Instead, they continue lingering in poverty.

Their continuous tie to the CFA franc has significantly contributed to bringing about the military coup in Niger, as well as before in Mali and Burkina Faso.

See video below.

The 2018 video went viral.

The military coup in Niger has raised many “crisis moments” — with ECOWAS threatening to interfere militarily, if the “democratically elected“ President Mohamed Bazoum, is not returned to power. The military junta under General Abdourahamane Tiani, so far has strictly refused, accusing Bazoum of being a western lackey, obeying orders from France and the EU.

Washington’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said that Russia, singling out President Putin, with the Wagner Group of mercenaries, is “taking advantage” of the Niger Coup, implying that Putin and Wagner may have been party to the coup. See this.

A military intervention in Niger [by ECOWAS, France / NATO] could set off a broader war, Antinekar al-Hassan, a political adviser to ousted President Mohamed Bazoum, told RIA Novosti.

A military intervention can hopefully be averted. President Putin early on worried that any foreign intervention may trigger a conflict way beyond Niger’s frontiers. This is clearly not in Russia’s interest as the Global South under the leadership of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is cooperating in bringing unity to Africa.

Why is this military coup appearing so much more important than the preceding three in West Africa, all within the last couple of months, Burkina Faso, Mali, and oil-rich Nigeria? Perhaps because the US has a military base in Niger? And because Niger is Africa’s largest producer of one of the world’s highest-grade uranium – an estimated 5% to 10% of world production. Niger also has petrol.

ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, threat of military intervention could easily be dismissed if we are looking only at ECOWAS as a West African economic community. But ECOWAS is more. ECOWAS is backed by France, the US and NATO. A NATO intervention in Africa, beginning with NIGER, would be fatal, not just for Africa, but for the collective Global South. It could trigger much more than just the attempt to reinstating deposed President Bazoum.

What the western media are silent about is the hundreds of years of French exploitation of West and Central Africa, which after independence in 1960 were grouped by France into two unions, West Africa (8 countries) and Central Africa (6 countries).

The two blocks of the 14 countries have a common currency, the CFA franc which is closely linked to and backed by the French Central Bank (Banque de France), which, thereby is economically enslaving the 14 countries for French benefits. Unconfirmed estimates indicate that the 14 former colonies contribute through that link between 15% and 25% to the French GDP.

See this for more details.

This reminds of Muammar al-Gaddafi, who was miserably lynched by NATO troops led by France on 20 October 2011, because he was about to introduce the Libya-backed Gold Dinar as an African-wide independent currency.   

And what is it with Washington, the EU, warning about “foreign intervention”? What these worldwide usurpers are constantly doing, is precisely this interfering in other sovereign countries internal affairs, dishing out threats and “sanctions” – for anyone defying their self-styled supremacy.

This must change. And it will, as Africa is gradually waking up to becoming their own sovereign nations, especially with the China-Russia led Global South unification effort, enhanced by reorienting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) towards the BRICS-plus and Global South.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank (30 years). He has worked for eight years in West Africa, Frances former colonies, including in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. He knows about the “CFA-arrangements” which continue making the 14 West and Central African CFA-zones dependent on France. 

He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

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

Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Those of us in the ‘resistance’ or ‘opposition’ — we skeptics who question and have questioned the covidian debacle and all of its accoutrements — seem inevitably to fall into discussions about the Jab. Deaths, adverse events, excess mortality, turbo cancers, immune dysregulation — you name it — but it is almost as if the Jab is some kind of black hole with a gravitational pull that sucks us all in and, in the end, directs our tactics and strategy rather monomaniacally for dealing with the Covidian Onslaught.

Let me be clear about my own position. From the beginning, when Covid Mania swept across the world, I felt that there was never a need for a vaccine of any kind.

Why?

First, because the illness or conglomeration of symptoms that appeared to be the result of a contagious pathogen was never as lethal as the Corporate Media led us to believe. It was, in fact, no more lethal than a bad flu, as eminent epidemiologist John Ioannidis demonstrated relatively early.

Second, because treatments for the illness had also been developed and appeared to have been quite successful. Third, because I had faith in sound preventive measures such as sunlight, exercise, nutrition, the vitamins C and D, among others, as well as the wisdom and strength of our natural immune response.

During one interview I said, in fact, that the only way I would receive the Covid Jab would be if I were shot dead first.

As events unfolded in 2020 and beyond, the push for the Jab as the only way out of the pandemic that never really was, became quite intense. Big Pharma could certainly smell the massive profits, profits guaranteed by agreements that absolved these manufacturers from any harms associated with their product, and governments around the world colluded by seducing, cajoling and then, ultimately, coercing people into receiving the one-size-fits-all solution.

At first they told us the Jab was our only way out, and that it prevented us from getting, transmitting and dying from Covid. The Jabs of course did nothing of the sort. Their mechanisms of action, which included tampering with our genome and manufacturing a spike protein in numbers far exceeding what could occur with a natural infection, bespoke disaster. And, indeed, disaster has befallen and disaster will, I am certain, only worsen, for those who were either naive, terrified, gullible, stupid or indifferent enough to queue up for inoculations, and for those who were coerced into receiving them upon pain of loss of income and loss of inclusion in society.

The Jab, however, disastrous as it is, is but one of a number of instruments employed to do us harm.

Let’s not forget the effects of the lockdowns, masking, ‘social’ distancing; let’s not forget the active suppression of early treatment; let’s not forget the demolition of small businesses and the upwards transfer of trillions to the already super-rich; let’s not forget the ceaseless and unremitting drumbeat of fear; let’s not forget how our medical and governmental institutions betrayed our trust; let’s not forget the intrusions upon our privacy and our bank accounts, and the stalwart push for universal health passes and digital identification.

We are, and have been, buffeted on many fronts, with a single end in sight for those in the Globalist Mafia Cartel who have been doing the buffeting: murder and enslavement.

How may we, who can see the agenda, best combat the onslaught? Is it by showing over and over the many instances of Jab-related adverse events and sudden deaths? Or is it by planting our stake in the ground in defense of basic human rights and freedoms?

I have argued and continue to argue that there will always be another Jab — in fact, there will be a plethora of Jabs in our future. The more fundamental and abiding issue is preservation of our unalienable rights to physical and mental sovereignty and freedom of expression.

We must understand that this massive and unique Covid psyops, global in scope and relentless in pressure, has been deviously constructed to be impervious to logical rebuttal. For example, a neighbour of mine who nearly died from a blood clot, was told by her doctors not that the Covid Jab may have been a causative factor, but that Covid itself was. In the face of our rightful assertions that the Covid Jab is dangerous, a Jab recipient who is healthy will think we’re crazy, thanks to fate, human individuality and resilience, and/or variable Jab batches.

It is now time for us to draw the larger picture for those who are sitting on the fence or wandering the pastures on its other side. The larger picture of how the Few are oppressing the Many, of how the rights we are born with — rights not conferred or bequeathed by governments — are being trampled, and how censoring dissident and questioning voices is never and has never been the work of democratically-oriented societies.

At the Parliament Protest of 2022 here in Wellington, New Zealand, people from all walks and echelons of the citizenry came together, in unity, against the unlawful and unjustifiable imposition of mandates, against the usurpation of our most cherished, fundamental and precious human inheritance: autonomy and freedom.

Directing our energies to this transcendent matter, the matter of preserving autonomy and freedom and choice, is paramount — and positive — and far more likely to breach the resistance of sleepwalkers than a focus on the perils of the Jab which they themselves have taken so readily, given their unshakable and unquestioning belief in the wondrous benevolence of vaccine medicine.

Let’s get started, let’s emphasize freedom and social connections and a new way of healing and let us, in so doing, lead by example.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Obama administration began the US military occupation of Syria in November 2015. Obama sold the public on the idea of fighting ISIS, but in reality military personnel of Syria, Russia, Iraq and Iran were already on the group and ultimately defeated ISIS in Syria.

The real reason behind the US invasion and occupation of Syria, now lasting eight years, and with no end in sight, was to prevent the Syrian government, and its citizens, from benefiting from the oil wells in the north east.

Those oil wells had supplied the domestic consumption of gasoline, diesel home heating fuel, diesel truck fuel, and the production of electricity.

Since then, Syrians have had a chronic shortage of gasoline, diesel and have almost no electricity for homes, offices, businesses, schools and hospitals The national grid is dependent on converting petroleum into electricity at the various power stations. Syrians are living with just two to three hours of electricity per 24 hours, in three increments.

Due to US sanctions, Syria can’t buy energy products easily. The sanctions and occupation are designed to keep the Syrian people deprived of even the most basic daily needs.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse.com interviewed Glenn Diesen, Professor, of the University of South-Eastern Norway.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): Recently, the US military sent reinforcement to east of Syria where they are illegal occupying the largest oil wells in Syria. In your opinion, what is the US planning there?

Glenn Diesen (GD): We have seen growing military pressure against the US in Syria to compel the Americans to end their occupation of Syria. The US will strengthen its position to withstand these efforts. Besides plundering Syria, the US must also ensure that the region recognizes the US as the dominant force in the region. Once states in the region no longer believe that the US will have the final say, then they will start to become more self-reliant by seeking alternative security arrangements, or pursuing peace agreements. The political power of the US derives to a large extent from its ability to demonstrate its military dominance.

SS: In both Ukraine and Syria, Russia and the US are in a military conflict. Recently, the US was complaining about Russian airplanes operating in Syria, where they are targeting the Radical Islamic terrorists such as ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra. In your opinion, will this result in open conflict, and where?

GD: Russia is increasing pressure on the American troops to push them out of Syria. This can also be considered to be horizontal escalation to the conflict in Ukraine where the Americans are in a position to kill Russian soldiers, but the Russians do not have any possibility to impose direct costs on the Americans. Neither the Russians nor the Americans want this to escalate into a direct hot war between the two nuclear powers; however, they are both prepared to risk such a war by increasing pressure on the other side. However, the US still prefers to fight Russia through proxies such as Islamic terrorist groups in Syria. 

SS: China brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which took America by surprise. In your view, how do you see the American reaction to this new relationship? 

GD: The political influence of the US in the region largely derives from its role as a security provider, and therefore has an interest in perpetuating the conflicts. US hegemony therefore depends on dividing regions of the world into dependent and obedient allies on one side, and weakened adversaries on the other. The US openly expressed its dissatisfaction with the Chinese-brokered deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran as they want the military pressure on Iran to endure and they want to maintain their influence over Saudi Arabia. The US is also very apprehensive about the strength of China, that is displacing US power across the world. 

SS: US president Joe Biden has a very strained relationship with Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has decided to act decisively on the world stage. In your opinion, will America allow Saudi Arabia to fall from their grasp?

GD: Saudi Arabia is seeking an ideal position in the nascent multipolar world, which is to establish good relations with all the great powers. By diversifying its partnerships, Saudi Arabia can avoid excessive dependence on any one state and thus enjoy greater political autonomy. The US will predictably attempt to restore its control over Saudi Arabia, and therefore push for Saudi Arabia to sever its ties with other great powers such as China and Russia. This can only be achieved by stoking tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran as this will increase Saudi security dependence on the US and it must therefore follow US orders. The US always aims to convert security dependence into economic and political loyalties, thus US power is conditioned on conflict.    

SS: The US-Turkish relationship has been strained for years while the US supports the Kurds, who Turkey considers terrorists. In your view, now that President Erdogan has been re-elected, and has such a big role to play in Ukraine, will the US re-evaluate their support of the Kurds? 

GD: The US has more than once used the Kurds as a proxy against regional adversaries, and then abandoned the Kurds once they have served their purpose for the Americans. It is still unclear what path the Americans will take, but they obviously face a dilemma between continuing to use the Kurds to advance US objectives in Syria or improving US relations with Turkey. 

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

Inglorious Politics: The Hunter Biden Problem

August 13th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In May last year, the Washington Post ran a fairly typical piece about what the paper perceives as an unjustified conservative mania regarding President Joe Biden’s son. While those in the US worried “about such things as inflation and the war in Ukraine, the top concerns of congressional Republicans can be ranked roughly as follows: 1) Hunter Biden; 2) Hunter Biden; 3) Hunter Biden; 4) Hunter Biden.”

None of this can get away from the fact that Hunter Biden is an inkblot for his father and the Democrats. What matters is how big that blot is, and how far the ink has gone through the copybook. For Republicans, and Donald Trump in particular, the blot is so large as to be visible from space, an electoral opportunity to quarry and mine. When cocaine was found in the West Wing of the White House, Trump jumped at the chance via posts on Truth Social to link father and son in a seamless charge of criminal collusion.

“Get Deranged Jack Smith to take just a ‘tiny’ portion of the millions of dollars he is spending illegally ‘targeting’ me, and let him go to the White House with his army of thugs to solve the Cocaine dilemma.”

The inevitable question followed:

“Is it Crooked Joe and his wonderful son, Hunter? Release the findings, release the tapes. We can’t have a crackhead in charge of our Nuclear Arsenal!!!”

Trump’s social media effusions agitated Hunter sufficiently to encourage his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, to send a cease and desist letter in July to the former president, insisting that Trump’s comments had “caused harm in the past and threaten to do so again if he does not stop”. According to Lowell,

“The Biden family was not at the White House (let alone in the vestibule) in the period when the cocaine was found.”

The congressional GOP have also toyed with the idea of impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden, which would be, at this point, a long bow indeed. The whole matter is also wearing a bit thin with some party members, with Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, suggesting that the party focus on “the economy, the border, crime”.

For the Democrats, Hunter’s own fate does not deserve discussion. This, to say the least, is problematic. When his father entered the White House, Hunter’s own salty resume was always going to surface as an issue, be it the more prurient details, a history of drug addiction and various international business dealings in both Ukraine and China. The latter were always going to raise questions about the paternal connection. (For its part, the White House has repeatedly denied any involvement in such dealings.)

One issue that has not gone away is Hunter’s lengthy legal battle with his former personal assistant Lunden Roberts, with whom he fathered a child in 2018. It took a DNA test to confirm his paternity of Navy Joan, who has been a notable absentee in the scrubbed public image of President Biden, the family man. Media reports and releases continue to mention Joe Biden’s six grandchildren, omitting the seventh.

“The Bidens have taken such great pains to avoid acknowledging Navy Joan,” write Molly Olmstead and Christina Cauterucci in Slate, “that it has begun to make the president and first lady look callous.”

Last month, Hunter and his lawyers attempted to enter a plea deal with the Department of Justice relating to various charges covering tax payments and guns. This included a guilty plea for misdemeanour counts for not paying, in timely fashion, his 2017 and 2018 taxes. As part of the deal, he would have also been charged, though not prosecuted, for purchasing a handgun in 2018 while using drugs, on the proviso that he remain clean for two years and agree never to own a firearm again. The plea deal subsequently collapsed, quashed by US District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika as being “unusual” in its proposed resolution of the gun charge, and for using “non standard” terms.

The polls regarding the Hunter problem are mixed. One Reuters/Ipsos poll found that half of the respondents, including 1 in 3 Democrats, felt that Hunter was getting more generous treatment from prosecutors by virtue of his father being the president. Not that this would necessarily affect their 2024 vote: the polarities of US politics have petrified.

The latest addition to the ongoing saga comes in an announcement by Attorney General Merrick Garland that David Weiss, the federal prosecutor responsible for investigating Hunter since 2019 when he was made attorney general for Delaware, will be given special counsel powers. This will enable him “to continue the investigation, take any investigative steps he wanted, and make the decision whether to prosecute in any district.”

The US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for its part, was unimpressed. Its chairman, James Comer (R-Ky) accused the DOJ of attempting “a Biden family coverup in light of the House Oversight Committee’s mounting evidence of President Biden’s role in his family schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.”

The Democrats nurse their own paranoid demons and obsessions, crowned in no small part by their terror of Trump and their own imbecilities for having selected Hillary Clinton as their candidate in 2016.  Having lost to the orange-hued demon that year, the party has made it its one object to make sure the keys to the White House will be forever out of his reach. While the GOP concocts its own fantasies of the Father-Son nexus of alleged crime and corruption in the Biden family, all manner of conspiracies have been confected by the Democrats to achieve much the same aim. These, it should be said, keep company with genuine, prima facie assertions of impropriety, if not outright illegality on Trump’s part.

In the mix of loathing and paranoia, it has become hard to disentangle the fable of Russiagate with Trump’s own electoral interference in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The paranoid, desperate mind rejects such distinctions, fusing demonology and fact.  It is precisely that state of mind, so ascendant in US politics today, that makes Hunter a political liability. How it computes electorally is something that remains enigmatic.

*

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

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

Featured image: This caricature of Hunter Biden was adapted from in the public domain from the US Congress (PDF). The body was adapted from in the public domain from The White House’s Flickr photostream.

The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami

August 12th, 2023 by Ellen Brown

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

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

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

First published on March 25, 2023

***

On Friday, March 10, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapsed and was taken over by federal regulators. SVB was the 16th largest bank in the country and its bankruptcy was the second largest in U.S. history, following Washington Mutual in 2008. Despite its size, SVB was not a “systemically important financial institution” (SIFI) as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires insolvent SIFIs to “bail in” the money of their creditors to recapitalize themselves. 

Technically, the cutoff for SIFIs is $250 billion  in assets. However, the reason they are called “systemically important” is not their asset size but the fact that their failure could bring down the whole financial system. That designation comes chiefly from their exposure to derivatives, the global casino that is so highly interconnected that it is a “house of cards.” Pull out one card and the whole house collapses. SVB held $27.7 billion in derivatives, no small sum, but it is only 0.05% of the $55,387 billion ($55.387 trillion) held by JPMorgan, the largest U.S. derivatives bank.

SVB could be the canary in the coal mine foreshadowing the fate of other over-extended banks, but its collapse is not the sort of “systemic risk” predicted to trigger “contagion.” As reported by CNN:

“Despite initial panic on Wall Street, analysts said SVB’s collapse is unlikely to set off the kind of domino effect that gripped the banking industry during the financial crisis.

‘The system is as well-​capitalized and liquid as it has ever been,’ Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi said. ‘The banks that are now in trouble are much too small to be a meaningful threat to the broader system.’

No later than Monday morning, all insured depositors will have full access to their insured deposits, according to the FDIC. It will pay uninsured depositors an ‘advance dividend within the next week.’”

A fuller report on the collapse of SVB will have to wait on developments that occur over the weekend and soon thereafter.

This column, meanwhile, focuses on derivatives and is a followup to my Feb. 23  column on the “bail in” provisions of the 2010 Dodd Frank Act, which eliminated taxpayer bailouts by requiring insolvent SIFIs to recapitalize themselves with the funds of their creditors. “Creditors” are defined to include depositors, but deposits under $250,000 are protected by FDIC insurance. However, the FDIC fund is sufficient to cover only about 2% of the $9.6 trillion in U.S. insured deposits. A nationwide crisis triggering bank runs across the country, as happened in the early 1930s, would wipe out the fund. Today, some financial pundits are predicting a crisis of that magnitude in the quadrillion dollar-plus derivatives market, due to rapidly rising interest rates. This column looks at how likely that is and what can be done either to prevent it or dodge out of the way.

“Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”

In 2002, mega-investor Warren Buffett wrote that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction.” At that time, their total “notional” value (the value of the underlying assets from which the “derivatives” were “derived”) was estimated at $56 trillion. Investopedia reported in May 2022 that the derivatives bubble had reached an estimated $600 trillion according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and that the total is often estimated at over $1 quadrillion.  No one knows for sure, because most of the trades are done privately.

As of the third quarter of 2022, according to the “Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities” of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the federal bank regulator),  a total of 1,211 insured U.S. national and state commercial banks and savings associations held derivatives, but 88.6% of these were concentrated in only four large banks: J.P. Morgan Chase ($54.3 trillion), Goldman Sachs ($51 trillion), Citibank ($46 trillion), Bank of America ($21.6 trillion), followed by Wells Fargo ($12.2 trillion). A full list is here. Unlike in 2008-09, when the big derivative concerns were mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, today the largest and riskiest category is interest rate products.

The original purpose of derivatives was to help farmers and other producers manage the risks of dramatic changes in the markets for raw materials. But in recent times they have exploded into powerful vehicles for leveraged speculation (borrowing to gamble). In their basic form, derivatives are just bets – a giant casino in which players hedge against a variety of changes in market conditions (interest rates, exchange rates, defaults, etc.). They are sold as insurance against risk, which is passed off to the counterparty to the bet. But the risk is still there, and if the counterparty can’t pay, both parties lose. In “systemically important” situations, the government winds up footing the bill.

Like at a race track, players can bet although they have no interest in the underlying asset (the horse). This has allowed derivative bets to grow to many times global GDP and has added another element of risk: if you don’t own the barn on which you are betting, the temptation is there to burn down the barn to get the insurance. The financial entities taking these bets typically hedge by betting both ways, and they are highly interconnected. If counterparties don’t get paid, they can’t pay their own counterparties, and the whole system can go down very quickly, a systemic risk called “the domino effect.”

That is why insolvent SIFIs had to be bailed out in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-09, first with $700 billion of taxpayer money and then by the Federal Reserve with “quantitative easing.” Derivatives were at the heart of that crisis. Lehman Brothers was one of the derivative entities with bets across the system. So was insurance company AIG, which managed to survive due to a whopping $182 billion bailout from the U.S. Treasury; but Lehman was considered too weakly collateralized to salvage. It went down, and the Great Recession followed.

Risks Hidden in the Shadows

Derivatives are largely a creation of the “shadow banking” system, a group of financial intermediaries that facilitates the creation of credit globally but whose members are not subject to regulatory oversight. The shadow banking system also includes unregulated activities by regulated institutions. It includes the repo market, which evolved as a sort of pawn shop for large institutional investors with more than $250,000 to deposit. The repo market is a safe place for these lenders, including pension funds and the U.S. Treasury, to park their money and earn a bit of interest. But its safety is insured not by the FDIC but by sound collateral posted by the borrowers, preferably in the form of federal securities.

As explained by Prof. Gary Gorton:

“This banking system (the “shadow” or “parallel” banking system) – repo based on securitization – is a genuine banking system, as large as the traditional, regulated banking system. It is of critical importance to the economy because it is the funding basis for the traditional banking system. Without it, traditional banks will not lend and credit, which is essential for job creation, will not be created.”

While it is true that banks create the money they lend simply by writing loans into the accounts of their borrowers, they still need liquidity to clear withdrawals; and for that they largely rely on the repo market, which has a daily turnover just in the U.S. of over $1 trillion. British financial commentator Alasdair MacLeod observes that the derivatives market was built on cheap repo credit. But interest rates have shot up and credit is no longer cheap, even for financial institutions.

According to a December 2022 report by the BIS, $80 trillion in foreign exchange derivatives that are off-balance-sheet (documented only in the footnotes of bank reports) are about to reset (roll over at higher interest rates). Financial commentator George Gammon discusses the threat this poses in a podcast he calls, “BIS Warns of 2023 Black Swan – A Derivatives Time Bomb.” Another time bomb in the news is Credit Suisse, a giant Swiss derivatives bank that was hit with an $88 billion run on its deposits by large institutional investors late in 2022. The bank was bailed out by the Swiss National Bank through swap lines with the U.S. Federal Reserve at 3.33% interest.

The Perverse Incentives Created by “Safe Harbor” in Bankruptcy

In The New Financial Deal: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act and Its (Unintended) Consequences, Prof. David Skeel refutes what he calls the “Lehman myth”—the widespread belief that Lehman’s collapse resulted from the decision to allow it to fail. He blames the 2005 safe harbor amendment to the bankruptcy law, which says that the collateral posted by insolvent borrowers for both repo loans and derivatives has “safe harbor” status exempting it from recovery by the bankruptcy court. When Lehman appeared to be in trouble, the repo and derivatives traders all rushed to claim the collateral before it ran out, and the court had no power to stop them.

So why not repeal the amendment? In a 2014 article titled “The Roots of Shadow Banking,” Prof. Enrico Perotti of the University of Amsterdam explained that the safe harbor exemption is a critical feature of the shadow banking system, one it needs to function. Like traditional banks, shadow banks create credit in the form of loans backed by “demandable debt”—short-term loans or deposits that can be recalled on demand. In the traditional banking system, the promise that the depositor can get his money back on demand is made credible by government-backed deposit insurance and access to central bank funding. The shadow banks needed their own variant of “demandable debt,” and they got it through the privilege of “super-priority” in bankruptcy. Perotti wrote:

Safe harbor status grants the privilege of being excluded from mandatory stay, and basically all other restrictions. Safe harbor lenders, which at present include repos and derivative margins, can immediately repossess and resell pledged collateral. This gives repos and derivatives extraordinary super-priority over all other claims, including tax and wage claims, deposits, real secured credit and insurance claims. [Emphasis added.]

The dilemma of our current banking system is that lenders won’t advance the short-term liquidity needed to fund repo loans without an ironclad guarantee; but the guarantee that makes the lender’s money safe makes the system itself very risky. When a debtor appears to be on shaky ground, there will be a predictable stampede by favored creditors to grab the collateral, in a rush for the exits that can propel an otherwise-viable debtor into bankruptcy; and that is what happened to Lehman Brothers.

Derivatives were granted “safe harbor” because allowing them to fail was also considered a systemic risk. It could trigger the “domino effect,” taking the whole system down. The error, says Prof. Skeel, was in passage of the 2005 safe harbor amendment. But the problem with repealing it now is that we will get the domino effect, in the collapse of both the quadrillion dollar derivatives market and the more than trillion dollars traded daily in the repo market.

The Interest Rate Shock

Interest rate derivatives are particularly vulnerable in today’s high interest rate environment. From March 2022 to February 2023, the prime rate (the rate banks charge their best customers) shot up from 3.5% to 7.75%, a radical jump. Market analyst Stephanie Pomboy calls it an “interest rate shock.” It won’t really hit the market until variable-rate contracts reset, but $1 trillion in U.S. corporate contracts are due to reset this year, another trillion next year, and another trillion the year after that.

A few bank bankruptcies are manageable, but an interest rate shock to the massive derivatives market could take down the whole economy. As Michael Snyder wrote in a 2013 article titled “A Chilling Warning About Interest Rate Derivatives:”

Will rapidly rising interest rates rip through the U.S. financial system like a giant lawnmower blade? Yes, the U.S. economy survived much higher interest rates in the past, but at that time there were not hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of interest rate derivatives hanging over our financial system like a Sword of Damocles.

… [R]ising interest rates could burst the derivatives bubble and cause “massive bankruptcies around the globe” [quoting Mexican billionaire Hugo Salinas Price]. Of course there are a whole lot of people out there that would be quite glad to see the “too big to fail” banks go bankrupt, but the truth is that if they go down, our entire economy will go down with them. … Our entire economic system is based on credit, and just like we saw back in 2008, if the big banks start failing, credit freezes up and suddenly nobody can get any money for anything.

There are safer ways to design the banking system, but they are not likely to be in place before the quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble bursts. Snyder was writing 10 years ago, and it hasn’t burst yet; but this was chiefly because the Fed came through with the “Fed Put” – the presumption that it would backstop “the market” in any sort of financial crisis. It has performed as expected until now, but the Fed Put has stripped it of its “independence” and its ability to perform its legislated duties. This is a complicated subject, but two excellent books on it are Nik Bhatia’s Layered Money (2021) and Lev Menand’s The Fed Unbound: Central Banking in a Time of Crisis (2022).

Today the Fed appears to be regaining its independence by intentionally killing the Fed Put, with its push to raise interest rates. (See my earlier article here.) It is still backstopping the offshore dollar market with “swap lines,” arrangements between central banks of two countries to keep currency available for member banks,  but the latest swap line rate for the European Central Bank is a pricey 4.83%. No more “free lunch” for the banks.

Alternative Solutions

Alternatives that have been proposed for unwinding the massive derivatives bubble include repealing the safe harbor amendment and imposing a financial transaction tax, typically a 0.1% tax on all financial trades. But those proposals have been around for years and Congress has not taken up the call. Rather than waiting for Congress to act, many commentators say we need to form our own parallel alternative monetary systems.

Crypto proponents see promise in Bitcoin; but as Alastair MacLeod observes, Bitcoin’s price is too volatile for it to serve as a national or global reserve currency, and it does not have the status of enforceable legal tender. MacLeod’s preferred alternative is a gold-backed currency, not of the 19th century variety that led to bank runs when the banks ran out of gold, but of the sort now being proposed by Sergey Glazyev for the Eurasian Economic Union. The price of gold would be a yardstick for valuing national currencies, and physical gold could be used as a settlement medium to clear trade balances.

Lev Menand, author of The Fed Unbound, is an Associate Professor at Columbia Law School who has worked at the New York Fed and the U.S. Treasury. Addressing the problem of the out-of-control unregulated shadow banking system, he stated in a July 2022 interview with The Hill, “I think that one of the great possible reforms is the public banking movement and the replication of successful public bank enterprises that we have now in some places, or that we’ve had in the past.”

Certainly, for our local government deposits, public banks are an important solution. State and local governments typically have far more than $250,000 deposited in SIFI banks, but local legislators consider them protected because they are “collateralized.” In California, for example, banks taking state deposits must back them with collateral equal to 110% of the deposits themselves. The problem is that derivative and repo claimants with “supra-priority” can wipe out the entirety of a bankrupt bank’s collateral before other “secured” depositors have access to it.

Our tax dollars should be working for us in our own communities, not capitalizing failing SIFIs on Wall Street. Our stellar (and only) state-owned model is the Bank of North Dakota, which carried North Dakota through the 2008-09 financial crisis with flying colors. Post-GFC (the Global Financial Crisis of ’07-’09), it earned record profits reinvesting the state’s revenues in the state, while big commercial banks lost billions in the speculative markets. Several state legislatures currently have bills on their books following the North Dakota precedent.

For a federal workaround, we could follow the lead of Jesse Jones’ Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which funded the New Deal that pulled the country out of the Great Depression. A bill for a national investment bank currently in Congress that has widespread support is based on that very effective model, avoiding the need to increase taxes or the federal debt.

All those alternatives, however, depend on legislation, which may be too late. Meanwhile, self-sufficient “intentional” communities are growing in popularity, if that option is available to you. Community currencies, including digital currencies, can be used for trade. They can be “Labor Dollars” or “Food Dollars” backed by the goods and services for which the community has agreed to accept them. (See my earlier article here.) The technology now exists to form a network of community cryptocurrencies that are asset-backed and privacy-protected, but that is a subject for another column.

The current financial system is fragile, volatile and vulnerable to systemic shocks. It is due for a reset, but we need to ensure that the system is changed in a way that works for the people whose labor and credit support it. Our hard-earned deposits are now the banks’ only source of cheap liquidity. We can leverage that power by collaborating in a way that serves the public interest.

*

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

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from ScheerPost

Zelensky rilancia la guerra alla corruzione. Tolleranza zero contro corrotti e contro quanti si arricchiscono con la guerra”: così titola l’Avvenire dando l’immagine di un presidente semplice e onesto, che rinuncia a qualsiasi privilegio e combatte la corruzione.  Questa immagine, veicolata dall’intero mainstream politico-mediatico, viene demolita dall’inchiesta di Scott Ritter “Agente Zelensky”. Scott Ritter, militare di carriera nei Marines USA e specializzato in intelligence, dette prova di onestà intellettuale e coraggio quando, messo a capo degli ispettori ONU in Iraq nel 1991-1998,  concluse che l’Iraq non possedeva armi di distruzione di massa e si oppose pubblicamente alla guerra del 2003. Il suo docufilm d’inchiesta mostra le società offshore costituite da Zelensky e soci in paradisi fiscali, attraverso le quali “i suoi burattinai gli hanno fornito un cuscinetto finanziario” con un primo versamento di 41 milioni di dollari. Mostra le lussuose ville che Zelenski possiede a Miami (solo questa vale 34 milioni di dollari), in Israele, in Italia a Forte dei Marmi, a Londra, in Georgia, in Grecia e anche in Crimea (unico investimento sbagliato perché ora Zelensky non ne ha più la proprietà).

L’inchiesta di Scott Ritter demolisce allo stesso tempo la falsa storia che la Russia distrugge il grano ucraino e affama così l’Africa. La realtà è che la Cargill e altre multinazionali agroalimentari si stanno impadronendo delle migliori terre ucraine e usano il grano qui prodotto per le proprie strategie. In tale quadro rientra il piano statunitense di ridurre la sicurezza alimentare dell’Europa per meglio controllare gli stessi paesi alleati.

L’Ucraina – dimostra l’inchiesta – non solo viene derubata delle sue terre, svendute da Zelensky e soci alle multinazionali, ma viene sempre più indebitata. Le enormi forniture militari che riceve  dagli Stati Uniti e dalle maggiori potenze europee non vengono regalate ma date a credito. L’Ucraina ha così già accumulato un debito estero tale che occorrerebbero secoli per ripagarlo. Tale debito crescerà ulteriormente con la “ricostruzione” che Zelensky ha messo nelle mani della statunitense BlackRock, la maggiore società di investimenti del mondo.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Originally published on March 22, 2018.  March 19-20, 2023 Commemorates the Illegal Invasion of Iraq 

Introduction

After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers

Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts” and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of 6six million Jews killed during WWI, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

37 victim nations

Afghanistan

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)

Angola

An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan

Bolivia

Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: South America: Operation Condor

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam

Chad

An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.

Chile

The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.

What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China

An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War. For more information, See: Korea.

Colombia

One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.

Cuba

In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)

East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)

During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)

Grenada

The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.

Guatemala

In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)

One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)

Haiti

From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.

Honduras

In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)

Hungary

In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.” (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)

Indonesia

In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)

From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)

Iran

Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)

Iraq

A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded

Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)

Laos

From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.

Also see Vietnam

Nepal

Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)

Nicaragua

In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.

Pakistan

In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)

Panama

In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Ferdinand Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)

Sudan

Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)

*

James A. Lucas can be contacted at [email protected].

Notes

Afghanistan

1. Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2. Chronology of American State Terrorism

3. Soviet War in Afghanistan

4. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5. U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia

6. ‘The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski’, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

7. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8. UnknownNews.net

Angola

1. Howard W. French, “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War”, New York Times3/31/02

2. ‘Angolan Update’, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3. Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4. Lance Selfa, ‘U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter’, International Socialist Review, Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears on thirdworldtraveler.com)

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bolivia

1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02

2. Jerry Meldon, ‘Return of Bolivia’s Drug – Stained Dictator’, Consortium News

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor

Cambodia

1. Virtual Truth Commission

2. David Model, ‘President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia‘, excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005

3. Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.

Chad

1. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2. Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in ChadZnet/Activism 12/4/06

Chile

1. Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3. moreorless.au.com: ‘Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte’

4. Associated Press, ‘Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regime’s Abuses’, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5. Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.

China: See Korea

Colombia

1. Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

2. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3. Millions Killed by ImperialismWashington Post May 6, 2002)

4. Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in ColombiaTimes, Dec. 5, 1996

5. Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: ‘Colombia’s Killer Networks–The Military-Paramilitary Partnership’

Cuba

1. St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasion

2. Wikipedia

Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1. F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw, The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003

3. Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in CongoU. S. News and World Report

4. William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5. Ibid., p. 260

6. Ibid., p. 259

7. Ibid., p.262

8. David Pickering, ‘World War in Africa‘, 6/26/02

9. William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, ‘Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War’, Arms Trade Resource Center, January , 2000

Dominican Republic

1. Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005. Intervention Spin Cycle

2. Wikipedia

3. William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1. Virtual Truth Commission

2. Matthew Jardine, ‘Unraveling Indonesia’, Nonviolent Activist, 1997

3. Chronology of American State Terrorism

4. William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5. ‘US trained butchers of Timor’, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999.

El Salvador

1. Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3. El Salvador, Wikipedia

4. Virtual Truth Commission

Grenada

1. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2. Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada

Guatemala

1. Virtual Truth Commission

2. Ibid.

3. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4. Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5. Douglas Farah, ‘Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses’, Washington Post, March 11, 1999, A 26

Haiti

1. Francois Duvalier

2. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3. William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest, http://www.doublestandards.org/blum8.html

Honduras

1. William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2. Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commission

3. James A. Lucas, ‘Torture Gets The Silence Treatment’, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4. Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, ‘Unearthed: Fatal Secrets’, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001

5. Michael Dobbs, ‘Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue’, Washington Post, March 21, 2005

Hungary

1. Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in DocumentsNovember 4, 2002

2. Wikipedia

Indonesia

1. Virtual Truth Commission

2. Editorial, ‘Indonesia’s Killers’, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3. Matthew Jardine, ‘Indonesia Unraveling’, Non Violent Activist, Sept – Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4. Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.

5. Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4

6. Peter Dale Scott, ‘The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967‘, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.

7. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.

Iran

1. Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2. Chronology of American State Terrorism

3. BBC, 1988: ‘US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airliner

Iraq

Iran-Iraq War

1. Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq BuildupWashington Post, December 30, 2002, p A01

2. GlobalSecurity.Org, Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1. Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2. Ibid., p. 52-54

3. Ibid., p. 43

4. Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5. Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, ‘The Children are Dying’, 1995 World View Forum, International Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6. Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7. David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions, December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1. Jonathan Bor, ‘654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War’, Baltimore Sun, October 11, 2006

2. unknownnews.net

Israeli-Palestinian War

1. Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence, May 16, 2006

2. Chronology of American State Terrorism

Korea

1. James I. Matray, ‘Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War‘, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001

2. William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3. Kanako Tokuno, ‘Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy‘, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006

4. John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported at Answers.com

6. Exploring the Environment: Korean Enigma

7. S. Brian Wilson, ‘Who are the Real Terrorists?’ Virtual Truth Commisson

8. Korean War Casualty Statistics

9. S. Brian Wilson, ‘Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea’, (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002)

Laos

1. William Blum, Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2. Chronology of American State Terrorism

3. Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul

Nepal

1. Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

2. Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/28/nepal13078.htm.

3. Wayne Madsen, ‘Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family‘, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001

Nicaragua

1. Virtual Truth Commission

2. Timeline Nicaragua

3. Chronology of American State Terrorism

4. William Blum, ‘Nicaragua 1981-1990: Destabilization in Slow Motion

5. Wikipedia

Pakistan

1. John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2. Asad Ismi, ‘A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship‘, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

3. Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4. Arjum Niaz, ‘When America Looks the Other Way

5. Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6. Bangladesh Liberation War, Wikipedia

Panama

1. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2. William Blum, Rogue States (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3. ‘U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder’, The Winds 9/96

4. Mark Zepezauer, CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Philippines

1. Romeo T. Capulong, ‘A Century of Crimes Against the Filipino People’, Presentation, Public Interest Law Center, World Tribunal for Iraq Trial in New York City on August 25, 2004

2. Roland B. Simbulan, ‘The CIA in Manila – Covert Operations and the CIA’s Hidden History in the Philippines’ Equipo Nizkor Information – Derechos

South America: Operation Condor

1. John Dinges, ‘Pulling Back the Veil on Condor‘, The Nation, July 24, 2000.

2. Virtual Truth Commission, Telling the Truth for a Better America

3. Operation Condor

Sudan

1. Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 30, 32,34,36.

2. The Black Commentator, Africa Action – ‘The Tale of Two Genocides: The Failed US Response to Rwanda and Darfur‘, 11 August 2006

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor

Vietnam

1. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press,1994), p 24

2. Casualties – US vs NVA/VC

3. Brian Wilson, Virtual Truth Commission

4. Fred Branfman, ‘U.S. War Crimes in Indochiona and our Duty to Truth‘, August 26, 2004

5. David K Shipler, ‘Robert McNamara and the Ghosts of Vietnam‘, New York Times

Yugoslavia

1. Sara Flounders, Bosnia Tragedy: The Unknown Role of the Pentagon in NATO in the Balkans (New York: International Action Center) p. 47-75

2. James A. Lucas, ‘Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited‘, Global Research, September 7, 2005

3. Yugoslav Wars in 1990s

4. George Kenney, ‘The Bosnia Calculation: How Many Have Died? Not nearly as many as some would have you think‘, NY Times Magazine, April 23, 1995

5. Chronology of American State Terrorism

6. Croatian War of Independence, Wikipedia

7. Human Rights Watch, New Figures on Civilian Deaths in Kosovo War, (February 7, 2000)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Regime Has Killed 20-30 Million People Since World War II

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

July 27, 2023, Seventy years ago is: 

“National Korean War Armistice Day, a national day of recognition to commemorate the more than 35,000 U.S. Service members who lost their lives during the Korean War.” 

That war (1950-53) initiated by President Harry Truman resulted in the death of more than 25 percent of the North Korean Population.

In 1945, Harry Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which resulted in 300,000 deaths. 

.

President Joe Biden’s Message from the White House on July 27, 2023

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 27, 2023, as National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. 

On this day, I encourage all Americans to reflect on the strength, sacrifices, and sense of duty of our Korean War Veterans and bestow upon them the high honor they deserve.  I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities that honor and give thanks to our distinguished Korean War Veterans.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

                                               JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

My message to President Joseph R. Biden.

Mr. President.

While respectfully commemorating 35,000 U.S. Service members, would it not be appropriate to acknowledge the extensive destruction and loss of life experienced by the Korean people: At least a quarter of the population of North Korea was killed as a result of extensive U.S bombings using napalm and incendiary weapons, on the orders of President Harry Truman.  

The invasion of North Korea was carried out, while casually bypassing the U.S. Congress. 

I assume Mr. President that you are familiar with the role of General Curtis LeMay who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea:

Curtis Lemay proudly responding to President Truman’s instructions confirmed his military achievements: 

“We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too.… Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?”  Strategic Air Warfare: An Interview with Generals (1988)

General Douglas MacArthur who was commander of allied forces in Korea expressed his outright disgust in relation to the decisions he undertook (mea culpa): 

“A defiant Douglas MacArthur appeared before Congress and spoke of human suffering so horrifying that his parting glimpse of it caused him to vomit.

“I have never seen such devastation,” the general told members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. At that time, in May 1951, the Korean War was less than a year old. Casualties, he estimated, were already north of 1 million.

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, “and it just curdled my stomach.”  

(quoted by the Washington Post, August 10, 2017)

President Biden: You are commemorating Armistice Day. 70 Years Later. July 27, 2023

People in South Korea are demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the signing of a peace treaty.  

Responsibility to Protect is a slogan (R2P). Would it not be timely and appropriate for the president of the United States to acknowledge and apologize for the crimes committed by the United States of America against the people of Korea? 

If you have any doubts. I suggest you have a look at the Video below. 

Yours respectfully, 

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics (emeritus)

Global Research, Montreal, July 27th, 2023, August 12, 2023

***

Video: The Criminal Bombing of North Korea

Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation, Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan. Tokyo

Speaking at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization describes how the United States presents the real threat of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

This GRTV video was first published in 2013 in the context of the 60th commemoration of the 1953 Armistice Agreement.

 

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More than a year after Imran Khan brandished a document at a public rally, claiming it was a diplomatic cable that substantiated US effort to dethrone him from the position of Prime Minister of Pakistan, a news website based in the United States released the purported classified document on Wednesday, August 9. 2023.

The encrypted message, published by The Intercept, allegedly quotes a senior US diplomat suggesting that Pakistan’s relations with US and Europe would improve if the former cricketer was not at the helm.

In April 2022, Khan was ousted as prime minister after a parliamentary vote of no confidence by the joint opposition alliance. He is currently jailed after being sentenced for corruption allegations. After the conviction, the Election Commission disqualified him from running for office for five years.

A month earlier, senior State Department official Donald Lu attended a lunch for outgoing Pakistani ambassador Asad Majeed Khan at the latter’s residence in Washington. The alleged diplomatic cable at the centre of the political controversy was based on the discussions at the lunch sent by the Pakistani diplomat to headquarters in Islamabad.

At the start of the discussions, as per the note published by The Intercept, Lu conveyed that there was a lot of unhappiness over Pakistan’s policy on Ukraine. Russia had begun the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, just as Imran Khan was enroute Moscow on a state visit. Thereafter, Pakistan had also abstained on various UN resolutions that criticised Russia on the Ukraine war.

The note stated that Lu said that it was “quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy”, indicating that the military establishment was not on the same page.

Lu added that the view was that this policy over Russia was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face”. The Pakistani ambassador apparently responded that this wasn’t a correct reading of the developments.

The following key excerpt from the diplomatic cable is where Lu refers to the disenchantment over Khan. He conveyed, as per the version transcribed by the Pakistani diplomat, that if Khan lost the no-confidence vote, it will be easier for US and its western allies to quickly mend frayed diplomatic ties with Pakistan,

I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.

In another part of the published cable, the Pakistani diplomat accused the US of being tougher on Pakistan while going easy on India – which had also taken a neutral position on the Ukraine war.

Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”

The article also said that the document was “provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source in the Pakistani military who said that they had no ties to Imran Khan or Khan’s party”.

According to Dawn, despite this disclaimer by The Intercept about the source, “many believe that the source of the leak could be the PTI itself”.

The newspaper said that timing of the alleged cable’s publication “seems quite significant, as it comes in the wake of the imprisonment of Imran Khan over charges of graft in the Toshakhana case”. It noted that as per protocol, only a limited number of senior officials had access to the confidential cable, which included the prime minister, foreign minister and army chief.

‘Massive crime’ Says Shehbaz Sharif

In an interview with WE News today, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was asked about The Intecept‘s story.

While the Pakistan government’s tenure ended at Wednesday midnight, he said that duringtwo meetings of the National Security Committee on the cypher were held under his leadership.

“In one of the meetings, former ambassador and foreign secretary Asad Majeed clearly stated that there was no discussion of a conspiracy in his meeting with Donald Lu,” he said.

He added that if the contents of the cypher are true and they were published in an international media outlet, “then it is a massive crime”.

Rana Sanaullah Khan, interior minister in Sharif cabinet, tweeted that there had to be an investigation to establish the authenticity of the document. “Potentially, it is a very sinister, treacherous, and seditious act,” he said.

Indicating that the article could be the basis of further action, the interior minister noted that Khan had stated that he had a “copy of the cypher, which he has not returned and has accepted (on record) that he misplaced or lost it”.

“If proven guilty, Khan should be tried under the Official Secret Act,” he tweeted.

At a media briefing on Wednesday in Washington, the US State department spokesperson Mathew Miller confirmed that the US had expressed its concern both privately and publicly about Imran Khan’s visit to Moscow.

“We express concern privately to the Government of Pakistan, as we express concern publicly, about the visit of then Prime Minister Khan to Moscow on the very day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We made that concern quite clear,” he said in response to a media query.

While refusing to authenticate the document, Miller added that the comments in the published note “were accurate as reported, they in no way show the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan ought to be”.

“The allegations that the United States has interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false, as we have stated they were false. They were always false and they remain false,” he stated.

When pointed out that the remarks could be construed as regime change due to the US’s history of ousting leaders in other countries, Miller noted,

“I will say that I can understand how those comments, number one, could be taken out of context; and number two, how people might have the desire for them to be taken out of context, and might try to use them to advance an agenda that is not represented by the comments themselves.”

In the run-up to the no-confidence vote, Khan had first mentioned the “foreign plot” when he wave a document and claimed that it was “credible proof” of a conspiracy to remove him from office. On March 31, his government issued a demarche to the US embassy to make a formal protest that the United States had backed the opposition on the no-confidence vote.

The US state department had then said that there “no truth” to the allegations made by Khan.

Four days later, in a televised address to his party lawmakers, Khan named US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu as having reportedly warned in a meeting with Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed that there could be implications if he survived the opposition’s no-confidence motion in the National Assembly.

Image: Donald Lu. Photo: US Department of State, Public Domain

Incidentally, Khan had this February gone back on his earlier allegations targeting the United States and accused former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa for being responsible for his ouster.

“Whatever happened, now as things unfold, it wasn’t the US who told Pakistan [to oust me]. It was unfortunately, from what evidence has come up, [former army chief] Gen [Qamar Javed] Bajwa who somehow managed to tell the Americans that I was anti-American. And so, it [the plan to oust me] wasn’t imported from there. It was exported from here to there,” he told Voice of America in an interview.

Last month, the cipher controversy again came back to top headlines of the Pakistani media after alleged “confession” of Imran Khan’s former principal secretary surfaced. In the ‘confession’, allegedly recorded before a magistrate, Azam Khan who went ‘missing’ earlier, accused the former prime minister of using the diplomatic cable to gain political mileage and build an “anti-establishment narrative”.

As per the statement reported by Dawn on July 20, Khan was allegedly “euphoric” after reading the cipher. Azam Khan also said that a copy of the cipher was “retained by Imran Khan and the next day (March 10) when he asked for it, Imran Khan replied that he has misplaced it.” The statement claimed that the PTI chief did not return the original cipher, despite repeated requests. Imran Khan had subsequently responded that the cipher copy had not been misplaced and remained in the custody of the foreign office.

Hours after the ‘confession’ being published in the media, Rana Sanaullah held a press conference to claim that the statement was credible. Thereafter, the Federal Investigation Agency issued a notice to Imran Khan, asking him to appear before the bureau in Islamabad

The interior minister had then claimed that the cipher case was “similar to the proceedings initiated against former US President Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents”.

A day later, Imran Khan said that the cipher controversy had been dug up again to disqualify him from contesting elections and alleged that his former aide was forced to make the statement.

He claimed that the US was actually addressing the former army chief through the cipher as the latter had the power to remove his government. “My own army chief was lobbying against me and acting to topple his government that had revived the country’s economy and industry after hectic efforts,” the PTI chairman alleged on July 21.

*

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

Featured image: Imran Khan. Photo: Screengrab via Twitter

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As part of efforts to build a more resilient regional economy largely depends on several factors. What specifically is under discussion here is the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and  the strategic mechanism through which the region’s economy can be raised up to standard, taking cognizance of the fast growing population and its associated demand for employment and ensuring food security as well as sustaining certain level of appreciable living standards.

Understanding explicitly the enormous untapped resources, both natural and human, is very essential and indivisible interconnected to the West African region’s development. As we know, there are 16 member states constituting the regional bloc, ECOWAS. As mid-July 2023, the World Population Review and the World Atlas, both estimated population 439 million. More than half of the population is under the age of 25. In fact, Africa’s population is exceptionally young compared to other world regions that have been aging at a fast rate, and demographers indicated that the region’s population will experience either steady or rapid growth.

For three decades, at least, in our faculty academic studies and research, part of the written research papers at conferences unpack lessons on the relationships between demographic growth and economic development in Africa. That is to say Africa’s demographic profile has played a key role in its development. Specifically for West Africa, governments have to capitalise on its demographic profile through policies, engage them with them in various sectors especially in food production sectors for two main reasons: to ensure food security and to sustain supply of raw materials for the industry. These make it important to capture youthful working-age population.

As early as the 1990s, I suggested in one of my papers during academic heated discussions that West African governments must focused on those with a sizeable proportion of working age people – and set out policies and where appropriate adjust its development policy direction. It has to do with government policy-makers and development practitioners in the context of African development. Little late is better than never, so ultimately the growth rate is not interpreted as a barrier but rather as an impetus to drive and promote economic progress.

There are natural resources including the vast expanse of uncultivated land. Many of the surface water resources are inappropriately utilised while large amounts of deep-seated mineral resources are not exploited and use in developing the badly-needed infrastructure. Africa’s level of industrialisation still far behind expectation.

In dissecting a bit of factor analysis, politicians and economists argue and accept Africa’s huge human resources, even as the current population growth rate shows. Youth empowerment and training must also form the main key component in development policy. Today’s youth are internet savvy, future-oriented. The youth are continuing to drive major economic development, industrial production and its related emerging markets across borders.

Many people associate under development to policies. While this is partly the bulk of factors hindering development process, we may find out that modern technologies have a larger role to play here, to tackle the expected progressive changes in our present-day society. But some experts still have points of their argument, attributing them also to technological education and training as a necessary part of building the path towards a more prosperous future.

Quite recently, Kenyan President William Ruto’s article published in Business & Financial Times, underlined the various points already discussed above in this article. We know and believe that those factors can play an important role in diversifying and leveraging unto the continent’s natural endowments essential to the overall development. This is especially true, in this development paradigm, not for peculiar for West Africa but the whole of Africa.

The economic and social benefits of prioritising the factors above could be huge. Nevertheless, another major impediment is all kinds of social and political, religious and ethnic conflicts which are dominant in the society. Terrorist organisations operating in the Sahel, including Boko Haram, Islamic State and al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, have greatly exacerbated the violence, extremism and instability of the region.

As is well known, in West Africa, nearly all the 16 member states are experiencing, in one way of the other, these conflicts. For instance, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said in a report that not less than 1,100 defenseless Christians were hacked to death by Nigerian Government backed Islamic Jihadists in 60 days or between 12th April and 12th June 2023. And this is a drop in the ocean.

The Sahel is a region in Africa. It is defined as the eco-climatic and bio-geographic realm of transition between the Sahara to the north and the Sudanese savanna to the south. This belt is located between the Sahara and the coastal areas of West Africa. The political and economic situation in the Sahel region is constantly and rapidly deteriorating. There are frequent shortages of food and water due to the dry harsh climate. This is exacerbated by the population increasing rapidly due to very high birth rates across the region, Niger has the world’s highest fertility rate.

This climate change caused lakes and rivers to shrink significantly and caused increasing desertification. This, in turn, decreased the amount of land conducive to settlements and caused migrations of farming communities to the more humid climate of West Africa. For the purpose of deepening the discussion, it is therefore necessary to bring into an attentive focus particularly also the current political conflict in Sudan which has already impacted negatively on the economy, created thousands of civilian refugees and displaced persons, according to reports by the United Nations.

Rights organisations have done extensive reports about the human catastrophe and social dimensions. It is not different from what persists in other part of Africa. The Sudan’s conflict forced more than 2.4 million people to flee their homes for safer areas inside the country, according to the International Organisation for Migration.

Endemic Kleptomania, Sycophancy and Corruption

At the point, there are a few measures and steps to take in order to make development progress. Let’s get rid of incompetence and corruption because these two are central to the management of the economy of individual states in the region. Without doubt, Africa’s political history has indeed documented various scenarios of political power fraught with deep-seated corruption, lack of transparency and lack of public accountability.

And, of course, examples are abound in Europe, Asia and Africa. Corruption has been an un-erasable characteristic feature of African politics, from Maghreb down to the Southern African Development Community, from East African Community and the Horn of Africa across the Sahel to the Atlantic coastal West Africa.

Military often uses corruption as one of the reasons for overthrowing constitutionally elected governments. The practical reality is that corruption has become part and particle of African political culture, and politicians are always getting involved in flagrant violations of constitutions.

Senior writer Kate Whiting indicated in her report on the Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer – Africa 2019: “Corruption is hindering Africa’s economic, political and social development… More than this, it affects the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities.” The report attributed the deterioration of rule of law and democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media to corruption in Africa.

In July 2009, Barack Obama was right when he told political tyrants and autocratic African leaders who have enriched themselves through opaque deals that Africa’s future (including efforts to uproot all kinds of crimes, engage in sustainable development et cetera) is up to Africans. “Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans. I really don’t have to say it, but Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it rather needs strong institutions,” Obama said during his first landmark presidential trip to Africa.

Peter Fabricius, Research Consultant from the South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies (ISS), cited corruption, poor policies and strategies quite recently in his article headlined – African Coups Are Making A Come Back – as some of the factors affecting sustainable development in Africa.

Nigeria has also experienced the worst and the highest levels of corruption. In an interview, Ambassador Uche Ajulu-Okeke with thirty-year achievements in the Nigerian Foreign Service spoke about the present-day Federal Republic of Nigeria, located in West Africa. Several years after its independence, the leaders have not succeeded in rebuilding the state institutions enough to reflect all-inclusive ethnic diversity, let alone in adopting Western-style democracy that takes cognizance of different public opinions on development issues in the country. The struggle for and misuse of power have brought the country into a stalemate, disrupting any efforts to overcome the deepening economic and multiple social crisis.

She further pointed to nepotism at all levels and institutions of government. Morbid corruption. Endemic kleptomania. Ethnic cleansing and persecution of Christians and ethnic capture of the military and security apparatus of the state. Massive corruption and widespread kleptomania with indigenous ethnicities in power making strenuous effort to capture state resources to the exclusion of other ethnic groups.

William Gumede, an Honorary Associate Professor, Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand; and author of the recently released bestselling ‘Restless Nation: Making Sense of Troubled Times’ wrote a briefing paper for the Foreign Policy Centre in which he criticized Western countries for protecting their allies by turning a blind-eye to official corruption by ruling parties and leaders in the name of the so-called ‘war on terror’ or craftily overlooked corruption in order to secure mineral or oil rights as well as lucrative contracts.

“Civil society in Western countries and new emerging powers entering Africa should also hold their governments and businesses to account to ensure they are not overseeing corrupt and opaque operations. Corrupt governments, businesses and individuals – from Western as well as new emerging powers must be named and shamed in order to feel the reputable effects of corrupt activities,” he suggested in the policy paper.

Reports have elicited huge sums of illicit financial flows form African continent to Europe and United States. Simply interpreted, the gross under-development must be attributed to policy weaknesses of African leaders. The leaders are inseparable part of the economic shortfalls there is the continent. As reported, African economies have lost between $597 billion and $1.4 trillion in illicit financial flows in the past three decades. That’s nearly equal to the entire continent’s current gross domestic product. This plunder results in missed development opportunities, increased poverty, and continued injustice.

In the long-term, the best antidote to corruption is to foster values (fairness, transparency, public accountability) across the continent which reward honesty and discourage dishonesty. it is worth to keep in mind the suggestion made by the Republic of Ghana’s Vice President, Mahamudu Bawumia, who early May 2022 stated: “Building strong institutions means putting in place the right systems and practices that ensure transparency and brings about efficiency. As the saying goes, the biggest disease is corruption and the vaccine is transparency. The fact is that corrupt people hate transparency and public accountability.”

Necessity for External Collaboration

As much as external collaboration could be considered essential for development, it should not be over-emphasised here. Those external engagement must have concrete strategic aims to foster deeper collaboration between African countries and their international partners to accelerate the continent’s unacceptably slow progress.

With the new geopolitical rivalry and competition, only a few have adopted refined well-calculated strategies in engaging in the economic sectors in the West African region. Reiterating that the biggest factor that aggravates and hinders smooth development is the ceaseless and continuing senseless ethnic conflicts and civil wars and local troubles of the region. These constitute the main challenges, most possibly the obstacles for both foreign and local investors. That however, China’s economic presence is easily visible across almost all the sectors. Its interest in supporting development paradigms are admirably recognised by the states in the region.

And this is why it is important to advance economic development policies, step up by directing potential foreign players to concrete preferential economic sectors. By learning from previous experiences of colonial exploitation, and the effects of the widespread current neo-colonial tendencies and policies, we must vehemently advocate for “Africa We Want” paradigm, as agreed under the aegis of the African Union. In addition, for West Africa countries the development directions must also be designed within the protocols of the bloc ECOWAS.

At this stage, creating clear policies, West African countries can grasp their economic and demographic (human resource) potential as an ingredient for future development success. For achieving this success would require African governments to work with international partners to develop more ambitious plans to finance and realize concrete projects, while addressing good governance and transparency and accountability.

Sustainable Policies and Financial Institutions’ Support

By sharing insights on good policies and, of course, supported by financial institution are tenets of stretching towards development progress. It also beholds on financial institutions to steadfastly view their responsibility and key role (performance) towards a sustainable economy across Africa. The understanding importance of sharing innovation, knowledge and experiences to deepen and expand understanding of existing challenges and opportunities.

Resetting financial goals taking into cognizance the development needs of the population. We are talking about workable goals to achieve tangible results by a specified period of time. However, in uncertain times, it is important to review these financial goals and amend them to reflect the exigencies and needs of the changing times. Doing this helps to cope and survive in times of financial difficulties. Constantly review development budget. Some variations can highlight the influence of planning, management, cultural and social factors, and particularly relating to adaptation.

According to the United Nations estimation, West Africa including the Sahel, despite multiple development bottlenecks and challenges, is as much a land of opportunities. The UN says “although it has abundant human and natural resources, offering tremendous potential for rapid growth, there are deep-rooted challenges – environmental, political and security – that may affect the prosperity and peace of the Sahel and West Africa.

For this reason, the United Nations has come up with a unique support plan targeting, at least, 10 countries to scale up efforts to accelerate prosperity and sustainable peace in the region. Target countries: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.

The support plan highlights the enormous opportunities in the Sahel and its vast assets in natural resources, energy, tourism and culture. It is aimed at mobilizing public resources and triggering private investments in the 10 countries in support of ongoing efforts and initiatives by governments, international and regional organizations, and other partners.

The plan will bring coherence, improve coordination and strengthen collaboration with all partners in the region. It is built around the following six priority areas: Cross-border cooperation, Prevention and sustaining peace, Inclusive growth, Climate action, Renewable energy, and Women and youth empowerment.

According the United Nations, national and regional institutions, bilateral and multilateral organisations, the private sector and civil society organisations will work towards operationalising and implementing the Security Council resolutions on the Sahel.

In the end, we must seriously keep in mind the basics: women, youth and job creation must cut across all priority areas and interventions, aiming at strengthening governance, improving security and building resilience through multilateralism, as well as promoting a more integrated approach to address the humanitarian-security-development nexus as a strategy towards accelerating the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

*

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

Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club.

As an academic researcher and economist with keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particularly in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: markolconsult (at) gmail (dot) com.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I have written about mRNA vaccine treatments: NATTOKINASE, QUERCETIN, N-Acetyl CYSTINE (NAC), OLIVE LEAF, BLACK SEED/NIGELLA and 3-DAY FASTING.

BROMELAIN – enzymes derived from Pineapple stems and fruit 

Ananas comosus is one of the most popular, edible tropical fruits, and a member of the family Bromeliaceae, grown in several tropical and subtropical countries, including Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Kenya, China, and the Philippines.

For many years, the pineapple has been valued because of its pleasant, sweet taste, in addition to a wealth of nutrients such as fiber, numerous vitamins, manganese, and copper.

Due to its low calorific value, and enormous wealth of nutrients, it has become afrequent component of diets in people who are concerned with their weight. However, it is worth noting that pineapple and its compounds were successfully used in folk medicine in the past, for various health problems.

Bromelain is a key enzyme found in pineapple and has been known since 1876. Bromelain is typically extracted from the stems but can also be extracted from the fruit. Stems have higher concentration of Bromelain than the fruit.

Bromelain is made up of a variety of proteases, as well as phosphatase, glucosidase, peroxidase, cellulases, and glycoprotein (Bhattacharyya, 2008). Minor thiol endopeptidase, ananain, comosain, protease inhibitors, and organically bound calcium are all present in pineapple Bromelain (Gautam et al., 2010; Bala et al., 2013).

BROMELAIN and COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein

Sagar et al showed in Sep.2020 that Bromelain can break down spike protein (and clear it from the virus surface), also blocks spike protein binding to ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.

Akhter et al showed in Feb. 2021 that Bromelain combined with NAC (N-acetyl Cysteine) completely break down spike protein:

  • Bromelain alone altered structure of spike protein and broke down most of it
  • Bromelain combined with NAC broke down all of the spike protein
  • “Bromelain-NAC acts as a biochemical agent to destroy complex glycoproteins. Bromelain’s multipotent enzymatic competencies, dominated by the ability to disrupt glycosidic linkages, usefully complement N-Acetylcysteine’s strong power to reduce disulfide bonds”
  • Conclusion: “The potential of Bromelain-NAC on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein stabilized by disulfide bonds was examined and found to induce the unfolding of spike protein by reducing disulfide stabilizer bridges. Bromelain-NAC also showed an inhibitory effect on wild-type and spike mutant SARS-CoV-2 by inactivation of its replication capacity”

Greek researchers Kritis et al showed in Dec.2020 that Bromelain combined with Curcumin has a major impact on stopping severe COVID-19! 

  • Curcumin is a natural phenol found in Turmeric (member of ginger family)
  • Severe COVID-19 involves 3 pathways: inflammatory (cytokine storm), coagulation (thrombosis) and bradykinin cascades
  • Both Bromelain and Curcumin inhibit two of these (inflammation and coagulation) and Bromelain inhibits bradykinin as well.
  • Both Bromelain and Curcumin block binding of spike protein to ACE-2 and TMPRSS-2
  • Bromelain also increases absorption of curcumin after oral intake which is very important because curcumin on its own has very little absorption after oral intake
  • Conclusion: “Bromelain is absorbed directly when administered orally, while it substantially promotes the absorption of curcumin enhancing its bioavailability,and making this a perfect combination of immune-boosting nutraceuticals with synergistic anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant actions

BROMELAIN’s Other Benefits:

Jagadeesan et al. (Oct.2021) summarizes Bromelain’s benefits through the various mechanisms and pathways it uses:

  • anti-inflammatory properties as Bromelain inhibits prostaglandins that assist in inflammation
  • anti-inflammatory, anti-edematous, analgesic, anti-thrombotic activities by influencing the arachidonic acid and kallikrein-kinin pathways leading to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular effects
  • Anti-cancer applications…Bromelain suspends cell proliferation through activation of apoptosis
  • immunomodulatory activity due to anti-oxidant abilities and protease activity.

Polish researchers Hikisz et al. (Nov.2021) go into depth on Bromelain’s clinical benefits: 

  • ANTI-MICROBIALinhibits bacterial toxin secretion by E.Coli, V.cholerae, increases the effectiveness of antibiotics, effective bactericidal
  • ANTI-PARASITIC & ANTI-FUNGAL – due to its enzyme activity
  • CARDIOPROTECTIVE – due to anticoagulant and fibrinolytic properties, dissolves atherosclerotic plaque with high efficiency and reduces risk of atherosclerotic disease, also improves cardiac function during ischemia/reperfusion
  • BLOOD CLOTS – prevents and breaks down blood clots by numerous pathways, potent fibrinolytic agent
  • IMMUNOMODULATORY – used in treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s Disease. Also treats chronic sinusitis, osteoarthritis.
  • WOUND HEALING – it is an efficient enzymatic debridement agent for wounds, used in the treatment of burns.
  • ANALGESIC – potent analgesic, also reduces swelling.
  • ANTI-CANCER – exact mechanism unknown, theorized to inhibit tumor cell proliferation & metastasis, triggers apoptosis and triggers AUTOPHAGY. Also upregulates p53. Shown to be effective against breast cancer, melanoma, leukemias & lymphomas, GI, Colon, pancreatic and liver cancers.

Nutrients 13 04313 g001

Italian researchers Pezzani et al (Jan.2023) take a deeper dive into anti-cancer properties of Bromelain:

Safety

Due to its wide application in the food, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical industries, Bromelain should be characterized by low systemic toxicity and good absorption in the body while maintaining sufficiently high biological activity.

Animal experiments have shown that bromelain has very low toxicity with a lethal dose (LD) greater than 10 g/kg body weight. In dogs and rats treated with the extract, its cytotoxic or carcinogenic effects have not been demonstrated. Clinical tests on patients also showed no undesirable side effects of Bromelain.

Research suggests that some people may experience allergic reactions when using Bromelain. People who are allergic to pineapple are particularly vulnerable.

My Take…

You probably know about these nutraceuticals in the management of SPIKE PROTEIN TOXICITY, whether due to COVID-19 vaccine injury, Long COVID or vaccine shedding:

  • Nattokinase – breaks down spike protein
  • Quercetin, Olive Leaf, Black Seed/Nigella Sativa, Dandelion extract, Green Tea Extract (EGCG) – block spike protein from binding and doing damage
  • NAC, Selenium, Vitamin C, Quercetin, Green Tea Extract – powerful antioxidants that treat spike protein damage to organs and tissues

It is worth adding these to a SPIKE PROTEIN DETOX arsenal:

  • Bromelain or (Bromelain + NAC) – break down spike protein
  • Bromelain or (Bromelain + Curcumin) – block spike protein

Bromelain has additional benefits for the COVID-19 vaccine injured with the main ones being:

  • anti-coagulant properties
  • anti-cancer properties (upregulation of p53 may be KEY here as COVID-19 mRNA vaccines interfere with p53 which can lead to many types of cancer)

If your concern or focus is on Spike protein detox AND:

  • Blood clots – consider Nattokinase, Bromelain
  • Cancer – Quercetin, Olive Leaf, Bromelain, Black seed, Vitamin D & C
  • Heart disease – Quercetin, Olive Leaf, Bromelain, Taurine (see TWC Heart formula for other helpful nutraceuticals)
  • Diabetes – Quercetin, Olive Leaf, Black Seed
  • Neurological injury – NAC, Olive Leaf (see TWC Mito formula)
  • asthma, skin rashes, allergies – Black seed
  • Liver or kidney toxicity – NAC, Black Seed
  • Inflammatory bowel disease – NAC, Black seed
  • Gut microbiome repair – Quercetin, fermented foods, probiotics
  • Mitochondrial repair – Quercetin, CoQ, PQQ see TWC Mito formula
  • Fertility problems – NAC, Selenium, CoQ, Vit.D
  • Heavy metals and nanoparticles – NAC

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

Send Help to Hawaii, Not Ukraine

August 12th, 2023 by Jordan Schachtel

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

The Biden Administration has just announced that the White House is requesting another $24 billion for Ukraine, adding to a tally that has already well surpassed $150 billion in U.S. taxpayer supplied arms, economic assistance, and other forms of non-refundable “relief.”

The effort to pump more money into the Slava Slush Fund, despite the reality that Russian forces put the kibosh on the much hyped Ukrainian “counteroffensive,” speaks to the utter shamelessness of the D.C. Uniparty. These individuals and institutions couldn’t care less about Ukraine. They never did care about the people of Ukraine or their sovereignty. This is nothing more or less than a blatant get rich quick scheme for the defense industry in the Beltway. It’s most certainly the ugliest foreign policy boondoggle since the end of the Afghanistan and Iraq defense industry swindle operation.

Now, your humble correspondent has just returned to the Free State of Florida from vacation in Maui.

I was staying in the Lahaina area, which, if you haven’t been following the news, has been utterly devastated by wildfires that occurred on the island on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Here’s some photos from social media of the aftermath in Lahaina:

Lahaina, before and after the fire

I was lucky enough to be able to get out of Lahaina only hours before the fires moved all the way down from the mountains in Maui. I feel very blessed to have evacuated the area successfully, but this story isn’t about me.

Sadly, the casualty count is sure to continue rising (the death toll is now at 53). However, that number could have been exponentially worse had Hawaii’s public and private linemen, technicians, and emergency services failed to deliver on their herculean campaign to assist those who were evacuating the area.

The heroic actions of Hawaii’s linemen was something to behold. While evacuating in our jeep in the middle of hurricane force winds, line workers, public works and electric company employees were flooding the area, showcasing incredible bravery in the face of continuous danger and countless evolving hazards. They were on a mission to keep the roads open and move power lines and heavy debris out of the way, and they did all they could to clear a path for thousands of evacuees.

Now, the people of Hawaii must get the resources and manpower assistance they need to rebuild.

Not a single penny should be diverted overseas until Lahaina and other areas of Maui and greater Hawaii are fully rebuilt.

Dozens, if not hundreds of people have perished. Thousands of homes, businesses, and historical American landmarks have been destroyed. So many American families in Hawaii are overwhelmed and devastated.

Congress will be committing an act of complete and utter shame if they decide to go through with funding a single foreign priority at this point, let alone another astronomical $24 billion taxpayer funded cash infusion to keep corrupt bureaucrats in Kiev onside with NATO.

Maybe just one time, Republicans in Congress can do the right thing and devote the power of the purse to helping the people of Hawaii, while telling Zelensky and the Biden regime to take a hike.

*

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

All images in this article are from The Dossier

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

Colonialism has as its aim gaining ownership/control of the land and its resources regardless of whether or not the land was already populated by an Indigenous people. Morality aside, colonialism has been very successful in the context of Turtle Island. This is also true in northwestern Turtle Island, where the colonies designated “Vancouver Island” and “British Columbia” (merged in 1866 to become a province of Canada) were created through the dispossession of First Nations.

Dispossession of a people is a thoroughly nasty business, and it blatantly violates one of the biblical ten commandments, one that is encoded in law around the world, namely, “Thou shalt not steal.” Those who have gained property and wealth, and their progeny who continue to profit from the dispossession of Others, would like to paint a prettier picture of colonialism.

Sam Sullivan, a former mayor of Vancouver and former cabinet minister in the BC legislature, is the easy-to-listen-to narrator of Kumtuks, a series of historical videos which are usually interesting and informative. However, Kumtuks often presents a gussied-up narrative around the history of colonialism. Usually omitted from the discussion is that the land that settler-colonialists came into possession of was stolen from Original Peoples who had their own laws, beliefs, economies, and culture.

The Kumtuks video “1862 Smallpox Epidemic: British Columbia’s First Major Contagious Outbreak” claims to be based in the oral history of the Haida. The source given is the book Raven’s Cry (1966, 1992) by American author Christie Harris. Both versions of the book are interesting and informative for the historical perspective they shine on the Haida and the interactions they had with the Iron Men (as the Haida called the White men). The versions differ little, but the 1992 version is preferable because of the respect shown for the names and designations used by the Haida. Bill Reid, whose mother was Haida, is a renowned artist who illustrated Raven’s Cry and was a mentor to Harris. Harris also spent time with the family of Haida artist Charles Edenshaw. Harris, Reid, and Edenshaw are all deceased. So I will refer to Harris’s book to ascertain the verisimilitude of what Sullivan says in his narration.

What does Raven’s Cry indicate about Haida feelings toward the presence and behavior of the Iron Men?

Haida hostility, as well as the stormy moat around the Haida islands, discouraged American miners. Nevertheless, James Douglas, Chief Factor for the Hudson’s Bay Company’s western district and Governor of the little colony of Vancouver Island, advised Her Majesty Queen Victoria that it would be well to maintain a gunboat on the northwest coast to protect British rights. (p 102) [Emphasis added.]

Harris indicates the priority of Douglas. Douglas is not said to be protecting Haida rights. This was about colonialism: protecting rights claimed by the British, rights that presumably included sailing a gunboat in Haida waters.

The Haida did not acknowledge British rights. When the Company sent its schooner Recovery in with a group of Company miners in 1852, it was thwarted. The Haida simply waited for the white men to blast. Then they rushed in and grabbed the treasure. It was their gold. Let anyone else try to take it! (p 102)

Clearly, Douglas’s  priority was objectionable to the Haida.

The “native chiefs” objected to colonialism:

“What we don’t like about the [White man’s] government is their saying this, ‘We will give you this much land,’” they protested. “How can they give it when it is our own? We cannot understand it. They have never bought it from us or our forefathers. They have never fought and conquered our people and taken the land that way, and yet they say now they will give us so much land — our own land!” (p 134)

Sdast’a·aas Saang gaahl Eagle chief chief 7indansuu felt likewise:

“By what right do the King George men claim this land?” 7indansuu demanded of Governor Douglas. “There are no treaties with the tribes. There was no conquest by warriors.” (p 115)

What comes across strongly in Raven’s Cry is what Raven’s cry was about. In Haida mythology humans were brought into the world by Raven coaxing them out from a clamshell; these people were the first Haida. With the arrival of the greedy colonialists, Raven saw his Haida robbed of their land and their lifeways.

In a lighter vein, Harris wrote,

Unfortunately, Governor Douglas retired that year, though not before making a strong case for generous treatment of Indians, or before setting aside many reservations. The Queen had honored him with a knighthood. (p 132)

Harris generally comes across as respectful and sympathetic to the Haida, but she still seems mired in a colonialist mindset. Why is taking the land of a people and setting aside some reservations for them considered “generous”? If a thief steals my library and returns a few of the books, is the thief generous?

*

Author Tom Swanky has a background having studied journalism, political science, and holding a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. Therefore, he has the bona fides to listen to the Original Peoples and research what the evidence is for the oral histories. In his latest book, The Smallpox War against the Haida (review), he relates how the Haida were wary of smallpox.

Because the narrative in “1862 Smallpox Epidemic: British Columbia’s First Major Contagious Outbreak” is starkly at odds with the narrative in The Smallpox War against the Haida, I turned to Swanky to discuss the different narratives. I also reached out to Sam Sullivan through the Global Civic Policy Society which produces the Kumtuks videos, but have yet to hear back.

*

Kim Petersen (KP): Sullivan narrates, “Dr John Helmcken vaccinated 500…. Douglas had Helmcken send vaccine around the province.” Yet, from a reading of your book, there is so much more to say about Helmcken and how “vaccination” was carried out.

Tom Swanky (TS): The Police Commissioner advised a journalist that Helmcken personally had administered a procedure to 500 natives on April 26, 1862, in a context where multiple observers reported that the disease – as of that date – remained confined to just one of the People represented at Victoria and these observers believed the disease still could be contained among that one People.

However, within a few days after the disclosure of Helmcken’s program, witnesses then began reporting that some noticeable number of the natives who he supposedly had “vaccinated” were seen to have the disease. Also, within ten days of Helmcken’s vaccination program being disclosed, that is, within the time usually required for an infection to become visible, the disease suddenly exploded so that it was now no longer visible among only one People, it was everywhere. This evidence is consistent with Helmcken’s program having been all or in part, not “vaccinations” but inoculation with actual smallpox. And thereby creating the opportunity for the disease to become rooted among new Peoples and spread widely as a result of inoculation epidemics. It was because of the risk of inoculation creating epidemics that Parliament had outlawed inoculation in 1840. To administer inoculations in 1862 was a violation of British law, and so any use of the procedure would have to be concealed.

There is substantial other evidence of inoculation being used to spread the disease in the North Pacific during 1862. The Oweekeno said in 1862 that the medicine the colonists sold them started the disease. Numerous other cases can be documented where doctors administered what was advertised as a “vaccination” program, but after which the disease exploded among the targeted population. In fact, there is little to no evidence that “Douglas had Helmcken send vaccines” around the colonies. At Kamloops, the HBC post manger reported administering a procedure to the surrounding natives all summer – however, by late fall, independent observers were reporting that the indigenous residents in the Kamloops area had been virtually exterminated.

One can draw two lessons from Helmcken’s advertised “500 vaccinations.” The first lesson is that each stage of the disease undergoing an advance – beginning with its original importation in 1862 – was accompanied by some sort of public relations campaign that subsequent events would show was misdirection by those advancing the disease. The second lesson is that historians who come to this material unaware of their own colonial predispositions, or of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, seize on the first thing they read without doing the painstaking work of then seeing how events actually unfolded.

KP: The Kumtuks video mentions numerous conflicts among the Northern First Nations and the Southern First Nations, but he omits mention of any conflicts between First Nations and settler-colonialists. Instead the colonial administration of Vancouver Island is portrayed as a peacemaker in having the Northerners towed up island past Nanaimo. In Raven’s Cry, Harris wrote:

More than ever before, futile rage against the overpowering white man turned on fellow Indians. Understandably, it turned most fiercely on the Haida, the lords of the coast. Centuries of resentment burst out, especially among the northern neighbors.

The native people raged with resentment at these white men; but the rage turned on their ancient rivals. On June 12th, a thousand Haida reinforcements arrived at Victoria. (p 117-118)

The Kumtuks video seems not in concordance with Raven’s Cry or what you have written of the oral history presented to you by knowledge keepers of The People?

TS: If a researcher is unaware of the issues concerning the means through which the Crown asserted control among many of the indigenous Peoples – which diverse knowledge keepers allege was through a smallpox assisted genocide – then the researcher is unlikely to be attuned to the challenges presented by the sources.

On the one hand, among the colonial sources are the multiple efforts at misdirection – which were an integral part of the smallpox program executed by the colonial authorities – and, after 1862, there followed the usual post-genocide or post-criminal activity of denying the shameful or wrongful thing done.

On the other hand, among the indigenous sources there is the necessity of coping with having been purposefully targeted for destruction by the colonial authorities and the incoming colonial community. For the indigenous Peoples, the post-1862 task became walking a fine line so as not to offend a community that has shown a propensity to destroy you and yet wanting to work on the political task of undoing the loss of control brought about by what is understood to have been a smallpox genocide. So, for example, one will see praise offered for Douglas – politely overlooking his smallpox policies to focus on the time before April/June of 1860 when he had set a precedent of colonial respect for indigenous customs in inter-community relations and before he had begun the process of displacing indigenous authority. In addition, in things published primarily for the benefit of a colonial audience, one will see a desire not to be offensive but to cater to the colonial mythology concerning indigenous relations.

Very early in my work, I was advised by more than one elder that if I truly wanted to learn about the teaching in indigenous communities, I would learn by listening to what elders and knowledge keepers told each other or their communities and not by asking questions for someone to tell me some thing – for members of the colonial community often are told what they want to hear or a version satisfying some political need.

KP: The video depicts Douglas lamenting that some Indigenous peoples did not accept the preventative measures against smallpox. However, in your book, you noted how Douglas had tried to scare Haida by warning of a fake outbreak of measles. (Swanky, p 84-86) Harris in Raven’s Cry wrote:

Alarmed at the thought of what might happen next, Governor Douglas tried to banish all the natives with a measles scare, which had often worked before. But the native people weren’t frightened by it now. (p 118)

TS: This is all just fiction by someone who is not very familiar with the actual record. Nowhere does Douglas do any such lamenting. In fact, Bishop George Hills reported that the indigenous Peoples where the smallpox first broke out at Victoria were ready to do anything asked of them. Nowhere were natives reported to resist vaccinations – at least until the problems associated with inoculation began to emerge – but there are several accounts of natives going out of their way to become vaccinated.

Douglas used the false threat of an imminent outbreak of measles in June of 1860, in conjunction with his first attempt to assert control over the autonomous indigenous Peoples operating around Victoria. Dr. Helmcken proposed this plan and the hope was that all the autonomous communities would flee and then, when they returned, they would be assigned to spaces and come under the Police Commissioner’s control. Helmcken made this proposal in the Assembly and it was reported in the newspapers. Since Capt. John, the Haida leader who led the resistance to Douglas’s policies – and some other natives – were fluent in English, they would have learned from the newspapers that the threat was part of a dishonest plan to assert control over them. There was every reason not to be frightened and to be resentful of this dishonest trick.

KP: Douglas is portrayed as a defender of First Nations. The video gives Douglas a pass for having been away on the mainland when police towed Northerners into the ocean to return home. But the Kumtuks video states that the oral history of elders tells of Douglas trying to save lives by having the Haida towed home.

TS: This is not true. In another case of what turned out to be misdirection, the Police Commissioner advised the newspapers that he and a colonial gunboat would accompany north the Haida expelled on June 11 so that they would have safe passage past their enemies in Georgia Strait. British law in 1862 was that those with the custody of smallpox carriers had a legal duty to keep a safe distance between the infected people and any nearby healthy people. On this trip north, the Cowichan fired on this convoy to keep it from leaving infected people among them, the convoy did leave infected Haida at Nanaimo, and, rather than safe passage, the Police Commission delivered the Haida to the doorstep of some enemies at Cape Mudge who could be expected to kill them. This plan failed only because the enemies of the Haida at Cape Mudge already had attacked a previous Haida convoy, became infected and weere dying.

The actual oral tradition is of Douglas executing a smallpox genocide “holding hands with the HBC.” This tradition is conveyed in “The Story of Bones Bay” and the next generation of knowledge keepers was instructed in the oral tradition during a formal ceremony and pole raising in 2008. The “Story” can be found in the March 2009 edition of Haida Laas, an official publication of the Council of the Haida Nation.

KP: This brings up many questions. Why did the video mention that the police removed the Haida when Douglas was away in the lower mainland? How could he attempt to save lives from the other side of the Salish Sea? Was it an eviction or a life-saving attempt? Also, I could find no mention of the oral history of Haida elders (in either the 1966 or 1992 edition of Raven’s Cry) that testifies that Douglas was trying to save Haida lives by having them removed. After all, this is illogical at best, or at worst genocidally racist, given that 1) the video relates a Victoria newspaper editorial that settler lives were at risk from the camps, in which case gathering all Haida together without discerning who was ill or not would put some Haida potentially at risk from each other, and 2) the question of why the Northerners should be removed all the way up the long water highway, especially since the video stated that it takes 12 days for signs of smallpox to manifest and become infectious. Why send them 800 km to Haida Gwaii and not to a nearby uninhabited island of which there are many around Vancouver Island?

TS: Most serious people recognize that Douglas’ 1862 smallpox policies in the ordinary course would have been considered as criminal offences under British law. That is, everyone recognizes that it was easily foreseeable that his policies would increase dramatically the native death toll. Douglas’ apologists are left to contend that his policies – and these additional deaths – were justified because the presence of smallpox among even one of the autonomous Peoples operating in the Victoria area constituted an emergency threatening the colonial population. On examination, this turns out to be another case of misdirection. The Police Commissioner planted the theory of an emergency in the newspapers at Victoria and Douglas planted the theory at New Westminster. Douglas already had used the concept of an emergency in 1860 to justify his first attempt to assert control over the autonomous Peoples operating in the Victoria area, rather than to deal through the existing native leadership as British policy usually required. The theory of an emergency would be advanced again in a bizarre way when colonists advanced the disease to the Nuxalk and Tsilhqot’in territories.

However, there was never any emergency that constituted an existential threat to the colonial community – vaccine was readily available from San Francisco or the Catholic missions in Oregon, and most of the colonial population already had been vaccinated before the theory of an emergency had been raised. The threat to the colonial community was economic. The fear in the colonial community was that prospective miners or settlers would stay away because ordinary human beings prefer not to witness suffering on a grand scale.

If the Douglas administration had wanted to decrease the death toll from smallpox in 1862, it would have carried out the three control measures that it advertised in the newspapers: vaccinations, a pest house for isolating carriers and sanctuaries to quarantine the disease among infected communities. Instead, the administration perverted each control so that it became another means by which the disease would spread.

KP: The character of James Douglas is wrapped up very much in the colonial history of Vancouver Island and British Columbia and the attempts to extinguish Indigenous title. There are plenty of quotations that attest to Douglas being a morally centered person, but they are several quotations that point to a racist streak. Few humans are white or black. In To Share, Not Surrender: Indigenous and Settler Visions of Treaty Making in the Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (UBC Press, 2022), the contributors have varying viewpoints on Douglas. Keith Thor Carlson, Canadian research chair in Indigenous and Community-Engaged History at the University of Fraser Valley captures the lack of consensus in his piece, “‘The Last Potlatch’ and James Douglas’s Vision of an Alternative Settler Colonialism,” pointing out that Douglas is less racist than others. This is neither laudatory or condemnatory. Nonetheless, relying on quotations seems to contravene the admonition that actions speak louder than words. Overall, Douglas appears lauded by contemporary academia, cultural depictions, and wider society. With the emerging acceptance of First Nations oral history, will a purported genocidaire such as Douglas continue to elude an honest rendering of history?

TS: In his correspondence with the colonial office in London, Douglas freely refers to the Haida as barbarians and savages. He seems an average representative of the British colonial culture in the North Pacific, which culture imagines anglo-saxons as a superior race – to use Dr. Helmcken’s words. However, it is a distraction to use “race” as a point of departure when seeking to understand the transition of sovereign authority that accompanied colonialism in the North Pacific. The problem facing Douglas and the colonists was to dispossess the indigenous Peoples of their communal or “national” resources through the most cost-effective means. Douglas and others make frequent references to the “great number” of natives occupying strategic locations, pointing to the projection of overwhelming political power that is inherent in great numbers. The implicit motive for this genocide, then, is not reducing another race per se, but reducing the native voice and the capacity of native authority to defend the integrity of its sovereign control.

*

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

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.


The Smallpox War Against the Haida

By Tom Swanky

Paperback: English, 352 pages.

PDF: English (11.9MB), viewable on any computer or E-book reader tablet.

Haida knowledge keepers often introduce their history of British Columbia with The Story of Bones Bay. This Story teaches that Governor James Douglas executed an intentional mass killing during 1862 using smallpox as a tool for displacing native authority.

This book explores the written record as it touches the Haida experience leading to the Crown’s assumption of authority over the Haida and over Haida Gwaii from 1863. Beginning in 1860, Douglas answered the Haida’s prior refusal to submit unconditionally for rule by the Crown with a program of increasing violence that culminated in spreading smallpox as a political tool.

After colonists knowingly imported smallpox in 1862, the Douglas administration violated British law to pervert standard disease control measures while reducing the population underpinning native authority in numerous autonomous territories. Officials concealed their true intentions at each stage by supplying the public with misdirection.

This book also documents the role of Francis Poole, a foot soldier employed to advance Douglas’ smallpox program from Victoria to the Nuxalk, Tsilhqot’in and Haida territories. MLA Robert Burnaby coached Poole in the administration’s preferred means of obscuring the public record concerning what Poole’s memoir refers to as “a sorrowful trail of blood.”

Click here to purchase.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Ukrainian Army’s high dependence on Western military support to continue its fight against Russian troops has placed Kiev in a position where it cannot decide its path for itself, said an analyst on CNN. The outlet also indicated that after more than 17 months of active combat, the Ukrainian conflict had entered a decisive stage since Kiev now depends on the decisions taken in Washington more than ever, which will be worrying for Ukraine since there is every chance that the next US president ends up being a Republican.

The current situation in Eastern Europe will depend on “outside factors,” such as “shifting political forces in the US, Moscow and European capitals,” Stephen Collinson points out in his analysis on CNN. “One of Ukraine’s greatest tragedies as it pursues a critical offensive that has, so far, failed to meet its own and Western expectations is that it cannot, by itself, decide its destiny.”

According to him, the results of the Ukrainian counteroffensive — which began in June and has shown no progress — “would have particular ramifications in the United States since it could heighten questions over US support for the war that will be pushed into an acrimonious election year.”

In fact, former Republican lawmaker Adam Kinzinger recently acknowledged widespread pessimism within his party about the billions of dollars delivered to Kiev since February 2022.

The CNN analyst also pointed out that the Americans are preparing for a possible election contest between President Joe Biden —a Democrat and radical supporter of Kiev — and former president Donald Trump, a supposed NATO sceptic who has promised to end tensions between Russia and Ukraine in just one day.

Collinson believes that even if Trump does not win the presidential nomination, it is not certain that voters will support Biden because there is increasing disbelief about the growing involvement of Washington in the conflict. In his text, Collinson recalls recently published information on CNN that US officials are receiving adverse reports about the scant progress of Ukrainian troops against Russian forces.

“Ukraine’s struggles – and heavy combat losses – stem in part from entrenched, layered defensive positions, trenches and minefields that Russia had months to construct and the battlefield reality that an attacking force needs a numerical advantage over well dug-in troops,” wrote the expert.

For Collinson, the conflict could end after the US fully enters the electoral process to define a new president.

“There is so far no clear path even to a ceasefire,” he observed. “Ultimately, the capacity of both Russia and Ukraine to sustain heavy battlefield losses will be critical in deciding the point at which either side might be open to a settlement – when the cost of continuing to fight might be outweighed by the rewards of ending it.”

According to the journalist, the stagnation of the conflict could gain more weight in the political debate within the US.

“While foreign policy is rarely a deciding factor in presidential elections and the war in Ukraine is not a dominant issue in the GOP primary, some party supporters in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire do raise it and question US generosity after months of high inflation, which, even if it’s cooling, has contributed to persistently dour views of the American economy,” said the expert.

“So when US voters decide their own futures in November 2024, there’s a good chance they will be playing a large role in sealing Ukraine’s fate as well,” Collinson concluded.

The possibility that the Democratic Party could be back out of power next year is hurrying Biden to maximise his opportunities to funnel US taxpayer money into the financial blackhole that Ukraine has become. Biden’s endless attempts to seek the US Congress’ approval to transfer billions of dollars in additional support to Ukraine in a bid to prolong the war against Russia is a demonstration of this, especially when considering that Washington has already transferred to Ukraine at least $76.8 billion in assistance since February 2022.

According to an older estimate by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Ukraine, by May 2023, had received more than $100 billion in humanitarian aid and military support from more than 40 countries. Of that amount, Washington has contributed around $51 billion dollars, more than half, in military, security, financial and humanitarian assistance.

At the end of July, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kiev does not have sufficient resources. However, the US, NATO members, and other institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, delivered all the money to Ukraine. Rather, if Zelensky is struggling now, he will have an even bigger problem in the coming months because the money from the West will dry up as the level of support cannot be maintained, especially in the context of the failed counter-offensive.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two of Kiev’s top propaganda narratives nowadays are that it’s selflessly sacrificing itself for the sake of the West by fighting Russia instead of surrendering and that its ongoing counteroffensive is succeeding in pushing that country’s forces out of Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. The first largely remains above official criticism or skepticism since those who dare to doubt it risk being “canceled”, but the second has suddenly begun to be debunked by the Mainstream Media as proven by the following articles:

In the face of this rapidly shifting narrative that threatens to topple one of the pillars of Kiev’s Western-directed propaganda, Zelensky’s senior advisor Mikhail Podolyak lashed out at critics in a tweet thread here where he demanded that they “be patient and closely monitor” his side’s progress. Polish President Andrzej Duda has been doing precisely that since the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine began, however, and he’s concluded that Kiev isn’t doing the West any favors and its counteroffensive failed.

He dropped both bombshells, the first of which debunked the claim that Kiev is selflessly sacrificing itself for the sake of the West and which hitherto hadn’t ever been officially challenged by any Western leader before, in an interview with the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen from 1 August that was published nine days later. The relevant excerpts will be republished below for the reader’s convenience before analyzing them in the context of this conflict and evolving Polish-Ukrainian ties in particular:

“Q: At the NATO summit when President [Volodymyr] Zelensky criticized the [leaders’ joint statement about Ukraine’s prospective membership], there was criticism of him that he was ungrateful for all the help [given to] Ukraine. That suggests that our help to Ukraine is charity. Is our help to Ukraine charity, or is Ukraine really doing us a favor by giving its children, its lives to defend us against the Russian threat?

A: I would say it this way: I don’t see it in these categories — neither that we are doing an act of charity for Ukraine, nor that Ukraine is doing charity for us…We are sending them arms. Why? Because we want to support them in defending their own territory.

We Poles have many reasons to supply Ukrainians with weapons. … But the whole democratic world also knows that any aggressor who violates the borders of a democratic state in the 21st century in Europe must be stopped.”

Q: Could Poland fight a combined arms operation without long-range weapons and without air power? Because that’s what we’re forcing the Ukrainians to do today. What does Ukraine need that it’s not getting today?

A: Ukraine has been supplied with long-range artillery, and it is being supplied with long-range artillery to this day. … One could go as far as to say that Ukraine now has much more modern military capabilities than Russia.

The question is: Does Ukraine have enough weapons to change the balance of the war and get the upper hand? And the answer is probably no. They probably do not have enough weapons. And we know this by the fact that they’re not currently able to carry out a very decisive counteroffensive against the Russian military. To make a long story short, they need more assistance.”

Casual observers might be shocked by the Polish leader’s candidness, while Kiev’s supporters might accuse him of “betraying” their regime after becoming the first Western leader to debunk its top two lies nowadays, but his words weren’t unprovoked nor said in a vacuum. The background is that political ties between these wartime allies have tremendously worsened since late July as was documented in the following analyses:

In brief, each side finally began prioritizing their national interests, which resulted in public tensions due to the absence of any pressure valve for dealing with sensitive disagreements such as those over agricultural cooperation and historical memory. Moreover, each side has self-interested political reasons in escalating rhetoric against the other: Ukraine wants to distract from its failing counteroffensive while the ruling Polish party wants to rally its nationalist base ahead of mid-October’s elections.

It was against this backdrop that Duda did the previously unthinkable by telling one of the US’ most influential Mainstream Media outlets that Kiev isn’t doing the West any favors by fighting Russia and that its counteroffensive failed. Granted, he conveyed these two points in a “polite” way that signaled his continued support for NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, but it’s still an unforgivable offense from that regime’s perspective.

NBC News warned earlier this month that Kiev and its supporters are worried about losing control of the narrative, which has now come to pass after what Duda just said. He and his country are much more popular and less polarizing among average Westerners than Zelensky and Ukraine, plus nobody doubts their anti-Russian credentials due to widespread awareness of Poland’s difficult history with that country. These observations mean that his words will likely have an outsized impact on reshaping the narrative.

As for the future of Polish-Ukrainian relations, it’s looking dimmer by the day due to their spiraling disputes becoming self-sustaining at this stage. That’s not to suggest that Warsaw will cut Kiev off from arms and other forms of support, but just that the trust which used to characterize their relations since February was finally exposed as illusory. This could complicate their reported plans to form a joint military unit and could lead to Poland acting unilaterally in Western Ukraine in the worst-case scenario.

*

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

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Fears about a revival of the 1990s’ Balkans conflict have resulted from the flaring of renewed tensions between Serbia and Kosovo. Time magazine reported that, in May, Kosovo police raided Serb-dominated areas in the region’s north and seized local municipal buildings. Further, Kosovo’s police and NATO-led peacekeepers engaged local Serbs in clashes that led to dozens of people being injured on both sides.

Traditionally, Kosovo was a province of Serbia but declared its illegal, unconstitutional, unilateral, pseudo independence in 2008 with U.S.-NATO backing—nine years after a U.S.-NATO bombing campaign targeted the Serbs that helped establish ethnic Albanian rule in Kosovo.

New reports prepared by U.S. diplomats which were released by WikiLeaks and the British Guardian in 2010 uncovered the details of how the Western powers used all diplomatic ways and means to try to engineer the independence of Kosovo and get support for that from Russia. Certain cables by Western diplomats reveal how France and the U.S. had tried to maneuver so that Serbia could get the Agreement for Stabilization and EU Accession (SAA) as well as NATO membership in the Partnership for Peace.

The diplomatic correspondence cables by the U.S. Ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, written on December 12, 2006, detail a conversation between Daniel Freed, the Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia with Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, foreign policy adviser to then-French President Jacques Chirac, held on December 7, 2006, in Paris, France.

The French president’s adviser talked then about the plans by France to convince the EU to offer Serbia membership in SAA designed to get it into the EU, regardless of the unfinished obligation of full cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. They were worried about the explicit threats by then-Russian President Vladimir Putin that he would veto the UN Security Council resolution on the Kosovo issue.

In the cable, which was marked as secret, it is relayed that Freed said that the West should prepare themselves to act without the Russians, and that the U.S. decided to offer Serbia Partnership for Peace (prelude to NATO membership) as well as the support for democratic forces within the country on the eve of the elections and that President Boris Tadić created a good foundation for a Euro-Atlantic future for Serbia.

According to the WikiLeaks cables, the U.S. decided for the same reasons to support the postponement of Ahtisaari recommendations on the status of Kosovo (recommendations by President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari for Kosovo’s independence with supervision by the international community), after January 21, 2007, when extraordinary parliamentary elections were held in Serbia.

What was certain was that the Russians were not to be allowed to believe that the veto threat would work because they would make use of it. The West thus should send a signal that they were ready to move without them if necessary, because the non-existence of a signal would be interpreted as a tacit agreement for Russia to raise their stake. “That would be a horrible possibility, but the paralysis would be worse,” Freed said.

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne said that President Chirac recommended to German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the EU offer to Serbia becoming part of the SAA even in the case of insufficient cooperation of Belgrade with The Hague.

Merkel first gave a negative response, stating Tadić’s failure to fulfill it, but France still considered that the offer of SSP could make a difference in the January elections. Gourdault-Montagne added that France would then offer SSP on its own.

However, in the WikiLeaks cables of other U.S. diplomats who discuss the issue of Kosovo, it is mentioned that the U.S. Ambassador to Italy communicated to the State Department in Washington that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said, in November 2008, that the recognition of the independence of Kosovo represents a U.S. provocation against Russia.

The Kosovo issue is mentioned in the WikiLeaks cables related to Georgia as well. In June 2007, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili expressed his concern that the independence of Kosovo could create a precedent and encourage the position of Russia in the breakaway Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The State Department documents published by WikiLeaks emphasize that Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (and future CIA Director) William J. Burns met with Saakashvili in June 2007 in order to confirm the intention of the U.S. to support the independence of Kosovo.

However, Saakashvili warned the U.S. on that occasion that Russia would use that precedent to recognize the independence of Abkhazia. This conclusion could be drawn from a confidential cable sent to the U.S. Embassy in Paris.

Burns responded that the recognition of Abkhazia would isolate Russia on the international stage and would call upon Georgia to refrain from opposing it. According to this cable, the U.S. diplomat told Mikheil Saakashvili that then-U.S. President George W. Bush, at the G8 summit, told Putin clearly that Kosovo would be independent.

Russian threats that they would recognize Abkhazia were evaluated by Burns as vacuous, adding that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clearly told Putin and Sergey Lavrov that the recognition of Abkhazia would be a great mistake.

When asked by Saakashvili if there were anything else besides Abkhazia which Russia would accept in return for the independence of Kosovo, Burns responded that the U.S. was searching for a solution as to how to encourage the Russians to refrain from the Albanian negotiations for three to five months more.

In the cables which were published by WikiLeaks, separate meetings were mentioned with the then outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William Burns, in which opposition to Kosovo’s independence was voiced by Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Patriarch Cyril.

Solzhenitsyn repeated his criticism to the Ambassador about the independence of Kosovo. Why would the Serbs, he asked, be responsible for the sins committed by Milosevic?

As was detailed in the cables, Solzhenitsyn was also critical of that decision and plans about Ukraine getting closer to joining NATO.

*

Below is an interview carried out by Serbian TV on the talk show Govornica with Nikola Vrzić, who is author of the book WikiLeaks Serbia, which provides further details on the significance of the WikiLeaks Serbia documents.

TV host: The exposure of the network of U.S. influence in Serbia, for which it seems to me that before you published your first book was merely guessed at by many locals, and that it may have been somewhat incidental, there have been mere suspicions of what may have been happening. And then we have the situation that in the year 2011 you obtain full access to….

NV: Not only me. All the reporters in the world. When WikiLeaks were released…

TV host: In the autumn of 2010, WikiLeaks published diplomatic correspondence and I am interested to know who remembered to use the somewhat antiquated term depeša(cables). Yet, it is in fact diplomatic correspondence and cables sent by a telegraph. You selected 1,000 out of 250,000 diplomatic cables sent from Belgrade [Serbia] and several hundred sent by others which were related to Serbia.

NV: Yes, that is true.

TV host: You come to a conclusion, with which we shall wrap up this talk, that a very powerful and incredibly strong network of U.S. influencers in Serbia has been established, which penetrates almost all pores of a society, given that the U.S. has their own insiders not only in the government ministers, who duly report to them, and not only in the military where they “assign” generals, and not only within the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Serbian judicial system or the Public Prosecution and political parties but also they weigh in in the creation of the political coalitions. What we have today can be viewed as the result of the U.S. influence which anybody [can see] who takes a look at the book you wrote in 2011, published by PECAT in as few as a hundred pages, the title of which is…

NV: WIKILEAKS: The Secrets of the Belgrade Political Correspondence

TV host: And I think there is an alternative title which you did not assign to it eventually. It sounded something like “The chronicles of the occupation” or something along those lines.

NV: Well, yes. In fact you have described it all fine. It seems that these cables are the reports which the U.S. diplomats sent off; these were the conversations with our politicians though retold.

TV host: The reports by ambassadors and diplomatic civil servants/officials from Belgrade sent to Washington, D.C.?

NV: Yes. That is true. Then there are reports about a set of “counsel” sessions of the U.S. diplomats with their allies related to Serbia. I used everything that would give me a broader picture of Serbia in that context.

TV host: So the time span it covered was from 2005 to 2010. Is that so? The U.S. ambassador at the time was…

NV: There was Michael Polt, then Cameron Munter, then Jennifer Brush afterwards…I am not sure if I may have forgotten somebody…So, it was not only one U.S. ambassador [but a number of them in succession]. We also have the cables from Hillary Clinton who signed and sent them in her position as Secretary of State back then. Anyways…the point of all this is, at the end of the day, the Americans at least in that period, the crux of the matter was/is Kosovo and Metohija and how to force Serbia into formally renouncing Kosovo and Metohija and how to find appropriately cooperative “allies”[1] to help them with that. I asked Vojislav Kostunica to give a talk at my book promotion because he was our Prime Minister at the time. He has proven to be a man who can truly look us in the eyes[2] because he never resorted to any falsehoods or lies and he never reneged on what he would pledge in public.

TV host: I am now chuckling because I remember your statement and I would like to ask you now to explain it to our TV viewers. It refers to Vojislav Kostunica. According to the secret reports from the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, only two Serbian politicians were considered to be truly consistent: Vojislav Kostunica and Cedomir Jovanovic.

NV: Yes, that is true.

TV host: Could you possibly explain?

NV: Vojislav Kostunica is consistent in his advocating for…

TV host: How is it possible that all the others are believed to be dishonest, lying and conniving, yet only Cedomir Jovanović and Kostunica are consistent in your opinion?

NV: Of course. I told this tongue-in-cheek. Kostunica has been consistent in his protecting or at least in his efforts to protect and defend [our sovereignty and Constitution, etc.]. He was consistent in that he never retreated an inch “from the red lines drawn” which were stipulated by our Constitution and Resolution 1244. Cedomir Jovanovic, on the other hand, of course, he has been “consistent” in a completely different way. We do not have to dwell on “his personality” for too long in vain.

TV host: Is that also consistency when we talk about Cedomir Jovanovic?

NV: If high treason were a matter of honesty, yes.[3] Yes, it can be called consistency. There was an issue with Boris Tadić, Vuk Jeremić and Zdravko Ponos and “their cronies” all the time, according to the reports by U.S. diplomats…What I am doing in my book is making a cross-section of the information stated in public after a number of meetings in certain situations with what we found out from what was written in the U.S. WikiLeaks. So what we have here is Vuk Jeremić and Boris Tadić saying that Serbia is militarily neutral but they had just come out of the NATO meeting where, according to the U.S. diplomatic reports, both said: “Our no. 1 priority is for Serbia to join NATO.” Then in the WikiLeaks we can further follow their joint synchronized “work” on the proclamation of the quasi “independence” of Kosovo, i.e., you mean how can Kosovo proclaim independence unilaterally because it was not possible otherwise[4] but to avert the political demise of Boris Tadić, though for that “incident” not to impede the ongoing election campaign?

NV: Yes, exactly that. For that reason, Vuk Jeremić facilitated the introduction of Hashim Thaçi into the UN Security Council which had not been possible before.

NV: Yes, but because of the TV broadcast and Tadić’s speech in the UN Security Council, Vuk Jeremić did that.

TV host: I need to ask you this: Serbia had “its (un)fair share” in “the declaration of Kosovo independence” up to a point in such a way that it does not hinder President Tadić’s presidential elections

NV: Essentially yes. Some sort of a deal was along these lines: “Could you please ‘keep schtumm for now until the elections are finished for Boris Tadić to win in January 2008, and after that you declare independence and we shall do nothing that crucial, i.e., ‘we shall reduce our reaction to mere cosmetics.’” So this was exactly what happened. In the meantime, we went through some rather nasty episodes. For instance, the Serbian government…because we already knew what was being prepared “in the pipeline,” rejected the Ahtisaari plan. We did not want to take part in it. We did not have any mechanism to put a halt to it, i.e., to prevent the U.S. and those in Pristina from declaring independence but the Serbian government, the leader of which was Vojislav Kostunica, although DS had a parliamentary majority at the time, they prepared a plan of action then.

TV host: Yes, the famous “secret measures.”

NV: That plan was classified as a “state secret.” Then Borko Stefanović goes to the U.S. Embassy and carelessly babbles out the details of that plan.

TV host: Please, let me stop you there. If a person discloses a state secret according to our legislation, it is stipulated in our Constitution that the person should face a prison sentence of one to ten years.

NV: I did not check that piece of information myself.

TV host: I did. Since I found that detail in your writings. How is it possible for you to publish written American evidence that a high government official who was the Cabinet Chief…?

NV: I was running the risk of being seriously sued for a most severe case of defamation…

TV host: Borko Stefanović…He in fact should be indicted for disclosing a state secret which is a severely punishable criminal offense by our criminal law. That is one thing. Another thing is, these people…

NV: We can get back to our conclusion that this is some sort of a silent occupation in which the Public Prosecution driven into a political corner and they cannot do much. Look at how the legal proceedings against Momcilo Perisić is being delayed forever. I seem to be jumping from one topic to another but…What [on Earth] has happened to that trial?

TV Host: You use colorful expressions in your book in saying that you have caught a group of people “red handed” more or less, the result of which is absolute silence [i.e., media blackout]; I am rather well-informed but I found out about the WikiLeaks in 2017, which is six years afterwards. It might be because I am not reading the newspapers attentively but it is also possible that the existence of that book has been “carefully concealed” from us,[5]so as to prevent us from finding out that “they,”[6] for instance, “indirectly” “elect” our Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch?

NV: Yes, yes. The U.S. directly together with the DS [Serbian Democratic Party] who tried to influence the election of the then-Patriarch, they engaged in political scheming within the Serbian Orthodox Church inside out, hoping they would find somebody who would be “flexible” enough again in relation to Kosovo and Metohija. As I have said, that issue is more or less the only one within the scope of their interests, complete with Serbia gradually joining NATO. All these alleged “reforms,”[7] within the Serbian Army have served that purpose which has paradoxically boiled down to Serbian Army “disarmament.”

Simply, the atmosphere was such. Why was it kept “under the radar”? All these details are still fresh in my mind. So, these cables have started to emerge. There is a huge number of them, about four million and even more than that. All the world media wrote about it. WikiLeaks have put it all online little by little, “drop by drop” on their website. Media were following it closely because that was breaking news at the time. But there were no cables whatsoever related to Serbia at the beginning. When WikiLeaks released all of it, it was made available for each and every journalist to see. I was not the only one who could access these.

Of course I do not believe that anybody from another part of the world might be interested in what is going on in Serbia on a political front, though really it was a real bonanza, to my mind. How often is there a chance to gain access to what was happening earlier on the basis of correspondence from officials of the most powerful country in the world? It was a golden opportunity indeed. All of a sudden there was utmost silence in the Serbian media. I wrote a few articles about it for Pecat. I was scouring through all of those feverishly round the clock, looking for those pieces of news related to Serbia intriguing enough to place them in a broader context, etc. At that point I realized that publishing a book would be a better solution as soon as possible. That was the reason why I did not cover some chapters, which would have dealt with the South Stream, which is an intriguing story as such, and about Republika Srpska, etc. Some relevant political issues were not covered in the book but I did write about the “de-sovereign-ization”[8] of Serbia.

TV host: You mean “the total demolition of the sovereign state and placing it under the U.S. control”?

NV: It was a clear case of political engineering. Their participation in demolishing the Serbian Narodna Stranka, the participation of Boris Tadić’s Cabinet in the continuation of the work of Srpska Napredna Stranka, the complete change in the political mindset of SPS and Ivica Dacić, an attempt of a coup within the DSS party, which they failed at, but then Kostunica was “dispensed with” in a different way. So, a complete political engineering was performed by the U.S.[9]

TV host: You have not mentioned the election of the Chief of the Serbian Military Headquarters. That was one of the most devastating pieces of information.

NV: Michael Polt, the then-U.S. Ambassador kept insisting that Zdravko Ponos be nominated as the Chief of the Serbian Military headquarters in Kostunica’s government, though his approval in the capacity of the President of the government was not needed at all; they wanted to maintain very good relations between PM Kostunica and President Tadić [10] at the time.

TV host: So an ambassador of a foreign military power, which fought an illegal war against our country, in 1999, determines, or shall I put it differently, is making an enormous effort to “influence” the nomination of the Chief of the Military Headquarters? And on top of that, he is “pushing” the name of Zdravko Ponos and he is lobbying for him directly?

NV: Kostunica was quoted in one of the WikiLeaks cables in which he addresses the Ambassador with the following words: “It is interesting that you know more about him than I do.” This is a rather telling detail. Of course, Zdravko Ponos became the Chief of the Serbian Military General HQs whereas Dragan Sutanovac became Minister of Defense and all the NATO courses at the NATO airbase in Geilenkirchen, Germany, for them followed. Let me get back to something I said earlier. On one hand, we have a worrying continuity in the ever-deepening cooperation with NATO between the previous and the current government. We see there the official Serbia had kept promising that Serbia would one day join NATO. Unfortunately, we do not have that sort of a “gateway” to be able to see what they might be doing now.

TV host: I prepared that as a separate question for you. Please, go on.

NV: Let us be straightforward. We have to acknowledge that the Serbian military has since been consolidated indeed in the recent period. Much more than it used to be. So, some aspects are being restructured and renewed. We can see in the report by the U.S. Congress that there is a serious suspicion related to what is happening in the Serbian military compared to the year 2012. The report related specifically to Serbia was requested from the U.S. military budget in comparison with the cooperation with Russia from 2012 up until now. So these are some objective indicators that our military resources are being replenished and it would not be fair to remain silent about this fact.

TV host: I could make a lengthy list of all the statements of the current President of Serbia, which turned out not to be true later. I am afraid that this detail about the renewal of our military equipment might be simply…something for which the reasons might be rather different either dishonest or with false motives.

NV: As I have said already, the U.S. Congress asked for the U.S. military budget by the Pentagon for these details to be presented related to all that has been done. These are U.S. data and surely not based on hearsay by the locals [in Serbia].

TV host: You quoted Vuk Jeremić in your book a few times. You claim that you have a lot of reasons to be suspicious of his “patriotism,” i.e., that his integrity was practically challenged with the mention of his name in WikiLeaks. I am sorry for interrupting you.

NV: Yes, that is true. As for Vuk Jeremić, the situation is rather simple. He should be representing a patriotic image of the [Serbian] Democratic Party[11] at that moment and there is another episode there which speaks volumes…one of the U.S. reports elaborates on the fact that Vuk Jeremić gave some sort of a speech, an inflammatory anti-U.S. speech, but when the speech was over, he approached the U.S. Embassy official, who was sitting in the audience, only to express his apologies for his inflammatory speech, because he said he had to do it that way for purposes of his presidential election campaign.

One can only feel ridicule or mild disgust at hearing this. There were more serious issues there for example: the acceptance of EULEX mission which was stipulated by the Ahtisaari Plan, the primary purpose of which was to create an independent state of Kosovo. The Europeans were not ready to send such a mission to Kosovo if Serbia was against it. One could see that in the WikiLeaks [documents]. Serbia was completely aware of it and said yes. All of that was camouflaged into UN Six-Point Plan for EULEX, i.e., that six-point plan by Ban Ki- Moon, which was non-existent in effect. Then we had a ridiculous episode with the withdrawal of the Serbian Ambassador to Montenegro, when Montenegro recognized Kosovo’s independence so we in Serbia decided to expel their ambassador, though he explained this tactic was merely put in place because we needed to appease the public outrage for the time being. Everything would soon return to normal [i.e., they would get the ambassador back in the embassy shortly afterwards].

TV host: You are bringing examples of political hypocrisy to our attention. You are aware that we have mentioned here unintentionally…I personally did not know that we would mention these names, that we have mentioned the President and the Vice President of one of the latest opposition parties in the formation of the Narodna Stranka, Zdravko Ponos is the Vice President. Vuk Jeremić is the President of the party for which it turns out on the basis of the WikiLeaks that we have the reasons to doubt their honesty.

At the same time, I do not wish to sound as if I were talking in favor of President Aleksandar Vucić. I should avoid sounding like that. I would like to remind everybody that anybody who reads Pecat most probably knows that, in a recent issue, I published an article, “Soros’s Plan for Kosovo,” in which I elaborated on what Vucić persists at, unless he has given up on it in the meantime, on the “razgranicenje” [the territorial dividing line/administrative line) and the division of Kosovo is not only that it is catastrophic for Serbia for a number of reasons, but it is the fruit of “his unscrupulous arrangements” with Alexander Soros, George Soros’s son, who is obviously taking over his father’s businesses.

Alexander Soros met up with Hashim Thaçi for further talks. Then again this is not based on just hearsay. All of this is presented on Soros Jr.’s Instagram profile and all the announcements by the Serbian government. So, it was written in an official press release that Alexander Soros was visiting at the beginning of this year.

It is stated that they talked about ways to improve and expand the number of international recognitions of Kosovo and then he had several meetings with President Vucić. Their most recent meeting happened a couple of weeks ago in which Vucić, upon the announcement by the Serbian government, thanked Mr. Soros for the plan which was created and presented to our public which takes the division of Kosovo and the territorial exchange for granted as the most preferred outcome for Serbia; which is in effect Soros’s plan for Serbia.

*

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

Olga Peterson is a writer and translator living in Serbia.

Sources

Part of this article for CAM is a translation of a television program where Nikola Vrzić was invited as a guest to talk about his book.

https://www.pecat.co.rs/2011/09/vikiliks-tadicev-kraj-kosovske-igre/

https://www.pecat.co.rs/2018/10/ahtisari-posle-ahtisarija/

https://www.pecat.co.rs/2011/09/vikiliks-americke-depese-i-srpska-politicka-kaljuga/

https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/158529/Vikiliks-otkrio-depese-o-Srbiji-i-Kosovu

Notes

  1. Translator’s note: insiders, the Fifth column 

  2. Translator’s note: with his own personal unquestionable integrity 
  3. Translator’s note: This is a sarcastic comment. 
  4. Translator’s note: It is not possible legally or constitutionally. 
  5. Translator’s note: from us reporters 
  6. Translator’s note: they (the Deep State) 
  7. Translator’s note: alleged, bogus reforms 
  8. The term dedrzavizacija was used in the book; it translates as “de-sovereign-ization” of Serbia. 
  9. Translator’s note: NATO and CIA infiltrating the national system completely 
  10. The Serbian political system stipulates that Serbia has both President and PM Prime Minister at the same time plus the government ministers. 
  11. Vuk Jeremić used to be a member of [the Serbian] Democratic Party but he was later formally expelled so he set up his own political party, Narodna Stranka. 

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A report entitled F-16 Training for Ukrainian Pilots Faces Delays and Uncertainty (Washington Post) reveals that the training of Ukrainian pilots for F-16 jets Made in America will be delayed for almost a year, until next Summer. 

The crucial issue has to do with the timeline of the Ukraine War and the ability of Ukrainian Forces to confront Russia.

At this juncture, the so-called “counter-offensive” is defunct. At present, Ukraine’s Air Force is virtually non-existent. And US-NATO have so to speak been (quite deliberately) “dragging it out”. Ukraine has no modern air power.

What will the Ukraine war theater look like in a year from now?

What US-NATO politicians and military planners are contemplating is a prolonged drawn-out scenario of continued destruction, characterized by mass casualties. No peace or armistice agreement is envisaged. 

According to the WP, Ukraine’s defunct Air Force –which was wiped out by Russian forces in early March 2022– is slated to be “partially restored” at the earliest by Summer 2024. That is the “suicidal solution” proposed by US-NATO to the Kiev regime.

In the meantime, the entire Ukrainian economy is being appropriated by BlackRock J.P. Morgan:

“… BlackRock, JP Morgan and private investors, aim to profit from the country’s reconstruction along with 400 global companies, including Citi, Sanofi and Philips. … JP Morgan’s Stefan Weiler sees a “tremendous opportunity” for private investors. (Colin Todhunter, Global Research June 28, 2023)

The Kiev Neo-Nazi regime is a partner in this endeavor. War is Good for Business. The greater the destruction, the greater the stranglehold on Ukraine by “private investors”. 

In late December 2022, president Zelensky and BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink agreed on an investment strategy.

 

Who started the Ukraine War?

Another important development:

NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently acknowledged that the “war didn’t start in 2022”. In an interview with the Washington Post (May 9, 2023) Stoltenberg candidly confirmed that “the war started in 2014″. 

Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statements have opened up a Pandora’s Box, to the detriment of NATO, which he represents. 

What he intimates (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO Initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat which was then conducive to the installation of a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. 

Speaking on behalf of NATO, he tacitly acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. 

Below are relevant excerpts from Stoltenberg’s Interview with the Washington Post: (emphasis added)

Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War. 
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.

To access the full text of the interview, click image below

 

The Washington Post: “F-16 Training for Ukrainian Pilots Faces Delays and Uncertainty”

The article confirms US-NATO’s intent to deliberately deny the rehabilitation of  Ukraine’s Air Force (WP August 11, 2023) (emphasis added). It sounds very fishy: Another “delaying prerequisite” for the training of a limited number of Ukrainian pilots is that they go for a four month English “crash course” in the U.K. where in all likelihood they will seek refugee status: 

“A first group of six Ukrainian pilots is not expected to complete training on the U.S.-made F-16 before next summer, senior Ukrainian government and military officials said, following a series of delays by Western partners in implementing an instruction program for the sophisticated fighter jet.

The timeline reflects the disconnect between Ukraine’s supporters, who envision F-16s as a key tool in the country’s long-term defense, and Kyiv, which has desperately requested that the jets reach the battle space as soon as possible …

President Biden, after denying Ukrainian appeals for the F-16 for more than a year, reversed course in May and said he backed the idea of training Ukrainian pilots on the jets. …. 

But after the start of training was pushed back several times, Ukraine will now probably have to endure another year without the fighters, … which officials in Kyiv have predicted would provide a significant military edge amid a slow-going counteroffensive and help better protect civilians against Russia’s regular missile and drone strikes.

Ukraine’s commander in chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, has criticized Western partners for expecting Ukrainian forces to conduct a large-scale counteroffensive without modern air power. Without fighter jets like the F-16, Ukrainian officials say, they can’t compete in the sky.

Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines have said that low-flying Russian helicopters have been successful in attacking their ground forces in part because Ukraine is unable to threaten them in kind.

Just six pilots, about half a squadron, will go through the first round of training, according to two Ukrainian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to address a sensitive matter. Two other pilots have been identified as reserve candidates.

Though the pilots are already fluent in English, the officials said, they must first attend four months of English lessons in Britain to learn terminology associated with the jets. …

Click here to read the full article on The Washington Post.

*

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

Desde que a Rússia anunciou em 17 de Julho que não renovaria seu acordo Iniciativa de Cereais do Mar Negro (Black Sea Grain Initiative) intermediado pela Turquia e o Reino Unido, para permitir exportações de cereais da Ucrânia com passagem segura a partir de Odessa e dois outros portos ucranianos do Mar Negro, os grandes media ocidentais afirmam que a recusa criará fome global e aumento dos preços alimentares. Um ataque ucraniano à grande ponte que liga a Rússia do continente à Península da Crimeia, programado precisamente para por fim ao acordo dos cereais, provocou um ataque maciço de retaliação das forças russas, danificando gravemente Odessa e portos cerealíferos das proximidades. Qual é realmente a situação do abastecimento de alimentos do “Celeiro da Europa”, como era chamada a Ucrânia?

Em 19 de julho, o Indian Express publicou a manchete:   “O mundo enfrenta a perspectiva de ‘jogos da fome’ enquanto a China arrecada cereais e a Rússia se retira do acordo”. Eles declararam ainda: “Uma crise de fome pode estar a aguardar o mundo no próximo ano devido à retirada da Rússia de um importante acordo de cereais alimentícios com a Ucrânia, ao impacto do armazenamento de grãos alimentícios pela China, o maior consumidor mundial de arroz, advertiu um analista”. O LA Times foi igualmente alarmista: “A Rússia interrompe o acordo que permite à Ucrânia exportar cereais, num golpe para a segurança alimentar global”. CNN, Yahoo e outros media ocidentais publicaram histórias alarmistas semelhantes. Nenhum deles se incomodou a entrar em pormenores quanto à situação atual. Ela é muito menos alarmante do que se afirma. O mundo pode enfrentar escassez de cereais em breve, mas não será por causa das ações da Rússia na Ucrânia.

Em 19 de julho, dois dias após o cancelamento, os preços futuros mundiais dos cereais dispararam cerca de 8%, após a notícia de que a Rússia agora considerava qualquer navio que atracasse em Odessa ou em outros portos da Ucrânia como suspeito de transporte de armas e alvo de mísseis russos. Desde então, os media ocidentais afirmam que a Rússia está a provocar fome mundial potencial com o encerramento do acordo de exportação de grãos da Ucrânia. Quais são os factos reais?

Porque a Rússia o interrompeu

O acordo Iniciativa de cereais do Mar Negro foi assinado em Julho de 2022, depois de acusações de que as ações militares da Rússia na Ucrânia criavam graves problemas de escoamento de cereais para a África e outros países pobres. A Rússia, com a participação da ONU, acordou um acordo que garantia uma passagem segura pelo Mar Negro a partir de portos cerealíferos ucranianos. Em contrapartida o ocidente levantaria as sanções à exportação de trigo e fertilizantes russos, inclusive o levantamento da proibição do uso do SWIFT pelo maior banco estatal russo de exportação de cereais. Rússia, Ucrânia, Turquia e Nações Unidas chegaram a um acordo em 22/Julho/2022 para estabelecer um corredor marítimo humanitário destinado a navios que transportassem alimentos e fertilizantes dos portos ucranianos do Mar Negro. Em 18/Maio/2023 a Rússia estendeu por 60 dias o acordo do Black Sea Grain Initiative, até 17 de Julho.

Houve um grande problema. O Ocidente recusou-se a honrar a parte russa do acordo. De acordo com o sítio web estatal russo Sputnik, “o trato é parte integral de um um pacote de acordos. A segunda parte – o memorando Rússia-ONU, concebido para três anos – prevê o desbloqueamento das exportações russas de alimentos e fertilizantes, a reconexão do Banco Russo da Agricultura ao SWIFT, a retomada de fornecimentos de maquinaria agrícola, peças sobressalentes e serviços, a restauração do pipe-line de amónia Togliatti-Odessa (que a Ucrânia sabotou em Junho) e uma série de outras medidas. Moscovo afirma que esta parte do pacote de acordos ainda não foi implementada”.

Em 17 de Julho, o dia em que a Rússia anunciou a não renovação do acordo, a Ucrânia, auxiliada pela inteligência dos EUA e do Reino Unido, lançou um ataque mortal à única ponte que liga a Crimeia, onde está baseada a frota naval russa do Mar Negro, à Rússia do continente. A faixa de rodagem de veículos foi gravemente danificada por um drone naval ucraniano e dois civis foram mortos, com um terceiro em coma. Moscovo lançou represálias mortais nas noites seguintes com grandes ataques de bombardeamento que destruíram grande parte da infraestrutura portuária de Odessa e de outros portos próximos do Mar Negro.

Terminais cerealíferos e infraestrutura portuária na Ucrânia foram alvo de ataques russos nas noites de 18 e 19 de julho, causando grandes danos que levarão pelo menos um ano para serem totalmente reparados, segundo o Ministério de Política Agrária e Alimentar da Ucrânia. Uma parte significativa da infraestrutura do porto de Chornomorsk foi destruída e 60 mil toneladas de grãos também foram destruídas. Infraestrutura de comercializadores e transportadores de cereais, internacionais e ucranianos, como a Luxemburg-Ukrainian Kernel, Viterra, uma parte do enorme grupo suíço Glencore, o maior trader de commodities do mundo, e o grupo francês CMA CGM foram danificados.

Moscovo não só acusa a ONU e o Ocidente de se recusaram a honrar a parte russa do acordo. Também acusa o ocidente de utilizar os navios protegidos para entregar armas da NATO e outras fontes à Ucrânia a fim de alimentar a guerra – dificilmente um ato humanitário.

Trigo para a UE?

Apesar de o Ocidente afirmar que o bloqueio russo ao tráfego de navios de Odessa e outros portos da Ucrânia estava a criar um desastre humanitário em África e outros países pobres, o trigo, assim como o milho e o óleo de girassol ucranianos, não estava a ser encaminhado para os países mais pobres do Sul. Ao invés disso, até uma grande revolta de agricultores na Polónia, Bulgária, Roménia e outros países da UE [teve de] forçar Bruxelas a proibir temporariamente a importação dos cereais baratos da Ucrânia. Segundo a ONU, a UE foi a principal beneficiária do Acordo de Cereais do Mar Negro: 38% de todos os cereais ucranianos foram enviados para a Europa, apesar de a UE ser um exportador líquido de trigo. Outros 30% foram para Turquia e 24% para a China. Apenas 2% foram para nações do Sul Global.

Em Abril, enfrentando uma grande revolta de agricultores contra uma inundação de importações baratas de cereais ucranianos, a Polónia, Eslováquia, Hungria e Bulgária aprovaram uma proibição temporária de produtos agrícolas da Ucrânia depois de fracassarem nas suas repetidas exigências de que a UE de Bruxelas impusesse uma proibição geral e permitisse que o cereal fosse para a África e outros estados de acordo com o acordo original.

Alguns factos concretos do USDA

Exportações de trigo russo.Embora grande parte das estatísticas do governo dos EUA hoje não valham muito, devido a décadas de manipulações políticas, as do Departamento de Agricultura dos EUA (USDA) para a produção global de trigo são geralmente consideradas razoavelmente precisas pois os cartéis mundiais de cereais dependem dos dados para estabelecer o preço do grão. No seu relatório de 12 de julho, pouco antes de acabar a renovação russa do acordo do Mar Negro, um relatório do USDA, intitulado Grain: World Markets and Trade, observava o seguinte: “Quando o ano comercial de 2022-23 chega ao fim, a Rússia solidificou sua posição como o maior exportador de trigo do mundo”. Eles observaram: “Estima-se que a Rússia exporte 45,5 milhões de toneladas em 2022-23. Seus destinos primários são o Médio Oriente, Norte da África e Ásia Central… Prevê-se que as exportações de trigo da Rússia alcancem outro recorde de 47,5 milhões de toneladas em 2023-24”.

O relatório do USDA continua, dizendo que os combates na Ucrânia afetaram as suas melhores regiões produtoras de grãos. “A área plantada da Ucrânia caiu significativamente devido à guerra com a Rússia. A produção em 2023-24 está prevista em 17,5 milhões de toneladas, a menor safra em mais de uma década. Com a oferta drasticamente reduzida e a incerteza em torno do futuro da Iniciativa de Cereais do Mar Negro, prevê-se uma redução das exportações de trigo da Ucrânia em 2023-24 para 10,5 milhões de toneladas, uma queda de mais de 40% em relação à média pré-guerra. Se bem que a Iniciativa de Grãos do Mar Negro tenha ajudado a Ucrânia a exportar 16,8 milhões de toneladas de trigo em 2022-23, 39% do trigo abandonou o corredor de cereais (sobretudo através de despachos terrestres para a Europa Oriental).”

Assim, se se subtrair os 6,6 milhões de toneladas de trigo que foram para a UE por rotas terrestres, então cerca de 10,2 milhões de toneladas de cereais ucranianos não estão agora disponíveis para os mercados mundiais via Mar Negro. Contudo, isso equivale quase exatamente ao volume de trigo ucraniano que inundou os mercados locais da UE no ano passado.

Rússia promete cereais para a África

Em 27 de julho, na Segunda Cimeira Anual Rússia-África em São Petersburgo, o presidente russo Putin prometeu que a Rússia forneceria cereais gratuitamente a países africanos selecionados que [antes] os recebiam da Ucrânia: “Estaremos prontos a fornecer a Burkina Faso, Zimbabue, Mali, Somália, República Centro-Africana e Eritreia 25 a 50 mil toneladas de cereais gratuitos a cada um nos próximos 3 a 4 meses“.

A NATO e os grandes media ocidentais estão a manipular uma narrativa unilateral destinada a culpar a Rússia por algo que suas próprias ações corruptas provocaram. A suspensão russa do acordo de cereais, que eles declararam pronto para reabrir desde que haja garantias de que o compromisso com a Rússia será cumprido, não está a criar uma catástrofe global. Muito mais perigoso para o mundo são as ações deliberadas da UE e da administração Biden de impor cortes drásticos à produção mundial de fertilizantes sob a assim chamada Agenda do Carbono Verde Zero (Green Zero Carbon Agenda).

F. William Engdalh

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

This article was originally published in 2015.

Visitors to the National Air and Space Museum—America’s shrine to the technological leading edge of the military-industrial complex—hear a familiar narrative from the tour guides in front of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic weapon on the civilians of Hiroshima 70 years ago today. The bomb was dropped, they say, to save the lives of thousands of Americans who would otherwise have been killed in an invasion of Japan’s home islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely destroyed, and the lives of 135,000 to 300,000 mostly Japanese women, children, and old people were sacrificed—most young men were away at war—as the result of a terrible but morally just calculus aimed at bringing an intractable war to a close.

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the “good” war. By and large, the top generals and admirals who managed World War II knew better. Consider the small and little-noticed plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy that accompanies the replica of “Little Boy,” the weapon used against the people of Hiroshima: In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Truman’s political advisers overruled the military in determining how the end of the war with Japan would be approached. Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bomb’s nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museum’s explication of the history clearly indicates that “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”

Indeed, it would have been surprising if they had: Despite the terrible concentrated power of atomic weapons, the firebombing of Tokyo earlier in 1945 and the destruction of numerous Japanese cities by conventional bombing killed far more people. The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender. Japan was used to losing cities to American bombing; what their military leaders feared more was the destruction of the country’s military by an all-out Red Army assault.

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that

“the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that

“the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons,

he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

He later publicly declared,

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

Historians still do not have a definitive answer to why the bombs were used. Given that US intelligence advised the war would likely end if Japan was given assurances regarding the emperor—and given that the US military knew it would have to keep the emperor to help control occupied Japan in any event—something else clearly seems to have been important. We know that some of Truman’s closest advisers viewed the bomb as a diplomatic and not simply a military weapon. Secretary of State James Byrnes, for instance, believed that the use of atomic weapons would help the United States more strongly dominate the postwar era. According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, who met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945,

“[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia’s postwar behavior…[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

History is rarely simple, and confronting it head-on, with critical honesty, is often quite painful. Myths, no matter how oversimplified or blatantly false, are too often far more likely to be embraced than inconvenient and unsettling truths. Even now, for instance, we see how difficult it is for the average US citizen to come to terms with the brutal record of slavery and white supremacy that underlies so much of our national story. Remaking our popular understanding of the “good” war’s climactic act is likely to be just as hard. But if the Confederate battle flag can come down in South Carolina, we can perhaps one day begin to ask ourselves more challenging questions about the nature of America’s global power and what is true and what is false about why we really dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

*

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

Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, is co-founder of The Democracy Collaborative and co-chair of its Next System Project.

Featured image: Mass grave markers in Hiroshima, photographed by Lieutenant Wayne Miller in September 1945. (US Navy / National Archives)

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Recently, a video went viral on the internet showing a Ukrainian soldier captured by the Russians saying that he learned about the so-called “counteroffensive” through TV and TikTok posts, as Kiev’s officials do not let troops know about what is happening in the conflict. The soldier said that he does not even know if the Ukrainian move has already started or not, as the officers do not comment on the matter with the troops.

In the video, the prisoner of war (PoW) states:

“I have no idea [if the counteroffensive has started or not]. I know just what’s on TV – that there’s going to be a counteroffensive. I watch videos on TikTok. The commanders didn’t say a peep. Some said [Ukraine’s counteroffensive] had already begun, others said it hadn’t started yet (…) So I just don’t get it. I don’t know (…) They have to say something to the soldiers and clarify what they must do”.

In addition to the lack of communication with soldiers about the current status of the conflict, the PoW’s speech also revealed a series of mistreatments that the Ukrainian military are suffering.

He said that his unit was sent to the battlefield in Staromayorsk region with the promise of being replaced in three days. But the rotation did not happen, and the soldiers were left at the front for longer than expected, running out of food, water and other supplies. For this reason, all the soldiers in the PoW’s unit surrendered when the Russians arrived.

“We drove to Staromayorsk (…) They told us to go to the end of the village and sit there, wait (…) and defend ourselves. We sat there for three days. On the third day we were well, they had to take us away. They [the Russian troops] started shooting from artillery. We hid. Then I came out and saw the Russians. So we surrendered. If they [Ukrainian officers] said they would take us, then they should have taken us, not just thrown us away. We had food only for the first day (…) And then there wasn’t even water”, PoW added.

Apparently, the Ukrainian “counteroffensive” is being carried out just by abandoning poorly trained and unexperienced soldiers on the battlefield. And to make matters worse the soldiers do not even know what they are actually doing. They are not aware of what type of operation they are involved in as there is no transparency of information among the military.

With these irresponsible measures of deceiving their own soldiers and sending them to the certain death on the frontlines, Kiev has already lost over 43,000 troops since June, according to Moscow’s official data. In addition to soldiers, the regime also lost “over 4,900 pieces of various weaponry, including 26 aircraft, nine helicopters, and 747 field artillery guns and mortars”. The numbers make clear the failure of the counterattack attempt and explain why it is convenient for officers not to tell the truth to their soldiers. They certainly fear that reality will affect troops’ morale and encourage disobedience, collective capitulations.

Indeed, the Ukrainian attitude towards its own citizens is a real crime against humanity. Trying to achieve the Western-imposed goal to launch a “counteroffensive” in the spring-summer season, Kiev began to send untrained troops to death in unwinnable battles. So, despite the Western media blaming Russia for the current humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine, this information shared by the PoW shows that it is the Kiev regime itself, not Moscow, that is truly to blame for the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

In the end, it seems that the supposed “counteroffensive” was never an actual tactical plan by the Ukrainian military, but simply a media narrative created to generate enthusiasm and hope in the Western public opinion. The Ukrainian officials, obeying what Western sponsors say, were forced to take some measures to increase Kiev’s firepower and thus prove the existence of a “counteroffensive”. Soldiers on the frontlines, however, have just been used as cannon fodder in this entire process without even knowing what was really going on.

The case of this PoW shows very clearly the disrespect and abuse suffered by the Ukrainian military from their own officers. This is not really surprising, since, as a proxy regime, Kiev does not care for the welfare of its people but for Western interests. The best thing to be done by the Ukrainian military in the face of their country’s submission to foreign powers is simply to stop obeying orders and surrender collectively, pressuring the regime to accept Russian peace terms.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Aug. 10, 2023 – Pinson, AL – 17 year old Caleb White, basketball player at Pinson Valley High School, collapsed at school late morning while working out with his basketball team, died suddenly of cardiac arrest (click here).

Aug. 6, 2023 – Lynchburg, VA – 19 year old Tajh Boyd, Liberty University football player died suddenly on August 6, 2023. According to medical examiner, cause of death was ruled suicide (all suicides must be investigated for spike protein brain injury).

Aug. 1, 2023 – TX – 16 year old Callie Marie Mitchell died unexpectedly in cheer camp. She was at Texas A&M University when she was discovered unresponsive by her coach who performed CPR, airlifted to Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston but died a few days later. (Click here)

July 30, 2023 – Olathe, KS – 19 year old Myzelle Law, a defensive lineman at MidAmerica Nazarene University in Olathe, was at practice July 22 when he collided with another defensive lineman and went to locker room where he had “seizure like symptoms”. He died a week later.

July 29, 2023 – China Grove, NC – 17 year old Dalton Gay, football player and star athlete at Jesse C. Carson High School in Rowan County died suddenly from a cardiac arrest (click here).

July 29, 2023 – Philadelphia, PA – 19 year old Bria Deibert died suddenly while on vacation in Florida. She was a sophomore basketball player at Lincoln University. (Click here)

July 26, 2023 – Hendersonville, TN – 17 year old Chase Edwards varsity basketball captain, died suddenly.

July 25, 2023 – Syracuse, NY – 18 year old basketball player Dy’Jierre Jackson died suddenly in his sleep. “He stopped breathing & there was no brain activity” “He passed away in his sleep. There was no struggle” They’re blaming “kidney infection.”

July 23, 2023 – Owen Sound, ON – 18 year old hockey player Tyson Downs died suddenly & unexpectedly at his family’s home.

July 20, 2023 – Stillwater, MN – 16 year old Annie Messelt, avid skier and soccer player, was found unconscious (cardiac arrest) at her Youth Conservation Camp and she died suddenly.

July 17, 2023 – 16 year old Simon Mirkes was on a hiking trip in Alaska for Jewish families, 3.7 miles into Harding Icefield trail in Kenai Fjords National Park he collapsed, paramedics from LifeMed helicopter did CPR but he died of cardiac arrest.

July 12, 2023 – Fort Moore, Georgia – 19 year old Iowa soldier, Pfc Jacob T Atchison died suddenly during infantry training on July 12, 2023, he had a “medical emergency” (cardiac arrest), received CPR, but was pronounced dead at Army Hospital.

July 10, 2023 – 20 year old New Mexico State University soccer player Thalia Chaverria died suddenly in her sleep on July 10, 2023 just 8 days after 20th birthday Police found her dead at 7am at her residence (click here).

July 8, 2023 – 19 year old Lance Pfrimmer, University of Wisconsin-Stout cross country and track athlete died suddenly at a house party with 70 people “he had gone to a pond on the property, went down a water slide and never came up.”

July 7, 2023 – Selden, NY – 17 year old Long Island High School football player Robert Bush was on life support after collapsing on July 3 “He had been on the field for 4 minutes before he bent over, then passed out due to a cardiac event at about 5pm” He received CPR & defibrillator but his brain went without oxygen for 45 minutes. He died July 7.

My Take…

Very few teenagers are still taking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines but high level teenage athletes still continue to die suddenly at unprecedented levels!

Here are 15 deaths of athletes ages 16 to 19 in the past month that made the news (imagine how many didn’t make the news!)

Parents must finally wake up and work together to put an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in children.

Send this to your loved ones. Give it to your teachers and principals.

Give it to your doctors. Give it to your lawyers.

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Expose News


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

Unveiling the Nuclear Threats: A Reality of Past and Present

August 11th, 2023 by Dr. Dan Steinbock

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On June 16, 92-year-old Daniel Ellsberg passed away. At RAND, he contributed to a top-secret 47-volume study of classified documents on the Vietnam War. Even though the war had been acknowledged to be “unwinnable” since the 1950s, successive presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon had lied about the conflict.

As Ellsberg released copies of the classified documents, the 7,000 pages became known as the “Pentagon Papers.” However, from 1958 to 1971, his primary job had been as a nuclear war planner for Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

In his view, nearly every U.S. president from Truman to Trump has “considered or directed serious preparations for possible imminent U.S. initiation of tactical or strategic nuclear warfare.” Most plans focused on the Soviet Union, North Vietnam, North Korea, as well as Iraq, Iran, India, and Libya.

In the case of China, Beijing’s role in the Korean War (1950) and the Taiwan Strait crises (1954-55, 1958) triggered U.S. nuclear plans.

Until recently, it was not known that Ellsberg also copied files on the Pentagon’s nuclear plans to decapitate Russia, China and our planet.

China’s Auto-pilot Nuclear Decapitation                     

In May 2021, the New York Times released Ellsberg’s classified documents on the proposed nuclear attack on China amid tensions over the Taiwan Strait in 1958. Pentagon’s leaders were pushing for a first-strike option, despite their belief that the Soviet Union, China’s then-ally, could retaliate and millions of people would perish.

the doomsday machine.jpg

Urging President Biden and the Congress to take notice, Ellsberg was also weary of media apathy after his book The Doomsday Machine (2017). 

Since the Ukraine conflict, the U.S. and NATO have associated Russia with China, which had no role in the invasion. By October 2022, the Biden administration unveiled a Cold War strategy for “nuclear threats from China and Russia.” In the process, historical realities were turned upside down.

According to The Doomsday Machine, Ellsberg first learned about those realities reading a top-secret document based on President Kennedy’s question to the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“If your plans for general [nuclear] war are carried out as planned, how many people will be killed in the Soviet Union and China?”

The total varied around 275 million to 325 million deaths. In fact, the U.S. nuclear war plan sought the “destruction of China and the Soviet Union as ‘viable’ societies.

nuclear targets.png

1,100 US Nuclear Targets in 1956. In 2016, The National Security Archives published a declassified list of US nuclear targets from 1956, which spanned 1,100 locations across Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea. (Source: Screen capture close-up of “Nukemap” by Future of Life Institute)

Worse, the nuclear strategy linked a “general war,” which would legitimize a first-strike against the Soviet Union (and today Russia), and China, even if Beijing would have nothing to do with such conflict. So, Ellsberg asked the Chiefs, over the president’s signature, for a total breakdown of global deaths from U.S. attacks.

Another 100 million deaths, roughly, were predicted in Eastern Europe, from direct attacks on Warsaw Pact bases and air defenses and from fallout. Perhaps 100 million more from fallout in Western Europe and still another 100 million in the mainly neutral countries adjacent to the Soviet bloc and China, including Finland, Sweden, Austria, Afghanistan, India, and Japan.

The total death toll would be roughly 600 million dead. That’s a hundred Holocausts.

A Truly “Final Solution”

As Ellsberg discovered, deterring a surprise Soviet nuclear attack or responding to such an attack has never been the only or primary purpose of U.S. nuclear plans and preparations. The real purpose is to limit the damage to the U.S. from Soviet or Russian retaliation to a U.S. first strike against the USSR or Russia.

The devastating impact of “nuclear winter” and “nuclear famine,” both of which have been known since the early ’80s, are systematically ignored by nuclear planners.

If U.S. plans for thermonuclear war will be carried out, that means “smoke and soot lofted by fierce firestorms in hundreds of burning cities into the stratosphere, where it would not rain out and would remain for a decade or more.” It would envelope the globe and block most sunlight. It would lower annual global temperatures to the level of the last Ice Age and kill all harvests worldwide, thereby “causing near-universal starvation within a year or two.”

In his memoir Doomsday Delayed (2008), John H. Rubel, who later served as McNamara’s assistant Secretary of Defense, recalls the first high-level presentation of such a scenario in spring 1960. It showed how over half the Soviet population would perish from radioactive fallout alone, and half of all 600 million Chinese. It horrified Rubel, who was of German-Jewish descent. He thought of the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, when mainly SS bureaucrats, including Adolf Eichmann, agreed on a program to exterminate every last Jew they could find in Europe, deploying technologically-efficient methods of mass extermination:

I felt as if I were witnessing a comparable descent into the deep heart of darkness, twilight underworld governed by disciplined, meticulous and energetically mindless groupthink aimed at wiping out half the people living on nearly one third of the earth’s surface.

In turn, public discussion of American plans for the decapitation of the Soviet command and control led to a “Dead Hand” system of delegation that would assure retaliation to U.S. attack destroying Moscow and other command centers. And the rest of the nuclear states have followed in the footprints.

The Doomsday Profiteers           

Nuclear preparedness doesn’t come cheap. The projected costs of the U.S. nuclear forces from 2021 to 2030 are expected to total $634 billion. Two-thirds of those costs will be incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD), with the largest expenditure for ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) costs will be for nuclear weapons laboratories and supporting activities.

The key beneficiaries of these expenditures are the major contractors for new nuclear delivery vehicles and the operators of the national nuclear weapons complex. A small oligopoly of global contractors and operators – the Big Defense – will reap the profits. Northrop Grumman has identified major suppliers for its new ICBM in 32 states. Its 12 largest subcontractors include some of the nation’s most prominent defense companies, including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the aerospace division of Raytheon.

From 2012 to 2020, these Big Defense conglomerates spent over $119 million in campaign contributions employing 380 lobbyists among them in 2020 alone. Over two-thirds of the monies passed through the “revolving door” from top positions in Congress, the Pentagon, and the Department of Energy to work for nuclear weapons contractors as executives or board members, and vice versa. Typically, secretaries of defense – including James Mattis (General Dynamics); Mark Esper (Raytheon); and Lloyd Austin (Raytheon) – have served as lobbyists or board members of major nuclear weapons contractors before the Pentagon.

Additionally, the Big Defense spends millions of dollars in supporting think-tanks for “independent analysis” on nuclear weapons. Licking the hand that feeds them, the think-tanks, in return, push for increasing nuclear investment in Russia’s near-abroad and Asia via the trilateral U.S.-UK-Australia security pact AUKUS.

Dismantling the Machine

So, where are we today? The Doomsday Machine plan, officially known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), was updated annually until 2003, when it was replaced until revised in 2012 with OPLAN 8010-12, Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment. Its base plan is thought still to be directed against “Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and WMD attacks by non-state actors.”

Even against Russia and increasingly China, which now dominates U.S. nuclear planning, the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community think that “a disarming first strike [against the U.S.] will most likely not occur.” Yet, as over six decades ago, such assessments are subject to perceptions, which have resulted in several false alarms since the 1960s; some of them potentially fatal.

As evidenced by the Doomsday Clock, the likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe is today the highest since World War II. Dismantling the Doomsday Machine in the U.S. and other nuclear states is the only viable way to ensure sustained peace – and the survival of our planet.

*

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

Dan Steinbock is Founder of Difference Group.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

New Global Internet Censorship Tool Kit – By Google

August 11th, 2023 by Michael McKay

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Google’s new global censorship tool’s purpose (found HERE) is to eliminate dissent on any topic Google selects.

Googles partners are the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), plus 71 PAGES of other partners listed in the fine print on this website.

Google’s algorithms are designed to delete websites that criticize topics such as:

  • COVID-19 statistics

  • the World Bank

  • the FBI’s crime statistics

  • a one-world global government

  • …and many more

Here’s their promo video:

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

War by Other Means: Short Selling JPMorgan

August 11th, 2023 by Ellen Brown

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

When the FDIC put Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank into receivership in March, a study reported on the Social Science Research Network found that nearly 200 midsized U.S. banks were similarly vulnerable to bank runs. First Republic Bank went into receivership in May, but the feared contagion of runs did not otherwise occur. Why not? As was said of Lehman Brothers fifteen years earlier, the targeted banks did not fall; they were pushed, or so it seems. One blogger shows how even JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, could be pushed — not perhaps by local short-sellers, but by China. And that is another good reason not to provoke the Chinese Dragon into “war by other means.”

The Targeted Crypto Banks

SVB, Signature and First Republic were not insolvent: they had sufficient assets (largely long-term Treasuries) to match their liabilities. They were just “illiquid”: they lacked enough readily available funds to meet the unanticipated deluge of deposit withdrawals in March. In fact no bank could withstand a bank run in which 85% of its depositors demanded their money back in the space of three days, as happened to SVB that month.

As of December 31, 2022, SVB had roughly $211 billion in assets, which were primarily offset by $173 billion in deposit liabilities; but it had only $13.8 billion in actual cash and “equivalents” – liquid money available to meet withdrawals. It had been flooded with deposits from tech startups funded by venture capitalists, and the startups did not need loans. The deposited reserves had therefore been used to buy Treasury securities, at a time when interest rates were so low that only long-term securities provided an adequate return. Some were marked “hold to maturity,” meaning they could not be sold at all; and the rest could be sold only at a major loss, since old bonds attracted few buyers after interest rates on new bonds shot up in the last year.

Yet many other banks had followed that path, investing in long-term assets that could not be liquidated or could be liquidated only at a substantial loss. So why did only SVB, Signature and First Republic wind up in government receivership? As explained in my earlier article here, they were considered “crypto-friendly” banks. In a revealing article called “Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, and Crypto Is in Its Crosshairs,” blogger Nic Carter details the “coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services.”

Whoever instigated the raid on the three targeted banks, their stock was heavily short-sold, driving share prices down. This alarmed the venture capitalists, who alerted their tech startup clients. Word spread quickly by social media, and the bank runs were on.

The Infamous Bear Raid

In a 2010 article titled “Wall Street’s Naked Swindle,” Matt Taibbi showed that the bankruptcies of both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, which triggered the banking crisis of 2008-09, were the result of targeted short sales. He wrote:

[W]hen Bear and Lehman made their final leap off the cliff of history, both undeniably got a push —especially in the form of a flat-out counterfeiting scheme called naked short-selling.… Wall Street has turned the economy into a giant asset-stripping scheme, one whose purpose is to suck the last bits of meat from the carcass of the middle class.

Even countries have been victims of targeted short-selling of their currencies. One infamous case occurred in 1992. According to Investopedia:

George Soros is said to have “broken” the Bank of England and precipitated “Black Wednesday” in the U.K. in September 1992 as a result of massive bets he made against the British pound.… As a consequence, the pound rapidly devalued, leading to an estimated $1 billion profit for Soros and his Quantum Fund.

Bear raids were also responsible for the “Asian Crisis” of 1997-98. Again according to Investopedia:

The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.

Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.

No Bank Is Safe from a Targeted Takedown

Which brings us to the largest U.S. bank, J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM). First Republic, SVB and Signature were not small banks. The country’s second, third, and fourth largest bank failures, they had assets of $229B, $209B and $118B respectively. But unlike JPM, they were not GSIBs — Globally Systemically Important Banks. Credit Suisse, however, was; and it too went bankrupt after it was subjected to massive short selling and deposit withdrawals in March 2023. Even GSIBs can be vulnerable.

JPM, however, is the fifth largest bank in the world, with assets of $3.7 trillion. Who could possibly bring that behemoth down or have the motivation or assets to do it? In a March 28, 2023 post titled “How to Wreck a Big Old GSIB Bank,” an anonymous blogger going by the pen name “DeepThroat IPO” laid out a plausible scenario. He observed:

Interestingly enough, JPM has about the same amount of cash on hand (available for immediate wire out) as SVB did when it blew up … $ 27.7 Billion.

However, he wrote, it has other liquid assets, totalling about $884 billion. That sounds like a lot, but

JPM has about “$2.34 Trillion in hair trigger Deposit liabilities (gulp) on the books — 15% of the total $16T deposits sitting on the books of the 2,135 U.S. Banks with assets over $ 300 million — that can move anywhere in the world with a few mouse clicks.”

DeepThroatIPO argues that China has U.S. assets sufficient to trigger a bear raid on this gargantuan bank, largely because of the unique way it handles its own currency. In the domestic Chinese economy, yuan are used, and the PBOC can print them at will. Merchants exporting to the U.S. take their dollars to the bank, trade them for yuan, and pay their workers and suppliers in yuan, leaving the PBOC with “free” U.S. dollars. This maneuver is confirmed in Investopedia:

One major task of the Chinese central bank, the PBOC, is to absorb the large inflows of foreign capital from China’s trade surplus. The PBOC purchases foreign currency from exporters and issues that currency in local yuan currency. The PBOC is free to publish any amount of local currency and have it exchanged for forex [foreign exchange]. This publishing of local currency notes ensures that forex rates remain fixed or in a tight range. It ensures that Chinese exports remain cheaper, and China maintains its edge as a manufacturing, export-oriented economy. Above all, China tightly controls the foreign money coming into the country, which impacts its money supply.

Printing domestic currency is another measure applied by China. The PBOC can print yuan as needed, although this can lead to high inflation. However, China has tight state-dominated controls on its economy, which enables it to control inflation differently compared to other countries. [Emphasis added.]

DeepThroatIPO comments:

The key, for China, Russia, Middle East regimes, etc., is to set up these export relationships with legitimate Western Businesses, continually collect Western Currency, maintain a significant trade surplus, and reinvest the currency in Western Assets, while keeping the RMB/Yuan “walled off”.…

The goal is not “free trade”. The goal, from the Chinese-axis perspective, is the accumulation of Western currency and financial assets … and it’s been working beautifully for more than twenty-five years … and it will continue to work as long as the Chinese-axis Trade Surplus with the rest of the world continues to remain substantially positive….

We know that the Party has been successfully walling off the currency since there are no meaningful RMB/Yuan balances anywhere on the planet (other than the mainland). There’s no need … because nobody uses Chinese currency for commerce/investing (… other than on Mainland China). Today, the World’s 2nd Largest Economy only lets about 2% of global settlements occur in RMB/Yuan.

The Chinese government and affiliated Chinese entities have purchased not just U.S. Treasuries with their dollars, but U.S. stocks, real estate, farmland and other assets. DeepThroatIPO calculates that the Chinese have “accomplished constructive control of approximately $58.58 Trillion of Western Financial Assets, stealthily hiding in Western Financial Markets, likely in plain sight.… [T]hat $58.58 Trillion, focused directly on select targets … is more than enough to sink our previously thought unsinkable fleet of battleship banks.”

Not that China would, but it could. In peaceful times, it profits from trade with the U.S., just as we need Chinese goods. But “all is fair in war,” and it is prudent to be aware of these covert potential weapons before fanning the flames of aggression. Cooperation serves the people on both sides of the conflict better than war.

Other Defenses

DeepThroatIPO admonishes that when a financial institution perceives that it is under attack, there needs to be a “circuit breaker”:  

Our Banks should NOT blindly wire out all of the current withdrawal requests (or accept the incoming wires).… Whenever withdrawals or deposits breach normal daily volume by a significant amount, at any particular institution we need to stop.…

We cannot continue to come to the nebulous conclusion that “Oh boy … it looks like we a need another systemic liquidity boost” and blindly provide it. We need to slow the entire process down.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPM, argues that shortselling bank stock should be banned. Better yet, as argued in my earlier article here, would be to make all shortselling illegal.

Another possibility comes to mind. Banks are vulnerable to shortselling only if they are publicly-traded. State-owned or city-owned banks are impervious to that sort of attack. The Bank of North Dakota, our one and only state-owned bank, is a stellar example. It cannot be short sold and it is not vulnerable to bank runs, since over 95% of its deposits come from the state itself. The Bank of North Dakota also acts as a mini-Fed for local North Dakota banks, extending a lifeline in the event of capital or liquidity shortages.

Like the U.S., China has a vast network of local banks; but most of its banks are government-owned. We may need to follow suit as a matter of defense. We need to ensure, however, that the governments owning our local banks actually represent the people. Banks should be public utilities, serving the public interest.

*

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

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.  

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Nord Stream – Anatomy of Dante’s Explosion

August 11th, 2023 by Hans-Benjamin Braun

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Abstract

Even months after the demolition of the Nordstream Pipelines it is a widely held opinion that the pipelines were destroyed with a moderate explosive of a few hundred kilograms TNT corresponding to a seismic event of (Richter-) Magnitude 2.3 and that the destruction of the pipeline was the only goal of that act.

An overview over publicly available seismic data all over Northern Europe shows that this could not be farther from the truth: Seismic traces were detected as far as the North Cape (1800km) and Greenland, thus characterizing the Nordstream explosion as a teleseismic event.

An analysis of the waveforms detected at seismic stations around the Baltic and Bothnian Sea characterizes this event to have (‘body-wave‘) magnitude mb = 3:9 +/- 0:15, corresponding to a detonation energy of 200 tons TNT-equivalent or more rather than the 500kg claimed in the press. The actual explosive power involved in the detonation is thus at least by a factor of 400 larger than what has been claimed in the press.

The resulting waveforms reveal little resemblance with conventional underwater explosions, but they share characteristics with known underground nuclear explosions. The explosive was positioned along the pipeline at a deliberately chosen location such that the generated shock wave was channeled and amplified by a natural oceanic canyon of approx. 20km width which runs from the detonation site towards Kaliningrad (RF).

Indeed, in neighbouring Polish Suwałki seismic amplitudes were registered that were 1000-fold of what is expected from a magnitude 3.9 event at that distance from the epicentre. Infrared satellite images of aerosols taken a few hours after the explosion show a cloud extending over more than a hundred kilometers into the Swedish mainland in wind direction while the adjacent coastal town of Karlskrona exhibited brief spell of mild rainfall in the following hours. Hydrodynamic satellite data show the emergence of a strong underwater current near the ocean floor (at 60m depth) away from the explosion site accompanied by significant backflow in the following hours. The topography of the ocean floor exhibits a natural, elliptically shaped depression of about 50km size and the explosive was placed close to the focal point. Such an arrangement is well known to be responsible for strong focussing effects of shockwaves towards the underwater channel directed towards Kaliningrad. This explains the extraordinary seismic amplitudes detected along that direction as registered in Suwałki.

These facts point towards a controlled and carefully prepared attack not only on Nordstream but also on the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Contents

Contents

I. Prologue 

II. Seismic Considerations 

1. Introductory Remarks 

2. Seismic Data of the Nordstream Explosions 

III. Hydrodynamic Considerations 

IV. Atmospheric signature – aerosol coverage in the infrared 

V. Conclusions 

VI. Epilogue

References 

Appendix — Focusing effects of shock waves

Click here to read the article.

*

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

Featured image is from Seymour Hersh

Bombshell: Was Nord Stream Nuked?

August 11th, 2023 by Peter Koenig

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The saga of the Nord Stream blow-up has been confusing, and confused with multiple reporting on who-did-it, and who did not do it, who had an interest, about the motives, and who was most suffering from the blast. It seems the saga never ends.

Perhaps it should not end before the truth has been found – and before the culprits are brought to justice, because this is a crime of tremendous proportion.

In early February 2023, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh released a report based on secret but he says highly reliable sources, providing details of how the US intelligence agencies planned the sabotage ordered by US President Joe Biden (confirmed at press conference on 7 February 2022). 

President Joe Biden:  “If Russia invades that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then “There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2” 

Reporter: “But how will you exactly do that, since the project is in Germany’s control?”

Biden:“We will, I promise you, we will be able to do that.”  (emphasis added)

J

Seymour Hersh revealed how the US Navy carried out the bombing with the cooperation of Norwegian forces. After the report was published, Washington quickly denied it.

The Blame Game. Who Did It?

This was the beginning of the blame game, who did it, how was it done and what were the motives. This speculative debate has not ended – and there is no end in sight.

An Underwater Tactical Nuclear Device?

However, about a month ago, Bombshell news, what appears to be evidence for the “How”, emerged. According to mathematician, physicist and geoscientist Professor Hans Benjamin Braun, the pipelines were devastated by an underwater tactical nuclear device.

This was reported by Swiss journalist Christoph Pfluger during his weekly Swiss “Transition TV” or TTV news show. See screenshot of Abstract (below), of Professor Braun’s report. Scroll dow for link to complete report of Professor Hans Benjamin Braun

Following initial accounts, moderate explosives of a few hundred kilograms of TNT were responsible for the destruction. That would correspond to a seismic reaction of a (Richter) Magnitude of 2.3.

However, after a review of publicly available seismic data throughout Northern Europe, this could not be further from the truth.

Seismic traces were reported as far as the Nord Cap (1,800km from the detonation) and Greenland, thus, characterizing the Nordstream explosion as a teleseismic event. An analysis of the wave-forms detected at seismic stations around the Baltic- and Bothnian Sea, characterizes this event as …. having a detonation energy of 200 tons of TNT equivalent or more, rather than the 500 kg claimed in the press”, says Professor Braun in his report.

This is an explosive power at least 400 times larger than claimed. The resulting wave-forms share characteristics with known underground nuclear explosions. Professor Braun concludes that only a nuclear explosion could produce these effects, which also include the extreme warming of the seabed, strong underwater currents, and the radioactive fallout that could be measured even in Switzerland.

For the full Swiss TTV report on the Nord Stream presumed nuclear devastation, see this. The news report is in German. The section on the pipeline explosion starts at min. 9:45. Professor Braun’s report, of which a screenshot of the Abstract, you see above, is in English. To view the TV report in German click the screen below

Translated into English, click Screen Below: (starts at 5’27”, following the presentation in German)

After Professor Braun finished his study, he handed it to several colleagues for peer review, among them three physics Nobel Laureates. In April 2023, the final report was handed to the governments concerned, including Sweden, Finland, Poland, as well as NATO’s Secretary General, Russia’s Ambassador in Switzerland, as well as to the UN Security Council, which at that time was chaired by Russia.

Link to the complete report by Professor Hans Benjamin Braun (English) entitled: Nordstream -Anatomy of Dante’s Explosion  which you can download

What happened? Big silence.

None of the countries concerned, not even Russia, and of course not NATO, seems to have an interest to escalate the case, demonstrating to the world that presumably Washington / NATO does not shy away from using a nuclear device to destroy the energy supply that fuels the German and European economy. And that we are indeed already in a nuclear war.

Motives for the “Sabotage”

Officially, the motives were nothing less than making sure that the “sanctions” on Russia over the Ukraine war would hold, could not be broken by Germany under pressure from Germany’s business and manufacturing community. Germany’s economy was going to suffer tremendously without cheap Russian gas.

Unofficially, there is a secret plan by the corporate financial cabal, a plan wholly integrated into the UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF’s Great Reset, to bring the western economies, particularly the ones of Europe and the US, down, possibly to a full-blown ruin. Number one instrument is depriving the economies of energy.

This goes hand in hand with the cabal’s depopulation agenda – also an integral part of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030. Achieving both these targets would make it easier to initiate and implement a new world order, based on full digitization and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The surviving humans would become electronically manipulatable transhumans which could be “turned on and off”, so to speak, as needs dictate.

The entire UN system is sold to the unnamed corporate financial behemoth. UN Agenda 2030 is not just comprising the 17 noble Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It goes much farther. To understand what these SDGs really mean – see this.

As to “unnamed financial cabal”, the number one financier and supporter of the World Economic Forum (WEF) is BlackRock. The WEF is one of the main executing agencies of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030.

The cabal is not there yet, and with humanity’s strength and spiritual power, these dark forces shall not reach their objective.

The cabal knows perfectly well that the world’s economies are fueled by hydrocarbon and that this will remain the main source of energy for the foreseeable future.

The propaganda and hubris talk about “climate change” no end, when real science knows that real climate change happens all the time, has happened for the last 4.5 billion years, since Mother Earth exists. Its main cause of influence is the sun – 97%-plus – and it has nothing to do with CO2 generated by man’s activities and economies. The ever ongoing natural process is slow so nature and sentient beings may adjust.

The brutal changes in weather and climate that we increasingly experience in the last decade or so, are wantonly man-made, meaning they are part of Environmental Modification (ENMOD) technologies called geoengineering. They include numerous highly sophisticated and scientifically studied technologies, which are capable of modifying the composition of the higher atmosphere to bring about rapid weather / climate changes – hot, cold, drought, flooding.

Drought, flooding, in rapid succession can and does destroy vital food crops, fertile agrarian lands, infrastructure, housing, and wellbeing of people. It causes, famine, misery, and death – and a bleak future.

Geoengineering can be targeted on specific societies, countries, or regions of the world. There is much similarity with potential nuclear warfare. See also this.

The chemicals and methods used in geoengineering – even satellites are used – are protected by hundreds of patents, of which the public at large has no idea. And of course, mainstream media is generously paid to remain silent about it.

In order to fight this massive crime on humanity, We, the People, must wake up, and take matters under OUR, We, The People’s control – NOW.

With every day we refuse to wake up, we move a step closer to the abyss of no return. We are seconds before midnight and must act NOW.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Freenations

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a recent online poll on Twitter X Joe Biden ended up dead last in an international poll on respected leaders.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin was first with 35.6% of the vote followed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with 33.7% of the vote, followed by Ukraine’s Zelensky with 21.9% of the vote.

Joe Biden was 4th out of 4 with 8.9% of the vote.

Over 826,000 participated in the poll.

But 81 million votes!

Joe Biden is a complete failure and embarrassment on the global stage. And everyone knows it. Democrats don’t care.

Via World of Statistics.

*

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

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Featured image is from The Gateway Pundit

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

Media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.

“Not really,” she smiles. “They would have picked up on it anyways.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts. “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research—years with low levels of hurricanes.

“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” says Curry. She realized that the critics were right. “Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded “they had a point.”

Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded. Alarmist scientists’ aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.

“Ugly things,” says Curry. “Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

It made Curry realize that there is a “climate change industry” set up to reward alarmism.

“The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program,” says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”

The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.”

“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.”

The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”

This is how “manufactured consensus” happens. Even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.

“The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant,” says Curry. She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”

“What kind of message does that give?” adds Curry. Then she answers her own question: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”

That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.

*

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

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Last week, the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was sentenced to 19 years in a penal colony – accused of financing “extremism” and “rehabilitating the Nazi ideology”.

Quite rightly, the United States and Britain instantly denounced the move, with the US State Department describing the conviction as “an unjust conclusion to an unjust trial”.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary James Cleverly claimed the outcome “shows Russia’s complete disregard for even the most basic of human rights”, piously adding: “Dissent cannot be silenced.”

Three days later, Imran Khan – until last year, the democratically elected prime minister of Pakistan – was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, courtesy of what looked like a kangaroo court, under murky circumstances.

These two cases are eerily similar. Few believe the charges laid against Navalny. Yet it is vital for President Vladimir Putin to remove him from the political stage – especially with Russian presidential elections scheduled to be held in March 2024.

Likewise, few believe the corruption charges laid against Khan carry any plausibility. Yet it is vital to get him out of the way ahead of Pakistan’s general election, scheduled for this autumn.

There are dark forces which want both men out of the way. Navalny was subject to an attempted poisoning three years ago, while Khan was wounded in an assassination attempt late last year.

Let’s spit out the ugly truth. Alexei Navalny and Imran Khan are both political prisoners, held on trumped-up charges by the Russian and Pakistan authorities.

Yet the West is only concerned about the fate of one of them.

Double Standards

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was swift to condemn the additional jail sentence imposed on Navalny, condemning “Russia’s conviction of opposition leader Alexei Navalny on politically motivated charges. The Kremlin cannot silence the truth. Navalny should be released”.

No US condemnation of Khan’s politically motivated trial.

British Foreign Secretary Cleverly was guilty of the same double standard.

Both Britain and America will be well aware that the charges against Khan – profiteering from official gifts – are flimsy.

In fact, when Khan was in office, he changed the law so that it would be more difficult for politicians to profit from gifts received on foreign visits.

Previously, if an official wanted to retain an item, they were able to purchase it at 20 percent of the value set by the Toshakhana evaluation committee. During his premiership, Khan raised the fee to 50 percent.

Khan is probably the least corrupt politician – admittedly not a high bar – in Pakistan’s modern history. He represents a reversion to the early school of post-independence politicians, from the Qaid-i-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, to the country’s first president, Iskandar Mirza, whose integrity was absolute.

None of this matters to the US and Britain, which have always preferred to deal with dictators who are pliable to their interests: Mohammad Ayub Khan, installed in a military coup in 1958; General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled with an iron fist during the 1970s and 80s; and more recently General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and served as Pakistan’s president from 2001 to 2008.

History proves that the US is structurally hostile to any Pakistani political leader with a democratic mandate.

Lonely Battle

Khan, to his enormous credit, had set out to challenge the deeply corrupt, dynastic two-party system that has dominated Pakistani politics, through the Bhutto family’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Sharif family’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), for more than half a century.

In doing so, he sought to end the country’s status as a client state of the US.

Almost unheard of among recent generations of Pakistani leaders, he stuck to his principles – falling afoul of the US in the process.

Throughout his long period in opposition, he fought a lonely battle against the US’s brutal war on terror, condemning drone strikes and standing up for the rule of law.

To his credit, Khan remained a thorn in the flesh of the US once in power. But he has paid the price.

I trace his demise to the fall of Kabul in August 2021, when Khan clashed with Washington over the freezing of Afghan state assets, as well as the American desire for access to Pakistani airspace.

From that moment, his card was marked. Khan had the impertinence to defy the US: the Biden administration’s refusal to denounce his imprisonment amounts to complicity.

I love Pakistan, have travelled to this beautiful country many times, and have respect for the Pakistan army and its role in maintaining stability after independence 75 years ago. But it is widely reported to be the architect of Khan’s downfall. 

Not for the first time, it is allowing itself to be dragged into national politics.

Deceitful Claims

Imran Khan is today the most popular politician in the country. Polls indicate that he would sweep to victory in any free and fair election.

Holding an election in Pakistan without Khan would be like putting on Shakespeare’s Hamlet without the prince.

Whoever wins an election without Khan would carry zero political legitimacy, and be despised as the local client ruler, ruling on behalf of the United States.

As for Khan, he has joined the long list of democratically legitimate national leaders who had the temerity to affect the US by striking out with an independent foreign policy. 

Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected civilian president, spent his final years in jail before dying in court.

Salvador Allende of Chile dared to win an election that the US wanted him to lose – and was dislodged from office in the most brutal of circumstances

Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s first democratically elected leader, who challenged the US by building an alliance of non-aligned nations, ended up in a prison where he was judicially murdered.

Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran. Too many others.

The silence of the US and Britain, both countries which deceitfully claim to believe in democracy, says it all. 

*

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

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism. 

Featured image is from IRF

For Biden, Thwarting China’s Development Is Job One

August 11th, 2023 by Mike Whitney

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Biden administration has imposed a blockade on advanced computer chips headed for China. The action is expected to slow China’s technological development while inflicting serious damage on the broader economy. The strategy has been widely praised by the media and foreign policy experts, but a growing number of analysts wonder if the plan could backfire?

Dan Wang is skeptical that Biden’s blockade will succeed in the way the authors had intended. Wang is a technology analyst who presented his views in an editorial at the New York Times. Here’s what he said:

The White House is intent on outcompeting China on technology. The ground on which this competition is taking place is chip making. But the Biden administration shouldn’t sit back and savor this accomplishment for one reason: What if its core belief — that advanced semiconductors are one of the critical fronts in the contest — is wrong?

America’s actions are driven by the assumption, articulated by the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, that computing chips are a force multiplier technology, staking it as critical to continued U.S. leadership. But what if the U.S. government is too focused on the most novel technologies rather than the most important ones? I believe America is in a great power contest with China, one that will be multidimensional and protracted, making it unlikely that success hinges solely on who can stay ahead in a few advanced technologies….

An excessive focus by the United States on A.I. — and on the advanced chip-making capabilities it requires — may represent a failure to appreciate China’s broad technology strengths. While China has suffered serious setbacks in chip production, its companies are vaulting ahead in other sectors. Last year China overtook Germany in automobile exports, and it is on track to overtake Japan as the global leader this year. While most of these exports consist of foreign brands produced in China, the numbers reflect the deep expertise that Chinese companies have built in the next era of automotive technologies, particularly in car batteries.

It’s not just cars. Industry estimates put Chinese companies at owning around 80 percent of the supply chain for solar manufacturing. Chinese electronics makers have produced a rising share of the components in Apple’s iPhone. And increasingly in less glamorous products — such as industrial machinery and basic household equipment…

With one hand, the U.S. government is blocking China’s progress on A.I. and supercomputing, but with the other, it is ushering Chinese companies toward concentrating their efforts on chips for products of daily use. And a world in which Chinese companies dominate the production of mature chips — driven directly by American policy — hardly looks like a victorious outcome for the United States….

We need to spend less time making ever more marginal refinements to restricting an emerging technology. Rather, we should take a more holistic view of a long-term contest with a peer competitor. That means broadening the strategic focus to a wider range of sectors and following through on plans to build unglamorous technologies, too. Biden Is Beating China on Chips. It May Not Be Enough, New York Times

Wang’s op-ed helps to point out the shortcomings of Biden’s blockade. Whatever technological gains the US may achieve in the near-term, they will pale in comparison to China’s forward progress in other, more mundane sectors of the economy. What the blockade illustrates is the administration’s obsessive search for a “silver bullet”, that is, a ‘magical weapon’ that will help them to achieve their broader strategic objectives. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will make a waning empire with dilapidated infrastructure, an aging workforce, a failing educational system, and a hollowed out industrial core, more competitive. The United States will have to spend less money on its wasteful and over-bloated military and more on the development of its productive assets and industries if it wants to compete head-to-head with a manufacturing powerhouse like China.

It’s also worth noting, that the blockade has dramatically impacted the bottom line of the major chip producers. Headlines like these can now be found in all the major mainstream media:

Samsung to extend production cuts after $7 billion chip loss in first half, Reuters

SK Hynix, one of the biggest memory chipmakers, reports record quarterly loss as prices slump, CNBC

Intel, Samsung, Micron and others are being hit by one of the worst chip routs ever in a swift decent from the pandemic sales surge, Bloomberg

Semiconductor giants are losing money on every chip as historic glut threatens to wipe out earnings, South China Morning Post

An industry that still is undergoing post-Covid distress syndrome, has now been whipsawed by precipitous policies aimed at containing a rising China. Here’s more on the topic from an article at the Global Times:

During a recent White House meeting with the chief executive officers of American semiconductor giants, Intel, Nvidia and Qualcomm criticized the Biden administration’s relentless approach to curb exports of advanced chips to Chinese customers, saying the restrictions will surely backfire on them, depleting them of a big revenue source and endangering their ability to lead the sector in the future.

The blunt warning is an attestation that the US government’s so-called “small yard and high fence” strategy to scupper China’s technology sector progress is ill-willed in the first place and to no avail in the end. For an example, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told senior US officials that limiting sales of American chips in China had “just made alternatives more popular.”

The undertone is if the American chip companies lose the market share in the world’s largest semiconductor market, they will lose them permanently. All the more, the availability and quality of the software that Chinese companies are using more than compensates for any hardware restrictions by Washington, the CEOs said. US-led semiconductor technology blockade to backfire on itself, allies, Global Times

Still, the Biden administration is charging ahead blindly despite the protests of industry honchos or skeptical allies. They’re not concerned about the loss of revenues for chip manufacturers or the impact their blockade could have on the industry as a whole. They are convinced that their onerous export controls will succeed and that, eventually, Beijing will submit to Washington’s diktat.

Most analysts, however, believe it is only a matter of time before China catches up and is able to produce its own advanced semiconductors. After all, China spends “$400 billion in annual chip imports” which will now be diverted to domestic production. Given China’s strides in other areas of technological development, we expect that they will bridge the gap within the decade. Consider, for example, what happened to Huawei. This is from an article at the New York Times:

Huawei may prove instructive once again. Battered by American sanctions and China’s strict pandemic controls, the company’s 2022 profits fell by a staggering 70 percent compared with the previous year. But there are signs of life: Despite the plunge in profits, revenues rose slightly, and the company’s operating system, HarmonyOS — which it developed after being cut off from using Android — has been installed on more than 330 million devices, mostly in China. …

Bereft of American chips and technology, Huawei has been forced to redesign and remanufacture all of its legacy products to ensure they contain no American components. The company is dragging along an entire domestic supply chain in its wake, sending its own engineers to help train and upscale Chinese suppliers it once shunned in favor of foreign alternatives. Recently, Huawei claimed that it had made significant breakthroughs in the electronic design software used to produce advanced semiconductors at a size that, though still a few generations behind the U.S., would put it further along than any other Chinese company. If Huawei manages to succeed, it could emerge from American sanctions stronger and more resilient than ever.‘An Act of War’: Inside America’s Silicon Blockade Against China, New York Times

So, yes, Trump’s sanctions put Huawei into a steep tailspin, but now the tech-giant is back on its feet and gaining momentum. Can we expect the same from China’s budding chips industry?

Yes, we can. China’s development may be delayed but it won’t be stopped. And when China finally catches up, they will remember the countries that violated WTO rules and abandoned their “free market” principles in order to inflict as much pain on China as possible. This is from a post at Econofact:

The rules of the WTO prohibit countries from acting unilaterally in response to what they perceive as violations by other countries. WTO members are instead required to use the WTO dispute settlement system for their complaints. This is intended to eliminate the possibility of a retaliatory spiral of protectionist measures. Recent moves by the United States to impose tariffs, justified as important to national security, are widely regarded by other countries as unilateral action that is illegal under WTO law…..

Unilateral action violating WTO rules risks destroying a system that the United States has led for decades, and that has benefited this country. U.S. Trade Policy: Going it Alone vs. Abiding by the World Trade Organization, Econofact

Simply put, Biden’s advanced semiconductor blockade is cheating. It is a clear violation of the rules the US agreed to uphold.

As we noted earlier, the vast majority of western journalists not only support the blockade but, also, take great delight in the fact that China is being unfairly targeted. Michael Schuman at The Atlantic, for example, is thrilled that Biden has taken such aggressive action which he thinks is entirely justified. Here’s what he said:

President Joe Biden showed Xi who’s boss. Two days earlier, on October 21, Biden had dropped the hammer on China’s semiconductor industry by fully implementing a slew of tough controls on the export of American chip technology to China. This is a painful blow to Xi’s ambitions to rival the U.S….

Biden’s new policy reveals that the standard narrative of China’s unstoppable ascent and America’s inexorable decline is based on flawed assumptions. The U.S. continues to hold tremendous economic and technological advantages over China, which, as Biden just signaled, Washington is becoming more willing to use against its Communist competitor. Above all, Biden’s export-control measures are a ruthless expression of American clout—and an intentional reminder that, in many respects, America has it and China does not. ...

These controls mark a distinct shift in Washington’s approach to China. On top of trying to outcompete China, which is the intent of the CHIPS Act recently passed to support the U.S. semiconductor sector, Washington is now purposely and openly working to hold back Chinese economic progress. Allen called the controls a “genuine landmark in U.S.-China relations” that heralds “a new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill.Why Biden’s Block on Chips to China Is a Big Deal, The Atlantic

Not surprisingly, Schuman’s views are shared by a vast number of his colleagues in the media. They all seem to believe that China must be punished for succeeding in a system the US helped to create. What’s striking about Schuman’s piece, however, is the diabolical glee with which he promotes the “new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry… with an intent to kill.” That might sound a bit extreme for an opinion piece, but it does accurately reflect the aims of the Biden team who seem fully-committed to “thwarting Chinese capabilities on a broad and fundamental level.” In short, sabotaging China’s technological rise looks to be Washington’s top priority.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In January 2010, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, doing what she does best, grasped a platitude and ran with it in launching, of all things, an institution called the Newseum. “Information freedom,” she declared, “supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress.”

The same figure has encouraged the prosecution of such information spear carriers as Julian Assange, who dared give the game away by publishing, among other things, documents from the State Department and emails from Clinton’s own presidential campaign in 2016 that cast her in a rather dim light. Information freedom is only to be lauded when it favours your side.

Who regulates, let alone should regulate, information disseminated across the Internet remains a critical question. Gone is the frontier utopianism of an open, untampered information environment, where bright and optimistic netizens could gather, digitally speaking, in the digital hall, the agora, the square, to debate, to ponder, to dispute every topic there was.  Perhaps it never existed, but for a time, it was pleasant to even imagine it did.

The shift towards information control was bound to happen and was always going to be encouraged by the greatest censors of all: governments. Governments untrusting of the posting policies and tendencies of social media users and their facilitators have been, for some years, trying to rein in published content in a number of countries. Cyber-pessimism has replaced the cyber-utopians. “Social media,” remarked science writer Annalee Newitz in 2019, “has poisoned the way we communicate with each other and undermined the democratic process.” The emergence of the terribly named “fake news” phenomenon adds to such efforts, all the more ironic given the fact that government sources are often its progenitors.

To make things even murkier, the social media behemoths have also taken liberties on what content they will permit on their forums, using their selective algorithms to disseminate information at speed even as they prevent other forms of it from reaching wider audiences. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, heeding the call of the very screams and bellows of their own creation, thought it appropriate to exclude or limit various users in favour of selected causes and more sanitised usage. In some jurisdictions, they have become the surrogates of government policy under threat: remove any offending material, or else.

Currently under review in Australia is another distinctly nasty example of such a tendency. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a proposed instrument that risks enshrining censorship by stealth. Its exposure draft is receiving scrutiny from public submissions till August. Submissions are sought “on the proposed laws to hold digital platform services to account and create transparency around their efforts in responding to misinformation and disinformation in Australia.”

The Bill is a clumsily drafted, laboriously constructed document. It is outrageously open-ended on definitions and a condescending swipe to the intelligence of the broader citizenry. It defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.” Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”

The bill, should it become law, will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to monitor and regulate material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”. The Big Tech fraternity will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA, with the regulator even going so far as proposing to “create and enforce an industry standard”. Those in breach will be liable for up to A$7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations.

What, then, is harm? Examples are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill. These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability. It can also include disruption to public order or society, the old grievance the State has when protestors dare differ in their opinions and do the foolish thing by expressing them. (The example provided here is the mind of the typical paranoid government official: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”)

John Steenhoff of the Human Rights Law Alliance has identified, correctly, the essential, dangerous consequence of the proposed instrument. It will grant the ACMA “a mechanism what counts as acceptable communication and what counts as misinformation and disinformation. This potentially gives the state the ability to control the availability of information for everyday Australians, granting it power beyond anything that a government should have in a free and democratic society.”

Interventions in such information ecosystems are risky matters, certainly for states purporting to be liberal democratic and supposedly happy with debate. A focus on firm, robust debate, one that drives out poor, absurd ideas in favour of richer and more profound ones, should be the order of the day. But we are being told that the quality of debate, and the strength of ideas, can no longer be sustained as an independent ecosystem. Your information source is to be curated for your own benefit, because the government class says it’s so. What you receive and how you receive, is to be controlled paternalistically.

The ACMA is wading into treacherous waters. The conservatives in opposition are worried, with Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman describing the draft as “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers. It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.” Not that the conservative coalition has any credibility in this field. Under the previous governments, a relentless campaign was waged against the publication of national security information. An enlightened populace is the last thing these characters, and their colleagues, want.

*

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

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

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

August 11th, 2023 by Global Research News

Video: “There is no corona pandemic but only a PCR Test plandemic”. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich, August 3, 2023

Retired Suddenly: NFL Players and International Soccer Players Injured After Taking COVID-19 Vaccines. Pericarditis, Arrhythmia, “Heart Conditions”, Blood Clots in Legs & Lungs

Dr. William Makis, August 7, 2023

Albert Einstein’s 1948 Letter to the NYT Warning Of Zionist Fascism In Israel

Dr. Albert Einstein, August 5, 2023

Died Suddenly on Vacation: Collapsing on the Beach. Covid Vaccinated while on Holidays

Dr. William Makis, August 7, 2023

New COVID-19 Variants: Propaganda Is Ramping Up and the COVID Con Is Back On

Dr. William Makis, August 9, 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein in the Brain?

Dr. William Makis, August 8, 2023

“Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”(UAP): What’s Up with All the Elites’ Alien Talk? Let’s Talk Motive

Ben Bartee, August 7, 2023

Niger – The Liberation from “Independence”

Peter Koenig, August 8, 2023

Covidian Madness Infects Alberta’s Criminal Justice System. The Truckers Movement and the Case of the “Coutts Four”

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, August 7, 2023

Target China

Mike Whitney, August 4, 2023

The New Woke Order

Richard Gale, August 4, 2023

Fire! Fire! Fire! … But Wait a Moment…

Julian Rose, August 7, 2023

Video: The Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told

StormCloudsGathering, August 7, 2023

List of 30 ‘Elites’ That Support and Promote Worldwide Depopulation

Michael Snyder, July 28, 2023

Carbon Dioxide Is the Least of Our Worries

Josh Mitteldorf, August 7, 2023

Are They Really Fighting Terrorists? U.S. Occupation Forces in Syria Receive New Weapons for a Future Conflict with Syrian and Russian Forces

Timothy Alexander Guzman, August 4, 2023

Strategic Visit? Victoria Nuland in Niamey: Some Interesting Details About Her Discussions in Niger

Andrew Korybko, August 8, 2023

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 5, 2023

The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society

Dr. Pascal Sacré, August 5, 2023

US-NATO Desperate in Ukraine. “No More Big Money, … All that is Left is Drip-Drip Small Handouts”

Karsten Riise, August 9, 2023

COVID Vaccine Myocarditis Relapses in Teenage Boys Following Apparently Complete Initial Recovery: Italian Researchers

By Alex Berenson, August 10, 2023

Both teenagers showed evidence of new heart damage from the recurrences, including high levels of proteins from injured cardiac muscle. Scans showed one boy had new lesions in his heart wall, and he needed nearly two weeks of hospitalization.

How Pacific Nations Are Playing US-China Rivalry to Their Advantage

By Salman Rafi Sheikh, August 11, 2023

Today’s global geopolitics is more about great power competition than any other thing. It is evident from the ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe, and it is evident from the ways in which the US has been trying to build a global coalition against China for the past many years now.

Mayor of Nagasaki Calls for Nations to ‘Break Free’ from Dependence on Nuclear Deterrence

By Roger McKenzie, August 10, 2023

Three days after world’s first nuclear attack hit Hiroshima, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people, a US warplane released another atom bomb over Nagasaki that claimed 70,000 more victims. Japan surrendered on August 15, ending World War II.

Competing War Narratives: Arrest of Gonzalo Lira by Ukraine’s SBU, and “Information Operations”

By Scott Ritter, August 10, 2023

Gonzalo Lira, the well-known Chilean-American YouTube personality, has been in the news lately. A former “lifestyle” coach, Lira re-branded himself as a geopolitical commentator in the leadup to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, providing gripping first-hand observations—often critical of the Ukrainian government and contradictory of the Ukrainian narrative—that were posted on YouTube.

Fauci Successor at NIAID Peddled Dangerous Remdesivir Drug as ‘Silver Bullet’ Against COVID-19

By Jordan Schachtel, August 10, 2023

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the newly minted successor to Dr Anthony Fauci at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was recently one of America’s chief hype women for an antiviral drug that is now unanimously considered an unsafe and catastrophically failed treatment for Covid-19.

All the News the CIA Sees Fit to Print

By David Talbot, August 10, 2023

When Kiriakou was a CIA official, he says, the agency leaked regularly to The Washington Post correspondents Woodward, David Ignatius and Joby Warrick—as well as “a half-dozen reporters” at The New York Times—because Langley spymasters knew they “will carry your water.”

Make Peace, You Fools! America’s Proxy War with Russia Has Transformed Ukraine into a Graveyard.

By Douglas Macgregor, August 10, 2023

Instead of approaching the negotiating table, Washington discarded the caution, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, that had guided previous American dealings with Moscow. Washington’s political class, with no real understanding of Russia or Eastern Europe, subscribed to the late Senator John McCain’s notion that Russia was a “gas station with nuclear weapons.”

‘Watershed Moment’: Over 700 Academics Equate Israeli Occupation with Apartheid

By Middle East Eye, August 10, 2023

More than 700 academics and public figures from Israel, Palestine and other countries have signed an open letter equating Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with apartheid, signalling what supporters say is a “watershed moment” for how Israel’s occupation is viewed.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 10, 2023

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

China Trade Going Down. A Country in Crisis. Significant Reduction of Chinese Exports to US and EU

By Karsten Riise, August 10, 2023

China’s property market is down, and in spite of few young Chinese people, the youth unemployment is running above 20%. South Korea depends on exports to China (especially chips) and saw its exports fall 16.5% in July. Biden and the Neocons are rejoicing — their anti-China trade & sanctions policy is succeeding.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two teenage boys who suffered heart inflammation following Pfizer’s Covid jabs and then seemed to recover had relapses months later, Italian researchers have reported.

Both teenagers showed evidence of new heart damage from the recurrences, including high levels of proteins from injured cardiac muscle. Scans showed one boy had new lesions in his heart wall, and he needed nearly two weeks of hospitalization.

The researchers could not determine why the boys suffered the relapses, which came 8 to 12 months after the initial myocarditis episodes. They called for tighter monitoring of anyone diagnosed with mRNA-caused myocarditis – and more research to determine if young people who suffered it might face severe future complications.

Published in late May in the journal Vaccine: X, the paper appears to be the first case report showing mRNA jabs can cause recurring myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. But public health authorities and the media, which since 2021 have played down cardiac side effects from mRNA shots, have ignored it.

Myocarditis has many causes, including viral infection and mRNA Covid vaccination.

It is often diagnosed when people go to emergency rooms with chest pain but can also occur without symptoms, causing people to have cardiac damage that is clear on heart scans or in blood tests but does not cause pain or fever.

Studies have shown myocarditis requiring hospitalization may occur in as many as 1 in 3,000 teenage boys or young adult men who receive a Covid jab, with the highest risk after the second dose. Many studies show Moderna’s shot, which has more mRNA than Pfizer’s, has a higher risk.

The underlying reason that the mRNAs cause myocarditis – and why it seems to affect young men more than anyone else – remains a mystery.

Researchers have proposed many different mechanisms, including direct damage from the spike protein the mRNA shots cause the body to make, immune system antibodies that mistakenly attack heart tissue instead of the spikes, or a more generalized immune system overresponse. So far they have not settled on a definite answer.

(Relapsing myocarditis. That’s not good, right?)

Source

In 2021 and 2022, public health experts and schools and universities – particularly in the United States – pushed mRNA Covid shots on teenagers and young adults at essentially no risk from Covid.

As the connection between the mRNAs and myocarditis became more clear, they downplayed its risks, calling it mild and tranisent.

But studies from South Korea, Qatar, and the Tokyo medical examiner’s office have proved that mRNA myocarditis can kill and has led to dozens of sudden deaths of young adults in those countries. The link to the deaths was generally discovered only after autopsies or medical record reviews of deaths within days or weeks of vaccinations.

The United States and most other mRNA vaccine countries have not conducted similar reviews, so the total post-jab myocarditis death toll remains a mystery.

(Everything was fine. Until it wasn’t.)

Another mystery is the long-term prognosis of teenagers and young adults who have suffered either mild or more severe post-jab myocarditis.

Some studies have shown changes in heart function up to a year later, but cardiologists disagree about whether the scarring visible on scans is severe enough to have meaningful long-term impact.

But the heart cannot regrow muscle after injury.

Any damage it suffers is effectively permanent, which is why the possibility that the mRNAs might caused repeated episodes of inflammation or scarring is so worrisome.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The mayor of Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the United States dropping of an atom bomb on the city by calling today for nations across the world to “break free” from dependence on nuclear deterrence.

Three days after world’s first nuclear attack hit Hiroshima, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people, a US warplane released another atom bomb over Nagasaki that claimed 70,000 more victims. Japan surrendered on August 15, ending World War II.

The US remains the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in armed conflict.

At 11.02am, the moment the bomb exploded above the southern Japanese city, participants in today’s ceremony observed a moment of silence with the sound of a peace bell.

During his peace declaration, Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki said:

“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence.

“As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realise a world without nuclear weapons.”

Mr Suzuki expressed concern that the nuclear bombing could be forgotten as time passes and memories fade.

Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks have expressed frustration about the slow progress of disarmament, while the facts about what happened and their ordeals are not yet widely shared around the world.

Mr Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha — survivors of the Nagasaki attack — said that knowing the reality of the atomic bombings was the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

He described the survivors’ testimonies as a true deterrence against the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr Suzuki demanded that the government of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida quickly sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and clearly show “Japan’s resolve to abolish nuclear weapons.”

Japan, as a key ally of Washington, is covered by the US nuclear umbrella but is rearming as the allies ramp up threats against China and North Korea.

Under its new national security strategy, Mr Kishida’s government is pushing for a military build-up focusing on its strike capability.

As of March, 113,649 survivors, whose average age is 85, are certified as hibakusha and eligible for government medical support, according to the Health and Welfare Ministry.

However, many other victims of the atomic bombing, including those known as victims of the “black rain” that fell outside the initially designated areas, have been left with no government support.

*

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

Featured image is from NHK via Teller Report

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Gonzalo Lira, the well-known Chilean-American YouTube personality, has been in the news lately. A former “lifestyle” coach, Lira re-branded himself as a geopolitical commentator in the leadup to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, providing gripping first-hand observations—often critical of the Ukrainian government and contradictory of the Ukrainian narrative—that were posted on YouTube. As his popularity grew, his social media footprint expanded, with his Twitter and Telegram accounts garnering tens of thousands of followers, and his YouTube videos garnering hundreds of thousands of views and subscribers.

Gonzalo Lira was arrested by the SBU, or Ukrainian intelligence service, on April 15, 2022, and released five days later. Lira has been circumspect about both the arrest and the conditions of his release—he blithely calls it his “missing week.” Lira does acknowledge that his computers and phone were seized by Ukrainian authorities, and that he was released under conditions of “house arrest,” implying some sort of continued monitoring and control of his activities by the SBU. Nonetheless, he was able to gain access to a computer, set up a new email account, and immediately begin posting information critical of the Ukrainian government.

Alex Christoforou, of The Duran, interviews Gonzalo Lira after his release from SBU custody, April 22, 2022

There is only one logical explanation for this chain of events. Gonzalo Lira was arrested by the SBU for crimes he himself admits gets people arrested, tortured, and murdered. He is released five days later—unharmed—and immediately allowed to resume the exact same activity that led to arrest in the first place, only this time on a computer and email account controlled by the SBU.

This is a classic “catch and release” scenario, with Gonzalo Lira playing the role of “police confidential informant”—someone who provides information in exchange for lenient treatment. There literally is no other plausible explanation for what happened other than this.

And yet controversy swirls around the saga surrounding Lira’s arrest and release, as well as his subsequent actions, including his re-arrest in May 2023, his re-release on July 6, and a series of bizarre videos and tweets made by Gonzalo on July 31, released while he waited at the Ukrainian-Hungarian border, awaiting his attempt to “escape” Ukrainian custody, all the while broadcasting his intent for all the world—and the SBU—to see. According to charging documents published by the Kharkov prosecutor overseeing Lira’s case, the former lifestyle coach failed in his attempt, and is once more in the custody of the SBU awaiting trial.

Many people, including those with whom Lira had interacted with and befriended over the course of the past two years, have rallied in his support, taking umbrage—often extreme—at my contention that Lira has been, ever since his arrest in April 2022, an asset of the SBU.

Under normal circumstances, I might make common cause with these people, granting Lira the benefit of the doubt and arguing for his release and subsequent deportation from Ukraine, only addressing the anomalies and inconsistencies in his narrative once he is safely outside of Ukraine.

But these are not normal circumstances.

We are at war.

This applies to everyone reading these words, and everyone who doesn’t. The fact that a person neither accepts that he or she is a participant in this conflict, nor recognizes its existence, does not matter.

We are at war.

This conflict does not involve tanks, artillery, aircraft, bombs, bullets, drones, or bayonets.

It is a war of words, of ideas.

It is an information war, a battle of competing Russian and Ukrainian narratives fought on a global scale. The stakes are high; as Andrii Shapovalov, the acting head of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD)—one of the frontline organizations involved in this war—recently noted in an address, “For them [Russia], as for us, this is a matter of life and death.”

Shapovalov’s words were spoken at a gathering of the National Cluster on Information Resistance, convened in Kiev on July 3, 2023. The National Cluster on Information Resistance is a group of experts and organizations that work together to counter disinformation and cyber threats in Ukraine, funded by the US Civil Research and Development Fund (Global), a private entity created by the US Congress whose presence in Ukraine was underwritten and supervised by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

Bluntly stated, if you are a US citizen who holds a position counter to the official US government/Ukrainian narrative regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, you are being treated as a hostile combatant in the information war that has sprung up around this conflict, regardless of your constitutionally protected right to free speech.

And if you’re not American, you’re free game.

Just in case that point isn’t driven home strong enough, consider the following: The CCD, with the backing of the United States, has published a blacklist of persons—including many notable American citizens—of persons it has labeled as “information terrorists.” According to the CCD, it’s mission, carried out in conjunction with Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, is twofold. First, to combat information terrorism, and second, to coordinate this effort with international “partners.”

The CCD defines “information terrorism” as “a Crime against Humanity committed by means of instruments affecting the consciousness.” In short, anyone who exercises his or her right to free speech can be prosecuted as a “terrorist” in the full meaning of that term.

To drive that point home even more, the United States—Ukraine’s leading partner in this information war—kills terrorists preemptively, void of any notion of due process.

The CCD wants to mainstream this mindset on a global basis. “Having joined forces with the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and its international partners,” the CCD has declared, it “is taking the initiative to establish this term in international practice,” calling on the international community to “unite in the face of information terrorism.”

In this regard, the CDD makes four demands. First, that Russia be declared an “infoterrorist state,” and that “infoterrorism” must be equated with “actual terrorism,” requiring “appropriate measures to counter it.” Second, that anyone associated in any way with “infoterror” be treated as an “information terrorist.” This definition is all-inclusive—editors, writers, presenters, cameramen, bloggers, etc.

In short, anyone who is involved in the production of any information that runs counter to the Ukrainian narrative regarding the war with Russia is an “infoterrorist.” Third, the financing of “infoterrorism,” both “explicit” and “implicit,” should be banned by “both international and domestic law,” and those who are involved in such financing should be treated as “accomplices to information terrorists.” And finally, any individual, company, public organization, or legal entity which is involved in “infoterrorism” should be subjected to sanctions, using the US list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism” as a model.

Anyone who has ever uttered or written a word that runs counter to the official Ukrainian narrative is, in the mind of Ukraine, an “infoterrorist.”

Ukraine is at war with “infoterrorists.”

As such, those practitioners of free speech who run afoul of Ukraine’s expansive definition of “infoterrorism” are combatants in this conflict, whether you want to be or not. And in war, the individual doesn’t matter. People are mere tools, to be deployed as needed, used, and discarded when no longer useful.

Chronologically, Lira’s arrest followed on the heels of the CCD’s publication of its mission statement regarding “infoterrorism.” There can be no doubt that Gonzalo Lira fell into the category of “infoterrorism” as far as Ukraine was concerned, as did anyone who collaborated with him.

This is a critical point that must be understood by anyone following Lira’s saga—in the eyes of the Ukrainians, he is an enemy combatant, not an individual with rights. He is a terrorist. Enemy combatants/terrorists are either eliminated or turned into a tool to be used to further the fight against “infoterrorists.”

When Gonzalo Lira was released by the SBU in April 2022, he was not the person he was when he had been arrested. That person was neutralized in Ukraine’s war on “infoterrorism.” Gonzalo Lira’s every move was, and is, controlled by the SBU to assist them in their larger information war against other “infoterrorists.”

If the many people who interacted with Gonzalo Lira, both before and after his April 2022 arrest, do not recognize this reality, then they are playing directly into the hands of the Ukrainian security services, because Gonzalo Lira is a Ukrainian weapon being used as part of a larger information operation being waged against everyone in the alternative media universe who produces content Ukraine might consider running counter to its goals and objectives in its conflict with Russia.

I don’t approach the topic of information warfare, or its derivative activity, information operations, lightly. In my time as an intelligence professional, both with the US Marine Corps and, later, with the United Nations, I was personally involved in information manipulation operations managed by US and UK intelligence services. One involved a joint CIA-CNN/Time collaboration, “The Inspector’s Story,” to produce a documentary which, according to the presenter, CNN’s own Bernard Shaw, used “the inspectors’ own stories told through interviews, documents, videotape and surveillance photographs” to “help explain why the United States and Britain threaten to bomb Iraq if inspections are not allowed to continue unimpeded.”

The timing of the release of the CNN/Time documentary was critical—I was scheduled to lead an inspection team into Iraq in the first week of March 1998 which was designed to provoke Iraq into blocking our work. The US government had deployed extensive military forces into the Persian Gulf and was prepared to use any evidence of Iraqi noncompliance to justify a military strike on Iraq. As Shaw noted, the documentary was designed to prepare an American audience for the need for military action against Iraq.

The collaboration between UNSCOM, the CIA, and CNN/Time wasn’t the only example of information operations designed to influence public opinion. The British government was concerned about the effectiveness of the Iraqi-Russian-French collaboration on shaping an anti-UNSCOM narrative and was keen on flipping the script back to a story line which emphasized Iraqi non-compliance with its disarmament obligation. In the Fall of 1997, I was approached by MI-6 regarding an information operation they were running known as “Operation MASS APPEAL.” MI-6 informed me that they had “connectivity” with highly-placed editors in major newspapers around the world in nations which had shown a proclivity for being swayed by the Iraqi-Russian-French story line.

What MI-6 proposed was for UNSCOM to provide it with intelligence reports we had gathered over the years from various sources which had not been of sufficient quality to “weaponize” into an on-site inspection. These reports were languishing in my safe until which time additional corroboration could be found. The problem was, most of these reports were dated, and even if corroboration could be had, we couldn’t justify an inspection on the grounds that the information lacked currency.

After getting approval from the UNSCOM Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, I passed onto MI-6 several reports which were then processed by MI-6 into “leads” that were leaked to newspapers in eastern Europe and South Asia, where they were turned into news reports that the British government could then use to bolster its case that Iraq was noncompliant with its disarmament obligation. I met with two MI-6 officers in London in June 1998 where we discussed expanding “Operation MASS APPEAL.” However, my resignation from UNSCOM in August 1998 brought this collaboration to an end.

Information warfare, and its derivative, information operations, are an ever-present reality in warfare. The Ukrainians, through the work of the CCD and it’s SBU-run cousin, the so-called “Myrotvorets kill list,” have taken the war on ideas to a whole new level. However, they are not without significant help from both the United States, which provides funding, training, and operational assistance, and the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Fleming, the Director of GCHQ, the British communications spy agency, has acknowledged that there is significant cooperation between his organization and their Ukrainian counterparts regarding information warfare. While neither Fleming nor the Ukrainians have discussed the details of this cooperation, leaked documents from the trove of material released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 provide critical insight into how GCHQ and, by extension, Ukraine approaches information operations in the digital age, and how someone like Gonzalo Lira could factor into such plans.

Within GCHQ is a special unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, or JTRIG. Within the JTRIG is a more specialized team known as the Human Science Operations Cell, or HSOC. One of the mission statements of the JTRIG is to use “online techniques” to “make something happen in the real world.” This is done through the conduct of targeted information operations designed to influence and/or disrupt the target, something known in the “business” as “effect operations.”

The HSOC conducts active overt internet operations, including online human intelligence collection and effect operations. In the case of Ukraine, the aim of the HSOC and/or its Ukrainian counterpart team in the SBU would be to disrupt the dissemination of information deemed to be pro-Russian propaganda and/or disinformation, to discredit websites hosting such information along with the individuals and/or groups using them, to conduct online human intelligence collection, and to host pro-Russian sites in order to enable the collection of signals intelligence data.

The techniques used by HSOC and their Ukrainian counterparts could include the uploading of YouTube videos containing persuasive messages; establishing online aliases with Facebook, Telegram and Twitter accounts, blogs and forum memberships for conducting human intelligence or encouraging discussion on specific issues; establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases; sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person; providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information; providing online access to uncensored material; sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing uncensored websites; and contacting host websites asking them to remove material and/or deplatform/demonetize a targeted individual or group.

Such operations are not “spur of the moment” affairs, but rather involve detailed planning which incorporates human behavioral science. HSOC in particular incorporates the so-called “Hofstede Dimensions” developed by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede, which employs cross-cultural ideas of “collectivism” and/or “group think” to influence individuals and/or groups through psychological conditioning and manipulation, into every aspect of its operations.

A critical aspect of employing “Hofstede Dimensions” to their full effect is the ability to develop a detailed behavioral model of the targeted groups and individuals. One of the most effective ways of achieving this is to have an operative insert an alias into a targeted group and/or community, HSOC has demonstrated the ability to carry out the following intelligence collection objectives:

1) Count the number and/or location of views (e.g., for YouTube video) or hits to a website to see if people have accessed the message;

2) Check online and/or collect SIGINT to see if a message has been attended to, understood, accepted, remembered, and changed behavior (e.g., people have spread the message and communicate support for it, people lack trust in the discredited individual/group/regime, people are delayed or deterred from an activity or interaction);

3) Count the number and significance of friends that an alias has, people who have joined the Facebook group, Telegram channel, people who have responded to a blog or post;

4) Analyze the content of communication between a potential source of online human intelligence and the alias to see if he/she is providing useful intelligence;

5) Count the number of times a potential source of online HUMINT initiates communication with the alias;

6)  Check online and/or collect SIGINT to see if people have accessed uncensored material that has been made available to them;

7) Check online to see if hosts who have been asked to delete material have done so;

8) Count the number of websites taken down;

9) Check if an individual or group does allow their site to be hosted (unknowingly) by HSOC or Ukrainian intelligence.

Of course, another way of achieving the same objective would be to have someone on the inside operating in a similar role. This would be the ideal operational purpose behind the SBU using Gonzalo Lira as a controlled asset.

One of the documents released by Edward Snowden was a slide presentation entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.” Here the JTRIG openly talks about building so-called “cyber magicians” who “conjure with information” through formal training intended to produce “accredited computer network operators” (ACNO)—modern day information warriors. For those who question the scope and scale of potential information operations that can conceivably be conducted against unwitting targets, the JTRIG training document provides three slides which, when viewed in sequence, demonstrate how “cyber magicians” such as those who would oversee the weaponization of Gonzalo Lira conceive their operational space.

Slide one, ACNO Key Skill Strands

The first slide lists the three “key skill strands” that define the work of an ACNO—Online Human Intelligence, Influence and Information Operations, and Disruption and Computer Network Attacks. Under each skill strand, the slide lists the so-called “magic” techniques and experiments that are used by the operators in their work. Online human intelligence focuses on individual, group, and global collection sets. The influence and information operations focus on four “effects” types: psychology, deception, performance, and media. For disruption and computer network attack activities, an ACNO will emphasize professionalism, elegance, creativity, and intuition.

Slide two, filled-in skill strand chart

The second slide begins to populate the skill strands with actions done to develop the skill into something that relates to an actual discernable activity and objective. Note the role played by “Hofstede Dimensions” in developing skill strands that deal with human behavior. This approach should impress anyone who is dismissive of the value of having a trusted agent operating on the inside of any targeted group, or able to interact with a targeted individual. Gonzalo Lira would have been an invaluable resource in facilitating access to the kinds of information and insights being developed by the involved ACNOs.

Slide three, developed operational thinking

The third slide is perhaps the most damning of all, highlighting as it does the critical importance of having “insiders” in position to facilitate “destructive operational psychology” in support of “planned interventions.”

Again, this is a role ideal for a controlled asset such as Gonzalo Lira.

On April 30, 2022—some two weeks after he was released by the SBU—Lira started up his new YouTube channel, “The Roundtable,” using a “nine-year old Mac” computer—the social media infrastructure he used to rely upon was still in the custody of the SBU. His stated objective was to keep posting material “until I get arrested again.”

Lira’s “Roundtable” forums were a literal petri dish for the creation and collection of invaluable data for the kind of “Hofstede Dimension” analysis carried out by persons conducting information operations. I’ve watched a dozen or more of Lira’s “Roundtable” forums. Lira is an artful conductor, leading his guests through an emotional roller coaster of provocative positions on a variety of issues, making common cause in what is a textbook example of group bonding. Lira assumed the role of the brave dissident, continuing to post critical content with the help of like-minded guests.

Lira’s “Roundtable” podcast provided a platform for alternative media personalities such as Mark Sleboda, Brian Berletic, Alexander Mercouris and Alexander Christoforou from The Duran, Larry Johnson, and a host of others. One thing all these guests have in common, beyond their critical appraisal of Ukraine, is that all believe that Gonzalo Lira cannot be an asset of the SBU. In short, they reject out of hand any notion that the SBU could have recruited him following his arrest back in April 2022.

Mark Sleboda found the notion of Lira having been turned by the SBU “baseless, absurd, and puerile slander.” Brian Bertelic, Alexander Christoforou, and Alexander Mercouris’ all found the notion of Gonzalo Lira being recruited—or even recruitable—by the SBU “crazy.” Frankly speaking, I don’t take too much umbrage at their objections—none of them are intelligence professionals (although Alexander Mercouris, as a former senior barrister, should be well-acquainted with the concept of Police Confidential Informants).

Larry Johnson, however, is an intelligent professional. He has called my contention that Lira is an SBU asset “utter nonsense.” According to Johnson, “No CIA case officer in their right mind would sign up someone like Gonzalo for several reasons. First, he is an American citizen. CIA is prohibited from recruiting US citizens as intelligence assets. Second, Gonzalo’s commentary, analysis and hosted roundtables did not in any way advance a US Government position. Just the opposite — he was (and is) a strong critic.”

This line of thinking is nonsensical. First and foremost, there is no discussion of Lira being recruited by the CIA—that entire argument is a red herring. Second, it is Lira’s “commentary, analysis and hosted roundtables” which make him the ideal candidate for recruitment by the SBU. The JTRIG, in outlining its approach to conducting information operations, emphasized the importance of creating aliases for the purpose of infiltrating online forums such as Lira’s “Roundtable.” With Lira, the need to create an alias was eliminated—the SBU was now, literally, running the show.

All Lira had to do was what he always did—guide a discussion involving like-minded people. The SBU then could pick the topics, have Lira ask some leading questions, stroke some egos, emphasize certain points while downplaying others, and the “Roundtable” became a laboratory for human behavior ideal for the collection of data suitable for “Hofstede Dimension” analysis.

As Larry knows only too well, this kind of recruitment occurs all the time in the intelligence business. The way the CIA and MI-6 avoid the pitfalls associated with unpredictable characters like Gonzalo Lira is to have a partner intelligence service do the actual recruiting and running of an asset, while the CIA and MI-6 monitor and advise.

When I was with UNSCOM, I was involved in several human recruitments of this nature. Perhaps the most relevant was the recruitment of a Romanian aeronautical engineer who was trying to sell surface-to-surface missile production equipment to Iraq in violation of Security Council sanctions.

The British and Israeli intelligence services were both monitoring the preparations being made by Iraq to send a delegation to Romania. Based upon this information, the Romanian aeronautical engineer—who had been engaged in numerous illicit activities involving theft of government property and black-market sales of sensitive military technology—was selected as the best candidate for recruitment. After detailed planning on the part of all parties to this effort, a concept of operations was developed, and a timeline of action created.

The Romanian engineer was confronted by Romanian security officers with evidence of his illegal activities and given the option of going to jail or working for the Romanian intelligence service. By controlling the engineer, MI-6, through the Romanians, was able to manage every aspect of the meetings between the Iraqis and Romanians, including where the meeting would take place (so it could be monitored with video and audio recordings), and when it would take place. By turning the Romanian engineer, into a police confidential informant, MI-6 was able to shape the visit of the Iraqi delegation to conform with the timeline of desired outcomes all the while collecting all the desired intelligence necessary to achieve the overall operational objectives.

Diagram showing how tension can be used to cause groups to self-destruct.

By controlling Gonzalo Lira, the SBU was able to do the same thing. The best example of how this is done, and for what purpose, can be found in one of the JTRIG training slides. One of the best “events” that a side conducting information operations can arrange is to have opposing groups engage in self-destructive behavior. To accomplish this, the SBU would need to be able to identify the factors that push a group together, and those which pull a group apart. Then the SBU would need to create tension by setting members against members using fracture points in the structure of the group that had been identified during the intelligence collection phase of the effort.

Based upon this model, one might reasonably conclude that the current tension between myself and like-minded persons in the alternative media universe, and Larry Johnson, Brian Bertelic, The Duran, and others, regarding whether or not Gonzalo Lira was an SBU asset was, in fact, a successful information operation “event” planned by the SBU to drive a wedge between like-minded individuals who were of a like mind when it comes to Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine.

It was an event which began back in June 2022, when Gonzalo Lira published a video on YouTube in which he attacked me personally. It was an interesting video, one which seemed derived from the kind of behavioral science that drives the JTRIG and SBU methodologies regarding human network disruption. Lira pushed every button imaginable, clearly trying to trigger a response from me. While I was not immune to his attacks, I quickly recognized that Lira had fallen under the control of the SBU, and publicly called him out as such.

In retrospect, my reaction was predictable—like Pavlov’s Dog, I responded to appropriate stimuli. The split between myself and Lira, which continues to this day, appears to be the goal of an SBU information operation “event” on the grounds that anything which weakens the bonds of cooperation between members of the alternative media community can only be seen as a good thing by the SBU.

People often point out that Gonzalo Lira has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing by a system of reputable justice, and as such should not be condemned of a crime he may not have committed. But this ignores the reality that we are at war. If Gonzalo Lira’s behavior raises red flags—and no rational person can look at the details surrounding Lira’s April 2022 “catch and release” escapade without their being significant questions—then as combatants in this conflict, my fellow alternative media members and I would do well to treat all interaction with Mr. Lira—past, present, and future—with extreme caution.

At a minimum, the Gonzalo Lira saga has demonstrated that the alternative media community has great uncertainty about who Mr. Lira is, and where his allegiance ultimately falls. We have been blinded by our own egos, which benefited from Mr. Lira’s attention, which means in many ways we do not even know ourselves. Unless we collectively become wise to the reality of the situation, we are on a path toward losing the information war which, in our case, means the end of free and critical speech and thought.

I have been honest and open about my feelings regarding Gonzalo Lira. I also recognize that my actions were probably incited by Lira, in collaboration with the SBU, to achieve this very result. But at least I am willing to confront this matter straight on, respectful of both the facts and the circumstances.

Who among my critics can honestly say the same thing?

We are at war.

When viewed in this light, Gonzalo Lira is not a simple wayward US citizen with misplaced notions of protected speech in a hostile country which operates outside of the protections afforded by the US Constitution, but rather a collaborator trying to bring harm to our collective embrace of fact-based truth.

We are at war.

“Know the enemy and know yourself,” Sun Tzu wrote, lest you “fear the result of a hundred battles.” However, “If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

It is high time for the alternative media collective to start learning.

About themselves.

About their enemies.

Otherwise, we will fail in our mission of providing an alternative to the mainstream narrative.

We are at war.

Start acting like it.

*

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

Featured image is from SRE

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the newly minted successor to Dr Anthony Fauci at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was recently one of America’s chief hype women for an antiviral drug that is now unanimously considered an unsafe and catastrophically failed treatment for Covid-19.

Prior to moving to her Government Health post, Marrazzo was the longtime director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). 

In partnership with Big Pharma drugmaker Gilead, UAB played a major role in the research and development of Remdesivir. The drug was developed over a decade ago with the hopes to treat Hepatitis C and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but was suddenly repurposed to “treat” Covid-19 when coronavirus hysteria reached the United States.

Given the UAB-Gilead partnership, one would think that Dr. Marrazzo would refrain from commenting on issues through which she maintained a clear conflict of interest. Or at the very least, she had the duty to disclose her conflict of interest when speaking to the media about the UAB-developed “wonder drug.” She did no such thing.

Even worse, Dr. Marrazzo bashed harmless and low cost alternatives like hydroxychloroquine, while hyping the super expensive Gilead-UAB competitor drug.

“The hope was maybe, if you treat early in the disease, you don’t need a silver bullet” such as remdesivir, she told The Washington Post in a July 2020 piece. “Hospitals are on the razor’s edge,” she added, contributing to the fear and paranoia that was enveloping the nation at the time.

In interview after interview, Dr. Marrazzo had nothing but good things to say about remdesivir, despite the incredible lack of data available to support her outandish claims about the drug.

On social media, Marrazzo lavished endless praise upon Remdesivir, declaring it the best agent against coronavirus disease, and boasting that her hospital tries to use it on every covid-hospitalized patient. 

“We don’t have enough remdesivir to treat everybody who’s in the hospital,” she said in a late 2020 news conference about the state of her hospital system. “It’s a really challenging situation.”

Her predecessor at the NIAID, Mr Fauci, infamously paraded Remdesivir as the “standard of care” for Covid-19 treatment, adding that it can “block the virus.”

Unsupported pseudoscientific claims about very expensive drugs (a full course of remdesivir costs the patient thousands of dollars) is nothing new for NIAID officials, who, under Fauci’s leadership, have created an agency that acts as a government marketing department for pharmaceutical companies.

Undoubtedly, Marrazzo’s Remdesivir maximalism had disastrous implications for patients hospitalized at UAB. The so-called silver bullet later took on a morbid nickname, “run, death is near,” because of the severe side effect portfolio associated with the IV drug. 

The headlines speak for themselves:

Remdesivir not only failed, but actively harmed hospitalized patients, who were being injected with the antiviral agent following the recommendations of Dr. Marrazzo.

The most exhaustive studies on the Gilead-UAB drug show that there are zero clinical benefits to injecting patients with remdesivir. Many studies show that Remdesivir can severely injure vital organs such as the heart and kidneys.

Dr. Marrazzo has never publicly expressed remorse for her longtime promotion of the drug she once described as a “silver bullet” against Covid-19. She last promoted the unsafe drug in December, 2021, long after most hospital systems stopped treating patients with the Gilead-UAB disaster drug.

*

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


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

All the News the CIA Sees Fit to Print

August 10th, 2023 by David Talbot

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

John Kiriakou looked up from his desk at CIA headquarters and was stunned to see The Washington Post investigative reporter, Bob Woodward, walking through the secure area without an agency escort. On another occasion, Kiriakou—who rose at the CIA to become executive assistant to the deputy in charge of operations, the spy agency’s dark activities—saw CNN host Wolf Blitzer wandering unattended through the same area, despite the CIA’s ban on communicating with the media.

“We like to think there’s a Chinese wall between the CIA, especially senior CIA officials, and the American media,” Kiriakou recently told the London Real podcast. “In fact, they’re in bed together.”

Kiriakou later became a well-known whistleblower. He was the only CIA employee who went to prison for the agency’s torture program, sentenced in 2013 to 30 months behind bars—not because he himself tortured anyone, but because he told an ABC News reporter about the waterboarding to which the agency subjected a war on terror captive.

These days, Kiriakou is outraged for a different reason: the tight connection between the CIA and the media elite. All too often, he says, the national security journalists who are granted access by Langley can be trusted to see world affairs—and the U.S. empire’s dominant role in them—the way the CIA wants them to. Whether it’s the war in Ukraine, tensions with Russia and China, or U.S. military exploits in the Middle East and Africa, coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and on television reflects the slanted view of the national security establishment.

When Kiriakou was a CIA official, he says, the agency leaked regularly to The Washington Post correspondents Woodward, David Ignatius and Joby Warrick—as well as “a half-dozen reporters” at The New York Times—because Langley spymasters knew they “will carry your water.”

Washington journalists who contradict the U.S. national security line—even legendary ones like Seymour Hersh, who enjoyed CIA access for many years—soon find themselves in the cold, according to Kiriakou. Hersh once worked for The New York Times and The New Yorker, but was forced to publish his exposé on the lethal U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, which tied the alleged 9/11 mastermind’s execution more to clandestine collaboration with Pakistani intelligence than to American heroics, in the low-circulation London Review of Books. Last year, Hersh was relegated to Substack to publish his investigative report on the explosion of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline, which blamed the act of war on U.S. Navy divers in a secret CIA operation ordered by President Joe Biden. (The New York Times still finds the sabotage a “mystery.”)

Hersh forced to self-publish? “That’s how bad it’s gotten in the United States,” Kiriakou says.

“Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world,” observed Caitlin A. Johnstone in MR (Monthly Review) Online. Now the CIA is the media, she ruefully concluded.

In 1977, Johnstone reminded her readers, Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame exposed the fact that the CIA supervised 400 reporters as agency “assets.” (Bernstein conveniently overlooked The Washington Post, which has a long history of coziness with intelligence. The newspaper’s current owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is a major CIA contractor.) When Bernstein’s article ran in Rolling Stone, it caused a tempest. Nowadays, nobody blinks an eye when “liberal” TV channels like CNN and MSNBC openly employ veterans of the CIA, FBI, NSA and other security agencies, such as commentators John Brennan, Jeremy Bash, Michael Hayden, James Clapper and Malcolm Nance.

Even Rolling Stone, once the voice of 1960s counterculture, which published radical and progressive writers like Tom Hayden, David Harris, Dick Goodwin and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—can no longer be trusted by free-thinking readers. RS is one of the publications vacuumed up by the upstart empire, Penske Media, which also purchased Variety, Hollywood Reporter and most of the entertainment industry media as well as New York Magazine

Under Penske Media—run by Jay Penske, the 44-year-old known for his floppy hair, model-like looks and not much else save the fact that his father is trucking mogul Roger Penske—Rolling Stone has taken a sharp turn to the right. When not attacking Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer” and “conspiracy”-obsessed lunatic, RS touts the bloody stalemate in Ukraine and the presidency of “boring” Biden.

Jay Penske went on his media buying spree courtesy of investment from Saudi Arabian royalty and New York hedge fund billionaire Daniel Loeb, who reportedly used former CIA agents to teach his staff deception techniques. (For the first time, Penske Media even brought CIA recruiters to the SXSW festival, the annual lollapalooza of indie music and technology which the media juggernaut also snapped up. The CIA’s message to young festival-goers: it’s cool to be a spy!)

In 2021, Penske Media hired 50-year-old Noah Shachtman to be the editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone. It was a strange choice to run the iconic music magazine. Shachtman was known mainly as an entrepreneurial national security journalist whose publications were avidly read by generals and weapons manufacturers. He uses military lingo to describe his editorial targets at Rolling Stone, referring to them as “bad actors” like Eric Clapton and Kennedy. Although he worked for the 1992 Bill Clinton presidential campaign, Shachtman says we need more leaders like Clinton’s opponent, former President George H. W. Bush—a man who was “a coalition-builder, someone who talked sense and had a bit of decency to him… an old-school internationalist.”  And a former CIA director—but definitely not a “bad actor.”

The view that the world is a dangerous place, filled with bad actors—and must be dominated by the U.S. militarily—now prevails not only at Rolling Stone, but throughout our mainstream media.

Social media also has been colonized by the national security ideology. Last December, after buying Twitter, Elon Musk stated that internal documents revealed the company had taken money from the FBI to censor tweets the bureau considered objectionable.

Last week, Glenn Greenwald interviewed Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, who charged that government security agencies have imposed an “over-the-top biased view” on the online encyclopedia since 2008.

“We do have evidence that as early as 2008 CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” Sanger told Greenwald. “Do you think they stopped doing that? No. We know that a great part of intelligence now, information wars, is conducted online. And where if not on websites like Wikipedia? So, they pay off the most influential people, to push their agendas—which they’re mostly already in line with. Or they just develop their own talent within the community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people.”

Kennedy recently sued YouTube and its parent company Google, charging the social media giant with censorship. Among the RFK Jr. videos taken down by YouTube are his interviews with Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and his speech at Saint Anselm’s College, all from this year.

“This complaint concerns the freedom of speech and the extraordinary steps the United States government has taken under the leadership of Joe Biden to silence people it does not want Americans to hear,” the lawsuit reads. “Mr. Kennedy is not the only victim of this censorship campaign, which is unprecedented in American history. But he is a high-profile victim, especially since he is now challenging President Biden for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.”   

Democracy can’t function without a free press. But there is no such thing as unfettered journalism when secretive agencies control the media. Spooks have no place in the newsroom. And yet most of our reporting comes from closely supervised news outlets or even subsidiaries of the permanent government.

It’s time to reject the brainwashing and think for ourselves.

*

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

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Incrementalism—the tendency to inch forward rather than to take bold steps—is usually preferred by political and military leaders in warfare, because the introduction of a few forces into action puts fewer personnel at risk, and, in theory, promises a series of improvements over time, often through attrition.

In 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by the then-chairman General J. Lawton Collins, recommended short envelopments along the Korean coastline that were designed to gradually increase the size of the U.S. and Allied enclave known as the Pusan Perimeter. The idea was to buy time to assemble enough forces to launch a breakout on the Normandy model. But General of the Army Douglas MacArthur disagreed. He argued for a daring, deep envelopment that promised to cut off the North Korean Forces south of the 38th Parallel that were encircling Pusan.

As it turned out, MacArthur was right. Today, we know that the short envelopments were exactly what the North Korean command was prepared to defeat. In retrospect, it is certain that along with their Chinese allies, the North Koreans were familiar with the operational employment of U.S. and Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower’s insistence on a broad front strategy that moved millions of troops in multiple armies in parallel across France and Germany to Central Europe conformed to the low-risk formula.

In light of this history, it was reasonable for the North Koreans to believe that MacArthur would never split his forces and launch an amphibious assault far behind North Korean lines. It was simply too risky. And the operational concept for Inchon was also inconsistent with the way U.S. forces were employed during the Civil War and World War I—wars won through attrition, not maneuver.

In February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin opted for incrementalism in his approach to the “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine. Putin committed fewer than 100,000 Russian troops to a shallow penetration attack on a broad front into a country the size of Texas. Having failed over a period of nearly 15 years to persuade Washington and the collective West of Moscow’s opposition to NATO’s advance to the east, Putin seems to have concluded that Washington and its NATO allies would prefer immediate negotiations to a destructive regional war with unknowable potential for escalation to the nuclear level.

Putin was wrong. He made a false assumption based on rational choice theory. Rational choice theory attempts to predict human behavior based on the assumption that individuals habitually make choices in economics, politics, and daily life that align with their personal best interest.

The problem with the theory is that human beings are not rational. In fact, the human mind is like a black box. It is possible to observe what goes into the black box and the decisions that come out of it, but the actual decision-making process that unfolds inside the black box is opaque.

In international relations and war, the defining features of human identity—history, geography, culture, religion, language, race, or ethnicity—must also figure prominently in any strategic assessment. For reasons of culture, experience, and innate character, MacArthur was a risk-taker. As Peter Drucker reminds his readers, culture is the foundation for human capital. These realities routinely defeat the unrealistic expectations that rational choice theory creates.

Instead of approaching the negotiating table, Washington discarded the caution, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, that had guided previous American dealings with Moscow. Washington’s political class, with no real understanding of Russia or Eastern Europe, subscribed to the late Senator John McCain’s notion that Russia was a “gas station with nuclear weapons.”

Putin is not a risk-taker. But he abandoned incrementalism, and rapidly reoriented Russian forces to the strategic defense, an economy of force measure designed to minimize Russian losses while maximizing Ukrainian losses until Russian Forces could return to offensive operations. The Russian change in strategy has worked. Despite the unprecedented infusion of modern weaponry, cash, foreign fighters, and critical intelligence to Ukrainian forces, Washington’s proxy is shattered. Ukraine’s hospitals are brimming with broken human beings and Ukrainian dead litter the battlefield. Kiev is a heart patient on life support.

Russia’s attrition strategy has achieved remarkable success, but the success is making the conflict currently more dangerous than at any point since it began in February 2022. Why? Defensive operations do not win wars, and Washington continues to believe Ukraine can win.

Washington discounts Ukrainian losses and exaggerates Russian losses. Officers present at meetings in the Pentagon tell me that minor Ukrainian battlefield successes (that are almost instantly reversed) loom large in the discussions held in four-star headquarters, the White House, and Foggy Bottom. These reports are treated as incontrovertible evidence of inevitable Ukrainian victory. In this climate, staff officers are reluctant to highlight effective Russian military performance or the impact of Russia’s expanding military power.

The Western media reinforce these attitudes, arguing that the Russian generals and their forces are dysfunctional, mired in corruption and sloth, and that Ukraine can win if it gets more support. As a result, it is a good bet that Washington and its allies will continue to provide equipment and ammunition, though probably not in the quantities and of the quality they did in the recent past.

Warsaw, whose leadership of NATO’s anti-Russian crusade is prized in Washington, finds comfort in the Beltway’s belief in Russian military weakness. So much so, that Warsaw seems willing to risk direct confrontation with Moscow. According to French sources in Warsaw, if Ukrainian forces are driven back, “the Poles may introduce the first division this year, which will include the Poles, the Balts, and a certain number of Ukrainians.”

Now, Washington is misjudging Moscow. The Russian national command authorities may well think that Warsaw’s actions align with Washington’s intentions. President Biden’s executive order to extend hazard pay to American soldiers currently serving in Ukraine (who are not supposed to be there) no doubt reinforces this opinion.

But it is far more likely that the Polish tail wants to wag the American dog. The Poles know their military intervention in historic Galician Ukraine will provoke a military response from both Belarus and Russia, but Warsaw also reasons that Washington’s air and ground forces in Europe are unlikely to sit quietly in Ukraine, Romania, and the Baltic littoral while Polish forces fight a losing battle.

America’s proxy war with Russia has transformed Ukraine into a graveyard. Indulging Poland’s passion for war with Russia encourages Poland to follow the Ukrainian example. The very idea must leave Moscow no choice but to bring all of Russia’s military power to bear simultaneously against Ukraine, before the collective West stumbles into regional war. Make peace, you fools, before it’s too late.

*

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

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Featured image: “Plans love silence. There’ll be no announcement of the start.” Photo credit: Ukraine Defense Ministry

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More than 700 academics and public figures from Israel, Palestine and other countries have signed an open letter equating Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with apartheid, signalling what supporters say is a “watershed moment” for how Israel’s occupation is viewed.

The letter, which began circulating on Friday, has received around 200 signatures per day with “more coming in, quite literally, by the minute”, Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University and organiser of the letter, told Middle East Eye.

The letter featured 752 signatories at the time of publication.

The authors said there was a direct link between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to overhaul Israel’s judiciary and its illegal occupation of millions of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian Territories.

“The ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population,” the letter said.

Notably, the letter made a clear reference to “the elephant in the room: Israel’s long-standing occupation that, we repeat, has yielded a regime of apartheid.”

“There cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid,” it added.

Bartov told MEE that there were a number of Israeli academics who signed the letter who previously would have likely refused to equate the occupation with apartheid. One of the most prominent he identified was Benny Morris, professor emeritus at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

“The main change is that Israeli behavior, in the West Bank, but also apparently unfolding vis-a-vis Israel’s Arabs now, has become increasingly brutal over the past few years, and especially more in the past half year. It has made more and more people realise that continued occupation is morally and politically impossible,” he said.

‘Watershed Moment’

Leading academics such as Peter Beinart from the City University of New York, and Avrum Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel also signed the letter.

Academics whose backgrounds span from evolutionary biology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to choreography and rabbinical studies at Hebrew College also endorsed the letter. Besides leading academics in Israel, it received support from professors at Yale, Brown, Columbia, and Harvard University in the United States.

On social media platform X, previously known as Twitter, one user anticipated potential accusations of anti-semitism.

“The broad inclusion of so many academics representing a stunningly broad spectrum of distinguished Jewish voices, indicates a watershed moment also in American Jewish views about Israel, and a new willingness by public figures, reflecting the sentiments of the younger generation, to honestly criticise Israeli policies,” Bartov added.

According to a Middle East Eye tally, at least 208 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire this year, including 36 children – a rate of nearly one fatality per day.

A total of 172 people have died in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, making 2023 one of the bloodiest years in the occupied Palestinian territories. Another 36 people were killed in the Gaza Strip.

Lior Sternfeld, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies at Penn State University and organiser of the letter, said people were beginning to see a link between the moves by Israel’s far-right government to remake the country’s judiciary and the occupation.

“Now more than ever before, regular middle-way people, intellectuals, and leaders see that unbreakable connection between the occupation and the current political moment,” she told MEE.

“Israelis and Americans who in the past disagreed with the occupation but were willing to look past it are fed up.”

*

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

Featured image is from IMEMC

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Chinese exports in July 2023:

  • – 23% to the US
  • – 21% to the EU
  • – 21% to ASEAN
  • + 52% to Russia

Overall, a reduction in July of 14.5% in total Chinese exports.

China’s property market is down, and in spite of few young Chinese people, the youth unemployment is running above 20%.

South Korea depends on exports to China (especially chips) and saw its exports fall 16.5% in July.

Biden and the Neocons are rejoicing — their anti-China trade & sanctions policy is succeeding.

The West is decoupling from China, and China is being destroyed by lack of access to chips and hi-tech.

The bad news for many Chinese manufacturers and exporters is that rich countries in the West are reducing their reliance on Chinese goods. U.S. officials and their allies in Europe have been prompting firms to move production away from China toward a circle of trusted nations instead. See this.

The total effects hit the whole world, however.

The IMF expects world trade to slow by 2% in 2023 – a clear sign of global economic setback. See this.

This is also bad news for the US, the EU – and even India, ASEAN, and Africa.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Trade containers are seen at the Horgos Port in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, February 6, 2021. Photo: Xinhua

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On May 27, 2023, I wrote a substack article about multiple COVID-19 vaccinated family members, who died suddenly. 

Now, I am starting to see multiple COVID-19 vaccinated family members develop Turbo Cancers (often stage 4) and their stories are shocking and difficult to believe.

Click here to view the video

(See video above) July 18, 2023, San Juan Capistrano, CA – Parents of 3 children, Zak and Cori Salazar were both diagnosed with cancer, mom Cori with an “aggressive form of thyroid cancer” had two surgeries and dad Zak was diagnosed with aggressive Stage 4 Astrocytoma and just had surgery (click here).

July 23, 2023, Davenport, FL – Michael Ruopoli was just diagnosed with “cancer of the blood”, presumably leukemia, after developing a whole body rash while his mother is currently battling Stage IV Lung Cancer (click here).

June 29, 2023, Baraboo, WI – Three family members develop cancer! – Both of Jessica Dominguez’s parents have been battling end stage cancer, her mother fighting lung cancer last 4 years, and her father diagnosed with late stage Colon cancer in March 2023. Jessica Dominguez herself has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor!

June 26, 2023, Brampton, ON – Daniel Siewdass and Ferria Siewdass were both diagnosed with high grade cancer, Daniel with brain cancer glioblastoma and Ferria with high grade breast cancer (triple negative). (click here)

June 26, 2023 – Brazil – 37 year old mother Heliana Barbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2023 and within 20 days her 18 year old daughter Emanuely was diagnosed with a rare Hodgkin’s lymphoma tumor in the lungs (click here).

June 8, 2023, Mamaroneck, NY – John Flynn suffered a catastrophic brain bleed while his wife EJ Flynn was diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer (click here).

June 6, 2023, Agoura Hills, CA – Julie Ranoa and her mother Janis Ranoa have both been diagnosed with breast cancer at the same time (click here).

Mar.16, 2023 – Atlanta, GA – Three family members develop cancer. 34 year old Chasity Nolton was dealing with her mother’s recent breast cancer diagnosis and had recently lost another family member to breast cancer, when she herself was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Click here)

Feb. 10, 2023 – Hamburg, NY – Kelly Englert is a nurse who was diagnosed with Stage IV Lung Cancer 3 years ago that has recently spread to her brain. Her daughter Kaitland was just diagnosed with recurrence of her brain tumor which has “mutated into an aggressive form and is a Grade 4 Glioma”. Both have simultaneous CANCER RECURRENCES into more aggressive forms! (Click here)

Jan, 2023, Aitkin, MN – Mother and son are both fighting cancer. Sarah Fjeld had Stage 3 breast cancer in 2017 and was cancer free. She developed COVID in March 2021 and was found to have Stage 4 breast cancer recurrence that spread to lungs, bones and liver. Her 20 yo son Noah Fjeld was diagnosed with rare Nasopharyngeal cancer in Nov. 2022 (click here).

Nov 8, 2022, Valley Cottage, NY – Nicole Smit is a teacher. In Dec.2021, Nicole’s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. In June 2022, Nicole was diagnosed with the same type of breast cancer as her mother and was also diagnosed with a secondary breast cancer. (Click here)

June 24, 2022, Waverly, AL – Husband and wife battle cancer together. Chris was diagnosed with lung & bone cancer while his wife Tina Wright was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Click here)

My Take…

Genetics may be a factor in some of these cases, for example involving mother and daughter battling the same type of breast cancer, etc.

But there are also many couples coming down with aggressive late stage cancers at the same time.

Turbo Cancers can develop following COVID-19 vaccination and often present at Stage 4. They are often described by oncologists as “rare” or “aggressive”.

The most common and most aggressive turbo cancers we are seeing now are leukemias, lymphomas, brain cancers (glioblastomas) and breast cancers.

When multiple family members come down with cancer and a COVID-19 vaccine induced turbo cancer is suspected, always look for the presence of at least one of these: leukemia, lymphoma, brain cancer, breast cancer.

Presumably, if multiple family members went to get their COVID-19 vaccine at the same time, they may have received a “bad batch” or “hot lot”, a toxic pharmaceutical product with poor quality control that may have had too much mRNA or may have been contaminated with DNA plasmids containing the carcinogenic SV40 promoter (discovered in Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine), for example. Or that vaccine vial may have contained something much worse than mRNA.

The immune system damage and organ damage that those family members could then experience from a “bad vaccine batch” or a “hot lot”, may be similar and may give rise to turbo cancers in multiple family members.

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Expose News


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

“Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention and Resistance”

By Rick Sterling, August 10, 2023

Many nations in the Americas have suffered from US promoted coups, dictatorships, sanctions and outright invasions. Nicaragua may take the cake for being the most victimized. Dan Kovalik has written a book which reviews the history of intervention and resistance up to the present day.

Feminism and the Historical Struggle for Gender Equality

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, August 10, 2023

It is important to have a short look at the history of this battle for more women’s rights. That is why I will shortly explain the ideology and social movement of Feminism, the factor which has driven women in their battle for equal chances and respect.

Niger: A Coup Against French Control and Dominance

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, August 10, 2023

The situation in Niger is still in flux. On 26 July 2023 a military coup took place in that West African state that led to the ouster of its elected President, Mohamed Bazoum, by Brigadier General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The Brigadier General has proclaimed that he is the new president of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP).

NATO/EU Throw 300,000 Ukrainians to Their Deaths: “Like Germany in 1945″: Western Support Ebbing Away

By Rodney Atkinson, August 10, 2023

While some estimates of Ukrainian dead vary between 300,000 and 400,000 Ukrainian sources admit to 310,000 deaths and the Wall Street Journal estimates between 20,000 and 50,000 have lost one or more limbs. Other estimates are that several hundred thousand are severely wounded.

Syrian Civilians Struggle Between Deadly Israeli Air Strikes and US Sanctions

By Steven Sahiounie, August 09, 2023

Israeli airstrikes on Syria have become routine and deadly. On Monday, Israeli airstrikes on Damascus at 2:20 am local time killed four Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

US-NATO Desperate in Ukraine. “No More Big Money, … All that is Left is Drip-Drip Small Handouts”

By Karsten Riise, August 09, 2023

After months and months of US media lies about how “phantastic” Ukraine is doing, it is for the cynical a fun to watch how the US narrative is breaking down these days. After months of heavy losses and no gain, the US belief that Ukraine can ever win is vanishing – even CNN cannot keep tight about it anymore.

Zelensky Irritated by Lula, Says He Should Have “a Broader Understanding of the World.”

By Ahmed Adel, August 09, 2023

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a press conference that he thought his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “had a broader understanding of the world.” The comments were triggered by Lula suggesting that Zelensky, as a minimum, needs to accept that Crimea is a part of Russia.

New COVID-19 Variants: Propaganda Is Ramping Up and the COVID Con Is Back On

By Dr. William Makis, August 09, 2023

The COVID con is back on. The usual COVID con-artists have their scripts and the propaganda is being churned out by mainstream media. I have zero concerns about EG.5.1 or “Eris” variant. This variant is BS – just more theatre for the COVID-19 vaccine addicted, and the brainwashed.

The Second Russia-Africa Summit: A Continent at the Crossroads

By Samir Bhattacharya, August 09, 2023

Similar to the last summit, the agenda of this year’s summit included technology transfer and development of industry and critical infrastructure in Africa, developing power engineering, agriculture and mineral extraction, and ensuring food and energy security.

Jakarta Is Alert but Not Alarmed Over the US–PNG Defence Agreement

By Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, August 08, 2023

The United States and Papua New Guinea recently concluded a comprehensive Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement will give the US military unimpeded access to many PNG key naval facilities. This new agreement is expected to increase the US military presence in the Pacific region amid the intensifying US–China rivalry.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“He didn’t expect such opposition, he fully realized that messing with people’s lives is not as easy as putting a virus in a computer. Around the world thousands of people are looking for evidence to put him in court.”

*

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


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

Moral Blindness on U.S. Aggression and Torture

August 10th, 2023 by Jacob G. Hornberger

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As I was reading an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday condemning Russia for its war of aggression in Ukraine and the torture of Ukrainians, I just kept asking myself: Why isn’t the Post condemning the U.S. government for the same thing? And yet, not one single mention of what the U.S. government did to the people of both Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Why? Why not use the opportunity to show the world that U.S. officials deserve to be punished for what they did to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq just as much as Russian officials deserve to be punished for what they are doing in Ukraine? 

Let’s begin with Iraq, a nation that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The U.S. war on that nation was a pure, unadulterated “war of aggression,” the type of war condemned by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. 

The Post clearly understands the concept of a “war of aggression” because it describes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “an unjustified war of aggression.” Given such, why didn’t the Post use its editorial to condemn both regimes — the U.S. regime and the Russian regime — rather than focus only on the Russian regime?

One of the fiercest battles in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq occurred in the city of Fallujah. When that battle was going on, the mainstream media was referring to U.S. troops as the “good guys” and to the Iraqi defenders as the “bad guys.” I kept thinking: But those “bad guys” are just defending their country from illegal invaders. Why are they “bad guys” for doing that? The Ukrainian soldiers are not considered “bad guys” for defending their country, are they? Is it because U.S. forces are automatically and always to be considered “good guys,” even whey they are waging a war of aggression against another country?

Afghanistan was labeled a “good war” because Osama bin Laden, who was accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, was living there. U.S. officials claimed that that fact removed that particular invasion from the realm of a “war of aggression.” 

Not so! The reason that President Bush ordered his army to invade Afghanistan is that Afghanistan had refused to accede to his extradition demand for bin Laden. Bush called such refusal “harboring” terrorists. But Afghanistan had the legal right to refuse to accede to Bush’s extradition demand, given that there was no extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. Moreover, there was never any evidence that the Afghanistan government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Thus, the U.S. war on Afghanistan was a pure, unadulterated war of aggression. Just as the U.S. war on Iraq was.

Sometime after the launching of those two wars of aggression, rumors began circulating that U.S. forces were torturing people. Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we immediately began calling for investigations and condemning all acts of torture. 

We were inundated with vicious attacks from U.S. interventionists who fervently denied that U.S. forces would ever engage in torture and fiercely criticizing us for even suggesting the possibility that they would do so. 

And then the proof began surfacing, such as the vicious torture at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, secret CIA prison camps, and elsewhere. 

What did our critics say then? No, they didn’t apologize. Instead, they maintained that the torture was no big deal. Some of them even defended the torture, which to me was very bizarre, given that the people who were being tortured were the victims of U.S. wars of aggression. 

I recall reading about one Iraqi man who kept exclaiming during his torture session, “Sir, why are you doing this to me?” I found it fascinating that he would refer to his torturer as “Sir,” and I concluded that it was because he had a high respect for Americans. I could easily see why he couldn’t understand why Americans were torturing him, given that he and his nation had never done anything against the United States. In fact, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had even been a partner and ally of the United States during the 1980s. Americans often tend to forget that but certainly the Iraqi people had not forgotten it. 

At one point, it was discovered that the U.S. national security establishment was videotaping its torture sessions. My immediate reaction was: Why would they do that? For fun viewing later on? For future torture training sessions? When it was discovered that the torture tapes had been destroyed to prevent Congress from viewing them, I was not surprised that no one was prosecuted for intentionally destroying evidence of a crime. By this time, I had come to the realization that the higher-ups in the U.S. national security state form of governmental structure are immune from criminal liability.

One of the points I kept making about all this mayhem is that wars of aggression and torture are what communist and other totalitarian regimes do and that America should not be doing what they do. Supporters of these two U.S. wars of aggression and the torture that came with them had a difficult time seeing my point. 

And that’s the real value of the Washington Post’s editorial yesterday condemning Russia for its war of aggression and the torture of prisoners and detainees. It’s always easy to pull the speck out of someone else’s eye. It’s not so easy to pull the plank out of one’s own eye. Even though the Post’s editorial fails to mention the U.S. government, one can easily apply the principles enunciated in the editorial to the U.S. wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and to the U.S. torture of people from those two countries.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email

Featured image is from FFF

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

Many nations in the Americas have suffered from US promoted coups, dictatorships, sanctions and outright invasions. Nicaragua may take the cake for being the most victimized. Dan Kovalik has written a book which reviews the history of intervention and resistance up to the present day.

Kovalik includes his own experiences from several decades visiting Nicaragua. The first time was with a Veterans for Peace (VFP) convoy of trucks bringing aid to Nicaragua in 1987. Incredibly, for two months the US government blocked the aid trucks from exiting the US en route to Nicaragua. The story has a happy outcome. After months of effort, the antiwar activists succeeded in exiting the US and reaching Nicaragua wherea they were greeted with open arms and celebrations. That experience triggered a lifelong interest in Nicaragua by Kovalik, who has worked for decades as an international human rights lawyer and is a retired attorney for the United Steel Workers.

The book describes key periods of US intervention. In 1855, William Walker declared himself president of Nicaragua. Backed by a small army of European and US soldiers, he seized control of the Nicaraguan city of Grenada. Walker re-introduced slavery, arguing that it was introduced in the Americas “in a spirit of benevolence and philanthropy.” With the US Civil War on the horizon, he was also supported by southern US states. Within a couple years, Walker’s forces were defeated, and he was executed.

 “La Pedrada” (The Stone), depicting the downfall of William Walker at San Jacinto. 

Beginning in 1909, US Marines invaded and occupied Nicaragua. They dominated the country for the next three decades. The US occupation led to armed resistance organized by Augusto Cesar Sandino.

In 1934, the “National Guard” of Nicaragua (trained by US Marines) reneged on a peace agreement with Sandino and  murdered him and his staff. The Somoza family dominated the country for the next forty-five years. They were notoriously corrupt and even robbed international donations following the devastating 1972 earthquake. Kovalik describes how Puerto Rican baseball great Roberto Clemente died while trying to bring relief aid to Nicaragua.

In 1961, armed opposition to the Somoza dictatorship was formed under the banner of the Sandinista Front for the Liberation of Nicaragua (FSLN). After fifty thousand deaths, with many caused by blanket bombing, the Somoza dictatorship was overthrown in July 1979. Under the FSLN, the country made huge strides toward eliminating illiteracy and peasant impoverishment. For the first time, medical help was made available in remote communities. For the first time, schools were open to all children.

Angered by the threat of a popular government outside their control and allied with Cuba, the Reagan administration was hell bent to stop the Sandinistas. They did this by creating a “Contra” army, which attacked Nicaraguan infrastructure such as gas pipelines, killed healthcare and rural cooperative members, and even killed foreign aid workers such as young US engineer Ben Linder. Nicaragua was forced to divert scarce resources into defending itself. Kovalik describes how Reagan kept funding the Contra war through a diabolical scheme whereby weapons were sent to the Contras and cocaine brought back, to be sold in crack form in poor and largely Black communities.

Despite the Contra war, the Sandinistas held national elections. In 1984 the FSLN won decisively. In 1990, with Washington explicitly threatening to continue the illegal war while the Sandinistas remained in power, the majority voted for the US-promoted candidate. Many Nicaraguans were exhausted from the continuing Contra war. The death toll was thirty thousand dead and many more injured in a country of only 3 million.

The US establishment and media was surprised when the Sandinistas acknowledged the electoral defeat and stepped down. Neoliberal policies reigned for the next 16 years. Public institutions were privatized. Unemployment and poverty increased dramatically. Government spending on healthcare was slashed, while illiteracy spread once again. Kovalik gives us that statistics and summaries from Oxfam, the UN and other sources.

The Sandinistas went through internal debates, including a split, but did not go away. In 2006, Nicaraguans voted Daniel Ortega and the FSLN back into power. Ever since then, they have gained increasing levels of support. Kovalik describes how they have invigorated the economy and prioritized policies favoring the working class and farmers. The FSLN re-instituted free education and healthcare plus small loans with “zero usury” for businesses. They made major infrastructure improvements with roads and a highway to the east coast. They have steadily expanded reliable and renewable electricity to all parts of the country. Nicaragua is now ranked #1 in the western hemisphere for gender equality.

Unfortunately, the popularity and effective management of the FSLN continues to be seen as a “threat” by Washington. In the spring of 2018, something close to a “color revolution” took place. With extensive quotes and descriptions from people who were on the ground, Kovalik analyzes and gives evidence showing that the turmoil was prepared and promoted by the US using social media techniques with support from conservative church, business and political rivals.

Kovalik describes how the Ortega administration took the unusual step of ordering police to stay in the barracks. They had to endure attacks and watch as the “peaceful protesters” attacked schools, clinics, and government offices. Ultimately the Sandinista strategy exposed who was instigating the violence and harming the economy with roadblocks. With minimal conflict, the uprising and “regime change” effort collapsed. The roadblocks were taken down and the economy slowly restored. Some coup leaders left for Costa Rica and others for the US.

Kovalik addresses the criticisms of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas which are sometimes heard in the West. Regarding the opposition “Sandinista Renovation Movement” (MRS), Kovalik shows that their policies have little popular appeal. They are more popular in the West than in Nicaragua where their support is minuscule. Many western critics of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas have not been there for many years or even decades.

Opponents of the Sandinistas were hoping the FSLN would not do well in the November 2021 election. Instead, FSLN candidates Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo received 75% of the vote against five competing parties. This international observer was impressed with the high turnout, efficiency and authenticity of the election.

Kovalik covers all these topics with a good level of depth including sources. There are many references and interesting quotations from North Americans and Europeans who live in Nicaragua. The book also includes many references to movies, songs and poetry. Poets are still revered and music is still a big part of Nicaragua. At the recent 44th celebration of the Nicaragua revolution, the first two hours were devoted to songs.

Kovalik’s book on Nicaragua is highly relevant because US interference in Nicaragua and Central America continues. For years there has been a drumbeat of biased and false claims in western media about Nicaragua. Washington is steadily increasing sanctions on Nicaragua.

What happens in Nicaragua is important for other countries in Central America. Neighboring Honduras is currently trying to escape US dominance. Both Honduras and Nicaragua recently broke relations with Taiwan and established relations with China. That is, of course, their right as sovereign nations. But the US does not approve. The 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine has not been rescinded  and we can safely predict US intervention in Nicaragua will continue.

Told in an engaging and persuasive way, this book presents the history of a small nation that has resisted continual efforts to dominate and control it. It is truly a David vs Goliath tale.  Anyone interested in Latin American history or US foreign policy should add this book to their reading list.

*

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

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.


Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention & Resistance

By Dan Kovalik

PublisherClarity Press (January 15, 2023)

Paperback:‎ 332 pages

ISBN-10:‎ 1949762602

ISBN-13:‎ 978-1949762600

Reviews

“Professor Kovalik sweeps away fake news and fake history disseminated by the mainstream media concerning Nicaragua, documenting a gruesome history of US interventionism and crimes in Nicaragua. Highlighting the achievements of the Sandinistas in the field of human rights and social justice, he refutes US caricatures and denounces CIA attempts to destabilize Nicaragua to facilitate undemocratic ‘regime change’.” ALFRED DE ZAYAS, UN Independent Expert for the promotion of an international democratic and equitable order

“Kovalik demolishes the dominant Western narrative. He shares the hard-won gains of today’s Nicaragua, explains Daniel Ortega’s enduring popularity and powerfully defends why the Sandinistas are deserving of our continued solidarity. This book is must-read to understand Nicaragua in the 21st century and fills a stark gap in contemporary Latin American Studies. May it lead to further study in situ and less arm-chair pontificating by politicians and intellectuals.” — SOFIA M. CLARK, Professor of Political Science, UNAN-Managua.

“Daniel Kovalik, international human rights attorney, who has been visiting Nicaragua since 1987, has provided a clearly written and well-documented (453 Endnotes) factual account of an honest history of Nicaragua from the 1850s to the present in less than 180 pages. By reading this account, the reader will be well versed to contradict the constant lies presented to the public by the incredibly controlled corporate and Silicon Valley news media. Hats off to Mr. Kovalik, for setting the record straight.” S. BRIAN WILLSON, lawyer, author of Don’t Thank Me For My Service, resident of Nicaragua

Click here to purchase.

Niger: A Coup Against French Control and Dominance

August 10th, 2023 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The situation in Niger is still in flux. On 26 July 2023 a military coup took place in that West African state that led to the ouster of its elected President, Mohamed Bazoum, by Brigadier General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The Brigadier General has proclaimed that he is the new president of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP).

The coup has been condemned by the 15 member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) of which Niger is a member, the African Union, the European Union and the United States of America. On the 30th of July, ECOWAS whose current head is Nigeria (not to be confused with Niger) issued an ultimatum to the coup leaders to restore Bazoum to power within one week, or face the consequences including possible military action. The deadline has expired. ECOWAS has not acted. It is alleged that the regional grouping would now prefer diplomacy.

One of the reasons why ECOWAS has changed its stance is because of strong opposition to any military intervention from some of its member states. Mali and Burkina Faso have made it explicitly clear that they would view military intervention as a “declaration of war” against the people of Niger and would defend the newly installed military junta. Besides, Niger is geographically one of the biggest countries in West Africa and possesses a well-trained army.

But an even more compelling reason why military intervention may not be an option for ECOWAS or anyone else for that matter is because the 26th July coup, it is obvious to most observers, has widespread support among the people. The people see the coup as an attempt to end continuous Western — mainly French and now also American — exploitation and dominance of Niger. Niger, once a French colony, is rich in natural resources, uranium, oil and gold. Its uranium industry for instance is owned and operated by a so-called joint venture between Niger and France, the Societe des mines de l’Air (Somair). 85% of Somair is owned by France’s Atomic Energy Commission and two French companies, while 15% is owned by Niger’s government. Niger is the world’s seventh largest producer of uranium, vital for nuclear energy while France relies heavily upon nuclear energy for 70% of its domestic power supply. As Vijay Prasad and Kambala Musavuli put it in a recent article,

“One in three lightbulbs in France are powered by uranium from Niger, at the same time as 42% of the African country’s population live below the poverty line.”    

France’s grip over Niger’s uranium is just one example of the former colonial power’s hold on Niger’s economy. This neo-colonial dominance expresses itself in many other ways. Niger, like other ex-French colonies in Africa, is tied to the French currency and the French financial system. It uses the Communaute Financiere Africaine (CFA) for its domestic and foreign financial transactions. 50% of the reserves of these African states are held in the French Treasury as part of an arrangement forged between the ex-colonies and France. Consequently, when France devalued the CFA, the impact upon the African economies including Niger was disastrous. If we look at these economies as a whole, it is only in the fields of external trade and investments that some positive changes have occurred in recent years largely because of the emergence of China as an important partner.

Outside the Nigerien economy, the neo-colonial presence is most visible in the form of French and American soldiers and bases. French and American militaries were brought in by the government to fight Muslim insurgents. The rise of these insurgents is linked — to some extent at least — to the US-NATO overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 which paved the way for the growth of so-called jihadist groups in parts of North and West Africa. Of course, the Jihadist phenomenon cannot be divorced from US and British intelligence operations in the post 9/11 period.

Resentment against French and American troops has reinforced the perception that leaders like Bazoum, though elected, were mere puppets of Western interests. This explains why in the huge demonstrations that have taken place in the Nigerien capital, Niamey, and elsewhere Bazoum was denounced for betraying the people. It is not just in Niger that anti-French and anti-Western sentiments have peaked. In three other states, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea such sentiments have also found expression. The presence of French and American troops in those states has also played a role in the mounting anger towards Western power. Economic difficulties faced by the people which are often attributed to Western dominance have exacerbated popular feelings. It is significant that in all 3 states military coups had taken place between August 2020 and September 2021.

As feelings against France in particular and the West in general have become more pronounced in West Africa, the mood towards Russia seems to have become more positive. An article in The Guardian (5 August 2023) notes that

Russian flags were brandished by those demonstrating outside the French embassy in Niamey, with many calling for Vladimir Putin to replace Macron as their biggest global backer.”

Putin himself has been critical of the coup and has expressed the hope that civilian rule would be restored.

And indeed, civilian rule should prevail in Niger and other states in the region. But civilian rule should reflect the people’s legitimate desire for liberation from neo-colonial dominance. Civilian rule should uphold the dignity of the human being and the sovereignty of the people. It should protect the independence of the people which must include their right to own and control their economy and define and defend their own security.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Feminism and the Historical Struggle for Gender Equality

August 10th, 2023 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Preface

It is important to have a short look at the history of this battle for more women’s rights. That is why I will shortly explain the ideology and social movement of Feminism, the factor which has driven women in their battle for equal chances and respect. Finally, I will come to my main topic which is the specific problems with which women have to deal concerning politics in Western democracies of (post)industrialized societies.[i] For instance, the question is: What is the representation of women in Western politics today? It would be taken a look at their representation in the Parliaments, and in which number they are able to occupy some key political positions. It will be discussed some evolutions and also the difficulties they still have to deal with because of their gender belonging. The crucial examples are coming from the European Union (the EU) and its Member States. Consequently, it is also important to try to propose some solutions to the issue of female representation in the Parliaments, for instance. Here, I will present the EU’s policy towards this issue as an example to try to answer two questions: Is a policy of active interference positive or not? What is about quota policy?

Feminism

Feminism can be seen as an ideology and a social movement that historically has been concerned with the unequal status of women (Steans, 2006, pp. 7-8).

In history, there were three big waves of feminism as a social movement; the first one is situated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and refers mainly to women’s suffrage movements which were political and mainly concerned with women’s right to vote. The second wave is situated in the 1960s and refers to the ideas and actions associated with the women’s liberation movement which campaigned for legal and social equality for women. The third wave is situated at the beginning of the 1990s and still goes on. This wave refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to the perceived failures of second-wave feminism (Krolokke & Soronsen, 2005, pp. 24).

Furthermore, feminism can be seen as an ideology with different writings and investigations on the unequal status of women. In the 1920s and 1930s social science began to investigate gender[ii]. There was a main focus on sex roles investigation and while social scientists did not see sex and gender as synonymous, they believed that they were closely connected. They claimed that the particular characteristics of men and women led to the performances of particular social roles. The prevailing sexual division of labor reflected the close correspondence between gender traits and sex roles. Gender was thus held to be, if not immutable and natural, then at least relatively stable and fixed and, moreover, socially useful. It was even possible to speak about deviancy in relation to those people who were held to be insufficiently ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ and who could not be accommodated within this schema.

In the 1960s there was an upraise of feminist analyses which claimed that sex roles were assigned by society and male-identifying roles were frequently seen to be more important and deserving of greater social rewards than female-orientated roles. The theories that explained women’s particular status in terms of either their ‘natural’ or ‘essential’ characteristics were ideological, serving to legitimize an unjust social order that valued men and the ‘masculine’ more highly than women and the ‘feminine’.

On the basis of this analysis, feminists argued that the route to sexual equality and women’s liberation lay in challenging conventional sex roles. This was not an easy task as sex roles were deeply entrenched in a complex system of stereotyping, supported by a whole range of social institutions and practices and the state as a patriarchal power (Steans, 2006, pp. 8-10).

The feminist movement has given rise to a large body of theory that attempts to explain gender inequalities and set forth agendas for overcoming those inequalities. While feminist writers are all concerned with women’s unequal position in society, their explanations for it vary substantially. Competing schools of feminism have sought to explain gender inequalities through a variety of deeply embedded social processes, such as sexism, patriarchy, capitalism, and racism (Giddens, 2004, pp. 114).

An example of a feminist school is liberal feminism, which focuses on inequalities in social and cultural attitudes and independent deprivations from which women suffer, such as sexism, unequal payment, and the ‘glass ceiling’. Liberal feminists do not focus on gender study though and they do not deal with the root causes of gender inequality and do not acknowledge the systemic nature of women’s oppression in society, unlike radical feminists. Radical feminists believe that men are responsible for and benefit from the exploitation of women and belief the world system is a patriarchal one. Radical feminists do not believe that women can be liberated from sexual oppression through reforms or gradual change. Because patriarchy is a systemic phenomenon, they argue, gender equality can only be attained by overthrowing the patriarchal order. (Giddens, 2004, pp. 114-115).

There are many other feminist schools that are worth taking a look at, to mention a few others there is also black feminism, critical feminism, Marxist feminism, poststructuralist feminism, and postcolonial feminism. To discuss all is very interesting but then, I would not have the time left to discuss my main point of focus; the influence of gender in politics.

Politics and Gender

In most political systems, women are vastly underrepresented. Throughout the world, women face obstacles for their participation in politics. These barriers exist in prevailing social and economic systems, as well as in existing political structures. It is not the case that women are not represented, rather than that, they do not have the share of political power that would be expected given free and equal access. In other words, there is a democratic deficit (European Commission).

In 2007, the rate of female representation at the national level stands at merely 18 percent globally. Although this figure has increased in recent years, minimal progress has been made, meaning that the ideal of parity between men and women in national legislatures remains distant (IDEA).

Moreover, there are also very few women in ‘high politics’ (or key positions in politics). The achievements of some female individuals like I. Gandhi, G. Meir, B. Bhutto, and M. Thatcher, remarkable as they are, mask a considerable imbalance in the number of women who have political power (Clements & Spinks, 2006, pp. 82-83). The question can be asked if this is a consequence of discriminatory practices based on the belief that women are not ‘up’ for the job (Steans, 2006, pp. 28), a belief that is a consequence of traditions and stereotypes.

Some factors which make it hard for women to rise to the top levels of industry and commerce operate with even more vigor in politics. This includes firstly, the enormous drain on an individual’s time if they are to rise to the key political functions. Far fewer women, particularly if they choose to have children (and then become locked into a childcare role), are able to devote the time it takes to reach the top positions. Research made clear that childcare and housework are very unequally shared with the women taking on most of the burden. Secondly, the alleged operation of the ‘old boys’ network in the selection of key positions. Even where the policy is one of promotion to key jobs on merit alone, there are far fewer suitable qualified women (in terms of experience) to choose from. This is largely because access to such suitable qualified previous positions is not there for them in the first place. Thirdly, men also set the very standards by which women will be judged when they apply for senior positions, and these may discriminate against women because they are based on male assumptions of a ‘woman’s place’. Fourthly, political power might well represent the ultimate ability to influence things. Are men especially reluctant to loosen their grip on this? (Clements & Spinks, 2006, pp. 83, 85-87).

Women have certainly boosted their presence in European governments, thanks in part to electoral quotas, but are still under-represented despite high-profile exceptions like Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher. According to a study by the commission, the European Union’s executive arm, even if there are increasing numbers of women candidates their male counterparts still have a better chance of getting elected due to ingrained prejudices and customs.

‘It’s wrong to blame women voters. The main problem is that male voters vote for male candidates, argues Drude Dahlerup, a professor in the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University. ’We are changing from the idea that equality will come by itself. Today we realize this is not the way things work, added Dahlerup, who has researched gender quota systems (European Commission).

The proportion of female members of national parliaments (single/lower house) across the EU has risen by around half over the last decade, from 16% in 1997 to 24% in 2008. Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland are the only EU countries with more than 40% women in parliament, the majority (17) of the EU Member States still have less than 25% women Members of Parliament.

The European Parliament is just above the national parliament’s figure with 31% women and 69% men. This is a better balance than in national parliaments[iii] but progress towards gender equality has stagnated and there has been little change since the 1999 elections, the representation of women remains more or less static. The 2009 elections represent an opportunity to take the next step forwards. On average, men outnumber women among ministers in national governments by around three to one (25% women, 75% men) (European Commission).

While the last few years have seen a general increase in the number of women in decision-making positions in Europe, women remain very much in the minority in the political (and economic) spheres. In parliaments, governments, and ministries and in the private sector too, power is still firmly in men’s hands. The EU sees equality between women and men as a fundamental right. The Commission that handles the subject of gender equality is the ‘European Commission for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities’. The EU is committed to promoting gender equality in decision-making positions, raising awareness of the gender gap in this area, and taking action to improve the situation. That is why the Commission’s ‘Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010’ lists equal participation of women and men in decision-making as one of its priorities. Thus, the Roadmap is the basis for action towards gender inequality in the EU in which the participation of women in decision-making is a part.

The Commission has made an investigation around this issue and has come to some general facts which are worthwhile to take a look at.

A balanced choice of candidates for election ought to result in equality amongst elected representatives. Data from across Europe show that in general more women candidates result in more women being elected but that men still have a better chance of being elected. Extrapolation of results from the most recent national elections across Europe implies that, on average, an election with 50% women candidates would result in a parliament with just 39% women members or, putting it another way, there would need to be 63% women candidates to achieve parity in the final assembly.

Positive action in the form of electoral gender quotas can help bring about rapid change but they are not a guarantee of success. The way in which political parties allocate candidates to winnable seats or distribute them on lists has a significant part to play in the limited success to date in electing more women from the available candidates. Some types of electoral systems are more open to promoting favored candidates than others and the result is that women candidates are too often left with a low chance of being elected. The re-election of incumbents severely restricts the rate of member turnover at each election. Estimates suggest that, on average, around two-thirds of members are reelected on each occasion meaning that there are limited opportunities for new faces and, therefore, for change in the gender balance. At the last European elections in 2004 around two-thirds of the candidates were men and just one-third women. If the 2009 elections are to bring about any real progress in terms of gender equality then more women candidates need to be found. Although many voters indicate that they would like to see more women in elected positions, there is no strong evidence to suggest that people actually vote on the basis of gender (so it is wrong to think that people that want more women in politics, also in practice vote on the basis of gender).

Possible solutions

It is a mistake to think that the problem of the underrepresentation of women in parliaments, governments, and high politics will solve itself. The problem is a direct consequence of the gender inequality problem, which is very complex and has a lot of causes that are deeply rooted in society and its people. Therefore there is a need for a concrete policy on this issue.

In the EU document ‘Women in European Politics – time for Action (2009)’, of the European Commission certain methods of closing the representation gap are evaluated.

Quotas

The introduction of gender quotas, whether legislative or voluntary, can help to speed up change but they are not without controversy –some would argue that such affirmative actions contradict the principles of equal opportunity– and they are also not always the quick fix they might appear to be. Quotas can quickly boost the number of women candidates but do not guarantee that these women are positioned fairly on candidate lists or in electoral districts where they have a reasonable chance of being elected. Further action may therefore be necessary to ensure a coincident increase in the number of women, actually, elected.

In Slovenia, the elections held at the end of September were the first to be held at a national level since the 2006 National Assembly Elections Act, which imposes a quota for candidates by gender (minimum 25% in the transitional period, 35% thereafter). The quota was well respected with women accounting for more than one-third of the candidates but the final result saw just one more woman elected compared to the previous, pre-quota, parliament, and an overall membership of just 13% women and 87% men. Interestingly, the 2007 elections in Belgium (49% candidates; 37% elected) and the 2008 elections in Spain (47% candidates, 36% elected) both gave results very close to the projected result with 50% women candidates. However, there are of course exceptions on either side of the trend – the most recent elections in Slovenia, France, and Romania all saw far fewer women elected than would be expected from the fairly high shares of candidates, whilst in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden more women were elected compared to the general trend and the final results were even ahead of the parity line. Thus, on average, as would be expected, more women candidates generally result in more women being elected but it is striking how far the trend line deviates from parity.

Quotas can help the move towards gender parity but are not a guarantee of success. The first step in promoting female representation must be to promote more women candidates.

Electoral Systems and Political Parties

The most important factors that do prevent quotas from working are the allocation of candidates between electoral districts and/or the position of each candidate on lists (where relevant). All political parties want to win elections and even though many parties promise action on improving the representation of women, the bottom line is that their electoral strategy will always focus on maximizing the number of candidates elected ahead of any other issues.

Quotas are hardest to apply in single-winner systems where each party nominates a single candidate per constituency so that it is not possible to offer individual voters any choice by gender. Even if an overall quota is applied, the party is still at liberty to allocate candidates between constituencies and put favored candidates into ‘safe’ seats where votes for the party are generally secure. In multiple-winner systems where candidates are selected from party lists, usually by some form of proportional representation, then the order of candidates on the list significantly influences who is elected. In completely closed lists, voters effectively choose only which party they want to support and candidates are elected based on their position in the list and the proportion of votes received by the party. Even in the most open list systems, where voters select individual candidates who are then elected purely on the basis of the total number of votes received, analysis of voter behavior indicates that those near the top of the list have an advantage over those at the bottom. There is a variety of list-based electoral systems and most fall somewhere between the extremes of fully open or fully closed and offer considerable scope to influence who is elected from the full complement of candidates. In short, although quota systems can dramatically improve the gender balance amongst candidates, if they are to succeed in getting more women elected they need to be applied in a way that pays careful regard to the intricacies of the electoral system.

Thus the historical predominance of men and electoral systems combine to restrict the rate at which women are integrated into political life.

Re-election of incumbents

More women candidates usually means more women elected, yet a man has a better chance.

Politics is often a career choice and many incumbents seek re-election. Incumbents are more likely to be (re)elected than new candidates. given a choice of candidates from the same political party, voters tend to choose the well-known ones (usually the incumbents).

Political parties have an important role in determining the composition of elected bodies, to the extent that they can override the effect of quotas. At election time, voters will always tend to support someone that they know, and most of the time that will be the incumbent member. As a result, incumbents seeking re-election will tend to be favored by the party and benefit from any strategy to ensure electoral success for the party.

One solution to the problem of incumbent retention at infrequent elections could be to impose term limits, where elected members are only allowed to be re-elected a fixed number of times, thereby increasing turnover, or even prohibiting immediate re-election, which would immediately bring zero retention and 100% turnover. However, this type of approach can reduce the effectiveness of the legislature by excluding experienced policymakers and is unlikely to be voted in by the current incumbents. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the rate at which women can be integrated into political decision-making will remain slow unless the incumbency problem is addressed. Of course, once there is a good gender balance in an elected assembly then retention of incumbents can help to maintain that balance but this situation has not been reached in many assemblies.

Other measures

Of course, there are also other actions to think of to help solve the problem of unbalanced representation. The recruitment and selection of female candidates by political parties could be made better (more open), policies or action plans with the purpose of stimulating girls to take on political studies, women to make different career choices, and to take the step to political functions, to stimulate the ‘political sector’ to be more open towards women and to adapt itself.

Also, anti-discrimination policies in general could help people to think less about stereotypes and to change their mentality towards women and politics.

In elections also the role of the media is also playing, they could make an effort to increase their focus on female candidates.

Final remarks

We have seen that gender differences can lead to inequality in treatment and chances people get in life, simply based on the fact that they are a woman or a man. However, equality between women and men is a fundamental right. That is why the representation of women in politics requires an active policy to solve this democratic deficit.

However there have been some improvements in the situation, and there is still no equality in chances to be elected or to build out a political career, this is even less so at the very top.

Solutions are very diverse, and cannot stand alone, but need to be interactive. A policy towards this issue has to be full and involve a package of solutions to really be effective.

Further investigation towards the solutions and the effects of the solutions, not only on the representation of women in parliaments but also on their representation in high politics, is necessarily to close the gap of female representation in politics.

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) (2009). Democracy and Gender.http://www.idea.int/gender/

Krolokke, C. & Sorensen, A.S. (2005). Gender Communication Theories and Analyses: From Silence to Performance. Sage.

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2009, 23 February). Gender Equality.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=418&langId=en

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2008, 2 June). European network set to boost women in power.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=681&langId=en&newsId=133&furtherNews=yes
European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2009, January). Women in European Politics – Time for Action.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/publications/booklets/equality/pdf/ke8109543_en.pdf

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2008, January). Women and Women in decision-making 2007.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/publications/2008/ke8108186_en.pdf

Notes

[i] About modernist industrial society, see [Brooker P. at al (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modernisms, Oxford‒New York: Oxford University Press, 2016]. About the postmodern societies, see [Malpas S., The Postmodern, London‒New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005]. The term post-modernity usually refers to a fully developed modernity which emerged in the affluent societies of West Europe and of European descent in the 1970s. [Kuper A., Kuper J. (eds.), The Social Science Encyclopedia, Second Edition, London‒New York: Routledge, 1996, 654‒655].

[ii] In the early social sciences, sex differences were largely taken for granted, reflecting the degree to which gender differences where uncontested –or perhaps unnoticed- among male-dominated scholarly communities (Steans, 2006, pp. 8-10).

[iii] The result of women representation may be better in European parliament because the perception of the European Parliament may also affect the selection of candidates and voter behavior. Although the European Parliament deals with a range of issues including environmental protection, consumer rights, equal opportunities, transport, and the free movement of workers, capital, services and goods, all of which have a direct impact on the daily lives of citizens, a recent survey reported that 51% of respondents were not interested in European elections. It may be that this contributes to making it easier for women to be selected as candidates for European elections than for national elections where voters tend to vote for well known individuals – often the established, and mostly male, incumbents (European Commission).

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

While some estimates of Ukrainian dead vary between 300,000 and 400,000 Ukrainian sources admit to 310,000 deaths and the Wall Street Journal estimates between 20,000 and 50,000 have lost one or more limbs. Other estimates are that several hundred thousand are severely wounded.

This horrendous death total is not far short of the total British deaths during the whole of the Second World War and it is the result of the West’s genocidal exploitation of Ukraine as a battering ram for American neocon attempts to destroy Russia and the irresponsible hubris of hurling poorly trained troops (increasingly draftees with no military experience), with insufficient artillery, little missile defence and no air support, across dense minefields against well-entrenched Russian positions.

An Australian TV channel showed a story about foreign mercenaries fleeing Ukraine: they are simply afraid. To the question “What is it like on the front lines now? At the zero line?”

A mercenary replied: “At “zero” – horror. Just awful. It’s just genocide. It’s creepy there. Dead people everywhere. Corpses of Ukrainian soldiers. They were just left there. Just left there and I don’t know why.” It was into this cauldron that a British Foreign Secretary urged (illegally) British and other troops to go and fight!

The Ukrainian channel Rezident published a video, saying:

We thought for a long time whether to publish the video, but then we decided to show the reality of what the massacre of Azov (troops) looks like, to which the West sent the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the Office of the President supported this plan.

8 units of equipment burned down in a matter of minutes. All fields are monitored (by the Russians) 24/7 from copters that coordinate artillery fire. All fields are mined and do not allow the use of Zaluzhny’s tactics of quick cuts in the front and strikes on the flanks. In each attack (even a successful one), we lose dozens of pieces of equipment and a hundred soldiers.

In audio negotiations, you can hear how the fire is being coordinated, at the moment when our equipment is not supported by artillery and one (Russian) enemy tank stops the movement of the column.

So massive have troop losses been that, according to The Guardian journalist Nick Hauer, one of the problems of the Ukrainian counter-offensive is the lack of time to train fighters to make up for losses. As an example, he cites a conversation with the battalion commander of the 68th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

These guys are not so young, are they?

Yes, they are completely different. Actually, I don’t like it. It reminds me of Germany in 1945: here is a group of fighters who have never served and two weeks of training is not enough, but we simply do not have time.

 Also, his interlocutor noted high losses during the winter battles on the Ugledar front: out of 420 people, 100 were killed and wounded. According to the Ukrainian commander, “we are losing the best.”

Ukraine is also losing its youth. This young man was not even 17. The post was followed by over 700 angry comments filled with pain and denial.

“The West knew that Kiev would not have enough weapons for the offensive, but they believed in the “resourcefulness” of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Those who threw these troops into a battle they knew they could not win but were trying to make some meagre gains “in order to better negotiate” are guilty of genocide of Ukrainians. One of the soldiers of the 23rd brigade told reporters from the New York Times that his battalion was literally destroyed by artillery fire. Of the attack, in which ten American MaxxPro armored vehicles took part, only one returned. The losses were horrific. In one month of fighting, as a Ukrainian military man told the NYT, only ten people remained in the ranks of the entire battalion (about 400-500 men).

63% of Ukrainians now say they know at least one close relative or friend who have died in the war, with the average number being three. This is a huge increase from the last survey in February, which found only 17% of Ukrainians reported a loss, while the figure in September  of 2022 was just 9%. Link to the original survey data by KIIS.

Press Gangs Roam the Streets and “Snitch on a Draft Evader”

Daily there are videos on the internet of Ukrainian men of all ages being seized on the street for recruitment into the armed forces. Often they – or their women – folk fight back – and win! Ukrainian gas receipts contain the following: 

‘You can receive a discount on payment for services if you report a collaborator or an (draft) evader using the єVorog bot.’

#source 

The extent to which the western press, especially in the USA, are at last awakening to the pointless slaughter is this report of the New York Times about the full cemeteries in Lviv:

“The old, unmarked graves of those who died in past wars will be dug up to make way for a seemingly endless stream of the dead.”

One woman who lost her 30-year-old son says: “The best of the best died. He graduated from the university. He had an honours degree. Why did he die?” Another: “It’s so hard to think – last summer there were so few of them [the dead), and now there are so many of them.”

Western Support Ebbing Away

The tensions within the western alliance are growing, with Germany unable to supply more tanks, the USA refusing to supply the latest Abrams tanks and Germany terminating  an agreement with the Polish authorities on the repair of Leopard 2 tanks transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the territory of Poland (Handelsblatt) because Poland was asking 10 times the reasonable price for repairs!

SWITZERLAND has refused arms to Ukraine and ISRAEL denied Ukraine the supply of the Iron Dome air defense system and other heavy weapons, citing the fact that these weapons, if they get to Ukraine, could fall into the hands of Iran. (There is also an understanding with Russia that Israel does not supply heavy weapons to Ukraine, and Russia does not supply certain weapons and technologies to Iran.

Ukraine’s Zelensky was blocked from attending the summit of the EU and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States despite an invitation by the Spanish PM

Poland (which has historic claims on western Ukraine) demands more thanks for its support of Ukraine and an apology for the Volyn massacre in WW2. In 2022, Poland took in almost 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees which has resulted in a 50% rise in the population of Rzeszów, the largest city in south-eastern Poland. Warsaw’s population has increased by 15%, Kraków’s by 23%, and Gdansk’s by 34%). Poland has sent over 20,000 fighters to Ukraine.

Support for the war is falling in all European countries and only 31% of Americans are prepared to see US troops fighting in Ukraine (although of course many already are!)

Time to End this Mad War

I have already described the madness of this war which could so easily have been settled by agreeing to devolution for Russians and Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine and the guaranteed neutrality of Ukraine. But that did not fit the long held plans of the American neocons who were determined to use Ukraine as a battering ram to “break up Russia” and have “regime change in Moscow”. 

These imperialist US notions were mad enough but to use them to sacrifice not Americans  but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives is unforgivable. PEACE NOW!

*

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

Featured image is from Freenations

Author’s Note and update

Since this article was first published almost three years year ago on July 11, 2020 under the title LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir on July 3, 2020, there has been a virtual censorship of debate on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin largely directed against medical doctors.

In recent developments Remdesevir is making the headlines. Remdesevir is now approved for babies. 

On May 22, 2020 Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, was published by the New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM)

On June 29, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the head of NIAID granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. despite the fact that the study of the new experimental drug was “preliminary”.The NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

A $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. was announced on June 29th, 2020 despite the fact that NIH NIAID study published in the NEJM was considered “preliminary”. In the late 1990s, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006).

In recent developments, there is an ongoing campaign to suppress both Hydroxycholoroquine as well as Ivermectin as effective preventive and curative drugs.

The objective has been to sustain the vaccination campaign on behalf of Big Pharma.

A revised version of this article was published as a chapter in the author’s E-book. Free Download. See below

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 25, 2020, August 10, 2023


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity

Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression

By Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, Product Type: PDF File, Pages: 164 (15 Chapters)

Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.

Price: $11.50. FREE COPY Click here to download.


LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

By Michel Chossudovsky

Introduction

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed “a tiny US based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian). This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.

While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.

When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at  Brigham and Women’s Hospital apologized:

I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.

It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC  (official statement on BWH website)

But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?

Studies on Gilead Science’s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)

While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc:

Brigham and Women’s Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead’s antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.

… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”

While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: “He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)

What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?

According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)

Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).

Who are the Main Actors? 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.

Gilead Sciences Inc: History

Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.

In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the  time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences”.

Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would: 

“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (WPo report)

In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”

The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project

We will be focussing on key documents (and events)

Chronology 

February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

April 29: NIH Release: Study on Remdesivir (Report published on May 22 in NEJM)

May 22, The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet

May 22Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM) 

June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is Retracted.

June 29, Fauci announcement. The $1.6 Billion Remdevisir HHS Agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc. study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled  “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19” . It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc.

Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.

The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) … Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.

The NEJM article states that “Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020”. From whom, From Where? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.

Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast  doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test  is less that the number of co-authors: “53 patients” versus “56 co-authors”

Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article:

‘Compassionate use’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available. Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard, Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.

 “It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds.

 “The research is interesting but doesn’t prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study.  Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written.  Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

 “It’s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don’t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity.” Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.

To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here

April 29: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdevisir. 

On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in the NEJM on April 10, a press release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Remdevisir was released.  The full document was published on May 22, by the NEJM under the title:

 Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) 

The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. The title of the April 29 Press Release was:

“Peer-reviewed data shows remdesivir for COVID-19 improves time to recovery”

It’s a government sponsored report which includes preliminary data from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are preliminary, conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).  (emphasis added)

In the NIH’s earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the methodology was described as follows:

… A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) …

Numbers. Where? When? 

The February 21 report confirmed that the first trial participant was “an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship” that docked in Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters). “Thirteen people repatriated by the U.S. State Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship” were selected as patients for the placebo trial test. Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the “confirmed cases” Worldwide (542 cases out of 924) (outside China),  were on the Diamond Cruise Princess from which the initial trial placebo patients were selected.

Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because on February 19th (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see Table Below).

“A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study—47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia.” (emphasis added)

In the final May 22 NEJM report entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8), the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1), and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment

The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci’s announcement (April 29):

“The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, …  fall short of the magic bullet or cure… But with no approved treatments for Covid-19,[Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients …The data shows that remdisivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Fauci said.

The government’s first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday — but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand.

The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death.

… Fauci’s remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.

In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM]

The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world (??), offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??) clinical study of remdesivir’s effectiveness against COVID-19.

The NIH placebo test study provided “preliminary results”. While the placebo trial test was “randomized”, the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See the full report.

May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

It is worth noting that the full report of the NIH-NIAID) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report was released on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM, on the same day as the controversial Lancet report on Hydroxychloroquine.

Immediately folllowing its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding the NIH-NIASD report released on the same day.

Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, … “It’s a very safe and effective drug,” said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations.”

When the Lancet HCQ article by  Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure “had been killed”.

June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc

Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020.

The semi-official US government NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

On June 29, based on the findings of the NIH-NIAID Report published in the NEJM, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America’s private hospitals and clinics.

The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10), of 53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been  questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.

Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth)

The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union. under the brandname Veklury.

If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.

 

[error in above title according to HHS: $3200]

According to The Trump Administration’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):

“To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. [at $3200] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

Careful timing:

The Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th. The legitmacy of this agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered “preliminary”. 

What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been “studied” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections.  And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries.

According to the Virology Journal (2005) Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC. 

HCQ is not only effective, it is “inexpensive” when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated “$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance”.

Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard’s Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22 Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report (prior to its Retraction).

Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May 22 Lancet study]

France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?

MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another.

FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all speculation?  …

MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition, our study shows that there are harmful effects.

It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.

FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous?

MM: Exactly. …

All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective.

The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications

FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor’s chair.

He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate.

France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)

In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra’s Lancet report was revealed.

Concluding Remarks

 Lies and Corruption to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, “The Boston Connection” and Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Gilead Sciences Inc. Remdesivir study (50+ authors) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 10, 2020).

It was followed by the NIH-NIAID Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM.  And on that same day, May 22, the “fake report” on Hydroxychloroquine by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra was published by The Lancet.

Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.

Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.

While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard’s Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc.

It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken, respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer reviewed study (April 10, 2020) as well as the NIH-NIAID study also published in the NEJM (May 22, 2020). 


ANNEX

Retraction by France Soir

The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June. France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La connexion de Boston, namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved.

 

 

(excerpts here, to access the complete text click here translation from French by France Soir, emphasis in the original article)

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

… However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.”

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.  …

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ,  another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ  in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby”* Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

“While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

“Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.”

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

” It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better.

“The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.**

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.”

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.:

“Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.**

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

…”Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 

– One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone

– The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

“We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks.

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine vs. Gilead’s Remdesivir
  • Tags:

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Introduction

For the last 40 years, the media and the academics of the West have been telling us that North Korea has all the sins and none of the virtues in the world, whereas the U.S. has all the virtues and no sins in the world. That is, North Korea is a bad boy while the U.S. is a good boy.

Therefore, if the “nuclear crisis” is not resolved, it is the fault of the bad boy; if it succeeds, it results from the good deeds of the good boy.

Such a terribly simplified picture of the nuclear crisis drawn by Washington has prevented us from understanding what has been really going on between North Korea and the U.S.

I have been watching the West’s dichotomous version of the nuclear crisis of North Korea and I have come to the conclusion that we must find the real picture of the crisis outside the analytical frame of the West’s media an academic writings.

We all know that the story of North Korean nuclear crisis is terribly complex, complicated and confusing. This is so because the lawmakers and policymakers involved in the crisis hide truth or manufacture stories in order to promote the interests of their countries or their own personal interests. This is so particularly in the case of the strong countries which can dictate media information.

The story of the nuclear crisis is the story of the unipolar world in which Washington tries to manipulate the regional security dynamics of East Asia. It is a story of how the Pro-Japan conservative South Korea (PJCSK), Japan and the U.S. China and Russia have been trying to define their North Korea policy in function of their national interests.

It is especially the story of the tiny country known as Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) which has been struggling to survive with dignity and pride and advance in a hostile geopolitical situation.

The 75-year history of North Korea is the story of how the North Korean people have dealt with America’s persistent nuclear threat, multinational merciless economic sanctions, the West’s policy of perpetual diplomatic alienation and blind ideological attacks.

To write these stories, I need to write several books, which I cannot. What I am trying to do is to write a short article focussing on the drama from a Korean perspective of the so-called, “nuclear crisis.” 

I am fully aware that many countries have been involved directly or indirectly in the dynamics of the nuclear crisis. But in this paper, I am limiting my thoughts to the bilateral nuclear relations between Pyongyang and Washington. 

To be more precise, this paper asks the following questions: 

  1. What is the origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis? 

  2. How has the North Korean nuclear crisis evolved? 

  3. Which country is responsible for the North Korean nuclear crisis?

  4. What are the real objectives of America’s policy on the North Korean nuclear crisis?  
  5. What will happen to the North Korean nuclear crisis? 

1. What is the Origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis?  

U.S. War Crimes against the People of North Korea

The origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis is the mutual hate and mistrust between the country of Juche and the country of Uncle Sam.

For North Korea, the U.S. is a hateful enemy. For America, North Korea is hateful but a useful enemy.

North Koreans have reasons to dislike and even hate the U.S. government. They were crucified by the Americans during the Korean War and they have been demonized.

During the Korean War, North Korea lost more than 20% of its population due to US napalm bombing and the use of chemical and biological weapons. Its women were raped en masse on the streets by GIs.

Every single standing structure was destroyed by American planes and canons.

Pyongyang 1953

General Curtis LeMay who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53) candidly acknowledged that:

“We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too.… Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?”  Strategic Air Warfare: An Interview with Generals (1988)

The criminal bombings of Pyongyang in 1951 ordered by president Truman, were acknowledged by General Douglas MacArthur who was commander of allied forces in Korea:

“A defiant Douglas MacArthur appeared before Congress and spoke of human suffering so horrifying that his parting glimpse of it caused him to vomit.

“I have never seen such devastation,” the general told members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. At that time, in May 1951, the Korean War was less than a year old. Casualties, he estimated, were already north of 1 million.

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, “and it just curdled my stomach.”  (quoted by the Washington Post, August 10, 2017)

Video: The Criminal Bombing of North Korea

The Country of Juche 

The country of Juche has been the most demonized by Americans on the basis of lies or intentionally fabricated information. One thing we have to know is the fact that most of the published information on North Korea come from North Koreans who left their country for personal reasons including crimes committed. 

In many cases, these people are forced by anti-Pyongyang Intelligence services to fabricate stories. Moreover, in many cases, these defectors are generously paid for lies.

The country of Juche doctrine is blamed for not believing in God. But North Koreans believe in their gods which can be different depending upon the believer. However, religion should not be used for political interests.

It is accused for having concentration camps torturing 100,000 prisoners. Nobody knows where such information came from. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a scale purge for re-education of those who were against the Juche regime.

North Korea is suspected for executing people on the street. It is possible that it happened. In one case, the person was executed because of treason. But it should not happen. Even in developed countries, the police kill people on the street because of skin colour. Is it not the case of street execution?

The North Korean leaders are labelled as merciless dictators. They may be dictators like most political leaders in the world. Remember this. The dictatorship may come from the money, the power and the corruption.

The North Korean government is accused for making its people suffer from hunger. This accusation is partly true. The hunger comes from various sources including the will of Mother Nature, bad economic policy and, especially, economic sanctions imposed by Washington and the UN.

North Korean political regime is ridiculed for violating human rights. This is the most regular item found in the menu of international diplomacy. But, which human rights are we talking about?

One thing we should know is that there are two principal types of human rights adopted by the UN. 

One is the civic and political rights. When public authority prevents the citizen from participating in demonstrations against government policy, the public authority violates such human rights. Every country violates these human rights including the U.S. The other is the economic, social and cultural human rights. This is the right to physical survival, that is, the right to eat, to dress up and to live in decent housing.

In other words, if the government fails to provide food, clothing and housing, it violates such human rightsFor this human right, it can be said that North Korea is trying its best despite economic sanctions. Does Washington respect this type of human rights with its awesome wealth?

Above all, I may add that the West led by Washington use human rights issues as an unethical diplomatic weapon. I think that it is a shame.

The recent trend is that the most popular criterion for human right abuse is whether the target country is pro-U.S. or not pro-U.S.

Above all, the country of Juche is made a global outcast for the alleged reason that North Korea threatens the regional security with its nuclear weapons. This is something difficult to digest.

Remember this. The combined GDP of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. is about USD 32,000 billion as against about USD 45 billion for North Korea. The combined annual national defence budget of the U.S., South Korea and Japan is about USD 1,000 billion against USD 10 billion for North Korea.

You tell me how such a tiny country can be threat to the region? Besides, as far as I know, North Korea has no intention to invade any country. In fact, peaceful cooperative co-existence with neighbouring countries is what Pyongyang wants.

Thus, the crucifixion and the demonization of North Korea by Americans are good reasons for which North Koreans to dislike and mistrust Americans, especially the pro-war elite group in Washington.

On the other hand, the U.S. hates North Korea for all sorts of reasons. It killed GIs; it prevented the U.S. from winning the Korean War; it has refused to become America’s vassal state.

Image: United States Navy Lockheed EC-121M Warning Star Bu. No. 135749 in pre-1969 paint scheme. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

undefined

Moreover, North Korea captured US spy ship, Pueblo, on 23 December 1968 and shot down US Air Force spy plane, EC-121M on April 15 1969. These events humiliated VIPs in Washington.

Washington wanted to make South Korea the model of democratic and rich country so that North Koreans envy South Koreans.

But to the displeasure of Americans, North Koreans have little respect for the military dictatorship and the corruption culture created by the pro-Japan conservative government. For this, the U.S. is displeased with North Korea.

Under these circumstances, North Korea and the U.S. are enemies; they dislike each other, they do not trust each other.

Moreover, ever since the armistice of 1953, the U.S. has been threatening North Korea with nuclear attacks. In fact, Washington had been deploying (since 1953) 100 nuclear war heads in South Korea until 1991.

In short, there are two factors responsible for the origin of the nuclear crisis.

The first factor is Washington’s hatred against North Korea and its decision to destroy the country of Juche even with nuclear weapons.

The second factor is Pyongyang’s hatred against and its mistrust of Washington forcing North Korea to defend itself with nuclear weapons.

Since the initiative of nuclear confrontation was taken by Washington, the U.S. is the origin of the U.S.-DPRK nuclear conflict. 

2. How Has the North Korean Nuclear Crisis Evolved? 

By the way, I define the nuclear crisis used in this paper. The word “crisis’ means a situation which can become “dangerous” if it is not corrected. In this paper, nuclear crisis refers to the Washington-Pyongyang nuclear confrontation even without imminent military confrontation. Therefore, the nuclear crisis in North Korea has existed ever since 1953.

My definition of nuclear crisis may be a little broader than the usual definition which relates to imminent military attack.

The evolution of the nuclear crisis has taken place in three stages:

  • North Korea’s nuclear development planning
  • Vicious circle of denuclearization
  • Nuclear development for nuclear statehood

2.1. The stage of North Korea’s nuclear development planning: 1953-1991

This is the stage where North Korea felt obliged to prepare nuclear weapons to defend itself from the American nuclear threat.

1953: This year was the year of armistice and not the end of the Korean War. Washington’s possible hidden purpose was to maintain the state of war so that the Washington can control Korean affairs and sell weapons

1957: North Korea started to develop tactical weapons

1959: Soviet assistance for nuclear research and the establishment of the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center

1965: North Korea obtained 2-MW light water reactor. The Soviet left North Korea

1980s: North Korea started to build 5-MW natural uranium reactor which could produce 6kg weapon-grade plutonium. Washington begun to pay attention

1985: North Korea joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under pressure of Washington.

1991: With the closing of the Cold War, the U.S. removed 100 nuclear warheads from South Korea, which facilitated the negotiation for denuclearization.

2.2. The stage of vicious circle of denuclearization, 1992-2016

1992: Since the U.S. removed the nuclear weapon from the Korean soil, North Korea thought of denuclearizing and promised the following:

  • No nuclear weapon testing,
  • No nuclear weapon production,
  • No receiving of nuclear technology and
  • No deployment of nuclear weapons.

1993:

  • The U.S carried out the Team Spirit military exercises
  • North Korea withdrew from NPT
  • North Korea refused IAEA inspections
  • Former U.S. President Bill Clinton planned to attack North Korea
  • Former president Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and met Kim Il-sung in order to denuclearization

And, in 1993, there as a hope that Washington would not continue nuclear threat and in 1994, North Korea signed so called the Framework Agreement.

But, North Korea’s dream for denuclearization was shattered because of what I call, the vicious circle of denuclearization.

There were five steps in the vicious cycle of denuclearization in the period 1992-2016:

Step 1: International pressure for dialogue

Step 2: Denuclearization agreements

Step 3: North Korea’s implementation of the Agreement

Step 4: Washington’s claims that North Korea cheats, hides something

Step 5: North Korea stops denuclearization and resumes nuclear development programs

Vicious cycle 1: The Framework Agreement, October 21, 1994

Step 1: 1993:  U.S. President Jimmy Carter persuaded President Bill Clinton to abandon his plan to attack North Korea, which led to the agreement of denuclearization after the Geneva Meeting in October, 1994.

Step 2: The Framework Agreement, October 21, 1994 

North Korea agreed to

  • stop plutonium enrichment program,
  • stop the construction of nuclear facilities.

The U.S. agreed to

  • remove sanctions,
  • provide 500,000 crude oil,
  • build two light water reactors for civil use.

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement 1994-2003

Step 4: Washington spoiled the agreement arguing that North Korea did not implement the agreement

  • Clinton hoped that North Korea would collapse due to the death of President Kim Il-sung (July 8, 1994) and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • North Korea tested a missile in 1998 (August 31); Washington argued that this was the violation of the agreement. But it was not included in the agreement
  • In 2002, President George W. Bush put North Korea on “the axis of evil”

Step 5: North Korea being disappointed with Washington’s strategy resumed its nuclear development program.

Vicious Cycle 2: The September-19 Joint Statement of 2005

Here, I may say a few words about the 6-Party Talks. After the failure of the 1994 Agreement, the international community put pressure on Washington to engage dialogue with Pyongyang. Washington could do it, rather it should do it, but it did not for some reasons.

Perhaps, because, it wanted to let North Korea to continue its nuclear development program provided that it would not be a threat against the U.S. I will explain later why.

But, given the international pressure, Washington had to do something. The something was to ask China to organize the dialogue. China accepted to organize and lead the dialogue.

At first, it was 3-Party Talk: China, the U.S. and North Korea. But the U.S. invited South Korea and Japan which prevented  the 3 Party Talk from succeeding.

Washington knew that Tokyo and Seoul were not in favour of denuclearization so that they could reap electoral benefits from  the North-South tension. The continuation of the North-South tension resulting from North Korea’s nuclear weapon development has been one of the best allies of electoral wins of South Korea and Japan.

On its side, China invited Russia which would favour dialogue. Thus, from the beginning, the 6-party talk took place among three countries in favour of the dialogue and three other countries against the dialogue.

Thus, from the beginning, the 6-Party-Talk had little chance of success. However, owing to China’s leadership and devotion, the Talk produced three Joint Statements (Agreements), although they were all made useless by Washington.

We will see below what happened to these agreements. Now, we come back to the second vicious circle of denuclearization.

Step 1: The pressure of the 6-Party Talk members

Step 2: The September-19 Joint Statement of 2005

North Korea agreed to

  • give up all current nuclear programs,
  • return to NPT.

The U.S. agreed to:

  • provide light water reactors to North Korea,
  • not to invade North Korea and guarantee security,
  • normalize relations with North Korea,
  • the U.S sanctions remained.

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement.

Step 4: The agreement was not carried out due to U.S. behaviour

  • September 25, 2005: the U.S. Treasury Department accused North Korea of money laundering with funds in the Banco Dela Asia (BDA) in Macao; the funds were frozen;
  • October 21, 2005: Washington put North Korea back on the list of state sponsor countries

Step 5: North Korea

  • Resumed its nuclear development program.
  • North Korea conducted its first nuclear test on October 9, 2006 in order to continue the talks in a better bargaining position.

Vicious Cycle 3: The February 13 Joint Statement of 2007

Step 1: Pressure of the 6-Party Talk member

Step 2: The February-13 Joint Statement of 2007 

North Korea agreed to

  • shut down the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon,
  • abandon nuclear program.

The U.S. agreed to

  • accept the bilateral talk,
  • remove North Korea from the list of state sponsor countries,

Step 3: North Korea was ready to implement the agreement.

Step 4: G.W. Bush qualified North Korea as “as brutal regime”.

Step 5: North Korea did not object and refrained from conducting nuclear development program.

Vicious Cycle 4: The October 3 Joint Statement of 2007 

Step 1: Pressure by the 6-Party Talks members.

Step 2: The October-3 Joint Statement of 2007.

North Korea agreed to: 

  • disable the nuclear reactor,
  • declare all nuclear programs,
  • disable the 5-MW reactor in Yongbyon,
  • declare all the nuclear development programs.

The U.S. agreed to

  • increase bilateral meetings to increase mutual trust,
  • remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism,
  • provide 100,000 tons heavy fuel oil,

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement.

Step 4: The U.S. made North Korea disappointed by Rice’s behaviour.

The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, raised the issue of the verification of North Korea claims; the verification was not in the agreement.

Step 5: North Korea slowed down its denuclearization.

In April 2009, North Korea launched a satellite of communication, but Washington insisted it was ICBM.

Disappointed once again with the American attitude, North Korea left the 6-party talks for good on April 14, 2009

North Korea conducted its second nuclear test on May 25, 2009 to show its displeasure with Washington’s behaviour. 

Vicious Cycle 5: Leap Day Agreement of February 29 of 2012

Step 1: International pressure for the restoration of the dialogue and the 6-Party Talk

Step 2: Leap Day Agreement February 29, 2011

North Korea agreed to

  • suspend nuclear tests and long-range missile tests,
  • not to undertake uranium enrichment activities,
  • allow the IAEA to verify and supervise North Korean nuclear activities.

The U.S. agreed to

  • stop hostility toward North Korea,
  • provide 240,000 tons of nutritious foods to North Korea.

Step 3: North Korea was ready to implement the agreement

Step 4: North Korea announced that it would launch a satellite; Washington said that it violated the agreement. But the satellite launch was not in the agreement.

Step 5: Dissatisfied with Washington’s accusation, North Korea resumed its nuclear development program.

Thus, the U.S. had five chances to denuclearize North Korea. But, it has obliged North Korea to continue its nuclear development program. Why? We come back to this question later.

North Korea’s 3rd Nuclear test on February 12, 2013 was designed to show that North Korea can go further with the development of nuclear weapons.

2.3. The stage of nuclear development for nuclear statehood

This period was characterized by the projection of two images of North Korea. One was North Korea’s pride of having become at last a bona fide nuclear state. The other image was the bold and self-confident behaviour of Chairman, Kim Jong-un as the head of a nuclear state.

2016 February 7: North Korea launches a satellite with a long-range rocket

2016 March-April: The U.S. and South Korea conducted the Key Resolve joint military exercise with 300,000 South Korean soldiers and 17,000 American soldiers with carrier battle group and performed the simulation of “decapitation” meaning cutting off the head of the North Korean leader.

 2016 June 6: North Korea’s 4th Nuclear Test

This test was a step closer to North Korea’s nuclear statehood. This test was a hydro bomb test and North Korea thinks that it has attained its nuclear goal to have effective deterrence against any foreign invasion.

2016 September 9: the 5th Nuclear Test

This nuclear test was intended to show to the world that North Korean nuclear technology is further progressing.

2017 January: Donald Trump becomes US president

2017 July 4: launching of ICBM Hwasong-14This event was the most important moment in the evolution of North Korean nuclear technology. The message was that now North Korea had the capacity to carry miniaturized nuclear weapon as far the U.S. territory.

2017 September 3: 6th nuclear test (hydro bomb). This test took place two month after the Trump’s threat of nuclear attack against North Korea and was intended to tell Trump that North Korea is ready to defend itself.

The launching of Hwasong-14 combined with the three latest nuclear tests meant that North Korea has become a nuclear state deserving respect.

2017 November: North Korea was put back on the list of state sponsor of terrorism

2018 February 9-25: Pyongchang Winter Olympics. This event and a series of summits which took place after the Winter Olympics showed the possibility of the North-South and the U.S-DPRK dialogue and peace process was possible.

The brilliant diplomatic performance of Kim Yo-jong, now number 2 leader in North Korea, showed that, in North Korea, there were well-educated and world-class leaders. She contributed to the projection of favourable image of North Korea.

2018 April 27: Moon – Kim summit at DMZ. This summit between Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea and Kim Jong-un, the Chairman of North Korea showed North Korea’s wish of ending the Korean War and the establishment of peace on the peninsula and sustained economic cooperation.

2018 June 12: Kim-Trump summit, Singapore: 

This summit between Chairman, Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Donald Trump, President of the U.S. was of historical importance.

The summit did not produce any concrete results, but it indicated the possibilities of Washington-Pyongyang direct peace dialogue.

I may add that this summit was possible owing to the inspiring diplomacy of Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea.

2018 September 6: Kim-Moon Summit in Pyongyang. The outcome of this summit may be summarized in terms of demilitarization of hot regions in the east coast lines and the west coast lines on the one hand and, on the other, the mutual wish for the reunification of two Koreas.

2019 February 27-28: Kim-Trump summit in Hanoi. Chairman, Kim Jung-un made a 6-day train trip by train to meet with Trump.

The hope was high. Both Presidents, Donald Trump and Chairman, Kim Jong-un seemed eager to solve the nuclear crisis. The two leaders were supposed to simply sign the agreement prepared before hand by advisors.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un shake hands at the Hanoi Summit in Vietnam, February 27, 2019. Photo credit: White House


But, at the critical moment, John Bolton, the champion of for the Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Denuclearization (CVID) gave a small piece of paper which made Trump leave the conference room. The world wonders about the contents of the piece of paper.

It is likely that it contained some sort of threat forcing Trump to abandon the peace-process with North Korea.

2019 June 30: Kim-Trump summit in DMZ South Korea. It was said that they would resume the peace process, if and when time comes for it.

2023 April 13: launching of ICBM Hwasong-18 which can reach 15,000 km.

This took place 13 days before the Yoon-Biden summit to warn against Washington-Seoul military alliance. North Korea can be a real threat to the U.S, if the Pentagon or Seoul or Japan attack North Korea.

2023 April 26: Yoon-Biden summit in Washington. In this summit, South Korean President, Yoon Suk-yeol would have asked Joe Biden, President of the U.S. to protect Yoon’s government and the pro-Japan conservatives in South Korea from North Korean nuclear attack in exchange with the deployment of South Korean armed forces to China-Taiwan War.

Biden promised two things. On the one hand, Washington would deploy, if needed, American war assets including nuclear submarines at the cost of South Korea. On the other hand, South Korea would be a part of a nuclear consultative committee.

As a result, the Yoon-Biden summit has intensified the nuclear crisis of North Korea

2023 July 18: Proposal of Summit with no conditions. Biden’s Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan proposed DPRK-U.S. bilateral talks without preconditions.

He surely knows that North Korea is not naïve enough to fall again into the trap of Washington’s “without condition” proposal. Then, why did he make such empty proposal?

If Pyongyang refuses, then Washington’s favourite rhetoric comes in and tells the world that North Korea refuses the peace dialogue.

But, as far as North Korea is concerned, this is an empty gesture with no meaning. It is hard to see how talks without conditions can achieve anything.

Kim Yo-Jong, key member of the State Affairs Commission (SAC) replies with dismay and even with anger,

“It is a day dream for the U.S. to think that it can stop the advance of the DPRK and, furthermore, achieve irreversible disarmament by reversible by such incentives as sanctions relief, suppression of Pentagon’s joint military exercises with South Korea and a halt to deployment of strategic weapons in the region.” (Rt report quoted in 21cir Century, July 18, 2023)

The evolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis may be summed up this way.

The DPRK planned nuclear development for 37 years (1953-1991) under the leadership of late President Kim Il -sung;

North Korea has experienced the vicious circles of denuclearization for 23 years, (1993-2016) under the government of late Supreme leader Kin Jong-il who really wanted to denuclearize his country.

In 2002, he was reported to have told the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi who visited Pyongyang that North Korea was so eager to get rid of nuclear development program and that North Korea had to have nuclear weapons only to defend his country.

And, since 2017, under the chairmanship of Kim Jong-un, North Korea has been ready to meet any external threat with its nuclear weapons as a full-fledged nuclear state.

3. Which Country Is Responsible for the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

To find the country responsible for the nuclear crisis in North Korea, we have to find the country which has done two things.

First, we have to find the country which has forced North Korea to undertake the development of nuclear protection. As we saw above, it was the United States which forced North Korea to feel obliged to develop nuclear arsenal.

Second, we have to find the country which has been responsible for the continuation of the North Korean nuclear crisis. As we saw above, it has been Washington which has prevented North Korea from abandoning nuclear development

So, to sum up, the responsible of the nuclear crisis is Washington, because it forces North Korea to go for nuclear defence on the one hand, and on the other, it allowed the crisis to perpetuate.

But, why did Washington behave the way it behaved? Now we turn to this question:

4. What Are the Real Objectives of America’s Policy on the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

It appears that the North Korean nuclear crisis serves two policy objectives of Washington, namely weapon sales and the regime destruction.

The nuclear crisis of North Korea creates North-South tension and it allows the Pentagon to justify bigger defence budget and higher profit for the American war industry.

Moreover, the nuclear crisis provides excuse to Washington to qualify the Juche regime as “dangerous regime” deserving to be changed, or rather, to be destroyed.

In this way, the nuclear crisis serves the double purpose of making money and destroying a regime which is unacceptable to the West led by the U.S.

The destruction of the North Korean regime is a common wish of pro-Japan conservative South Korea, Japan and the U.S. for different reasons.

For the pro-Japan conservative South Korea (PJCSK), the survival of the Juche regime leading to the peaceful unification of Korea means that the PJCSK people becomes shrinking minority leading to the loss of power and wealth.

For Japan, the survival of the Juche regime leading to peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula means increasing economic, political, trade and even military threat.

Now, we may also examine why Washington is so eager to destroy North Korean regime. As far as Washington is concerned, North Korea’s regime is bad and it can pollute good regimes.

In short, all these three countries wish the destruction of the Juche regime. There are two ways of doing it, namely, by force or by internal turmoil. But the regime destruction by force is costly, at least for now.

So, the best way of destroying the North Korea regime is the maintenance of nuclear crisis which will harm the economy and increase North Korean people’s suffering thus leading to internal revolt. Therefore, the nuclear crisis should be allowed to continue.

The nuclear crisis combined with economic sanctions will destroy the Juche regime.

Moreover, as mentioned above, the nuclear crisis is the good source of profit for the American war industry. South Korea buys each year American weapons amounting to USD 10 billion to USD 20 billion. Japan buys much more. The Philippines buys American military wonders along with other East Asian countries.

But, despite the pressure coming from nuclear weapons programs and economic sanction, there is no sight of North Korean people’s uprising; the Juche regime is solid.

Here, the Washington has underestimated the Juche regime which makes North Koreans to be loyal and devote themselves to their country and to their leaders.

The North Korean life philosophy is the combination of Taoism (pragmatism), Buddhism (freedom from secular desires) and Confucianism (hierarchical social order). These traditional values make North Korean people to be practical, to be ready to endure hardship and to give greater priority to common goods than to private interests.

The Juche doctrine (or religion) is, in a way, an integration of these Asian values into “the belief of trinity.”

The Juche doctrine begins with the notion that man is free and master of himself. Now, the individuals identify themselves, out of free will, with .the nation. Moreover, the individuals identify themselves with the leader.

The individuals are the center of the nation. Moreover, the individuals, the nation and the leader are “one” and “the same.”

What the leader is doing and thinking is what the individual and the nation are doing and thinking.

What the individual is doing and thinking is what the leader and the nation are doing and thinking.

What the nation is doing and thinking is what the leader and the individual are doing and thinking.

In this doctrine, when individual is revolting against the leader, the individual is revolting against himself.

In this doctrine, the individual is in the leader; the leader is in the individual.

That is why North Koreans do not revolt against the leader.

The Juche doctrine was the idea of late president, Kim Il-sung but refined by his son, late Kim Jong-il, who was quite a thinker. But, it took decades of education before the doctrine has become North Koreans’ way of living and thinking.

If there were no popular protests against the government despite nuclear threat, despite economic hardship largely due to sanctions and despite years of famine, it was the results the Juche doctrine.

The Juche doctrine was something which the Washington did not understand or did not want to understand.

Thus, Washington’s anti-North Korea policy failed as far as the regime destruction is concerned. However, it succeeded in weapon sales and making huge profit for the American Pro-War Community (AMPC).

5. What Will Happen to the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

We can think of the following scenarios in connection with the future of the North Korean nuclear crisis.

First Scenario: the nuclear crisis will continue as long as the North Korea is not a real threat, because the nuclear crisis brings money and weaken further the North Korean economy. North Korea has never been a real threat and it will remain so, unless provoked.

Second Scenario, North Korea undertakes moratorium on nuclear development and allows the opening of its huge reserve of rare earth to the U.S. and Japan in exchange of sanction lifting and even normalization of Washington-Pyongyang relations.

The amount of rare earth reserve of 7 countries which are in the American camp (Vietnam, India, Brazil, U.S., Australia, Greenland and Canada) is 40 million MT s against 65 million MT for combined reserve of Russia and China.

The world reserve is 130 million MT. But, imagine, North Korea has 216 million MT. Remember this. The issue of the future world war depends much on the access to semiconductors, which cannot be produced without rare earths.

The combination on the moratorium on nuclear development with the access of the American war camp to North Korean rare earths may persuade Washington to terminate the nuclear crisis.

The third scenario is troublesome. If the U.S.-DPRK confrontation continues, if the trilateral (ROK-Japan-U.S.) military alliance becomes a reality and if the alliance threatens Chairman, KIm Jong-un, North Korea might join the war camp of China-Russia.

This possibility was shown in a dramatic way by the participation of Russia’s Defence Minister, Sergey Shoigu at the Pyongyang military Parade of July 27 organized to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Armistice of the Korean War.

When this happens, there will be no more nuclear crisis in North Korea, but, the third world war will come sooner that we might have thought.

The fourth scenario is a situation where North Korea becomes an ally of Washington in exchange with relations normalization, economic aid, invitation to Washington-led international organizations. If this happens, the West’s striking power will increase so that the probability of the 3rd world war will increase.

What are the probabilities of realization of theses four scenarios? Here is my evaluation.

Scenario 1: 80%: this scenario is the most probable, but at the same time the most undesirable.

Scenario 2: 40%: This scenario is highly desirable, but it needs special efforts by Washington.

Scenario 3: 70%: This scenario is the worst scenario because it increases the probability of the global nuclear war.

Scenario 4: 10%: This scenario is unlikely, but if it happens, it may hasten the step of the global nuclear war, because the combination of the mighty armed forces of ROK and those of DPRK may strengthen the American temptation to hit China.

Conclusion

I may conclude this paper this way.

First, Washington is responsible for initiating and perpetuating the North Korean nuclear.

Second, Washington has failed to change (destroy) the Juche regime due to its lack of will or insufficient capacity to understand the Juche doctrine.

Third, nonetheless, the American pro-war community (APWC) made a fortune through weapons sales to pro-U.S. East Asian countries who would have accepted North Korea as regional security threat

Fourth, of the 4 scenarios examined, the first scenario of perpetuation of the nuclear crisis is the most probable, because it the most lucrative.

*

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

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and member of Research Centre on Integration and globalization (CEIM-UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After months and months of US media lies about how “phantastic” Ukraine is doing, it is for the cynical a fun to watch how the US narrative is breaking down these days. After months of heavy losses and no gain, the US belief that Ukraine can ever win is vanishing – even CNN cannot keep tight about it anymore.

“Russians have a number of defensive lines and they [Ukrainian forces] haven’t really gone through the first line,” said a senior Western diplomat. “Even if they would keep on fighting for the next several weeks, if they haven’t been able to make more breakthroughs throughout these last seven, eight weeks, what is the likelihood that they will suddenly, with more depleted forces, make them? Because the conditions are so hard.” See this.

US support for Ukraine is crumbling.

55% of voters now saying Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine.

71% of Republicans think that Congress should not authorize new funding. See this.

Republicans control the House of Representatives – the part of Congress where members are on election every second year, that is, all the time. House Republicans on election therefore cannot afford to ignore that 71%, close to three-quarters of their voters want them to block any future aid to Ukraine.

And many Republicans of the Trump wing are already against giving Ukraine more money and weapons. This is a desperate situation for US Neocons like Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, and Nuland who want to continue the Ukraine war at all costs, not only in Ukrainian lives, but even in US treasury. No more big money for Ukraine will come through Congress.

The last big NATO weapons package to Ukraine will be precisely that, the last big weapons package. All there is left for Ukraine will be drip-drip – small handouts. Millions, not billions. The US and NATO have no more left to give.

Germany cannibalized its own small tank army in order to give Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Those Leopard 2 tanks are all mostly gone already. Wasted for nothing. Germany will not do that again.

The same for the UK, which cannibalized their minuscule tank army for Challenger tanks as well.

Poland stripped itself of available tanks to give Ukraine. Poland has no more to give either. Even small NATO countries like Denmark are left in the desert after sending their best equipment for destruction in Ukraine.

Denmark sent all its most “precious” CAESAR artillery to Ukraine – only enough to be destroyed by Russia in just a few days.

The US set to make special constrution of Abrams tanks to Ukraine (which are not even delivered yet) – that will also not happen again.

NATO has no more artillery ammunition – the US itself has only got ammunition left for 30 days in case of a conflict.

The US stripped Middle East countries for Patriot missiles and even took Hawk air defense away from Taiwan in order to send it for destruction in Ukraine. NATO has no more air defense to send. NATO has nothing to send – at all.

As the CNN articles linked above also show, NATO is also suddenly becoming aware, that NATO cannot train Ukrainian soldiers to become a modern complicated force in just 8 weeks. What a surprise. Ukraine itself has lost 350,000+ dead and probably 3-5 times as many wounded for a total loss of 1-2 million Ukrainian men.

Due to refugees, war losses, and losses of territories, Ukraine itself is reduced to a country of just 18-20 million people and cannot make any big recruitments of soldiers anymore. After the break-down of the fake grain-deal which never sent significant amounts of food to poor countries, Russia has blocked Ukraine’s remaining ports and Ukraine has become a landlocked country. Ukraine is crushed.

On the frontlines, we these days see the result of this.

Nowhere is Ukraine making progress. On the contrary.

Russia is rolling Ukraine back in the north on the Kupyanks-Lyman line.

As Ukraine bleeds manpower, trying to hold the Kupyansk-Lyman line stretches Ukraine’s forces thin to the breaking point everywhere else.

In spite of US lies, Russia on its side has plenty of forces in reserve everywhere – even to meet a possible NATO invasion of Ukraine from Poland. Ukraine’s efforts around Artemovsk (Bakhmut) have been stopped too.

Even in the south, Ukraine’s defined main strategic thrust “towards Crimea”.

Russia has started to push Ukraine back at “Bradley square”, the graveyard of burned-out Bradley and NATO vehicles south of Orekhov. Come Autumn 2023, and Ukraine will be pushed back everywhere and Ukraine’s front will be breaking down against superior Russian forces. This is a tragedy brought upon Ukraine by the Kiev puppet régime, Ukrainian Nazis, and US neocons like Biden and Nuland.

The ensuing spectacle in the US is a comedy, however.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from Geopolitical Economy Report

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a press conference that he thought his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “had a broader understanding of the world.” The comments were triggered by Lula suggesting that Zelensky, as a minimum, needs to accept that Crimea is a part of Russia.

On August 3, Lula suggested that Ukraine accept that it lost sovereignty over Crimea as part of efforts to end the war with Russia, stressing that Zelensky “cannot want everything.”

“The world needs tranquillity… We have to find a solution,” Lula added.

This naturally triggered adverse reactions from Zelensky, who is suffering a major humiliation after figureheads of the Kiev regime promised to be in Crimea within weeks of launching the much-lauded Ukrainian counteroffensive, which began over two months ago in the first week of June.

“To be honest, I thought he [Lula] had a broader understanding of the world. I think it’s very important to see the world as a whole,” Zelensky said in an interview at the presidential palace in Kiev on August 6.

Previously, the Brazilian president stated that Zelensky and Putin would not be interested in a peace agreement to end the Ukraine conflict.

“For now, we haven’t heard from Zelensky or Putin the idea that ‘we’re going to stop and let’s negotiate.’ For now, the two are in that phase of ‘I’m going to win, I’m going to win, I’m going to win, I’m going to win,’ you know? Meanwhile, people are dying,” Lula said on August 2.

The Brazilian president is not wrong that neither side at this moment in time are interested in a peace deal – the Kiev regime delusionally believes it can conquer lost territories, including Crimea, while Russia is in a prime position to liberate the territories in Zaporozhye, Luhansk and Donetsk still held by the Ukrainian military, and even push on to take the historically Russian cities of Odessa and Kharkov.

Following Lula’s comments about the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, Brazil’s special advisor for international affairs, Celso Amorim, stated that an eventual agreement should consider the Russian security concerns. Moscow’s concern for NATO’s unrelenting expansion into Eastern Europe was a major reason for the special military operation, especially as Zelensky continually announced Ukraine’s intentions to become an alliance member.

Commenting on the Brazilian government’s statements, Zelensky told a press conference on August 6 that he did not understand what was happening and that Lula’s statements did not bring peace.

“I think President Lula is an experienced person, but I don’t quite understand one thing: does he believe that his society [Brazil] does not fully understand what is happening, and he is counting on that? Lula’s statements do not bring peace at all. It’s strange to talk about Russia’s security. Only Russia, Putin and Lula talk about Russia’s security, about the guarantees that must be given for Russia’s security. I believe that he [Lula] has his own opinion. But the ideas do not have to coincide with Putin’s,” said Zelensky indignantly.

Zelensky also declared that Brazil is a respected and peaceful country, as well as the Brazilian people and that they should disagree with Putin. After the press conference, analysts stated that Zelensky was trying to embarrass and pressure the Brazilian government.

In an interview with Folha de São Paulo, Gunther Rudzit, a specialist in international security and professor of international relations, stated that Zelensky’s words aimed to embarrass the Brazilian government and force the Latin American country to take a firmer position.

“President Lula is running away from a meeting with Zelensky. And the Ukrainian’s insistence puts Brazil on the defensive and in an uncomfortable position to say it is neutral,” said the specialist.

The attempt to embarrass the Brazilian government, according to Rudzit, tries to force Brazil to take a firmer stance. The strategy is justified by the leadership exercised by Brazil over other countries in Latin America – a factor also mentioned by Zelensky in an interview with Folha de São Paulo.

Zelensky arrogantly believes that Brazilians have a major interest in the war in Ukraine, which could not be further from the truth as they are interested in their country’s development and regional issues. Instead, his lambasting of Lula will only make even more Brazilians indifferent and disinterested in a conflict thousands of kilometres away. Now the Ukrainian president will realise he cannot shame countries, besides the masochistic West, into severing their ties with Russia and providing financial and/or military aid to Ukraine.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I will review latest COVID variant propaganda published on Aug. 7, 2023 by USA today, and a substack by one of USA’s top COVID con-artists Dr.Eric Topol:

EG.5.1 – “Eris Variant”

On Aug. 7, 2023, USA Today ran a story about the new COVID-19 variant being pushed by big pharma as becoming the prevalent one in the US and UK: EG.5.1, nicknamed “Eris”.

EG.5.1 is a subvariant of Omicron B.1.1.529

2023 COVID Variants that Didn’t Catch On

Let’s review some of the 2023 COVID “scariants” that failed to catch on:

Kraken was a great name (although Jimmy Fallon sang a horrible cringe-worthy song with it’s other name XBB.1.5), Arcturus was awkward and a mouthful, neither caught on. Anyone remember Deltacron? Gryphon? Hyperion? Acrux? Orthrus?

The latest COVID-19 variant is oddly named “Eris”. USA Today tells us the name was invented by a Canadian COVID con-artist, University of Guelph biology professor Ryan Gregory (who has blocked me on Twitter).

It’s fitting that a Canadian academic is credited with choosing “Eris”, the Greek Goddess of Chaos and Discord, often depicted as a DEMON who enjoys “inflicting pain, suffering and destruction”. Very fitting for Canada, and the pain, suffering and destruction being inflicted on our population by gleeful demons.

Where Is the New Variant Eris Spreading? 

Eris has already surpassed Arcturus in the US, becoming the most prevalent variant in the two-week period ending on August 5, with 17% of cases, according to CDC.

Both the US and UK have an increase in COVID hospitalizations over the summer months, with the U.S. seeing a recent 12% increase in hospital admissions and UK 41% increase in admissions.

Ireland seems to have the most “Eris”:

Some UK hospitals seem to have the most hospitalizations from Eris:

What Are the Signs of Eris Variant?

Eris has similar symptoms to Omicron. The most common include:

  • Runny or stuffy nose
  • Headache
  • Fatigue
  • Sneezing
  • Sore throat
  • Coughing
  • Changes to sense of smell

COVID Booster Push

Professor Gregory tells us what the COVID-19 vaccine push in the fall will be like:

Dr. Eric Topol and the Scary “FLIP” Variant

The “FLIP Variant” is a set of two adjacent spike protein mutations L455F and F456L that significantly increase binding to ACE2 receptor and decrease neutralizing antibodies.

EG.5.1 has only one of these two mutations. So one more mutation and you get the FLIP Variant. It can also arise from Kraken (see the complicated chart above).

“(FLIP Variant) evolution of the virus will be more troubling than EG.5.1 and we can expect it to show further growth advantage in the weeks ahead. At present, it is at low levels globally (~2%)

Brazil and Spain are the hot spots for the FLIP Variant:

Again, Topol tells us that the new Omicron booster (designed for XBB.1.5 Kraken) will be effective against EG.5.1 because they only differ by two mutations.

He’s just upset that the new Omicron booster shots are taking too long and may not be released until October 2023.

Topol concludes: “Whatever tricks beyond FLip the virus will find are not known, but what is incontrovertible is that SARS-CoV-2 will unfortunately be with us for many, many years to come. Yet we’re not using our big advantage—human intelligence—to get ahead of it. Even just getting an updated, monovalent, well aligned (XBB.1.5) booster out there in a timely manner, which is not a monumental achievement, by any means. We can and must do better than this….”

Indonesia Variant – “Most Mutated Variant Ever” (113 Mutation Delta)

On July 28, 2023, Business Today reported a “morphed version of the Delta variant” collected from a patient in Jakarta that has 113 unique mutations, with 37 mutations in the spike protein.

In comparison, Omicron had only 50 mutations.

“This highly mutated variant has sparked concerns among the scientific community due to its potential impact on immunity and vaccine efficacy.”

“The emergence of this variant further highlighted that the virus continues to mutate as it spreads

My Take… 

The COVID con is back on. The usual COVID con-artists have their scripts and the propaganda is being churned out by mainstream media.

I have zero concerns about EG.5.1 or “Eris” variant. This variant is BS – just more theatre for the COVID-19 vaccine addicted, and the brainwashed.

Who will be hospitalized with EG.5.1? The 5x, 4x and 3x COVID-19 vaccinated (in that order). The more jabs you have, the more likely you are to end up in hospital or dead from EG.5.1 or “Eris”. Expect another “pandemic of the vaccinated”.

The spikes in hospitalizations in the UK and Ireland are already being used to push masking, testing and of course COVID-19 booster shots.

25% of Canadians took Omicron bivalent boosters (9.4 million), so I’d expect the same population to line up for the Jimmy Fallon booster or Kraken booster that will be released in the fall (designed against XBB.1.5 which is apparently close enough to EG.5.1).

Soft Propaganda Push

What I see right now, is a soft propaganda push to get COVID-19 mRNA booster shots going again, and they know they have 25% of the population guaranteed to line up like sheep for their next dose of mRNA poison.

But what they are really after are the rest of the 85% who took 2 doses but have stopped taking boosters. This is the target. And it’s tricky to get them back.

This EG.5.1 Eris theatre won’t work and they know that. They also don’t want to overplay their hand so they tell us EG.5.1 is not too worrying.

But there are 3 key messages they are pushing right now:

  1. The COVID-19 pandemic is not over – #CovidIsNotOver
  2. They want to bring back masking – #MaskUp
  3. The COVID-19 virus is evolving and there are “scary” variants ahead

This is how the propaganda looks on Twitter:

Conclusion 

Whether it’s Kraken or Eris, or EG.5.1, these variants are of concern ONLY to the COVID-19 vaccinated whose immune systems have been destroyed.

They are at risk of hospitalization or death, even more so if they take the Kraken booster in the fall as well. More jabs = more immune destruction = more deaths.

For the rest of us, I’m far more concerned about the attempts to jail Trump, and ongoing efforts to silence and destroy all dissident doctors. Canada is going all out on internet censorship and Twitter is glitching again, with shadowbans and suspensions.

Whatever catastrophe they’re going to hit us with next, they want a lot of us silenced first. And that is what frightens me at this point.

Eris “delights in the bloodshed” and enjoys inflicting pain, suffering and destruction.

They are laughing at us in the process.

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

From 27-28 July 2023, the second Russia-Africa Summit took place in Russia’s St Petersburg. Initially, the summit was scheduled in Addis Ababa in October 2022. However, the summit got postponed, most likely due to complications emerging from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Despite the presence of 49 out of 54 African nations, there were Ministers from only 27 countries: 17 Heads of State and 10 Prime Ministers. This is in high contrast with the 2019 summit, where 43 African Heads of State and two Vice Presidents were in attendance, along with 109 ministers and the Heads of the African Union (AU) Commission, the African Export–Import Bank and several regional economic communities.

Similar to the last summit, the agenda of this year’s summit included technology transfer and development of industry and critical infrastructure in Africa, developing power engineering, agriculture and mineral extraction, and ensuring food and energy security. As the 2023 edition expanded to include a humanitarian element, a Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum also took place in parallel. Additionally, there were exhibitions and a platform for holding business meetings.

At the end of the summit, both parties agreed upon a 74-point joint Declaration for collaboration on security, trade, and the environment. However, with the frequent use of words such as neo-colonialism, neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, Russophobia, illegal sanctions, import substitution, and traditional values, the document appears to be an implicit African endorsement of Russia’s justification for its war against Ukraine. Indeed, the 4,000-plus words document contains multiple statements subtly used to encourage Africa to back Moscow’s position in the war.

In the wake of the summit, ever-deteriorating food security was the key concern for African policymakers. On 17 July, nearly one year after it was signed in Istanbul, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to withdraw from the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI). The BSGI was intended to ease the Russian blockade, thus allowing Ukraine to export grain to Africa. During the summit, Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, and five other leaders who were part of the African Peace initiative urged President Putin to change his mind. But their request was firmly rejected. Instead, the declaration attributed the entire blame for the food shortages to Western sanctions. 

Definitely, the pledge from President Putin to deliver 25,000 to 50,000 tons of free grains to six countries, namely Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic and Eritrea, is encouraging for these poor nations. However, it will not be done immediately but within three or four months- too little for a continent of 54 countries. 

Decoding the Summit’s Achievement: Advantage Russia

Africa presently imports five times as much as it exports to Russia, resulting in a $12 billion trade imbalance. Following the 2019 Russia-Africa Summit, President Putin planned to increase Russia’s trade with Africa from roughly $16.8 billion to $40 billion annually within five years. Instead, it is now stuck at approximately $18 billion annually or about 2% of all trade on the continent. Moreover, 70 per cent of the total trade is restricted to only four countries: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa. During the first summit, the organisers subsequently boasted of dozens of agreements that were signed, worth an estimated $15 billion, but according to some reports, most of those were memorandums of understanding (MOU) and not legally binding. Further, Russia’s direct investment in Africa is currently about 1 per cent of the total inflow. 

Indeed, Russia has waived off a large part of its debt to different African nations worth $23 billion. This is almost 90% of the total African debt. According to President Putin, this leaves Africa with no more “direct” debts for Russia but some financial obligations. However, given Russian loan to Africa is only a tiny part, this will have minimal impact on this highly indebted continent. Putin added that his government would also provide over $90 million for development purposes at the request of African countries. Last but not least, Russia announced that it will spend about US$13 million on “large-scale assistance” to healthcare systems in Africa. 

Indeed, Russia lacks the resources to compete with the US, France, Germany and Japan or China as a bilateral development donor. However, it does have some cards to play. Last year it was Africa’s largest source of fertiliser, supplying 500,000 tonnes. It is also a significant power in oil, gas and mining. Another significant effort by Russia to strengthen ties with Africa is its commitment to education. In 2023, Russia offered a record 4,700 scholarships to African students, a considerable increase from the 1,900 scholarships awarded in 2019. Currently, there are about 35,000 African students in Russia, and about 6,000 of them are on different government scholarships.

Arms trade consists the most successful pillar of Russia’s conventional trade with Africa, which is mostly managed by state-controlled Rosoboronexport. Currently, Russia accounts for 44 percent of major arms imports to the continent between 2017 and 2021, surpassing other major players like the US (17 per cent), China (10 per cent), and France (6.1 per cent). Alrosa, which manages diamond projects in Angola and is exploring possibilities in Zimbabwe; Rusal, which mines bauxite in Guinea; and Rosatom, which is constructing a nuclear power station in Egypt, are some other Russian companies with substantial interests in Africa. During the latest summit, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe signed nuclear development contracts with Rosatom.

In addition to importing weapons, many African nations have hired Russian mercenaries. These Russian mercenaries in Africa work under the Wagner Group, a company connected to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a personal friend of Vladimir Putin. About the future of the Wagner group in Africa, particularly in the backdrop of mutiny by the Wagner group, both Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, in separate statements, have clarified that the group will continue to operate in parts of Africa. And the cameo appearance of Prigozhin during the summit and his celebratory in Niger make it clear that Wagner will continue to expand in Africa. 

An Evaluation in Lieu of a Conclusion

Russia has shown a remarkable commitment to engaging with Africa, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov making three visits to the continent this year. These diplomatic efforts underscore the increasing importance Moscow places on support from African countries. Clearly, Russia wanted to demonstrate its strong support base of many old and loyal allies from Africa in its fight against Western hegemony.  And from that perspective, the gathering served the Russian purpose. And for Africa, except for some of these garden-variety announcements, African leaders have very little concrete to take home from the event. 

However, it was also crucial for African leaders to demonstrate to other foreign powers that they were open to hearing various points of view. African leaders are used to foreign leaders making bold promises but falling short of keeping them. The low attendance at the summit may also suggest that African leaders are readjusting their place in the multipolar world. 

And they realised that in the new age of multilateralism, jeopardising their relationships with either the West or Russia is not the best diplomacy. Almost all African nations are nonaligned, eschewing global power blocs and resenting Western pressure. This is also probably why the Heads of State and Ministers stayed away but sent their representatives. Africa’s representation in the summit can be hailed as a statement from Africa: blind loyalty to one state is no longer the norm. Therefore, Africa had gained nothing from the conference mirrors Macbeth’s half-truth instrument of darkness: it is neither a simple fact nor a deliberate lie. 

*

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

Featured image: Azali Assoumali and Vladimir Putin during the conclusion of the summit on 28 July (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Israeli airstrikes on Syria have become routine and deadly. On Monday, Israeli airstrikes on Damascus at 2:20 am local time killed four Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

Damascus residents were awoken from sleep to sounds and flashes of bright lights from the attacks. Regardless of the numerous attacks, the civilian populations are held hostage to the Israeli military and their relentless attacks which cause emotional distress on innocent people sleeping in their own homes, while trying to survive in a collapsed economy which has pushed the majority to the poverty line.

The US has strangled the Syrian civilians with years of sanctions which have prevented pharmacies and hospitals from ordering special medicines from US and European manufacturers. For example, in a case last month, a woman in Syria had a case of ocular herpes (herpes virus attack in the eye) and the required injections of a medicine made in France were unavailable due to US and EU sanctions. 

While the US sanctions deprive Syrian civilians from medicines, the US military is occupying the northeast of Syria and has confiscated the oil produced at the largest production wells. This has translated into chronic gasoline shortages and long lines at the gas pumps, sometimes for days.

The US supports the Kurdish militia, SDF and YPG, which are considered by Turkey to be linked to the outlawed terrorists group PKK, responsible for 30,000 deaths in Turkey over decades. Although the US government is anti-communist, the Kurdish administration in northeast Syria is run under strict communist political ideology and supported by the White House and US Congress.

The Syrian government condemned the Monday attack and requested the UN Security Council to take action to prevent further Israeli attacks on Syria.

This latest attack on Damascus, the oldest capital in the world, targeted areas near Damascus International  Airport, Dimas Airport and Kisweh causing deaths, injuries and property damage.

The attack was launched from the Golan Heights, which is Syrian land according to international agreements, but is occupied by Israel since 1967. The local population is living under a brutal and long lasting military occupation. During the Trump regime, the US recognized the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, contrary to UN resolutions.

Syrian air defenses intercepted the Israeli missiles and shot down some of them according to a Syrian military source reporting to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

Israeli forces attacked seven targets in Damascus in July. They were said to include warehouses used by the Lebanese Resistance group and other allies of the Syrian military.

Israel has attacked Syria hundreds of times over the years, and all have been unprovoked attacks on a sovereign state. In every case but one, Syria has never retaliated and attacked Israel. In fact, Syria has been fighting terrorists who could have threatened the security of Israel, and Syria has kept their borders with Israel secure. However, in the armed conflict which began in Syria in 2011, which was a failed US-NATO plan for regime change, armed Radical Islamic terrorists with Jibhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate, crossed into Israel from the Golan Heights to receive medical treatment in the Israeli public hospitals, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally made bedside visits to injured terrorists.

By 2015, terrorists had occupied large swaths of land across Syria. Iran, Russia and the Lebanese Resistance group all were called upon to participate in the liberation of Syria, as well as the fight against terrorists, including the ISIS.

President Trump would have you believe his administration defeated ISIS across Iraq and Syria, but in reality it was a large international effort by  Iraq, Iran, Russia and Syria which defeated the group.

 On July 19, Israeli air strikes near Damascus killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

On June 14, Israel carried out air strikes near Damascus wounding a soldier.

In late May, Israeli air strikes hit Damascus wounding five.

Previous Israeli strikes have put both Damascus and Aleppo airports out of service. Both airports are vital international lifelines for humanitarian aid after the February 6 earthquake registering 7.8 and called the earthquake of the century. Those airports are also commercial passenger terminals for Syrians leaving and returning, as well as international aid group delegates and international diplomatic delegations.  Experts have expressed shock and concern that Israel could have shot down a fully loaded commercial passenger plan in their air strikes.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD