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 phenomenon of colonialism created the Africa Day 60 years ago. And Africans always remember May 25th, a momentous occasion observed with receipt of friendly messages from across the world. While its primary continental goals include ‘sustainable peace and development’, and ‘unity in diversity’, these still remain integral challenges. Despite recognising the significance of some achievements during the past 60 years, Africa extends far beyond.

The African Union itself said in an official statement posted on its website that “celebration of the 60th anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the role and contribution of the founders of the continental organization and many other Africans on the continent and in the diaspora who have contributed greatly to the political liberation of the continent, and equally, to the socio-economic emancipation of Africa.”

Further, it is an opportunity to share the information, knowledge and best practices of the past and to encourage each other to take on the vision of the African Union, as well as to drive the realization of the “Africa We Want” under Agenda 2063. It is also an opportune moment for the African Union to reflect on the spirit of pan-Africanism, which connects the past to the present and to the continent’s aspirations for the future.

Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, stated clearly that the world is rapidly changing and “the shocks linked to the classic factors of fragility, such as excruciating debt service or the fall in the prices of raw materials, have been added the consequences of the intensification of the hegemonic struggle between the big powers. In this international context of confrontation of divergent geopolitical interests, the will of each side threatens to transform Africa into a geostrategic battleground, thereby, recreating a new version of the Cold War that is very detrimental to the effectiveness of multilateralism, on which global peace and security depend.”

Across the world, Africa is considered as a burgeoning economic powerhouse, it holds immense potential and deserves to be acknowledged for the remarkable strides it has made. In fact, Africa’s economic growth has been nothing short of remarkable. With a burgeoning middle class, expanding industries, and a rising wave of entrepreneurship, the continent is experiencing an economic transformation that cannot be ignored. Gone are the days when Africa was seen solely as a land of challenges; it is now a land of extraordinary opportunities.

According to the popular belief, Africa’s vast natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals and agricultural produce, are driving global industries to invent a new future. The continent’s potential for renewable energy, particularly solar and wind power, is unrivalled. As the world increasingly shifts towards sustainable solutions, Africa stands at the forefront, poised to become a leader in the clean energy revolution, even while suffering the climate consequences caused almost entirely by the so-called developed countries.

However, it would be remiss to discuss Africa’s economic growth without addressing the challenges that persist. Poverty, inequality, and lack of infrastructure continue to hinder progress. It is our collective responsibility to work towards addressing these issues, ensuring that the benefits of Africa’s economic growth are inclusive and sustainable.

The beauty of Africa lies not only in its economic potential but also in its vibrant and diverse cultures. From the pulsating rhythms of Afrobeat music to the captivating tales woven into African literature, the continent’s cultural contributions enrich the global community. Africa’s arts, fashion, and cuisine resonate across borders, fostering cultural exchange and mutual understanding.

Despite the growing hatred for the United States and Europe, the condemnation for colonial policies and blamed for under-development in Africa, the leaders have recieved congratulatory messages. Africa’s “non-Western friends” such as China and Russia also sent goodwill messages.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his message for example, described Africa Day, a holiday that has become a symbol of the victory of the peoples of your continent over colonialism, their striving for freedom, peace and prosperity.

“This year marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Organization of African Unity. This representative international structure has played an important role in the development of multilateral dialogue and cooperation for several decades. Today, its good traditions are continued by the African Union, within which all states of the continent actively cooperate,” he noted.

“Thanks to their joint efforts, it was possible to establish mechanisms for collective response to local crises, to launch regional integration processes in various formats. This undoubtedly contributes to the social and economic development of Africa and the enhancement of its role in international affairs,” he added.

Russia has always attached particular importance to strengthening friendly relations with African partners. The holding of the first-ever Russia-Africa summit in 2019 served to intensify ties in many areas. The second Russia-Africa summit, which to be held in St. Petersburg in July, would make it possible to define new tasks for expanding our country’s constructive cooperation with African partners in the political, trade, economic, scientific, technical, humanitarian and other fields. Putin said in conclusion.

Similarly, President Xi Jinping sent a message to the African Union (AU), extending warm congratulations to African countries and the African people. In the message, he pointed out that the AU has united and led African countries to actively respond to global challenges and speed up the development of the African Continental Free Trade Area, and played an important role in mediating hotspot issues in Africa, which has boosted Africa’s international status and influence.

He, however, expressed his sincere wishes that African countries and people will continue to achieve greater success on their path of development and revitalization. He emphasized that China-Africa relations maintained sound momentum of development, and China-Africa cooperation has moved ahead to be all-round, multi-tiered and high-quality, taking the lead in international cooperation with Africa.

President Xi expressed his readiness to work with leaders of African countries to further strengthen friendly cooperation between China and Africa, enhance coordination and collaboration on international and regional affairs, and work for the building of a high-level China-Africa community with a shared future.

Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, said “We mark Africa Day at a time when cooperation and solidarity to advance the continent’s future is more needed than ever.” Africa’s dynamism is unstoppable; its potential is breathtaking, from the vibrancy of its huge number of young people to the possibilities of free trade. The African Union has designated 2023 the year of the African Continental Free Trade Area. When fully established, the world’s largest single market could lift 50 million people out of extreme poverty by 2035, driving progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2063.

António Guterres looks forward to African governments continuing to seize the opportunities presented by the continent’s natural, human, and entrepreneurial richness, by working to increase private investment and raise resources at home.

He urges the international community to stand with Africa. Currently, historic and economic injustices hamper its progress. Multiple crises – from COVID to climate and conflict – continue to cause great suffering across the continent. African countries are under-represented in global governance institutions, from the Security Council to the Bretton Woods System, and denied the debt relief and concessional funding they need.

António Guterres noted further that Africa deserves peace, justice and international solidarity. The continent should be represented at the highest level of the international financial system. Multilateral Development Banks should transform their business models and leverage funds to attract massive private finance at reasonable cost to developing countries. Developed countries should provide the support they have promised for action on climate change, and go further. And we must support efforts to silence the guns across the continent.

The United Nations will continue to be a proud partner in advancing peace, sustainable development and human rights for the people of Africa. With international cooperation and solidarity, this can be Africa’s century.

Exactly 60 years ago, on this day in 1963, the founding of the Organization of African Unity was announced, which marked the beginning of the progressive movement of the continent along the path of political and economic integration. Today, the successor to its cause is the African Union, whose task is to develop collective approaches to the problems of maintaining peace and security, strengthening democratic processes, developing human potential, and ensuring socio-economic growth.

In the context of a multipolar geopolitical order, African leaders and the African Union should strengthen their positions regarding external partnerships. If not, the continent risks being left behind and used as a pawn in an increasingly divided global order. The African Union (AU), an organization uniting 55 African states, has to consistently place focus on its empowerment, support its status and in practical tems, to remain overwhelmingly committed to the development Agenda 2063.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from the author

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 UK is using job search outlets to recruit mercenaries from North Africa NA and the Middle East ME to take part in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, under the guise of “military maintenance technician,” a job advert published on Adzuna revealed.

The job network platform operates in 20 countries and has monthly visitor traffic of at least 10 million work seekers and employers.

“We invite citizens from the Middle East and North Africa to participate in a voluntary program to assist Ukraine on a competitive basis… Military specialists with good health and psychological stability are required to participate in the Ukrainian counteroffensive,” the job ad said.

The vacancy post was advertised by the London-based EU Citizenship Program, looking for applicants in NA and the ME to join a “High Contract” payment program of 20,000 pounds sterling ($24,816).

The employer also guarantees that, upon contract expiration, accelerated citizenship in the UK or the EU would be provided to individuals enlisted in the program.

“Participants must understand all risks and sign a waiver of claims,” the ad stressed.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier provided data showing that thousands of mercenaries from more than 60 countries were recruited to Ukraine to fight alongside Kiev forces.

The total UK military aid to Kiev has surpassed £2.3 billion since the start of the Ukrainian crisis, which makes Britain the second largest supporter of Zelensky’s regime after the US.

Earlier this week, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he opposes any peace initiative for a ceasefire in Ukraine that does not entail a complete Russian withdrawal. 

His comments came in the British Parliament after Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party, had asked Sunak to comment on the ceasefire initiative proposed by South Africa and condoned by the UN Secretary-General and the Pope.

“A ceasefire is not a just and lasting peace for Ukraine,” Sunak stated.

The UK has also promised earlier that it would train Ukrainian pilots this summer and would aid Kiev “hand in hand” in “efforts to work with other countries on providing F-16 jets” to Zelensky’s government.

*

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: UK instructors train Ukrainian marines as part of Operation Orbital in Odessa, Ukraine in January 2019. Image: Ukrainian Naval Forces

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.

*** 

Arriving for my bone density test at a downstate New York hospital, I’m delighted to again find Belinda in Radiology. When she does my annual mammogram, I learn more than about cancer. Although she readily shares her own breast cancer experience as she prepares her half-million-dollar machine. How she delights in describing its new features. 

Our conversation begins with my observation about heightened security at the hospital. “More guards at the main door?” I note. “Yes, more protocols. Now they’re armed!”, she adds. 

The bone scanning machine is a sleek new model: silent too; our chat can proceed uninterrupted. “Registration took unusually long today; are there staff shortages here too?” I ask, stepping onto the table. “Don’t get me started”, replies Belinda. “Lots of money some places – not where it’s needed. Nurses work just to pay off student debt.” 

How this led to China, I’m unsure; maybe something about growing public anxiety. The radiologist, watching her computer screen as the scanner slides over me, offers a simple assessment. “It’s China. There’s going to be war!” 

I risk disagreeing; then proceed: “Why should we expect war with China?” I begin. (If she’s not listening, there’s no harm. So I continue.) “A remarkable country; I visited there in ’82. What advances – barely 25 years. What are the signs of their aggression? How many places has China invaded compared to USA?” (I left Tibet aside; it was the only invasion I remembered.)

My remark sets Belinda off, but not in the direction I feared. “Yes. And what did we get from Afghanistan? All our equipment left there (planes, tanks – just abandoned), billions of dollars stolen). PTSD; nuts in our streets; homeless vets everywhere!”

“My son is in the military; he says it’s China we have to watch.”

My turn. “That’s the picture media and our government give. They’re stirring Americans’ fears to justify money for weapons? How is China going to invade the US, and for what?” Silence from Belinda; I continue: “We have 800 foreign bases, many of them encircling China and Russia. Ask your son how many bases China has near us.”

“Good point. Never thought about that.” 

Belinda returns to the issue of PTSD and veterans. “They return home traumatized, unable to manage.” She must have seen some extreme cases, maybe a family member, surely inside this hospital. “They’re taught their gun is their best friend; they’re ready to shoot at anyone; they’re scared.”

Even to strangle someone, I think. I remember Jordan Neely being attacked in a NYC subway car just 3 weeks ago. 

Belinda stops the machine to set my leg at a better angle for the camera. 

Am I disturbing you Belinda? “Not at all. Do you know they’re charging that veteran with murder?” I hadn’t heard. But I see she’s angry about that. “Well,” I argue; “He did kill someone.” 

“But the guy was acting crazy; he could have a gun, a knife. People were afraid.”

“We can’t go around killing like that; he wasn’t armed. There are other ways to subdue a person: grab his arms, stop the train. But to choke the guy to death? Likely learned that in the military”, I venture.

I continue: “Everyone is afraid, even in the countryside now—we’re all on edge. Look at our schools; doors locked; armed guards there too. Kids are told to hide – in classrooms!”

Belinda had thought about this: “Know what I’d do? I’d build a fence around every school and lock it, lock it. Keep everyone out.”

“Come on Belinda. Schools are already locked; cameras all over the place. Next, it will be armed teachers. Fencing will make everyone more nervous. We can’t imprison ourselves!” 

The scanning ended, not our talk. “Well, look at all the crazies! Doped up, won’t work, expect free housing. I see plenty in the hospital”, Belinda confides. “They dope themselves to deal with the fear. Look at our homeless veterans; most are doped. Boys in Vietnam were shot up before going into battle. They brought their addictions home.”

“Like they bring their guns home”, I retort.

Belinda, having passed her lunch break, is wound up about government waste and is eager to return to excess spending. “We’ve got to look after our own people. Why billions to Ukraine? Let them deal with their problem. Why take money from Americans for them?” This I did not expect; no one where I live dares criticize Washington’s largesse to Ukraine.

“Don’t get me started on that Belinda. I can’t discuss this even with friends (who say they’re progressive).” But I can’t help adding, “I’ve read that weapons we give to Ukraine were being exported from there for sale – to where, we don’t know.” 

“Yeh? I haven’t heard; I believe it though.”

“I haven’t had a talk like this in months Belinda”, thanking her as I prepare to dress. 

“Me too; I can’t talk politics to my husband. We stopped long ago.”

As I gather my things, Belinda announces: “I have to escort you to Reception. Increased security; every wing is locked; more protocols, more security even for us staff.”

Exiting past two of the hospital’s three armed guards, I thought: Hmm. Which party Belinda votes for never occurred to me. I expect she didn’t think about me through that lens either.

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from FX Mislang / Flickr


“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Reality Check on Our Polarized Lives. From My Radiology Exam

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 very establishment, Anglo-American media in the UK finally – and bitterly – have admitted it, ‘out loud’: Sanctions on Russia failed. The Spectator (once edited by Boris Johnson), writes, the West adopted a two-pronged strategy: one was military support for Ukraine, and the other was:

“Unleashing financial ‘shock and awe’ on a scale never before seen. Russia was to be cut off almost entirely … Putin’s Russia, went the theory, would be impoverished into surrender”.  Few people in the West are aware of how badly this aspect of the war is going. Europe has itself paid a high price to effect a partial boycott of Russian oil and gas.

“But [any limitations to the EU energy boycott] do not explain the scale of the failure to damage the Russian economy. It soon became clear that while the West was keen on an economic war, the rest of the world was not. As its oil and gas exports to Europe fell, Russia quickly upped its exports to China and India – both of which preferred to buy oil at a discount than to make a stand against the invasion of Ukraine. 

 “The West embarked on its sanctions war with an exaggerated sense of its own influence around the world…The results of the miscalculation are there for all to see…The Russian economy has not been destroyed; it has merely been reconfigured, reorientated to look eastwards and southwards rather than westwards”.

Allister Heath in The Telegraph too laments:  

“Russia was meant to have collapsed by now.  Britain, America and Europe’s gambit was that drastic trade, financial and technological sanctions, a cap on the price of Russian seaborne oil, and substantial help to Ukraine would be enough to defeat Moscow. It hasn’t worked…The reason? China has quietly stepped in, bailing out Putin’s shattered economy on a transformational scale, swapping energy and raw materials for goods and technology. The sanctions are a joke”.

For some, reading these words, their reaction will be one of utter amazement: How come it took this long for the British Establishment to ‘wake up’ to that which all the world knew?

The Spectator, in fact, gives us the answer: An ‘exaggerated sense of Western influence around the world’. Or simply put: delusionary hubris placed ‘blinders’ on western policy-makers; they could not see what was before their own eyes.

American and British Intelligence analysts, consumed by their conviction that Russia’s was a small, fragile economy that could never withstand the entire weight of the western economic system, ranged against it; they persuaded the Europeans that Russia’s ‘collapse’ was a ‘Slam Dunk’ certitude.  The Russian financial collapse would de-stabilise Moscow’s élites, and President Putin would be ‘out’.  And, under reaffirmed US hegemony, Russia’s economic affairs would be returned to ‘how they were’ — Russia as purveyor of cheap commodities to the West.

It was a huge error (on a par with that of claims that war on Iraq would generate a ‘New Middle East’). And now, Europe is paying the price. And will continue to pay the price for a long time to come.

It would be difficult however, to under-estimate the effect of these ‘insights’ percolating to the surface of the western Establishment ‘mind’.  Clearly, someone in the US ‘Permanent State’ wanted them surfaced in ‘twin’ vehicles (UK media regularly serves this function for spreading messages unattributably).  

Hybrid financial war — since the Iraq conflict — has been the mainstay of the Western strategy for extending its hegemony.  To see that strategy so iconically debunked in Russia; to behold the ‘rest of the world’ saying that Ukraine may be a European concern, but it is not their’s; to see the widespread abandonment of the dollar for trade becoming the key mechanism for replacing the US-led unipolar world, with a multipolar world, explains much of the bitterness expressed in the two British editorial think-pieces.

That The Spectator should say that this episode of strategic miscalculation hails from over-inflated Western self-importance and represents an extraordinary moment of self-reflection, even if it is one drenched in bitterness at what ‘the mirror’ reflected back to the two authors.

But let us not get carried away. Such delusions are not about to vaporise. The Western neo-cons do not possess ‘reverse gear’; when defeated in one sphere, they never apologise; they simply move on to the next colour-revolution.

Even as I write this piece, a bill introduced by Rep Wilson and Sen McCaul, aims to bar the US government from recognizing President Assad as Syria’s President, and as a warning to other countries contemplating normalising with President Assad’s government that they could face severe consequences (i.e. financial sanction), under the Caesar Act. 

The West is preparing to sanction Turkey for its links to Russia; the US continues to sanction Iraq as part of an attempt by Washington to pressure Iraq into avoiding energy cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran; and the US is preparing to boost its ‘defence posture’ in the Persian Gulf, with officials claiming that the Pentagon will deploy additional assets to the region to patrol commercial shipping lanes and ‘protect private vessels’ from Iran. 

The sanctions mindset will not fade until the West experiences a catharsis sufficient to bring transformation to its zeitgeist.  The revelation that sanctions have not worked — and that the rest of the world now sees emancipation from the hegemony of the dollar to be emancipation from US political hegemony — has come as a traumatising experience.

*

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.

Alastair Crooke is Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.

Featured image is from AME

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Financial ‘Shock and Awe’ on Russia Pronounced ‘Dead’ by Two Establishment Journals
  • Tags:

Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Experts Remain Stumped

May 25th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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.

*** 

According to a May 11, 2023, report by the British Express, Britons are dying by the tens of thousands, “but no one knows why”

Between May and December 2022, there were 32,441 excess deaths in England and Wales, according to data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and that doesn’t include COVID-related deaths

In 2022, the No. 1 cause of excess deaths in the U.K. was signs and symptoms of “ill-defined conditions.” In England, this nebulous cause of death was 36.9% above the five-year average, and in Wales, it was 30.4% above average

The U.K. was the first European country to approve the Pfizer COVID jab and began its mass injection campaign December 8, 2020. It currently has the highest COVID-19 jab rate in all of Europe

The misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths

*

According to a May 11, 2023, report by the British Express,1 Britons are dying by the tens of thousands, “but no one knows why.” Between May and December 2022 alone, there were 32,441 excess deaths in England and Wales, according to data2 released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and that doesn’t include COVID-related deaths. As reported by the Express:3

“Excess deaths are defined as the number of people who died above the five-year average — worked out excluding 2020 due to how COVID spiked death figures that year … The shock revelation has raised alarm bells amid health professionals …

Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography at Oxford University, told the Mirror that no one knew for certain what had caused so many deaths throughout last year.

He pointed out that, post COVID, the UK’s population had been changed through the deaths of a significant proportion of the elderly due to the virus. He explained: ‘Once those poor people have been packed off, the remaining population should be healthier, there should be a period afterwards where deaths are lower than usual but that hasn’t happened.’”

No. 1 Cause of Excess Deaths: ‘Ill-Defined Conditions’

According to the Express, two of the primary causes of excess deaths were ischemic heart diseases and dementia. This, the article suggests, might be an indication that obesity and an increasingly older population are to blame for the excess mortality.

However, if the population was altered due to a significant portion of the elderly dying from COVID in 2020, leaving a younger and supposedly healthier population, as stated by professor Coleman, those puzzle pieces don’t exactly fit together. 

What’s more, the Express failed to specify that dementia and Alzheimer’s were only the leading causes of death during the month of December 2022. For 2022, the No. 1 cause of excess deaths was signs and symptoms of “ill-defined conditions.”4

In England, this nebulous cause of death was 36.9% above the five-year average, and in Wales, it was 30.4% above average.5 Now, what does that remind you of? “Sudden adult death syndrome” perhaps — a historically rare cause of death that suddenly skyrocketed after the COVID jabs came on the scene.

As illustrated in the video above, during 2021 and into 2022, mainstream media kept drilling the false and incredibly offensive narrative that the unvaccinated were the enemy, that every COVID death meant they had blood on their hands and ought to be punished accordingly.

And now, as countries where most people have been jabbed experience skyrocketing excess death rates unrelated to COVID, they feign mind-numbing ignorance.

An experimental gene transfer injection was introduced as a vaccine and death rates continue to climb even as COVID is vanishing. What a mystery! Everyone is stumped. The scientific consensus is at a standstill. No one knows why people are dying.

Possibly, not enough people got the jab. That’s what the BBC insinuated in early 2023.6 No one wants to admit that medical experimentation on the public was a terrible idea. No one wants to consider the possibility that too many took the toxic jab, and that’s why excess mortality is so far above norm.

As cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough has repeatedly stated, we had a clear safety signal all the way back in February 2021, and it’s only gotten more pronounced over time. Despite that, not a single safety review has been conducted, and our health authorities refuse to address the astronomical death toll.

UK Has Highest COVID Jab Rate in Europe

In the U.K., 2020 was the deadliest year on record since 1918. More than 695,000 deaths were logged that year. The culprit at that time was COVID, or suspected COVID. But what happened next?

The U.K. was the first European country to approve the Pfizer COVID jab and began its mass injection campaign December 8, 2020. It currently has the highest COVID-19 jab rate in all of Europe, in large part due to having “the most positive attitudes to vaccine safety in Europe,” according to Statista.7

If the COVID shots were safe and protective, you’d expect excess mortality to decline from there on, but that didn’t happen. The third week of January 2021 saw a huge spike above norm, and the rate has dipped and peaked ever since.8 In 2022, excess deaths exceeded 650,000, which was 9% higher than 2019. So, why are so many people dying? And why are so many dying from inexplicable causes or “ill-defined” conditions?

In January 2023, BBC news blamed the excess death rate in 2022 on “pandemic effects on health and NHS pressures.”9 Ambulance response times were more than doubled, hospital waits were long, and “people are more likely to have heart problems and strokes in the weeks and months after catching COVID,” the BBC said.

The BBC also claimed there was “no evidence of vaccine effect,” and that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were “too rare — and mostly not fatal — to account for the excess in deaths.”

But myocarditis and pericarditis are FAR from the only side effects caused by these shots, so the fact that these conditions aren’t among the top causes certainly doesn’t mean that the shots are safe and aren’t causing people to die prematurely.

Aside from foolhardy medical experimentation, the excess death rates may also have something to do with the fact that hospitals around the world have been killing “suspected” COVID patients with lethal treatment protocols, as detailed in “How COVID Patients Died for Profit.”

Massively Anomalous Data Put COVID Shots in the Crosshairs

In the March 24, 2023, “Ask Dr. Drew” interview above, Drew interviewed Ed Dowd, author of “Cause Unknown.” As noted by Dowd, data from the insurance industry, funeral home industry and various government databases strongly indicate that the COVID shots are killing people, primarily working age adults, many of whom had to get the shot to keep their jobs.

While some countries are now pulling back from the shots, in the U.S., the COVID injections have been added to the childhood and adult vaccination schedules, and no one has proposed removing them.

According to Dowd, Denmark, for example, stopped recommending COVID boosters for anyone younger than 50, as their excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 shot up to around 20% above norm. Clearly, decision-makers there connected the dots and decided it was better to be safe than sorry.

Dowd goes on to review absence rates and lost worktime data10 for the U.S. Among full-time employees aged 25 to 54, there was a stark deviation in 2020, 2021 and 2022 from the 2002 through 2019 trend. In 2020, it was a three-standard deviation, which is reasonable considering governments were shutting down businesses. But then, in 2021, it rose to five standard deviations and in 2022, it skyrocketed to 11 standard deviations, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Compared to 2019, the absence rate for working age adults was only 3.6% higher in 2020, when lockdowns were in effect and many businesses were closed. In 2021, the absence rate was 10.7% higher than 2019, and in 2022, it was 28.6% higher. In short, in 2022, nearly one-third more employees missed days of work compared to 2019, which amounts to an enormous loss of productivity, and this at a time when there were no lockdowns in the U.S.

Looking at the number of hours lost per absence, the 2022 numbers were 13 standard deviations higher than 2019, which Dowd says is “unheard of.” Compared to the 2019 baseline, lost worktime rates were 28.6% higher in 2020 and 2021, and then suddenly jumped to 50% in 2022. This too equates to a major loss of productivity and therefore economic losses.

So, what is going on? In short, people are missing work due to vaccine-related sickness. As noted by Dowd, we have studies showing the shots impair your immune function, and these data show that, yes, people are getting sick and calling out from work at an unprecedented frequency and they’re out sick 50% longer than normal.

mRNA COVID Jabs Had No Effect on Mortality

In related news, we now also have evidence11 showing the mRNA COVID jabs have no mortality benefit. As reported by Epoch Health:12

“The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did not impact overall mortality, a reanalysis of clinical trial data found.

The two vaccines, both based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, protected against deaths from COVID-19 but that effect was offset by vaccinated trial participants being more likely to die from cardiovascular problems, Christine Stabell Benn, a health professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and other researchers reported in April in the Cell journal.13

The research analyzed data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported by the companies that manufacture the vaccines. ‘In the RCTs with the longest possible blinded follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against some COVID-19 deaths.”

Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson shot, which uses an adenovirus-vector, was associated with lower non-COVID-19 mortality and overall mortality, but had NO effect on COVID-19 mortality. So, in essence, all the COVID shots are useless in one way or another. The mRNA versions cause greater overall mortality, and the adenovirus-vector ones don’t protect against COVID-related death. Take your pick.

Interestingly, out of all the brands, AstraZeneca’s adenovirus-vector shot performed the best, and that’s the one that was maligned the most by health regulators and media across the world, as it was associated with lethal blood clots early on.

More Evidence COVID Jab Does More Harm Than Good

Another reanalysis of randomized COVID jab trials concluded that the shots are far more likely to land you in the hospital than COVID-19 itself. This study,14 which focused on serious adverse events highlighted in a World Health Organization-endorsed priority list15 of potential adverse events relevant to the COVID-19 shots, found Pfizer’s shot was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events at a rate of 10.1 events per 10,000.

The rate for Moderna’s jab was 15.1 events per 10,000. The researchers also stressed that this level of risk for a post-injection event was significantly greater than the risk reduction for COVID-related hospitalization, which was only 2.3 per 10,000 participants in the Pfizer trial and 6.4 per 10,000 in the Moderna trial.

In short, for every 800 jab recipients, one person will suffer a serious injury. Meanwhile, some 5,000 must get the Pfizer jab to prevent a single COVID hospitalization. This is what risk-benefit analysis is all about — comparing and weighing the benefit against the risk — and when it comes to the mRNA COVID shots, they clearly do more harm than good.

Considering the high rate of injury, is it hard to believe that people are calling out sick from work more often or that excess mortality is skyrocketing? There’s not a single piece of evidence so far that exonerates the COVID shots, yet the media want you to believe it’s an inexplicable mystery.

AI Links COVID Deaths to Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Another piece of news that’s been making the rounds is that artificial intelligence (AI) has linked COVID mortality to unresolved ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), basically, a secondary bacterial infection caused by intubation that didn’t respond to treatment. As described in the abstract, published April 27, 2023, in the Journal of Clinical Investigation:16,17

“We performed a single-center prospective cohort study of 585 mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia and respiratory failure, 190 of whom had COVID-19, who underwent at least one bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL].

Given the relatively long ICU length of stay among patients with COVID-19, we developed a machine learning approach called CarpeDiem, which groups similar ICU patient-days into clinical states based on electronic health record data.

CarpeDiem revealed that the long ICU length of stay among patients with COVID-19 is attributable to long stays in clinical states characterized primarily by respiratory failure. While VAP was not associated with mortality overall, mortality was higher in patients with one episode of unsuccessfully treated VAP compared with successfully treated VAP (76.4% versus 17.6%, P < 0.001).

In all patients, including those with COVID-19, CarpeDiem demonstrated that unresolving VAP was associated with transitions to clinical states associated with higher mortality.

Conclusions: Unsuccessful treatment of VAP is associated with greater mortality. The relatively long length of stay among patients with COVID-19 is primarily due to prolonged respiratory failure, placing them at higher risk of VAP.”

Use of Ventilation Is Likely the Core Problem

While many have argued that this study shows secondary infections are to blame for many a COVID death, Modern Discontent18 on Substack calls for prudence when interpreting these results, stating that upon closer scrutiny, the study doesn’t offer much in terms of substantial evidence.

Moreover, whenever you’re using AI, what comes out depends on what was put in, and in this case, CarpeDiem did not supply important data variables, and this may have skewed the results. Since “key factors have been excluded from the analysis there’s going to be several flaws in interpreting the correlative power of some of CarpeDiem’s results,” Modern Discontent warns, adding:

“Overall, I’ll argue that the study has serious issues in outlining their data. There’s a ton missing here, including which bacteria were cultured from BAL samples.

The timing of BAL collection is up in the air, and the study also doesn’t make it clear early on how many patients actually experienced an episode of VAP, whether in the COVID group or the other groups (you have to dig into the actual body to find a reference to VAP episodes).

The lack of organization makes the study rather difficult to read, and I won’t say that I have it figured out yet … It’s quite clear that many of these individuals are already in various states of severe respiratory distress and failure as noted by the clinical states and relative mortality rates, making these people more at risk of death irrespective of from SARS-COV2 or a bacterial infection …

It’s not necessarily the secondary infection that is cause for concern, but the fact that many patients require ventilation.

Upon ventilation, the secondary concern may be the secondary bacterial infection, although the researchers don’t provide any insights into why some patients were not able to resolve their VAP episode. This is, again, an issue with the lack of data provided by the researchers themselves.”

COVID Jab Accepted Due to Ventilator-Driven Death Toll

Now, aside from the massively coercive PR campaign, one of the reasons that many accepted the COVID shot without much deliberation was the fact that hospitalized COVID patients were dying in droves. They didn’t want to end up on a vent and die, and all the pundits said the shots would prevent you from getting seriously ill and dying.

The problem, of course, is that mechanical ventilation should not have been a standard treatment for COVID, and some doctors realized this within a few weeks. High-flow cannulas and proning were far more effective.19

The reason mechanical ventilation was promoted as an early intervention was not because it was helpful for the patient, but because it was thought to protect the staff from the virus. It was a strategy to reduce contagion.20 This was detailed in provider guidance21 from the World Health Organization in March 2020.

The guidance recommended22 escalating treatment to mechanical ventilation as rapidly as possible to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine. In other words, they put patients on a treatment they knew would likely kill them to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients.

Considering this context, blaming the death of vented patients on secondary infections may be little more than an attempt to shift blame away from hospitals that adhered to these ineffective and dangerous protocols.

I disagree with Modern Discontent when he or she says that the primary concern is “the fact that many patients require ventilation.” There’s plenty of evidence that says they don’t, and without ventilation, the risk of ventilator-associated secondary bacterial infection drops to zero, does it not? Secondary bacterial infections may still occur, but they won’t be VAP.

So, in conclusion, the misuse of mechanical vents created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots, which are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths.

*

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.

Notes

1, 3 Express May 11, 2023

2, 4, 5 ONS Mortality Analysis, England and Wales, December 2022

6, 9 BBC January 10, 2023

7, 8 Statista Excess Deaths UK and Wales

10 Phineas Technologies US Absence Rates and Lost Worktime Data March 2023

11, 13 Cell May 19, 2023; 26(5): 106733 (Archived)

12 Epoch Health May 13, 2023

14 Vaccines September 22, 2022; 40(40): 5798-5805

15 SPEAC October 26, 2021

16 Journal of Clinical Investigation April 27, 2023

17 Journal of Clinical Investigation April 27, 2023 Full Text PDF

18 Modern Discontent Substack May 16, 2023

19 Newswise April 23, 2020

20 Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020 (Archived)

21 WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19

22 WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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 made an unexpected trip to Britain last week on a whistle-stop tour of European capitals, pleading for more powerful and longer-range weapons to use in his war against Russia. 

What was hard to ignore once again was the extent to which the UK is playing an outsize role in Ukraine.

Last year, shortly after the start of the war, the then-prime minister, Boris Johnson, hurried to Kyiv – presumably on Washington’s instructions – apparently to warn Zelensky off fledgling peace talks with Moscow. 

At around the same time, the Biden administration made clear it favoured an escalation in fighting, not an end to it, as an opportunity to “weaken” Russia, a geo-strategic rival along with China.

Since then, the UK has been at the forefront of European efforts to entrench the conflict, helping to lobby for the supply of weapons, training and military intelligence to Ukrainian forces.   

British tanks and thousands of tank shells – including, controversially, some made from depleted uranium – are being shipped out. Last week, the UK added hundreds of long-range attack drones to the inventory. 

And an unspecified number of £2m-a-blast Storm Shadow cruise missiles, with a range of nearly 300km, have started arriving. Last week Ben Wallace, Britain’s defence secretary, said the missiles were already in use, adding that Kyiv alone was deciding on the targets.

Storm Shadow allows the Ukrainian military to strike deep into Russian-annexed parts of Ukraine – and potentially at Russian cities too.

A recent leak revealed that the Pentagon had learnt through electronic eavesdropping of Zelensky’s eagerness for longer-range missiles so that his forces were “capable of reaching Russian troop deployments in Russia”.

Lip service 

Britain now pays little more than lip service to the West’s claim that its role is only to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression. The supply of increasingly offensive weapons has turned Ukraine into what amounts to a proxy battleground on which the Cold War can be revived.

During Zelensky’s visit to the UK last week, Johnson’s successor, Rishi Sunak, effectively acted as an arms broker for Ukraine, joining with the Netherlands in what was grandly dubbed an “international coalition” to pressure the Biden administration and other European states to supply Kyiv with F-16 fighter jets. 

Washington appeared not to need much cajoling. Three days later, Biden dramatically changed tack at a G7 summit in Japan. He effectively gave a green light for US allies to supply Ukraine not only with US-made F-16s but similar fourth-generation fighter jets, including Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and France’s Mirage 2000.

Administration officials surprised European leaders by suggesting the US would be directly involved in the training of pilots outside Ukraine. 

After a highly staged “surprise” visit by Zelensky to the summit at the weekend, Biden said he had been given a “flat reassurance” that the jets would not attack Russian territory.

British officials, meanwhile, indicated that the UK would start training Ukrainian pilots within weeks. 

‘Rightful place is in Nato’ 

No 10 has made clear that Sunak’s purpose is to build “a new Ukrainian air force with Nato-standard F-16 jets” and that the prime minister believes “Ukraine’s rightful place is in Nato”.

These statements seem intended once again to block any potential path towards peace. President Vladimir Putin repeatedly spoke out against Nato’s growing, covert involvement in neighbouring Ukraine before Russia launched its invasion 15 months ago.

It is hard to imagine that the UK is heading off-script. More likely, the Biden administration is using Britain to make the running and soften up Western publics as Nato becomes ever more deeply immersed in the military activities of Russia’s neighbour.

Ukraine is being gradually turned into the very Nato forward base that first set Moscow on course to invade.

At the same time, Britain appears to be exploiting the Ukraine war as a showcase for its weaponry. After the US, it has been the largest supplier of military equipment to Ukraine. 

This week it was reported that UK arms exports hit a record £8.5bn, more than double last year’s total. The last time Britain was so successful at selling weapons was in 2015, at the height of the Syrian war. 

Risk to health

Europe’s weapons largesse is, we are told, the precondition for Ukraine to mount a long-awaited counter-offensive to take back territory Russia has seized in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. 

Speaking candidly in Florence this month, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, ruled out peace talks. Ukraine needed massive supplies of arms because otherwise “Ukraine will fall in a matter of days”, he said.

Borrell’s warning not only suggested the precariousness of Ukraine’s situation but implied that, out of desperation, its leaders might be prepared to approve ever riskier combat scenarios.

And thanks to British meddling, the heavy toll of casualties as the war rages on – among the Ukrainian population and Russian soldiers, as well as potentially inside Russia’s borders too – may be felt not just over the coming months but for decades.

In March, Declassified broke the story that some of the thousands of tank shells Britain is supplying to Kyiv are made of depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive heavy metal produced as waste from nuclear power plants. 

Keir Starmer’s opposition Labour party has said it “fully supports” the UK government’s supply of these armour-piercing shells to Ukraine, despite the long-term risk they pose to those exposed to the chemically toxic contamination left behind.

DU shells fragment and burn when they hit a target. One analyst, Doug Weir, from the Conflict and Environment Observatory, told Declassified that the ammunition produces “chemically toxic and radioactive DU particulate [microscopic particles] that poses an inhalational risk to people”.

Nonetheless, British ministers insist the threat to human health is low – and worth the risk given the military gains in helping Ukraine to destroy Russian tanks. 

Cancer deaths 

As Declassified has highlighted, however, a growing body of evidence following the use of such shells by the US in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and by Britain and the US in Iraq a decade later undermines these reassurances.

Italian courts have upheld compensation claims against the country’s military in more than 300 cases where Italians who served in the police or as soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have died of cancer after being exposed to DU. 

Many thousands more Italian former service-people are reported to have developed cancers.

In 2001 Tony Blair’s government downplayed the role of DU in Italy’s deaths to avoid upsetting the new administration of George W Bush. Both leaders would soon approve the use of DU rounds in Iraq, though the UK admitted a “moral obligation” to help clean up some of the contamination afterwards.

The West has taken little interest in researching the effects of DU weapons in Iraq, even though local civilian populations have been the most exposed to its contamination. DU shells were used extensively during both the 1991 Gulf war and more than a decade later during the US and British-led occupation of Iraq.

Iraqi government statistics suggest the rates of cancers leapt 40-fold between the period immediately before the Gulf war and 2005.

The city of Fallujah, which the US devastated after the 2003 invasion, is reported to suffer “the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied”. Birth defects are said to be roughly 14 times the rate in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki regions of Japan, where the US dropped atomic bombs. 

In 2018 the British government reclassified a 1981 report into the dangers of DU weapons by the Ministry of Defence’s Atomic Weapons Research Establishment it had made available three years earlier. 

Meanwhile, James Heappey, the armed forces minister, has misleadingly suggested that international bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations have found no long-term health or environmental hazards associated with DU weapons.

But as Weir told Declassified in March: “None of the entities cited by the MoD has undertaken long-term environmental or health studies in conflict areas where DU weapons have been used.” 

In other words, they simply don’t know – and possibly don’t care to find out.

Weir added that the WHO, UN and International Atomic Energy Agency had all called for contaminated areas to be clearly marked and access restricted, while at the same time recommending that risk awareness campaigns be targeted at nearby communities.

British officials have also recruited the Royal Society to their efforts to claim DU is safe – as the US did earlier, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, citing two of its reports published in 2001 and 2002.

However, the Royal Society has vocally distanced itself from such claims. A spokesperson told Declassified that, despite the British government’s assertions, DU was no longer an “active area of policy research”. 

Back in 2003, the Royal Society rebuked Washington, telling the Guardian that soldiers and civilians in Iraq “were in short and long term danger. Children playing at contaminated sites were particularly at risk.”

At the same time, the chairman of the Royal Society’s working group on depleted uranium, Professor Brian Spratt, warned that corroding shells could leach DU into water supplies. He recommended removing ordinance and conducting long-term sampling of water supplies.

Voices silenced 

By lobbying for more overtly offensive weapons and introducing DU shells into the war, Britain has raised the stakes in two incendiary ways.

First, it is driving the war’s logic towards ever greater escalation, including nuclear escalation.  

Russia itself possesses DU weapons but is reported to have avoided using them. Moscow has long warned that it regards use of DU in Ukraine in nuclear terms: as the equivalent of a “dirty bomb”. 

In March Putin responded to the UK’s decision to supply DU tank shells by vowing to move “tactical” nuclear weapons into neighbouring Belarus. Meanwhile, his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said it put the world “fewer and fewer steps” away from “nuclear collision”.

But Britain is also creating a situation where a catastrophic move, or miscalculation, by either Russia or Ukraine is becoming ever more likely, as events last week highlighted only too clearly.

Russia struck a military ammunition depot in western Ukraine, creating a giant fireball. Rumours suggested the site may have included British DU shells.

Whether true or not, it is a reminder that Moscow could hit such a storage site, intentionally or accidentally, spreading contamination widely over a built-up area.

With Ukraine soon to be in possession of a full array of offensive weapons, largely courtesy of the UK – not only long-range drones, cruise missiles and tanks but fighter jets – it is not hard to imagine terrifying scenarios that could quickly bring Europe to the brink of nuclear conflict.

Moscow hits a DU ammunition depot, exposing a large civilian population to toxic contamination. Ukraine retaliates with air strikes deep inside Russia. The path to a nuclear exchange in Europe has never looked closer.

Those who warned that peace talks were urgently needed rather than an arms race in Ukraine are looking more prescient by the day. For how much longer can their voices continue to be silenced, not only by western leaders but by the western media too?

*

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 InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on British Warmongering Is Driving Europe Towards Catastrophe in Ukraine

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.

*** 

Just when one is tempted to conclude that Ukraine’s sycophantic backers in the West can’t embrace policies that are more detached from reality, leading figures in that faction manage to plumb new depths of absurdity. The latest example is a May 22 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Bernard-Henri Lévy. He fumes that one of Vladimir Putin’s chief weapons in his war against Ukraine “is Russia’s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which entails the power to block any resolution. It’s a legacy of World War II and the decision to reserve this status to the five victors, including the Soviet Union.”

But “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” Lévy emphasizes. Consequently “Russia’s permanent membership and the veto power it confers have no legal basis.” After delineating Russia’s “war crimes” since 1991 (real or exaggerated) while ignoring similar international behavior by the United States and its European allies, Lévy finally comes to the meat of his proposal. “Ukraine can and should inherit the rights of a fallen Russia. Remove the Russian Federation from its seat as a permanent member and transfer it to Ukraine.”

Unfortunately, Lévy is not the only figure to advocate expelling Russia from the Security Council. In October 2022, the Helsinki Commission made a similar proposal. Representatives Steve Cohen (R-TN) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a congressional resolution in December 2022 endorsing that objective.

Expelling a permanent member of the Security Council from its seat is dubious from a legal standpoint and recklessly provocative from a geopolitical one. The closest legal analogy for removing Russia was the U.N.’s decision in 1971 to transfer China’s Security Council seat from the exiled Kuomintang government of Taiwan to the communist government in Beijing. However, that situation was vastly different from what Lévy and Ukraine’s other advocates are proposing. Beijing effectively ruled all of mainland China, but Ukraine inherited only a small portion of the defunct Soviet Union. Most of the USSR’s territory, the majority of its population, as well as the bulk of its military and economic infrastructure, went to Russia.

From a geopolitical standpoint, expelling Russia from the U.N. Security Council makes even less sense. Supporters of the United Nations habitually overemphasize the organization’s importance. The U.N. is primarily an arena for diplomatic posturing and a dumping ground for annoying issues that the great powers regard as low-priority. The one exception is that the five permanent members on the Security Council routinely use their veto power to shield their own unsavory actions and those of favored allies. Small countries that do not have such protection are fair game for either unilateral or multilateral coercion—including military coercion. Serbia, Iraq, Georgia, and Libya are among the recent, pertinent examples.

Depriving Russia of its Security Council veto would constitute a dangerous escalation of the West’s already alarming confrontation with Moscow. Russian leaders increasingly charge that the United States and its allies are determined to eliminate Russia as a great power—and remove the country as a barrier to their aspirations for global hegemony. Putin and his colleagues portray the Ukraine fight as a NATO proxy war against Russia to achieve those goals.

U.S. officials have given such accusations considerable credibility. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin candidly admitted that NATO’s goal in Ukraine was to severely weaken Russia. A gratuitous move regarding Russia’s U.N. Security Council seat would fully confirm Moscow’s suspicions about the West’s motives and objectives. Any hope of a post-Ukraine war rapprochement with Russia would evaporate, and the world would become decidedly more dangerous.

The most preposterous aspect of Lévy’s scheme, though, is his proposal to transfer Russia’s seat to Ukraine. If he had suggested Germany, Japan, India, or Bazil, the idea would at least be relevant to the real world and great power relations. But Ukraine? That country is a second or third-tier power by any measurement.

Its $112 billion economy ranks a meager 60th in the world in terms of annual Gross Domestic Product—just ahead of Morocco and just behind Sudan. No person could suggest adding either of those countries to the U.N. Security Council and expect to be taken seriously. Ukraine’s population of 43.7 million puts it 35th in the world, just ahead of Iraq and just behind Sudan (again). Ukraine is a nondescript, middling power, at best.

Why would anyone propose making such a minor country a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and by implication, according it the status of being a major player in the international system? It is another measure of the foreign policy establishment’s intense love affair with Ukraine. People who contend that Volodymyr Zelensky is a champion of democratic liberty and the second coming of Winston Churchill are capable of any fawning measure of devotion to Ukraine.

For those of us in the real world, America’s support for Ukraine is seen as both unprincipled and reckless. Fortunately, the latest proposal to give Russia’s seat on the U.N. Security Council to Ukraine likely will be greeted with the dismissive laughter it deserves, as it was immediately by knowledgeable analysts such as Eunomia’s Daniel Larison. The United States should work to repair relations with Russia, not engage in feckless, needlessly provocative posturing.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, following a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs. His newest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Dangerous Proposal: The Foreign Policy Establishment’s Love Affair with Zelensky Knows No Bounds. Expelling Russia from the U.N. Security Council
  • 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.

*** 

6 ways to make your labour and delivery easier (yes, it's possible)

On April 4, 2023 I wrote a substack article titled: “Pregnant women having heart attacks, strokes and dying – a dark side of Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccination no one is talking about – 15 cases

This is a continuation of that article, as there have been many new deaths. Recent sudden deaths of pregnant women include:

  • Sue Maroroa Jones (age 31) – died on May 11, 2023
  • Crystal Candler (age 35) – died April 27, 2023
  • Dr. Sheena Nageli (age 34) – died April 25, 2023
  • Meaghan Riley Elizabeth Seipp (age 29) – died April 21, 2023
  • Kelsey Holder (age 32) – died March 21, 2023
  • Rocio “Rose” Michelle Roberts (age 27) – died March 15, 2023
  • Alona White (age 25) – died March 13, 2023
  • Laura MacDonald Seymour (age 44) – Died Oct.30, 2022

New Zealand – International NZ Chess Champion Sue Maroroa Jones, age 32, died suddenly after giving birth to her 2nd child, on May 11, 2023, due to “post natal complications” (click here)

Narrows, VA – 35 year old Crystal Candler, who worked as a Child Care Director, died while pregnant at 35 weeks on April 27, 2023 (click here)

She suffered an unspecified “medical emergency” at 35 weeks gestation and died 5 days later on April 27, 2023. Her baby survived.

Boerne, Texas – 34 year old Dr. Sheena Nageli, a pediatric chiropractor, delivered baby Juliette on April 20, 2023 and died on April 25, 2023 (click here)

Sheena had her baby girl with a home birth on April 20, 2023. In the process of recovering from the birth, it was determined on April 24, 2023 that she was battling a localized infection “unrelated to her pregnancy”. Sadly, that infection, for inexplicable reasons, spread quickly. Despite quick medical intervention she died the following day on April 25, 2023. (click here)

Saskatchewan nurse, 29 year old Meaghan Riley Elizabeth Seipp died during delivery on April 21, 2023

This has been my most controversial Twitter post this year. I have been threatened repeatedly over it. But why?

“It couldn’t have been the vaccine”, I was repeatedly told.

This is the longest version of the story I received privately on Instagram:

“She was induced because her doc wasn’t going to be there the next week so babe wasn’t ready. Due to the storm, the surgeon couldn’t get to the hospital so an inexperienced doctor had to perform the C-section after hours of pushing since the babe’s heart rate was dropping and he was so stuck they broke his leg getting him out. They stitched her back up and noticed how pale she was so reopened her and she was internally bleeding due to missing something. Due to the storm, helicopter couldn’t come so doc was FaceTiming another and being coached through a certain stitch to stop the bleeding. She was transferred to a bigger hospital by ambulance, but, the closest one is an hour and a half away and she didn’t live long after arriving.”

There are too many questions with this story to simply say “couldn’t have been the vaccine”. Bleeding/clotting issues are central when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine complications.

Brentwood, TN – 32 year old 5th grade teacher Kelsey Holder, died suddenly on March 21, 2023 with her stillborn baby (click here)

Guatemala – Pennsylvania mother of two boys, 27 year old Rocio “Rose” Michelle Roberts died suddenly on March 15, 2023, 4 days after giving birth, from a pulmonary embolism. (click here)

Detroit, MI – 25 year old Alona White died of brain bleed 5 days after giving birth to her 2nd child on March 13, 2023 (click here)

Puyallup, WA – 44 year old mother of 5 Laura MacDonald Seymour died suddenly and unexpectedly during birth of her sixth child and first daughter on Oct. 30, 2022 (click here)

My Take…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were never tested for safety in pregnancy. But these vaccines were pushed on unsuspecting pregnant women en masse. To this day, Alberta Health Services continues to recommend unsafe, toxic experimental mRNA products to unsuspecting pregnant women.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have caused a sharp increase in miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as perinatal maternal complications including death.

Pregnant women who take COVID-19 mRNA vaccines face the same or higher risks of serious adverse events as the rest of the population: cardiac arrests, strokes, pulmonary emboli, blood clots, bleeding, infections and more.

Any unexpected death of a COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant woman, occurring in the perinatal period, must be viewed with a strong suspicion of having been caused by COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

*

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 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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Died Suddenly: COVID-19 Vaccinated Pregnant Women Continue to Die Unexpectedly From Perinatal Complications. Stillbirths, Blood Clots, Bleeding, Infections and More

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.

*** 

Whether Israel’s escalating threats of war with Iran over its nuclear program are saber-rattling or something more serious is a mystery even to the CIA, according to a portion of a top-secret intelligence report leaked on the platform Discord earlier this year. The uncertainty about the intentions of one of the U.S.’s closest allies calls into question the basis of the “ironclad” support for Israel publicly espoused by the Biden administration.

The report — which was first covered by the Israeli channel i24 News and subsequently posted by DDoSecrets, a group that publishes leaked documents — reveals an undisclosed military exercise conducted by Israel. “On 20 February, Israel conducted a large-scale air exercise,” the intelligence report, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on February 23, states. The exercise, it says, was “probably to simulate a strike on Iran’s nuclear program and possibly to demonstrate Jerusalem’s resolve to act against Tehran.” There have been several joint U.S.-Israeli military exercises in recent months, including one proudly billed by the Pentagon as the largest “in history.” 

“CIA does not know Israel’s near term plans and intentions,” the report adds, speculating that “Netanyahu probably calculates Israel will need to strike Iran to deter its nuclear program and faces a declining military capability to set back Iran’s enrichment program.”

That the U.S.’s premier intelligence service indicated it had no idea how seriously to take Israel’s increasingly bombastic threats to Tehran means that, in all likelihood, neither does the White House. But despite this lack of clarity, Biden has not opposed a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran — and his national security adviser recently hinted at blessing it. 

“We have made clear to Iran that it can never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon,” Jake Sullivan said in a speech earlier this month, reiterating the administration’s oft-repeated line. The rhetoric reflects what military planners call “strategic ambiguity,” a policy of intentional uncertainty in order to deter an adversary — in this case, around how far the U.S. might go to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Sullivan went a step further, adding, “As President Biden has repeatedly reaffirmed, he will take the actions that are necessary to stand by this statement, including by recognizing Israel’s freedom of action.” 

Sullivan’s statement represents the strongest signal yet that the administration would not oppose unilateral action by Israel. The rhetoric has also been echoed by other administration officials. In February, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, said that “Israel can and should do whatever they need to deal with [Iran] and we’ve got their back.” 

“In the current context this constitutes glibness,” said Paul Pillar, a retired national intelligence officer for the near east, of Sullivan’s statement. Pillar is now a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. “I believe the administration is playing with fire with this kind of rhetoric and with the joint military planning.” Last week, Axios reported that the U.S. recently proposed cooperating with Israel on joint military planning around Iran but denied they would plan to strike Iran’s nuclear program.

“Biden has dangerously shifted America’s policy on Israeli military action against Iran,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Intercept. “Previous administrations made it crystal clear to Israel – including publicly – that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program would be destabilizing, would not prevent a nuclear Iran and would likely drag the US into a war it could do well without.

“Obama’s clear opposition played a crucial role in the internal deliberations of the Israeli cabinet in 2010 and 2011 when Israel was on the verge of starting war,” Parsi pointed out. In 2009, after then-Vice President Biden said “Israel can determine for itself … what they decide to do relative to Iran,” Obama clarified that his administration was “absolutely not” giving Israel a green light to attack Iran.

Israel’s own military officials concede that an attack on Iran would likely metastasize into a broader regional war. Earlier this month, retired Israel Defense Forces Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi reportedly said that “Israel might have to deal with the Iranian nuclear program,” adding that “this will mean an Israeli attack on Iran which will probably result in a regional war.”

IN JANUARY, JUST weeks before Israel’s secret exercise referenced in the intelligence report, the U.S. and Israel conducted what the Defense Department touted as their largest joint military exercise in history. Called Juniper Oak, the exercise involved “electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defenses, strike coordination and reconnaissance,” which experts said “are exactly what the U.S. and Israel would need to conduct a successful kinetic attack on Iran’s nuclear program.” 

The unprecedented exercise was made possible by a little-noticed order by President Donald Trump just days before Biden’s inauguration. Using his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Trump ordered Israel be moved from European Command’s area of responsibility, where it had been located since 1983 to avoid friction with its Middle East neighbors, to that of Central Command, the Pentagon’s Middle East combatant command. 

Under Biden, CENTCOM, whose area of responsibility includes Iran, has continued to coordinate closely with Israel. In March, Biden’s CENTCOM chief, Gen. Michael Kurilla, said in Senate testimony thatthe decision to move Israel from EUCOM to CENTCOM “immediately and profoundly altered the nature and texture of many of CENTCOM’s partnerships,” adding that “CENTCOM today readily partners with Arab militaries and the Israel Defense Force alike.”

“In fact, the inclusion of Israel presents many collaborative and constructive security opportunities,” Kurilla said. “Our partners of four decades largely see the same threats and have common cause with Israel Defense Forces and the Arab militaries in defending against Iran’s most destabilizing activities.”

Put simply, for the first time, the U.S. and both its Arab and Israeli allies are structurally aligned against a common foe: Iran.

At the same hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton, who had advocated for the relocation of Israel to CENTCOM weeks before Trump gave the order, raised the possibility of training Israeli pilots in the use of mid-air refuel aircraft. The lack of such aircraft, which allow fighter jets to travel long distances, is a key impediment to Israel’s ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities.

“One of the opportunities I see is having Israeli Air Force personnel training alongside American personnel on KC 46 tankers, which we expect to provide them in future,” Cotton said. Kurilla, for his part, demurred, replying that training might be better “when they get closer to getting their aircraft … so they can retain that training and go right into the execution of operating them.”

THOUGH BIDEN CAMPAIGNED on reinstating the Iran nuclear deal — also called JCPOA, which Obama established and Trump pulled out of — the deal is all but dead. 

“With Iran, any concerns about a nuclear program have sometimes been overwhelmed by a desire — based on partisanship in the U.S. and heavily influenced by the government of Israel — to isolate Iran and not do any business or negotiations with it at all,” Pillar told The Intercept. “Hence you had Trump’s reneging on the JCPOA agreement in 2018, with a direct result of that reneging being that there is now far more reason to be worried about a possible Iranian nuclear weapon than there was when the JCPOA was still in effect.”

Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, it would likely trigger a dangerous regional arms race. Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has made clear that Riyadh would “follow suit as soon as possible” with its own atomic bomb should Tehran obtain one. 

But one key fact is often left out of discussions about Iran and the bomb: There’s no evidence that it’s actually pursuing one.

As the Pentagon’s most recent Nuclear Posture Review plainly states, “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” More recently, CIA Director William Burns reiterated that point in an interview with CBS in February. “To the best of our knowledge,” Burns said, “we don’t believe that the Supreme Leader in Iran has yet made a decision to resume the weaponization program that we judge that they suspended or stopped at the end of 2003.”

Iran’s policy could, of course, change. And tensions are rising in large part because of the U.S.’s recent posturing. For example, following the Juniper Oak exercise, Iran responded with its own military exercises, which Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Gholam-Ali Rashid said they consider a “half war” and even a “war before war.”

In April, CENTCOM announced the deployment of a submarine armed with guided missiles in the Mediterranean Sea. This was likely a message directed at Iran, which quickly responded by accusing the U.S. of “warmongering.” 

Earlier, in October, CENTCOM issued an extraordinary press releasefeaturing Kurilla, the CENTCOM chief, aboard a submarine armed with ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in the Arabian Sea — another message for Iran.

On May 9, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder announced that the military would be increasing its patrols in the Strait of Hormuz, through which many Iranian vessels travel. In his remarks, Ryder made particular mention of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft and the role it would play in bolstering maritime surveillance of the area.

The same aircraft made international news in 2019, when Iran disclosed that it almost downed a P-8 carrying U.S. service members that it claimed had entered its airspace, opting instead to shoot down a nearby drone. The U.S. military scrambled jets to strike Iran in retaliation, only to be called off by Trump 10 minutes before the attack when a general told him that the strikes would probably kill 150 people. The strikes would not, Trump said, have been “proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leaked Report: “CIA Does Not Know” If Israel Plans to Bomb Iran
  • 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.

*** 

 On May 24, the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies released a critical new analysis of the militarized budget in the United States, “The Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises our Welfare.”

The new report found that this past year, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, the U.S. spent a staggering $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of that budget on militarism and war.

Threats to cut spending for vital domestic programs have featured prominently in the debt ceiling debate in recent weeks, but spending on militarism has been almost entirely exempt from the discussion. Meanwhile, clawing back failed military, homeland security and law enforcement spending could instead fund programs and measures to address the true needs of American communities.

Read the full analysis.

Key findings: 

  •  In FY 2023, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, $1.1 trillion – or 62% – was for militarized programs that use violence or the threat of violence or imprisonment, including war and weapons, law enforcement and mass incarceration, and detention and deportation.
  • Less than $2 out of every $5 in federal discretionary spending was available to fund investment in people and communities, including primary and secondary public education, housing programs, child care programs, federal disaster relief, environmental programs, and scientific research.
  • The U.S. spent $16 on the military and war for every $1 that was spent on diplomacy and humanitarian foreign aid. The vast majority of militarized spending was for weapons, war and the Pentagon, at $920 billion. Only $56 billion was spent for international affairs, diplomacy, and humanitarian foreign aid.
  • The U.S. federal budget allocated twice as much for federal law enforcement ($31 billion) as for child care and early childhood education programs.
  • Federal spending on nuclear weapons ($32 billion) was four times spending on substance abuse and mental health programs ($7.5 billion), even as opioid use remains a major cause of death.
  • The U.S. spent $51.1 billion for homeland security, approximately half of which goes to ICE ($8.8 billion) and CBP ($17.4 billion), two punitive border enforcement agencies that separate families and terrorize immigrant communities.

“When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats,”  said co-author Lindsay Koshgarian, Program Director of the National Priorities Project. “We underfund programs to end poverty, provide affordable housing, bolster public education, and protect clean air and water at our peril. Spending on militarism takes up the majority of the federal discretionary budget, and it has grown faster than all other spending. If we keep up these patterns, we are hurtling toward a future where we can’t afford the basics of a civilized society.

“We keep hearing that our government can’t afford nice things — or necessary things — for everyone. And yet militarized spending in the US has almost doubled over the past two decades, and the military budget is now approaching its highest point since World War II,” said co-author Ashik Siddique, Research Analyst at the National Priorities Project.

“All this serves the profits of a wealthy few war profiteers, at everyone else’s expense. Meanwhile, public goods that benefit all of us are under attack. For a fraction of the cost of U.S. militarism since 2001, we could have instead ended homelessness in this country, or invested in a fully renewable national electric grid to help address the climate crisis. A better world is possible, if we build the power we need to make it happen.”

“Our leaders need to stop putting immigration on the back burner. Tens of billions of dollars is funneled into ICE and CBP every year in an effort to militarize the border, separate families, and detain and deport immigrants and people seeking asylum. People’s lives and well being are at stake here. Immigrant communities are a large makeup of the richness of culture, diversity and the economy of the U.S. and we need to invest in care-based approaches to these communities, such as in rehabilitation and resettlement services and legal pathways to residence and citizenship, instead of turning them away,” said co-author Alliyah Lusuegro, Outreach Coordinator of the National Priorities Project.

Recommendations:

  • Immediately reduce the budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons by $100 billion or more, and reinvest the savings in non-militarized discretionary priorities. 
  • Make any future Pentagon spending increases contingent on the Department of Defense passing an audit. 
  • Increase congressional oversight to make it harder for the U.S. to go to war.
  • Restructure the country’s immigration system to support robust legal immigration and current undocumented residents, and cut spending for structures that are built to deter immigration and deport immigrants, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  • End federal support for racist and counterproductive carceral and policing practices, including the war on drugs. 

Read the full report.

*

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 IPS

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 intelligence service is making multiple attempts to kill Russian President Vladimir Putin. A high-ranking official admitted to actively plotting the Russian leader’s assassination after a recent drone attack on the Kremlin. 

“Putin is noticing that we are getting closer and closer to him,” Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate, told Welt in an interview. He added, Putin is number one on the kill list “because he coordinates and decides what happens.”

The Ukrainian intelligence official claimed his agency had failed to kill Putin because he “stays holed up.” Skibitsky suggested another attempt could be made soon as the Russian leader “is now beginning to stick his head out.”  

Ukrainian officials have admitted to previously attempting to kill Putin. Last year, Kyrylo Budanov, the Head of the Chief Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda claimed, “There was an attempt to assassinate Putin…[It was an] Absolutely unsuccessful attempt, but it really happened… It was about [March 2022].”

Three weeks ago, two unmanned aerial vehicles were downed over the Kremlin, where Putin keeps an office. Although, the Russian leader was not present at the complex when the attack occurred. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Moscow considered the drones to be an assassination attempt against Putin.

Kiev has denied any involvement in the attack. However, the New York Times reported on Wednesday that American officials say the attack was orchestrated by the Ukrainian government.

In the first month of the war, then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett engaged Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in talks that nearly ended the war. The peace talks were blocked by Washington, but Putin pledged not to target Zelensky with any assassination attempts during those talks. The Kremlin appears to have upheld that agreement until the most recent attempt on Putin’s life. 

It is unclear if Moscow will continue to abide by the pledge. Zelensky has spent several weeks outside of his nation, traveling to allied countries and meeting with his counterparts. 

In response to the drone attack on the Kremlin, Dmitry Medvedev, a high-ranking Russian defense official, called for Zelensky’s “physical elimination.” A statement from Putin’s office said, “Russia reserves the right to take countermeasures wherever and whenever it deems appropriate.”

Skibitsky revealed another name on Kiev’s kill list is Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin. “We’re trying to kill him.” He added, “Our priority is to eliminate [Prigozhin] who orders his men to attack.” 

The intelligence official went on to name two more targeted high-ranking officials in Moscow. “But in the end, everyone will have to answer for their actions.” He continued, “Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu planned the attack and now they cannot turn back.”

Welt asked Skibitsky if civilians in Russia could be added to the kill list. “We are at war and these are our enemies. If an important figure manufactures and finances weapons for [Russia], then his elimination would save the lives of many civilians,” he said. “According to international conventions, this is a legitimate goal.”

The US government believes Kiev has already carried out targeted assassinations inside Russia. Last year, Darya Dugina was killed by a car bomb. It is suspected her father, Alexander Dugin was the target of the attack.

*

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.

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from TLI

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

May 25th, 2023 by Global Research News

The COVID “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s a Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24 , 2023

An Interview with Satan on the Eve of His Retirement

Dr. Emanuel Garcia, May 19 , 2023

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, May 20 , 2023

Don’t Let Them Rewrite History: Ventilators Killed People… and It Was No Accident

Kit Knightly, May 23 , 2023

Excess Deaths in the UK: 10,000 More Brits Are Dying. Experts Not Sure Why.

Dr. William Makis, May 19 , 2023

COVID-19: Camouflaging Even Greater Threats to Democracy and Public Health: Dr. Naomi Wolf

Michael Welch, May 19 , 2023

The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario: Another Crisis “Much Worse Than COVID”, Paralysis of Power Supply, Communications, Transportation

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 21 , 2023

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the COVID Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, May 21 , 2023

Video: A Jewish-Russian Proxy President: Zelensky Transformed into a Nazi?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22 , 2023

The United States Has Been Destroyed by Its Ruling Elites

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 18 , 2023

The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 23 , 2023

“The Treason of the Intellectuals”

Emanuel Pastreich, May 19 , 2023

Neo-Nazism and the War in Ukraine: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22 , 2023

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 20 , 2023

Small Percent of Vaccine Batches Responsible for Large Number of Adverse Reactions, Analysts Claim

Patrick Delaney, May 12 , 2022

1500 Scientists Say “Climate Change Not Due to CO2” – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

Mark Keenan, May 20 , 2023

Western Weapons to Ukraine: Black Market for Terrorists “On Command”

Peter Koenig, May 18 , 2023

Two UK Babies Dead From Myocarditis: Total of 16 Babies Developed “Severe Myocarditis” in Wales & England, Eight Ended Up in Intensive Care

Dr. William Makis, May 22 , 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Multiple Heart Attacks or Multiple Strokes

Dr. William Makis, May 23 , 2023

The Trump Presidency: RIP

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 19 , 2023

People’s Brains and Bodies Are Not Protected Against Attacks by Electromagnetic Waves and Neurotechnologies

By Mojmir Babacek, May 24, 2023

In 2020, the American Academy of Sciences wrote in the report on attacks of American diplomats in Cuba and China, well known as the Havana syndrome, that the most likely cause of their problems was directed pulsed radio frequency waves. It is well known that these attacks are accompanied by artificially produced acoustic hallucinations.

Kiev Used US-supplied Vehicles to Invade Russia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 24, 2023

The US claims that the weapons sent to Ukraine are only used within the borders of the conflict zone, but it is increasingly clear that this equipment is being used by Ukrainian forces to carry out terrorist attacks in the undisputed Russian territory.

“Severe Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome”: Diagnosis Only Available in UK and Europe (Not in Canada or USA)

By Dr. William Makis, May 24, 2023

I believe a diagnosis such as “post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” is very important for victims of vaccine injuries, not only for the peace of mind that a firm diagnosis brings, but also in that it gives the victims something to work with.

Is This Why Pediatricians Push Vaccines?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2023

Primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid doctors $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab.

Artificial Intelligence: The Release of the Upcoming Open AI Model, GPT-5

By Arjun Sha, May 24, 2023

It has been just over two months since the launch of GPT-4, but users have started anticipating the release of GPT-5. We have already seen how capable and powerful GPT-4 is in various kinds of tests and qualitative evaluations.

Visits of Justice: Stella Assange’s Plea to Australia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, May 24, 2023

The cell Assange occupies is but a mere three by two metres, a situation scandalous in the absence of any conviction, and all the more so for that fact. The cold draft that comes in through the window is nullified, to some extent, by books, something poignant, given his intellectually curious state. In this sense, literature does not merely nourish the mind but literally offers a buttressing shield against the elements.

Biden Okays F-16s for Ukraine, US Weapons to Attack Crimea

By Caitlin Johnstone, May 24, 2023

The Biden administration has signed off on both F-16s for Ukraine and attacks on Crimea using US-made weapons. Both of these moves have drawn dire warnings from nuclear-armed Russia, and both would have been unthinkable a year ago.

Pentagon Keeping America Safe… Blowing Up Syrian Sheepherder, Father of Ten

By Walt Zlotow, May 24, 2023

Pentagon officials immediately trumpeted ‘We murdered an al-Qaeda leader bent on terrorizing the homeland’. That could well have been a recorded response that has been played hundreds, maybe thousands of times since the War of Terror began 22 years ago this September.

‘Palestine must be obliterated,’ Says Deleted Times of Israel Column

By The New Arab, May 24, 2023

The Times of Israel has deleted a column calling for the obliteration of Palestine on the same day extremist nationalists marched through occupied East Jerusalem chanting “death to Arabs”.  “Palestine must be obliterated,” the now deleted column read, “in order to make peace”. 

The EU Is Over-Invested in the Ukrainian War-Project

By Alastair Crooke, May 24, 2023

The European Union, by any standards, is over-invested in the Ukrainian war-project – and in its romance with Zelensky too. Just earlier this year, the western (and EU) narrative was that the coming post-Winter offensive by Ukraine would ‘break’ Russia and render a ‘coup de grace’ to the war.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: People’s Brains and Bodies Are Not Protected Against Attacks by Electromagnetic Waves and Neurotechnologies

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.

*** 

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently testified in front of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee regarding the recent rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) and the potential for disruption to numerous industries.

In addition to OpenAI’s ChatGPT experiencing a surge in popularity, A.I. generated art and even A.I. generated photography winning prizes make it clear that the age of A.I. disruption has begun. The so-called Godfather of A.I. recently quit Google because he wanted to speak openly about the dangers posed by A.I. generated deep fakes.

In his prepared statements, Altman told the senators “the regulation of A.I. is essential.” Altman also called for what he termed “appropriate safety requirements, including internal and external testing prior to release”. He also expressed support for licensing and registration of certain A.I. systems.

Altman stopped short of calling for complete government regulation, instead stating that governance schemes must be “flexible enough to adapt to new technological developments” while balancing “incentivizing safety while ensuring that people are able to access the technology’s benefits.”

Fortune writes that “Altman’s advocacy for some rules is not surprising. Technology companies know that regulation is likely coming, and they are trying their best to shape it to their advantage”.

The argument is that Altman and other CEO’s of A.I. companies may decide licensing allows them to protect the code to their proprietary models. Also, Big A.I. may fear the rise of open source A.I. models and thus call for licensing schemes which place extra burdens on creators of open source software.

Fortune continues:

“Among the biggest competitive threats these companies face is open source A.I. software. In this rapidly moving field, no one is moving faster than the open source community. It has proved remarkably innovative and agile at matching the performance and capabilities of the proprietary models, but doing so with A.I. models that are much smaller, easier and less expensive to train, and which can be downloaded for free.”

Regardless of the reason, Altman has joined the growing chorus of A.I. advocates who are calling for regulation or licensing of A.I. The CEO’s concerns have also led to politicians and policymakers warning about the dangers of not regulating the technology. CNBC reported that during the Senate hearing on A.I. Senator Josh Hawley compared the emerging technology to the creation of the printing press and the nuclear bomb. Hawley stated that this may lead humanity to two potential futures: one which A.I. empowers humanity, or one with a “huge technological breakthrough” but “severe, terrible” consequences.

The Bilderberg Group in Portugal

Only days after testifying in front of the U.S. Senate, Sam Altman participated in the secretive Bilderberg Group meeting in Lisbon, Portugal. In the weeks and days leading up to the meeting there was not a single report from the mainstream corporate press, with only a handful of independent journalists reporting on the meeting, including Dan Dicks of Press for Truth.

Altman was joined by fellow A.I. proponents and CEO’s, including Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, Deepmind’s Demis Hassabis, and former Google CEO and current chair of the Bilderberg Group Eric Schmidt.

As The Last American Vagabond reported in February 2021, the Biden Administration assigned Schmidt to head the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), or the A.I. Commission.

According to a December 2022 report from Politico, Schmidt was funding the salaries of more than 2 dozens employees in the Biden administration. Since at least March 2022 Politico has outlined how Schmidt’s fingerprints were all over the Biden administration. Schmidt’s role as the former CEO of Google, a member of the Bilderberg Group, his role in the Biden admin, and his relationship with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are more than enough reasons to be concerned with the direction the A.I. conversation is headed.

In fact, Kissinger, a long-time adviser to U.S. Presidents, was also present at the Bilderberg group. Kissinger has been attending the Bilderberg meeting off and on since its founding in 1957. Kissinger has said that his interest in A.I. came after Schmidt persuaded him to attend a lecture on the topic while at the Bilderberg conference in 2016. The two men also co-authored a book in 2021 titled The Age of AI: And Our Human Future.

Sam Altman and fellow A.I. CEO’s were also joined by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, BP chief Bernard Looney, Børge Brende, the President of the World Economic Forum, and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir Peter Thiel. Thiel has come under attack in recent days because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Due to the lack of transparency surrounding the Bilderberg Group, details surrounding Altman’s involvement in the meeting have not been made public. However, based on the history of the Bilderberg Group shaping important world events, and even likely granting their approval of future political leaders, one can surmise that Altman’s attendance will bode well for his career and the continued rise of OpenAI.

While Sam Altman’s attendance at Bilderberg in Portugal may have something to do with his role at OpenAI, it’s also highly likely that his latest tech project is an even more relevant reason for his appearance.

Worldcoin

Sam Altman and fellow technocrat Elon Musk have a history of collaboration at OpenAI, as well as warning about the potential dangers related to the rapid rise in use of the technology. However, despite warnings, both men continue to fund projects which have the potential to contribute to the rise of the Technocratic State, with A.I. powering biometric digital identities, digital currencies, and the Internet of Things/Bodies.

For example, one day before Altman testified to Congress, the Financial Times reported that Altman was “close to securing around $100mn in funding for his plan to use iris-scanning technology to create a secure global cryptocurrency called Worldcoin”. The Times said three people with knowledge of the deal claimed the team behind Worldcoin is in “advanced talks” to raise the funds in the “next few weeks”.

The source told the Times that the funding is coming from existing and new investors. Previously reported investors in the project includes FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and internet entrepreneur Reid Hoffman.

Altman has promoted the project as a way to prepare for the disruption A.I. is anticipated to cause to a number of industries. Worldcoin executives has stated that their work is focused on helping distinguish between humans and bots by providing a unique ID and providing a universal basic income to offset job losses caused by A.I.

Altman and team have called Worldcoin an “inclusive” global cryptocurrency that will be available to anyone who verifies their “unique personhood” with the “Orb,” a device that scans an individuals unique iris pattern.

“The Orb checks that an individual is real and is unique or has not previously signed up for Worldcoin. It does this by capturing and processing images of an individual and their unique iris pattern,” Worldcoin explains on its website.

Once a user submits to biometric iris scans they are assigned a “World ID” that allows them to receive 25 free Worldcoin tokens at launch of the token. The company claims once the unique identity is created the iris scans are deleted.

While the project is being touted as a method of softening the blow of A.I. disruption, it’s clear such a project also mimics calls for digital identity using biometrics being proposed by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and a growing number of international governments. Perhaps, Altman and his cohorts believe the technology will be used for good in their hands, but the relationship to the Bilderberg Group, Silicon Valley, and Elon Musk are — at the very least — a cause for concern and reflection.

One way or another, it appears a world built around digital identities and digital currencies is indeed rapidly approaching. Will it be identities controlled by governments and corporations? Or will open source, decentralized, and distributed versions of technologies like A.I. rise to the top?

*

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.

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/derrick-broze/

Featured image is from TLAV

Kiev Used US-supplied Vehicles to Invade Russia

May 24th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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 US claims that the weapons sent to Ukraine are only used within the borders of the conflict zone, but it is increasingly clear that this equipment is being used by Ukrainian forces to carry out terrorist attacks in the undisputed Russian territory. Photos and videos shared on the internet show that US armored vehicles were used by pro-Kiev forces to attack Belgorod during recent terrorist hostilities. As expected, US officials are denying their involvement and suggesting the images are fake. Now, Washington needs to find a “justification” for the undeniable fact that its proxy regime is inappropriately and illegally using military aid provided by NATO.

The images are being published by Russian war correspondents who covered hostilities in Belgorod. It is possible to find among the equipment captured by the Russian forces several American-made weapons, including some armored vehicles such as M1151A1 Humvees and MaxxPro MRAP. The vehicles were mostly destroyed by Russian artillery or left behind by enemy soldiers as they tried to evade Russian fire.

Reacting to the case, the US authorities argued that there is not enough evidence to confirm the veracity of the photos and videos circulating on the networks. Speaking during a press conference, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller emphatically expressed his skepticism about the veracity of the images, indicating that they could be some “fake” deliberately spread by the Russians to accuse the Americans. He made it clear that an official statement by Washington will only occur after the images are analyzed and there is absolute confidence on their accuracy.

“We’ve seen some of the reports circulating on social media and elsewhere making claims that US-supplied weapons were used in these attacks (…) I will say that we’re skeptical at this time of the veracity of these reports (…) We’ve seen a lot of reports on social media and fuzzy pictures on social media and a lot of kind of armchair intelligence analysts making claims (…) We’re skeptical that they’re accurate (…) We don’t have perfect clarity on the information (…) We’re looking at the same pictures you see, the same fuzzy images, and at this time, we are skeptical of their veracity”, Matthew Miller told journalists during a press conference.

Miller’s argument is vague and weak. Confirmation on the veracity of the images can be obtained in a short time through an expert analysis, which is enough to eliminate any doubts about the case. What Miller seems to be doing is avoiding giving a verdict on the subject, postponing the final assessment to a future that may take a long time or not even happen. With this, the US avoids giving a public response about the participation of its weapons in an illegal attack against Russia.

Some other American officials, however, are already using another argument. In an interview with journalists, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder, stated that his country has not approved any transfer of weapons to “paramilitary groups” outside the Ukrainian armed forces.

“So we’ve seen those reports [on images], something that we obviously continue to monitor very closely. I will say that we can confirm that the U.S. government has not approved any third party transfers of equipment to paramilitary organizations outside the Ukrainian Armed Forces, nor has the Ukrainian government requested any such transfers. So again, it’s something we’ll keep a close eye on”, he said.

His words come amid the current discussion about who really carried out the attack on Belgorod. Kiev alleges that those responsible for the attack were exclusively the neo-Nazi groups ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’ and ‘Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK)’, which are militias formed by expatriate Russian-born mercenaries.

The Ukrainian government believes it has no responsibility in the case, as it was not its regular troops who operated the attack. Consequently, the American government wants to avoid any accusation of co-participation due to the use of its weapons, claiming that Washington delivers this equipment only to Kiev, not being responsible in case of use by paramilitary groups.

However, these arguments are inconsistent with reality and international law. These paramilitary groups are at the service of Kiev and directly obey the Ukrainian state, regardless of whether their legal status is one of regular troops or not. These militias are excluded from the norms of humanitarian law, but it means nothing regarding their affiliation with Ukraine, which is why Kiev must be seen as directly responsible for the Belgorod attack.

Accordingly, Kiev’s sponsors are also co-participants in the crime. If pro-Ukrainian terrorists use US weapons to attack Russian civilians in demilitarized territory it is because Washington gives such weapons to Kiev even though the US knows that there are terrorists working for that regime. So, as much as they want to deny it, the US and NATO are in fact co-authors of the attacks on Russia.

*

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.

*** 

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after several stages of negotiations has finally approved a 36-month arrangement under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) in an amount equivalent to SDR 2.242 billion (around $3 billion, or 304 percent of quota) for the Republic of Ghana.

While this Credit Facility Arrangement for Ghana is presumably necessary for the country’s economic recovery, it is also necessary to examine the governance system adopted in the country. In recent years, Ghana has found itself in a condition of economic crisis – brought about by excessive borrowing – and a resulting need for debt restructuring. As the government seeks to navigate this difficult situation by returning to the IMF, it is important to outline economic restructuring including structural governance.

As we all know that life after COVID-19 will never be the same, several reports monitored indicated that the COVID-19 which began in 2019 combined with the current Russia-Ukraine crisis have had devastating effects across the world. African countries are hit the hardest. Many west African states like Ghana, located on the Atlantic coast and a member of the regional organization Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), are equally facing serious similar economic challenges.

But analyzing the implications of Ghana soliciting the assistance from the IMF, the country is on the brink of entering a period characterized by market stability and diminished uncertainties, following the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) approval of the $3 billion deal.

Many experts have blamed political, economic and energy crisis which spiral negative sentiments and discontent on mismanagement. For example, a renowned American Professor of Economics Steve Hanke has chastised Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta for mismanaging the Ghanaian economy.

Professor Hanke who is a hard critic of Ghanaian authorities in a tweet was surprised about Ofori-Atta’s position that he’s disappointed that foreign lenders have been slow to act in supporting Ghana’s quest to get a programme from the International Monetary Fund.

“As 33 African countries suffer from record debt burden, Ghana’s Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta is disappointed that foreign lenders had been ‘slow to act’ but instead of recognising mismanagement, he is blaming creditors for Ghana’s debt burden,” Professor Hanke concluded.

As an experienced economist who has been teaching courses in economics or related subjects, I would like to suggest that Ghana takes advantage of the current economic challenges to reset interest rates to accelerate private sector growth and quicken the recovery of the economy. In this case, the private sector to lead the economic recovery process post the domestic debt exchange programme. It has further identified the opportunities in the current economic crisis which they can leverage to spur private sector growth.

The next step supports the private sector and their performances as the engine and driver for long-term growth, despite the turbulent economic situation particularly in the country and in the west African region and generally across the world.

Overall, the most critical steps now are improving the quality of governance in Ghana and that would require the government to address issues such as weak institutions, lack of accountability and ineffective public services. This would involve measures such as increasing transparency in government operations, strengthening institutions such as the judiciary, and improving public service delivery.

But one more significant question, as I have already pointed out, is to ensure good governance and confidence-building in the public institutions. It could be a positive indication that the economy needs to bounce back, and attract foreign investment in the areas of public-private collaboration.

Quite apart from that, it is an additional advantage that Ghana hosts the headquarters of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), described as a unique and valuable platform for businesses to access an integrated African market. This could be the strongest dimension to build intra-trade and cooperation with neighbors in West Africa.

With economic growth and sustainability concerns, it is highly suggested that Ghana reviews its imports, attempt to focus more on import substitution policies and the areas it has natural comparative advantages. It refers to the implementation of policies and measures that aim to address a country’s food security and self-sufficiency. It helps to cut import expenditure and redirect finances to supporting domestic food production. It reduces budget deficits and addresses financial imbalances leading to the improvement of economic sustainability.

One way to achieve this is through the implementation of policies and measures that reduce government spending and wastes. This could involve a combination of measures such as rationalizing government programmes, reducing subsidies and cutting non-essential expenditures. The goal is to create a leaner, more efficient government that is better able to manage its finances. This could involve strengthening budgetary controls, improving public financial management systems, and enhancing the transparency and accountability of government finances. By doing so, Ghana can ensure that public funds are used efficiently and effectively – and that the country’s fiscal position is sustainable over the long-term.

As the IMF reported, the authorities’ economic programme, supported by the ECF-arrangement, builds on the government’s Post COVID-19 Programme for Economic Growth (PC-PEG), which aims to restore macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability and includes wide-ranging reforms to build resilience and lay the foundation for stronger and more inclusive growth.

Securing timely debt restructuring agreements with external creditors will be essential for the successful implementation of the new Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement. The Executive Board’s decision will enable an immediate disbursement to Ghana equivalent to SDR 451.4 million (about $600 million). The authorities have taken bold steps to tackle these deep challenges, including by accelerating fiscal adjustment, revenue administration and public financial management, as well as steps to address weaknesses in the energy and cocoa sectors.

However, it is focused on restoring macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability as well as implementing wide-ranging reforms to build resilience and lay the foundation for stronger and more inclusive growth. Ms. Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, explicitly said in her message that “An ambitious structural reform agenda is being put in place to reinvigorate private sector-led growth by improving the business environment, governance, and productivity.”

Ghana has an economic plan known as the “Ghana Vision 2020”. This plan envisions as the first to become a developed African country between 2020 and 2029 and a newly industrialized country between 2030 and 2039. In 2019, it was the seventh largest producer of gold in the world. It is a leading producer and exporter of cocoa to Europe. The Republic of Ghana with a population of over 32 million is located on the coast of West 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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ghana’s Economic Policies Within the Geopolitical Context and the Corona Crisis
  • 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.

*** 

The Biden administration has signed off on both F-16s for Ukraine and attacks on Crimea using US-made weapons. Both of these moves have drawn dire warnings from nuclear-armed Russia, and both would have been unthinkable a year ago.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper from the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made it clear that Washington would approve of US weapons being used in an offensive to recapture Crimea, a horrifying prospect that many experts have agreed is the most likely scenario to lead to nuclear warfare in this conflict. Sullivan told Tapper that while the US has forbidden the use of American weapons to attack Russia, the US considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Here’s CNN’s transcript of the exchange:

TAPPER: In February on this show, you would not say whether the U.S. would support Ukrainian efforts to recapture Crimea. That’s one of the concerns that has been expressed about whether or not the Ukrainians are given the ability to hit Russian targets in Crimea. Do you think that Crimea is part of Ukraine?

SULLIVAN: Of course.

TAPPER: So, what would be the objection of giving…

SULLIVAN: Crimea is Ukraine.

TAPPER: Right.

SULLIVAN: I mean, that’s a very straightforward thing.

TAPPER: Well, yes you answered it directly. I mean, Russia doesn’t think so, obviously. But do you think that Ukraine should have weapons that can reach Russian targets in Crimea?

SULLIVAN: Yes. We have not placed limitations on Ukraine being able to strike on its territory within its internationally recognized borders. What we have said is that we will not enable Ukraine with U.S. systems, Western systems, to attack Russia. And we believe Crimea is Ukraine.

TAPPER: OK.

Moscow has considered Crimea a part of the Russian Federation since its annexation in 2014, meaning efforts to recapture it would — at least in theory — be treated the same as an invasion of any other part of Russia. It was only by way of an arbitrary bureaucratic fluke that Crimea wound up a part of Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Crimeans overwhelmingly prefer to be a part of the Russian Federation. That we may soon be staring down the barrel of a nuclear third world war over something so pedantic is a very dark shade of absurd.

In the same interview, Tapper questioned Sullivan about the Biden administration’s policy shift toward approving F-16 fighter jets to be sent to Ukraine, demanding to know why the war planes weren’t approved sooner.

“President Biden told the G7 leaders that the United States is going to support this joint effort to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 fighter jets,” said Tapper. “As you know, just a few months ago, the president said there was no basis militarily for giving Ukraine jets and that Ukraine didn’t need them at all. What changed? And would these jets not have been more effective if Ukraine had been trained and had them in time for the upcoming counteroffensive?”

It’s so obnoxious how the only time you ever see these mass media propagandists challenging the US government on its warmongering is when they’re pushing it to be more warlike and demanding answers on why it isn’t warmongering more. This creates the illusion of brave adversarial journalism, when in reality these empire cronies are just manufacturing consent for the increased aggressions the US wants to wage anyway. 

These escalations have drawn stern warnings from Moscow, which have just been casually hand-waved away by Biden like he’s rejecting jello for dessert. In an article titled “Russia Says West Providing F-16s to Ukraine a ‘Colossal Risk’”, Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp writes the following:

A Russian official said Saturday that the Western plans to provide Ukraine with American-made F-16 fighter jets bring “colossal risks” after the US announced it would sign off on European countries delivering the aircraft.

“We see that Western countries are still adhering to the escalation scenario. It involves colossal risks for themselves,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, according to TASS.

“In any case, this will be taken into account in all our plans, and we have all the necessary means to achieve the goals we have set,” Grushko added.

During the last day of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, President Biden was asked about Russia calling the F-16 plan a “colossal risk.” He replied, “It is for them.”

As Tapper noted, both the F-16 decision and the Crimea decision marked a sharp policy shift by the Biden administration in just a few months. This proxy war just keeps escalating and escalating, with aggressions once deemed unthinkable due to their likelihood of sparking a nuclear exchange now becoming commonplace. Every time a new once-unthinkable escalation is enacted, the hawks are already pushing for the next one.

As we’ve discussed previously, this pattern of continually escalating nuclear brinkmanship in Ukraine has built-in incentives for Russia to ramp up its own aggressions against NATO itself. Every time the west ramps up its brinkmanship and crosses another once-taboo line in the sand without Moscow responding with direct military confrontation, the west takes this as a sign that it can ramp up the escalations again. This has put things on a trajectory toward more and more direct western-backed attacks on the Russian Federation unless Russia lashes out at NATO powers in some way to show them it’s not worth it. Which would be about as dangerous an occurrence as you could possibly imagine.

It is not okay for our rulers to play games with our lives like this. It is not okay for them to keep rolling the dice on nuclear escalation more and more often in the name of securing US unipolar hegemony. These people are making it abundantly clear that sanity and level-headedness are not in the driver’s seat here. Everyone on earth should be shouting a loud, unequivocal “no” to this at the top of their lungs.

*

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.

Argentina – Efervescencia de yuanes

May 24th, 2023 by Néstor Restivo

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.

*** 

Lotifi Hassan Misto was going about his business herding sheep in Syria’s Idlib province May 18 when a US drone strike blew him to smithereens.

Pentagon officials immediately trumpeted ‘We murdered an al-Qaeda leader bent on terrorizing the homeland’. That could well have been a recorded response that has been played hundreds, maybe thousands of times since the War of Terror began 22 years ago this September.

But the Pentagon fable quickly fell apart when family members came forward to defend Misto and were backed up by terrorism experts. They told the Washington Post Misto was likely not affiliated with al-Qaeda.

A Pentagon official offered an ‘oops’ stating “We are no longer confident we killed a senior AQ official. But another official claimed the person they killed was al-Qaeda without offering an iota of evidence. “Though we believe the strike did not kill the original target, we believe the person to be al-Qaeda.” With that the Pentagon has gone silent, refusing to release any details of the sheepherder killing attack.

That’s what we get folks for our trillion dollar annual military and intelligence budget. Murder and mayhem around the world. And less sheepherders to threaten the Homeland.

*

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.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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.

*** 

Burgess Hill, UK – Roz McGinty is one of the most athletic women in the world. She is also a nurse and she is COVID-19 mRNA vaccine injured.

Roz McGinty’s athletics resume is stunning: (click here)

  • 12 time Ironwoman 
  • World Long Course Triathlon Championships
  • Has reached 7 podiums & 2 wins in 19 triathlons (click here)
  • Innumerable Triathlon and Diathlon races spanning 22 years
  • World & European Long Course Kona 22 VI Guide
  • Nurse

Roz McGinty suffered serious COVID-19 vaccine injuries after her 2nd dose:

My Take on Roz McGinty…

Roz McGinty is one of the most athletic people in the world. She truly believed in the COVID-19 vaccine and after her 2nd dose, she was severely injured and has been injured for 2 years and 2 months.

It is extremely rare to see a top athlete diagnosed with “severe post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” as Roz McGinty was.

The vast majority of people never get a diagnosis of any kind that they can work with.

Such a diagnosis would never be made in Canada, where the very existence of COVID-19 vaccine injuries is denied. I have seen this kind of diagnosis made in several countries in Europe.

Roz was COVID-19 vaccine injured starting March 25, 2021. She has cardiac injury (could be myocarditis, she doesn’t go into detail), several neurological injuries (tinnitus, tremor, skin numbness), and some autoimmune injuries (joint and muscle pain).

Roz talks about excruciating pain, struggling to work, “drugs I’ve had to take”, “fear for my life”.

She has clearly been through a lot and has put in a great amount of work to stay on top athletically. She doesn’t tell us what treatments she has taken to deal with her COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

Germany – 11 year old boy Nabil Maytan diagnosed with “Severe Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome” (click here)

“Nabil has been sick and has not been able to attend school since November 2021. Instead of playing with friends, instead of playing sports and piano, instead of going for outings with his family Nabil is confined to a wheelchair and needs help with everything from using the restroom to getting dressed. He can’t move his legs, he can’t talk, he can’t sit up. He is extremely sensitive to sound which makes even going outside painful.

After over a year of doctors getting his diagnosis wrong, with treatments that made him worse doctors finally tested him for and diagnosed him with a severe case of post-vac syndrome. Nabil’s neurological symptoms developed soon after he had the covid vaccine. The medical community is still trying to figure out what helps and what doesn’t help with post-vac since it is so new. Also, each case can be very different with its own subset of diseases and symptoms. Right now, the agreed approach seems to be ‘trial and error’, trying various therapies and medications to see what works.

I should be clear and say that I’m not ‘anti-vax’. I know the vaccines have done a lot of good. I just want my boy to walk and talk again and live a normal 11-year-old life. I also want to say that like most other vaccine-injured people, we have registered this injury with our government.”

My Take…

I believe a diagnosis such as “post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” is very important for victims of vaccine injuries, not only for the peace of mind that a firm diagnosis brings, but also in that it gives the victims something to work with.

We need more “Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome” diagnoses to be made, but for that to happen, doctors in Canada and the US must find their courage and ethics again.

For now, COVID-19 vaccine victims are on their own.

*

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 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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Severe Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome”: Diagnosis Only Available in UK and Europe (Not in Canada or USA)

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 neo-Nazi militia launched a cross-border raid from Ukraine into Russia’s Belgorod region on Monday using US armored vehicles, Financial Times reported Tuesday.

Denis Nikitin, leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps, said his fighters who attacked Belgorod were in possession of US armored vehicles, including at least two M1224 MaxxPro armored vehicles, known as MRAPs, and several Humvees. Videos and pictures posted by Russia’s military corroborated Nikitin’s claims.

Nikitin is a well-known extremist who has ties to neo-Nazis across the world and has his own white nationalist clothing line. According to Financial Times, the Russian Volunteer Corps “includes self-avowed neo-Nazis.”

The group was formed in 2022 and is said to be comprised of Russian citizens who have volunteered to fight for Kyiv. Some of its members signed up to fight in the Donbas war back in 2014 and are Azov Battalion veterans.

Nikitin would not say how his fighters acquired the US-made armored vehicles. Ukrainian intelligence officials have acknowledged that they cooperate with the Russian Volunteer Corps and another group that launched the assault, the Freedom of Russia Legion.

“Of course, we communicate with them. Of course, we share some information,” Andriy Chernyak, a Ukrainian military intelligence official, told Financial Times. “And, one might say, we even cooperate.”

Chernyak denied supplying the Russian volunteers with equipment and claimed that they launched the operation on their own. However, The Times of London reported that Discord leaks show Ukraine had been planning attacks on Russian territory using Russian volunteer groups for some time. One document said the Russian citizens fighting for Ukraine are armed with “various qualitative types of NATO weapons.”

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller was asked about the news of US weapons being used in attacks on Belgorod and said he was “skeptical” of the reports. He insisted the US does not “encourage or enable strikes inside of Russia” but said it’s “up to Ukraine to decide how to conduct this war.”

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: International MaxxPro Category 1 MRAP (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

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.

*** 

The Times of Israel has deleted a column calling for the obliteration of Palestine on the same day extremist nationalists marched through occupied East Jerusalem chanting “death to Arabs”. 

“Palestine must be obliterated,” the now deleted column read, “in order to make peace”. 

Jeffrey Camras, the author of the piece, is an American writer who reportedly lives in Chicago.

While telling Palestinians to give up their idea of homeland – saying that “if you want rights, you have to give up your nationhood” – he even offered Palestinians descended from Jewish residents of historic Palestine, and willing to reject their Palestinian identity the opportunity, for “their return to our civilisation”. 

“Shame on the Times of Israel for publishing such a venomous article,” tweeted Jamal Dajani. 

In 2014, when Israel was pounding Gaza and killing scores of civilians, Yochanan Gordon from The Times of Israel asked readers “what other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?”

Then, as now, The Times of Israel’s article was published and then quickly deleted after a furious backlash from Palestinians. 

The rejection of Palestinian identity is common among many in Israeli society, particularly the hard-right who are now in power in Israel. 

Extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich earlier this year declared there are “no Palestinian people”.

*

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 The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Palestine must be obliterated,’ Says Deleted Times of Israel Column
  • 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.

*** 

Britain might have fallen out of love with Boris Johnson. But Ukraine’s allies in the U.S. reckon the charismatic ex-prime minister is still the perfect messenger to shore up support for the war in wavering Republican heartlands.

Pro-Ukraine think tankers on Monday brought Johnson to a private lunch in Dallas, Texas, to meet two dozen of the state’s leading conservative figures, including politicians, donors and captains of industry.

The message Johnson was there to deliver was simple: America must stay the course in Ukraine.

“I just urge you all to stick with it,” Johnson told those seated in the grand, wood-panelled dining room in downtown Dallas, where POLITICO was also in attendance. “It will pay off massively in the long run.”

The former U.K. prime minister flew to Texas as a growing number of conservative lawmakers, candidates and activists have started to question the size of the U.S. support package for Ukraine as it attempts to fight back against the invasion launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2022.

Political tensions over the war are expected to rise further as the 2024 U.S. election draws nearer.

The two most high-profile potential candidates for the Republican nomination — former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — have both voiced skepticism about America’s unwavering support for Ukraine. Trump has pledged to cut a “deal” to “end that war in one day,” while DeSantis dismissed it as a “territorial dispute” which does not involve America’s “vital national interests” — though later partially backtracked.

Click here to read the full article on Politico.

*

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: Creator: syllogi Admin / No10 Downing Str

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 Friday, members of the Arab League welcomed the Syrian regime back to the organization. Representatives from several Arab member states shook Syrian leader Assad’s hand and gave him, a “warm” reception according to several news outlets. Syria was suspended from the league in 2011, but on May 7 in Cairo the league agreed to reinstate the Assad regime. 

This represents a reversal from years of isolation placed on the regime, and a break with US policy which remains staunchly opposed to Assad. Indeed, the League’s rapprochement with Assad should be seen as a repudiation of US policy, and especially as a sign of how Washington’s influence among Leage members—the most powerful of which are Saudi Arabia and Egypt—has waned.

Moreover, this is just the latest bad news for Washington’s influence in the region coming mere weeks after Iran and Saudi Arabia reestablished diplomatic relations.

In both cases, we find regimes that Washington had sought to isolate and sanction, but both states have instead been expanding their relations with other states in the region with the help of China. Meanwhile, both Beijing and Riyadh have increased their ties with Russia. These development help illustrate how growing US attempt to impose—or threaten to impose—hard line sanctions against a growing number of regimes has only accelerated a global movement away from the US dollar and away from Washington’s orbit. 

Saudi Arabia Increasing Ties with Iran and Syria

In March of this year, Saudi Arabia and Iran announced a resumption of relations following a deal brokered by China. The Saudi regime—a longtime Washington ally—had apparently not told the Biden administration of the meetings with Iran and China. Shortly after the agreement was announced, the administration dispatched CIA Director William Burns to Saudi Arabia where he reportedly “expressed frustration with the Saudis,” telling “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that the U.S. has felt blindsided by Riyadh’s rapprochement with Iran and Syria.”

Although the White House now claims to be supportive of the new agreement between Riyadh and Tehran, this support is really just an admission that there’s not much Washington can do about it. After all, for decades, US policy has been to isolate Tehran and in recent years, Washington has imposed harsh sanctions, including Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” designed to cripple Iran even more. The Biden administration took no significant steps to reverse the Trump position. The Saudi regime’s newfound openness to Iran is thus contrary to US policy, and it is not plausible that Washington is in any way pleased with the change. 

From Washington’s perspective, the situation got even worse this month when the Arab League readmitted Syria, also apparently without consulting Washington. Since 2011, the US has imposed draconian sanctions on Syrian in a manner similar to Iran. Syria’s newfound reintegration into the Arab League is thus also contrary to the US’s ongoing efforts to isolate the Assad regime which the US has repeatedly claimed must by subjected to “regime change.” 

Growing Ties with Russia

New overtures by the Saudis toward both Syria and Iran also run afoul of Washington because both Iran and Syria are important allies of Moscow. With the US now inflicting harsh sanctions on the Russian regime, anything that helps Damascus and Tehran has the potential to help Moscow as well. 

Both the Saudis and the Chinese have shown growing efforts to forge ties directly with the Russian regime as well. At a Chinese-Russian summit in February 2022, both regimes stated they plan to forge even closer ties. This has apparently not changed even after a year of heightened hostilities from the US and NATO aimed at Moscow. In fact, it is likely that Russia-China relations are closer than they’ve ever been in the post-Soviet era. This has clearly been a problem for Washington as China continues to provide an important market for Russian exports in the face of US sanctions. Both states have also made efforts to move away from the US dollar and settle international trade in other currencies. 

This might all be dismissed as the scheming of foreign powers that were never reliable “partners” or allies of the US in the first place. But Saudi Arabia is another matter, and the Saudis are apparently willing to play nice with the Russians, Chinese, and other members of the latest supposed “Axis of Evil.” 

The Saudi regime has grown closer to Moscow in the wake of US sanctions against Russia. For example, “Saudi Arabia and the UAE, traditional Middle Eastern allies of the United States, are not shying away from importing, storing, trading, or re-exporting Russian fuels despite American efforts to persuade them to join a crackdown on Russian attempts to evade the Western sanctions on its oil.”

In other words, US efforts to get the Arab world to isolate Russia are failing, and Russian ties with the Middle East are actually improving

This can be seen in the fact that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)—which is dominated by its largest producer, Saudi Arabia—has shown no interest in helping the US in its sanctions war against Russia. Instead, OPEC has cut production levels to raise oil prices, which benefits Moscow. The US has opposed these cuts, and now some anti-Russia factions in the US are exploring ways to punish OPEC for its lack of enthusiasm in cooperating with US efforts against Russia. 

At this point, a trend has clearly emerged: as the US further attempts to tighten its geopolitical grip on the global economy through economic sanctions, fewer and fewer states worldwide appear interested in playing along. 

Indeed, the spread of US sanctions provides good reason for other regimes to increase efforts to forge close ties with other regimes as insurance against becoming the victims of US policy. After all, the US has been quite free and easy with threatening “uncooperative” countries with so-called secondary sanctions as a punishment for doing business with states like Syria and Russia. The US has been explicit in this and in February, as CNN reported at the time, “the United States is ramping up efforts to choke off Russia’s economy and it has set its sight on the Middle East. . . . A top US Treasury official arrived in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Monday to warn the regional business hub that helping Moscow evade sanctions wouldn’t be without consequences.” China had already been “warned” in a similar fashion. 

Yet, it appears that the US’s ongoing sanctions war against a growing percentage of the world population is having the opposite of its intended effect. The US threatens to sanction Saudi Arabia and China, and in return, both countries become even more willing to seek cooperation with some of the regimes Washington has attacked the most.

While Washington pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy throughout the Middle East, Beijing brokers deals to increase regional stability. While the US ratchets up efforts to isolate its many enemies, the Chinese, the Saudis, the Arab League, and OPEC all shrug and look to increasing international communication and trade. The Washington foreign policy establishment shows few signs that it is even noticing. The US regimes foreign policy “tool box” continues to be centered on sanctions, violence, and making demands on both its allies and its professed enemies. The rest of the world is moving on, however, and Washington may be among the last to accept the new reality.

*

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.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is executive editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power and Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has a bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado. He was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Breaking Away: The Case of Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities and Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

The EU Is Over-Invested in the Ukrainian War-Project

May 24th, 2023 by Alastair Crooke

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 European Union, by any standards, is over-invested in the Ukrainian war-project – and in its romance with Zelensky too. Just earlier this year, the western (and EU) narrative was that the coming post-Winter offensive by Ukraine would ‘break’ Russia and render a ‘coup de grace’ to the war. MSM headlines spun a regular tale of Russia on its last legs. Now, however, the Establishment messaging has done a 180°. Russia is not ‘on its last legs’ …

Two very Establishment Anglo-American media in the UK (in which U.S. Establishment messages often surface) finally – and bitterly – have admitted: ‘Sanctions on Russia failed’. The Telegraph laments: They “are a joke”; “Russia was meant to have collapsed by now”.

Belatedly too, the realisation also is dawning across Europe that Ukraine’s offensives will not prove decisive, as had been expected only weeks earlier.

Foreign Affairs, in an article by Kofman and Lee, argues that, given an inconclusive Ukrainian offensive, the only way to move forward – without sustaining an historically humiliating loss – is to ‘kick the can down the road’ and focus on building a pro-war coalition for the future, one that can hope to match Russia’s long term military-economic sustainment potential.

“Kofman-Lee slowly build the case for why any sort of dramatic or decisive success should not be expected, and why instead the narrative needs to shift towards building long term sustainment infrastructure for Ukraine to be able to fight what is now likely to be a very long, drawn out conflict”, independent commentator Simplicus notes.

Put simply, European leaders have dug themselves into a deep hole. European states, by emptying what remained in their armouries of old weapons for Kiev, had grimly hoped that the coming Spring/Summer offensive would settle everything, and they would not have to deal with the problem – the Ukraine war – anymore. Wrong again: They are being invited to ‘dig-in deeper’.

Kofman-Lee do not address the question of whether the avoidance of humiliation (NATO and U.S.) is worth a ‘long drawn out conflict’. The U.S. ‘survived’ their Kabul withdrawal.

Yet, European leaders do not appear to see that the next few months in Ukraine are a key inflection point; Should the EU not firmly refuse ‘mission creep’ now, a slew of adverse economic consequences will ensue. Ukraine is not a stand-alone foreign policy issue, but rather the pivot around which Europe’s economic prospects will rotate.

Zelensky’s F-16 blitz through Europe last week is indicative that, whilst some European leaders want Zelensky to end the war,he – conversely – wants (literally) to take the war to Russia (and likely all of Europe).

“So far”, Seymour Hersh has reported, “[a U.S. official says], “Zelensky has rejected advice [to end the war]; and ignored offers of large sums of money to ease his retreat to an estate he owns in Italy. There is no support in the Biden Administration for any settlement that involves Zelensky’s departure, and the leadership in France and England “are too beholden” to Biden to contemplate such a scenario”.

“And Zelensky wants yet more”, the official said. “Zelensky is telling us that if you want to win the war you’ve got to give me more money and more stuff: “I’ve got to pay off the generals”. He’s telling us, the official says, if he is forced out of office, “he’s going to the highest bidder. He’d rather go to Italy than stay and possibly get killed by his own people”.

European leaders are coincidentally being given – by Kofman-Lee – a message echoing that of Zelensky: Europe must address Ukraine’s long-term sustainment needs by re-configuring its industry to produce the weapons necessary to support the war effort – well beyond 2023 (to match Russia’s formidable logistics weapons manufacturing capacity), and to avoid pinning their hopes on any single offensive effort.

The war is now, in this way, being projected as a binary choice: ‘End the war’ versus ‘Win the war’. Europe is tergiversating –standing at the cross-roads; hesitantly starting down one road, only to reverse, and indecisively take a few cautious steps down the other. The EU will both train Ukrainians to fly F-16s; and yet is coy about providing the planes. It smacks of tokenism; but tokenism is often the father to mission-creep.

Having thrown in their lot with the Biden Administration, an unreflective EU leadership eagerly embraced financial war on Russia. It unreflectively embraced too, a NATO war on Russia. Now European leaders may find themselves pressed to embrace a supply-line race to match ‘logistics’ with Russia. That is, Brussels is being urged to re-commit to ‘winning the war’, rather than ‘ending it’ (as a number of states want).

These latter EU States now are becoming desperate for a way out of the hole they dug into. What if the U.S. were to cut Ukraine’s funding? What if Team Biden pivots rapidly to China? Politico is running a headline: The End of Ukraine Aid is rapidly Approaching. Reupping it Won’t be Easy. The EU could be stuck with financing a ‘forever conflict’ and the nightmare of a further refugee flood – draining EU resources and exacerbating the immigration crisis already roiling EU electorates.

Member States seem still to be wishfully thinking again, half-believing the tales of divisions in Moscow; believing the Prigozhin ‘mind-omelettes’; believing the Russian slow-cooking of Bakhmut to be a sign of force exhaustion, rather than a part to the patient Russian incremental degradation of Ukrainian capabilities that has been under way, across the spectrum.

These war-sceptic States, doing their token share of ‘pro-Ukrainism’ to avoid being castigated by the Brussels nomenclature,gamble on the improbable notion that Russia will accede to some negotiated settlement – and more than that, to a deal that is favourable to Ukraine. Why would they believe that?

“Europe’s problem,” Seymour Hersh’s source says, in terms of getting a quick settlement to the war, “is that the White House wants Zelensky to survive”; and ‘yes’, Zelensky has his cadre of Brussels’ fanciers, too.

The Foreign Affairs pair predict that an armaments race would be – again – well, ‘slam dunk’:

“Russia does not seem well positioned for a forever war. Russia’s ability to repair and restore equipment from storage appears so constrained that the country is increasingly reliant on Soviet gear from the 1950s and 1960s to fill out mobilized regiments. As Ukraine acquires better Western equipment, the Russian military has increasingly come to resemble an early Cold War–period museum”.

Really? Do these U.S. journalists ever cross-check or fact-check? It seems not. More tanks were produced in Russia in the first quarter of 2023 than in the whole of 2022. Extrapolating, Russia had previously manufactured upwards of 150-250 tanks per year, with Medvedev promising to upscale this to 1600+. Though this number includes refurbished and upgraded tanks (which actually make up the bulk), it is still indicative of vast industrial outputs.

The EU does not discuss these crucial decisions affecting Europe’s role in the war in public. All sensitive matters are debated behind closed-doors in the EU. The problem with this democracy deficit is that the sequalae to these Russia-related issues touch almost every aspect of European economic and social life. Many questions are posed; little or no discussion follows.

Where and what are Europe’s ‘red lines’? Do EU leaders really ‘believe’ in providing Zelensky with the F-16s he seeks? Or are they betting on Washington’s own ‘red lines’ – letting them off the hook? Asked on Monday whether the U.S. had changed its position on supplying F16s to Ukraine, the White House National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, said: “No”. This F-16 issue is no game-changer; however it can become the thin edge to ‘forever war’. It could also be the thin edge to WW3.

Will the EU end support for the Ukraine project militarily (in line with U.S. earlier warnings to Zelensky), as the Ukrainian offensive peters out – absent any gains?

What will be the EU response, if invited by the U.S. to enter a munitions supply-line race against Russia? Just to be clear: restructuring the European infrastructure to a war-orientated economy carries huge consequences (and costs).

Existing competitive infrastructure would have to be re-purposed away from manufactures for export, to weapons. Is there the skilled manpower today to staff this? Building new weapons supply-lines is a slow complicated technical process. And this would be in addition to Europe swapping efficient energy infrastructure for new Green structures that are less efficient, less reliable, and more expensive.

Is there a way out from the ‘hole’ the EU has dug for itself?

Yes – it is called ‘honesty’. If the EU wants a quick end to the war, it should understand that there are two options available: Ukrainian capitulation and an agreement on Moscow’s terms; or the continuation of full-spectrum attrition of Ukraine’s capacity to wage war, until its forces are overtaken by entropy.

Honesty would require the EU to ditch the delusional stance that Moscow will negotiate a settlement on Zelensky’s terms. There will be no solution by following that latter path.

And honesty would require the EU to admit that joining the financial war on Russia was a mistake. One that should be corrected.

*

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.

Is This Why Pediatricians Push Vaccines?

May 24th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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.

*** 

Primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid doctors $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab

Doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. In 2016, Blue Cross Blue Shield paid pediatricians a $400 bonus for each patient that completed 10 vaccinations before their second birthday, provided 63% of their patients were fully vaccinated

“Client and family incentives” also exist. In 2015, the Community Preventive Services Task Force recommended boosting vaccination rates by giving small, inexpensive incentive rewards to patients

Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest

While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates. To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, a global alliance has launched “The Big Catch-Up” initiative. It’s touted as the largest childhood immunization effort ever

*

In April 2023, I reported how primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Since there was no medical malpractice liability, doctors profited while patients risked their lives as participants in an unprecedented medical experiment, all while being lied to about the safety and effectiveness of these injections.

Even more egregiously, once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children, similar vaccination incentives were extended to pediatricians as well. As detailed in an Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid provider bulletin1 dated July 2022, doctors received $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab.

Pediatricians Are Financially Incentivized to Vaccinate

As it turns out, doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. According to a 1999 JAMA Pediatrics article,2 the average patient load of American pediatricians is 1,546, although the number of patients was “significantly higher in less populated areas and solo practices.”

Of these, 8.3% were younger than 1 year, 9.5% were 1 year old and 8.6% were 2 years old.3 That means approximately 26.4% of the average pediatrician’s patients were 2 years old and younger. More recent data,4 published in 2021, show 75% of pediatricians have between 1,000 and 1,800 patients and 21% have around 1,200 patients; most practices, 65%, are in the 1,000 to 1,500 range. 

As shown in the 2016 provider incentive program document from Blue Cross Blue Shield below,5,6pediatricians were getting $400 for each pediatric patient that completed all the 10 vaccinations listed — 25 doses in all7 — before their second birthday. (Keep in mind that incentives can vary by state. The example provided is part of Michigan’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Performance Recognition Program.)8

How Much Money Is at Stake?

The math from there is pretty straight-forward (although keep in mind that we’re dealing with presumed averages and aged statistics here). Just multiply the number of patients under age 2 times $400. Using the average statistics from 1999, if a pediatrician has 1,000 patients, 264 can be expected to be 2 years old or younger. If all are fully vaccinated, the pediatrician would be eligible for a $105,600 year-end bonus.

childhood immunization - combo 10

While $400 per fully vaccinated child might seem incentivizing enough, there’s an added pressure here, because Blue Cross Blue Shield also has (or at least had, in 2016) a “target” level of 63%.

This means that if the pediatrician fails to vaccinate 63% of his eligible patients, he or she gets nothing. So, the pediatrician has a VERY high incentive to get as many toddlers fully vaccinated as possible, so as not to miss that target. It’s not just $400 that is at stake when parents decline one or more shots. Tens of thousands of dollars could be on the line. As noted by Dr. Bob Sears:9

“Such incentives … end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine … Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”

Why Pediatricians Become Adversaries

Anytime financial incentives are part of the equation, one can reasonably assume that the lure of self-enrichment will win. With tens of thousands of dollars at stake, pediatricians can easily be lulled into complacency when it comes to digging deeper into the science.

After all, who wants to see evidence that what they’re doing is causing more harm than good? These kinds of incentives also encourage pediatricians to simply toss questioning parents out of their practice, to make room for more compliant patients that don’t put their income at risk. As reported by Children’s Health Defense back in 2018:10

“… the 11 well-child visits recommended by the AAP over a child’s first 30 months (with annual visits thereafter through age 21) ensure a steady stream of repeat customers and revenue for pediatricians.

In accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule, pediatric practices are expected to administer vaccines (often as many as six at a time) at about half of well-child visits through the adolescent years, making vaccination a foundational bread-and-butter component of pediatricians’ job description …

It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule — nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey …

Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians — nearly two in five according to some estimates — choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice …

Ultimately … subtle and not-so-subtle financial incentives and social pressures are likely to maintain widespread adherence by pediatricians to the vaccine schedule — even in instances where contraindications are present.

Although pediatricians have a legal duty to fully inform patients about vaccine risks and side effects, the lure of monetary perks and the desire to fit in may lessen their motivation to do so.”

Patients Are Bribed Too

In addition to the financial incentives given to physicians, “client and family incentives” also exist. A nongovernmental panel of public health and prevention experts called the “Community Preventive Services Task Force”11 in 2015 published a guide12 on how to boost vaccination rates using incentive rewards for patients.

The task force was established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1996 “to develop guidance on which community-based health promotion and disease prevention intervention approaches work and which do not work, based on available scientific evidence.”13 As explained by this task force:14

“The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends client or family incentive rewards, used alone or in combination with additional interventions, to increase vaccination rates in children and adults.

Client or family incentive rewards are used to motivate people to obtain recommended vaccinations. Rewards may be monetary or non-monetary, and they may be given to clients or families in exchange for keeping an appointment, receiving a vaccination, returning for a vaccination series, or producing documentation of vaccination status. Rewards are typically small (e.g., food vouchers, gift cards, lottery prizes, baby products).”

The scientific evidence supporting bribery of patients with food vouchers, gift cards and other products of limited value was said to be 4 out of 4, meaning very strong. In other words, incentives, even near-worthless ones, work.

Indeed, we saw this during COVID-19 as well. People were lining up for experimental COVID shots in return for a doughnut, hamburger and fries or even a free lap dance at the local strip club. The pattern is the same. Throw the patient a bone and they’ll agree to things that bring others big profits.

As patients, we need to get savvier about these kinds of tricks and interpret them for what they are. These kinds of “gifts” are not given out of kindness or concern for your well-being. It’s a compliance bribe, and your compliance is making someone rich. Meanwhile, any risks involved are on you.

Bribery and Vaccine Mandates

Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. As detailed in a previous article, Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest. In part due to the fake “grassroots” work of these groups, Pfizer was able to rake in a record-breaking $100 billion in sales in 2022.15

Of course, the U.S. government also paid news media a staggering $1 billion to promote and build public confidence in the jab, and Pfizer itself spent $2.8 billion on ads in 2022 alone.

But the pressure from consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups and doctors’ groups — all of which had been paid off — was probably why COVID jab mandates could even be officially considered by the government. They created a false consensus that people desperately wanted vaccine mandates to keep everyone “safe.”

Special interest groups paid by Pfizer16 to push for COVID jab mandates and coercive vaccine policies included the Chicago Urban league (which argued that the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council and a long list of universities and cancer, liver diseases, cardiology, rheumatology and medical science organizations.

Each of these organizations received anywhere from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars from Pfizer in 2021 alone. Is it any wonder, then, that more than 50 major health care organizations called for vaccine mandates that year, including for their own workers?17

Childhood Vaccination Rates Tanked During COVID

While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates, as many parents ended up missing routine well-child visits due to clinic closures, lockdowns and fear of taking their children outside. As reported by the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2021:18

“… recently published research sheds new light on how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted some of those routine vaccinations, as parents and their children didn’t just stay home — they stayed away from the doctor.

The JAMA Pediatrics study19 … found that vaccine-administration rates were significantly lower across all pediatric age groups as the pandemic first surged in the U.S. … For example, only 74% of infants turning 7 months old in September 2020 were up to date on their vaccinations, a drop from 81% in September 2019.

And just 57% of infants who hit the 18-month mark in September 2020 were up to date, down from 61% the year before. The proportion of children up to date for routine vaccinations was lowest among Black children, with inequities more pronounced in the 18-month-old group.”

The Big Catch-Up Initiative

To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, Chelsea Clinton is now making the rounds promoting a new vaccine initiative called “The Big Catch-Up.” In a recent interview with Fortune Magazine,20 Clinton promised it would be “the largest childhood immunization effort ever.” Over the next 18 months, this initiative will attempt to “catch as many kids up as possible,” she said.

Partners in this effort include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Immunization Agenda 2030, and several other “global and national health partners.” As reported by the WHO, April 24, 2023:21

“The pandemic saw essential immunization levels decrease in over 100 countries, leading to rising outbreaks of measles, diphtheria, polio and yellow fever. ‘The Big Catch-up’ is an extended effort to lift vaccination levels among children to at least pre-pandemic levels and endeavors to exceed those …

While calling on people and governments in every country to play their part in helping to catch up by reaching the children who missed out, The Big Catch-up will have a particular focus on the 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live …

The 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live are: Afghanistan, Angola, Brazil, Cameroon, Chad, DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Tanzania, Viet Nam.”

Vaccine Program Is Run ‘Soft Mafia’ Style

When you look at all these areas of bribery and financial incentives, doesn’t it seem as though the entire vaccine program runs on financial coercion? A sort of “soft mafia” kind of operation, where the threats and promises all revolve around money and public/professional shaming versus accolades.

What would happen if all financial incentives were removed? All the performance bonuses paid to doctors, the freebies given to patients, the “charitable donations” to industry-friendly organizations and payments to front groups?

What would happen if parents were simply given unbiased evidence and no one was financially driven to pressure them either way? I don’t have the answer. It’s a thought experiment. But I suspect that vaccination rates would drop dramatically.

*

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.

Notes

1 Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid Provider Bulletin July 2022

2 JAMA Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 1999;153(1):9-14

3 JAMA Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 1999;153(1):9-14, Table 2

4 Chipsblog.PCC July 6, 2021

5, 8 BCBS 2016 Performance Recognition Program, Page 15

6 Twitter Jessica Rojas April 7, 2023

7, 9, 10 Children’s Health Defense March 18, 2018

11, 13 Community Preventive Services Task Force

12, 14 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Vaccination Programs: Client or Family Incentive Rewards 2015

15 Fierce Pharma April 21, 2023

16 Document Cloud Pfizer 2021 Funding Report

17 ABC News July 26, 2021

18 American Medical Association November 10, 2021

19 JAMA Pediatrics 2022;176(1):68-77

20 Twitter Chief Nerd May 7, 2023

21 WHO.int April 24, 2023

Featured image is from Mercola


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 Get yours for FREE! Click here to 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 troubled Biden administration “finally gave in to pressure” and decided to greenlight the delivery of F-16s to the Kiev regime.

In an effort apparently spearheaded by the UK and the Netherlands, NATO’s European members will now have the legal basis to deliver their old F-16s to the Neo-Nazi junta.

The almost endemically Russophobic London doesn’t even operate F-16s and yet it stands at the forefront of this extremely escalatory initiative. The White House has been mulling this for months, while Ukrainian pilots have been training in several NATO countries, the United States included. This is a clear indicator that the supply of these (First) Cold War-era fighter jets was planned for quite some time.

A bit more than half a dozen European nations operate F-16s, of which at least three are actively replacing them with the troubled F-35s.

Some, such as Norway, officially retired all of their F-16s and replaced them with F-35s, so Oslo might be the first “unexpected” candidate to send its decommissioned fighters to the Kiev regime. The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark still operate the jet and could also send theirs. On the other hand, members such as Poland and Romania are extremely unlikely to do so, as the move would undermine their own security. The same (or even more so) goes for Turkey and Greece, which both operate F-16s extensively, but are locked in a long-time rivalry that makes either unwilling to weaken themselves for Kiev’s sake.

The US is by far the largest operator of F-16s, but it still hasn’t announced plans to deliver them to its favorite puppet regime. The belligerent thalassocracy’s propaganda machine insists that Washington DC is supposedly “reluctant to do so to avoid escalation with Moscow”. However, this is a moot point, as the US has so far done everything in its power to antagonize Russia through a series of moves that have pushed the world dangerously close to a world-ending thermonuclear conflict. Still, this doesn’t seem to stop Washington DC from going ahead with such plans, at the very least covertly. National Security Council coordinator John Kirby recently admitted this, stating that “the US has been forward-looking about future capabilities and needs”.

Kirby later added that “F-16s were not on the agenda at the G7”, but hinted that “the fighter jet would certainly come up on the sidelines of the summit”. According to CNN, this issue is expected to be one of the main topics of the upcoming NATO summit in Lithuania’s Vilnius in July. To avoid directly implicating the belligerent alliance, some have even suggested that the training of Ukrainian pilots could be relegated to the F-16 manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Still, several high-ranking US officials insist that the process would require a great deal of the Pentagon’s participation, particularly in terms of providing weapons for the jet. In essence, there is simply no way for the US to provide F-16s without getting involved directly, a move that Russia won’t forget or leave unanswered.

According to CNN, back in March, the US hosted two Ukrainian pilots at a military base in Tucson, Arizona, where USAF has been evaluating their skills to assess how much time they would need to learn to fly various American military aircraft, including the F-16. However, the infamous neoliberal mouthpiece, citing yet another unnamed senior US official, insists that “the US has no plans as of now to expand that training”.

But, according to their own admission, Congress has already set aside funds in the 2023 budget precisely for such training. Once again, this is a clear indicator that Washington DC is only pretending to care about “avoiding escalation with Moscow”. Still, this leaves the obvious question of how effective the F-16 would be against clearly superior Russian jets, such as the Su-35S or MiG-31BM, to say nothing of the Su-57.

CNN admits that even US officials are skeptical in this regard, noting that “Russia also has extensive anti-aircraft systems that could easily shoot down the F-16s”, adding that “Ukraine has not been conducting many air missions with the fighter planes it already has for precisely that reason”. Indeed, while the mainstream propaganda machine will surely present F-16s as yet another “wunderwaffen”, the jet is a light single-engine platform dating back to the late 1960s/early 1970s. Since the end of the (First) Cold War, Russia has been operating exclusively heavier classes of fighter jets, including several variants and iterations of its legendary Su-27, in addition to other top-of-the-line fighter jets, such as the superfast, high-flying MiG-31BM. The F-16’s chances of survival against such opponents are minimal.

In the virtually guaranteed case that any Russian jet shoots down an F-16, this could easily destroy its reputation, which the American war propaganda has been building for decades, primarily based on its usage against largely helpless opponents during countless US aggressions and invasions. This could also translate to major financial losses for the manufacturer, as was the case for Raytheon, whose stocks plummeted after its much-touted “Patriot” was destroyed in a recent Russian airstrike. Such a loss could also affect the sales of newer variants of the F-16, particularly the Block 70/72 model which has been earmarked for delivery to China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan. In addition, as already mentioned by the “unnamed US officials”, Russia’s second-to-none air defenses would make short work of even much heavier and more advanced targets, let alone an F-16.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on F-16s for Kiev Regime Will Only Prolong Ukrainian People’s Suffering
  • 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.

*** 

It has been just over two months since the launch of GPT-4, but users have started anticipating the release of GPT-5. We have already seen how capable and powerful GPT-4 is in various kinds of tests and qualitative evaluations. With many new features like ChatGPT plugins and internet browsing capability, it has gotten even better. Now, users are waiting to learn more about the upcoming Open AI model, GPT-5, the possibility of AGI, and more. So to find in-depth information about GPT-5’s release date and other expected features, follow our explainer below.

When GPT-4 was released in March 2023, it was expected that OpenAI would release its next-generation model by December 2023. Siqi Chen, the CEO of Runway also tweeted saying that “gpt5 is scheduled to complete training this December.” However, speaking at an MIT event in April, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said “We are not and won’t for some time” when asked if OpenAI is training GPT-5. So the rumor of GPT-5 releasing by the end of 2023 is already quashed.

That said, experts suggest that OpenAI might come out with GPT-4.5, an intermediate release between GPT-4 and GPT-5 by October 2023, just like GPT-3.5. It’s being said that GPT-4.5 will finally bring the multimodal capability, aka the ability to analyze both images and texts. OpenAI has already announced and demonstrated GPT-4’s multimodal capabilities during the GPT-4 Developer livestream back in March 2023.

GPT-5 Release Date

GPT-4 Multimodal Capability

Apart from that, OpenAI currently has a lot on its plate to iron out on the GPT-4 model before it starts working on GPT-5. Currently, GPT-4’s inference time is very highand it’s quite expensive to run. GPT-4 API access is still hard to get by. Moreover, OpenAI just recently opened up access to ChatGPT plugins and internet browsing capability, which are still in Beta. It’s yet to bring Code Interpreter for all the paying users, which is again in the Alpha phase.

While GPT-4 is plenty powerful, I guess OpenAI realizes that compute efficiency is one of the key elements for running a model sustainably. And well, add new features and capabilities to the mix, and you have a bigger infrastructure to deal with while making sure that all checkpoints are up and running reliably. So to hazard a guess, GPT-5 is likely to come out in 2024, just around Google Gemini’s release, if we assume government agencies don’t put a regulatory roadblock.

GPT-5 Features and Capabilities (Expected)

Reduced Hallucination

The hot talk in the industry is that GPT-5 will achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), but we will come to that later on in detail. Besides that, GPT-5 is supposed to reduce the inference time, enhance efficiency, bring down further hallucinations, and a lot more. Let’s start with hallucination, which is one of the key reasons why most users don’t readily believe in AI models.

GPT-5 Expected Capabilities Reduced Hallucination

GPT-4 Accuracy Test

According to OpenAI, GPT-4 scored 40% higher than GPT-3.5 in internal adversarially-designed factual evaluations under all nine categories. Now, GPT-4 is 82% less likely to respond to inaccurate and disallowed content. It’s very close to touching the 80% mark in accuracy tests across categories. That’s a huge leap in combating hallucination.

Now, it’s expected that OpenAI would reduce hallucination to less than 10% in GPT-5, which would be huge for making LLM models trustworthy. I have been using the GPT-4 model for a lot of tasks lately, and it has so far given factual responses only. So it’s highly likely that GPT-5 will hallucinate even less than GPT-4.

Compute-efficient Model

Next, we already know that GPT-4 is expensive to run ($0.03 per 1K tokens) and the inference time is also higher. Whereas, the older GPT-3.5-turbo model is 15x cheaper ($0.002 per 1K tokens) than GPT-4. That’s because GPT-4 is trained on a massive 1 trillion parameters, which requires a costly compute infrastructure. In our recent explainer on Google’s PaLM 2 model, we found that PaLM 2 is quite smaller in size and that results in quick performance.

A recent report by CNBC confirmed that PaLM 2 is trained on 340 billion parameters, which is far less than GPT-4’s large parameter size. Google even went on to say that bigger is not always better and research creativity is the key to making great models. So if OpenAI wants to make its upcoming models compute-optimal, it must find new creative ways to reduce the size of the model while maintaining the output quality.

A huge chunk of OpenAI revenue comes from enterprises and businesses, so yeah, GPT-5 must not only be cheaper but also faster to return output. Developers are already berating the fact that GPT-4 API calls frequently stop responding and they are forced to use the GPT-3.5 model in production. It must be on OpenAI’s wishlist to improve performance in the upcoming GPT-5 model, especially after the launch of Google’s much-faster PaLM 2 model, which you can try right now.

Multisensory AI Model

While GPT-4 has been announced as a multimodal AI model, it deals with only two types of data i.e. images and texts. Sure, the capability has not been added to GPT-4 yet, but OpenAI may possibly release the feature in a few months. However, with GPT-5, OpenAI may take a big leap in making it truly multimodal. It may also deal with text, audio, images, videos, depth data, and temperature. It would be able to interlink data streams from different modalities to create an embedding space.

Recently, Meta released ImageBind, an AI model that combines data from six different modalities and open-sourced it for research purposes. In this space, OpenAI has not revealed much, but the company does have some strong foundation models for vision analysis and image generation. OpenAI has also developed CLIP (Contrastive Language–Image Pretraining) for analyzing images and DALL-E, a popular Midjourney alternative that can generate images from textual descriptions.

It’s an area of ongoing research and its applications are still not clear. According to Meta, it can be used to design and create immersive content for virtual reality. We need to wait and see what OpenAI does in this space and if we will see more AI applications across various multimodalities with the release of GPT-5.

Long Term Memory

With the release of GPT-4, OpenAI brought a maximum context length of 32K tokens, which cost $0.06 per 1K token. We have rapidly seen the transformation from the standard 4K tokens to 32K in a few months. Recently, Anthropic increased the context window from 9K to 100K tokens in its Claude AI chatbot. It’s expected that GPT-5 might bring long-term memory support via a much larger context length.

This can help in making AI characters and friends who remember your persona and memories that can last for years. Apart from that, you can load libraries of books and text documents in a single context window. There can be various new AI applications due to long-term memory support and GPT-5 can make that possible.

GPT-5 Release: Fear of AGI?

In February 2023, Sam Altman wrote a blog on AGI and how it can benefit all of humanity. AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), as the name suggests, is the next generation of AI systems that is generally smarter than humans. It’s being said that OpenAI’s upcoming model GPT-5 will achieve AGI, and it seems like there is some truth in that.

We already have several autonomous AI agents like Auto-GPT and BabyAGI, which are based on GPT-4 and can take decisions on their own and come up with reasonable conclusions. It’s entirely possible that some version of AGI will be deployed with GPT-5.

In the blog, Altman says that “We believe we have to continuously learn and adapt by deploying less powerful versions of the technology in order to minimize ‘one shot to get it right’ scenarios” while also acknowledging “massive risks” in navigating vastly powerful systems like AGI. Before the recent Senate hearing, Sam Altman also urged US lawmakers for regulations around newer AI systems.

In the hearing, Altman said, “I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong. And we want to be vocal about that.” Further, he added, “We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening.” For some time, OpenAI has become quite vocal about regulations on newer AI systems that would be highly powerful and intelligent. Do note that Altman is seeking safety regulation around incredibly powerful AI systems and not open-source models or AI models developed by small startups.

It should be worth noting that Elon Musk and other prominent personalities, including Steve Wozniak, Andrew Yang, and Yuval Noah Harari, et al called for a pause on giant AI experiments, back in March 2023. Since then, there has been a wide pushback against AGI and newer AI systems — more powerful than GPT-4.

If OpenAI is indeed going to bring AGI capability to GPT-5, then expect more delay in its public release. Regulation would definitely kick in and work around safety and alignment would be scrutinized thoroughly. The good thing is that OpenAI already has a powerful GPT-4 model, and it’s continuously adding new features and capabilities. There is no other AI model that comes close to it, not even the PaLM 2-based Google Bard.

OpenAI GPT-5: Future Stance

After the release of GPT-4, OpenAI has gotten increasingly secretive about its operations. It no longer shares research on the training dataset, architecture, hardware, training compute, and training method with the open-source community. It has been a strange flip for a company that was founded as a nonprofit (now it’s capped profit) based on the principles of free collaboration.

In March 2023, speaking with The Verge, Ilya Sutskever, the chief scientist of OpenAI said, “We were wrong. Flat out, we were wrong. If you believe, as we do, that at some point, AI — AGI — is going to be extremely, unbelievably potent, then it just does not make sense to open-source. It is a bad idea… I fully expect that in a few years, it’s going to be completely obvious to everyone that open-sourcing AI is just not wise.

Now, it has become clear that neither GPT-4 nor the upcoming GPT-5 would be open-source in order to stay competitive in the AI race. However, another giant corporation, Meta has been approaching AI development differently. Meta has been releasing multiple AI models under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (research only, non-commercial) and gaining traction among the open-source community.

Seeing the huge adoption of Meta’s LLaMA and other AI models, OpenAI has also changed its stance on open source. According to recent reports, OpenAI is working on a new open-source AI model that will be released to the public soon. There is no information on its capabilities and how competitive it will be against GPT-3 .5 or GPT-4, but it’s indeed a welcome change.

In summation, GPT-5 is going to be a frontier model that will push the boundary of what is possible with AI. It seems likely that some form of AGI will launch with GPT-5. And if that will be the case, OpenAI must get ready for tight regulation (and possible bans) around the world. As for the GPT-5 release date, the safe bet would be sometime in 2024.

*

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: OpenAI headquarters, Pioneer Building, San Francisco (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Artificial Intelligence: The Release of the Upcoming Open AI Model, GPT-5
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Labor Rushes Through a Bill to Exempt AUKUS Nuclear Submarines from Environmental Protections

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 new phenomenon of unusually virulent and fast-acting cancers and a massive increase in AIDS – what can be done about mitigating the damage from mRNA and spike protein.

Click here to view the interview.

*

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.

Israel Pushes Law Banning Palestinian Flag

May 24th, 2023 by Middle East Eye

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 lawmakers are pushing a new bill that would see flying the Palestinian flag punishable by up to one year in prison.

The bill is backed by members of the far-right Jewish Power party and states that three or more people waving the flag of a “hostile entity” will be considered a prohibited gathering and therefore punishable.

The Israeli Knesset has already voted its approval at a preliminary reading of the bill and it will need three additional votes to pass.

“As a democracy, Israel enables its citizens to protest decisions they don’t agree with the authorities on,” reads the explanation of the bill, according to Haaretz.

“But the proposal draws a red line between legitimate protest and one in which there are flags of those who don’t recognise the state of Israel, those who aren’t friendly toward it or don’t enable Israel to raise its flag in its territory.”

Since coming to power earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has introduced a raft of legislation aimed at appeasing the far-right in Israel.

Legislation aimed at restricting the power of the judiciary has already sparked off months of protests across the country.

On Thursday morning, Israeli settlers and politicians stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque ahead of thousands taking to the streets of Jerusalem for a divisive annual ultra-nationalist march

Security officers cleared the Qibli prayer hall of Palestinian worshippers following the Fajr dawn prayers, according to Palestinian media. 

Then at 7 am local time, the Moroccan Gate (Bab al-Magharib) to Al-Aqsa’s courtyards was opened and hundreds of settlers stormed into the holy site.

Several lawmakers were in their ranks, including Negev and Galilee Development Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf, who belongs to the Jewish Power party. 

Three MPs in Netanyahu’s Likud party, Dan Illouz, Amit Halevi, and Ariel Kallner, were also involved.

Though many Jews believe it is forbidden to stand upon it, and the status quo agreement states Jewish prayer must also be avoided, far-right Israelis, most often settlers, have increasingly flouted these rules with the backing of Israeli forces.

*

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 Silent Crow News

Visits of Justice: Stella Assange’s Plea to Australia

May 24th, 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.

*** 

It certainly got the tongues wagging, the keyboards pressed, and the intellectually dead aroused – at least for a time. Given how many of those in the Australian press and media stable have been, for the most part, unconcerned, and in some cases celebratory, regarding the prosecution of Julian Assange, it was strikingly poignant to have his wife, Stella, present at the centre of Australia’s press epicentre: the National Press Club in Canberra.

For those familiar with the ongoing prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder by the United States via the extradition processes of the United Kingdom, a brutal carnivalesque endeavour that continues to blight that legal system, there is not much to be said. Stella had to get her point across to a pack of the uninitiated – most of them, anyway – and state the obvious fact that her husband is facing gloomy prospects across the pond for spilling the beans on the US National Security State. Once the doors open to such a prosecution on US soil, bets are off on the subject of publishing national security information in the public interest. For the first time in US legal history, a journalist, defamed and harassed, will be conveyed into the bowels of a carceral state so revolting it makes Belmarsh look like a modest retreat.

The method, however, lay in the personal touch, one that draws out Assange as the dedicated, loving, and intellectually stimulated everyman. There is talk about the “fledging rainbow lorikeet” that her husband reared when he was on Magnetic Island off the coast of Townsville in Queensland. Remembering the “chestnut coated mare which he would ride when he stayed in the Northern Rivers.” There was also surfing in Byron Bay in his teens, and beekeeping in the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria.

Stella’s agenda is clear, direct, and powerful. There is no time for frills. She knows that the realm of ideas has little truck with the breakfasting, lunching and dining journalists who titter across Canberra and offer the rest of Australia information of an embarrassingly poor quality. It was important to keep matters simple.

The adopted technique, then, is uncomplicated: focus on the man in prison, in captivity, and suffering because of it. “I can tell you exactly what Julian is doing right now. It is 3 a.m. in London. Julian is lying in his cell, probably awake and struggling to fall asleep. It’s where he spends twenty-two hours a day, every day.”

She mentions how “Julian’s feet only ever feel the hard, dull, even cement on the prison floor.” Relief and respite cannot be found during the exercise routine. “When he goes to the yard for exercise, there is no grass, no sand. Just the bitumen pavement surrounded by cameras and layers of razor wire overhead.”

The cell Assange occupies is but a mere three by two metres, a situation scandalous in the absence of any conviction, and all the more so for that fact. The cold draft that comes in through the window is nullified, to some extent, by books, something poignant, given his intellectually curious state. In this sense, literature does not merely nourish the mind but literally offers a buttressing shield against the elements.

The walls of the compressed space are also covered in pictures of his and Stella’s children, and of them together. In the ensemble, science is never neglected. “A large colourful poster of a nebula taken by NASA’s James Webb Telescope” also finds its pride of place in the cell.

As for the visits, Stella remains direct and impressively unsentimental. “When the children and I go to Belmarsh, usually on the weekend, we leave our belongings in a locker. We check in with the prison authorities in the visitor’s centre building, my fingerprint is scanned, and we get a stamp on the back of our hands.” After that: the entrance, the “endless queues”. One of the children conflates the prison with the queue, a beautifully grim parable that could apply to any penal system on the planet that fuses the procession with captivity itself.

Having given her audience personal slices and offerings there are even more serious reflections. “There is now near universal recognition of the enormous implications that this case has for press freedom and the future of democracy.”

The herculean efforts by Stella and Assange’s father, John Shipton, have certainly gotten the attention of the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. In an interview with the Australian broadcaster, the ABC, earlier this month, he claimed to be doing in private what he was saying in public: “that enough was enough.” Diplomatic channels were being used, but the PM lamented the lack of success thus far. “I know it’s frustrating, I share the frustration. I can’t do more than make it very clear what my position is.”

That measure of frustration should indicate the extent, and worth, of Australia’s influence and pull over their brute of an ally. Despite essentially gifting the country to Washington’s military industrial complex, gratitude towards Australian requests is not in ample supply on the Assange affair. In refusing to meet Assange’s wife (he does not believe in “grandstanding”), Albanese continues to claim that “[n]othing is served from the ongoing incarceration” of the publisher. He was also pleased that the position on Assange was now a bipartisan one – the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, had also joined the pro-release advocates.

For all this, the prime minister is also entertaining a doomed equation: that Assange’s release will probably be achieved only after the time he has already served is deemed sufficient relative to the time he would get were the allegations against him proved. Given that the 18 charges levelled against Belmarsh’s most prominent political prisoner would yield prison sentences anywhere up to 175 years, expectations must be dampened. For all that, Stella’s observation that her husband’s life was “in the hands of the Australian government” remains powerfully pertinent. If not now, when?

*

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]

Don’t Let Them Rewrite History: Ventilators Killed People… and It Was No Accident

By Kit Knightly, May 23, 2023

A new study from Northwestern University has concluded that the majority of “Covid19” patients put on ventilators were actually killed by bacterial pneumonia, not the alleged virus.

“There Is No Safe Place in Gaza”: Palestinians Speak Out During Israeli Assault

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, May 24, 2023

On May 18, thousands of Palestinians in Gaza joined the “Palestine Flag March” to protest Israel’s “Flag March” happening the same day. On “Flag Day,” tens of thousands of ultraright-wing Israeli settlers, who illegally live on stolen land, attacked Palestinians and journalists, chanting “Death to Arabs” and “Your village will be burned.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Multiple Heart Attacks or Multiple Strokes

By Dr. William Makis, May 23, 2023

I have not seen any doctor or scientist discussing the phenomenon of multiple heart attacks or multiple strokes in COVID-19 vaccinated individuals. Seven heart attacks, nine strokes, this is not normal. These strange events are occurring in young people and often in rapid succession. Sometimes fatal.

Grand Delusion – The Rise and Fall of American Ambitions in the Middle East

By Jim Miles, May 23, 2023

It should be obvious that U.S. policy in the Middle East is now losing influence. Steven Simon’s new book “Grand Delusion – The Rise and Fall of American Ambitions in the Middle East” purports to cover the era from Jimmy Carter (mostly as it leads into Ronald Reagan’s presidency) to the current Biden administration.  

Belgorod Attack Helps Kiev to Disguise Its Military Disaster in Bakhmut

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 23, 2023

Two days after the Russians took control of the Donbass’ key city of Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), pro-Ukrainian saboteurs invaded the undisputed sovereign space of the Russian Federation and created moments of terror among local civilians.

Biden’s Running Out of Ukraine Money? Good.

By Rep. Ron Paul, May 23, 2023

When the smoke finally clears, President Biden’s Ukraine debacle will go down – along with Afghanistan and Iraq – as one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in US history. Hundreds of thousands have been killed on both sides in the service of the US neocons’ long standing desire to “regime change” Russia.

Adding Indirect Deaths, Total Death Toll in the ‘War on Terror’ Is 4.5 Million

By Bharat Dogra, May 23, 2023

An important point made by the study is that while war-devastated countries may lose much of the attention of the world and ‘the international community’ once the actual fighting ends, in many contexts the longer-term effects of war continue to cause more and more deaths, disabilities and distress.

“Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences,” by A. B. Abrams

By Carla Stea, May 23, 2023

In a phenomenally well documented study of the fraudulent accusations of atrocities leveled against countries targeted for military intervention by US-NATO, fraudulent accusations then used as  “justifications” or rationalizations for “humanitarian military intervention” which devastates the targeted country, ravaging the “infrastructure necessary for sustaining human life” and plundering that country’s opulent  resources, A.B. Abrams describes savage US-NATO military interventions that trivialize the scourges of Attilla the Hun. 

It’s Good News Week. Joe Biden Is Creating Enemies Everywhere

By Philip Giraldi, May 23, 2023

Well, if you thought the American Civil War ended back in 1865, you are apparently wrong. No less an authority than President Joe Biden, in a May 13th commencement speech to historically black Howard University’s graduates, told the overwhelmingly black students and their families that “The most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. And I’m not saying this because I’m at a Black HBCU, I say it wherever I go.”

Rein in the FBI: Put an End to the FBI’s “Gestapo Tactics”

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 23, 2023

According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the FBI repeatedly misused Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to spy on the communications of two vastly disparate groups of Americans: those involved in the George Floyd protests and those who may have taken part in the Jan. 6, 2021, protests at the Capitol.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Don’t Let Them Rewrite History: Ventilators Killed People… and It Was No Accident

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 18, thousands of Palestinians in Gaza joined the “Palestine Flag March” to protest Israel’s “Flag March” happening the same day. On “Flag Day,” tens of thousands of ultraright-wing Israeli settlers, who illegally live on stolen land, attacked Palestinians and journalists, chanting “Death to Arabs” and “Your village will be burned.”

“The Israeli Flag March means nothing, they walk in our streets, and the land denies their existence,” Gaza resident Amna al-Banna told Mondoweiss. “Raising the Israeli flag in Jerusalem will not make people ignore that it’s Palestinian land, and that Israel occupies it.”

On May 13, Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had reached an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire agreement following a five-day Israeli military onslaught against the people of Gaza. Although Palestinians fired some rockets into Israel, the death toll was lopsided.

During the Israeli assault, dubbed “Operation Shield and Arrow,” Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF) killed 33 Palestinians, including six children, and injured at least 147 Palestinians. The airstrikes damaged 2,041 houses, destroyed 31 buildings, and rendered 93 families homeless and 128 homes uninhabitable.

The Biden administration not only refused to condemn Israel for the devastation it wreaked in Gaza; it blocked the United Nations Security Council from issuing a statement condemning the Israeli airstrikes as well as the rockets fired from Gaza.

This was the sixth such attack on Gaza since the Israeli blockade of the strip (which is a crime under international law) was permanently imposed in 2007. Two million Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip, often called “the world’s largest open-air prison” because Israel controls the ingress and egress of all Gazans.

“A friend in Gaza said to me recently, ‘What is worse than dying in Gaza is living [in Gaza],’” Palestinian writer and publisher Michel Moushabeck wrote in a recent article for Truthout.

The Gaza Palestine Hearing: International People’s Tribunal on U.S. Imperialism

Several hours before the May 13 ceasefire was announced, the Gaza Palestine Hearing of the “International People’s Tribunal on U.S. Imperialism: Sanctions, Blockades and Coercive Economic Measures” convened. Some of the co-organizers of the tribunal include the National Lawyers Guild, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Alliance for Global Justice, CODEPINK, Black Alliance for Peace, Franz Fanon Foundation, Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific, Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

As a juror for the tribunal, I attended the hearing and was stunned by the powerful statements of people who testified from Gaza as the Israeli bombs were falling on their neighborhoods.

In 2021, Riyad Iskhuntana’s residence was the target of a direct Israeli bombing. “My four kids and my wife were killed in the apartment that I lived in, and they were killed in a brutal way. In one moment, I lost my four kids and my wife,” he testified. “And I remained under the rubble for 12 hours with my youngest daughter, not knowing if my kids had died or not. But eventually they were all dead except me and my youngest daughter.”

Iskhuntana spoke about the traumatic IOF bombing of Gaza on May 12. “Yesterday,” he said, “my neighbor also was bombed, and this even deteriorated the psychological condition of myself and my daughter beyond what we had lived through in 2021. One of the psychological issues that we’re experiencing is that we began to forget things, and now with the restarting of the bombings again, the trauma is back. And we’re scared and trembling all the time.”

“I’m speaking to you as the enemy’s planes are bombing all civilian places,” Iskhuntana added. “All the rockets are getting even more aggressive. There is no such thing as civilian or military target; it’s all civilian targets being targeted. Nothing is safe and secure.”

Malak Nidal is a 16-year-old girl who’s in 10th grade. “There is no safe place in Gaza,” she testified. “I prefer to stay at home and die in my home, better than living in this area,” Nidal said. “I’m talking with you now when we have war, and I don’t know if I’m going to die now in this moment. The plane is over my head, and we hear a lot of noise right now while I’m speaking with you.”

Wafa-al-Udaini is a prominent Palestinian journalist. “I covered several Israeli aggressions here in Gaza,” she testified. “Always, it was so risky for me to go outside and interview people because, as Palestinian journalists based here in Gaza, we don’t have immunity. And actually, for the occupation, we are a target because they want, indeed, to silence the truth.”

Al-Udaini added that many of her colleagues were murdered, injured and maimed while reporting on the events in Gaza. “So far, nobody holds Israel accountable for their crimes against the Palestinian journalists.” She noted that cameras and camera accessories are not allowed to enter Gaza, which poses a major obstacle to the work of photojournalists.

“Every Palestinian in occupied Palestine is a target,” Al-Udaini said. “The main mission for the occupation here in Palestine actually is just to end or eliminate any existence of Palestinians.” Since 2007, “the Israeli occupation authorities imposed a land, air and ground siege on the people of Gaza, which is considered like a collective punishment.”

Collective punishment is considered a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Gazans Support “Freedom Fighters” Who Resist the Occupation

The people in Gaza support the “freedom fighters” who “manage to resist the occupation by all means they have,” Al-Udaini testified. “Everyone, every child, you just go in the street and ask the people, ask the children about the resistance. They all honor the resistance and the freedom fighters because they believe that they are the only ones who can defend them from the occupation.”

Yasser al-Dirawi is a Palestinian lawyer who wrote his thesis about the authority of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). “I apologize, the internet is weak and got disconnected because of an Israeli attack that just happened to us,” he said while testifying. “The bombs are falling next to us. I’m feeling the vibrations happening to my civilian neighbors.”

Al-Dirawi testified, “[The Israelis] don’t distinguish between a child, a woman, an elderly. They kill all civilians without any distinction between different targets.” (Targeting civilians constitutes a war crime prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention.) “There is no distinction between civilians or non-civilians, and there is no distinction between children and non-children, women and not women.”

The lawyer described the inability of the people of Gaza to import agricultural products and seeds “which literally led to the destruction of the agricultural sector and the inability of the fishermen and the fishing industry to survive,” adding that “it has a component of revenge on the people who live in Gaza.” The blockade of Gaza also prevents the importation of medicine and medical equipment, he said.

“The economic situation overall in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe,” al-Dirawi stated. “This is a targeted project. The U.S. is the primary supporter of the blockade. We call it the ‘United States of Imperialism’ that supports the Israelis.” Al-Dirawi noted that two days before this hearing, the U.S. had squelched any criticism of Israel’s assault in the UN Security Council.

Two years ago, former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a formal investigation into war crimes committed in Gaza since 2014, but there has been little progress in the probe, thanks to U.S. pressure on the ICC.

When I asked al-Dirawi whether he thought Karim Khan, the current ICC prosecutor, would file war crimes charges against Israeli leaders, he said that Khan was acting with “intentional slowness.” Al-Dirawi contrasted Khan’s delay in investigating Israel with his immediate commencement of “a very serious” investigation of war crimes committed during the war in Ukraine. Although al-Dirawi has sent copious evidence and testimonies to Khan for the Israel investigation, he has received no formal response.

On May 13, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights called on ICC prosecutor Khan to issue a public statement condemning the Israeli aggression in Gaza and expedite the investigation into the situation in Palestine. To date, Khan has not responded.

On May 15, Palestinians commemorated the 75th anniversary of al-Nakba (Arabic for “the catastrophe”), when Israelis ethnically cleansed nearly 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages and towns during the creation of the state of Israel.

Also on May 15, for the first time in history, the UN General Assembly (which is comprised of 193 UN member states) officially condemned the Nakba. The International Commission to Support Palestinians’ Rights, based in Gaza, called it “a unique and unprecedented step,” adding that it should be “translated into enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their right to independence and return.”

The U.S., which unconditionally provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in military assistance, did not attend the General Assembly’s commemoration of the Nakba.

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Thousands of Palestinians protests along the fence separating Gaza from Israel against the racist Flag March taking place in occupied East Jerusalem on 18 May 2023 [Mohammed Asad/MiddleEastMonitor]

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.

*** 

Kelly Sue – A Canadian woman who used to walk 10 miles a day and ride her bike 24 miles every 2 days had 9 strokes after her 2nd COVID-19 vaccine dose.

Kelly Sue had her 2nd COVID-19 vaccine on June 12, 2021. Three and a half weeks later she had back-to-back strokes. From July to early November 2021, she had 9 TIAs (mini-strokes) and strokes. She spent 31 days in the hospital.

She had blindness in her eyes, couldn’t use her mouth, couldn’t talk, would wake up and didn’t know who she was or where she was.

Tallahassee, FL – 35 year old Maxwell Arline died suddenly of a 2nd heart attack after surviving 1st one a few days earlier, died on April 28, 2023 (click here)

Penedo, Brazil – 42 yo Brazilian soccer player Marcus Vieira Ferreira (Marcos Bala) died after suffering three cardiac arrests taking a walk on Mar. 28, 2023 (click here)

16 year old Justus Danielli collapsed at calculus exam on Mar. 23, 2023, was shocked back to life with defibrillator 5 times (had 5 cardiac arrests) (click here).

Lexington, SC – Mari Murton collapsed, lost consciousness and ended up in ICU after each COVID-19 vaccine injection, was diagnosed with Sudden Cardiac Arrest Dissection (Feb. 20, 2023).

Ukraine – 28 year old professional soccer player Oleh Danchenko suffered a cardiac arrest and his heart stopped 3 times during training in Turkey (Feb. 16, 2023) (click here).

Eglinton, UK – 22 year old Aoife Boyle collapsed during a lunch with friends at a pub and needed her heart restarted 7 times in 11 days (Feb. 2023).

Brazilian reporter, Rafael Silva, age 36, collapsed live on air and had 5 cardiac arrests on the way to the hospital (Jan. 3, 2022). He had his COVID-19 booster shot one week prior on Dec. 28, 2021 (click here).

Melbourne, Australia – 38 year old Australian woman, Rupika Chopra had 7 heart attacks, doctors consider it a miracle she is alive (Dec. 2022).

Bengali actress Aindrila Sharma, age 24, died after suffering multiple cardiac arrests on Nov. 20, 2022.

My Take… 

I have not seen any doctor or scientist discussing the phenomenon of multiple heart attacks or multiple strokes in COVID-19 vaccinated individuals.

Seven heart attacks, nine strokes, this is not normal. These strange events are occurring in young people and often in rapid succession. Sometimes fatal.

The nature of these events suggests a mechanism of injury that may be unique to COVID-19 vaccines and as such should be investigated by cardiologists.

COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis that leads to cardiac arrests and COVID-19 vaccine induced blood clots that lead to heart attacks or strokes, behave differently than other causes.

How do we prevent these incidents, how do we treat them? No one knows because doctors are too afraid to lose their medical licenses to even begin asking the questions.

*

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 the author


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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Multiple Heart Attacks or Multiple Strokes

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

Despite the efforts of the federal government, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency, to conceal evidence of the actual operation of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (“EITs”) it deployed on detainees in dark sites and at Guantanamo, a steady drumbeat of disclosures has provided an unparalleled view into this disgraceful episode in the nation’s history.

One of the most dramatic revelations has been the drawings by Detainee Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn aka Abu Zubaydah (hereinafter “Mr. Abu Zubaydah”), the first victim of such EITs. These drawings viscerally convey the brutal reality the CIA sought to hide with its calculated destruction of video recordings of torture conducted by its agents. These drawings also depict the kinds of torture — in which the FBI was also complicit — inflicted on the artist and his fellow detainees. These tortures are, if possible, all the more disturbing as to Mr. Abu Zubaydah himself because even the torturers—CIA and FBI – now recognize that his was a case of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, he remains in detention – albeit uncharged – until this day. His drawings dovetail with the recent accounts of Dr. James Mitchell, a chief architect of the torture regime, who both wrote a book on EITs and testified in hearings on Guantanamo.

These sources, together with the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, provide the most complete – and compelling – account to date of America’s torture program.

Click here to read the full report.

*

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: By 2006, at least 100 prisoners had died in US custody in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of them violently, according to government data. (Photo: US torture Image by Witness Against Torture)

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.

*** 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be obvious that U.S. policy in the Middle East is now losing influence. Steven Simon’s new book “Grand Delusion – The Rise and Fall of American Ambitions in the Middle East” purports to cover the era from Jimmy Carter (mostly as it leads into Ronald Reagan’s presidency) to the current Biden administration.   In his writing for the most part he highlights the bad decisions and illogical thinking of most of those presidents concerning the Middle East.  Unfortunately he starts off with a major flaw:  after a brief presentation on the policymakers acting in the best interests of the U.S. based on its “exceptionalism, frontier mythology [and] invulnerability as a continental power” he states, “Yes, we meant well and our anger was righteous.”  

Unfortunately for that argument, meaning well relates only to a particular sector of the U.S. – big oil and big money (the two are one and the same) – and righteous anger is really self-righteous anger displaying a holier than thou attitude in face of way too many contradictions.  It comes back to the saying, “What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you are saying,” and what the U.S. is saying by its actions is that our military and economic power are intended to rule the world in our favour.  Freedom and democracy are reduced to rhetoric and propaganda in face of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the use of covert and overt military support for anyone interested in overthrowing a government not aligned with the U.S. (too many to enumerate here).

Morals

He follows that introductory statement up with “the book avoids moral judgements about the key players, although it should provide the context for the readers to make up their own minds.”  Unfortunately it does neither.   Moral judgements abound, and context is often lacking, especially for events preceding his focus and for contemporary events with Russia, China, and Iran and Saudi Arabia in reshaping the Middle East and the entire global context.  

HIs first moral lapse is with the Shah of Iran who he believes “genuinely sought to lift his country’s quality of life but failed” because of the “king’s dilemma:  the tragic reality that reform empowers opposition that can then be suppressed by violence.”  But the real kicker is his statement, “You cannot do good without doing evil.”  The “king’s dilemma” is a falsehood probably contrived by some ancient kingly nobles  arguing in their reasoning to kill off their enemies and stay in power.  But to then add his own token twist destroys his argument.  

Yes, you can do much good without even entertaining evil, but it seems to be an admission that for all the good democratic elections in the world that went against U.S. interests, some kind of war or rebellion that involved murder and mayhem (Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (Zaire), Mossadegh in Iraq, Arbenz in Guatemala, Pinochet in Chile….) was required.  

Further to morality, he discusses the “lack of moral clarity” in foreign policy during the Reagan administration, a president of “deep if not universal compassion.”  It makes one wonder then why Reagan was a strong opponent of unions, talked about “rugged individualism” in the Ayn Rand dislike for altruism kind of thinking (“Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”), and continued support for the CIA operations in Central America.  Reagan’s actions fit perfectly within the “what you do…what you say” paradigm.

Simon discusses Bush Jr.’s “moral vacuity” – with which I cannot argue, but supposedly he was not going to write about morality.  He says the U.S. mission to protect the Syrian Kurds had “moral and strategic obligations” for the military.  In the final chapter on Biden he mentions the “profound ethical challenge” he had to navigate in Syria, and while the word “moral” is not used, the very definition of ethical is “relating to moral principles.”

While Simon does not fill his writing with “moral” discussions it certainly has an influence on his perceptions of events, retaining the overall impression that these years were filled with ill-considered actions based on a false rhetoric.  

Political history and context 

Having said all that, it is a reasonable precis of U.S. interventions in the Middle East in the period under discussion without presenting anything revelatory or brand new.  It would be a good place for an introductory overview of the era and place, keeping in mind the author’s typical view of U.S. intentions compared to what was actually done.  

So what of the context?  First off, remember this is written from a U.S. perspective, one that sees the country as a necessary buttress against evil in the world, the “exceptional” nation, and whether the author upholds these beliefs are not, he is marinated in its propaganda and carries it with him.  There are two other big misses that cannot be filled by a book of this scope.  

For a reader to truly understand the contextual position of the presentation, an understanding of history going back to the First World War, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the followup to the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, and the power of the Balfour letter, all mismanaged at the Versailles peace discussions (1919).   The second miss is at the opposite end of the story, where Simon’s understanding of the Middle East and the U.S. position appears to be relatively weak concerning events between Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.  

Israel

Israel is presented within the overall political context, but by omission the reader can not truly understand how the Israelis arrived at where they are, and more importantly, how they now treat the Palestinians under occupation.  The settlements are the main point of discussion, and while they present a roadblock to any peace agreement – as Simon argues by creating a non-contiguous Palestinian area of ‘control’ – that is as far as he goes.  Part of this is due to the contextual misses presented above, the other part is simply by ignoring the situation on the ground in Israel as it has existed over the past several decades.  

A critical read of U.S. foreign policy in the region necessitates an understanding of the creation of the Israeli state and its ongoing colonial settler policy.  Beyond that it needs to get into the nitty-gritty of the occupation – the house demolitions, the extra-judicial killings, the restrictive imprisonment of political actors (administrative detentions), the road blocks, the illegality of the ‘fence’ and the settlements, the torture and retention of children, the use of weapons of war on an occupied population, essentially the ongoing nakba and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Overall, a true understanding of the Middle East cannot be complete without understanding the history of Jewish immigration and Israeli settlement in an already inhabited space.   But it goes beyond Israel and yet still includes Israel today as a key player in the current global shift in power structures.

Into the future

Most works that write history up to the moment the work is published, including as many contemporary elements as possible, always seem to suffer from the very lack of hindsight needed to make a decent ending or conclusion.  Simon’s work surmises prospects for the future of the Middle East and the U.S. role there.  

Simon does discuss the role oil plays in his discussion, but never gets to the bottom line:  the petrodollar.  The U.S. does not need Saudi or Iranian oil, what it needs is for that oil to be sold using US$, the so-called petrodollar.  The oil embargo by the Saudis during the Yom Kippur war (1973) led finally to the Saudis agreeing to sell their oil only using the US$ for its transactions, and as everyone needs oil, all countries were brought into and under the financial control of the U.S.  Part of this also included the U.S. going off the gold standard created by the Bretton Woods agreement (1944) and having huge inflationary and debt pressures caused by the Vietnam War (context matters).  

There is a bouquet of misses concerning the Middle East and Simon’s conjectures about the future – some of them are simply time related to publication date, but the main ones are simply not seeing – or being wilfully ignorant of – the reshaping of the global financial structures.  By weaponizing the US$ in its over-use of sanctions, the U.S. has given energy to the Russia-China engagement, and with Russia’s reaction to events in Ukraine, a large portion of the “rest of the world” simply ignore the sanctions – extraterritorial – the U.S. has tried to apply to Russia.

There is no discussion of the Shanghai Security Organization and Iran’s accession to that, along with the eighty or so countries waiting to sign up to the BRIC’s agenda and financial plans (the BRIC’s Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank).  Russia has signed deals with Iran involving military and agricultural supplies; China has a five hundred billion dollar trade agreement over many years with Iran.  The Saudis are supporting Russia indirectly by not acceding to Biden’s wishes to keep oil prices low and is selling some of its oil to China in yuan, openly stating it does not have to limit its oil sales to the US$.  Syria has been accepted back into the Arab League under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, while the U.S. still has a military on the ground extracting Syrian oil.  All this needs to be accounted for in order to even attempt to contemplate what might happen next in the Middle East.  

There is no real telling by anybody as to which way Israel will go.  With an ultra-right wing fundamentalist government in place they are having problems with their own Jewish population along with a more unified Palestinian population resisting their occupation.  It is anybody’s guess as to whether they will ditch the U.S. after extracting all they can from it and then join up with the growing power of the BRIC’s and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.  In the meantime, the violence of their occupation, while slowly growing in global visibility, is at the same time perhaps a symptom of generally being ignored by the mainstream media as U.S. internal problems continue along with their growing domestic and foreign financial problems.

A mixed read

While Simon’s “Grand Delusion” does provide a good political background to events in the Middle East within the last forty-five years, it lacks relevant context.  The moral issue is excusable in that most U.S. writers are so imbued with their own societal “exceptionalist – intentions are good” perspective that it becomes normal to expect it.  

An interesting read in a backhanded sort of way, leading to some good discussion points by its omissions and perspectives. 

*

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 Miles is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Grand Delusion – The Rise and Fall of American Ambitions in the Middle East

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 days after the Russians took control of the Donbass’ key city of Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), pro-Ukrainian saboteurs invaded the undisputed sovereign space of the Russian Federation and created moments of terror among local civilians. The case once again shows the real nature of the Ukrainian state, in addition to working as a “psychological operation” (“psyop”) of mass distraction to prevent the media from reporting Russia’s territorial advance on the battlefield.

The intrusion of Ukrainian forces took place on May 22 in the border zone of Belgorod oblast. Some armored vehicles and soldiers invaded the city and started an attack using terrorism tactics, causing at least eight civilian casualties according to information published by the local government. An anti-terrorist operation was implemented in Belgorod with the joint action of the Russian armed forces, the local police and the border guards.

Security in the city was quickly restored after the neutralization of enemy soldiers. There is still mobilization of Russian forces in the region to check the possible presence of enemies and take other necessary measures to guarantee the safety of the local population, however the risks of an escalation of violence in the city seem low.

Spokesman of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, Andrey Yusov, confirmed the attack. However, Yusov stated that there was no mobilization of the Ukrainian armed forces in the operation, having the attack been organized by Russian saboteurs linked to the so-called Legion ‘Freedom of Russia’ and to the Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), two dissident Russian organizations that sent neo-Nazi volunteers to fight for Ukraine. There is still no concrete data to confirm Yusov’s words about the participation of Ukrainian citizens, but in any case, these saboteurs are not only in Kiev’s service, but also invaded Russia coming from the Ukrainian territory, so it really does not matter if they are Russian-born citizens.

American officials commented on the case and denied any involvement in the operation. The US State Department’s spokesman, Matthew Miller, stated at a press conference that his country does not approve or encourage attacks outside “Ukrainian borders” (which for the US includes territories like the newly integrated oblasts and Crimea). However, Miller clarified that Kiev has autonomy to decide how to conduct its military maneuvers, since, according to him, in this war the “aggressor” side would be the Russian one.

“We have made very clear to the Ukrainians that we don’t enable or encourage attacks outside Ukrainians’ borders, but I do think it’s important to take a step back and remind everyone, and remind the world, that it – of course it is Russia that launched this war (… )So, it is up to Ukraine to decide how they want to conduct their military operations, but it is Russia that has been the aggressor in this war”, Miller said.

As well known, it has become common practice for the US to deny involvement in Ukrainian attacks carried out outside the combat zone. US officials claim that the Ukrainians alone operated all maneuvers carried out within the (undisputed) Russian territory, and therefore there is no US responsibility for the deaths of Russian civilians in terrorist attacks. Washington does this for a simple reason: it needs to maintain the narrative that NATO’s weapons are used only to “repel the invader”, otherwise direct Russian military responses against the alliance would be legitimized.

However, it is hard to believe that these attacks do not have some level of participation by NATO agents, considering that the Ukrainian state does not have any real sovereignty to decide what to do, depending on direct orders from its American sponsors to conduct any maneuver. Kiev’s intelligence is controlled by Western agencies, so there is certainly Western involvement in all attacks carried out by the regime.

In fact, the attack on Belgorod was weak and militarily unfeasible. The number of troops sent to the region was insignificant, with no possibility of the invasion being successful or resulting in a long-term occupation. It was just a small-scale terrorist incursion, without any strategic gain for the Ukrainian side and which only caused damage to the civilian population, without affecting the Russian military forces.

Analyzing it from a psychological perspective, however, it is possible to say that Kiev profited from the work of the media. Newspapers around the world reported the event as if it were something extremely relevant. With this, it was possible to remove the media focus that was being given to the liberation of Bakhmut by the Russian forces, announced two days before.

Kiev launched a kind of “smokescreen” to disguise the military disaster of its troops in Bakhmut, being successful in promoting a “psyop” by making the western public believe that the country would be “reacting” with the attack in Belgorod. However, the lie was short-lived, as the neutralization of the terrorist threat was achieved by Russian agents within a few hours.

*

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.

*** 

“IT never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.”

Sadly, Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize for Literature lecture continues to be as relevant today as when he gave it in 2005.

And nothing confirms the accuracy of the British playwright’s incisive words better than the ongoing US intervention in Syria.

“Do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal?” Chinese reporter Edward Xu asked Faran Haq, deputy spokesperson for the UN secretary-general, during a March press conference.

Haq’s jaw-dropping reply? “There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria… I believe there’s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that.”

Back in the real world, US troops have been on the ground in Syria since 2015.

In a 2017 briefing with journalists US army Major General James B Jarrad, who was the then head of the US-led special operations taskforce in Syria and Iraq, let slip there were 4,000 US troops in Syria, before backtracking.

Today, most reports estimate the number of US troops at around 900, though in March Associated Press noted there was also “an undisclosed number of contractors” and US special forces who are not included in the official count.

Part of the confusion is likely because senior US officials deliberately misled the Donald Trump administration — which was keen to withdraw troops — on the size of the US military footprint in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” James Jeffrey explained in an interview with the Defense One website in 2020 after he had stepped down as US special representative for Syria engagement.

Whatever the true number is, in 2018 New Yorker magazine reported there are 12 US bases in Syria, including four airfields — all in the east of the country.

Speaking in May 2022, Joshua Landis, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Oklahoma, explained the US, working with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), controls around 25 per cent of Syria — an area about the size of Croatia, the New Yorker estimated.

There have been occasional attacks on the US forces there too. In January 2019, four US personnel were killed and in March this year, a drone attack on a US base killed one US contractor and wounded seven US troops.

Other than reports of assassinations of high-level ISIS leaders, I’m not aware of any serious independent investigation into the impact the US troops are having on the local population while in Syria.

Why are US forces on the ground?

An April Agence France-Presse report printed in the Guardian repeated the US government’s initial justification, noting: “US troops remain in Syria… as part of a US-led coalition battling the remnants of [Isis], which remains active in Syria and neighbouring Iraq.”

However, with the military campaign against Isis “nearly completed,” in September 2018 the Washington Post noted the US government “had redefined its goals” in Syria.

These now included “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.”

Trump himself suggested another reason for the US occupation of Syria.

“We are leaving soldiers to secure the oil,” he stated in 2019. “And we may have to fight for the oil. It’s OK. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight. But there’s massive amounts of oil.”

Some analysts question whether this is correct, though the respected energy expert Daniel Yergin did explain oil “was very important to the Assad regime before the civil war because it produced 25 per cent of the total government revenues.”

According to a March 2018 New York Times report the US forces control most of Syria’s oil wealth, with influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham arguing by continuing “to maintain control of the oil fields in Syria, we will deny Assad and Iran a monetary windfall.”

Of course, this also gives the US significant leverage with the Syrian government and its international supporters moving forward.

Furthermore, Western media reports rarely consider whether the US occupation is legal, even though their presence is opposed by the Syrian government and not authorised by the UN.

Like the US-Britain-enabled mass slaughter in Yemen, the US occupation of Syria is hiding in plain sight.

There are news reports published in the mainstream media about the US intervention in Syria, but there has never been the kind of sustained, searching front-page coverage the issue deserves.

As Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky argued in 1988’s groundbreaking work on the political economy of the mass media, Manufacturing Consent, “A careful reader looking for a fact can sometimes find it with diligence and a sceptical eye tells us nothing about whether that fact received the attention and context it deserved, whether it was intelligible to the reader or effectively distorted or suppressed.”

A similar US-British government-friendly amnesia courses through the broader coverage and discussion of the Western involvement in the Syrian war.

In February 2017, Dr Jamie Allinson, a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh, argued it is a myth that “the US has pursued a policy of regime change to topple the Ba’athist Assad regime.”

The Middle East specialist went on to make the extraordinary claim that “the amount of weaponry and ammunition actually supplied by the US has been highly limited and the precondition of its supply was that it be used against Isis rather than Assad.”

Similarly, two years earlier a Guardian editorial referred to the West’s “refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad,” while in 2016 Paul Mason, then at Channel 4, blindly asserted the US had “stood aloof from the Syrian conflict.”

Contrast these claims with statements from key figures in the US government and mainstream press reports.

“Washington did provide aid on a large scale to Syrian armed opposition,” Steven Simon, the senior director for the Middle East and North Africa at the US National Security Council during the Obama administration, explained in 2018.

While the Pentagon ran a programme to train rebels to fight Isis, according to a January 2016 New York Times report, the CIA ran a separate, larger programme “which focuses on rebel groups fighting the Syrian military.”

According to reports in the New York Times, the US has been involved in helping to send arms to the Syrian opposition forces since at least mid-2012.

Citing US officials, in June 2015 the Washington Post revealed: “The CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years,” spending £1 billion a year, making it “one the agency’s largest covert operations.”

Robert Malley, the White House co-ordinator on the Middle East, north Africa, and Gulf region in the Obama administration, made the obvious point to the Real News Network the same year: “We became part of the regime change — by definition, even if we denied it — once we’re supplying the armed opposition which had only one goal… which was to topple the regime.”

US secretary of state John Kerry was even clearer in September 2013: “President Obama’s policy is that Assad must go.”

No doubt the US government is very happy with the media and academic-fuelled memory-holing of US intervention in Syria and beyond.

After all, it creates the unscrutinised political space for the US and its allies, including Britain, to project military and political power with minimal pushback from the general public and civil society.

And while the officials, journalists and academics that have got US intervention in Syria so wrong usually end up “failing upwards,” those on the business end of the Western military machine aren’t so lucky.

*

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 Morning Star

Biden’s Running Out of Ukraine Money? Good.

May 23rd, 2023 by Rep. Ron Paul

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 smoke finally clears, President Biden’s Ukraine debacle will go down – along with Afghanistan and Iraq – as one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in US history. Hundreds of thousands have been killed on both sides in the service of the US neocons’ long standing desire to “regime change” Russia.

And let’s not forget that $100 billion authorized by Congress to finance the neocons’ “Project Ukraine.”

With Russian control established in the strategic city of Bakhmut over the weekend, the neocon Ukraine project – like all neocon foreign policy projects before it – looks to be progressing rapidly toward failure. But that won’t stop the Biden Administration from attempting to extort more money from an America already teetering on the brink of economic collapse. And let’s not forget the battle over the “debt limit” raging in DC.

The Biden Administration’s profligate domestic spending is a battleground for Republican lawmakers, however when it comes to endless spending on Project Ukraine, with a few exceptions the two parties are in lockstep. At least when looking at Republican party leadership.

One thing is sure: we can count on Congress to throw good money after bad. After all, 20 years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan got us…the Taliban in Afghanistan! With a cost of perhaps three trillion dollars. But the military-industrial complex and the think tanks pushing war and the mainstream media glorifying war all got paid well.

It may seem bleak, but this is where we have something to be optimistic about. As I’ve always said, you don’t need a majority to change the course of the country. A dedicated minority driven by the principles of liberty can produce incredible results.

The mainstream media is in a panic over the fact that of the $48 billion appropriated for Ukraine, only $6 billion remains. That won’t be enough to sustain “Project Ukraine” for more than a few weeks. With the tide of US public opinion turning overwhelmingly against throwing more money down the corrupt black hole called “Ukraine,” even unprincipled politicians are going to start listening to the emerging progressive/conservative alliance in Congress that’s had enough.

In Congress a principled multipolar minority is going to overtake a corrupt and mindless majority – bolstered by the American people. And that’s a good thing.

Election season is upon us, and although we would prefer to have recruited a majority of progressives and conservative/libertarians in Congress to our view that a hundred billion to Ukraine and possible World War III is not a good idea, we must nevertheless be satisfied that political realities are in our favor.

The communists talked about the “correlation of forces,” which took into account factors beyond military power to include politics and “soft power.” With that in mind, it seems likely that as the public mood in the US turns against sending endless billions to a corrupt Ukraine with the threat of World War III in the mix, the political animals in DC will begin abandoning the sinking ship.

With President Biden clearly flailing – and with the surprisingly strong primary challenge of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – we should look for lawmakers to begin abandoning “Project Ukraine” in droves. That movement, led by principled conservatives and progressives, will sink forever the neocon “Project Ukraine” and thus save us from global nuclear annihilation. Hopefully after this disaster, Americans will turn against neocons one and for 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.

Featured image is from Morning Star

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.

*** 

 

Palestinian song “Ana Dammi Falastini” (My Blood is Palestinian) by Palestinian singer Mohammed Assaf has been removed from music streaming services Spotify and Apple Music over allegations it “incites against Israel”.

Assaf said he felt “shocked” that his signature song was taken down from the widely-used streaming services in a statement on Sunday to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, The New Arab’s Arabic sister site.

“I checked my official page on the Spotify and Apple Music platforms, and was surprised that the song ‘Ana Dammi Falastini’ was deleted,” he said.

“I received an official email about it, on the pretext that the song incites the Zionist enemy, which makes me more honored that my songs express the Palestinian people’s resistance to the occupation,” he continued.

The song, released in 2015, which translates to “My Blood is Palestinian”, is widely regarded as a patriotic Palestinian song that is often played or sung in events marking Palestinian culture.

The 33-year-old singer, who is from the besieged Gaza Strip, derided the claim, saying: “This accusation increases my honour and belonging to my homeland, Palestine and my just cause,” and that “even if they delete this song, it is present in the memory and conscience of every Palestinian and every honourable free man who defends the right of the Palestinian people to obtain their freedom and independence.”

The Dubai-based singer added that the removal indicates “their hostility to freedom and justice, and to the Palestinians cause.”

Spotify denied that it had removed the music from the music platform.

“Spotify aims to offer a wide range of music on our platform, but availability may vary over time and by country,” it said in a statement.

“The removal of some of Mohammed Assaf’s content was not determined by Spotify, but rather by the distributor. We anticipate its return in the near future and apologize for any inconvenience caused.”

The New Arab has contacted MBC for comment on claims that Assaf’s label Platinum Records, which is owned by the entertainment giant, pulled the song.

The removal of Assaf’s anthem has sparked outrage among Palestinian activists on social media, who called the streaming platform “shameless and spineless.”

One user, Hamza, said stressed that the song “doesn’t even mention Israel and is just about Palestinian identity and heritage – yet is somehow still seen as a problem?”.

This isn’t the first time that the Palestinian singer has been on the receiving end of hostility. In 2020, a member of the Israeli Likud party, sought to prohibit Assaf from entering the occupied Palestinian territories.

Avi Dichter said that a special permit – usually issued to Gazans allowing them to enter the occupied West Bank – would be withdrawn.

Assaf, who grew up in the Khan Younis refugee camp, is a widely popular singer in the Middle East and North Africa, having won the second season of the singing competition show ‘Arab Idol’ in 2013.

The Gazan’s win was widely celebrated in the region and was deemed significant due to his Palestinian heritage.

Following his win, Assaf was named ambassador of peace by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).

*

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 @OnlinePalEng/Twitter

Historical Context for Pilot Incapacitations

May 23rd, 2023 by Mike of Mirthless Perspectives

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.

*** 

Pilot Incapacitation Events seem to have been receiving extra attention. We at US Freedom Flyers have been collaborating with Dr Makis on Pilot Incapacitation Event data (Covid Intel). Each event is news and noteworthy, but is the number of Pilot Incapacitation Events in 2023 actually on track to exceed historical averages? While we certainly hope this is not the case, the current data should be examined against the available statistics. To provide this context, we can turn to some prior studies conducted by the FAA.

One such study published by the Office of Aerospace Medicine in October of 2004 was named ‘In-Flight Medical Incapacitation and Impairment of U.S. Airline Pilots: 1993-1998. (See this)

The Results section on pages 3-4 state that there were 39 pilot incapacitations and 11 pilot impairments on 47 flights over approximately 85,732,000 revenue hours of airline flight operations. If we combine both categories, we find that there are 0.58 events per one million revenue hours. (47/85,732,000 * 1,000,000)

More current studies from the Office of Aerospace Medicine show a similar statistic of 0.61 events per one million revenue hours. This can be found on pages A2-A3 of the link below: see this.

If we examine cardiac incapacitations only from 1993-1998, we can see that on page 5 there are only 5 cardiac events out of the total of 47. This breaks down to .058 events per one million revenue flight hours. (5/85,732,000 * 1,000,000). Another way to look at cardiac incapacitation events is that they comprise 13% of all incapacitation and impairment events. ( 5/47=.13 )

If we look for cardiac events from 1993-2015 in the second linked study, the percentage is 11% (page A3 shown above).

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has data for total airline revenue hours, and also by category such as domestic, international. There are further subdivisions that show revenue hours by type of operator (major, national, regional).

See this.

If we look at the 2018 and 2019 total domestic revenue hours, we can see there is an average of 15,199,682 revenue hours. Currently I cannot find a revenue hour statistic for 2022, however by comparing domestic revenue miles of 2022 vs 2018-2019, we can see that 2022 was at approximately 94% of the previous average. The revenue miles in 2023 are trending higher than 2022, so it appears we are on track to have similar data as 2019. (See this)

If we then assume that domestic revenue hours in 2023 will be approximately equal to the 2018-2019 rounded average of 15,200,000, and if the total pilot incapacitation and impairment events runs at 0.58-0.61 per 1,000,000 revenue hours, then we could reasonably predict 9-10 events in 2023. (0.6*15.2=9.12), or one event every 40 days.

If the total cardiac events runs at the historic average of 11-13% of all pilot incapacitation events, then we could expect 1 such event per year (9.12*.12=1.09).

Currently, Dr Makis’s substack has a detailed list of all Pilot Incapacitation Events that we are aware of this year. As we are tracking these events in real time, we caution against drawing hard and fast conclusions in either direction. Instead we invite all those who are concerned about this issue to take a few action steps.

First, please analyze the list of Pilot Incapacitation Events in the Covid Intel Substack.

Second, please reach out to US Freedom Flyers if you are aware of any events that were not in the list, and to alert us of any new Pilot Incapacitation Events.

Third, if you are an aviation professional, please review the National Transportation Safety Board regulation 830 or if you’re in another country, any respective regulatory analogue. While most operators may be responsible for the reporting, our awareness is key for transparency. Of particular note are the definition of Aircraft Accident, and the Immediate Notification requirements. Accessing specific data on pilot incapacitation requires in-depth research and analysis of various sources. This is because some data may be subject to privacy regulations or limitations imposed by the organizations responsible for its collection and dissemination.

See this.

As always, if you’re an aviation industry professional, please consider filing ASAP reports for any such event or for any safety related issue. The ASAP program is a powerful way to make others aware of safety issues. Thank you for your active participation in this data collection effort, and while we hope that these events are not on the rise, we will revisit the data and compare against the historical statistics we have presented.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Historical Context for Pilot Incapacitations

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 Brown University (USA) based Costs of War project had estimated the direct deaths resulting from violence (actual fighting, bombing etc.) caused by the USA’s post 9/11 ‘War on Terror’ at about 920,000 (a little less than a million, or 0.9 million) then many people were shocked by this. However even at that time the project researchers had cautioned that this was merely the number of deaths which were directly caused in the conflicts. They had added that if all the indirect deaths related to the war on terror are also counted (for example deaths caused later by diseases resulting from destruction of sanitation and health facilities in the bombings), then the number of these deaths may turn out to be much higher, in fact it may be several times more.


Blood and Treasure: United States Budgetary Costs and Human Costs of 20 Years of War in Iraq and Syria, 2003-2023

By Prof. Neta C. Crawford, May 12, 2023


Now, in mid-May, this project has also released its estimates of the indirect deaths caused in the War on Terror. These indirectly caused deaths have been estimated at 3.6 to 3.7 million. If these are added to the direct deaths caused earlier, the total number of deaths in the War on Terror goes up to 4.5 million to 4.6 million. So the total number of deaths is about 5 times the number of direct deaths.

The details of reaching this estimate have been provided in a thoroughly researched and thickly referenced paper meaningfully titled ‘How Death Outlives War—the Reverberating Impact of the Post 9/11 Wars on Human Health’. This important paper written by Stephanie Savell is on the one hand a confirmation of past trends (such as in the Korean War) that indirect death continue long after the actual war and can be much higher than the immediate war deaths, and on the other hand this is also very important from the point of view of an assessment of the costs of war which is close to reality in the context of recent wars. Hence this study is of great importance for peace activists and movements all over the world for taking their message of promoting peace and opposing wars among more and more people.

While this study states clearly that the total death toll in the post 9/11 war zones of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen could be at least 4.5 million to 4.6 million, it also says that so many aspects of life are affected by war that very precise estimates may not be possible to obtain and even these estimates are presented in a situation of still counting. As the number of serious malnourished children affected by ‘wasting’ is reported to be very high in these countries, hunger and deprivation are widespread, the tragedy is still continuing.

While the main estimate appears to be concentrated on the five countries mentioned above, the tragic situation in some other countries like Somalia and Libya has also been discussed in this report. In the context of Somalia in particular it is also mentioned that in view of the serious famine-like conditions prevailing here, the counter-terrorism laws could also have adversely affected the relief efforts badly needed by starving people.

An important point made by the study is that while war-devastated countries may lose much of the attention of the world and ‘the international community’ once the actual fighting ends, in many contexts the longer-term effects of war continue to cause more and more deaths, disabilities and distress. What is more, these deaths may even increase with the passage of time. In the case of Iraq, the number of children facing birth defects and disabilities may be very high, although this has been denied by others. There are several such examples of the longer-term health hazards of several extremely dangerous weapons, bombs and ammunitions.

In the contexts of several victim countries but perhaps most clearly in the context of Iraq, there appears to be a very strong case of a very large number of entirely avoidable deaths of entirely innocent persons having been caused, and of other large numbers of entirely innocent people having been exposed to very painful injuries, disabilities and diseases. Hence there is a very strong justice based case for damages in billions of dollars being paid by the main perpetrators of violence to the victims. This process can start by the USA and Britain in particular making these payments to the victims and their families in Iraq, and this can later be extended to other victim countries wherever a strong case for this exists. Such payments cannot undo the great tragedy, the entirely avoidable tragedy of such great distress having been caused to entirely innocent persons just due to the whims and faulty decision making of a small bunch of arrogant persons in positions of powers, but this can help to reduce their distress even if only partially and belatedly. This is the least that can be done at this late stage.

*

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.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders and A Day in 2071.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Adding Indirect Deaths, Total Death Toll in the ‘War on Terror’ Is 4.5 Million
  • 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.

*** 

A new study from Northwestern University has concluded that the majority of “Covid19” patients put on ventilators were actually killed by bacterial pneumonia, not the alleged virus.

You can read that paper here.

This should not come as a shock to any regular OffG reader – or indeed anyone who tried to keep themselves informed during the “pandemic”. Mechanical ventilation is not a treatment for respiratory infection, and quite often makes the situation worse.

Deliberate, institutional misuse of mechanical ventilation probably killed huge numbers of patients during the so-called “first wave”. We cover this in great detail in our “40 Facts” covid cribsheet.

Predictably enough, though, mainstream talking heads are not ready to admit this, and the Northwestern paper has produced a wave of somewhat fevered revisionism among the dwindling covidiot class.

See, for example, this tweet from “Dr Craig Spencer”:

Ironically, while he is accusing others of revisionism, he is the one rewriting history. Ventilators were never recommended for treating Covid, but rather for preventing transmission.

The WHO, CDC, NHS and ECDC all published guidelines instructing healthcare workers to put “Covid patients” on respirators as early as possible, and in every case it was classed as an “infection control measure”.

This is not new information, it was all known at the time.

Further, it was known, that this policy was potentially doing harm, having been reported in mainstream articles (such as this one from Time or this one from The Spectator) as early as April 2020.

But it’s not just the “ventilators saved lives” crowd who are rewriting history, even this new discussion recognizing the role ventilators played in Covid stops several steps short of the truth, characterizing it as a mistake or a panic reaction.

It was neither. It was deliberate policy.

This was recorded by whistle-blowers and becomes glaringly obvious when you consider that, in the US, the CARES Act paid out bonus money to hospitals for ventilating “covid patients”.

So no, it is not revisionism to blame ventilators for many of the deaths usually attributed to “Covid”, that was obviously true, and widely known, at the time.

Real revisionism is pretending there was no way anyone could have known the harm that was being done, or to close your eyes to the fact it was all done on purpose.

*

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 AdobeStock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Don’t Let Them Rewrite History: Ventilators Killed People… and It Was No Accident
  • 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.

*** 

Well, if you thought the American Civil War ended back in 1865, you are apparently wrong. No less an authority than President Joe Biden, in a May 13th commencement speech to historically black Howard University’s graduates, told the overwhelmingly black students and their families that “The most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. And I’m not saying this because I’m at a Black HBCU, I say it wherever I go.” Indeed, both Biden and his inert Attorney General Merrick Garland nee Garfinkel have delivered that same message on a number of occasions, but this was the first time it was employed in such a racially charged environment. It was clearly a pre-electoral call to arms against white people in America, placing government sanctioned targets on the backs of whites who are generally peacefully struggling to retain their communities, identities, religion, heritage and culture, all of which are being engulfed by the White House’s tidal wave of self-serving and politically motivated “woke” promotions.

Five days later, on the 18th, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an 80 page report revealing that the FBI had deliberately miscategorized its investigations into the events surrounding the January 6th Capitol Hill violent demonstration to substantially inflate the numbers suggesting a dramatic increase in domestic terrorism in the United States. The GOP report, based largely on whistleblower testimony, stated that “whistleblowers assert that the FBI pressured agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism (DVE), and even manufactured DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist, while manipulating its case categorization system to feign a national problem.” The FBI’s Washington Field Office deliberately categorized its Capitol disturbance cases to make the rise in DVE cases look more like a national problem than a one-time post-electoral incident.

The report includes “According to whistleblower information, the FBI has manipulated the manner in which it categorized January 6-related investigations to create a misleading narrative that domestic terrorism is organically surging around the country.” The manipulated statistics, based on regarding every individual even peripherally or allegedly involved in an incident as a terrorist suspect rather than as part of a group interaction, were then used to support the Biden Administration’s increasing rhetoric about “domestic terrorism.” One whistleblower explained how “By opening a separate case for each individual as opposed to one case with however many subjects are involved, they’ve turned one case into a thousand cases… And by spreading them to the field, they’ve given the impression that those domestic terror cases are around the country…”

Using the new parameters, the FBI Director Christopher Wray was able to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2022 that “the number of FBI investigations of suspected DVEs has more than doubled since the spring of 2020.” The FBI was, in fact, conducting approximately 1,400 pending domestic terrorism investigations at the end of fiscal 2020, a number that jumped to 2,700 domestic terrorism investigations by the end of fiscal 2021. The Bureau arrested approximately 180 domestic terrorism subjects in 2020, a number that increased to 800 such subjects in 2021.

And then there was the May 15th release of the long-awaited Durham Report on the shenanigans engaged in by Team Clinton in 2016 to use the nation’s security apparatus to make it appear that Donald Trump was being directed by the Russian government. Predictably, there will likely be no political or legal consequences relating to the revelation. No one in the FBI or CIA , or even in the Clinton campaign, will be held accountable for efforts made to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and to denigrate Trump personally using what they knew to be lies. The FBI leadership has reportedly apologized and says it will not engage in such activity in the future, but many are skeptical, particularly as there was something of a repeat performance in 2020 involving the letter signed by 51 members of the intelligence and national security community claiming that the Hunter laptop allegations were nothing more than a Russian disinformation operation. “Will it ever end?” one might ask.

And there’s more. Nina Jankowicz, who made the news briefly back when she was about to assume the post of the Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Czar in April last year before she abruptly resigned three weeks later on May 18th is now, one year later, suing Fox News. She claims the network has been “waging a campaign of ‘vitriolic lies’ against her that amounts to a threat to democracy [by] damaging her reputation as a specialist in conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns.”

Biden simultaneously got cold feet about systematically criminalizing what Americans were saying and writing and shut down The Disinformation Governance Board abruptly in the wake of attacks by Fox and others that the new DHS division Jankowicz led was itself part of a conspiracy to censor rightwing comment spearheaded by President Biden. Janowicz is claiming that no less than Tucker Carlson, the news channel’s then primetime ratings star fired by Fox recently in the wake of the Dominion settlement, led the charge. In his opening monologue on April 28th 2022, Carlson described Jankowicz as a “moron” and said that what she was doing constituted a “full-scale attack on free speech.” He also referred to the disinformation board as “the new Soviet America”.

Finally, what would the week be like without hearing more about the Biden Administration’s endless war against anti-Semitism? There were predictably numerous anti-Semitism developments during the week but the most compelling was the demand by Deborah Lipstadt, the US government’s renowned holocaust expert who serves as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, that one of the world’s richest men Elon Musk must be taken to task for daring to criticize George Soros. Lipstadt elaborated how “You can criticize George Soros — many people do — for his economic policies, even for his political programs, for his foundation. But when you turn him into the Rothschild of the 21st century, then you’re engaging in antisemitism. When you link his activities to his Jewish identity, when you disparage his activities — some of which I may disagree with — and when you turn him into this villainous character, which has antisemitic overtures, you’ve crossed the line.”

Lipstadt was responding to Musk’s tweet “Soros reminds me of Magneto.” He was comparing Soros to a Marvel supervillain/hero character named Magneto, who is also Jewish like Soros and, also like him, a claimed holocaust survivor. Lipstadt believes that even mentioning the Jewish globalist Soros, or referring to someone as a “globalist” or “cosmopolitan,” just might be considered as “invoking antisemitic tropes,” as it implies that they are Jews. Per Lipstadt, “What you’re saying is Jews do not have loyalty to the country in which they live in, that they have loyalty one to the other and that they are out to destroy the countries in which they live in.”

And you will be hearing more from Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, who also states flatly that “Antisemitism is not a niche issue…it is an existential threat to democracy,” possibly later this week when President Biden will be unveiling the first-ever national plan to counter “anti-Jewish bigotry.” She explains how “America has never done something like a national plan to fight antisemitism, which involves most of the major agencies of the US government. There will be some things that people will disagree with. But when I see the time and effort that has gone in by White House, by high-ranking individuals, it’s a message that we take this seriously.”

The plan was developed in recent months by an interagency task force created by Joe Biden last December. It incorporates claimed conversations with more than 1,000 Jewish community leaders across denominations in the United States. President Biden, at May 9th’s White House celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, said it will “include more than 200 measures that government agencies, social media platforms and elected officials can adopt to counter rising antisemitism.”

There is considerable irony in all of this much ado about little based on deliberately inflated numbers promoted largely by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) claiming that antisemitism is surging. Neither the hideous Jonathan Greenblatt of ADL nor Dr. Lipstadt has suggested to their Israeli friends that the sometimes negative perception of Jews in America might improve if the self-declared Jewish state were to stop killing Palestinian children. Indeed, real antisemitic prejudice that produces negative consequences is hard to identify as American Jews have notably become the best educated and wealthiest demographic in the United States. Though only two per cent of the population, they dominate in key economic and social sectors to include finance, entertainment, the media and education. They occupy many if not most of the key policy making positions in the Biden Administration and are greatly overrepresented in Congress and in government in general. They constantly seek and regularly obtain benefits that accrue only to them, like the 90% of Homeland Security discretionary grants that go to them for “security.”

That new “measures” are being implemented to give Jews even more enhanced protected status that directly limits free speech might be considered ridiculous if it were not so downright dangerous, one more step in handing the keys of the kingdom over to an autocratic and self-centered tribe that describes itself as “chosen” by God. We will no doubt be hearing a lot more about their victimhood over the summer to justify what repressive new measures will be put in place. Will criticizing the so-called holocaust and the apartheid state of Israel become hate crimes with large fines and jail time attached? Stay tuned!

*

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.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It’s Good News Week. Joe Biden Is Creating Enemies Everywhere

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.

*** 

One of the creeping hands of totalitarianism running through the democracy is the Federal Bureau of Investigation… Because why does the FBI do all this? To scare the hell out of people… They work for the establishment and the corporations and the politicos to keep things as they are. And they want to frighten and chill the people who are trying to change things.”—Howard Zinn, historian

Power corrupts. We know this.

In fact, we know this from experience learned the hard way at the hands of our own government.

So why is anyone surprised to learn that the FBI, one of the most power-hungry and corrupt agencies within the police state’s vast complex of power-hungry and corrupt agencies, misused a massive government surveillance database more than 300,000 times in order to target American citizens?

This is how the government operates, after all.

First, they seek out extraordinary powers acquired in the wake of some national crisis—in this case, warrantless surveillance powers intended to help the government spy on foreign targets suspected of engaging in terrorism—and then they use those powers against the American people.

According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the FBI repeatedly misused Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to spy on the communications of two vastly disparate groups of Americans: those involved in the George Floyd protests and those who may have taken part in the Jan. 6, 2021, protests at the Capitol.

This is par for the course for the FBI, whose modus operandi has historically been to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” perceived threats to the government’s power.

Indeed, the FBI has a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures.

Back in the 1950s and ‘60s, the FBI’s targets were civil rights activists, those suspected of having Communist ties, and anti-war activists. In more recent decades, the FBI has expanded its reach to target so-called domestic extremists, environmental activists, and those who oppose the police state.

In 2019, President Trump promised to give the FBI “whatever they need” to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism, without any apparent thought for the Constitution’s prohibitions on such overreach.

That misguided pledge sheds a curious light on the FBI’s ongoing spree of SWAT team raids, surveillance, disinformation campaigns, fear-mongering, paranoia, and strong-arm tactics meted out to dissidents on both the right and the left.

Yet while these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear, none of this is new.

Indeed, the FBI’s love affair with totalitarianism can be traced back to the Nazi police state.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

Since then, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and used them repeatedly against American citizens.

With every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention.

These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where secret police control the populace through intimidation, fear and official lawlessness on the part of government agents.

Consider the extent to which the FBI’s far-reaching powers to surveil, detain, interrogate, investigate, prosecute, punish, police and generally act as a law unto themselves resemble those of their Nazi cousins, the Gestapo.

Just like the Gestapo, the FBI has vast resources, vast investigatory powers, and vast discretion to determine who is an enemy of the state.

Much like the Gestapo spied on mail and phone calls, FBI agents have carte blanche access to the citizenry’s most personal information.

Much like the Gestapo’s sophisticated surveillance programs, the FBI’s spying capabilities can delve into Americans’ most intimate details (and allow local police to do so, as well).

Much like the Gestapo’s ability to profile based on race and religion, and its assumption of guilt by association, the FBI’s approach to pre-crime allows it to profile Americans based on a broad range of characteristics including race and religion.

Much like the Gestapo’s power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the power to label anyone a domestic terrorist.

Much like the Gestapo infiltrated communities in order to spy on the German citizenry, the FBI routinely infiltrates political and religious groups, as well as businesses.

Just as the Gestapo united and militarized Germany’s police forces into a national police force, America’s police forces have largely been federalized and turned into a national police force.

Just as the Gestapo carried out entrapment operations, the FBI has become a master in the art of entrapment.

Just as the Gestapo’s secret files on political leaders were used to intimidate and coerce, the FBI’s attempts to target and spy on anyone suspected of “anti-government” sentiment have been similarly abused.

The Gestapo became the terror of the Third Reich by creating a sophisticated surveillance and law enforcement system that relied for its success on the cooperation of the military, the police, the intelligence community, neighborhood watchdogs, government workers for the post office and railroads, ordinary civil servants, and a nation of snitches inclined to report “rumors, deviant behavior, or even just loose talk.”

Likewise, as countless documents make clear, the FBI has had no qualms about using its extensive powers in order to blackmail politicians, spy on celebrities and high-ranking government officials, and intimidate and attempt to discredit dissidents of all stripes.

In fact, borrowing heavily from the Gestapo, between 1956 and 1971, the FBI conducted an intensive domestic intelligence program, termed COINTELPRO, intended to neutralize domestic political dissidents. As Congressman Steve Cohen explains, “COINTELPRO was set up to surveil and disrupt groups and movements that the FBI found threatening… many groups, including anti-war, student, and environmental activists, and the New Left were harassed, infiltrated, falsely accused of criminal activity          .”

Sound familiar? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Those targeted by the FBI under COINTELPRO for its intimidation, surveillance and smear campaigns included: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, the Black Panther Party, Billie Holiday, Emma Goldman, Aretha Franklin, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Felix Frankfurter, John Lennon, and hundreds more.

The Church Committee, the Senate task force charged with investigating COINTELPRO abuses in 1975, denounced the government’s abuses:

“Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power.”

The report continued:

“Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials.”

Whether 50 years ago or in the present day, the treatment being doled out by the government’s lethal enforcers has remained consistent, no matter the threat.

The FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.

Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government; recruiting high school students to spy on and report fellow students who show signs of being future terrorists; or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work of ensuring compliance, keeping tabs on potential dissidents, and punishing those who dare to challenge the status quo.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s time to rein in the Federal Bureau of Intimidation’s war on political freedom.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rein in the FBI: Put an End to the FBI’s “Gestapo Tactics”
  • 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.

*** 

According to federal records, approximately 60,000 pounds of a chemical with dual applications as a fertilizer and an explosive have seemingly vanished during a recent rail journey from Wyoming to California.

As per an incident report submitted to the National Response Center on May 10, a rail car loaded with ammonium nitrate departed from a facility run by explosives manufacturer Dyno Nobel in Cheyenne, Wyoming, on April 12.

The report indicates that the chemical substance was “released due to an unknown cause” and was discovered to be missing upon the rail car’s arrival in Saltdale, California.

The company stated that at the time of the incident report, the rail car was empty and en route back to Wyoming.

Ammonium nitrate has been utilized as a crucial ingredient in both acts of terrorism and horrific accidents.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Massive Shipment of Explosive Chemicals Disappears in Mojave Desert, Investigation Underway

Is a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Imminent?

May 23rd, 2023 by Michael T. Klare

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.

*** 

Is China really on the verge of invading the island of Taiwan, as so many top American officials seem to believe? If the answer is “yes” and the U.S. intervenes on Taiwan’s side — as President Biden has sworn it would — we could find ourselves in a major-power conflict, possibly even a nuclear one, in the not-too-distant future. Even if confined to Asia and fought with conventional weaponry alone — no sure thing — such a conflict would still result in human and economic damage on a far greater scale than observed in Ukraine today.  

But what if the answer is “no,” which seems at least as likely? Wouldn’t that pave the way for the U.S. to work with its friends and allies, no less than with China itself, to reduce tensions in the region and possibly open a space for the launching of peaceful negotiations between Taiwan and the mainland? If nothing else, it would eliminate the need to boost the Pentagon budget by many billions of dollars annually, as now advocated by China hawks in Congress.

How that question is answered has enormous implications for us all. Yet, among policymakers in Washington, it isn’t even up for discussion. Instead, they seem to be competing with each another to identify the year in which the purported Chinese invasion will occur and war will break out between our countries.

Is It 2035, 2027, or 2025?

All high-level predictions of an imminent Chinese invasion of Taiwan rest on the assumption that Chinese leaders will never allow that island to become fully independent and so will respond to any move in that direction with a full-scale military assault. In justifying such claims, American officials regularly point to the ongoing modernization of China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and warnings by top Chinese officials that they will crush any effort by “separatist elements” in Taiwan to impede unification. In line with that mode of thinking, only one question remains: Exactly when will the Chinese leadership consider the PLA ready to invade Taiwan and overpower any U.S. forces sent to the island’s relief?

Until 2021, U.S. military officials tended to place that pivotal moment far in the future, citing the vast distance the PLA needed to go to duplicate the technological advantages of U.S. forces. Pentagon analysts most often forecast 2035 for this achievement, the date set by President Xi Jinping for China to “basically complete the modernization of national defense and the military.”

This assessment, however, changed dramatically in late 2021 when the Department of Defense published its annual report on the military power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). That document highlighted a significant alteration in China’s strategic planning: whereas its leaders once viewed 2035 as the year in which the PLA would become a fully modern fighting force, they now sought to reach that key threshold in 2027, by accelerating the “intelligentization” of their forces (that is, their use of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies). If realized, the Pentagon report suggested, that “new milestone for modernization in 2027… would provide Beijing with more credible military options in a Taiwan contingency.”

Still, some Pentagon officials suggested that the PLA was unlikely to achieve full “intelligentization” by then, casting doubt on its ability to overpower the U.S. in a hypothetical battle for Taiwan. That, however, hasn’t stopped Republicans from using the prediction to generate alarm in Congress and seek additional funds for weaponry geared toward a future war with China.

As Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) put it in 2022, when he was still a minority member of the House Armed Services Committee, “China’s just throwing so much money into military modernization and has already sped up its timeline to 2027 for when it wants the PLA to have the capability to seize Taiwan, that we need to act with a sense of urgency to tackle that threat because that is something unlike anything we’ve seen in modern history.” And note that he is now the chairman of the new China-bashing House Select Committee on China.

A potential 2027 invasion remained common wisdom in U.S. policy circles until this January, when the head of the Air Force Mobility Command, General Michael Minihan, told his troops that he suspected the correct date for a future war with China was 2025, setting off another panic attack in Washington. “I hope I am wrong,” he wrote to the 50,000 Air Force personnel under his command. “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. Xi secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022. Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. The United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”

Though his prediction was derided by some analysts who doubted the PRC’s capacity to overpower the U.S. by that date, Minihan received strong backing from China hawks in Congress. “I hope he’s wrong as well, but I think he’s right, though, unfortunately,” said Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

At this point, official Washington continues to obsess over the date of the presumptive Chinese invasion, with some figures now suggesting 2024. Strangely enough, however, nowhere in official circles is there a single prominent figure asking the most basic question of all: Does China actually have any serious intention of invading Taiwan or are we manufacturing a crisis over nothing?

China’s Invasion Calculus

To answer that question means investigating Beijing’s calculus when it comes to the relative benefits and perils of mounting such an invasion.

To start off: China’s top leadership has repeatedly stated that it’s prepared to employ force as a last resortto ensure Taiwan’s unification with the mainland. President Xi and his top lieutenants repeat this mantra in every major address they make. “Taiwan is China’s Taiwan,” Xi characteristically told the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) last October. “We will continue to strive for peaceful reunification with the greatest sincerity and the utmost effort, but we will never promise to renounce the use of force and we reserve the option of taking all measures necessary.”

In addition, vigorous efforts have gone into enhancing the PLA’s capacity to invade that island, located 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait from the Chinese mainland. The PLA has substantially expanded its naval arm, the PLA Navy (PLAN), and especially its amphibious assault component. The PLAN, in turn, has conducted numerous amphibious exercises up and down the Chinese coast, many suggesting practice for a possible invasion of Taiwan. According to the Pentagon’s 2022 report on Chinese military power, such maneuvers have increased in recent years, with 20 of them conducted in 2021 alone.

Exercises like these certainly indicate that Chinese leaders are building the capacity to undertake an invasion, should they deem it necessary. But issuing threats and acquiring military capabilities do not necessarily signify intent to take action. The CCP’s top leaders are survivors of ruthless intraparty struggles and know how to calculate risks and benefits. However strongly they may feel about Taiwan, they are not inclined to order an invasion that could result in China’s defeat and their own disgrace, imprisonment, or death.

Weighing the Risks

Even under the best of circumstances, an amphibious assault on Taiwan would prove exceedingly difficult and dangerous. Transporting tens of thousands of PLA troops across 100 miles of water while under constant attack by Taiwanese and (probably) U.S. forces and depositing them on heavily defended beachheads could easily result in disaster. As Russia discovered in Ukraine, conducting a large-scale assault against spirited resistance can prove extremely difficult — even when invading by land. And keep in mind that the PLA hasn’t engaged in significant armed combat since 1979, when it lost a war with Vietnam (though it has had some border skirmishes with India in recent years). Even if it managed to secure a beachhead in Taiwan, its forces would undoubtedly lose dozens of ships, hundreds of planes, and many thousands of troops — with no assurance of securing control over Taipei or other major cities.

Just such an outcome emerged in multiple war games conducted in 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. Those simulations, performed by figures with “a variety of senior governmental, think tank, and military backgrounds,” always began with a PLA amphibious assault on Taiwan accompanied by air and missile attacks on critical government infrastructure. But “the Chinese invasion quickly founders,” a CSIS summary suggests. “Despite massive Chinese bombardment, Taiwanese ground forces stream to the beachhead, where the invaders struggle to build up supplies and move inland. Meanwhile, U.S. submarines, bombers, and fighter/attack aircraft, often reinforced by Japan Self-Defense Forces, rapidly cripple the Chinese amphibious fleet. China’s strikes on Japanese bases and U.S. surface ships cannot change the result: Taiwan remains autonomous.”

Those like General Minihan who predict an imminent Chinese invasion usually neglect to mention such hardcore assessments, but other military analysts have been less reticent. Buried deep in the Pentagon’s 2022 report on Chinese military power, for example, is the following: “An attempt to invade Taiwan would likely strain PRC’s armed forces and invite international intervention. Combined with inevitable force attrition… these factors make an amphibious invasion of Taiwan a significant political and military risk for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Surely Xi’s generals and admirals have conducted similar war games and reached comparable conclusions. Chinese leaders are also painfully aware of the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine and recognize that an invasion of Taiwan would automatically result in similar penalties. Add in the potential damage to Chinese infrastructure from U.S. bombers and the country’s economic prospects could be crushed for years to come — a likely death sentence for the Chinese Communist Party. Why, then, even think about an invasion?

There’s No Hurry

Add in one other factor. China’s leaders seem to have concluded that time is on their side — that the Taiwanese people will, eventually, voluntarily decide to unite with the mainland. This approach is spelled out in Beijing’s recent white paper, “The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era,” released last August by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the PRC’s State Council. As China grows increasingly prosperous, the paper argues, the Taiwanese — especially young Taiwanese — will see ever greater benefits from unification, diminishing the appeal of independence, or “separatism.”

“China’s development and progress, and in particular the steady increases in its economic power, technological strength, and national defense capabilities, are an effective curb against separatist activities,” the paper states. “As more and more compatriots from Taiwan, especially young people, pursue their studies, start businesses, seek jobs, or go to live on the mainland… the economic ties and personal bonds between the people on both sides run deeper… leading cross-Straits relations towards reunification.”

And keep in mind that this is not a short-term proposition but a strategy that will take years — even decades — to achieve success. Nevertheless, most of that white paper’s content is devoted not to military threats — the only parts of the paper to receive coverage in the West — but to bolstering bilateral trade and increasing China’s economic appeal to young Taiwanese. “Following the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the mainland has improved its governance and maintained long-term economic growth,” it asserts. “As a result, the overall strength and international influence of the mainland will continue to increase, and its influence over and appeal to Taiwan society will keep growing.”

In such a take-it-slow approach surely lies a recognition that military action against Taiwan could prove a disaster for China. But whatever the reasoning behind such planning, it appears that Chinese leaders are prepared to invest massive resources in persuading the Taiwanese that reunification is in their best interests. Whether or not such a strategy will succeed is unknown. It’s certainly possible that a Taiwanese preference for political autonomy will outweigh any interest in mainland business opportunities, but with Beijing banking so heavily on the future in this manner, a military assault seems far less likely. And that’s something you won’t hear these days in an ever more belligerent Washington.

Considering the Alternatives

It’s difficult for outsiders — let alone most Chinese — to know what goes on in Beijing’s closed-door CCP leadership councils and, of all state secrets, that leadership’s calculations about a possible invasion of Taiwan are probably the most guarded. It’s certainly possible, in other words, that Xi and his top lieutenants are prepared to invade at the earliest sign of a drive towards independence by Taiwan’s leaders, as many U.S. officials claim. But there’s no evidence in the public realm to sustain such an assessment and all practical military analysis suggests that such an endeavor would prove suicidal. In other words — though you’d never know it in today’s frenzied Washington environment — concluding that an invasion is not likely under current circumstances is all too reasonable.

In the belief that Beijing is prepared to mount an invasion, the United States is already providing Taiwan with billions of dollars‘ worth of advanced weaponry, while bolstering its own capacity to defeat China in any potential conflict. Sadly, such planning for a future Pacific war is likely to consume an ever-increasing share of taxpayer dollars, result in ever more military training and planning in the Pacific, and as Rep. Gallagher and Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy suggested recently, ever more belligerent attitudes toward China. Given the reasonable probability that Chinese leaders have decided against an invasion, at least in the immediate future, doesn’t it make sense to consider alternative policies that will cost all of us less and make all of us safer?  

Imagine, in fact, adopting a less antagonistic stance towards Beijing and seeking negotiated solutions to some of the issues dividing us, including China’s militarization of contested islands in the South China Sea and its provocative air and sea maneuvers around Taiwan. Reduced tensions in the Western Pacific might, in turn, make it possible to avoid massive increases in the Pentagon budget, thereby permitting increased spending on domestic priorities like health, education, and climate action.

If only…

*

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.

Michael T. Klare,TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.

Featured image: 210407-N-MQ442-2010 by U.S. Pacific Fleet is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 / Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Imminent?
  • 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.

*** 

This is a doomed-to-fail provocation carried out purely for propaganda with the intent of lessening the crushing blow to morale from losing Artyomovsk.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Monday that

“The Defense Ministry, the FSB and the Border Service have reported to the Russian president – the supreme commander-in-chief – about a Ukrainian sabotage group’s attempt to break into the Belgorod Region.” He added that “We understand perfectly well that the goal of such subversive activities is to divert attention from the Bakhmut area and reduce the political impact of Ukraine’s loss of Artyomovsk.”

Reports suggest that the so-called “Freedom of Russian Legion” and “Russian Volunteer Corps”, both of which are regarded by Russia as Ukrainian military intelligence’s terrorist proxies, are behind this attack. It was predictable that something of the sort would soon be attempted in order to deflect from Russia’s victory over the weekend in the longest battle of its special operation thus far. The following four analyses touched upon precisely this scenario:

The last piece in particular predicted that this could soon be attempted because “Zelensky urgently needs to repair his side’s morale and show his Western patrons’ people that their $165 billion worth of taxpayer-provided military aid was used for something”, which aligns with Peskov’s assessment.

Keeping in mind the Kremlin’s official conclusion that the US was involved in this month’s failed assassination attempt against President Putin, it therefore naturally follows that it had a hand in this attack too.

It’s highly unlikely that Monday’s proxy invasion of Russia will lead to any lasting gains, hence why it should be seen as nothing more than infowar copium, or a doomed-to-fail provocation carried out purely for propaganda with the intent of lessening the crushing blow to morale from losing Artyomovsk. In fact, it might even backfire if the Kremlin finally regards this latest crossing of its “red lines” as worthy of an overwhelming response, which patriots have been pleading for ever since the Crimean Bridge bombing.

*

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.

Featured image is from the author

The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 23, 2023

On May 20, Moscow’s officials announced that Russian forces had taken full control of the province, with no more Ukrainian units in the region. With this, the bloodiest infantry battle since World War II ended. The case once again shows how Moscow militarily controls the conflict, leaving no doubt as to which side is winning on the battlefield.

“The US and UK are complicit with the Israeli apartheid and racist regime.” Interview with Sami, the Bedouin

By Sami the Bedouin and Steven Sahiounie, May 23, 2023

The armed conflict between the Palestinian people of the West Bank and Gaza continues against the Israeli forces who maintain the over 5 million residents under a brutal military occupation, with no human rights, and no freedom in sight.

mRNA and Breastfeeding: COVID-19 Vaccinated Mothers Who Breastfeed — Babies Have Serious Reactions Including Death

By Dr. William Makis, May 23, 2023

Pfizer’s own documents report that the rate of adverse events in babies who are breastfeeding from COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers is 13% and serious adverse events occur in 2% of babies, including two baby deaths recorded in VAERS.

Ukraine Admits Murdering “Quite a Few” Russian Civilians Who Back Putin and His Invasion

By Zero Hedge, May 23, 2023

A senior Ukrainian official has admitted that his country has assassinated “quite a few” Russian civilians who support Putin and his war to assert control of the Donbas region. In interviews first reported by The Times of London, Major General Kyrylo Budanov, who heads Ukraine’s military intelligence service, also promised more attacks are to come. 

Help to Live in Peace and Freedom! Appeal to the Youth of the World

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 22, 2023

In the course of their development, young people are confronted with a variety of challenges which they usually cope with well. In order to be able to tackle life’s tasks courageously, the adolescent is dependent on being embedded in a supportive environment as a living world and in an integrating culture.

The EU Can’t Keep Its Story Straight About U.S Sanctions Against the Import of Russian Fuel

By Andrew Korybko, May 22, 2023

The EU only has two choices when it comes to India selling refined Russian fuel: it can either retain the present arrangement for the pragmatic sake of all parties’ pecuniary interests, or it can ban the import of these products for ideological reasons at the expense of the aforesaid.

CIA

The US Government Launches A.I. Tool to Detect “Russian Disinformation”

By Ben Bartee, May 22, 2023

As I covered recently at PJ Media, the technocrat with the single most punchable face in world history, Antony Blinken, announced that the Biden administration now has at its fingertips a propriety AI tool to comb the web for something called “Russian disinformation.”

Squeezed by the Shorts: Time to Ban Short Selling?

By Ellen Brown, May 22, 2023

Short sellers have made a killing in the recent banking crisis, scalping $14.3 billion from bank stock owners just in March of this year. Short sellers “borrow” stock they don’t own and immediately sell it, driving the price down. Then they buy it back at the lower price, return the stock, and pocket the difference.

Death’s Secretary Tries to Forget on Cape Cod

By Edward Curtin, May 22, 2023

We have come to Cape Cod for a few days to forget the man-made world that is too much with us. I have asked my forgettery to get to work. As my childhood friends used to say to me, “Eddy spaghetti, use you forgetty.” The adults had no idea what they meant.  Many still do not.

The Growing War Cost on Our Shoulders. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, May 22, 2023

On European tours of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, Zelensky raised billions in military aid. But this is not enough. Now he is announcing that soon a coalition of European countries will supply Kyiv with fighter bombers to be used against Russia. Among these fighters could be the Italian Tornadoes with attack capabilities, even nuclear ones, flying at very low altitudes to evade enemy radars.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

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 armed conflict between the Palestinian people of the West Bank and Gaza continues against the Israeli forces who maintain the over 5 million residents under a brutal military occupation, with no human rights, and no freedom in sight.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Sami, the Bedouin, a Palestinian writer and blogger. He is originally ethnically cleansed from Ashdod, in Occupied Palestine, but living as a refugee in the West Bank Occupied Palestine. As an activist for Palestine, he has been arrested several times and spent some years in the zionist jails for resisting the zionist occupation. He’s been blogging exclusively about Palestine in different sites and in his blog www.samibedouin.wordpress.com

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):   Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the targeted assassinations of three leaders of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. It appears Netanyahu did so for his own benefit, because he faces huge domestic political issues. What is your view on this situation?

Sami the Bedouin (SB):  Netanyahu didn’t invent, or start the Israeli assassination policy against the Palestinian leaders and activists; he just continued a systematic and continuous state-sponsored policy. Steering the attention away from the Israeli internal dilemma and saving Netanyahu from the masses of demonstrating Israelis could be a side and temporary result for attacking Gaza but we can’t blame only Netanyahu for that longstanding policy, or even the current wave of assassination that was decided and carried out by the Israeli cabinet, ie, the whole Israeli government, plus, there was a massive support from the whole Israeli political spectrum for the killing, although most of the victims were civilians.   

Now, to understand the Israeli systematic assassination policy you have got to know that it is an integral part of all the Israeli governments as “Israel” has been using Death Squads even before it was established, and once it was terrorist groups of Lehi, Irgun, and Stern. Most of the Zionist leaders were directly involved in this systematic policy and the assassins mostly become the top leaders of “Israel”, like Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Livni, Bennett, Shaked and the list is endless. 

This policy was started as early as 1930s when the Jewish National Fund JNF had compelled an inventory that included the topographic location of each village with detailed information including husbandry, cultivated land, number of trees, quality of fruit, average amount of land per family, number of cars, shop owners, Palestinian clans and their political affiliation, descriptions of village mosques and names of their imams, civil servants and more. The final inventory update was finished in 1947 with lists of “wanted” persons in each village targeted in 1948 for search-and-arrest operations with those seized summarily shot on the spot in cold blood. 

The assassination policy is an Israeli built-in strategy in order to weaken the Palestinian leadership within the major Zionist target of committing what is known to be a political genocide against the Palestinian people to deprive it from its able leadership to pave the way to subordinate, submissive and compromising leadership. 

SS:  There are building, and ongoing tensions in the Occupied West Bank, between the Israeli occupation forces and the Palestinian people. There have been many raids, attacks and deaths and injuries. How do you see the situation today? 

SB:  Occupation is the source of all the long standing and ongoing tension between the occupier and the revolting. Since 2019 there has been a dramatic rise in the settlers attacks against the Palestinians and their properties from uprooting olive and vine fields, to attacking sheep herders and even shooting sheep and goats, demolition of houses and building structures, to vandalizing mosques and churches, to throwing stones at the passing Palestinian cars killing and wounding innocent civilians, to the daily harassment and humiliation at the checkpoints. All these settlers’ atrocities are supported by the Israeli official policy coupled to not only the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) inability to protect its citizens, but its direct involvement with the occupier in the security coordination, which has built up a growing frustration among the Palestinian youth to protect their people personally by forming armed groups. 

Another main factor of the tension is the provocative settlers raids on the Aqsa Mosque in a well-known plan to demolish it and build the Israeli alleged temple, these raids are carried out by the most racist Zionist settlers attacking the native Jerusalemites and cursing Islam and the prophet Muhammad in a clear way to provoke the natives. 

I don’t think there is a near solution for the whole situation, but it is going to get even worse by time for different reasons; 

Israel’s in ability and unwillingness to stop the settler’s atrocities, but will keep providing protection for the extreme right racists, as the current Israeli government is far-right and racist itself.

The deep and systematic corruption in the PA which generates the masses mistrust and revolt against it which means more militant groups including from Fateh party itself to take the streets against the default PA that is cooperating with the occupier. 

There is no political horizon that could give hope, on the contrary there is expansion in the settlement and the settlers attacks. 

I expect mass revolt against the PA at a certain point like a foolish act by the PA police, or by the death of Abbas. It is hard to guess, but the possibility is around the corner.

SS:  During Ramadan, the Israeli occupation forces repeatedly attacked worshipers at the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and entered the Mosque several times while beating men, women and children. Recently, Jewish extremists threatened to raise an Israeli flag on the Mosque. In your opinion, what is the current situation, and what should be the response? 

SB:  It is clear that there is a Jewish intention, and plan to demolish Al-Aqsa compound and build their alleged temple on its site based on their Talmudic heresies of Armageddon and salvation. We should always remember that the 1929 massacre was intrigued by Jewish demonstrations holding Israeli flags calling for the demolition of the Mosque, a week of Jewish provocative marches resulted in that massacre. This shows us that the Jewish intention to demolish the Mosque, and build their temple, is not only a slogan but a real plan among the extremist Jewish masses, and they are getting stronger and stronger to dominate the government, as it is the case now. 

Now, these extremist and provocative demonstrations are not only extremist, but mainstream, supported by the official Israeli government and police, where the Muslims are attacked, beaten and even killed inside while the Jewish extremists are given full protection and encouragement by the Israeli police accompanied by ministers in the Israeli government. All this happens while the PA is not only helpless and dumb, but in a full security cooperation with the occupying authorities. 

Once again, this blocked and deteriorating situation breeds frustration among the Palestinian youths that would leads into more armed resistance, which, at a certain point might force the armed groups in Gaza to join the struggle.  

SS:  We have all seen the UN report naming Israel as an Apartheid state. Meanwhile, the war crimes, and crimes against humanity continue being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people, and the international community takes no action. In your opinion, how can Israel’s impunity be stopped?

SB:  The racist can never admit or internalize he is racist, on the contrary, he would try to justify his racism by religious or cultural motifs as it is the case in the Israeli Zionist society. They can’t see that there are over 60 racist laws that discriminate against the native Palestinians, these laws that were approved by the Knesset itself, ie, the Israeli government, which means racism is an official paradigm. 

The Palestinian is discriminated against not only in and by the Israeli law, but in every aspect of his daily life, like building a house, traveling within or out Palestine where certain routes and roads are assigned for the less privileged Palestinians. Discrimination is not only against the Occupied Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but it is a systematic policy even against the Israeli-Arab citizens, it is a built-in Israeli dogma that can’t be unplugged, but by de-zionizing Israel itself.

The whole west, especially the USA and Britain are complicit with the Israeli apartheid and racist regime. They provide not only protection in the UN institutions, but also a flood of political, military and financial support for Israel. 

I don’t think the privileged racist would wake up one day to say I want to stop; it only can be stopped by real pressure from outside especially from the US, as it is the main patron for the Israeli regime. Stopping the Israeli impunity can’t be while the Israeli Jews are intoxicated by power and the endless and unconditioned political and military support. Real pressure, especially sanctions (like that against Iran and Russia) might do the job. This can start by supporting the BDS movement, but not sanction it. Fighting the BDS would worsen the situation and lead Israel deep into its racist apartheid regime. 

In fact, and in reality, the Israeli Jewish society is growing more and more talmudically racist, and socially and politically an apartheid regime at its best, this could be good at the long run as all people would realize the racist nature of the Zionist colonial project from the very beginning as it has been based on ethno-religious paradigm. Racist regimes can’t change themselves from within by their privileged agents, but as it was with Nazi Germany, the Zionist-Jewish colony should and must be saved from outside power to save it from its own brutality. 

SS:  China brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. How can this new, and improved relationship affect the Israeli-Palestinian cause?

SB:  The first and biggest loser by the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation is Israel, as it has been investing in Sunni-Shiite enmity for decades, but all of sudden, everything has turned upside down for the Zionist government. All the Israeli political plans over the past two decades were concentrated on breaking through the Sunni Arab governments to build a military alliance against Iran. It succeeded partially, but the latest Saudi-Iranian rapprochement has been a major slap for the whole Zionist project. This is coupled with the rising role of China in the Middle East, while the American involvement is retreating. On the other hand, we are witnessing a global power shift, gradual but steady from the West to the East at the economic and political levels. 

In the long run, the Zionist project of Israel will lose especially when it is intoxicated by power and ideological blindness, just like the Nazis in their final years. I don’t believe the two states is a viable solution any more, but the only humane and plausible solution would be a one secular state for all, where everybody is treated equally, but when and how the racist intoxicated with power, mad dog would wake up? Only external blow or pressure would do the job, at the meantime I am too pessimist and expect another Srebrenica massacre if the world, especially the Americans wouldn’t wake up before it is 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.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Sami the Bedouin, a Palestinian writer and blogger.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The US and UK are complicit with the Israeli apartheid and racist regime.” Interview with Sami, the Bedouin
  • Tags: , , ,

G7 Hiroshima Summit Fails to Deliver Progress on Nuclear Disarmament

May 23rd, 2023 by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

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.

*** 

Update 20 May 2023: The G7 leaders have just issued the final communique from their summit in Hiroshima. It claims they have “taken concrete steps to strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, towards the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all” but it doesn’t say what these steps are. That’s because it can’t.

What we got from the leaders’ discussion on nuclear weapons yesterday was a rehash of ideas and proposals that have failed to deliver progress over the past three decades. They did not announce anything new or concrete. They couldn’t even bring themselves to follow the G20 and TPNW member states by condemning all nuclear threats. Instead they reserved their condemnation for Russia’s and North Korea’s threats, which, while justified, fails to acknowledge how the G7’s own nuclear doctrines are based on the threat to use nuclear weapons and so contribute to the acute danger these weapons pose to everyone. 

*

The G7’s detailed statement “G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament”, issued on May 19, falls far short of providing any meaningful outcomes for nuclear disarmament. After months of preparation and amid high expectations, the leaders are missing the moment to make the world safer from nuclear weapons, instead of confronting nuclear threats with a concrete, credible plan for nuclear disarmament – like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons- they are barely even paying lip service to the horrors of Hiroshima, the first city attacked by nuclear weapons.

The statement recalls the unprecedented devastation and extreme and inhumane suffering experienced by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the atomic bombs were dropped and reconfirms the G7 leaders’ determination to realise a “world without nuclear weapons.”

Yet it fails to commit to concrete measures towards that goal and even emphasises the importance of reserving the right to use nuclear weapons. The G7 are trying to sell decades-old and insufficient initiatives as a new “vision”, when at the same time they themselves are complicit in the rising nuclear risks and promoting mass murder of civilians as a legitimate form of national security policy.

ICAN’s Executive Director Daniel Hogsta responded to the statement

“This is more than a missed opportunity. With the world facing the acute risk that nuclear weapons could be used for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, this is a gross failure of global leadership. Simply pointing fingers at Russia and China is insufficient. We need the G7 countries, which all either possess, host or endorse the use of nuclear weapons, to step up and engage the other nuclear powers in disarmament talks if we are to reach their professed goal of a world without nuclear weapons”

In light of Russia’s unacceptable nuclear threats, the G7 leaders failed to offer a progressive and credible response, effectively walking back earlier language by the G20 that clearly condemned all nuclear threats, with equivocations meant to give the nuclear armed states in the group some cover: “In this context, we reiterate our position that threats by Russia of nuclear weapon use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia, in the context of its aggression against Ukraine are inadmissible.” This is a step back from acknowledging that all nuclear threats are inadmissible, no matter who they come from.

The statement also refers to the importance of transparency. Again, this is something where some of the G7 states must look at the example they are setting- the UK, for example, decided in 2021 to be less transparent about their arsenal.

Failure to heed the survivors’ call

The statement fails to meaningfully acknowledge the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and above all, it fails to meet the hibakusha’s demands for real action to eliminate nuclear weapons. Instead of rising to meet the urgency and weight of this moment, the G7’s inaction is an insult to the hibakusha, and the memory of those who died in Hiroshima.

Earlier in the day, the G7 leaders reportedly spent less than 30 min inside the Peace Memorial Museum before placing a wreath at the cenotaph. They also met briefly with atomic bomb survivors, but this statement shows they did not actually listen to what the Hibakusha are asking for. They intend to ignore the risks and the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and to continue to be complicit in the risks they pose.

Satoshi Tanaka, survivor of the atomic bombing and Secretary General of the Liaison Conference of Hiroshima Hibakusha Organisations said:

“This is not the genuine nuclear disarmament that Hibakusha are calling for. This is an evasion of their responsibility. Prime Minister Kishida has said that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the final passage for a nuclear weapon-free world. No, it is not a final passage. It is the entry point. PM Kishida and other G7 leaders should accept the TPNW and start the real process of eliminating nuclear weapons.”

Nuclear weapons are illegal under international law.

The next opportunity for the G7 to show that they are serious about addressing the nuclear threat is to participate in the next meeting of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. That’s where the responsible states meet to implement a plan for global disarmament.

*

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: Satoshi Tanaka addresses journalists at a joint press conference with a-bomb survivors, ICAN and the Japanese NGO-network

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.

*** 

Babies Who Died When COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Were Breastfeeding (Two Cases)

CASE 1 (VAERS ID 1532154): 8 week old baby died July 17, 2021: 

36 year old mother from New Mexico wrote: “On July 17, 2021, my baby passed away. I had been breastfeeding my 6 week old baby at the time that I received the first Pfizer vaccine on June 4, 2021.

He became very sick with a high fever on June 21, about 2 weeks after I got the first Pfizer vaccine. He was treated for 2 weeks with IV antibiotics for a supposed bacterial infection, however, they never found any bacteria.

After the 14 day course of antibiotics, he was home for one week, but exhibited strange symptoms (e.g. swollen eyelid, strange rashes, vomiting). I took him back to the hospital on July 15, where he presented with what they called an atypical Kawasaki disease. He passed away shortly thereafter from clots in his severely inflamed arteries. He died on July 17, 2021.

CASE 2 (VAERS ID 1166062): 5 month old baby died March 20, 2021 

Mother received her 2nd dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2021 while at work. The next day on March 18, 2020, her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat and developed a fever.

Baby was brought to ER, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes, was hospitalized but continued to decline and died on March 20, 2021 with diagnosis of TTP.

Babies Who Had Serious Reactions When COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Were Breastfeeding

There are hundreds of these cases so I will only highlight a few:

CASE 3 (VAERS ID 1415059): 3 month old baby had seizures from breastfeeding

A mother from Pennsylvania wrote: “I received 1st dose of Moderna on June 18, 2021. I fed my three month old daughter milk that I pumped from my breasts later that night and put her to bed. When transferring her to her bassinet at approximately 11:30pm, she started a seizure that lasted seven minutes. We were transported to Hospital where she suffered two more seizures in the early morning hours of June 19th. She has been a healthy baby with no health conditions prior to these events.

CASE 4 (VAERS ID 930348): Pfizer vaccinated mom’s baby had seizures for 4 days 

A 33 year old mother from New Jersey writes: “I am breastfeeding. My daughter had seizure like episodes starting on Saturday 1/2, Sunday 1/3, Monday, 1/4 and 2 times on Tuesday 1/5.”

CASE 5 (VAERS ID 1099241): A 16 month old baby got hemolytic anemia 

A mother from California had J&J vaccine on March 10, 2021. Her 16 month old baby developed jaundice the next day and was admitted for evaluation of hemolytic anemia.

CASE 6 (VAERS ID 1543319: 12 month old has swollen lymph nodes 

On Feb 1, 2021, the mother received 1st Moderna dose. The next day the nursing 12 month old infant developed fever and swollen lymph nodes in the groin.

CASE 7 (VAERS ID 1101777): 14 month old boy has body rash all over 

A 29 year old mother from New York had Moderna and writes: “I’m breastfeeding my 14 month old son. A couple of days after I received my first dose of the Moderna vaccine, he broke out in red spots all over his body. A few days later, he developed a low grade fever. It’s been one week since I was vaccinated. He does not have a fever anymore and the red spots are almost all gone.”

CASE 8 (VAERS ID 917888): 15 month old has rash and fever 

A 35 year old mother from New Mexico had one dose of Pfizer. She writes: “ I am breastfeeding my 15 month old son and he got a rash on his abdomen and face that has progressed more over past several days. He has had no fever but acts like he doesn’t feel great as he was not eating like his normal self. I don’t know if the rash is related or not but it is during the time of the vaccine.”

CASE 9 (VAERS ID 931851): 5 month old baby has severe diarrhea & vomiting, almost died

A 32 year old mother from Alaska writes: “I am currently breastfeeding my 5-month-old son. I received my first (Pfizer) vaccine on 12/28/2020 and directly breastfed within 4 hours of receiving the vaccine. Two days after my vaccine my son was at daycare and had two large diarrhea blowouts and two large emeses followed by a 1-minute episode where he was limp with entire body cyanosis and in-and-out of consciousness. He also had a maculopapular rash on his torso. EMS was called. He was observed in the emergency department for a few hours then recovered. He has continued to be well and back to baseline since the event.”

CASE 10 (VAERS ID 970309): 5 month old boy has vomiting, diarrhea, body rash and blood in urine 

A 30 year old mother from Connecticut had one Moderna jab. Two nights after her 1st Moderna dose, her 5 month old boy had violent vomiting, diarrhea, body rash, and hematuria.

CASE 11 (VAERS ID 1088716): 4 month old baby had blood in stool 

A 29 year old mother from Kentucky had 1st Pfizer dose. She writes: “I am currently breastfeeding my 4 month old son. He started pooping blood 4 hours after my 1st dose of the vaccine. His next 3 stools were blood streaked and then returned to normal.”

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Who Had Reactions Related to Breastfeeding

CASE 12 (VAERS ID 976245): Significant decrease in breast milk supply 

A 28 year old mother from Oregon had 1st Pfizer dose. She had arm soreness, lip swelling and numbness next day. She developed a significant decreased in breast milk supply starting 2-3 days after Pfizer and it did not recover. She had been breastfeeding her baby completely since birth in July 2020.

CASE 13 (VAERS ID 980782): Breast milk turned green 

Mother had Pfizer vaccine. She noticed reduced breast milk production and her breast milk has turned green.

CASE 14 (VAERS ID 1022827): Blood in breast milk after 1st Pfizer dose 

A 33 year mother from New Jersey writes: “I am breastfeeding. The first pump after my Pfizer shot ( three and half hours after) 2oz of blood was pumped from the right breast”

CASE 15 (VAERS ID 1041373): Had a miscarriage 10 days after Pfizer 

A 36 year old woman from Pennsylvania who was breast feeding her previous infant born in 2019, had 1st Pfizer dose on Dec.21, 2020. She was 4 weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage 10 days after Pfizer.

CASE 16 (VAERS ID 1154934): Mom started bleeding after 1st Moderna dose 

A 37 year old woman from California writes: “The Moderna vaccine induced my menstruation. I am currently breastfeeding and had not been menstruating since becoming pregnant in January 2019. I had a baby since then and due to nursing on demand my period had not returned. Less than 24 hours after getting vaccinated I woke up to a moderate menstrual flow, bright red blood. I am still menstruating and experiencing mild cramping and bloatedness in my abdominal area. There was no prior indication this would happen before the vaccine. I had not even spotted before. My cycle has historically been very regular and I am certain the vaccine had something to do with stimulating my endocrine system and thus causing my menstruation.”

COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA Found in Breastmilk 

It is interesting to note that mRNA was found in breast milk as early as April 2021 in a paper by Low et al. (click here)

It was recently confirmed again in a paper by Hanna et al. in Sep.2022 (click here)

US Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan wrote a substack article about how mRNA ingested by the infant through breast milk, could exert clinical effects by:

  1. COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is RNase resistant due to modified N1-methyl-pseudoU, so it doesn’t break down easily;
  2. Baby’s oral mucosa can be transfected by mother’s mRNA (contained in extracellular vesicles in breast milk);
  3. Mother’s mRNA can survive the baby’s gut and digestive process.

His fascinating account of how mRNA is transported in breast milk can be found here: (click here)

“Milk is considered as more than a source of nutrition for infants and is a vector involved in the transfer of bioactive compounds and cells. Milk contains abundant quantities of extracellular vesicles (EVs) that may originate from multiple cellular sources. These nanosized vesicles have been well characterized and are known to carry a diverse cargo of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids and other biomolecules. Milk-derived EVs have been demonstrated to survive harsh and degrading conditions in gut, taken up by various cell types, cross biological barriers and reach peripheral tissues. The cargo carried by these dietary EVs has been suggested to have a role in cell growth, development, immune modulation and regulation.”

Pfizer’s Post Marketing report issued April 2021 with Adverse Event reports through Feb. 28, 2021:

Pfizer’s documents give us some interesting information on page 12 (click here)

Babies who were breastfed by COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers had a 13% adverse event rate (17/133), and a 2% serious adverse event rate (3/133).

mRNA Vaccines Are Not Safe for Breastfeeding

So COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is NOT SAFE for breastfeeding mothers or babies.

This was confirmed by the UK Government on August 16 2022, when it declared that “Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated” (click here)

Alberta Health Services can be sued for medical misinformation: (click here) 

AHS advises Albertans: “There are no known risks to getting the COVID-19 vaccine while breastfeeding”.

Every pregnant Alberta woman can now sue AHS for medically misinforming them. It is time for historic class action lawsuits.

My Take… 

COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is found in breast milk. This has been known since at least April 2021.

Pfizer’s own documents report that the rate of adverse events in babies who are breastfeeding from COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers is 13% and serious adverse events occur in 2% of babies, including two baby deaths recorded in VAERS.

Most common reactions babies have to mRNA in breast milk are: fever and rashes, then diarrhea, vomiting, and sometimes more serious such as hemolytic anemia, bleeding in urine or stool, and seizures.

We now have an outbreak of myocarditis (heart inflammation) cases in babies < 28 days old, with 16 cases of myocarditis in the UK, including two deaths that are not reported in VAERS (click here). These cases can be due to mRNA in breast milk or LNPs with mRNA crossing the placenta before baby is born.

Mothers report decrease in breast milk production, breast milk discoloration (turns blue or green), sudden onset irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding, breast lumps and more.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in breastfeeding mothers was NEVER SAFE, any Institution or expert who claimed otherwise was lying.

*

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 Houston Health Propaganda Department


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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on mRNA and Breastfeeding: COVID-19 Vaccinated Mothers Who Breastfeed — Babies Have Serious Reactions Including Death

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 more than 290 days of intense fighting and tens of thousands of casualties, the Battle of Artyomovsk (called Bakhmut in Ukraine) is over.

On May 20, Moscow’s officials announced that Russian forces had taken full control of the province, with no more Ukrainian units in the region. With this, the bloodiest infantry battle since World War II ended. The case once again shows how Moscow militarily controls the conflict, leaving no doubt as to which side is winning on the battlefield.

The announcement was made around noon on the 20th, in a statement published on social media by Evgeny Prigozhin, head of the Russian private military company (PMC) Wagner Group. A few hours later, several Russian state officials confirmed the news and publicly congratulated the Wagner’s fighters for their victory on the battlefield.

As expected, Ukrainian spokespersons and Western media initially reacted by denying the news. For a few hours, Ukrainian officials claimed that Kiev’s forces were still in the city, but then the narrative changed, and officials admitted that Russian control had been achieved.

As it would become impossible to maintain the lying discourse for a long time, the Ukrainian tactic became that of admitting defeat in order to try to use a “victimist” narrative to raise more Western support.

At a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky recognized the defeat by stating that there is “nothing” in Bakhmut now, and that the city is only in Ukrainian “hearts”.

“You have to understand that there is nothing (…) For today, Bakhmut is only in our hearts. There is nothing in this place”, he told journalists, trying to use emotional techniques to move Western public opinion.

Zelensky’s words, however, sound hypocritical when the case is analyzed in depth.

Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, with several military experts claiming it was only a matter of time before it happened. The Russians were very close to victory and obviously the Western intelligence services which control the Ukrainian forces knew this, but they ignored the reality of the battlefield and chose to bet on a lying and irresponsible narrative about a “spring counteroffensive” to try to boost the international support for the regime.

As an argument to justify the “possibility” of a Ukrainian victory, the mainstream media intensively reported the existence of an alleged internal conflict in Russia between the forces of PMC Wagner and the Ministry of Defense.

The narrative was created taking advantage of speeches by Prigozhin himself, who is known for always using psychological warfare techniques, trying to appear weak and disunited in the face of the enemy. Both Ukrainian and Western intelligence certainly knew that Prigozhin’s words were a kind of “trap”, but they chose to adopt Western media discourse and ordered troops to remain in the city, rather than strategically retreating to save lives in the face of imminent defeat.

As a result, the last days of the city under Ukrainian control were marked by intense fighting with the use of heavy artillery and incendiary thermobaric weapons.

Zelensky, even having the necessary intelligence data to predict the defeat, not only did not authorize any evacuation, but he also stayed at a safe distance from the frontlines during the most difficult days of the conflict. His international tour has been lasting long, which is why he hasn’t even been in Kiev to take emergency measures or welcome and award the survivors.

The end of the battle also reveals the military expertise of the head of the Wagner Group, who successfully used psychological skills to confuse the enemy and accelerate victory. This is the first time that a PMC has won a large-scale infantry battle against a regular army. The southern command of the Russian Army helped in the last days of combat, mainly with the supply of artillery, but the protagonist of the victory was the Wagner Group, contradicting the Western discourse that the PMC would be weakened and close to collapse.

It is necessary to mention that the Ukrainian forces work together with western mercenaries and receive huge support in arms and intelligence. This makes the control that the Russians maintain over the conflict even more evident, since they were able to win an enemy so well equipped in an intense battle using practically only a PMC, without any great mobilization of its combat potential.

In fact, the victory on the 20th shows that the inconsistent and weakened side is the Western-Ukrainian one, where the intelligence services do not communicate directly with the military and induce them to maintain unsustainable positions on the battlefield, which results in the death thousands of Ukrainians.

On the part of Russia, PMC Wagner, Ministry of Defense and intelligence act visibly cohesively and obtain significant victories using few resources, betting largely on psychological warfare tactics to deceive the enemy.

*

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

Turkiye Rallies Behind Erdogan

May 23rd, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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.

*** 

It comes as no surprise that the United States and the European Union didn’t have the face to commend the performance of Recep Erdogan and his party in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkiye on Sunday. The election results do not serve the geopolitical interests of the US and its European allies. It is apparent that the entreaties and media management in the run-up fell on deaf ears. 

The western powers hoped for a weak unstable government and are instead worrying that a turbo-charged Erdogan with a commanding majority in the parliament will be presiding over a strong government and won’t be a pushover. 

Thus, pin-pricking has begun. A question mark is put on the legitimacy of Erdogan’s victory over his opposition rival Kemal Kilicdaroglu who is backed by the West. A real time report by the OSCE election observer mission’s preliminary findings have come handy, which alleged attempts to gerrymander the election results. 

The report accuses Erdogan of enjoying “unjustified advantage” and resorting to “misuse of administrative resources”; and the election commission of “lack of transparency and communication” and independence. 

In a direct attack on Erdogan, the OSCE mission report says, “The president is not explicitly subject to the same restrictions in the campaign period” and took undue advantage of incumbency… (and) blurred the line between party and State, at odds with the 1990 Copenhagen Document” (which contains specific election-related commitments.)   

The report said the election administration, law enforcement bodies, and courts did not enjoy the confidence of the opposition in resolving electoral grievances “impartially and effectively.” The secrecy of the vote was not always guaranteed; family and group voting were frequent; and unauthorised people participated in the count, “raising concerns over its integrity.” During the vote count, “several significant procedural errors were reported.”                      

The US State Department has promptly urged the Turkish authorities to conduct “the next phase of the presidential election in line with the country’s laws and in a manner that is consistent with its commitments to the OSCE as well as a NATO Ally.” 

The state department’s principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said on Monday that the Biden Administration is “continuing to closely monitor the country’s ongoing electoral process.” He noted that “broadly we congratulate the people of Türkiye for peacefully expressing their will at the ballot box, and also congratulate the newly elected parliament.” 

Patel repeated the stated US position that “we’ll continue to work together with whatever government is chosen by the Turkish people to deepen our cooperation and our – deepen our shared priorities.” 

But he also parried that “the election process is still unfolding, as is the work of the OSCE’s election observation mission, which, as you know, released some preliminary findings… But I’m not going to predict anything additional from here.” Patel confirmed that there were US observers represented in the OSCE team. 

Taking a cue from Patel, perhaps, the EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was upfront in a statement issued in Brussels on Tuesday. He stated, “We note the preliminary findings and conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and call on Turkish authorities to address the shortcomings identified.”

Borrell added, “The EU attaches the utmost importance to the need for transparent, inclusive and credible elections, in a level playing field.” Borrell too welcomed the elections as such, and took note of the high turnout as a clear sign of the commitment of the Turkish people to exercising their democratic right to vote.

The salience of these remarks lies in the subtle hint by both Patel and Borrell that all is not lost yet and the jury is still out as regards Erdogan’s victory. (Interestingly, Turkish Foreign Ministry has pointed out that a total of 489 international election observers watched the May 14 elections in Türkiye and it is also “reflected in the reports of these delegations that the elections were held in accordance with the standards of free democratic elections and with exemplary participation in the OSCE and the CoE geography.”)

That said, by now, it must be sinking in surely in the western calculus that Erdogan has retained his core constituency, which has not suffered erosion, and his charisma cannot be matched by Kilicdaroglu. In “systemic” terms, the Globalists cannot match Erdogan’s nationalistic plank, either. 

Erdogan is all but certain to win the runoff. The big question is about the third candidate Sinan Ogan who secured 5.2% votes in Sunday’s first round and now bows out of the race. Where will his supporters go in the runoff? No doubt, that will affect the “balance of power” in the runoff and tilt the scales decisively.  

The odds are in favour of Kilicdaroglu getting the bulk of the “anti-Erdogan” votes of Ogan, but will that be sufficient to win in the second round? It may not be. Put differently, Ogan will not be able to deliver his entire electorate to Kilicdaroglu. 

Clearly, if Erdogan can retain his voter base exceeding 49.5% it is and goes on to attract even a quarter of the votes Ogan secured, he is going to  be the victor in the runoff. The strong likelihood is that Erdogan will win. 

The fact that AKP secured a comfortable majority in the parliamentary elections — against all forecasts — also creates a new momentum. The AKP’s success goes to show that the Turkish voter seeks a stable government in Ankara when the external environment is becoming extremely dangerous for the country and the economic crisis demands attention. Whereas, the sort of rainbow coalition that Kilicdaroglu is heading used to be the bane of Turkish politics for many decades in the pre-Erdogan era, and a recipe for instability. Equally, it needs to be factored in that the groundswell of Turkish public opinion remains staunchly anti-western. 

If he wins, this will be Erdogan’s final term. And it is going to be a “legacy term.” Erdogan will no doubt aim to transform Turkiye as a regional hub in energy, food, connectivity and transit. There is going to be breakthrough in nuclear industry, defence industry,  infrastructure projects, etc. with Russian participation. 

It is entirely conceivable that in the highly polarised political atmosphere in the country, there could be protests staged by the opposition if Erdogan wins in the runoff on May 28. But that won’t pose a serious challenge to Erdogan. 

Turkey is not ripe for a colour revolution. The point is, unlike Georgia’s Eduard Shevardnadze or Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovich, Erdogan is a grassroots politician with a solid mass base and the politics he practises is in sync with the zeitgeist in the region. 

*

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 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.

*** 

Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday recommended, by a vote of 10 to 4, that the agency approve Pfizer’s respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine for pregnant women, despite questions about the vaccine’s safety.

During Thursday’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, committee members and medical experts raised concerns about premature births identified during Pfizer’s clinical trials.

The FDA is expected to issue a final decision on the vaccine in August. If approved, it would become the first RSV vaccine authorized for pregnant women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must “sign off” on Pfizer’s vaccine for pregnant women prior to it becoming available to the public.

According to Axios, the CDC’s immunization advisory committee is likely to discuss FDA-approved RSV vaccines during its June meeting.

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientific advisory committee, told The Defender that while the FDA is not obliged to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, “it almost always does so.”

The appeal of a maternal vaccine like Pfizer’s is “the way it would create neutralizing antibodies in pregnant women that can be transferred to infants in the womb,” Axios reported.

However, “there are health risks, including preterm births,” Axios added, noting that GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals’ (GSK) recently halted its trial of a similar RSV vaccine for infants. According to NBC News, the GSK vaccine “showed a higher preterm birth rate among some vaccine recipients.”

Commenting on the FDA’s recommendation of Pfizer’s RSV vaccine, Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, told The Defender:

“This product represents an unprecedented attempt to vaccinate mothers for no benefit to them and only theoretical efficacy in babies. In the trial, less than 2% of infants at any time point contracted RSV, which is easily treatable with nebulizers.

“Pregnancies should not be threatened with novel vaccines for uncommon and low-risk infantile illnesses.

“Widespread use of this reactogenic vaccine can be expected to cause fetal loss in some unfortunate women. A single case of pregnancy termination would not be worth the population being vaccinated.”

The positive recommendation from the VRBPAC comes two weeks after the FDA approved Arexvy, the first vaccine authorized for RSV. That vaccine, produced by GSK, is intended for adults 60 years of age and older.

It also comes as Pfizer is expecting an FDA decision later this month for its RSV vaccine for adults 60 and over, with the same formulation as the one for pregnant women. The VRBPAC recommended the vaccine for this age group in February.

Pfizer is also “evaluating how its shot performs in other age groups,” Axios reported.

‘A sad day for babies and mums’

According to CNBC, Pfizer’s RSV vaccine, marketed as Abrysvo, will be administered as a single dose to pregnant women in their second or third trimester.

NBC News reported that the shot would be given to pregnant women at 24 to 36 weeks gestation and that the “protective antibodies transfer to infants through the placenta.”

The FDA advisory panel found that data from Abrysvo’s clinical trial “supports the safety of the vaccine” for pregnant women, while the same panel voted unanimously “that available data supported the vaccine’s efficacy for giving the shot to women in their second or third trimesters of pregnancy.”

An FDA briefing document said safety data from Abrysvo clinical trials was “generally favorable.”

According to the trial data, Abrysvo “had an 81.7% efficacy at protecting newborns in the first three months of life against severe illness and a 69.4% efficacy through the first six months,” Axios reported.

The trial consisted of nearly 7,400 participants, according to NBC News, adding that Abrysvo “also lowered the risk of developing respiratory disease from RSV that required doctors’ visits by 51% within about six months.”

“After that, however, the vaccine didn’t appear to make a big difference,” according to the NBC News report, which also reported that “a slightly higher rate of preterm births — defined as before 37 weeks’ gestation — among people who received the vaccine (5.7%) versus those who got a placebo (4.7%)” was identified.

“The difference wasn’t statistically significant, however, so it’s unclear whether it was vaccine-related,” NBC News added. CNBC reported that both percentages were below the overall percentage for preterm births in the general population (10%).

According to CNBC, the clinical trial for Abrysvo “reported 18 peripartum fetal deaths.”

However, the FDA said these deaths were “unlikely” to be related to the shot. According to Axios, “The fetal deaths present in the vaccine group (0.3%) were not related to Pfizer’s vaccine … Similarly, 4 out of 5 infant deaths were considered unrelated to the shot, with one being possibly connected to the shot, although that remains unclear.”

Data reported by Pfizer to the CDC indicated that 14% of pregnant women who participated in Pfizer’s trial sustained an adverse event, with 4.2% sustaining a “serious” adverse event, 1.7% experiencing a “severe” adverse event and 0.5% suffering a “life-threatening” adverse event.

Similarly, the same data showed that 37.1% of infants whose mothers received the experimental Pfizer vaccine experienced adverse events within one month of birth — with 15.5% classified as “serious,” 4.5% as “severe” and 1% as “life-threatening,” while efficacy waned within months of vaccination.

According to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), “The RSV clinical trial data also included the death of one pregnant woman, 18 stillbirths (10 in vaccinated pregnant women and eight in unvaccinated pregnant women), and 17 infant deaths (five from the vaccinated pregnancy group and 12 in unvaccinated pregnancy group).”

Attorney, journalist and podcaster Daniel Horowitz, in an article published Monday in the Conservative Review, quoted Phase 2 trial data for Abrysvo. He wrote: “Pfizer reported 3 out of 116 (2.6%) premature births in the placebo group and 6 out of 114 (5.3%) in the group that received the vaccine that was chosen as Pfizer’s final product,” adding that Pfizer “was studying preterm birth as an ‘adverse event of special interest.’”

According to NBC News, “The most common side effects of the shot reported among pregnant women were fatigue, headache, muscle pain and injection site pain.”

Nass told The Defender there were essentially three problems with the Abrysvo clinical trial data, “two of which were identified by Pfizer and the FDA.” She said:

“There were about 20% more preterm babies and low birth weight babies in the group, whose mothers had been vaccinated versus the group whose mothers had received a placebo. This was very concerning but was disregarded by most of the committee.

“It was unclear to me whether Pfizer had collected enough information on the health of the pregnant women after vaccination. It is hard to tell when you were studying, newborns and babies, whether they have had a side effect from their mothers’ vaccination. The children weren’t studied for long enough to compare their intellectual ability or other parameters.”

The third problem reflected concerns arising from the problems GSK’s candidate vaccine for pregnant women encountered, Nass said. However, “the FDA claimed the GSK clinical trial data were proprietary, and they were unable to provide them,” even though it was pointed out that these findings had been published and were in the public domain.”

“No one questioned the veracity of the data Pfizer presented, despite the fact that Pfizer repeatedly presented data on its COVID vaccine efficacy to this committee that made the vaccines appear much more efficacious than they turned out to be,” Nass said.

McCullough, writing on his Substack, also questioned the Abrysvo clinical trial data. “Pfizer has aggressively advanced RCTs [randomized controlled trials] into the pregnant population with no assurances on long term outcomes. There is no direct benefit to the mothers.”

“Furthermore, the sponsors moved the goal posts to make it easier to have a successful trial. We should demand long-term safety, high efficacy … and at least one year of durability, for such a rare and easy-to-treat condition in babies,” he added.

Calls for ‘tougher scrutiny’ of the RSV vaccine ignored

Some health experts called for “tougher scrutiny” of Abrysvo leading up to Thursday’s VRBPAC meeting, Axios reported, “after trials for GlaxoSmithKline halted trial for a similar shot over increased risks of preterm births and neonatal deaths.”

“Pfizer has not reported similar safety concerns, but some health experts told the British Medical Journal [BMJ] that they hope FDA staff will take the GlaxoSmithKline results into consideration when reviewing the vaccine,” according to Axios.

“Results have raised concerns about a possible increase in preterm births, and experts are calling for further analyses of the data and for post-approval monitoring of the vaccine, should the FDA approve it,” The BMJ analysis stated.

Horowitz said the “formulations of most of these shots are likely very similar, so red flags from one cohort of the study should inform us on the problems with the other.”

According to Nass, who live-blogged the meeting, one VRBPAC member, Dr. Henry H. Bernstein, a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, said during the meeting “he does not want another rotavirus vaccine repeat, in which the signal was known when licensed, but was not statistically significant.”

The rotavirus vaccine was pulled within one year because of intussusception, she said. Intussusception is a life-threatening illness that occurs when a portion of the intestine folds like a telescope, with one segment slipping inside another segment. This causes an obstruction, preventing the passage of food that is being digested through the intestine.

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and VRBPAC panelist, was quoted by CNBC as saying that the problems with GSK’s trial are “hanging over” Pfizer’s RSV shot for pregnant women and infants.

“If GSK truly abandons a program on a similar, almost identical vaccine, that is going to hang over [Pfizer’s] program. I think it needs to be addressed,” Offit added.

Offit separately told Reuters “I worry that if preterm births are in any way a consequence of this vaccine that would be tragic in many ways.”

Science magazine quoted FDA medical officer Dr. Yugenia Hong-Nguyen, who said the rate of premature births was “not statistically significant and lower than background incidence rates in the general population.”

Other VRBPAC members were less concerned. Dr. Daniel Feikin, a Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist and “temporary voting member”, said, “I’m not convinced that there’s a clear causal relationship between this vaccine and preterm birth,” Reuters reported.

Another VRBPAC panelist, Dr. Jay Portnoy, a pediatrics professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said, “If the vaccine actually lives up to the data that we’ve seen today, I can guarantee that many infants and their parents will breathe easier in the coming years.”

Pfizer representatives also sought to downplay concerns with Abrysvo. According to CNBC, Dr. William Gruber, Pfizer’s senior vice president of vaccine clinical research and development, said, “Certainly in our eyes, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that there is a risk of prematurity.”

“So, the question is, do you hold hostage the potential benefits of the vaccine for something which you have no statistical significance at this point?”

Dr. Anthony Fauci also raised concerns about vaccines for respiratory illnesses, Horowitz wrote in a May 4 article. A paper co-authored by Fauci and published in January in Cell Host & Microbe stated that the challenges for RSV and flu vaccines were “many and complex” and that RSV vaccines were not good at providing immunity.

In a November 2022 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender” podcast, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then-chairman and chief litigation counsel for CHD (now chairman on leave), described RSV as “a vehicle for re-implementing the COVID-19 playbook all over the country and responding with vaccines.”

Nass characterized Thursday’s VRBPAC approval of Abrysvo as “a sad day for babies and mums,” adding, “Is there a reason to trust Pfizer’s data on its RSV vaccine, when we could not trust its COVID vaccines?”

“Currently, pregnant women are advised (not by me!) to get the flu, TdaP [tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis] and COVID vaccines during pregnancy. This would be a fourth pregnancy vaccine,” Nass wrote.

Nass said Thursday’s VRBPAC meeting was held with four temporary members.

“Did FDA stuff the meeting with four new temporary members in order to get the majority yes votes it wanted?” Nass asked.

Horowitz noted in his article published Monday that Pfizer vaccines have previously been approved despite concerns about their impact on pregnant women, citing trial data from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Pfizer seeks to ‘offset declining revenue from its COVID-19 products’

According to Reuters, “Pfizer is counting on new medicines and vaccines to help offset declining revenue from its COVID-19 products,” noting that the market for RSV vaccines is expected to surpass $10 billion by 2030 and that Pfizer is “ready to launch” its RSV vaccines for both pregnant women and older adults “later this year.”

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said he expects increased revenue for the company in the coming years from the company’s RSV and flu shots.

On her Substack, Nass noted:

“As a consequence of the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, all vaccines recommended by CDC for pregnant women have all manufacturer liability waived, and are placed in the national vaccine injury compensation program. This improves profitability and may result in mandates.”

Several other Big Pharma drugmakers are now clamoring to enter the potentially lucrative RSV vaccine market, after decades of failed attempts to develop a vaccine.

Moderna is developing an mRNA RSV vaccine for older adults. According to Axios, it “was found to be 83.7% effective in preventing RSV with one or two more symptoms” and “The company plans to apply for FDA approval this quarter.”

According to Horowitz, Moderna’s candidate vaccine “openly shows 200 adverse events and 10 serious ones per mild case [of RSV] avoided.”

Bavarian Nordic, known for its development of a vaccine in response to last year’s monkeypox outbreak, is also developing an RSV vaccine for adults 60 and over,” expecting to release Phase 3 clinical trial data by midyear.

AstraZeneca and Sanofi also are seeking FDA approval for a monoclonal antibody treatment for RSV that would be administered to infants and toddlers up to age 2. Sanofi says the antibody, nirsevimab, was found to be 83.2% effective in reducing RSV-related hospitalizations.

However, the NVIC reported that the effectiveness of nirsevimab “is not known beyond 150 days” and it is unclear if the drug prevents ICU stays or deaths.

In all, “Eleven RSV vaccines (including GSK’s approved shot) are being actively studied in U.S. trials,” NBC News reported. “Six are for older adults, and five are designed to protect infants or children.”

*

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.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

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 senior Ukrainian official has admitted that his country has assassinated “quite a few” Russian civilians who support Putin and his war to assert control of the Donbas region. In interviews first reported by The Times of London, Major General Kyrylo Budanov, who heads Ukraine’s military intelligence service, also promised more attacks are to come. 

“We’ve already successfully targeted quite a few people,” said Budanov. He didn’t name any of the victims, but said “there have been well-publicized cases everyone knows about, thanks to the media coverage.”

Since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, several prominent Russian supporters of the invasion — and many innocent bystanders — have been killed or wounded in the campaign. 

One of the most prominent such attacks happened last August, when a car bomb killed journalist Darya Dugina — in a possible attempt to kill her father, the political scientist-philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. 

Like her father, Darya was a vocal supporter of Putin and his invasion. Both she and her father were sanctioned by the United States after the war began. Given her profile, it’s possible Ukraine may have intentionally murdered her in a sinister two-for-one act of punishment.  

Most recently, novelist Zakhar Prielepin was wounded in a May 6 car-bombing, and Russian military blogger Vladen Tatarsky was killed at an April public appearance after a woman presented him a statuette with a bomb concealed inside it. Fifteen others were injured. 

For perspective, a hypothetical parallel for this campaign would be Iraq’s intelligence service blowing up Iraq-invasion cheerleaders like Bill Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg, Ann Coulter and Max Boot in 2003. Ukraine’s targeting of civilians doesn’t merely violate vague “international norms” that Washington pretends to hold dear — they are explicitly war crimes.    

What’s more, if one accepts the definition of terrorism as “the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to obtain political aims,” Budanov has implicated Ukraine as a state sponsor of terror — one that’s received $37 billion in US military aid since the war started, and perhaps double that in other assistance. 

Budanov isn’t merely an unapologetic terrorist, he’s a boastful one. “These cases have happened and will continue,” he said. Such people will receive a well-deserved punishment, and the appropriate punishment can only be liquidation and I will implement it.”

In a separate interview with a Ukrainian YouTube channel, Budanov implied that any country could be witness to his killing of civilians who say or write the wrong things: “Outright scum will eventually be punished in any country in the world. Only elimination can be a well-deserved punishment for such actions.” 

In addition to his brazen confession — which was almost universally ignored by Western media — Budanov told the YouTube host that the “Russian army’s potential for advancing is completely depleted, but it still has a significant defensive potential.”

With Ukraine’s long-awaited and much-hyped counteroffensive still in the wings, Budanov said, “[Russia has] erected a multi-tier defense system. Still, this isn’t the same Russian army that could have been expected to conduct substantial offensive operations.”

Ambitiously and perhaps delusionally envisioning an eviction of Russia’s army from all captured Ukrainian territory, Budanov said his country should seek a 60-mile demilitarized zone inside Russia. “This should be our goal. If they are not going to attack and don’t decide they want revenge in a couple of years, this shouldn’t be an issue.”

*

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 ZH

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine Admits Murdering “Quite a Few” Russian Civilians Who Back Putin and His Invasion

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.

*** 

Joe Biden’s visit to Hiroshima in the framework of the G7 once again brings to the surface the cynical memory of an empire that 78 years ago unleashed the power of “a thousand suns” on a defenseless population.

“Vishnu is trying to convince the prince to do his duty and to impress him, he takes on his multi-armed form, and says, “Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds… I imagine we all think that, in one way or another.” [i]

With that famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita, Julius Robert Oppenheimer was referring to the moment he saw his atomic creature detonate in the desert of New Mexico. It was July 16, 1945 and the Trinity test was the ultimate expression of imperialist rationality. The atomic bomb added to the geopolitical scenario. “We knew the world would no longer be the same…some people laughed, some people cried…most people remained silent,” Oppenheimer recalled aloud as he looked at the ground, perhaps with self-conscious shame, as if asking for forgiveness from future generations. His legacy was instant and massive death. The U.S. thus became the first nuclear power in history.

A few weeks later, on August 9, that same plutonium prototype, the Fat Man, was dropped by the US Bocks Car bomber on the city of Nagasaki in Japan. If the Hiroshima bomb, which had stunned humanity two days earlier, is the apotheosic expression of civilizational decadence, that of Nagasaki cannot find words to justify such a degree of atrocity, a horrifying horror [ii]. None of the crimes of the Japanese imperial army in China and Indochina was executed with these bombings, which twice detonated the glow of “a thousand suns” on the civilian population. The historical barbarism of Western Europe was inconceivable, but it was surpassed -by far- by the barbarism of the United States, Aimé Césaire would say with just reason [iii].

The argument that these Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were used to avoid deaths and put an end to the war is one of the falsehoods to which US imperialism has accustomed the peoples of the South of the world. What was really at stake was geopolitical supremacy after the near end of World War II, that is, the hegemonic transition initiated by the crisis of capitalism itself. For the US, collaboration with the USSR against Japan was becoming a central problem, against which it needed to give a message of “preponderant power” [iv]. In a capitalist and colonial world, whoever wanted to crown himself king had to ride on a mountain of ruins and shadows, exercising that power.

“The historical barbarism of Western Europe was inconceivable, but it was surpassed – by far – by the barbarism of the United States.”

The gunner and photographer of the Enola Gay aircraft described the Hiroshima detonation in the following words: “I began to count the fires. One, two, three, four, five, six… fourteen, fifteen… it’s impossible. There are too many to count. Here comes the mushroom shape Captain Parsons told us about. It’s coming this way. It is like a mass of bubbling molasses. The fungus spreads (…) The city must be underneath all that. 70,000 people died in a flash, their shadows left on the asphalt. The film and photographic record is impressively large and mute”.

The whole archive on the bombs obeys to that frivolity of reason that engenders monsters, but also to a logic of international power. For the objective to be achieved, power must be shown, it must be made a spectacle.

On August 15, 1945, the defeated Japanese emperor would give the first radio address of his life: “The enemy has begun to employ a new and more cruel bomb, whose power to do harm is, in fact, incalculable, and is claiming the lives of many innocent lives. If we continue to fight, it would not only result in a final collapse and destruction of the Japanese nation, but would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization.” Thus Hirohito expressed Japan’s total surrender. It was also the first time his voice was heard in public. His desire for imperial expansion over the continent was drowning in a sea of silence and destruction that he had never imagined could befall his own nation. More than 250,000 people had died in the two bombings, while hundreds of thousands would suffer blindness, burns and cancer. “Hundreds of thousands of children, mute, telepathic,” Vinicius de Moraes would recite [v], because silence would inundate Japan for years to come.

Aerial view of the city of Hiroshima after the impact of the bomb.

When the B-29 bomber dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the brand new San Francisco Charter – which gave birth to the UN – had been signed less than two months earlier to “defend peace and human rights in the world”. After seeing such barbarism, they decided to create the UN. With the concentration camps in the retinas of the world – unthinkable in Europe before Nazism, but known and suffered in the South for centuries – the Western powers established an international system to prevent new human catastrophes. But Japan was not the West, nor was China or Indochina, nor Africa or Asia. Neither was Our America.

Now the bombs are pointing south

Once the US was overtaken in its nuclear technology by the USSR in 1949 and by China in 1964, no direct war would be possible between the two great international power blocs. As Vijay Prashad states in his book “Washington Bullets” [vi]: “The main contradiction in the years after 1945 was not between East and West – the Cold War – but between North and South: imperialist war against decolonization”.

Once the war was over, the United States emerged as the “guarantor of freedom”, as the sole guardian of world peace, and quickly allied itself with its old enemies -Germany and Japan- to confront its old-new enemy: international communism. It is said that in the Korean War, after the defeat in the battle of Chosin, where the support of the Chinese People’s Army was central for the Korean communists, General Douglas MacArthur asked for 26 atomic weapons to be sent to attack the Chinese. This country not only had the nerve to make a new revolution, but also to support a sister nation against imperial attack. U.S. President Harry Truman flatly refused. The same president who had dropped two bombs, who had initiated the famous doctrine that bears his surname, refused on this occasion, not because of humanitarian considerations, but because he knew that other countries could now pay him back in the same coin.

Meanwhile, the peoples who had fought against the Axis now had to fight for the rights that had been agreed upon at the UN to be recognized, so that the genocides would not be repeated invisibly outside the first world. According to UNHCR [vii], in the 20 years of the Vietnam War, between 2 and 6 million Vietnamese and nearly one million American soldiers -most of them of African descent- died. Imperialist colonialism did not see the people of Vietnam as a worthy rival, as they did not even consider them as people. The Yankees left an apocalypse in their wake, but they could not ride victorious on their mountain of bones.

“The war over, the United States emerged as the ‘guarantor of freedom’ […] and quickly allied itself with its old enemies-Germany and Japan-to confront its old-new enemy: international communism.”

Their impotence in Vietnam was deployed as revenge in Africa. In that continent, the CIA and its puppet governments made the assassination of popular leaders a real sport. From the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, to the CIA’s support and financing of UNITA [viii] and the FNLA in Angola -which delayed independence and denied a future of justice and equality to a broken country- with a war that left 800 thousand dead, 4 million refugees and some 100 thousand mutilated. Years later, they would have a new chapter on the other side of this continent, in Somalia, when, shielded by “freedom” and “humanitarian aid”, they intervened to guarantee the alleged oil reserves of this country. Hundreds of Somalis were killed and helicopters shot down [ix].

In the times following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, capitalism led by the United States had its moment of greatest technological deployment, economic growth and territorial expansion. Elements that would demonstrate all its power in the global south and in the internal colonies of the West itself. Because, it must be made clear, the Afro, indigenous and Latino communities would suffer within the empire similar levels of exploitation, racism and oppression as the rest of the global south. With a large part of their organizations and leaderships under persecution; with selective assassinations, such as that of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, or with hundreds of imprisonments. A situation that continues to this day. There are currently 200 people from indigenous communities in U.S. prisons; most of those imprisoned have been incarcerated for more than three decades. [x]

The terrorist wars against the East

The first intervention in the Persian Gulf against Iraq was in 1991. Oil was involved, US imperialism was beginning its solitary world reign, leaving in a few months more than 200,000 dead. But the most atrocious massacre was caused not by conventional weapons, but by the economic blockade. The conservative figures of the UN – which is not very useful in preventing wars, but which does generate valuable information about them – show that around 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died as a result of that brutal sanctions regime imposed by the U.S. Half of those victims were children.

The Iraq war – the war of the chemical weapons that never existed – began in 2003 and left at least half a million to a million dead. According to journalist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed [xi], in the case of Iraq alone, the economic war killed 1.9 million Iraqis from 1991 to 2003. And from 2003 onwards, one million more deaths must be counted. In total, that’s about 3 million Iraqi lives. If you add the fatalities in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq the numbers are chilling. Bazz party [xii] assessments aside, what has become clear is that the US brought neither democracy, freedom nor human rights to those countries.

In Syria they did not manage to change the political regime, but in almost 10 years of war they generated 384,000 deaths, most of them civilians, as well as 5.7 million refugees and more than six million internally displaced persons due to the fighting. In Syria, which once had one of the highest standards of living in the region, the economy and infrastructure collapsed, with reconstruction costs estimated at more than 400 billion dollars. In addition to the bombings, imperialism had another secret weapon, ISIS [xiii], which applied its laboratory patriarchal fundamentalism, imported to destroy the region and especially the Kurdish community organizations.

Breaking the wave from the horizon

If we were to comb this diverse and rich space that is Our America, we would find several elements in common. However, there is one that stands out: the terror and plundering generated by the “destroyer of worlds”, by that imperialist barbarism that champions across the Rio Bravo, also located a few miles away from Cuba, that people that resists the irresistible in an island that has been blockaded for more than 60 years. According to the last report presented to the UN, in October 2019, [xiv] the accumulated damages during almost six decades of application of the blockade reach the figure of 140 billion dollars. Terrorist attacks against Cuba constitute another chapter. It is estimated that between all of them they caused at least 3,000 deaths. The terrorists always came from the north, or took refuge there, with all the privileges.

Juan Bosch had become president of the Dominican Republic after the fall of the empire’s putative son, the dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. Since Professor Bosch’s sovereign and dignified policies did not please the US-addicted oligarchy, they staged a coup d’état in 1963, when the Dominican Revolutionary Party had not even been in government for a year. But the defenders of the popular vote and the constitution put up a fight and were about to regain power when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, convinced of the defeat of the loyalist forces and fearing the emergence of “a second Cuba” in the Caribbean, ordered the U.S. armed forces to “restore order”.

On April 28, 1965, “Operation Power Pack” was launched, which implied the return of the Trujillo policy, which had ruled with an iron fist for 31 years. This policy was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people. Among its “outstanding” events was the so-called “Parsley Massacre”, in which thousands of Haitians were murdered. The name was due to the fact that the perpetrators identified the people from the other side of the island by their weak pronunciation of the letter “r”. Thus, their linguistic racism made it possible to distinguish between those who would be imprisoned and those who would never breathe again.

MINUSTAH [xv] was not the first imperialist intervention in Haiti, but it serves as an example of oppression applied with a colonial-humanitarian discourse. If we overlook the butchers Papa Doc and Baby Doc [xvi] -who under the direct orders of the CIA and the approval of Ronald Reagan crushed the Haitian people- and the coup d’état of Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004, we have more than 10,000 deaths caused by cholera, brought in by the troops of Nepal, a minor partner of the plethora of nations that intervened under the guidance of the Americans. There are no exact figures on the rapes of Haitian women, but with the imperialist, patriarchal and colonial arrogance the facts did not cease to multiply. The proof is in the girls and boys abandoned by the soldiers. A few years earlier, on an island that had also made its revolution, the Americans landed in Grenada with 7,000 troops, in the 1983 invasion that would bear the code name “Operation Urgent Fury”.

Pop and the dirty war in Central America

The 80’s were years of pop music exportation and high levels of interference in Central America. These were the years of the “contras” in Nicaragua and the massacres in El Salvador, where the local army, under orders from Washington, generated some 27 documented civilian massacres between 1979 and 1985. In total, the war in El Salvador claimed approximately 80,000 lives.

In Guatemala there is still no agreed number. The Commission for Historical Clarification estimated that the toll at the end of the war was 200,000 dead, 45,000 disappeared and close to 100,000 displaced; the majority of the Mayan Quiché people, victims of a racism that serves as a pillar of imperial policies. The atrocities committed against women do not have precise figures either. But we do know that many escaped to the mountains, or died fighting, while many continue to fight for justice and memory policies.

The second half of Guatemala’s 20th century began with hope, but United Fruit and the CIA cut it short. The coup d’état against Jacobo Árbenz in 1954 was the beginning of a long and dark saga of coups and interventions. The inhabitants of the El Chorrillo neighborhood in Panama know a lot about that. It was that popular suburban neighborhood that bore the brunt of the 1989 Marine invasion. No Panamanian government filed any complaints in international forums, and no Panamanian president even attempted to do justice for the dead. There are not even official figures. Only one president ever set foot in El Chorrillo and he was not even Panamanian. On his trip to the VII Summit of the Americas in 2015, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro stopped by to say hello and listen to the repressed voices of that historic crime that the local elite still sweeps under the rug.

From dictatorships to the “war on drugs”

In the South, the transition from civil-military dictatorships to market and “low intensity” democracies took place, with the exception of Chile, whose elite will be the example to be exhibited for the global hegemonic power. Augusto Pinochet would remain in power a decade longer than most dictators, as would Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay. The Condor Plan that articulated the military leadership had an economic and geopolitical project behind it, which reoriented the economies of the region according to the directives of neoliberalism. If they killed, tortured and disappeared in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil or Peru, it was to promote a new phase of capital, destroying on the way almost all revolutionary processes.

Colombia did not need a coup d’état because the civilians who governed did not need to imprint an anti-constitutional aspect to their regime. Colombia is a case that knew how to go against the grain, because while at the beginning of the 21st century the region was beginning to enter a new cycle of integration and popular processes, the South American country was filling up with military bases and applying Plan Colombia to wage “war on drug trafficking”, which was nothing more than the fight against the insurgencies and any possibility of social justice.

“In the South, the transition from civil-military dictatorships to market and “low intensity” democracies took place, with the exception of Chile, whose elite will be the example to be exhibited for the global hegemonic power”.

Drug trafficking was not only not eradicated, but it was strengthened and even reached the presidency with the government of Alvaro Uribe. But this war left 8 million victims, 7 million displaced and 10 thousand “false positives” between 2000 and 2015. This, without counting the assassinations and massacres by paramilitaries in rural areas of the country. The Colombian ruling classes are still proud of their “patriotic work”. The American soldiers not only took charge here to protect “their” exportable strategic resources, but also abused the children. At least 53 Colombian girls were raped by U.S. soldiers and contractors, who also recorded the abuses and sold the videos. The Marines were not prosecuted by the Colombian justice system for having committed these rapes within the territory of US military bases [xvii].

This tragedy can be compared to that of Mexico in the first decades of the 21st century. The first conclusion of the “war against drug trafficking” is that it has always been in reality a war against the people. In Mexico, the toll is 250,000 dead, 71,000 disappeared and millions of displaced people. This war came on top of a historical plundering, starting with the U.S. appropriation of half of the country, up to the new colonialism of the free trade agreements initiated in 1994.

Bainbridge was right

And the list continues to this day, it grows longer, it becomes more grim. Coups d’état and destabilization attempts are accumulating and overlapping: Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia. The massacres of Senkata, Sacaba, the burning of whipalas. The assassination of Berta Cáceres, of Marielle Franco. The repression in Chile, the eyes that do not see, the raped young women. It continues in the war against Venezuela and the unilateral coercive measures. In fact, the most recent action of modern piracy has been carried out by the British, who know the subject, and have kept billions in Venezuelan gold reserves.

In the middle, the American diplomat Elliott Abrams returned from the alley of the damned to continue attacking the peoples. The massacres he was responsible for in Central America were the letter of introduction that allowed him to obtain the honor of “destroyer of Venezuela”. This people was massacred many times in the past, the last one during the Caracazo. From those embers Hugo Chavez would emerge, against whom they would apply all possible methods to overthrow him.

This long process reveals the decadence of an entire civilization, which pushes millions of human beings into the abyss so that the richest 1% can live in obscene luxury. On this planet, two thousand billionaires – generally white men from the global north – possess twice as much wealth as 4.6 billion people (60% of the population). At the same time, 700 million people live in extreme or moderate poverty despite being employed [xix]. These are the naked figures of a unipolar hegemony paved with two atomic bombs, thousands of napalm bombs and hundreds of coups d’état. Bombs and propaganda, death and spectacle. Because power has to show off, like the bombs in Japan, or like the rich in Forbes magazine. It also has to be silenced, like the sun that shines and leaves a trail of shadows. It is those same shadows that have sustained the American empire; behind all those figures of devastation are millions of lives that will one day be vindicated.

On that July day in the New Mexico desert, a new era began with the Trinity test. Oppenheimer interpreted it from his dark mysticism with phrases from the Bhagavad Gita, but it was Kenneth Bainbridge, one of the designers of the first nuclear bombs, who years later was head of the Harvard Physics Department, who grasped the nature of the new imperialist stage that was approaching. After the explosion, Bainbridge turned to Oppenheimer and said, “Oppy, we’re all sons of bitches 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.

Notes

[i] The Bhagavad Gita is a 2nd century BC Hindu scripture that expresses a conversation between a human being, Arjuna, and an incarnation of God Vishnu, Lord Krishna. In the book, Arjuna is troubled and depressed about having to fight against his cousins in war. The quote by Robert Oppenheimer is from 1965 and appears in the documentary The Decision to Drop the Bomb, which was broadcast on the American network NBC.

[ii] You have to write a poem/about the atomic bomb/it’s a horror/he told us/an awful horror/it’s the end is nothingness/it’s death. Taken from “Poema frustrado” by Uruguayan poet Mario Benedetti.

[iii] Cesaire, Aimé. Discourse on colonialism.

[iv] Concept attributed to the Director of Policy Planning of the United States Department of State, Paul Nitze, in 1952. “The preponderant power must be the objective of U.S. policy.”

[v] “Rosa de Hiroshima”, poem by Vinicius de Moraes. Its musical version has several interpretations.

[vi] Prashad, Vijay. Washington Bullets. Battle of ideas: Buenos Aires.

[vii] UNHCR, UN Refugee Agency.

[viii] The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).

[ix] On this episode there is a film that shows the imperialist perspective, entitled “Black Hawk Down” from 1993.

[x] If we also consider those imprisoned in the Guantanamo concentration camp, the figure is 500 political prisoners.

[xi] The ignored victims of the wars of the West. Available at: https://www.voltairenet.org /article187311.html.

[xii] The party ruled Iraq between 1968 and 2003, first under Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr and from 1979 under Saddam Hussein. This party positioned itself as an advocate of pan-Arab nationalism, secular and militant socialism.

[xiii] Known in Spanish as the Islamic State.

[xiv] Report of Cuba on Resolution 73/8 of the United Nations General Assembly: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. Disponible en: http://www.granma.cu/cuba/2019-11-08/informe-sobre-las-afectaciones-del-bloqueo-a-cuba-del-ano-2019-20-09-2019-13-09-08

[xv] The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, also known as MINUSTAH.

[xvi] Jean-Claude Duvalier, dictator in Haiti from 1971 until he was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1986. He succeeded his father François “Papa Doc” Duvalier as the ruler of Haiti after his death.

[xvii] As reported in the Report of the Historical Commission of the Conflict and its Victims.

[xix] See: https://www.oxfam.org/es/cinco-datos-escandalosos-sobre-la-desigualdad-extrema-global-y-como-combatirla

Featured image: The US conducted 105 nuclear tests in the Pacific, mainly in the Marshall islands, between 1946 and 1962. Image: Wikipedia

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 Grayzone has obtained video recordings of well-connected figures within Moldova’s political and business community openly testifying to rank corruption within the country’s government and economy, while outlining schemes to enrich Western investors for an appropriate fee.

The invasion of Ukraine placed the tiny country of Moldova on the immediate periphery of a conflict with global significance. Bordering Ukraine, counting hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians as citizens, and home to the breakaway region of Transnistria, Moldova’s doggedly pro-Western government has been buffeted by crisis after crisis since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022.

President Maia Sandu of the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has remained steadfast as murmurings of a looming Ukrainian invasion, Russian plots to destabilize the country, and vast anti-government protests have reverberated on an almost monthly basis. Key to her endurance has been the unconditional backing of Western officials.

The sponsorship of NATO states has persisted despite industrial scale corruption at the highest levels of government. Indeed, as we shall see, foreign corruption in Moldova is actively facilitated and perpetuated with the support of Brussels and Washington, and continues apace with their full knowledge, consent, and even assistance.

The Grayzone has exclusively obtained video recordings of numerous well-connected figures within Chisinau’s political and business community openly – and gloatingly – testifying to rank malfeasance within the country’s government and economy, while outlining various schemes to enrich Western investors for an appropriate fee. It is the starkest depiction of how corruption operates in Moldova to ever emerge, gravely underlining its endemic, institutionalized nature.

In the recordings, pranksters posing as wealthy US businesspeople contacted Moldovan politician and lawyer Stanislav Pavlovschi, asking for assistance in securing a gigantic return for investing $50 million in Chisinau. The pranksters are private citizens who approached The Grayzone with the bombshell footage, and have asked to remain anonymous.

Very quickly, Pavlovschi – a former European Court of Human Rights judge and self-styled human rights defender – told them that a “good lawyer” and water-tight contracts would not be of any use to them there, as “the level of corruption is very high.” He went on to note that the country was effectively a colony of Brussels and Washington:

“Moldova now is governed by the US Ambassador… He is practically governing Moldova at this particular stage. You have hundreds of consultants for the EU…working for each and every ministry here in Moldova. So it is under very, very strict control on the part of the EU.”

When asked how this state of affairs could work given the high levels of corruption, Pavlovschi retorted that it functioned “perfectly,” “absolutely,” “brilliantly” – “everybody loves money.” 

Click here to view the video

Well-connected investor promises ‘direct access’ to government

The pranksters were duly introduced to a number of influential local figures who could assist them in getting rich quick. Among them was Oleg Ciubuc, counselor to Vladimir Bolea, head of the Moldovan parliament’s agriculture and food commission. He professed in the leaked discussions to also be an “entrepreneur” whose “main direction” was connecting “investors with project developers.”

Beyond his “school friend” Bolea, who personally writes laws and regulations covering the country’s agriculture and food policy, Ciubuc revealed that his brother Alexandru runs state telecoms firm Moldtelecom. He is also a member of the PAS, which he described as “a big family,” connected “directly” to the “government, parliament and president.” In practice, this creates a dynamic not dissimilar from traditional mafia cartels: 

“All my colleagues are telling me, ‘you are a perfect connector, to find a point A point B and connect to make money’…we are all of us connected to each other. Any question you have, I’m going to the highest person in the country responsible for that field… That’s the beautiful thing, when you have the majority in the parliament, everything is made by this majority… All the power in the country is controlled by this majority, which is the ‘family’.”

Ciubuc claimed his deal-making prowess was such that he was recommended for the post of Moldova’s state investment chief by his contacts, only for Sandu to personally reject the proposal. She supposedly reasoned that he should be working “multimillion investment funds” in the private sphere, which were “much more interesting projects than just a small agency under the government.”

“For me now is [sic] very easy to invite investors in my country because I can guarantee 100% the full political and security support,” Ciubuc swaggered. “Of course, being in that structure, we have access to all information, all the details in the country. And you need, like, you know, five minutes to find everything you need.”

Click here to view the video

The issue of state-level protection for foreign investors in Chisinau was similarly raised by investment professional Olga Melniciuc, who formerly worked as a consultant to the Moldovan state economic council. She acknowledged that many outsiders were deterred from funding projects in the country due to a lack of “predictability” – whether favorable terms secured under one government would still apply if another was elected.

Melniciuc said that “predictability and some insurance for the stability” of an investment could be guaranteed by direct negotiation with government ministers, albeit via “non-formal communications.” Investors simply needed to “make sure the main person in the government knows what they are doing,” and they have official support for their endeavors, if only behind closed doors. She described an official “vetting” process for investments that was nothing of the kind, and did not involve scrupulous background checks or due diligence.

Click here to view the video

Melniciuc went to assure the pranksters that well-established forums in Moldova, such as the American Chamber of Commerce, Association of Foreign Investors, and European Business Association were already “very actively advocating for the rights of their members,” and “have direct access to [the] Prime Minister.”

“We have a pro-European government supported by the EU [and] US government. So there is a lot of this pro-Western support,” Melniciuc said. “And we have all the needed documents and the association agreements signed. We are [EU and NATO] candidates…So all that is very good. It creates a good playground for investors.”

Melniciuc felt it was “the best time to invest,” as the war in Ukraine’s impact on Moldova, which includes 30% inflation, had created “uncertainties” in the market.

Click here to view the video

Moldovan media tycoon ‘handles’ relationships with Prime Minister

Staffers within the ranks of US-funded NGOs operating in the country were also eager to assist foreign investors to enrich themselves via dubious schemes. They included the education training organization Pro Dictactica, which is partnered with George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the EU, the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and US Embassy in Moldova, among others.

He introduced the pranksters to a key figure in Pro Dictactica, Oxana Draguta, who enjoyed direct access to Maia Sandu. The pair worked together when Sandu was Minister of Education 2012 – 2015, and Draguta was a staffer in her ministry “responsible for coordination of foreign assistance in education.” After being elected President, Sandu “brought her team for the government,” meaning Draguta had a variety of contacts to exploit.

One method proposed to Dragutra of getting Sandu and her associates on board was by simply bribing her administration, via the funneling cash to “private entities,” which would pass these funds on to the PAS. The party’s coffers could be illicitly filled without the appearance of a direct foreign donation, providing the pranksters with astounding commercial benefits. Draguta concurred, noting her own involvement in facilitating such an arrangement could also conveniently be hidden:

“I can reach them out [sic] and ask…They are actually across the street…Actually, I am…this kind of…a member of this party but not an active member of it.”

Click here to view the video

Similarly unguarded comments were made by Cătălin Giosan, a Moldovan oligarch who in 1999 founded PRO TV, one of the country’s first, and now largest, private broadcast networks. 

Giosan made clear he could serve as the bogus business peoples’ public relations “partner.” Keenly clarifying he was “not somebody who has experience in logistics or construction or whatever, but somebody to guide you in this political environment,” he promised to help them to connect “with local politicians and decision makers,” and “handle” those relationships on their behalf.

“I do this [sic] for 23 years. We…have the main news programs in urban Moldova. That means I saw generations of politicians coming and going,” Giosan boasted. “It’s not a question if we can establish a connection with them. I’ve met the key people I think should and can be involved in this project…One is the key decision maker in the administration. So I’m talking about the people you need.”

He pledged once their discussion concluded to “think” about “how such support can be structured…the most efficient way,” and meet with local stakeholders, “to craft a plan, a solution.” He asked the pranksters to prepare a “brief” for his “partners”. In turn, he would meet with the pranksters over dinner, to discuss “the political, economical, social situation, the crisis situation, the war.”

“Then,” Giosan pledged, “I’ll make you a presentation on the decision making, political decision making processes in Moldova to understand how this where the power stays and how the decisions are made.”

Click here to view the video

It is indeed “not a question” whether Giosan could connect wealthy foreign financiers with a high-ranking government decision maker. Moldova’s aggressively pro-EU, pro-US Prime Minister Dorin Recean, who took office in February, is extremely rich by local standards. Official declarations of his assets show he owns several properties, including a lavish Romanian villa, and that he and his wife reap vast sums from their assorted business interests.

For example, Reacean is the founder of three highly profitable local companies, including US Food Network, which manages outlets of KFC in Moldova. In each case, Giosan is also a shareholder. 

Such an intimate relationship provides him with a direct and highly influential line to the heart of government, while offering some clue as to “how decisions are made” in the country. 

Moldova makes mockery of USAID anti-corruption efforts

The recordings obtained by The Grayzone are all the more shocking when considering that Moldova is enrolled in the US Agency for Aid and International Development (USAID)’s Countering Kremlin Malign Influence (CMKI) program. Under the auspices of USAID, a traditional cutout of US intelligence, countries which once comprised the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact receive vast funding and practical support to supposedly defend themselves from Russian meddling. Cracking down on corruption is one of the initiative’s foremost objectives.

This includes sponsorship of “reform-minded leaders and civil-society voices.” Maia Sandu happens to be one such “reform-minded leader,” which is why her upset victory was hailed in Western quarters as a watershed moment in Moldova’s battle against corruption. Since then, she has regularly touted high-profile legislative amendments and initiatives to tackle the issue, but critics charge they have achieved nothing, simply serving to replace one set of crooked officials with another.

One would not know that from the pronouncements of US officials, however. In December 2022, USAID chief and humanitarian interventionist guru Samantha Power met personally with Sandu to “discuss US support for the people of Moldova,” and the President’s “anti-corruption and democratic reform agenda.” An accompanying press release noted the US had provided Chisinau with $320 million over the past nine months, “to address the economic, energy, security, and humanitarian impacts of Russia’s war against Ukraine.”

This staggering sum follows almost $100 million gifted to Moldova by USAID through the CMKI program between 2017 and 2021, making it the biggest beneficiary. 

Evidently, Washington has taken a relaxed attitude toward high-level graft and bribery in Moldova. As long as Western oligarchs and businesses are profiting, and the government toes an anti-Russian line in all matters domestic and foreign, Washington seems content to look the other way. 

This dispiriting reality is apparently not lost on most Moldovans. While polls indicate Sandu remains the most popular politician in the country, 57% of citizens cannot name a single public figure they trust. Likely sensing the precarious position of their puppet in Chisinau, the EU announced in April 2023 it would deploy a “civilian mission” there to counter Russian “threats”. 

Yet, the longer the war in Ukraine grinds on, the more probable it is the government will fall – not due to external interference, but because of internal upheaval. The coterie of business figures, well-connected actors and NGO operatives to whom Stanislav Pavlovschi introduced the pranksters – and the Western oligarchs they so eagerly serve – may be wise to line their pockets in Moldova while they still can. 

*

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.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leaked Recordings Expose Shocking State Corruption in ‘US-governed’ Moldova
  • Tags: ,