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 World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with health and medical fields
The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that dictate what you eat
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, which is being put in place to ultimately screen, track and control people through food, according to investigative journalist Corey Lynn
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative, which includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the “necessity” of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet
*
The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with the health insurance and medical fields. The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that both dictate what you eat and have the power to impose penalties if you stray too far off course.
“How do you get people to break? Control their food and money,” investigative journalist Corey Lynn explains. “What is the weapon? Controlling your identity through digital means. The smart phone, QR codes, digital identities, biometrics, AI, and chips are all weapons being used against humanity.”1 You can listen to Corey discuss this on Spotify by going to her channel Dig It! Episode #189.2
Are Food Tokens in Your Future?
It was October 2022 when the WHO announced its One Health Joint Plan of Action, launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)
“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.4
Echoing this statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.”
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, including from the White House,5 which isn’t nearly as holistic as it sounds. Instead, “food is medicine” is the phrase “being used to campaign, launch programs, change policies and financing, aggregate data, tie the health care industry in with the food supply, and ultimately screen, track and control people through food,” Lynn says.6
It’s a smokescreen, under which more people will be ushered into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), and similar initiatives so digital food tokens can be implemented. This allows for the tracking and control of people’s food purchases.
A number of big names have recently joined in the push to increase SNAP enrollment, including Google, which intends to make it easier to find out eligibility and apply for the program.
Other partners include Instacart, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food Industry Association. Benefits Data Trust is also working to help facilitate the enrollment of college students into SNAP, Medicaid and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides help to obtain internet access.
Again, these seemingly altruistic plans have an ulterior motive — surveillance and control. “Food, health care and internet may seem like a wonderful free benefit, until a college student tries to get their first cheeseburger, doesn’t get the Covid jab, or puts out ‘misinformation’ on the internet,” Lynn says. “Watch how quickly it’s all taken away. It’s like making a deal with the Devil.”7
It’s All a Trap
Once you’re locked into receiving food tokens, you’ve fallen into their trap. Who’s “their”? Lynn has previously described key organizations pulling strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.”8 These powerful organizations enjoy unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity, allowing them to exert control over the globe.
“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”9 The roll-out of “healthy eating tokens” isn’t just a possibility.
They’ve already been woven into key propaganda pieces, like this 2018 image below from the Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force:10,11 “Whereas this example may be reflective of a welfare applicant,” Lynn says, “make no mistake, this is the goal all states are trying to accomplish for all people, not just those on welfare.”12
Pitfalls of White House’s $8 Billion Commitment
In line with WHO’s One Health, the White House laid out a Fact Sheet detailing its “transformational vision for ending hunger and reducing diet-related disease by 2030 – all while closing disparities among the communities that are impacted most.”13
The initiative intends to invest in “new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” along with devoting at least $2.5 billion to startup companies “pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity.” Another $4 billion is earmarked for “philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices and increases physical activity.”
Here again we have the smoke-and-mirrors effect, which masks the integration of food and health as a means to enact broad policies of control. As Lynn reports:14
“A helping hand is always nice, until it has ulterior motives. Sure, physical activity for all and the reduction of sugar in food items are both welcome approaches, but the rest of this agenda is not in the best interest of human beings.
The problem is, when reviewing this Fact Sheet it may seem like a good idea, just as while reviewing a single white paper from the WEF [World Economic Forum] could even sound like it has the potential to be a good thing.
However, when one takes the Fact Sheet with countless white papers, websites, funding, and other internal documents and puts it all together — it paints quite a different story. They know full well that most people won’t gather all of the pieces of the puzzle so they won’t be able to see the reality of the situation and discern the true agenda. That’s why it is so critical to do just that.”
The White House intends to work with a long list of private organizations to reach its goals. The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Commission, National Grocers Association, Food Industry Association and the Rockefeller Foundation are among them.
Globalists Team Up to Tell You What to Eat
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative.15 It includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals,16 which sound good in theory. But entities like the Rockefeller Foundation aren’t looking to further the reach of small farmers producing real, healthy food.
Consider the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was launched in 2006 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With strategies centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers, AGRA’s influence significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.17
The Green Revolution is another Rockefeller Foundation-funded conversion of natural farming to a system dependent on chemicals, fossil fuels and industry. You can expect that under this Food is Medicine initiative, genetic engineering, lab-grown meat and, eventually, insects will take center stage. Plus, it’s another tool for integrating food under health care, so you can ultimately be tracked with one digital health passport. Lynn says:18
“Of course food is medicine, but that’s not the true intention of this initiative. By integrating food under medicine just imagine how this will change the landscape of the control mechanisms being put in place under the guise of health care.
This isn’t the only avenue the Rockefeller’s are using to orchestrate this shift in food control. They are also one of the major funders of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, along with W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Panta Rhea Foundation, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project — the grant-making vehicle of the Schmidt Family Foundation — former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
The stated goal of this “Center” is to manage the Good Food Purchasing Program, which is all about getting institutions to convert over to their “supply chain transparency from farm to fork and shift towards a values-based purchasing model.”
Converting schools, hospitals, and public administrations is a strong goal, for starters. They’ve established standards, certifications, and a point system as the first of its kind and are building local and national partners as quickly as they built the website.”
Meanwhile, they’re rolling out Food is Medicine courses at hospitals and universities in order to indoctrinate health care providers into this plan. Among the training will be “screening for nutrition” and instruction on how to refer patients to their community nutrition resources, likely along with education on the “benefits” of gene-edited foods and fake meat.19
What Happens if You Veer From Their Prescribed Diet?
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the necessity of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet. It’s important to share knowledge with your circle about the pitfalls of these foods and why traditional whole foods are truly what your body needs.
If the powers-that-be take control of the food supply and dictate what people can and can’t eat, humanity is threatened. Envision a world in which your weekly groceries are only released if you’ve met certain requirements, and even then, those groceries are made up of what they ration for your use.
“Imagine if one refuses to eat bugs — they may not receive proper health care,” Lynn says. “Or what happens if one refuses to go on the food token program and only eat as instructed? Did they just lose their ability to receive health care? … What happens if edible vaccines hit the market and they try to make it mandatory as part of one’s diet?”20
To fight back, continue to source food from small, local sources instead of multinational corporations — and pay for your food with cash. As Lynn reports:21
“Just as with their other agendas that all tie into this one, the narrative control is being piped out by universities, medical associations, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others to bring a whole new outlook on what a nutritional diet should look like to prevent disease.
It’s as though a complete overhaul is being done on what’s ‘good’ for human beings to ingest, and gene-edited produce, insects, and cultured cells seem to be the top priority.
This may seem like a slow burn, but they are clicking multiple pieces of the structure into place simultaneously, and when that burn finally reaches inside people’s homes, in their cabinets, fridge, and wallets, it will be too late to rollback all of the policies and regulations that have locked into place.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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.
***
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running against the Democratic establishment’s position on the Russia-Ukraine War and for the presidential nomination of the party in 2024. He recently gave a peace speech in New Hampshire that echoed the sentiments of the peace speech given by his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.
In his speech, RFK Jr. stated that Russia has legitimate security concerns, that NATO expansion to Russia’s border was a betrayal of promises made to leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev, and that America’s military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) is enabling forever war rather than actively seeking an end to war. He was also careful to say he abhorred Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve already heard RFK Jr. being called a “Putin enabler,” if not a Putin puppet, for suggesting that Russian concerns about Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO are in any sense legitimate. Doesn’t he know, one reader asked, that Putin rejects Ukrainian identity as a country and a people? Doesn’t he know Russia is killing civilians in terror bombings? Why is he acting as an apologist for Putin’s many war crimes?
Obviously I can’t speak for RFK Jr., but I think his message is plain: a state of permanent war is causing deep harm to American democracy, what’s left of it, and any sustainable U.S. recovery must start with a rejection of war and massive military spending, including the more than $100 billion already devoted to what has become a proxy war in Ukraine. That war has greatly contributed to the rhetoric, and increasingly the reality, of a new Cold War with Russia (and China too), strengthening the MICC’s call for even vaster sums for wars and weapons in the cause of maintaining U.S. full-spectrum dominance around the globe.
Like his uncle, President Kennedy, RFK Jr. fears a world-ending nuclear cataclysm, an event that becomes more imaginable as the Russia-Ukraine War continues to escalate. Again, at no time did I hear RFK Jr. express support of the Russian invasion or its brutal methods; what he did express support for is diplomacy as a way of ending the bloodshed while reducing the risk of nuclear Armageddon.
Any reasonable diplomatic effort would have to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia, just as that same effort would have to recognize those of Ukraine as well.
Those who advocate for peace often face the charge of being puppets, enablers, or apologists for enemies who are usually presented as monstrous. All credit to RFK Jr. for departing from standard neocon rhetoric and practices and for extending an olive branch to Russia.
Arguing for more war is easy. It even wins salutes (and money) within today’s Democratic establishment. Striving for peace is far harder, and like his uncle, RFK Jr. has decided to take the harder path. More of us should join him.
*
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: In New Hampshire, RFK Jr. speaks for the possibility of peace and against the MICC and its forever war (Source: Bracing Views)
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.
***
American interventionists undoubtedly finished the weekend in a deep depression over the fact that Russia did not devolve into a full-scale civil war. With Wagner Group’s leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s decision to give up his short-lived plan to initiate such a war, the possibility of a deadly Russian civil war evaporated at the same time. Just think how much more Russia would have been degraded with the deaths and injuries of millions of Russian people. “Darn!” U.S. interventionists and the U.S. national-security establishment undoubtedly exclaimed.
And make no mistake about it: Degrading Russia has been one of the principal aims of the U.S. national-security establishment ever since the end of its old Cold War racket.
That is how empires work. They look around the world until they find a foreign nation that appears to be rising in prosperity, power, and influence. That nation is then targeted as a rival, opponent, adversary, competitor, and enemy. To ensure that it doesn’t reach the same stature as the empire, the empire targets that nation with degradation.
That’s what has happened with Russia. While the United States was mired down for decades in its forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia was slowly rising in terms of economic prosperity and influence. That infuriated the U.S. national-security establishment.
Thus, the Pentagon and the CIA embarked on their course of action designed to give Russia its “own Afghanistan or Iraq,” just like they did in 1979 when they gave Russia its “own Vietnam” by manipulating Russia into invading Afghanistan. (See my article “Brzezinski’s Confession.”) By expanding NATO eastward toward Russia’s borders, Pentagon and CIA officials knew that they were slowly but inexorably boxing Russia into ultimately invading Ukraine.
Their plan worked brilliantly, just as it did back in 1979. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia has lost an estimated 250,000 soldiers to deaths and injuries. That’s a lot of “degrading.”
To be sure, America has been degraded too. The weaponry furnished Ukraine to defend itself has to be replaced, which means American taxpayers will have to pay for the replacement weaponry. At the same time, American taxpayers have been required to fund the billions of dollars of largess being heaped on the crooked and corrupt Ukrainian regime.
But that doesn’t matter to interventionists and the U.S. national-security establishment because when you have an extremely large and powerful empire and a much smaller rising empire, the degradation operates to place a much bigger relative burden on the smaller empire.
Another aim has been to present Russia as a renewed Cold War threat to Europe and the United States, thereby justifying not only the continued existence of America’s national-security state form of governmental structure but, equally important, its ever-growing receipt of taxpayer-funded largess. That, of course, was what their old Cold War racket was all about.
One big downside of the Russia-Ukrainian war, however — from the standpoint of interventionists and the U.S national-security establishment — has been that it has exposed the fallacy of the other principal aim of the U.S. national-security establishment — its hope of reinvigorating the old Cold War fear that the Russians are coming to get us. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if Russia’s military forces cannot conquer Ukraine, they can’t conquer Europe and the United States.
But that reality certainly did not stop the Pentagon from recently conducting a massive NATO exercise involving 250 military aircraft, including 100 from the United States, which the media is reporting as “the biggest defense exercise of its kind in the history of the Euro-Atlantic alliance.” Hey, when you’ve got a long-term plan to reinvigorate Russia as a renewed scary Cold War enemy, you go with the plan because you figure that people will fall for whatever you tell them. I just wonder how much that gigantically ridiculous military exercise cost American taxpayers.
In any event, obviously 250,000 dead and injured Russian soldiers are still not sufficient degradation to satisfy the U.S. national-security establishment and American interventionists. I’m not even sure that millions of deaths or injuries in a Russian civil war would satisfy them. My hunch is these people are not going to be satisfied until Russia is fully degraded in an all-out nuclear war with the West, which, of course, would put the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA in permanent charge of what is left of the United States.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons and attributed to government.ru.
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 latest updates on the “new normal” – chronicling the lies, distortions, and abuses by the ruling class.
Study lays waste to pro-lockdown agenda, finds net negative benefits (duh)
A survey of the public health records in the UK has turned up the conclusion that many anecdotally adopted years ago based on anecdotal experience and intuition: the lockdowns were total theater that needlessly, badly hurt the society and economy.
“Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.
Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.
Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.”
“In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics. This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”
New CDC Director cackles about denying the peasants the pleasure of football during lockdowns
The corrupt pharmaceutical industry tool nitwit Rochelle Walensky has resigned her post as CDC Director in disgrace, to be replaced by, somehow, an even more despicable technocrat with no apparent regard of any kind for the serfs’ welfare.
Here is Mandy Cohen bragging about her arbitrary edicts, conjured out of thin air, in her prior role as North Carolina HHS Director.
FDA curiously rejects COVID-19 safety warning labels
The FDA – which, of course, respects deeply The Science™ with a fanatical reverence reserved exclusively for the domain or religion — recently rejected a petition filed in January 2023 for the agency to update its Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots’ warning label based on the risks demonstrated by actual science.
“Incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading labeling of any medical product can negatively impact the health and safety of Americans, with global ramifications considering the international importance of FDA decisions. For these reasons, and due to the compelling need to ensure the safety and efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccine licensed by the FDA and to allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek emergency judicial relief should the instant Petition be denied, it is respectfully requested that FDA act on the instant Petition by April 30, 2023.”
The FDA, three months later in late April, issued its official response. In the document, it rejects all but one of CAALM’s demands, including the request for a myocarditis warning because, according to the agency, the evidence tying the injections to sudden cardiac death “is not sufficient to demonstrate a causal association between sudden cardiac death and vaccination.”
So, it appears, the FDA is spreading medical misinformation here.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I got my social media accounts on multiple platforms suspended for saying true things about COVID-19 that ran counter to Public Health™ orthodoxy. Surely the FDA denying proven risks of the COVID-19 shots would cross some similar red line.
Right?
No double standards for federal government bureaucrats, right?
Remember the self-assembling nanoparticle ‘conspiracy theory’? Turns out it’s less theory and more reality
I’m old enough to remember a time when the Public Health™ authorities assured the public that concerns over nanoparticles in vaccines designed to form unnatural structures were the sole domain of “conspiracy theorists.”
Now they’re openly developing vaccines with “self-assembling nanoparticles” – meaning nanoparticles that form non-human structures in the blood or tissue using a bacterial protein as the foundation.
“Inspiring progress also continues to be made toward a safe and effective vaccine for HIV, which still infects about 1.5 million people around the world each year. A prime example is the recent first-in-human trial of an HIV vaccine made in the lab from a unique protein nanoparticle, a molecular construct measuring just a few billionths of a meter.
This nanoparticle, administered by injection, is designed to mimic a small, highly conserved segment of an HIV protein that allows the virus to bind and infect human cells…
The researchers started with a bacterial protein called lumazine synthase (LumSyn). It forms the scaffold, or structural support, of the self-assembling nanoparticle. Then, they added to the LumSyn scaffold 60 copies of the key HIV protein. This louder HIV signal is tailored to draw out and engage those very specific B cells with the potential to produce bnAbs.“
*
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 Daily Bell.
Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from TDB
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.”
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 on Tuesday unveiled fresh sanctions on the Wagner Group, aimed at disrupting its gold mining activities in Africa, days after the mercenary group’s founder launched a short-lived mutiny in Russia.
The measures against Wagner had been previously planned but were briefly put on hold, as US officials sought to avoid appearing to favour a side in a power struggle between the mercenaries’ chief, Yevgeny Prigozhin, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“The Wagner Group funds its brutal operations in part by exploiting natural resources in countries like the Central African Republic and Mali,” undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E Nelson said in a statement.
“The United States will continue to target the Wagner Group’s revenue streams to degrade its expansion and violence in Africa, Ukraine, and anywhere else,” he added.
The sanctions come the same day Prigozhin arrived in Belarus as part of a deal President Alexander Lukashenko negotiated with Putin to diffuse tensions. Lukashenko said that he offered Wagner an abandoned military base to set up camp.
The sanctions target Midas Resources, which operates mines in the CAR, and Diamville, a gold and diamond purchasing company in the country – both of which the US said are controlled by Prigozhin.
MEE has previously reported on massacres carried out by Wagner fighters around gold mines in the CAR. The US has also accused the group of pilfering billions of dollars worth of gold from Sudan, with much of it allegedly making its way to the UAE.
Tuesday’s sanctions targeted the Dubai-based, Industrial Resources General Trading – which the US accused of handling finances for Prigozhin’s dealings with Diamville.
The UAE is believed to have helped fund Wagner’s operations in Libya. The North African country has been a launchpad for Wagner’s operations throughout the continent. Wagner mercenaries there operate air defence systems defending territory held by military commander turned warlord, Khalifa Haftar, in Libya.
Wagner helped Moscow advance its foreign policy goals in hotspots like Libya with the cover of deniability. The group would eventually supplant Russia’s traditional military footprint in Libya, which MEE previously revealed was facilitated by Russian military officials based in Saudi Arabia.
Prighozin’s remarkable fallout with Putin has created uncertainty about Wagner’s future. Some analysts have speculated that Putin may ask UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to “clamp down” on the groups’ financial networks.
Other Wagner watchers are waiting to see if mercenaries in African and Middle East hotspots break altogether with the group.
“The Wagner branches in Africa may turn into completely uncontrollable mercenary structures that will themselves build ties with local governments without regard to Moscow,” Kirill Semenov, a non-resident expert with the Russian International Affairs Council, told MEE previously.
*
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 Mikhail Svetlov/Ge/Mikhail Svetlov
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 having lied about WMDs, Russia Gate, chemical weapons in Syria and so many other things, the U.S. intelligence community is now advancing the lie that Cuba is hosting a Chinese spy base that enables China to spy on the U.S.
The Wall Street Journalreported on June 8 that China and Cuba had reached an agreement in principle to build an electronic eavesdropping station on the island and that China planned to pay cash-strapped Cuba billions of dollars as part of the negotiations.
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, however, said in an MSNBC interview that TheWall Street Journal report was “not accurate” and that the U.S. was watching Chinese influence activities around the world very carefully.
An anonymous source familiar with the intelligence says it suggests that a deal has been struck in principle but there has not been any movement on building the spy facility.
Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossíosaid that the slanderous speculation about a Chinese spy base was causing “harm and alarm without observing minimum patterns of communication and without providing data or evidence to support what they disseminate.”[1]
Mobilizing Support for Regime Change
The Chinese spy base fabrication is obviously designed to try to mobilize public support for the Biden administration’s regime-change policies.
Biden’s election had raised expectations among many Cubans of a return to the Obama days, when the United States sought to bury the last vestige of the Cold War by restoring diplomatic relations with Havana and calling for an end to the embargo.
However, when protests broke out early in Biden’s presidency, the Biden administration supported the dissidents and doubled down on Donald Trump’s hard-line anti-Cuba policies.
It expanded sanctions and the economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by 185 countries and, according to Yuri Gala López, the Ambassador of the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the UN, costs Cubans $455 million per month.
Obama had argued that making it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba and invest in its nascent private sector stood a better chance of promoting economic and political changes on the island than the more directly confrontational regime-change policy Washington has pursued since the 1960s.
Biden went along with Obama’s policy though, in 1996 as a U.S. Senator, he had supported tightening the already devastating U.S. embargo on Cuba through the Helms-Burton Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Fidel Castro called Helms-Burton a “shameful” bill, which paved the way for “economic genocide.” In addition to tightening economic sanctions, it increased support for Cuban exile groups and made it official U.S. policy to support regime change in Cuba.
In 2008, Biden stated that he was against “lifting the embargo until there is a response to political prisoners—all the things that are wrong with this Castro administration.”
Besides his own pro-imperialist sensibilities, Biden’s policy shift from Obama reflects the influence of Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, the son of Cuban immigrants and an ardent champion of regime-change policies who criticized Obama’s gambit toward Cuba.
The first speaker at the hearing, Yuri Gala López, emphasized the Biden administration was continuing to apply a “maximum pressure policy” on Cuba inherited from the Trump administration, whose purpose was to cripple its economy in order to facilitate unrest and the eventual overthrow of Cuba’s communist government.
This strategy has essentially been in place since 1960 following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro, which toppled the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and nationalized Cuba’s economy while advancing land reform and instituting free health care and education.
López cited an April 1960 memorandum by Lester D. Mallory, the Deputy Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs at the time of the Cuban Revolution, which emphasized that, since the majority of Cubans supported Fidel Castro and there was no effective political opposition, the U.S. should try to create economic hardship for the population by denying money and supplies and cutting off trade, which would bring about hunger and desperation and the eventual overthrow of Castro’s government.
Mallory’s memo provided the basis for U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba that remains essentially unchanged after six decades.
According to López, the impact of the U.S. blockade has been devastating in human terms, resulting in material shortages and scarcity designed to sow the seeds of popular dissatisfaction with the Castro and Miguel Díaz-Canel administrations.
The economic damage from the embargo is at least $154 billion, along with thousands killed in terrorist acts directed largely from U.S. soil.
Other speakers at the hearing emphasized that the U.S. goal was to punish Cuba for its defiance and establishment of a humane governing structure that serves as an alternative to the inhuman capitalist system.
In the agricultural sector, because of the blockade, farmers are deprived of needed technologies and have difficulty exporting their products. Transportation is impeded and certain medicines and medical treatments are difficult to obtain. The U.S. even blocked the delivery of respirators following the outbreak of COVID-19.
Because of a remarkable medical system nevertheless, Cuba has obtained lower infant mortality rates than in the U.S. and parallel life expectancy. This is because of the Cuban government’s investment of its resources in the social and human needs of its people, unlike in the U.S. where neo-liberal austerity is the norm and so much money is invested in the military.
Cuba’s function as a zone of peace was evident in its recent role in helping to broker an important peace agreement in Colombia between the Colombian government and the National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrilla group.
Cuba has generally been labeled by U.S. administrations as a terrorist state and accused of providing a platform for spycraft and subversion into the U.S. when, in reality, it is the U.S. which has terrorized Cuba for six decades and tried to deliberately impoverish and starve its people in the vain hope that they could achieve the long-held goal of regime change and turn the clock back to the 1950s.
*
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.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].
Note
1. Wang Wenbin, spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, said the U.S. is the “global champion of hacking and superpower of surveillance,” suggesting U.S. officials spread rumors about the spy base as a “common tactic.”
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.
***
Opponents are trying to cancel Dimitri Lascaris, but it isn’t working.
Despite successful and unsuccessful attempts to cancel and deplatform the Canada-wide Tour For Peace of Dimitri Lascaris, his in-person tour continued successfully last night in Vancouver. 60 people attended at Harbour Centre without incident.
Last week, Dimitri’s tour was briefly derailed in Toronto after an organized campaign of fear-mongering against the event caused the Ontario Public Services Employees Union to cancel their venue. Dimitri issued a statement following the cancellation, which stated in part:
“A representative of OPSEU has advised us that this is not a political decision by OPSEU leadership. Rather, OPSEU’s leadership took this decision because, within the past day or so, OPSEU leaders and staff received dozens of emails expressing opposition to the holding of the event. Based on those emails, OPSEU leadership became concerned for the safety of participants and the property.
Although we understand the decision taken by OPSEU’s leadership, we find it highly regrettable that those who support the arming of Ukraine are resorting to pressure tactics such as these in order to silence the voices of peace. If supporters of Canadian government policy toward this devastating war truly believe that their position can be defended on the basis of evidence, reason and humanitarian principles, then they should engage in a constructive debate with their opponents. The fact that they resort to silencing us only confirms that they cannot win a debate on the merits.”
Despite the last-minute OPSEU cancellation, peace activists gathered at an outdoor location near OPSEU’s offices to hear Dimitri present his views on resolving the Ukraine war peacefully.
Dimitri’s tour has served as a focal-point for pro-war Ukrainian extremists, and state-funded ‘researchers.’ It is in fact shocking how a censorship campaign is carried out openly in NATO countries.
For example, Marcus Kolga of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a Canadian think tank funded by the USA and Latvia, went after the Regina Public Library, among other venues. Seneca College prof, Osap Soroka, in league with the NAFO troll farm operated by British and US intelligence, levelled open threats on Twitter to disrupt Lascaris’ London and Vancouver lectures. (Both lectures came off without incident.)
A University of Calgary professor, JC Boucher, amplified these actions and attacked Dimitri on Twitter. Alexey Kovalyov, a self-exiled Russian journalist, resident in a Baltic country, wrote a long hit piece against Lascaris ending with a call and instructions for Canadians to deplatform him. Finally, a lawyer for the Ukrainian Canadian Congress made it his business to threaten negative consequences for owners of private venues who had accepted room bookings for Dimitri’s speaking events.
In Winnipeg, two venues cancelled their bookings within 24 hours, but determined local organizers secured a third venue at the last minute In Hamilton, Ukrainian nationalists tried, but failed, to barge into the lecture hall where Dimitri was speaking.
The Canada-Wide Peace and Justice Network (CWPJN), which organized Dimitri’s Tour For Peace, decried the attempts to curtail the rights of Canadians to freedom of speech and association. In a media release dated June 26th, 2023, the Network wrote that “Dimitri Lascaris’ speaking tour presents a unique opportunity for people across Canada to hear a different perspective on how to reach peace in Ukraine, one that is not based on the Trudeau government continuing to arm the war, with $8.5 billion worth of arms and funding sent to date. The Network calls upon supporters of Canada and NATO’s current military actions to desist from further efforts to silence alternative perspectives. Canadians should hear from dissenting voices before the conflict in Ukraine spirals out of control into a wider war or even a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers.”
Dimitri will be in Montreal on Thursday, June 29th, Halifax on Friday, June 30th, Fredericton on Sunday, July 2nd, and in Ottawa on Monday, July 3rd. Furthermore, on July 4th, a free, Canada-wide webinar, featuring Dimitri, will be broadcast at 8 pm ET from Kingston, Ontario. Registration for the webinar here.
The Network’s media release continued, “Whether or not they agree with Dimitri’s perspective, we encourage Canadians to come out to Dimitri’s in-person events and hear what his opponents are so intent on censoring. He welcomes robust and respectful debate on these vitally important issues.”
In April 2023, Dimitri Lascaris, Canadian lawyer, activist and journalist, embarked on a self-financed trip to Russia to see for himself because he thought Canadian media and political leaders were failing to inform Canadians accurately or responsibly. While in Russia he spoke to student groups, presented at a Russian policy think tank, gave media interviews, met with public officials and many peace activists. From day one, Lascaris faithfully reported to Canadians through extensive articles and daily tweets about his meetings and impressions at dimitrilascaris.org. Now, he wants to share that experience with Canadians in-person across the country.
The tour is entitled “Making Peace with Russia, One Handshake at a Time.” The Canada-Wide Peace and Justice Network hopes “the tour will move the needle on public opinion in support of a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine and thus accelerate a resolution.” The Network further hopes to convince Canadians that it’s time for Canada to withdraw from NATO.
*
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.
Ken Stone is Treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop The War and Member of the Steering Committee of the Canada-Wide Peace and Justice 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.
***
In the absence of official scrutiny of Washington’s spending spree on Ukraine, The Grayzone conducted an independent audit of US funding for the country. We discovered a series of wasteful, highly unusual expenditures the Biden administration has yet to explain.
During a recent discussion with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Samantha Power, touted her organization’s push to guarantee transparency for US taxpayer funds sent to Ukraine.
“We are involved in funding efforts at ensuring judicial integrity, which is intrinsically important to building Ukraine’s democracy and its integration plans to get into Europe,” Power declared, adding USAID’s work in Ukraine was “also really important in terms of assuring the taxpayer, the American taxpayer, that they’re resources are well spent.”
Even a year into the war, Ukraine continues to build out Diia – an e-government app that gives citizens access to more than 120 gov services.
While innocuous on the surface, Power’s comments revealed a great deception the US government is currently waging against the American public. In the roughly 16 months since Russia’s February 2022 escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the US government has approved several multi-billion dollar spending packages to sustain the Kiev military’s fight against Moscow.
Though many Americans likely believe that US dollars allocated for Ukraine are spent directly on supplies for the war effort, the lead author of this report, Heather Kaiser, conducted a thorough review of Washington’s budget for the 2022 and 2023 fiscal year and discovered that is far from the case.
US taxpayers may be shocked to learn that as their families grappled with fears of Social Security’s looming insolvency, the Social Security Administration in Washington sent $4.48 million to the Kiev government in 2022 and 2023 alone. In another example of bizarre spending, USAID paid off $4.5 billion worth of Ukraine’s sovereign debt through payments made to the World Bank — all while Congress went to loggerheads over America’s ballooning national debt. (Western financial interests including BlackRock Inc. are among the largest holders of Ukrainian government bonds.)
Though it is nearly impossible to calculate the total sum of US tax dollars sent to Kiev, Kaiser was able to perform an independent audit of Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine through a careful search of open source data available on the US government’s official spending tracker.
Kaiser reviewed all the funding allocations in which Ukraine was listed as the “Place of Performance” for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Additionally, she discovered supplementary funds were sent to Kiev by listing Ukraine as the “justification” for spending, rather than the location where the money was physically sent.
Calculating the total dollar amount that the US has given to Ukraine is incredibly challenging for multitude of reasons: there is a lag in reporting expenditures; covert money given by the CIA (Title 50 Covert Action) won’t be publicly disclosed; and direct military assistance in the form of military equipment is not calculated in the same manner as raw cash. The Pentagon recently admitted to an accounting error revised up to 6.2 billion dollars. Despite this, Kaiser submitted a request to the Department of Treasury asking them to disclose the total dollar amount of US taxpayer support for Ukraine. Treasury has not responded at the time of publication.
Though Kaiser was able to search through pages of reported spending, the US government has yet to conduct an official audit of its funding for Ukraine. What’s more, there is currently no limit to how much Washington can send to Kiev.
In the absence of dedicated official scrutiny of Washington’s spending in Ukraine, The Grayzone has produced an independent audit of US tax dollar allocation in the country.
Among the many troubling contracts we discovered was a $4.25 million payment from the Pentagon to a military diving contractor that a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee has described as a “fraudulent company.” The US government asserts the payment covered the company’s delivery of explosives equipment to Ukraine.
So how exactly was that money put to use? And why has Congress so far refused to implement any program to track these shady weapons deals?
Unfortunately, the “justification” for contracts like these often consists of just a brief paragraph — or worse, a single sentence. Little little information is available that documents precisely how the funds were spent down to the dollar and item.
Beneficiaries of USAID’s Ukraine aid: Polish NATO lobbyists, a private equity firm, rural Kenyans, a TV station in Toronto
USAID awarded $21.8 billion to Ukraine throughout fiscal years 2022 and 2023, roughly 41 percent of the 53.4 billion it spent during that period. Mysteriously, a portion of USAID funding earmarked for Kiev was sent to Kenya and Ethiopia via other agencies, with the award description stating projects in Africa were “partially funded with response funds and Ukraine supplemental funds.”
USAID sent $4.5 billion to Ukraine via the World Bank to pay off Kiev’s debt and fund various social programs, including government pensions. USAID made a total of $21 billion worth of direct payments to the World Bank in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 (9.1 Billion and 11.9 Billion, respectively), more money than all of the funding Washington sent to the bank between fiscal years 2008 and 2021 combined. The $4.5 billion allocated for Ukraine funded programs directed by the bank’s International Development Association and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
USAID supplied a $1 billion grant to the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to subsidize projects “Ukraine cannot fund at this time.”
USAID has supplied $20 million to “Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees” since February 2020. Recipients include a Polish think tank called the Casimir Pulaski Foundation, a Toronto-based Ukrainian TV channel, a collection of Ukrainian “anti-corruption” organizations, and other groups listed in the screenshot below. These awards were issued on top of $26 million worth of funds USAID sent these groups between 2016 and the February 2022 war escalation.
USAID allocated $500,000 for the Casimir Pulaski Foundation in 2023 to fund a program dedicated to “advanc[ing] U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance” in Ukraine. The funds were earmarked “to strengthen the International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV) initiative in implementing international advocacy campaigns to keep high levels of international solidarity with Ukraine.”
USAID’s support arrived on top of a $74,788 subaward the State Department granted to the Casimir Pulaski Foundation in June 2022 to “build capacity and policy formulating capabilities of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV) and assisting Ukrainian civil society based in Poland.”
According to their own so-called “Peace Manifesto,” the ICUV’s top priority is to admit Ukraine into NATO, a move that former US diplomats from George Kennan to Jack Matlock to Henry Kissinger and even current CIA director William Burns have described as a major provocation against Russia.
USAID sent $3 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022 “to improve health outcomes in drought affected areas in Ethiopia.” The description stated, “partially funded with response funds and Ukraine Supplemental Funds.”
USAID sent 30.9 million to Chemonics International, Inc. for the “Ukraine confidence building initiative (UCBI) 4. A private, for-profit aid contractor, Chemonics’ founder said he launched the company to “have my own CIA.” The Grayzone has documented Chemonics’ role in delivering US government funding and supplies to the Syrian White Helmets, which served as the propaganda wing of the Al Qaeda-tied armed opposition. Chemonics previously reaped a massive windfall from the US occupation of Afghanistan, raking in as much as $600 million from USAID.
USAID sent $20.7 million to PACT, INC. for “USAID Ukraine’s public health system recovery and resilience activity and will strengthen the Government of Ukraine (GOU) capacity to address COVID-19 and other public health threats, sustain health services during a crisis, and protect the health of all Ukrainians including vulnerable and marginalized populations. According to its 2022 impact statement [PDF], “In Ukraine, Pact’s work empowers citizens to push for transparent and democratic governance, advances gender equality and human rights for women and girls, and accelerates efforts to achieve HIV epidemic control.” The contractor’s work contributed to “172 people increas[ing] their net income,” according to Pact.
USAID sent $25 million to Horizon Capital Growth Fund IV, a “leading private equity firm in emerging Europe, via the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), “to back high-growth tech and export-oriented [Small and Medium Sized Enterprises] succeeding globally, based on platforms in Ukraine and Moldova.”
USAID sent7.6 million to UNICEF IDA for emergency nutrition response in ASALs (Arid and Semi-Arid Lands) in Kenya. The description stated, “partially funded with response funds and Ukraine Supplemental Funds” USAID sent $1.2 million to University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. located in Atlanta, GA to “support humanitarian information management through geographic information systems, data analytics and visualizations”. Ukraine was listed as the place of performance.
The Pentagon sponsors diving contractor with “history of fraud” to send mysterious explosives to Ukraine
The Department of Homeland Security sent5.48 million to Gravois Aluminum Boats LLCon June 8, 2021 for the following purpose: “PROCUREMENT OF TWO 38-FOOT FULL CABIN RESPONSE BOATS, FOUR 38-FOOT CENTER CONSOLE RESPONSE BOATS, TRAILERS, SPARE PARTS, AND TRAINING AS REQUIRED UNDER FMS LOA DB-P-LCL FOR THE COUNTRY OF UKRAINE.”
The Department of Defense has transferred 4.75 Million to Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. as of February 3, 2023 for “PRO SAPPER AND EOD EQUIPMENT [CONTRACTING SQUADRON] UKRAINE” and “Marine lifesaving and Diving Equipment.”
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and sapper equipment is exclusively used to blow things up or clean up explosives. And Atlantic Diving Supply is a military contractor originally founded to provide tactical gear to Navy SEAL divers.
When a company like this is tasked with a highly specific delivery of explosives gear to any foreign nation, including Ukraine, it should prompt questions about the mission, particularly when US intelligence is blaming Ukraine’s military for attacking the Nord Stream pipelines without the knowledge of President Volodymyr Zelensky. (The payment date does not necessarily correlate with the date of delivery from the vendor; in other words, the equipment could have been delivered at a prior date.)
Luke Hillier, the founder of Atlantic Diving Supply, paid a $20 million settlement in 2019 to resolve charges that he defrauded the Pentagon by falsely claiming his company was a small business. Atlantic Diving is consistently listed as one of the top 25 largest military contractors in the country.
THREAD: A controversial "small business" just won a $33B DoD contact, despite what a senator calls "a known history of fraud." A new @POGOwatchdog investigation into Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. https://t.co/kinpwb7O9l with @schwellenbach@adamzagorin
In 2021, Hillier raked in a massive $33 billion contract under the same program, prompting fresh accusations of fraud. This pattern of malfeasance prompted a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to bluntly denounce Atlantic Diving as a “fraudulent company.”
Hillier currently owns a $13 million mega-yacht in the Cayman Islands, $24 million worth of beachfront property in Hawaii, and two Bahamas-based companies with murky operations, according to the Project on Government Oversight.
The Department of Defense has paid 4.9 Million to BAE Systems GCS International as of September 12, 2022 for “UKRAINE LCS LW 155 SPARES” and “guns over 155mm through 200mm”. In Navy terminology, LCS means “Littoral Combat Ship,” while LW refers to the lightweight gun. And “155 SPARES” refers to the gun mounted on the ship’s main battery off the bow.
So what is the exact purpose of the LCS LW 155mm gun spares, why were they given to Ukraine, and where are they now? Is there a tracking mechanism in place to know where they are and how they’re being used?
Washington funnels cash to a private equity firm, Georgian finance corporation, a ‘private entrepreneur’ via Ukraine aid
US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) sent $25 million to Horizon Capital Growth Fund IV, a “leading private equity firm in emerging Europe, “to back high-growth tech and export-oriented [Small and Medium Sized Enterprises] succeeding globally, based on platforms in Ukraine and Moldova.”
US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) sent $1.5 million to the Gazelle Fund LP, another private equity firm, to relocate Ukrainian businesses to Georgia. Georgia does not border Ukraine, nor is it a primary location for Ukrainian refugee resettlement.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent $882,291 to a single individual described as an “private entrepreneur” in exchange for “overseas technical assistance program support services.” The private entrepreneur listed, Igor Lavreniuk, serves as the Program Coordinator for USAID’s Competitive Markets Program according to his LinkedIn.
The National Science Foundation sent 1.3 million to University of Illinois for faculty and curricular development in remote sensing. The place of performance is listed as Ukraine.
Along with the blowback from their government’s gratuitous sanctions policy against Russia and other official enemies, Americans are feeling the impact of this overseas spending spree at grocery stores, gas stations, and everywhere in between. Meanwhile, rising generations are not only struggling with historic inflation, but concerns that Medicare and Social Security will be insolvent in the near future.
Washington and Europe have insisted that the flood of aid to Ukraine is essential to defending democracy against the existential threat of an authoritarian Russia. This framing is designed to shut down all debate by casting anyone who questions the ballooning price tag as fundamentally anti-American — if you are against funding the West’s proxy war with a nuclear power, you oppose the very ideals that define our nation.
Yet our inspection of US government spending in Ukraine demonstrates that Washington has prioritized its supposed fight for “democracy” abroad over the well-being of the American people.
As the war drags on, lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham have marketed military aid to Ukraine in increasingly grim terms. As the senator boasted during a recent trip to Kiev, “The Russians are dying…it’s the best money we’ve ever spent.” Meanwhile, Congress has rejected any mechanism that would guarantee transparency on the billions sent to Kiev, and shunned a war powers debate over the US military’s presence on the Ukrainian battlefield.
President Joseph Biden, for his part, has pledged that official Washington will support Kiev “as long as it takes.” As the potential for blowback grows from Western pressure to push Ukraine into NATO, and a nuclear-armed Moscow is backed into an existential fight for its survival, while economic powers including China gradually decouple from the Western financial system, Americans can only wonder how much will this war cost them when it is finally over.
*
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.
Heather Kaiser is a former military intelligence officer and veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is an independent researcher and analyst for defense, intelligence, and political matters. Heather earned a bachelor’s in geopolitics from the United States Military Academy at West Point and earned a degree in sculpture from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Since the 2020 riots, she has returned to research and analysis of current events for organizations such as American Contingency and Grayzone.
Anya Parampil is a journalist based in Washington, DC. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on-the-ground reports from the Korean peninsula, Palestine, Venezuela, and Honduras.
The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.
Featured image: President Joe Biden travels to Kyiv, Ukraine Monday, February 20, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
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.
Since the start of the conflict in February 2022, billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware has been sent to Ukraine by the EU. By late February 2023, it had forwarded €3.6 billion worth of military assistance to the Zelensky regime via the European Peace Fund. However, even at that time, the total cost for EU countries could have been closer to €6.9 billion.
In late June 2023, the EU pledged a further €3.5 billion in military aid.
Josep Borrell is the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the EU Commission.
Following this latest pledge, he stated on Twitter:
“We will continue to double down on our military support on both equipment [and] training. For as long as it takes.”
Great news for European and UK armaments companies like BAE Systems, Saab and Rheinmetall, which are raking in huge profits from the destruction of Ukraine (see the CNN Business report Europe’s arms spending on Ukraine boosts defense companies).
And as for BlackRock, JP Morgan and private investors, they aim to profit from the country’s reconstruction along with 400 global companies, including Citi, Sanofi and Philips.
At the same time, in War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land, the Oakland Institute describes how financial institutions are insidiously supporting the consolidation of farmland by oligarchs and Western financial interests.
With Ukrainian forces struggling on the battlefield, it poses the worrying question: with so much money at stake for Western capital, just how far will the US escalate in order to prevent Russia from securing control over areas of the country?
Meanwhile, away from the boardrooms, business conferences and high-level strategizing, hundreds of thousands of ordinary young Ukrainians have died.
Irish MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly have been staunch critics of the EU stance on Ukraine (see Clare Daly talking in the EU parliament about Ukraine burning through a generation of men on YouTube).
Wallace recently addressed the EU Parliament, describing the heist currently taking place in that country by Western corporations.
Wallace said:
“The damage to Ukraine is devastating. Towns and cities that endured for hundreds of years don’t exist anymore. We must recognise that these towns, cities and surrounding lands were long being stolen by local oligarchs colluding with global financial capital. This theft quickened with the onset of the war in 2014.
“The pro-Western government opened the doors wide for massive structural adjustment and privatisation programmes spearheaded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the IMF and the World Bank. Zelensky used the current war to concentrate power and accelerate the corporate fire sale. He banned opposition parties that were resisting deeply unpopular reforms to the laws restricting the sale of land to foreign investors.
“Over three million hectares of agricultural land are now owned by companies based in Western tax havens. Ukraine’s mineral deposits alone are worth over $12 trillion. Western companies are licking their lips.”
“What are the working-class people of Ukraine dying for?”
*
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.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
Featured image: MEP Mick Wallace (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.
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 recent survey, 60% of American citizens consulted do not welcome the 80-year-old president of the United States seeking a second term. The numbers are clear: a vast majority of Americans are concerned about the age of Joe Biden and reject the fact that the Democrat has decided to run for re-election.
A poll conducted by NBC News found that 68% of registered voters are concerned that Biden lacks the mental and physical health to continue as president. In this sense, 55% of those consulted said they were “concerned” about the age of Biden, who, if he succeeded in the next elections, would be leaving the White House at 86 years of age.
Worsening the prognosis for the president and Democratic candidate for 2024, 60% of those polled responded that they were concerned that the candidate would be re-elected. 46% specifically said that the scenario caused them “major concerns.”
Confirming the low acceptance of the Democrat, other data from the survey shows that 44% of voters say that they would “definitely” or “probably” consider supporting an independent or third-party candidate for president in 2024. As all the polls indicate, this is in case the candidates are Joe Biden for the Democrats and former president Donald Trump, the current favourite in the internal race over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, for the Republicans.
The advanced age of Biden, who is the oldest president in US history, has been a focus of concern not only for voters but also for the very leaders and strategists of the Democratic Party, who, since the beginning of his term, have considered other figures as potential replacements for 2024.
However, Biden, who practically every week since he arrived at the White House has been in the news for slipping or suffering a physical accident, which has increased comments about his alleged senility or physical vulnerability, announced on April 25 that he would go for re-election and that he will repeat with his current vice president, Kamala Harris, the electoral formula.
There are stark differences, though, as Biden will be on the campaign trail, unlike in 2020, when most of the campaigning was done online due to the COVID pandemic. He will now be forced to be on public display, all whilst under greater scrutiny and more advanced age.
First Lady Jill Biden has been telling donors that “nothing” can slow down Joe Biden, despite most voters being concerned about his mental and physical health.
“Nothing can slow him down and now he’s ready to finish the job,” Jill Biden said at fundraisers in Minnesota and Tennessee on June 24, where donors gave millions of dollars to Biden’s re-election effort.
Yet, despite what Jill says, the situation has become so desperate that Hollywood movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg is counselling the president on how to “own” his age and treat it as an asset rather than a drawback for his re-election campaign. Katzenberg believes Biden ought to “lean into his longevity as a sign of wisdom and experience while offering a sense of humour about it.”
But no amount of Hollywood star power can stop Biden from his constant tumbles, jumbled words, and moments of confusion.
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up,” as his onetime boss, President Barack Obama, reportedly said.
One of Biden’s worst gaffes was when he sought out Indiana Rep. Jackie Walorski at a White House conference — eight weeks after her high-profile death, in which he had even released a lengthy statement mourning her.
“Representative Jackie — are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he said from the podium while peering about the room. “I think she was going to be here.”
Who could forget that he challenged US official foreign policy by calling for regime change in Russia?
The White House quickly denied that is what he meant he said of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
Biden also said the US would defend Taiwan militarily if China attacked it, seemingly ending decades of non-commitment to that kind of intervention and sparking fury from Beijing and challenging the One China policy. The White House had to deny again what the entire world heard him say.
The president has also picked up a habit of constantly falling over, such as when he fell flat on his face at the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony in May or when he stumbled twice in a few weeks earlier this year as he walked up the steps of Air Force One, or in 2022 when he tumbled off his bike crossing a road.
Considering Biden’s mental and physical faculties are not what they should be for the president of a Great Power, it is easily understandable why most Americans show concern for his age in the leadup to the elections. It appears, for now, the Democrats will insist on Biden as their main candidate.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
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 largest migrant boat disaster recently off the coast of Greece involved 750 persons wanting to get to Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Though this was the largest tragedy, similar voyages are happening almost daily with loss of life.
The US and EU sanctions prevent Syrians from a livelihood at home, and desperate people make deadly choices to feed their families. If sanctions were lifted, Syrians could find a job in the many reconstruction projects and new factories which could open if the sanctions were lifted, which currently prevent any reconstruction projects, or factories refurbishment or construction. The Syrian economy sits idle and the Syrian workers are unemployed because of sanctions. Many feel their only hope is an illegal boat ride to Europe, which has a seemingly open door policy that encourages human trafficking.
Germany has welcomed 560,000 Syrian refugees, and while many have become productive members of society, many others have remained uninterested in German integration, and a few have become criminals. In an effort to understand the problems surrounding the current Syrian economic migrants to Germany, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Gunnar Lindemann, a Member of the Berlin parliament since 2016. who has been to Syria and has firsthand information, and has proposed a way to end the illegal migrant boats to Europe, and thus save lives.
Gunnar Lindemann is member of Parliament of the Federal state of Berlin from the party “Alternative for Germany”.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Recently, in Essen there was a massive fight between Lebanese and Syrian refugees. In the German media, the Lebanese were said to be operating as a mafia involved with the illegal drug trade.
From your perspective, how are the German police handling the problem, and what is the German citizens’ reaction to these crimes?
Gunnar Lindemann (GL): The problem is not the German police. The problem is German politics and the German government. This government is acting irresponsibly by allowing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly illegally, to enter Germany for decades. The problem with the Lebanese clans has also been known for a long time. The mistake is that criminal or violent migrants are almost never deported, even though they disobey German laws.
SS: A ship carrying 750 illegal migrants to Europe recently sank with great loss of life, and it is an ongoing tragedy happening almost daily.
In your opinion, what can Germany and the European Union do to prevent this situation?
GL: Here, too, politics in Germany and Europe is to blame. All people rescued from the Mediterranean should not be allowed to go to Europe, but would have to be brought back to their starting point in Africa. If you did it like that for a few weeks, nobody would risk a voyage on an unfit ship anymore. And with that, no one would drown.
SS: Syrian refugees number about 800,000 in Germany, and are the largest refugee community. Syrian Christians and Muslims both reject the LGBTQ lifestyle and do not want their school aged children indoctrinated in an adult subject.
In your view, shouldn’t parents have the right to choose what their child is taught in school about a sensitive topic?
GL: Yes, of course, parents should have more influence over school lessons on sensitive topics. Most German parents also reject this LGTB propaganda in German schools. From my point of view, this early sexualization in children has no place and should be banned.
SS: The armed conflict in Syria is over. The last period of open conflict was in 2017, and today the cities of Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, and Latakia are all safe and calm. There is even a growing tourism industry as visitors return, including Syrians living in Germany who often return each summer for a beach vacation and family visits.
In your opinion, is it time to ask Syrians in Germany to return home, especially those who do not want to integrate into the society?
GL: I was in Damascus myself 2 years ago. The war in Syria is over. The Syrians in Germany should now return to their homeland, whereby the German government should certainly provide financial return assistance here. Diplomatic relations with Syria should also be resumed immediately and sanctions against Syria must be lifted. Relations between Germany and Syria must finally return to normal. Syria has great potential in economic development and of course in the tourism sector. Which is certainly interesting for German investors and business people.
SS: The majority of Syrians never left home, and are still in Syria. They have suffered through years of armed conflict which left them without a home and without an income. However, due to US and EU sanctions, the rebuilding process is prohibited from beginning. Homes, hospitals, schools and businesses are prevented from making repairs and offering new jobs. The sanctions have not hampered the government, but have only hurt the Syrian people.
In your opinion, isn’t it time to lift the sanctions and allow the Syrian citizens to rebuild and attract foreign investors who want to help Syria recover?
GL: As I said, Syria is interesting for foreign investors. That is why relations must be normalized and sanctions must be ended. Cooperation between the official government agencies should also work again, and both the EU and the USA should support Syria’s reconstruction. Joint ventures between Syrian and German companies, which should be funded by the EU, are one possibility. Syria has always been the most liberal Arab country and it is important to support Syria now as a factor of stability 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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In a recent report published by the South African-based Institute for Security Studies (ISS), an argument was made for the mobilization and deployment of an African Union (AU) peacekeeping force in the Republic of Sudan.
Since April 15, the two dominant military structures, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), have engaged in clashes aimed at eliminating each other as formidable fighting units.
Hundreds have been killed in direct combat while civilians caught up in the crossfire are perishing as well. Most of the municipal hospitals in the capital of Khartoum have been closed due to the dangerous atmosphere prevailing in the commercial and residential areas.
Government offices and foreign embassies are unable to function properly. Primary, secondary and higher educational institutions have been forced to shutter their doors.
Efforts aimed at brokering a permanent ceasefire in order to pave the way for talks on the future of the oil and resource-rich country of 47 million people have failed. The United States and Saudi Arabia, two major players in the internal politics of Sudan, encouraged the SAF and RSF representatives participating in the talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to declare temporary ceasefires primarily for humanitarian reasons.
However, these declarations of a cessation of hostilities for a few days have gained mixed results as people inside the country indicate that fighting has never stopped completely. The RSF militias have seized neighborhoods forcing people away from their homes. In retaliation, the SAF has attacked RSF-held positions often utilizing aerial bombardments.
The African Union (AU) has put forward its own peace plan for Sudan which has received almost no attention within the imperialist countries. Initially, President Salva Kiir of the Republic of South Sudan stated openly that western states should not consider intervening in its northern neighbor while offering to host talks in the capital of Juba.
Nonetheless, the two opposing military structures have ignored the appeals for an immediate truce made by AU member-states. Both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have either contributed enormous amounts of money to the military leaders in Sudan in the case of Riyadh, while Washington has attempted to influence the political transition process in Sudan in a direction which is compliant with imperialist policy in Africa.
By establishing conditionalities for Sudan to receive debt refinancing and loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other institutions, the previous administration of President Donald Trump and his successor Joe Biden required that the military and the ousted interim administration of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdak normalize relations with Israel. Such a decision not only violated the Sudanese Israeli Boycott Act of 1958 it clearly undermines international support for the plight of the Palestinian people.
In the western Darfur region of Sudan, where the RSF has its origins during the efforts by the central government to repress a rebellion in the area beginning in the early 2000s, has witnessed an eruption of violence. The Governor of West Darfur state, Khamis Abakar, was assassinated on June 15 after accusing the RSF in an interview with Al Hadath Television of endangering the lives of civilians. Abakar had appealed to the international community for assistance.
Sudanese refugees in Chad
Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Calls for AU Military Force to Intervene
The proposal advanced by the ISS would be designed primarily for the consistent distribution of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in Sudan. However, such a mission would face severe obstacles as a result of the heavy fighting in Khartoum, sections of Darfur and South Kordofan state which borders the Republic of South Sudan.
“The army on Wednesday (June 21) accused the SPLM-N rebel group led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, which controls parts of South Kordofan state, of breaking a long-standing ceasefire agreement and attacking an army unit in the city. The army said it had fought back the incursion but sustained losses. South Kordofan has Sudan’s main oil fields and borders West Darfur State as well as South Sudan. The SPLM-N, which has strong ties to South Sudan, also attacked the army in the South Kordofan city of al-Dalanj on Wednesday, as did the RSF, residents said. Residents of Kadugli said the army had redeployed forces to protect its positions in the city on Thursday, while the SPLM-N was gathering in areas on the outskirts. There were electricity and communications outages as well as dwindling food and medical supplies, they said.”
These developments in Darfur and South Kordofan stem from the alliances which developed over the course of the last four years where the Transitional Military Council (TMC), led jointly by General Abdelfattah al-Burhan of the SAF and his RSF counterpart Mohamed Hamden Dagalo (Hermitti), negotiated separate peace agreements with the armed opposition groupings that arose during the reign of former President Omar Hasan al-Bashir.
A tenuous ceasefire between the military structures and the armed opposition in Darfur and South Kordofan is seriously endangered due to the open split between the SAF and the RSF. Any AU stabilization force would have to take into consideration the complex dynamics operating among the various factions in Khartoum, Darfur and South Kordofan.
The ISS said in its proposal that the prospects for a negotiated ceasefire and the resumption of a transitional process are unlikely as long as there is no African regional military presence which could ostensibly act as a counterforce to the SAF and RSF. Nonetheless, the intervention of an AU peacekeeping mission would require tens of thousands of troops prepared to defend its personnel along with civilians seeking humanitarian aid.
Maram Mahdi of the ISS office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia emphasized:
“Sudan needs an AU-mandated and -supported intervention force to establish a humanitarian corridor and protect civilians and critical infrastructure. The AU’s principles and purpose call for a more proactive response that reflects a commitment to safeguarding human lives and upholds the continental ideals of non-indifference. The AU’s peace support operations doctrine and the African Standby Force concept provide relevant scenarios for such an intervention. A force with a quick reaction capacity could help create conditions for conflict resolution, support humanitarian and relief efforts and ensure broader stabilization. Considering the rapid escalation, spread and transformation of the conflict to intercommunal violence in areas such as El Geneina, a short-term objective should be to end the hostilities. A small to medium-sized contingent capable of securing a safe zone in Khartoum and creating humanitarian corridors could be replicated in restive West Darfur. Timing of the intervention is crucial and attempts at post-conflict reconstruction demand an expedited show of force now.”
The AU has the legal authority to intervene based upon its Constitutive Act 4(h). This measure could be implemented irrespective of the approval by the United Nations Security Council. (See this)
Based upon events in the Republic of Sudan since April 15, drastic and unprecedented actions may be required to reestablish some semblance of political stability. The question remains as to whether the AU can mobilize the necessary financial and military resources for deployment in strategic centers of Sudan.
Port Sudan in the east of the country is on the Red Sea and provides a major outlet for external trade. Material resources and troops could be funneled into the country from this area while allowing those wanting to leave the country a safe outlet for evacuation and resettlement.
This proposal from the ISS should be discussed and debated by the AU at its headquarters in Addis Ababa within the Peace and Security Council (PSC). If it proves to be an effective way to facilitate humanitarian assistance and the lessening of violence against civilians, Sudan could turn the page on the current crisis.
*
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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Forcing young healthcare students to take COVID-19 vaccines by mandating them under the threat of being thrown out of school, remains one of the greatest crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We need to see criminal charges brought against all University and College leaders who were involved in the decision making and implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021 and 2022.
June 22, 2023 – Provo, UT – 27 year old Keyon Snow, a nursing student at Joyce University, died suddenly in his sleep.
June 10, 2023 – Knoxville, TN – 18 yo Caileigh O’Donohue Duggan, a nursing student at University of Tennessee nursing program died suddenly on June 10, 2023. She died in her sleep, due to an “undiagnosed heart condition” – very likely COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis.
May 24, 2023 – Bronx, NY – 28 year old medical resident at Montefiore Medical Center Dr.Nakita Mortimer died suddenly on May 24, 2023 (committed suicide – was she suffering from neurological vaccine injuries?).
May 21, 2023 – UK – Winifred Chioma George, a Nigerian Nursing Student who was only 16 weeks away from completing her nursing degree at the University of Hertfordshire died suddenly on May 21, 2023 (click here)
May 14, 2023 – St. Louis, MO – 22 year old pharmacy student Mikayla Sherrill collapsed and died suddenly while running a mini marathon. She was an avid runner.
April 26, 2023 – Southport, UK – 31 year old nursing student Ashleigh De Andrade returned from holiday, felt unwell, had a brain bleed, several seizures & died suddenly.
March 9, 2023 – 24 year old medical student in Bury, UK died suddenly. He died from a sudden cardiac arrest, in his sleep.
Dec. 20, 2022 – 25 year old Dr.Lindsay Ann Heck, a pharma student at University of Pittsburgh, died suddenly from “unknown causes”.
Sep. 27, 2022 – Colby, KS – 20 year old Regan Laine Lewis, a nursing student, died suddenly of cardiac arrest 1 day after her mandated COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Her aunt suspects the COVID-19 vaccine caused her death.
Sep. 18, 2021 – Memphis, TN – 25 year old Jarrett Nunez, 3rd year medical student of NY Institute of Technology College Osteopathic Medicine died suddenly after taking two doses of Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine
Feb. 27, 2021 – UK (Barnsley) – 18 yo paramedic student Kasey Turner got AstraZeneca vaccine on Feb. 11, 2021, was admitted to hospital Feb. 23, 2021 with severe headache, died Feb. 27,2021 – cerebral venous thrombosis
10 Canadian medical students and medical residents have died suddenly since rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines
My Take…
Each of these deaths should be forensically investigated as a homicide, and if it is determined that COVID-19 vaccines were a contributing factor in the deaths, all those University and College leaders who implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates should be criminally prosecuted and sentenced to long prison terms.
No student should ever have been forced into taking experimental pharmaceutical interventions, while under threats of suspension from their program.
10 Canadian medical students are dead in the 2 year rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. All of them were COVID-19 vaccinated. All of them were forced to be.
Some of these deaths were suicides. In these cases the key question is: was the COVID-19 vaccine spike protein present in the brain and how much neurological damage did it cause?
COVID-19 vaccines cause neurological and mental health injuries and increase the risk of suicide as well.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Just recently another person died in close proximity to having received the Covid jab. As can be expected, we on the freedom front here in New Zealand were unanimous in our horror at yet another needless death, and certain people were urged to ‘go public’, to rail against the transparently conducted programme of murder, to kick up a fuss that would turn the tide.
If the truth be told, we are getting sick and tired of Zelensky who runs the “cease-pool” of corruption, tyranny, delusion and death in Ukraine. This clown – and that’s what he is actually trained as – just can’t seem to stop stridently demanding money, arms and support from the rest of the world and lecturing everyone to fall into line or else.
Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are people who hold a public function and as a result present a higher risk of being involved in bribery and corruption. Offshore leaks have revealed time and again that PEPs use British finance and British offshore jurisdictions to launder their wealth, hide their wealth and re-invest that wealth back into the global financial system.
Sometimes you wake up from a dream to realize it is telling you to pay close attention to the depth of its message, especially when it is linked to what you have been thinking about for days. I have just come up from a dream in which I went down to the cellar of the house I grew up in because the basement light was on and the back cellar door had been opened by a mysterious man who stood outside.
Back in mid-January, retired United States Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who previously led the US Army Europe Command and still holds several high-ranking positions within NATO, gave an interview to the CIA front Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where he claimed that Western heavy armor would supposedly give the Kiev regime “an edge” against the Russian military.
Putin’s latest speech is one that should never have been made.With his ill-considered speech — Putin has lent his weight to US neoconservative propaganda that he is in a weakened and challenged position and that the US can win in Ukraine.
I conclude from the evidence that will here be presented, that a well-coordinated plan appears to be forming within the U.S. Government; first, to choke-off and thoroughly censor-out from U.S.-and-allied news-media any information that might reduce the willingness of their publics to support going to a full-fledged all-out war against Russia and/or China…
A lot of nonsense is being spouted by a bevy of spontaneous “Russian experts” in light of the Prigozhin spray, a mutiny (no one quite knows what to call it), stillborn in the Russian Federation. It all fell to the theatrical sponsor, promoter and rabble rouser Yevgeny Prigozhin, a convict who rose through the ranks of the deceased Soviet state to find fortune and security via catering, arms and Vladimir Putin’s support.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is one of the key people driving US foreign policy. He was mentored by Hillary Clinton with regime changes in Honduras, Libya and Syria. He was the link between Nuland and Biden during the 2014 coup in Ukraine.
Most estimates of US military spending mention a figure of 886 billion dollars or so. This is higher than the combined military spending of the next ten biggest spenders, most of whom are allies of the USA. This is 3 times the military spending of China.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
While most of the world spent three years trying to flatten a two week curve, got spooked out on TV news infographics, took medical advice from Twitter doctors, stood six feet apart, posted vaccine selfies, obeyed tyrannical dictators and their newspapers, and even celebrated birthdays over Zoom… novelist John C. A. Manley instead crafted a poignant fictional novel based on the real science fiction of the world around him in Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story.
In this unredacted interview, John discusses everything from the inspiration behind the novel to his National Book Award snub and what’s next for the fictional town of Moosehead where the novel is set. A Vaxx Pass is NOT REQUIRED to continue reading this SAFE AND EFFECTIVE interview…
*
TOBY: Although your novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story, is fiction; to us, it is a perfectly captured moment of the COVID pandemic. You wrote the novel in installments— published over email—was it difficult to craft the fictional story while the truth of it was ongoing?
JOHN: Actually, that’s misinformation. Or disinformation. Are you controlled opposition? I simply could never have produced a novel of the quality of Much Ado About Corona via installments. I literally rewrote and edited all 500-pages from beginning to end over fifteen times. Ideas that didn’t emerge until I was writing chapter 102 needed to be set up in chapter 4, 28 and 42. There is so much subtle foreshadowing in this story that anyone who reads it twice will be rewarded.
Producing a novel in installments almost seems like a mystical power to me. Charles Dickens did it, but he was a genius. He also rambled a lot. I’ve read (this may be misinformation, too, mind you) that because he was forced to publish his stories chapter-by-chapter in magazine serials, he didn’t know what he’d need until later in the story, so he purposely included superfluous plot elements and characters.
But to answer the second part of your question: No, sadly, it wasn’t difficult to write the story in the midst of the so-called pandemic. Mainstream news, alternative news and day-to-day life in my small city all provided endless fodder for this story. Many of the lines said by characters came right out of the muzzled mouths of my mask-wearing neighbours who had suddenly become spokespersons for medical totalitarianism.
There’s an old saying that nothing bad ever happens to a writer. Everything is material that he can use somewhere in a story.
TOBY: Why do you feel this was an important story to tell?
JOHN: Almost overnight, we saw governments, media and so-called medical professionals execute the biggest hoax in human history. (Unless the flat earthers are right, then it’s the second biggest hoax.) Authorities managed to convince people to hide in their homes, shun their loved ones, stand six feet away from their neighbours, wear dirty masks, get dangerous and ineffective injections… all for what? There was no pandemic. It was a regular cold and flu season. The excess deaths in the US were caused by giving patients toxic anti-viral medication and rushing them onto ventilators. The fact this was happening in almost every developed country — small towns, big cities and even rural farmlands — at the exact same time showed how much power the psychopathic elite have over the population.
That’s the dark side of the story. The bright side was how it forced everyday people — like the characters in my novel — to stand up for basic human dignity and refuse to go along with this absurd form of oppression. Citizens were thrown into a culture and information war. They had to grow a thick skin and put up with being shunned by their neighbours. They had to risk being arrested and fined. Some were even beaten and killed. We were suddenly made to appreciate and fight for our freedom and self-respect.
TOBY: “Show don’t tell” works exceptionally well in the novel, particularly when talking about the insane mandate measures and extreme way some people were following them. How difficult was it for you to be able to show both sides without writing the pro-mandate characters as total farce?
JOHN: It was tempting to make this a satire. It would have been easier. But making fun of the sheeple was only going to create the type of civil war I suspect the elite would love to watch while they sit back smoking fat cigars.
Listen, I’ve got nothing against sheeple. They are often nice people. I wouldn’t say they are good or evil. But they keep society going. If everybody in Canada questioned authority as much as I do, we’d never get anything done. But, at the same time, we need a few goats like me and you to keep the sheep away from the wolves. So I did spend a lot of time talking to and reading the points of view of people who believed in the mandates. I think this is most reflected in the character of Constable Corona. He is the villain of the story. But he’s a villain that so many readers have said they felt compassion for. I’d rather the reader go away seeing their masked, vaxxed neighbours as victims rather than enemies. Best to save our fury for the evil puppet masters.
TOBY: The section of the book that deals with the disgraceful neglect in long-term care homes was particularly disturbing—the filth and cell-like room, where Vincent’s grandfather lives. Did you actually witness these horror-like conditions or was it purely speculative?
JOHN: I do consider myself a speculative fiction writer, but the conditions in the novel’s fictional Moosehead Long Term Care were certainly neither speculative nor fictional. Sadly, they were a toned-down version of what was actually happening in Ontario nursing homes in the first year of the scamdemic. My depiction was drawn from three sources:
1. The 15-page report written by the Canadian Armed Forces who were called into assist at understaffed nursing homes in Ontario.
2. An investigative article written by freelance journalist Rosemary Frei, released in May 2020 by Off-Guardian.
3. My own personal experience, as both my parents were living in a nursing home in my city which was eventually commandeered by the Canadian Armed Forces. Much of Grandad’s experience from the novel was based on my father’s. They both suffered from dementia, and diminished physically and mentally during the first lockdown when they were confined to their rooms. My father eventually died, the following year, after receiving his third booster shot. I tried to convince my parents to move out, but they decided to stay due to the severity of their pre-existing ailments.
TOBY: We loved how you brought real-world examples to the novel like Elmhurst Hospital in Queens. Writing fiction you could have really gone out there, but seemed to choose to show real world examples. Was it difficult to restrain yourself or was everything Covid related stranger than fiction anyway?
JOHN: Oddly enough, in the early drafts, written in the first months of the pandemic, it was much more a “speculative fiction” novel. By the time I finished, I saw many of my speculations become reality. At times, I feared I was somehow the cause of the tyrannical nightmare we were witnessing.
The hardest decision was how many real-world examples to incorporate into the novel. I feel I found a good balance between a fictional story with factual elements. The drive behind the story was to both expose the inhumanity of what was being done to us and kindle the courage to push back. I wanted to avoid a tale set in a different time and place like 1984 or Brave New World or Wool. Instead, I was aiming for reality-based fiction akin to Harper Lee’s masterpiece, To Kill a Mockingbird.
TOBY: How much of Vincent do you think was autobiographical? Were you or someone you know, for example, the type of person who originally accepted the pandemic measures, but grew to question them over time?
JOHN: Actually, Vincent and I have very little in common as far as our reaction to tyrannical governments pushing pseudoscience. Rather, the character I most identify with is Stefanie Müller (other than her sex… no, I’m not transgender).
Vince, rather, was my attempt at depicting the ideal reader for this novel: Someone who is sitting on the electric fence about the whole COVID debacle. They are the type who will go along to get along, trusting the experts, but, if you give them a good shaking, they awaken, slowly, to the truth.
TOBY: This seems like a book that may not make Canada Reads, despite having GWU!’s vote. It breaks the narrative that CBC and other media pushed. Does it concern you that the establishment may never accept a book like this or is that actually a good thing?
JOHN: In some ways it’s a good thing, because the establishment’s words and actions regarding COVID-19 have been nothing short of evil. For an evil establishment to accept this story, would mean the story, too, was corrupt. The story exposes the lies they spread and encourages people to not follow the masked herd. Therefore, I wasn’t surprised when it didn’t win the 2022 National Book Award.
Instead, I’d like to see the reverse: Where this book helps to either change or replace the current establishment.
The story even has scenes that poke fun at CBC and CTV News specifically. From a commercial standpoint, this has been difficult, because it’s near impossible to get any mainstream media exposure for the novel.
TOBY: What is your hope for readers, particularly readers who may have accepted all the government mandates without question?
JOHN: Subconsciously, I believe, stories shape people’s actions. The masses have been bombarded with stories about how it’s noble, compassionate and righteous to go along with masking, lockdowns and vaccinations. Much Ado About Corona provides an alternative story that shows how complying with the COVID measures is cowardly, harmful and downright evil. Instead, it’s a story about how a small group of people do the right thing when it is neither legal, popular or safe.
For readers who’ve accepted all the government mandates without questions, I would be happy if all they did was see the cover of the book or read the synopsis on the back — anything that might stir them from their hypnotic state. Just having the book out selling on major retailers, appearing in libraries and in people’s hands, is reshaping our culture — regardless of whether those most in need of reading it ever get past the tagline.
For those a little less brainwashed, yes, I hope they read the story and come closer to accepting the terrible truth about the globalists’ intentions. I think such people are already capable of seeing through the lies. Rather than convincing them with facts, the story focuses on converting them by example. It’s a story about a “fringe minority” of people in a small town who refuse to comply and, ultimately, get hunted down by the authorities. It provides role models. Even though they suffer for it, it’s still seen as the desirable and noble thing to do. It puts truth, honour and courage above safety, conformity and mediocrity.
TOBY: To us this is a uniquely Canadian book, not only with references to The Tragically Hip (we love the scene in Moonbeam) but also with the use of Indigenous imagery, and hockey. We know that Canada had some of the harshest pandemic restrictions outside of China, do you think this book can be appreciated on a universal level as well?
JOHN: Well, Australia may have been worse off than Canada. But, yes, I really think Canada was the best place to set this story. There was an expression going around during the Freedom Convoy that I think resonated with the world: “When Canadians get mad, you know it’s bad.”
I’ve also been happy to receive emails from many readers outside of Canada saying how much they enjoyed learning about our culture and history while reading the novel. I specifically set the story in the Sudbury region because this allowed me to represent the English, French and Indigenous peoples whom primarily make up our population. Along with the Chatterjees, a family of East Indian immigrants, I wanted to reflect how Canada has been a place where people respect each other despite their different heritages, races and beliefs. Such tolerance was clearly mutilated by the division the COVID regulations caused, where suddenly the “true north strong and free” adopted a two-tier society that would have made Stalin salivate.
Farley Mowat and Robert J. Sawyer have all proven that stories set in Canada are appreciated by readers all over the world. And, sadly, the COVID restrictions are something that people all over the world had first hand experience in. Hence, the story will feel too close to home regardless of whether a reader lives in Canada, the US, France, India or Australia.
TOBY: What is your writing process: do you have a specific place and time to write or is it when you feel inspired?
JOHN: If I only took a shower when I felt inspired, I’d be a pretty smelly guy. The same goes with writing. I write every day whether I feel like it or not. I even write on weekends. I mainly write in my “writing studio” (the corner of my bedroom), and out near the woods when weather is favourable.
Prior to this novel I was half-way through an urban fantasy story. When the lockdowns hit I switched over to penning a “short story” called COVID-27. I quickly saw a book, not a short story, emerging out of the pen. Initially I was writing for sixty-minutes a day. But after a few months of lockdown, I upped it to two hours a day. I kept it up at that pace for two years, accumulating over 1,100 hours of work.
At the time I was writing Much Ado About Corona I was taking care of my late wife (who was adamant I finish the novel before she passed away) and my blind son (who has a few novels of his own he is writing, too). I was also involved in other work to fight the COVID agenda, publishing non-fiction articles, and leading a local freedom group, as well as assisting with the People’s Party of Canada. So I generally wrote the novel in one-hour chunks between other duties.
Generally, each morning, I would go for a seven kilometre run, and come home and write for an hour, and then again in the afternoon out in the park. Often, I would take on the more difficult tasks of writing and rewriting in the morning, while the afternoon shift focused on research and editing. Though some days I might do three hours, then only one hour the next. I have a writing log which I post online for accountability purposes and to stay on track.
TOBY: A sort of draft of your story was initially sent out as emails in short rough bursts. How did writing and publishing in this innovative way inform the final published story?
JOHN: Okay, maybe you’re not spreading misinformation. Maybe you work for QAnon and are revealing what I did in an alternative timeline?
Honestly, I can’t imagine how anyone writes a novel in installments. For example, in the very first draft of the novel, half of the characters didn’t exist. There was no AJ, Raj, Bindu, Leo or Mathéo. There wasn’t even Grandad, if you can imagine. And Vince and Stefanie were a married couple. And Stefanie was of Irish descent, not German, and her name was Cindy. I decided in the end to employ the classic “boy meets girl” story, as it added another layer to the plot. It’s my understanding that love stories are the best selling form of fiction.
TOBY: There is no doubt that the story isn’t over, without spoiling too much, is there anything you can share about Book 2?
JOHN: Book Two, Brave New Normal, diverts from our current reality. For example, instead of the vaccine passports disappearing, they remain with much harsher restrictions and penalties. Anybody who is unjabbed must wear a red band around their arm, containing a white circle and the black silhouette of a coronavirus. People must stay six feet away from the unvaccinated. The unjabbed are not allowed to be employed. They cannot rent property. And, of course, they are not allowed into indoor public places. Special internment camps are set up in the northern territories for those who have neither their own land or income. It is similar to what the Canadian government did to citizens of Japanese origin during World War II.
Characters who had very minor or passing roles in the first book have surprised even me by having larger roles in the sequel. Claudia, the Latino nurse in the old age home, becomes a focal character at the beginning of the novel, redeeming herself so to speak. The red-headed nurse who had only a brief appearance in book one, ends up stealing a few scenes. There’s another character who returns, but I don’t want to ruin the surprise, as it was even a surprise to me when he appeared (yet at the same time, inevitable).
TOBY: Just for fun, can you recommend one or two of your favorite books that GWU! readers might enjoy?
JOHN: I don’t care for horror novels, but I think Stephen King’s novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption is an incredible story of how to endure and rise above tyranny. Yan Martel’s Life of Pi was a work of art, in my opinion, and deserves its place as one of the best selling novels of all-time. I’ve read To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee several times — it was a big influence on Much Ado About Corona. And for a unique dystopian story of tyranny and deception, I highly recommend the Silos Series by Hugh Howey, beginning with the book Wool, which carries the great tagline: “If the lies don’t kill you, the truth will.” For a lighter view on tyranny, Amor Towles’s A Gentleman in Moscow is a delightful, but still a hard-hitting read. And, really, it’s hard to go wrong with Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn or Charles Dickens David Copperfield.
TOBY: Please add some info about how people can get a copy of the book, website, contact info (if you want), will you be doing any readings, etc.
JOHN: Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story is available in ebook, paperback and hardcover format from all the major online retailers. You can also order it through your local bookstore. It’s even appearing in libraries in Canada and the US. Links to where you can buy it and instructions on how to request it at your local bookstore or library are available at MuchAdoAboutCorona.com. At that same site, you’ll also find reviews, trailers, a recording of the book launch and a multimedia sample of the prologue and first chapter.
*
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.
Toby P. Gelman is the producer of the satirical Woke Up! podcast, father of six, husband to Greta Grip, and author of the Johnny Jock PI series. He is one of the fearless and funny independent reporters at Get Woke Up!, fighting the war against the woke. From the current thing to clown world (wait, aren’t those the same thing?), our gonzo reporters, who identify as Breaking/The/Narrative, serve up all the real news you need to know with a dash of that special GWU! sauce at GetWokeUp.com.
Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story
By John C. A. Manley
Publisher: Blazing Pine Cone Publishing (March 29, 2022)
Paperback: 507 pages
ISBN-10: 1778123104
ISBN-13: 978-1778123108
A Novel About Real Love and a Fake Pandemic
Summer 2020. The first lockdown has ended in the small Canadian town of Moosehead. Twenty-four-year-old Vincent McKnight emerges from three months of stay-at-home orders into a surreal new normal of multi-coloured face masks, acrid hand sanitizers, and germaphobic neighbours standing six feet apart.
The new normal becomes even stranger when Vince’s Indigenous grandfather sends him to buy a loaf of bread from the town’s new baker. Stefanie Müller speaks five languages, has beautiful blue eyes… and is a certified conspiracy theorist. She believes the pandemic is a hoax to justify totalitarian “public health” measures.
But when the local cop pulls out his taser, Stefanie’s dystopian premonitions no longer seem so theoretical. And when the restrictions threaten Granddad’s life, Vince finds himself going face-to-mask with the emerging police state—forced to choose whether to follow senseless rules or to follow his pounding heart.
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.
***
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”—Thomas Jefferson
The government is goosestepping all over our freedoms.
Case in point: America’s founders did not want a military government ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.
Yet sometime over the course of the past 240-plus years that constitutional republic has been transformed into a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
Most Americans seem relatively untroubled by this state of martial law.
Incredibly, when President Biden bragged about how the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance against the government’s massive arsenal of militarized firepower, it barely caused a ripple.
As Biden remarked at a fundraising event in California, “I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is—you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15.”
The message being sent to the citizenry is clear: there is no place in our nation today for the kind of revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical government.
For that matter, the government has declared an all-out war on any resistance whatsoever by the citizenry to its mandates, power grabs and abuses.
By this standard, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.
This is no longer the stuff of speculation and warning.
A 2008 Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report goes on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
Subsequent reports by the Department of Homeland Security to identify, monitor and label right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) have manifested into full-fledged pre-crime surveillance programs. Almost a decade later, after locking down the nation and spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.
Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that is colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.
The events of recent years have all been part of a master plan to shut us up and preemptively shut us down: by making peaceful revolution impossible and violent revolution inevitable.
The powers-that-be want an excuse to lockdown the nation and throw the switch to all-out martial law.
This is how it begins.
As John Lennon warned, “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you—pull your beard, flick your face—to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you.”
Americans are worried about the state of their country, afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and tired of being treated like suspects and criminals.
What we’ll see more of before long is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.”
This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.
Our backs are against the proverbial wall.
We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’ve been on that fast-moving, downward trajectory for some time now.
When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Brace yourselves.
There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.
Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by political theater and public spectacle that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware.
Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware.
And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.
The architects of the police state have us exactly where they want us: under their stamping boot, gasping for breath, desperate for freedom, grappling for some semblance of a future that does not resemble the totalitarian prison being erected around us.
The government and its cohorts have conspired to ensure that the only real recourse the American people have to express their displeasure with the government is through voting, yet that is no real recourse at 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.
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 most recent example is a report published by the U.S.’s Department of Defence (DoD) on June 12, which includes indications about what is happening to the military equipment that are sent to Ukraine almost every day, but no one can see the long-waited “improvement of the situation in favour of Ukraine”.
The report is titled “Evaluation of Accountability Controls for Defence Items Transferred Via Air to Ukraine within the U.S. European Command Area of Responsibility (DODIG-2023-084)” and contains a brief survey over “the extent to which the DoD implemented accountability controls for defence items transferred via air to the Government of Ukraine (GoU) within the U.S. European Command area of responsibility, in accordance with the Defence Transportation Regulations (DTR) and DoD instructions.”
Considering the shocking data provided by the report, it could easily be described as a bombshell. And that’s why western mainstream media decided to maintain silence and say nothing.
According to the report’s findings, “DoD personnel effectively and swiftly received, inspected, staged, and transferred defence items to GoU representatives in Jasionka”, but the shock wave pops up as we understand that “DoD personnel did not have the required accountability of the thousands of defence items that they received and transferred”, as the report puts it.
In simple words, an avalanche of weaponry provided by the West and allies elsewhere has been flowing into Ukraine while DoD personnel have not been able to track its final destination!
The report believes the reason for this chaos is that “personnel did not fully implement their standard operating procedures to account for defense items and could not confirm the quantities of defense items received against the quantity of items shipped”.
To better understand what exactly has happened to billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, the report gives frustrating statistics, admitting that out of every 5 shipments surveyed, 3 had ended up somewhere the DoD has no information about. In fact, the DoD and allies have no idea what has happened to three fifth of all the equipment they have sent to Ukraine!
Up to the time of writing the current report for the Tehran Times, the mainstream media has not made any comments about this report as a collective effort to push for accountability of those in charge of supplying Ukraine with military equipment. For those who are familiar with the dynamics of media atmosphere in the West and especially the U.S., it’s not hard to comprehend the presence of a cartel in backstage. But which cartel is running this show? To find the answer, let’s rewind the time a few months back to February, when the American CNBC unwillingly tried to explain to its audience that why the peaceful settlement of the dispute in Ukraine through negotiations and political measures is now far beyond impossible.
On February 24, the CNBC published an article titled “Business is Very Good, Unfortunately: Arms Fair Spotlights Bonanza Year Ahead for Weapons Companies”. Much is said in the title and we don’t have to walk through the paragraph and try to read in between the lines. The war in Ukraine is filling up the pockets of military industry moguls, as the Covid Pandemic filled up the pockets of pharmaceutical industry moguls…
But the most disturbing part of the title, especially for Ukrainians, is where the CNBC says the booming war economy has just started to boom! And to put it nicely, it uses the word “ahead” and simply moves on! So, yes. The bonanza year is “ahead” of the weapons company. And if you are one of those delusional optimistic peace lovers who still hope to see Putin and Zelensky one day sitting behind a table, signing a treaty, and ending a very miserable conflict, keep dreaming.
Now put the DoD’s report and CNBC’s piece next to each other to see the bigger picture. For the next coming years, you will see an endless flow of military equipment flooding into Ukraine without any concern over the final destination.
How, one might ask, the military complex can possibly escape the consequences of what can be considered one of the most skillfully designed deceptions of the contemporary history? The answer is simple: scapegoats!
A few months after Russia’s SMO began, most of the observers were expecting the end of conflict accompanied with a historical defeat for Russia. And the realities of the battlefield were partially strengthening this expectation. But suddenly news broke out about Russia employing new techniques based on new weaponry it received from a third country, resulting in a magnificent change in the course of war in favor of Russia.
Soon, the secret weapon was unveiled, not by Russia, but by Western media. In no time, wherever you looked, you could see someone is talking about an Iranian loitering drone which helped the prolongation of the war!
Someone, some very smart one in the West, had said: let’s feed them with Iranian drones…
This was the first scapegoat the West used to pave the ground for addressing the challenges predicted to pop up. The West used all the capabilities it had at its disposal to inculcate the Iranian drone into its answer for the questions like why the war is still ongoing. Why we should risk direct confrontation with Russia? And, were is all this money and equipment going? They even photoshoped Zelensky into the image of an Iranian Shahed drone without taking into account the dimensions of the drone, claiming the drone was captured over Kiev!
A lot has already been said about why the narrative of “Iran’s military alliance with Russia” keeps being pumped into the global public opinion. But one of the most important functions of this narrative, was justification. It stood shoulder by shoulder with many other scapegoats the warmongers used to keep the flames of war alive in Ukraine and to avoid the consequences of terrible facts like those of the DoD’s report.
Down the road, it’s the ordinary westerners who have to realize the truth and push for the end of the 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.
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.
Below is an important article by Dr. Emanuel Garcia focussing on how many deaths are associated with the CovidmRNA vaccine since the outset in December 2020.
Emanuel Garcia rightfully says that the “evidence is there. It is overwhelming”.
Emmanuel begs the question “So IS the truth getting out? Or isn’t it?”
Read carefully Emmanuel Garcia’s on the Covid-19 jab campaign.
****
Just recently another person died in close proximity to having received the Covid jab. As can be expected, we on the freedom front here in New Zealand were unanimous in our horror at yet another needless death, and certain people were urged to ‘go public’, to rail against the transparently conducted programme of murder, to kick up a fuss that would turn the tide.
Except it won’t.
How many deaths have there been already associated with the jabs worldwide, deaths among the young and the old, among the healthy and the medically compromised, how many ‘died suddenlies’ are there?
Plenty. The evidence is there, it’s overwhelming, but those on the other side aren’t moved. Now, there are some ‘ban the jab’ resolutions that have occurred in certain States in the USA, and certain countries have restricted use of certain jabs, but the Big Pharma avalanche continues to gather momentum for mRNA so-called vaccines. There is also some very hopeful data that many people are declining boosters, at least in the United States.
So IS the truth getting out? Or isn’t it?
Judging from the normies I know, it’s not. Anti-vaxxers are nut-jobs and pariahs who are to be shunned by members of the Church of Vaccinology.
The point I wish to make here, psychologically speaking, is that the jab campaign and the propaganda behind it – which has been decades in the marinating – has created a mindset that truth cannot enlighten.
With every asserted jab death or adverse event – particularly among high-profile celebrities like Jamie Foxx and Eric Clapton – the normies dig in with a renewed vigor. In psychoanalytic circles this is known as resistance, and in analytic therapy it is very common to discover that clear demonstrations of the irrationality of defences is met with increasing resistance. In other words, the more you show the truth the stronger the denial of same. It’s as if an army digs deeper trenches the more hopeless their position becomes. Or an ostrich head burrows further down into the sand lest it witness reality.
This has practical consequences for those of us who struggle to win over the masses. Do we continually bludgeon them with examples of the horrific consequences of the jab?
I think not. I think that all this rational and painstakingly clear parade of reality has the effect of stimulating the un-awoke to further anger, aggression and denial. We are, after all, crazy conspiracy theorist anti-vax crazies, and our idea of causality is nothing more than fear-mongering.
You see, they’re already afraid, and unconsciously they already know that they have been deceived, hoodwinked, manipulated and betrayed. But this they can’t admit, because if the light of the little truths about the jab peeks forth, then soon thereafter the floodlights of greater recognition of the house of cards upon which governments have built their fiefdoms will ensue, and with that discovery, with the recognition of State duplicity and State murder – notwithstanding the quaint messages of State concern, as, for example, in their token programs of assistance to fight various cancers, or their support lines for suicidal teens – they’ve got nothing to fall back to.
They bought the materialist ideal, they’ve flaunted their numbers in the complex rat race they’ve accepted, and they’ve got nothing to look forward to except more money, more stuff and more life, even if that life is increasingly hemmed in by their authorities.
So I don’t tell anyone anymore about another drop-dead gorgeous or talented young thing or seasoned celebrity who had recently flaunted his or her jab status on Facebook and now is no more. I live my little life and occasionally, when I see an opening, I make a remark.
Just tonight at a small joint of a Malaysian restaurant which I frequent, I noticed that one of the cooks wasn’t wearing his mask. He had stood out as a masked man and for weeks I had thought to say something when he served me his fine dish of Mee Goreng, but something told me to desist.
Tonight, however, as he rung up my bill – unmasked – I commented on the absence of his disguise and dared to say ‘you know, they don’t work, I’m a doctor’. This, for me, was saying a lot, because these days I am generally close-lipped, as a matter of principle.
He then explained that he wore the mask because he had a lesion on his nose – which I saw – and then he smiled and then I left in great good spirits that maybe some good sense was settling into our crazy world.
Maybe there is hope, after 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.
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from NaturalNews.com
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
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.
***
Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are people who hold a public function and as a result present a higher risk of being involved in bribery and corruption. Offshore leaks have revealed time and again that PEPs use British finance and British offshore jurisdictions to launder their wealth, hide their wealth and re-invest that wealth back into the global financial system. London is the place where they buy property, where they take legal action against their critics and where they live when they fall from grace.
Behind Closed Doors investigates three developing world families which have for decades been at the heart of power in their respective countries and have during that time grown fabulously wealthy. The Kenyatta’s of Kenya, the Aliyev’s of Azerbaijan, and the Sharif’s of Pakistan.
All three families have been revealed to have made use of offshore financial secrecy to invest in London property. UK financial services companies have been only too happy to offer their services for these transactions. Rachel Davis-Teka of Transparency International reveals that “it’s very hard to pursue large banks and big firms for money laundering offences, because we do not have a ‘failure to prevent money laundering’ offence within UK law,” she further shares that “Companies House is not empowered to check and verify the information that is submitted to it. It’s quite possible to write down, Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck, …. and no one’s going to check that information.”
We released the trailer to Behind Closed Doors on the 17th of October (2022), within a week one of the main contributors to the documentary, the fearless Pakistani investigative journalist Arshad Sharif, who was a fierce critic of the ruling Sharif family, was shot and killed by the Police in Kenya. Ten days later another participant, the former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan was shot in an assassination attempt. Further to these individuals, the film includes contributions by John-Allan Namu of Africa Uncensored, Tom Stocks of the OCCRP, Emin Huseynov the Azerbaijani journalist who fled to the Swiss embassy in Azerbaijan to escape politically motivated arrest, Shahzad Akbar the former head of the Pakistani Asset Recovery Unit etc…
Behind Closed Doors reveals the barriers that stand in the way when a developing country attempts to have laundered and illicit money returned.
“An important film, coming at a time when Western nations are claiming to crack down on dirty money and oligarchs. It highlights how much more work British authorities need to do if their anti-corruption drive is to go beyond rich Russians.”
Transparency International UK called the documentary “A very timely film that highlights well the key issues with Britain’s role in facilitating corruption overseas.”
Watch the documentary below.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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.
***
Sometimes you wake up from a dream to realize it is telling you to pay close attention to the depth of its message, especially when it is linked to what you have been thinking about for days. I have just come up from a dream in which I went down to the cellar of the house I grew up in because the basement light was on and the back cellar door had been opened by a mysterious man who stood outside.
I will spare you additional details or an interpretation, except to say that my daytime thoughts concerned the media spectacle surrounding the Titan submersible that imploded two miles down in the ocean’s cellar while trying to give its passengers a view of the wreck of the Titanic, the “unsinkable” ship nicknamed “the Millionaire’s Special.” The ship that no one could sink except an ice cube in the drink that swallowed it.
Cellar dreams are well-known as the place where we as individuals and societies can face the flickering shadows that we refuse to face in conscious life. Carl Jung called it “the shadow.” Such shadows, when unacknowledged and repressed, have a tendency to autonomously surface and erupt, not only leading to personal self-destruction but that of whole societies. History is replete with examples. My dream’s mysterious stranger had lit my way through some dark thoughts and opened the door to a possible escape. He got me thinking about what all of us tend to want to deny or avoid because its implications are so monstrous.
The obsession with the alleged marvels of technology together with naming them after ancient Greek and Roman gods are fixations of elite technologues who have lost what Spengler called “living inner religiousness” but wish to show they know the classical names even though they miss the meaning of these myths. Such myths tell the stories of things that never happened but always are. Appropriating the ancient names without irony – such as naming a boat Titanic or a submersible Titan – unveils the hubristic ignorance of people who have never descended to the underworld to learn its lessons. Relinquishing their sense of god-like power doesn’t occur to them, nor does the shadow side of their Faustian dreams.
They will never name some machine Nemesis, for that would expose the fact that they have exceeded the eternal limits with their maniacal technological extremism, and, to paraphrase Camus, dark Furies will swoop down to destroy them.
Nietzsche termed the result nihilism. Once people have killed God, machines are a handy replacement in societies that worship the illusion of technique and are scared to death of death and the machines that they invented to administer it.
The latter is not a matter fit to print since it must remain in the dark basement of the public’s consciousness. If it were publicized, the game of nihilistic death-dealing would be exposed. Because power, money, and technology are the ruling deities today, the mass media revolve around publicizing their marvels in spectacular fashion, and when “accidents” occur, they never point out the myth of the machines, or what Lewis Mumford called “The Pentagon of Power.” Tragedies occur, they tell us, but they are minor by-products of the marvels of technology.
But if these media would take us down to see the truth beneath the oceans’ surfaces, we would see not false monsters such as the Titanic or Moby Dick or cartoon fictions such as Disney’s Monstro the whale, but the handiwork of thousands of mad Captain Ahabs who have attached the technologues “greatest” invention – nuclear weapons – to nuclear-powered ballistic submarines.
Trident submarines. First strike submarines, such as the USS Ohio.
These Trident subs live and breathe in the cellars of our minds where few dare descend. They are controlled by jackals in Washington and the Pentagon with polished faces in well-appointed offices with coffee machines and tasty snacks. Madmen. They hum through the deep waters ready to strike and destroy the world. Few hear them, almost none see them, most prefer not to know of them.
But wait, what’s the buzz, tell me what’s happening: the Titan and the Titanic, wealthy voyeurs intent on getting a glance into the sepulchre of those long dead, while six hundred or so desperate migrants drown in the Mediterranean sea from which the ancient gods were born. These are the priorities of a society that worships the wealthy; a society of the spectacle that entertains and distracts while the end of the world cruises below consciousness.
The United States alone has fourteen such submarines armed with Trident missiles constantly prowling the ocean depths, while the British have four. Named for the three-pronged weapon of the Greek and Roman sea gods, Poseidon and Neptune respectively, these submarine-launched ballistic missiles, manufactured by Lockheed Martin (“We deliver innovative solutions to the world’s toughest challenges”), can destroy the world in a flash. Destroy it many times over. A final solution.
While the United States has abrogated all treaties that offered some protection from their use and has declared their right of first use, it has consistently pushed toward a nuclear confrontation with Russia and China. Today – 2023 June – we stand on the precipice of nuclear annihilation as never before.
A single Trident submarine has 20 Trident missiles, each carrying 12 independently targeted warheads for a total of 240 warheads, with each warhead approximately 40 times more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb. Fourteen submarines times 240 equals 3,360 nuclear warheads times 40 equals 134,400 Hiroshimas. Such are the lessons of mathematics in absurd times.
James W. Douglass, the author of the renown JFK and the Unspeakable and a longtime activist against the Tridents at Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action outside the Bangor Submarine Base in Washington state, put it this way in 2015 when asked about Robert Aldridge, the heroic Lockheed Trident missile designer who resigned his position in an act of conscience and became an inspirational force for the campaign against the Tridents and nuclear weapons:
Question: “What did the Nuremberg attorneys say about war crimes that had such a deep impact on Robert Aldridge?”
Douglass: “They said that first-strike weapons and weapons that directly target a civilian population were war crimes in violation of the Nuremberg principles. Those Nuremberg principles, which are the foundations of international law, are violated by both by electronic warfare – which is why we poured blood on the files for electronic warfare [at the base] – and also by the Trident missile system, which is what Robert Aldridge was building.”
Robert Aldridge saw his shadow side. He went to the cellar of his darkest dreams. He refused to turn away. He became an inspiration for James and Shelley Douglass and so many others. He was a man in and of the system, who saw the truth of his complicity in radical evil and underwent a metanoia. It is possible.
If those missiles are ever launched from the monsters that carry them through the hidden recesses of the world’s oceans, there will never be another Nuremberg Trial to judge the guilty, for the innocent and the guilty will all be dead.
We will have failed to shed light on our darkest shadows.
Writing in another context that pertains to today’s high-flying nuclear madmen whose mythic Greek forbear Icarus would not listen, the poet W. H. Auden put it this way in “Musée des Beaux Arts”:
About suffering they were never wrong, The Old Masters: how well they understood Its human position; how it takes place While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting For the miraculous birth, there always must be Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating On a pond at the edge of the wood: They never forgot That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer’s horse Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.
In Brueghel’s Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.
We turn away at our peril.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: A port bow view of the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine USS OHIO (SSBN-726) secured in the water during its commissioning. The partially-constructed nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine GEORGIA (SSBN-729) displays a “Good Luck Ohio” banner nearby. Both ships are products of General Dynamics Corp. (Licensed under the Public Domain)
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.
***
Back in mid-January, retired United States Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who previously led the US Army Europe Command and still holds several high-ranking positions within NATO, gave an interview to the CIA front Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where he claimed that Western heavy armor would supposedly give the Kiev regime “an edge” against the Russian military. When asked “how much of a disadvantage has Ukraine had without [Western/NATO armor] and what can Kiev now achieve with it”, Hodges stated the following:
“Well, of course, I wish these decisions to provide ‘Bradley’ and ‘Marder’ and AMX-10RC and other systems would have been made sooner. But the good news is they’ve been made. What I heard last week was the foundation for an armor brigade. Basically, you’ve got self-propelled artillery from the Czech Republic, a battalion; AMX-10RC from France, which is an excellent wheeled vehicle, a lot of mobility with a big gun on it; and then a battalion of ‘Marder’, which is a very good system; and then a battalion of ‘Bradley’, which is the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world. If you get those and then if you put maybe a Ukrainian tank battalion in the middle of it with engineers, you’ve got a lethal combined arms formation that could be the iron fist that would help penetrate these endless lines of Russian trenches…”
It’s hardly breaking news that these “excellent wheeled vehicles” and “very good systems”, including “the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world”, have been anything but as the much-touted counteroffensive of the Kiev regime forces has proven to be a spectacular failure. After weeks of attempts to break through Russian lines, apart from a few small tactical successes that cannot possibly be justified considering the horrendous losses, the “iron fist” of the Neo-Nazi junta troops demonstrated its impotence as it has been unable to achieve any of the stated strategic goals.
By June 21, losses of the Kiev regime forces have been staggering, standing at approximately 13,000 servicemen, 246 tanks (13 of which were NATO heavy armor), 595 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), 279 artillery guns and mortars (48 sent by NATO), 42 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), two SAM (surface-to-air) missile systems, 14 aircraft (including helicopters), 264 drones and 424 vehicles. Since then, the losses seem to have escalated dramatically, although precise numbers are yet to be released. As the German daily Handelsblatt described it: “This isn’t a counteroffensive. It is a bloody crash test.“
Despite this, the Neo-Nazi junta keeps sending the forcibly conscripted Ukrainians to certain death (or horrendous injuries, at best). On June 24, offensive operations were launched in both Zaporozhye and Donetsk regions (oblasts), but failed, although the Kiev regime claimed there was “progress in all directions“. Video evidence suggests that virtually all assault units engaged in offensive operations were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair, while Russian kamikaze drones neutralized their artillery support composed primarily of US-made M777 howitzers.
Expectedly, this has resulted in insubordination from many Ukrainian servicemen, some of whom are openly refusing to follow orders of their superiors, further reinforcing previous claims about a looming mutiny within the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Battlefield reports now even suggest that their commanding officers are often taking extreme measures to ensure obedience. One of the latest videos shows an officer throwing at least two hand grenades at several Ukrainian servicemen standing in a bunker for failing to hold their positions. Presumably, the Ukrainian soldiers (at least three of them) either failed or refused to follow the order of their commanding officer to hold the position they were assigned to.
It’s safe to assume that they were most likely forced to retreat from their post in order not to get overrun, as there were only three of them. Obviously agitated by this, the officer decided that the immediate punishment for insubordination was to throw hand grenades at them. The available footage shows the commanding officer taking at least two grenades from another soldier and throwing them into the bunker where the fleeing soldiers were standing, after which an explosion can be heard. The fate of the unfortunate servicemen is unknown, but given the confined space they were in, it can only be assumed that the best-case scenario is they suffered serious shrapnel wounds.
*
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.
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.
***
Scandalous incompetence. Profound stupidity. Astounding errors. This is how many analysts – including Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Scott Atlas, and popular Substack commentator eugyppius – explain how leading public health experts could prescribe so many terrible pandemic response policies.
And it’s true: the so-called experts certainly have made themselves look foolish over the last three years: Public health leaders like Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Faucimake false claims, or contradict themselves repeatedly, on subjects related to the pandemic response, while leading scientists, like Peter Hotez in the US and Christian Drosten in Germany, are equally susceptible to such flip-flops and lies. Then there are the internationally renowned medical researchers, like Eric Topol, who repeatedly commit obvious errors in interpreting Covid-related research studies. [ref]
All of these figures publicly and aggressively promoted anti-public health policies, including universal masking, social distancing, mass testing and quarantining of healthy people, lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
It seems like an open-and-shut case: Dumb policies, dumb people in charge of those policies.
This might be true in a few individual cases of public health or medical leaders who really are incapable of understanding even high school level science. However, if we look at leading pandemic public health and medical experts as a group – a group consisting of the most powerful, widely published, and well-paid researchers and scientists in the world – that simple explanation sounds much less convincing.
Even if you believe that most medical researchers are shills for pharmaceutical companies and that scientists rarely break new ground anymore, I think you’d be hard-pressed to claim that they lack basic analytical skills or a solid educational background in the areas they’ve studied. Most doctors and scientists with advanced degrees know how to analyze simple scientific documents and understand basic data.
Additionally, those doctors and public health professionals who were deemed experts during the pandemic were also clever enough to have climbed the academic, scientific, and/or government ladders to the highest levels.
They might be unscrupulous, sycophantic, greedy, or power-mongering. You might think they make bad moral or ethical decisions. But it defies logic to say that every single one of them understands simple scientific data less than, say, someone like me or you. In fact, I find that to be a facile, superficial judgment that does not get to the root cause of their seemingly stupid, incompetent behavior.
Returning to some specific examples, I would argue that it is irrational to conclude, as Dr. Prasad did, that someone like Dr. Topol, Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, who has published over 1,300 peer-reviewed articles and is one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine [ref] cannot read research papers “at a high level.” And it is equally unlikely that Anthony Fauci, who managed to ascend and remain atop the highest scientific perch in the federal government for many decades, controlling billions of dollars in research grants [ref], was too dumb to know that masks don’t stop viruses.
There must, therefore, be a different reason why all the top pro-lockdown scientists and public health experts – in perfect lockstep – suddenly started (and continue to this day) to misread studies and advocate policies that they had claimed in the past were unnecessary, making themselves look like fools.
Public health experts were messengers for the biodefense response
The most crucial single fact to know and remember when trying to understand the craziness of Covid times is this:
As part of the secret switch, all communications – defined in every previous pandemic planning document as the responsibility of the CDC – were taken over by the National Security Council under the auspices of the White House Task Force. The CDC was not even allowed to hold its own press conferences!
From March through June 2020, CDC was not permitted to conduct public briefings, despite multiple requests by the agency and CDC media requests were “rarely cleared.” HHS stated that by early April 2020, “after several attempts to get approvals,” its Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs “stopped asking” the White House “for a while.” (p. 8)
When public health and medical experts blanketed the airwaves and Internet with “recommendations” urging universal masking, mass testing and quarantining of asymptomatic people, vaccine mandates, and other anti-public health policies – or when they promoted obviously flawed studies that supported the quarantine-until-vaccine biodefense agenda – they were not doing so because they were dumb, incompetent, or misguided.
They were performing the role that the leaders of the national security/biodefense response gave them: to be the trusted public face that made people believe quarantine-until-vaccine was a legitimate public health response.
Why did public health leaders go along with the biodefense agenda?
We have to imagine ourselves in the position of public health and medical experts at top government positions when the intelligence-military-biodefense network took over the pandemic response.
What would you do if you were a government employee, or a scientist dependent on government grants, and you were told that the quarantine-until-vaccine policy was actually the only way to deal with this particular engineered potential bioweapon?
How would you behave if an unprecedented event in human history happened on your watch: an engineered virus designed as a potential bioweapon was spreading around the world, and the people who designed it told you that terrifying the entire population into locking down and waiting for a vaccine was the only way to stop it from killing many millions?
More mundanely, if your position and power depended on going along with whatever the powers-that-be in the NSC and DHS told you to do – if your job and livelihood were on the line – would you go against the narrative and risk losing it all?
And, finally, in a more venal vain: what if you stood to gain a lot more money and/or power by advocating for policies that might not be the gold standard of public health, but that you told yourself could bring about major innovations (vaccines/countermeasures) that would save humanity from future pandemics?
We know how the most prominent Covid “experts” answered those questions. Not because they were dumb, but because they had a lot to lose and/or a lot to gain by going along with the biodefense narrative – and they were told millions would die if they failed to do so.
Why understanding the motives of public health leaders during Covid is so important
Paradoxically, deeming public health experts stupid and incompetent actually reinforces the consensus narrative: that lockdowns and vaccines were part of a public health plan. In this reading, the response may have been terrible, or it may have gone awry, but it was still just a stupid public health plan designed by incompetent public health leaders.
Such a conclusion leads to calls for misguided and necessarily ineffectual solutions: Even if we replaced every single HHS employee or defunded the HHS or even the WHO altogether, we would not solve the problem and would be poised to repeat the entire pandemic fiasco all over again.
The only way to avoid such repetition is to recognize the Covid catastrophe for what it was: an international counterterrorism effort focused myopically on lockdowns and vaccines, to the exclusion of all traditional and time-tested public health protocols.
We need to wake up to the fact that, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (if not earlier), we have ceded control of the agencies that are supposed to be in charge of public health to an international military-intelligence-pharmaceutical cartel.
This “public-private partnership” of bioterrorism experts and vaccine developers is not interested in public health at all, except as a cover for their very secret and very lucrative biowarfare research and countermeasure development.
Public health was shunted aside during the Covid pandemic, and the public health leaders were used as trusted “experts” to convey biowarfare edicts to the population. Their cooperation does not reflect stupidity or incompetence. Making such claims contributes to the coverup of the much more sinister and dangerous transfer of power that their seemingly foolish behavior was meant to hide.
*
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.
Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.
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 biggest mysteries of “the pandemic” involves the supposed disappearance of the flu. Did the flu really disappear during the covid hysteria era, or is something else afoot?
Here’s the grand mystery, in meme format.
Now, during the confusion and panic of the last few years, there have been lots of explanations advanced about the supposed disappearance of the flu. The lockdowners and their credentialed institutions often claimed that masked worked (lol) to stop the flu, despite not working for covid. Others claimed that covid had some kind of viral dominance effect that defeated influenza strains.
But neither explanation really solves the “where did the flu go” mystery.
The evidence seems to point to two main reasons for the flu’s disappearance: the physical disappearance of flu testing kits and a misunderstanding of what the flu actually means.
The flu tests were not physically available in healthcare systems
The Dossier surveyed several individuals and organizations with access to hospital system records and supply chain management, and we pooled together lots of anecdotal information to paint a greater picture of what happened.
We found that, at least in the United States, there was virtually no access to flu testing during the covid hysteria years, particularly from 2020 to 2021. Virtually all testing manufacturers pivoted to covid testing, leaving the influenza kits behind. According to Pharma and Government Health, Covid was a much bigger priority, both from a healthcare perspective and a business perspective, so the flu industry was no longer lucrative and kicked to the curb.
The second reason, however, is even more important.
The flu is not understood in its proper context
Prior to the establishment of the covid testing industrial complex (which brought in well over $100 billion a year at its peak), flu was almost always diagnosed by symptoms, not by a swab test. And again, covid symptoms are virtually identical to flu symptoms. In the vast majority of cases, what is “the flu” is traditionally understood not as a viral influenza diagnosis but a general diagnosis of countless potential symptoms categorized in a broad category as “flu.” Very few doctor-diagnosed “flu” cases actually come from influenza strains. This is why it is the perfect rationale to understand covid as the flu but with scarier branding. Both flu and covid share the same symptoms, so a potential flu case/illness/death instead was generally diagnosed as a covid case/illness/death.
But enough from your humble correspondent. Let’s read a more detailed response from someone who knows this issue very well.
I also posed this question to Dr Norman Pieniazek (follow him on Twitter), a renowned molecular biologist who worked at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the head of its molecular diagnostic laboratory for 24 years. Dr Pieniazek is an expert in PCR testing diagnostics and has a fascinating perspective on the shoddy science behind “the pandemic.”
Here’s his reply to my question:
From Dr. Norman J. Pieniazek:
Did the flu disappear during the COVID-19 pandemic?
I will try to answer this question; however, first, I must explain the terms common cold and flu (influenza).
Do you know that over 200 viruses cause colds and that people in the United States suffer from an estimated 1 billion colds yearly (1)? Nonetheless, can we clearly say who suffers from the common cold and the flu? What about PCR, the technique used to monitor the cases of COVID-19? Unfortunately, PCR was found to be impractical for the diagnosis of infections of the respiratory tract for at least two reasons.
The first problem is the diagnostic sample. Mucus samples, taken from deep nostrils (nasal swab), throat (oropharyngeal swab), and nasopharynx (nasopharyngeal swab), in essence, test the human air filter. The nasal passages have ridges that cause the air to swirl, similar to the Dyson vacuum cleaner principle. As the nasal passages and the whole respiratory tract are lined with mucus, it traps viruses, bacteria, pollen, fungal spores, and dust. This layer with trapped particles is moved by ciliated cells out of the airways (2). When the mucus is tested with PCR, detecting a part of a virus in the air filter doesn’t mean that this virus caused the infection. This problem with swabs has been known for a long time (3). The consensus is that broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) is the most appropriate specimen for detecting respiratory tract viral infections. Unfortunately, collecting the BAL sample is complex and may not be approved by the patient (4).
The second problem was signaled above. With more than 200 possible infection causes (etiology), testing for all suspects is not feasible. While in a scientific study (3, 5), no stone would be left unturned to diagnose patients enrolled in a project, surveillance cannot be done this way.
CDC has developed a sentinel system for monitoring colds in the US population. This system monitors visits for respiratory illnesses, including fever, cough, or sore throat. Such visits are classified as Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI). Please note that this designation doesn’t imply laboratory-confirmed influenza and captures patient visits due to all respiratory pathogens that cause similar symptoms (6). In addition to this system, CDC collects data on confirmed influenza cases (7); however, only about 1% of samples tested are usually positive. The take-home message is that no one knows how many flu cases are in the US annually. The reported number of ILI may be only the tip of the iceberg.
With the arrival of the Wuhan virus in January 2020, all lessons of prior seasons were forgotten. People were forced to be tested even when they showed no symptoms. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, PCR done from swabs was suddenly advertised as the gold standard for diagnosis of infections of the respiratory system. Consider another important fact. In a carefully conducted study (4) of hospitalized pneumonia patients diagnosed on classical X-Ray or CAT scans, the cause of the infection (etiology) could not be established in 62% of cases. How is it possible that during the pandemic in the US, there were 107,201,630 COVID infections and 1,166,899 COVID deaths as of today (8)? Where are infections with other viruses? Where are conditions of unknown etiology?
The answer is straightforward. The results of PCR testing just for one virus are meaningless. This scam should be obvious to anyone versed in diagnosing respiratory infections.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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.
***
Putin’s latest speech is one that should never have been made.With his ill-considered speech — Putin has lent his weight to US neoconservative propaganda that he is in a weakened and challenged position and that the US can win in Ukraine:.
“I emphasize that from the very beginning of the events, all necessary decisions were immediately taken to neutralize the threat that arose, to protect the constitutional order, the life and security of our citizens.” — President Vladimir Putin
With the Ukrainian forces essentially defeated, the fake news “mutiny” is precisely what the neoconservatives needed to keep the conflict alive, which is why Scott Ritter thinks Victoria Nuland might have instigated the “coup.”
Even if what Putin said was true –and it is not– he should never have said it.He has verified the US neoconservatives’ propaganda. The consequence will be more provocations against Russia.The danger from these provocations make it ever more important that Russia use sufficient force to end the conflict before the neoconservatives spin it out of control.
Clearly, Putin has third-rate advisors.Instead of verifying neoconservative propaganda about Putin weakened by internal dissent, Putin should have said that Prigozhin’s protest got his attention to the bad relationship between the boots-on-the-ground and the military brass in Moscow and to the desire of the troops doing the fighting for the Kremlin to use sufficient force to end the conflict.The Wagner troops are tired of dying for a war that doesn’t go anywhere or have an end in prospect.
But this would imply Putin’s mistake, not Prigozhin’s, and thinking they were shielding Putin his advisers actually put him at risk by verifying the neoconservatives’ portrait of Putin as weak and internally opposed.
The Russian military brass have been trying to get rid of Prigozhin, because he refused to put his Wagner Group under their command.The military brass have been paying him back with ammunition shortages and in other ways.It is possible that they did hit one of his camps with a missile in order to light his fuse.Whatever happened, the military brass succeeded in getting rid of him, just as the Democrats and the CIA got rid of President Trump’s National Security Advisor, General Flynn.
Possibly, Prigozhin succeeded in getting Putin’s attention, but that Putin found the “armed rebellion,” “mutiny” story too set in stone to escape it.If Putin actually regards the events of last Saturday as high treason, why did he give a pass to Prigozhin and the Wagner soldiers?
Would a leader threatened by Wagner troops incorporate them into the military or would he disband and prosecute them?
Yevgeny Prigozhin is a long-time close ally of Putin.He formed the Wagner Group at Putin’s request.The Group, as formed, is separate from the Russian Military but was equipped by the Ministry of Defense and used Russian military bases for training.There is speculation that Putin wanted the Group so that he can conduct military operations with plausible deniability.This makes little sense as the Wagner Group is a Russian paid military force that operates for Russia. There is no possibility of denying that.
I don’t know why Putin had Prigozhin form the Wagner Group.I think of the Wagner Group like the French Foreign Legion and as a substitute for a draft.
We will find out if Prigozhin succeeded in getting Putin’s attention if there are changes in the upper ranks of the military and if, finally, Putin authorizes the force to bring the conflict to a conclusion.If Putin does not bring the conflict to a close, nuclear war will be the likely consequence.
Col. Douglas Macgregor sees the situation as I do except I am unsure he appreciates the damage Putin has done to himself in the West by proclaiming that Russia was on the verge of civil war and a major internal armed conflict, and in Russia by his denunciation of the Wagner commander and his troops as traitors who wanted Russians to kill one another. The video below is valuable not only for Col Macgregor’s explanations, but also for video clips showing the enthusiasm and high regard shown by the Russian population of Rostov to Prigozhin and his soldiers on their arrival in the city last Saturday. Russians are proud of the Wagner troops and to hear them denounced by Putin has probably damaged Putin more than it has damaged Prigozhin.
The video also has clips of Secretary of State Blinken claiming that Putin is being rejected by his own people and clips of a Biden Navy admiral promising ever more weapons for Ukraine. Clearly, Washington’s response to the false news “coup” is as I described. So sad Putin was so naive as to jump into the trap.
It is not only Prigozhin and his soldiers who want the war brought to a quick end. It is what the Russian people want. Victory is important to them as a statement of their sovereignty and prowess. There is no excuse for Putin’s go-no-where-war that makes Russia look ineffectual. All Putin has achieved is a great widening of the conflict with NATO and US involvement. Russians are dying for no progress. The deaths are pointless.
Remember, the Russian winter offensive did not happen. The excuse was it never got cold enough to freeze the ground so tanks, artillery, and troop convoys wouldn’t get stuck in the mud. Now it is almost July and still no summer offensive. If Putin continues to sit out his war, the US and NATO will have time to create another Ukrainian army, maybe with Polish troops, perhaps with one of the CIA’s jihad armies.
Putin is also harming combat effectiveness by giving in to the military brass and breaking up the Wagner Group into sections and integrating them into Russian Army groups. The Russian soldiers will be envious because they have not had the Wagner troops’ successes. The Wagner troops are older and hardened men and will not tolerate snide remarks. It might not work well, and the fighting prowess of the Wagner troops might suffer from the loss of cohesion. In effect, the Wagner Group is an army-sized special forces unit. Its demise would be a large victory for the West.
It is very easy to understand the Wagner Group’s frustrations that erupted in a protest. It is the duty of a commander in chief to bring a war to a quick and victorious conclusion. Putin has failed his responsibility.
I attribute the fake news “armed rebellion” to Putin’s failures.
He failed to address the smoldering dispute between Prigozhin and the generals, and he presented the soldiers and the country with an endless war that demoralized the Russian people
If Russia cannot defeat pitiful Ukraine, how can Russia stand up to the West?
The fact that the Russian media and the Western media agree on a fake news narrative, now set in stone, further removes the conflict from a truthful understanding, thus maximizing the chances for an explosion that adversely affects the entire world.
*
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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Lavrov said in an interview with state broadcaster RT:
“I work in a government ministry that is not engaged in gathering evidence of unlawful acts being committed, but we do have such agencies and, I assure you, they are already looking into it.”
Moreover, he said that when the US ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy spoke with Russian officials she tried to send “signals” conveying that Washington was not involved in the uprising.
“When US ambassador Tracy spoke with Russian representatives [regarding the situation with Prigozhin] yesterday, she conveyed signals. These signals were, first of all, that the US had nothing to do with it, that the US very much hopes that nuclear weapons will be fine, that American diplomats will not suffer, and it was especially emphasized: the US proceeds from the fact that everything that happened is an internal affair of Russia,” Lavrov said.
Lavrov went on to accuse American intelligence agencies of hoping that the aborted uprising would succeed. He specifically pointed to CNN reports which stated that US intelligence officials saw signs of Prigozhin’s planned rebellion ahead of time but chose not to weigh in.
“This was probably wishful thinking,” Lavrov said, accusing the US of being an enthusiastic supporter of regime change when it can benefit from the process and claimed there had been numerous attempts at regime change around the world in recent years that were “met with a different response on the part of the US, depending on who was in power and who was trying to carry out the coup.”
He added:
“Where the West is happy with the current government, in such situations no protest can be legitimate. But where the government doesn’t reflect the interests of the hegemon and is pursuing the national interests, in those cases we see various unlawful forces are being stimulated [to attack the authorities].”
This comes two days after top mercenary Yevgeny Prigozhin started a brief but impactful insurrection over the weekend. The rebellion ended by him calling off his Wagner forces’ march on Moscow after agreeing to a deal, mediated by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, which would see him exiled in Belarus without any legal action taken against him in 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.
Annex: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT television, Moscow, June 26, 2023
Question: What is the international reaction to the failed mutiny?
Sergey Lavrov: It makes no sense to go over everything that has filled the media in the last few days. Everyone can see and hear the international reaction. Every adult can assess it.
Question: Did Russia’s allies express support?
Sergey Lavrov: In their numerous phone calls to President Vladimir Putin, our colleagues voiced solidarity, support and confidence that the situation would be under control and return to the constitutional framework. And it did.
I also held several telephone conversations initiated by our foreign partners. Many of them expressed the same ideas: solidarity, confidence that we would not allow any attempt to undermine the unity of our state, and [certainty] with the success of the special military operation. But they asked [me] not to mention their calls in public. We comply with their requests.
Question: How do you assess Minsk’s role in defusing the crisis?
Sergey Lavrov: The assessments of Minsk’s role were given to President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko in person. President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, has repeatedly explained in detail that during the two leaders’ telephone conversation on the morning on Saturday, June 24, Alexander Lukashenko called for a peaceful solution to the crisis to avoid the bloodshed that would have inevitably taken place if the mutineer units had continued their advance towards Moscow. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported this proposal. You know the result. A Kremlin spokesman announced it yesterday.
Question: There were reports that the United States suddenly thought better of introducing sanctions against PMC Wagner lest it found itself “on Putin’s side.” Is this a change in the US’ approach? Earlier, after all, there were loud calls to declare Wagner a terrorist organisation.
Sergey Lavrov: This is not a change of approach. It is further confirmation that this approach depends on what Washington wants of this or that outside player at a certain specific juncture, be it on the international stage as a whole or in a certain country. The United States has repeatedly displayed an absolute bias and vested interest in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. It is waging a war against the Russian Federation using the Ukrainians as proxies.
A few years ago, before the signing of the Minsk agreements, the US Congress marked the Azov regiment and similar units as terrorist organisations. It was written in black and white that US aid to Ukraine should not extend to them. Now all of that is forgotten, with Azov having been rehabilitated a long time ago. Following Big Brother’s suit, the Japanese National Diet passed the decision to remove Azov from its list of extremist organisations.
Everything succumbs to the “rules” that the West obeys itself and wants others to do the same. These rules have nothing to do either with international law or the laws of any country, the Western countries included.
Question: Can a failed mutiny create difficulties in relations with our foreign partners?
Sergey Lavrov: Not with our partners and friends. It may with everyone else, but it does not bother us. Relations with the collective West were destroyed by them. They are no more. One incident more, one incident less, it does not really matter.
President Putin has said more than once: when and if they come to their senses and come up with proposals to restore relations in a particular form, then we will look into what they are asking for and what each of their roles was in unleashing a hybrid war against the Russian Federation.
Question: Is there any evidence that neither Ukrainian nor Western intelligence services were implicated in the so-called rebellion?
Sergey Lavrov: I work at a place that does not collect evidence of wrongdoing. We do have agencies that engage in this kind of work, and I can assure you they are already looking into this.
Question: American websites have posted reports saying that the leaders of some African countries, including the CAR, were panic stricken after Saturday’s events since the Wagner PMC’s activities in Africa could be terminated. How realistic is the termination of the private military company’s activities in Africa? Could this weaken Russia’s image as a stabilising force in Africa?
Sergey Lavrov: If reports of “panic” in the Central African Republic and the rest of Africa were posted on American websites, I strongly encourage you to think about who they are working for and how little they care about being bearers of true facts as opposed to their being keen on gaining favour with their bosses and the forces that are behind the collective West’s ideology and practical actions.
We discussed Russia’s role in Africa earlier. The CAR and Mali are the countries whose respective governments officially requested the private military company to offer its services. This was at a time when the CAR and Mali had been abandoned by the French and other Europeans who withdrew their anti-terrorist contingents and closed down military bases that were supposed to sustain the fight against terrorism.
At a time when they were left face to face with thugs, Bangui and Bamako asked Wagner PMC to provide security for their authorities. In addition to relations with this PMC, the governments of the CAR and Mali have official contacts with our leadership. At their request, several hundred military personnel are working in the CAR as instructors. This work will continue.
There is an important aspect to this situation. The CAR, Mali and other countries from the Sahara-Sahel region found themselves under direct attack by terrorist units after the “fighters for democracy and freedom” represented by France and other NATO members, in their bid to eliminate Muammar Qaddafi (he knew too much about how the presidential campaign in the French Republic was funded), unleashed an open aggression against Libya. They violated the UN Security Council resolution which prohibits such actions. They broke up the Libyan state, of which the entire international community is still picking up the pieces and has so far been unable to finish this job.
Libya was turned into a huge black hole. Thugs carrying smuggled weapons, terrorists of all kinds, extremists and drug traffickers flowed southward into the Sahara-Sahel region across Libya. They continue to terrorise certain African countries to this day. Let’s not forget the fact that those who destroyed Libya and gained fame for similar aggressive actions against other countries in the region (including Iraq and Syria), turned that country into a black hole in the opposite direction as well, with countless numbers of illegal migrants pouring into Europe. Now Europe is seriously impacted by them and, as they say, does not know how to get rid of them.
Now, regarding who is “panicking” and the causes of panic. I did not see any panic or any change in relations between the African countries and the Russian Federation. On the contrary, I received several solidarity phone calls, many of them coming from my African friends. We believe no opportunistic considerations can exist in Russia’s strategic relations with our African partners.
Question: I take it from your answer that preparations for the Russia-Africa summit are still underway?
Sergey Lavrov: Not “still,” they are in full swing. The summit’s agenda is being supplemented by new and engaging items which will be announced soon. I am sure everyone stands to learn something from these events.
Question: How do you assess the landslide of statements from Western analysts that the Wagner-related crisis revealed the fact that the Russian authorities were losing control over the situation and a civil war would break out?
Sergey Lavrov: This is their wishful thinking. It is something that our Western colleagues were overwhelmed with yesterday and on Saturday evening. I looked at how the events in Russia were being covered. In particular, CNN (if memory serves) reported that US intelligence knew about the impending mutiny several days before, but chose not to tell anyone, clearly hoping that the mutiny would succeed. Another piece of news reported by CNN just yesterday with reference to US intelligence analysts corroborates this theory. It said Prigozhin’s march on Moscow was expected to be met with much more resistance and be much bloodier than it actually was. This indirectly answers your question about what they expected and why they commented exactly as you said. Representatives of the Ukrainian regime, including Vladimir Zelensky and his henchmen Mikhail Podolyak and Alexey Danilov, expressed quite openly, in a Freudian manner, these kinds of “expectations,” that is, the disintegration of Russia as a state. They all lamented that they had not been able to use this situation to “break up the regime.”
A representative of European democracy – President of France Emmanuel Macron – who defends Europe’s “strategic autonomy” from the United States and everyone else, also had something to say. But he did not stray far from US rhetoric. Emmanuel Macron said they were contemplating the situation with caution. Allegedly, it is unfolding quickly, but, most importantly, they saw a split and a frail and weak regime and the army, which fully justifies their actions to continue to provide military support to Ukraine. Even an eighth grader will know what kind of position Emmanuel Macron is advocating, who clearly saw the current developments as a chance to follow through on the threat (which is being repeated by NATO leaders like a mantra) of Ukraine inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. I am talking not so much about Ukraine, but the entire Western camp, as President Putin said in his speech on Saturday: “The entire military, economic and informational machine of the West is directed against us.” Clearly, CNN, the Ukrainian regime leaders and politicians such as Emmanuel Macron are part of this machine.
Yesterday, US Ambassador Lynne Tracy spoke with Russian representatives to pass on signals (they are not secret) that the United States had nothing to do with it and hoped that things would be good with the nuclear weapons and that American diplomats would not be impacted. She emphasised that the United States saw the developments as the domestic affair of the Russian Federation.
Here, it is also possible to cite some recent and not-so-recent examples where attempts were made to stage a mutiny or a coup d’état in various countries. Each time, the United States reacted differently, depending on who was in power and who attempted to stage the coup. Take, for instance the sadly memorable 2014 – the Kiev Maidan, bloody provocations against defenceless law enforcement officers, and a government coup against the legitimate President. Meanwhile, an EU-backed agreement was signed just several hours before these events. Neither the US, nor its European allies protested against that mutiny. They admitted in a way that this zigzag was produced by a democratic process, as one German leader put it at that time.
A coup also took place in Yemen in 2014 and the country’s President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. During all these long years that we tried to steer the situation with regard to Ukraine back into a political vein, we were told that Viktor Yanukovych had left Kiev. As for the fugitive leader Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the entire West told us in chorus that no, he was the lawful President and ought to be returned to Yemen – only after he had returned could the process of settlement start.
Also in 2014, there was an attempt to stage a coup in The Gambia. When the first reports about the putschists taking up arms appeared, the US Department of State instantly announced that the US would never recognise forces that came to power by non-constitutional means.
A couple of recent examples. The US adamantly refused to urge dialogue with the puppet government of Moldova, when President of Moldova Maia Sandu went so far in her Russophobia that thousands of people staged peaceful protests. Recall how the West responded – it described this as an attempted coup – that it would never support. At the same time, some processes were taking place in Georgia where the West disliked the government. Supporters of Mikhail Saakashvili (who was brought to power in a West-backed coup and suited the West completely) protested against that government, organising a Georgian Maidan.
These examples show that any protests are ruled out by definition when the West is interested in keeping a corrupt government. But where the authorities are trying to proceed from the national interests of their country and people rather than the hegemon, all kinds of hoodlums are incited to act against them. These are American “rules” – pax americana. This is what they want to see and strengthen.
Question: For the past month, Ukrainian and American officials have been warning almost every day that Russia is obviously going to blow up the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Doesn’t this insistence mean that there is probably a plan for an attack that would be blamed on Russia? Could this give NATO an excuse to get directly involved in the hostilities?
Sergey Lavrov: This is nonsense. We have commented on this many times. Describing this, we usually refer to a certain animal, calling it an old mares’ tale. This is what it is.
The fact that this trite threat and warning have already appeared in the media many times (primarily voiced by representatives of the Kiev regime) points only to one thing. All these people have been trained, including in information warfare, primarily by the Anglo-Saxons, the Poles and even by the Balts (who have become senior comrades of the Ukrainians). If the results of these “training sessions” are so deplorable and unconvincing, I feel sorry about the money that Western taxpayers are spending to pay the “teachers” of such incapable and irresponsible “pupils.”
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 events of the past weekend (June 23 – 25, 2023) were so surreal and phantasmagorical that they militate against narration and defy description.
On Friday, the infamous Wagner Group launched what appeared to be a genuine armed insurrection against the Russian state. They occupied portions of Rostov on Don – a city of over 1 million people, regional capital, and headquarters of Russia’s Southern Military District – before setting off in an armed column towards Moscow.
This column – replete with heavy military equipment including air defense systems – came within a few hundred miles of the capital – virtually unmolested by Russian state forces – before abruptly stopping, announcing that a deal had been brokered with the aid of Belarusian President Aleksandr “Uncle Sasha” Lukashenko, turning around, and heading back to Wagner bases in the Ukrainian theater.
Needless to say, the spectacle of a Russian mercenary group making an armed march on Moscow, and of Wagner tanks and infantry cordoning off Ministry of Defense buildings in Rostov, sparked widespread confidence among the western commentariat that the Russian state was about to be toppled and the Russian war effort in Ukraine would evaporate.
There were confident and outlandish predictions pushed out in a matter of hours, including claims that Russia’s global footprint would disintegrate as the Kremlin recalled troops to defend Moscow and that Russia was about to enter a state of Civil War. We also saw the Ukrainian propaganda machine kick into overdrive, with characters like Anton Gerashchenko and Igor Sushko absolutely bombarding social media with fake stories about Russian army units mutinying and regional governors “defecting” to Prigozhin.
There’s something to be said here about the analytic model that prevails in our time – there’s a machine that instantly springs to life, taking in rumors and partial information in an environment of extreme uncertainty and spitting out formulaic results that match ideological presuppositions. Information is not evaluated neutrally, but forced through a cognitive filter that assigns it meaning in light of predetermined conclusions. Russia is *supposed* to collapse and undergo regime change (Fukuyama said so) – therefore, Prigozhin’s actions had to be framed in reference to this assumed endgame.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we saw some similar measure of aggressive model-fitting from “Trust the Plan” Russia supporters, who were confident that the Wagner uprising was just an act – an elaborate ruse concocted in concert by Prigozhin and Putin to fool Russia’s enemies and advance the plan. The analytic error here is the same – information is parsed only for the purpose of buttressing and advancing a pre-concluded endgame; except it is Russian omnicompetence which is assumed instead of Russian state collapse.
I took something of a middle view. I found the idea that Russia faced civil war or state collapse to be bizarre in the extreme and completely unfounded, but I also did not think (and I feel that events have vindicated this view) that Prigozhin was acting in collaboration with the Russian state to create a charade. If indeed the Wagner uprising was a Psyop (Psychological Operation) to trick NATO, it was an extremely elaborate and convoluted one which hasn’t yet shown any clear benefits (more on this in a moment).
My broad belief is that Prigozhin was acting of his own volition in an extremely risky way (which risked both his own life and a destabilizing effect on Russia). This presented the Russian state with a genuine crisis (albeit one which was not sufficiently severe to threaten the state’s existence) which I think they handled quite well on the whole. The Wagner uprising was quite clearly bad for Russia, but not existentially so, and the state did a good job containing and mitigating it.
Let’s get into it, starting with a short look at the timeline of events.
Anatomy of a Mutiny
The amount of disinformation (particularly propagated by the Ukrainians and by Russian liberals residing in the west) that flew around throughout the weekend was extreme, so it might be prudent to review the progression of events as they actually happened.
The first sign that something was amiss came with a few explosive statements by Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin on the 23rd (Friday). In a rather long and erratic interview, he made the shocking claim that Russia’s pretext for the war in Ukraine was an outright lie and that the war had been fraught with corruption and the murder of civilians.
Things then got even crazier when Wagner claimed that the Russian army had struck their camp with a missile. This was extremely weird – the video which was released (purporting to show the aftermath of this “missile strike”) did not show an impact crater, debris, or any wounded or killed Wagner personnel. The “damage” from the missile consisted of two campfires burning in a trench – apparently Russia has missiles that can start small controlled fires without destroying the surrounding plant life?
The video obviously did not show the aftermath of a missile attack, but Prigozhin’s rhetoric escalated after this and he soon announced that Wagner would begin a “march for justice” to gain redress for his various grievances.
It was not clear exactly what he wanted, but it seemed to center on personal grudges against Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov.
Shortly thereafter, a few videos came from the Russian authorities (including one featuring General Surovikin) apparently pleading with Wagner to “stop the movement of their columns” and return to their posts, to prevent bloodshed and destabilization. This validated some of the rumors that Wagner was leaving the theater in force. News that Russian National Guard had been activated in Moscow and elsewhere seemed to vindicate the fear that an armed clash in Russia was imminent.
That evening, Prigozhin had a tense but civil face to face meeting with two high level MOD officials – Yanus Evkurov (Deputy Defense Minister) and Vladimir Alekseev (Deputy Head of the military intelligence directorate).
Things really got heated the next day (Saturday the 24th) with the news that two substantial armed bodies were on the move within the prewar Russian borders.
One was a column of Wagner personnel and weapons who left Rostov for Moscow, and other was a Chechen force dispatched by the state to Rostov.
Amid the news that Russian state forces were establishing roadblocks and defensive positions outside of Moscow, it looked like two separate battles might have been imminent – one by the Wagner column fighting state forces outside Moscow, and another fought between the Chechens and the Wagner remnants for control of Rostov.
It was at this point that Ukrainian disinformation really began to run wild, with claims flying around that Russian military units and regional administrations were defecting to Prigozhin – in effect positing that this was not just an uprising by Wagner against the state, but a wholesale revolt of the Russian system against Putin’s government. In fact (and this is a key point to which I will return later) there were no defections in any regular Russian military units or regional governments and there was no civil unrest. The mutiny was confined to the Wagner Group, and even so not all of Wagner participated.
Be that as it may, by the early evening hours on Saturday there were real reasons to worry that shooting might start outside Moscow or in Rostov. Putin issued a statement denouncing treason and promising an appropriate response.
The Russian Ministry of Justice opened a criminal file on Prigozhin for treason. Two Russian MoD aircraft were shot down (an Mi-8 helicopter and an IL-22) by the Wagner column. The global atmosphere became notably more humid from the volume of salivation flowing from Washington.
Can’t park there, buddy
Then, the Wagner column stopped. The government of Belarus announced that a settlement had been negotiated with Prigozhin and Putin. Lukahsenko’s office claimed “they came to agreements on the inadmissibility of unleashing a bloody massacre on the territory of Russia.” The column turned aside from the road to Moscow and returned to Wagner’s field camps around Ukraine, and the Wagner forces left in Rostov packed up and left. Aside from the crews of the two downed aircraft, nobody was killed.
Of course, speculation immediately turned to the terms of the deal between Prigozhin and the state. Some speculated that Putin had agreed to remove Shoigu, Gerasimov, or both from their posts (perhaps this was the point all along?). In fact, the terms were relatively lame and anticlimactic:
The treason case against Prigozhin was dropped and he was to go to Belarus
Wagner fighters who participated in the uprising would not be charged and would return to operations in Ukraine
Wagner fighters that did not participate in the uprising would sign contracts with the Russian military (essentially exiting Wagner and become regular contract troops)
A vague reference to “security guarantees” for Wagner fighters
So, this is all very weird. A genuine armed insurrection with tanks and heavy weapons (not a man in a buffalo headdress) with a takeover of military facilities brought to a sudden resolution by Lukashenko, and all that Prigozhin seems to have gotten out of it was… free passage to Belarus? Odd indeed.
So let’s try to parse through what happened here using an analytical framework that is not pre-deterministic – that is, let us assume that neither Russian omnicompetence nor Russian regime change and neoliberal cuddliness are guaranteed.
I’d like to start by addressing precisely these two ideologically predetermined theories. On one side we had those claiming that Russia was about to be plunged into civil conflict and regime change, and on the other those who think the whole thing was a pre-planned psyop by the Russian government. The former have already been discredited by virtue of the fact that all their dramatic predictions collapsed in 24 hours – Prigozhin did not, in fact, lead a metastasizing mutiny, overthrow Putin, and declare himself Tsar Eugene I. The other extreme theory – the psyop – remains viable, but I think extremely unlikely, for reasons I will enumerate now.
Psyop Scenarios
It’s relatively easy to simply say “the mutiny was a psyop” without elaborating. It’s trivially obvious that the Wagner uprising “fooled” western analysis – but this isn’t ipso facto evidence that the uprising was staged for the purpose of fooling the west. We have to ask for something more specific – to what end might the uprising have been scripted?
I’ve identified what I think are four discreet theories that at least merit examination – let’s take a look at them and talk about why I think they all ultimately fail to explain the uprising to satisfaction.
Option 1: Live Bait
One potential explanation – which I have seen suggested quite frequently – is the idea that Prigozhin and Putin staged the uprising for the purpose of drawing out theoretical networks of seditionists, foreign agents, and disloyal elements. I suppose the thinking was that Prigozhin would create a controlled, but cosmetically realistic sense of crisis for the Russian state, making Putin’s government appear vulnerable and coercing treacherous and enemy parties across Russia into revealing themselves.
Conceptually, this amounts to little more than Putin’s government pretending to be a wounded animal for the purpose of drawing out the scavengers so they can be killed.
I think this theory has appeal to people because it posits Putin as an extremely crafty, Machiavellian, and paranoid leader. This is also why I think it’s wrong. Putin has derived a great deal of legitimacy from his ability to fight the war without disrupting day to day life in Russia – there’s no rationing, no conscriptions, no restrictions on movement, etc. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Putin has been from the war party, who allege that he’s fighting the war too timidly for fear and is too preoccupied with maintaining normalcy in Russia.
It seems incongruous, then, that a leader who has taken great care to avoid putting Russian society on a war footing would then do something as destabilizing as staging a fake uprising. Furthermore, if indeed the Wagner revolt was a charade to smoke out other treacherous and terroristic elements, it failed badly – there were no defections, no civil unrest, and no denunciations of Putin. So for several reasons, the live bait theory does not pass the sniff test.
Option 2: Masking Deployments
A second theory is the idea that the Wagner uprising was essentially a giant smokescreen to enable the movement of military forces around Russia. I suppose the thinking here is that if armed columns are seemingly flying around wildly, people might not notice if Russian forces moved into position to, say, attack Sumy or Kharkov. This take was cosmetically bolstered by the news that Prigozhin would be going to Belarus. Was this entire thing a ruse to mask the redeployment of Wagner for an operation in Western Ukraine?
The problem with this line of thinking is three fold. First, it misunderstands the complexity of staging a force for operations. It’s not just about driving a line of trucks and tanks into position – there are enormous logistical needs. Ammo, fuel, rear area infrastructure all need to be staged. This can’t be done in 24 hours under the temporary cover of a fake mutiny.
Secondly, the “distraction” effect is mostly directed at media and the commentariat, not at military intelligence. Put another way – CNN and the New York Times were definitely fixated on the Wagner uprising, but American satellites continue to pass over the battlespace and western ISR is still functioning. Prigozhin’s antics would not stop them from observing staging to attack a new front.
Third and finally, it doesn’t appear that much of Wagner will be accompanying Prigozhin to Belarus – his journey to Lukashenko Land looks more like an exile than a redeployment of the Wagner Group.
Option 3: Engineered Radicalization
This is the usual “false flag” sort of theory that circulates any time anything bad happens anywhere. It’s become rather blasé and trite: “Putin staged the uprising so he could escalate the war, increase mobilization, etc.”
This doesn’t make any sense and is pretty easy to dismiss. There have been real Ukrainian attacks inside Russia (including a drone attack on the Kremlin and cross-border forays by Ukrainian forces). If Putin wanted to intensify the war, he could have used any of these opportunities. The idea that he would choose to orchestrate an internal uprising – running the risk of widespread destabilization – rather than focusing on Ukraine is ridiculous.
Option 4: Consolidation of Power
Of all the psyop theories, this is the one that probably has the most merit. There were two different strains to this, which we’ll treat in turn.
At the beginning, some speculated that Putin was using Prigozhin to create a pretext to force out Shoigu and Gerasimov. I thought this was unlikely for a few reasons.
First, I don’t think there is a valid case to be made that these men deserve to be fired. There were uneven elements of Russia’s war in the beginning, but there is a clear arc of improvement in the armaments industry with key systems like the Lancet and Geran becoming available in ever increasing quantities, and right now the Russian armed forces are making mulch out of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
Secondly, if Putin wanted to remove either Shoigu or Gerasimov, doing so in response to a faux-uprising is the worst way to do it, because this would give the appearance of Putin bowing to the demands of a terrorist. Keep in mind, Putin has not publicly criticized either Shoigu or Gerasimov for their handling of the war. Publicly, they appear to have his full backing. Could the president really remove them in response to Prigozhin’s demands without appearing incredibly weak? Far better if Putin simply fired them of his own volition – making himself, and not Prigozhin, the kingmaker.
Sure enough, it does not appear at this point that either Shoigu or Gerasimov will lose their posts. This led the “power consolidation” theory to pivot to a second line of thinking, that Putin wanted to use Prigozhin to essentially stress-test the Russian political system by seeing how regional administration and army leadership would respond.
The objects of Prigozhin’s wrath?
This treats the uprising like a fire drill – turn on the alarm, and see how everyone responds, and take notes on who followed instructions. To be sure, Russian political figures came crawling out of the woodwork to affirm their support for Putin and denounce Wagner – complete with some trademark Russian flair, like the Governor of Tver calling on Prigozhin to commit suicide. This perhaps lends credibility to the idea that Putin wanted to test his subordinates.
Again, however, I think this theory misses a few key points. First off, Russia appeared to be internally very stable. Putin was facing no opposition or pushback, no civil unrest, no mutinies in the army, no criticism from high profile political figures – it’s not clear why he would feel the need to rock the country just to test the loyalty of the political apparatus. Perhaps you think he’s a hyper-paranoid Stalin figure who feels driven to play mind games with the country, but this really does not square with his operating pattern. Secondly, the trajectory of the war is overwhelmingly in Russia’s favor at the moment, with victory at Bakhmut fresh in the public memory and Ukraine’s counteroffensive looking more and more like a world historical military bust. It makes little sense why at this time in particular, when things are going very well for Russia, Putin would want to drop a grenade just to test reaction times.
Ultimately, I think that all of these “Psyop” theories are very weak when evaluated in good faith in their own terms. Their errors share a common thread. Things have been going very well for Russia, with the army performing excellently in the ongoing defeat of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, no internal disorder or unrest, and a growing economy. The psyop line of thought presumes that, in a time where things are going well, Putin would take an enormous risk by staging a fake mutiny for negligible gains, risking not only civil unrest and bloodshed but also marring Russia’s image of stability and dependability abroad.
The presumption is that the Putin team is omnicompetent and is able to game out a highly complex deception scheme. I don’t think the Russian government is omnicompetent. I think they are simply a normal level of competent – too competent to pull a high risk, low reward stunt like this.
What Prigozhin Wants
I sometimes like to think of western “end of history” predeterminism (in which all of history is an inexorable march towards global neoliberal performative democracy and the final liberation and happiness of all mankind is announced when the victorious pride flag flies in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang) as being essentially a geopolitical corollary to Jurassic Park – a poignant story of hubris and ruin (and one of my favorite movies).
The analytic model of Jurassic Park’s creators presumed that the dinosaurs – creatures about whom they knew practically nothing – would over time submit to control routines like zoo animals. Blinded by the illusion of control and the theoretical stability of their systems (presumed to be stable because it was designed to be stable), there was no appreciation for the fact that the Tyrannosaurus had an intelligence and a will of its own.
I think that Yevgeny Prigozhin is a bit like the Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park. Both the western neoliberal apparatus and the Russian four dimensional plan-trusters seem to think of Prigozhin as a cog that exists to execute the function of their world model. Whether that model is the long march of history towards democracy and the last man or a brilliant and nuanced master plan by Putin to destroy the unipolar Atlantic world, it does not matter much – both tend to negate Prigozhin’s agency and turn him into a slave of the model. But perhaps he is a Tyranosaurus, with an intelligence and will that has an internally generated direction indifferent to our world models. Perhaps he tore down the fence for reasons of his own.
Image: A would-be Lenin? Or just a man with his back at the wall?
We have to return to who Prigozhin is, and what Wagner is.
To Prigozhin, Wagner is first and foremost a business which has made him a huge amount of money, particularly in Africa. Wagner’s value (in the most fundamental sense) comes from its high degree of combat effectiveness and its unique status as an independent entity from the Russian armed forces. Any threat to either of these factors represents a financial and status catastrophe for Prigozhin.
Recently, developments in the war have evinced an existential threat to the Wagner group as a viable PMC. These are, namely:
A concerted push by the Russian government to force Wagner fighters to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense. In effect, this threatens to liquidate Wagner as an independent organization and subsume it wholesale into the regular Russian military.
Wagner is losing the manpower surge from last year’s conscriptions (including convicts). These conscripts provided an enormous manpower buffer that allowed Wagner to shoulder the large-scale fighting in Bakhmut, but many have completed their tours of duty.
This means that Wagner faces potential destruction from two fronts. Institutionally, the Russian government wants to essentially neutralize Wagner’s independence by folding it into the MoD. From Prigozhin’s point of view, this essentially means the nationalization of his business.
Furthermore, a slimmed down Wagner (having shed much of the conscripts that fleshed it out to Army Corps size) is not something that Prigozhin wants to send into combat in Ukraine. Once Wagner is stripped down to its core of experienced wet work operators, casualties in Ukraine will begin eating directly into Wagner’s viability.
In other words, Prigozhin and the authorities were at an impasse. What Prigozhin probably wanted most of all, to put it bluntly, was to use the fame won in Bakhmut to take Wagner back to Africa and start making lots of money again. What he did not want was to have his PMC absorbed into the Russian military, or to have his core of lethal professionals attrited in another major battle in Ukraine. The MoD, on the other hand, very much wants to absorb Wagner fighters into the regular army and use them to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield.
So, we have a clear conflict of interests.
But what can Prigozhin do about it? He has absolutely no institutional power, and Wagner is dependent on the Ministry of Defense for equipment, supplies, ISR, and so much more. Furthermore, Prigozhin’s personal wealth and his family are under the jurisdiction of the Russian state. He has very limited leverage. There are really only a few things he can do. He can record videos to embarrass, harass, and degrade the Ministry of Defense. Of course, it’s probably unwise to directly attack Putin in these rants, and it might not play well to insult ordinary Russian soldiers, so these attacks have to be properly targeted at precisely the sort of bureaucratic higher ups that the Russian public is predisposed to dislike – men like Shoigu and Gerasimov.
Apart from these video tantrums, Prigozhin really had only one other play to stop the institutional absorption of Wagner – stage an armed protest. Get as many men as he could to join him, make a move, and see if the state could be rocked enough to give him the deal he wanted.
It sounds weird, of course. You’ve heard of gunboat diplomacy – now we get to see tank-based contract negotiations. Yet it is clear that the dispute over Wagner’s independence and status vis a vis Russian military institutions was at the heart of this. Earlier this month, Prigozhin announced his intention to disobey a presidential order that required his fighters to sign MoD contracts by July 1.
Prigozhin’s statement this morning (Monday, June 26), however, was extremely instructive. It focused almost exclusively on his central grievance: Wagner was going to be absorbed into the institutional military. He doesn’t take this to its conclusion and note that this would nationalize his highly profitable business, but his comments leave no doubt as to his motivation. Here are a few key points that he makes:
Wagner did not want to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense
Absorption into the MoD would mean the end of Wagner: “This unit was supposed to cease its existence on July 1.”
“The goal of our campaign was to prevent the destruction of Wagner Group.”
But what did Prigozhin think would happen? What was his optimistic scenario? Likely, he hoped that general anti-bureaucratic and anti-corruption sentiments, combined with Wagner’s popularity and fame, would lead to an upswell of support for the group which would put the government in a position to acquiesce to Wagner’s independence.
It was a bold decision. Facing institutional absorption, Prigozhin gambled on a measured destabilization campaign that would rock the country just enough to spook Putin into cutting him a deal. Prigozhin might have convinced himself that this was a clever and decisive roll of the dice that could turn things in his favor. I rather think that they were not playing dice at all. They were playing cards, and Prigozhin had nothing in his hand.
Russia’s Crisis Management
This is the part of the article that I suspect will ruffle feathers and earn me accusations of “coping” – so be it. Let’s just get this out in the open:
Russia handled the Wagner uprising extremely well, and its management of the crisis points to a high degree of state stability.
Now, what I am not saying is that the uprising was good for Russia. It was clearly a net-negative in several ways. Russian aircraft were shot down by Wagner and Russian pilots were killed. Prigozhin was then allowed to walk away after causing these deaths – a stain on the government. There was widespread confusion which does nothing good for morale, and operations in the Southern Military District were disrupted by Wagner’s occupation of Rostov.
On the whole, this was not a good weekend for Russia. It was a crisis, but it was a crisis that the state handled quite well overall and mitigated the downsides – perhaps even making a glass or two of lemonade out of Prigozhin’s lemons. It’s a bit fitting, perhaps, that Shoigu used to be Minister of Emergency Situations (essentially disaster relief). Disasters are never good, but it’s always better to handle them well when they happen.
The state response was actually pretty straightforward: call Prigozhin’s bluff.
Prigozhin drove toward Moscow with his column – but what was he going to do if he got there? Russian national guard was preparing to block them from entering the city. Would Wagner attack Moscow? Would they shoot national guardsmen? Would they assault the Kremlin or shell Saint Basil’s? Doing so would lead to the inevitable death of every man involved. Wagner, with no supply or procurement of its own, cannot fight the Russian armed forces successfully and probably could not supply itself for more than a day or two.
The problem with Prigozhin’s approach is that pantomiming a coup doesn’t work if you aren’t willing to actually attempt a coup – and a coup only works if institutional authorities side with you. It’s not as if Prigozhin could drive a tank up to Lenin’s mausoleum and begin issuing orders to the federal ministries and armed forces. Coups require control over institutional levers of power – regional governorships, government ministries, and the officer corps of the armed forces.
Prigozhin not only lacked all of these things, but in fact the entire apparatus of power denounced him, scorned him, and branded him a traitor. Having mutinied his way into a dead end, his only choices were to either start a firefight outside Moscow and guarantee that he would die and be known to history as a traitorous terrorist, or to surrender. It is probable that the Wagner column shooting down Russian aircraft (which Prigozhin later claimed was a “mistake”) spooked him and confirmed that he was going too far and did not have a good way out. When your opponent calls and you have nothing in your hand, there is nothing to do except fold.
Consider then, for a moment, the actual scene in Russia. An armored column was driving towards the capital. What was the response from the Russian state and people? Authorities at all levels publicly denounced the uprising and stated support for the president. There were no defections, either from military units or civilian administration. There was no civil unrest, no looting, no loss of even basic government control in the country. Compare the scenes in Russia during an armed rebellion to the United States in the summer of 2020. Which country is more stable, again?
In the end, the government managed to dissipate a crisis situation, which could easily have spiraled into substantial bloodshed, without any loss of life apart from the crews of the two downed aircraft (deaths that we should not minimize, and must be remembered as victims of Prigozhin’s ambition).
Furthermore, the terms of the “settlement” amount to little more than surrender by Prigozhin. He himself seems to be bound for a sort of semi-exile in Belarus (potentially awaiting a Trotsky ice-pick moment) and it seems that the majority of Wagner will sign contracts and be absorbed into the Russia institutional military. Based on the speech that Putin gave this evening (fifteen minutes ago as of this writing), Wagner fighters have only three options: sign MOD contracts, disband and go home, or join Prigozhin in Belarusian exile (presumably without their gear). As it relates to the institutional status of Wagner, Prigozhin lost and the state won. Wagner as an independent fighting body is finished.
We must be honest, of course, about the damages of the uprising.
Prigozhin killed Russian servicemembers when his column downed those aircraft, and then had his treason charge dropped. One can say, of course, that bringing a peaceful resolution prevented further bloodshed, but this doesn’t change the fact that he killed Russian soldiers and gets to walk away. This is a failure with both a moral and an institutional legitimacy dimension.
Additionally, this entire episode ought to serve as a poignant lesson about the inherent instability of relying on mercenary groups who operate outside of formal military institutions. There are many such groups in Russia, not just Wagner, and it will be malpractice if the government does not move decisively to liquidate their independence. Otherwise, they are simply waiting for something like this to happen again – potentially with a far more explosive outcome.
On the whole, however, it seems rather undeniable that the government handled an extreme crisis rather competently. Contrary to the new western spin that the Wagner revolt revealed the weakness of Putin’s government, the unity of the state, the calmness of the people, and the coolheaded strategy of de-escalation suggest that the Russian state is stable.
Conclusion: 1917
One of humanity’s most universal and beloved pastimes is making bad historical analogies, and that process was certainly in high gear this past weekend. The most popular comparison, naturally, was to compare Prigozhin’s uprising to the fall of the Tsar in 1917.
The problem is that this analogy is a perfect inversion of the truth.
The Tsar fell in 1917 because he was at army headquarters far away from the capital. In his absence, a garrison mutiny in Petrograd (Petersburg) led to a collapse of government authority, which was then picked up by a new cabinet formed from the state Duma. Coups are not achieved through mindless bloodshed. What matters most is the basic question of bureaucratic authority, for this is what it means to rule. When you pick up a phone and give an order to shut down a rail line; when you summon a military unit to readiness; when you issue a purchasing order for food or shells or medicine – are these instructions respected?
It was trivially obvious that Prigozhin lacked either the force, the institutional support, or any real desire to usurp authority, and the idea that he was attempting a genuine coup was absurd. Imagine, for a moment, that Wagner managed to bash its way through the Russian National Guard into Moscow. Prigozhin storms the ministry of defense – he arrests Shoigu and sits in his chair. Do we really believe that the army in the field would suddenly follow his orders? It’s not a magic chair. Power only comes up for grabs in the event of total state collapse, and what we saw in Russia was the opposite – we saw the state closing ranks.
So in the end, both the neoliberal commentariat and the Russian plan trusters are left with an unsatisfactory view of events. Prigozhin is neither the harbinger of regime change nor a piece in Putin’s four dimensional chess game. He’s simply a mercurial and wildly irresponsible man who saw that his Private Military Corporation was going to be taken away from him and decided to go to extreme and criminal lengths to prevent this. He was a card player with nothing in his hand who decided to bluff his way out of a corner – until his bluff was called.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
I conclude from the evidence that will here be presented, that a well-coordinated plan appears to be forming within the U.S. Government,
first, to choke-off and thoroughly censor-out from U.S.-and-allied news-media any information that might reduce the willingness of their publics to support going to a full-fledged all-out war against Russia and/or China;
second, to commit the U.S. Government to demanding nothing less from Russia than capitulation to Ukraine, and for the U.S. to invade Russia if Russia refuses to do that;
third, for the U.S. to supply to Ukraine the means and training to destroy Europe’s largest nuclear-power plant, which is in a Russian-controlled part of Ukraine, and thereby to cause a release of radiation from it which will immediately be blamed on Russia, so that the U.S. Government will then invade Russia in order to ‘protect’ Europe against Russia; and,
fourth, for NATO ultimately to expand also into the Asia and Pacific region, in order to defeat China.
The authority for each of the allegations in this article is its sources that can immediately be seen and checked by simply clicking onto the relevant link in the article:
There are a number of proposed new laws (called “Bills”) that are pending in the U.S. Congress for the U.S. Government to initiate WW III — a nuclear invasion against Russia and/or China.
The U.S. Congress is now about to pass into law something called “The Restrict Act” that is being promoted as aiming to empower the Government to protect children from being influenced by foreign “adversaries” but would basically enable the Government to control all media in order to protect everyone in America from having access to allegations that come from a “foreign adversary” which it defines as “any foreign government or regime determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.” (All of the clauses in that determination are judgmental on the part of that “Secretary,” not necessarily based upon any proofs or even on any allegations about facts — and not at all based upon the finding by any court or by any independent scientific body.) This dictate, that there will be censorship against the “foreign adversary,” will be targeted against, but not be limited only to, the following countries, which are specifically identified as being “foreign adversaries,” in this Act to be passed by Congress and signed by President Biden (if that happens): China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Those 6 countries are specifically named as being “foreign adversaries,” but the Act also allows the “Secretary” to add others that are, as yet, unidentified. (The Act specifically names Venezuela’s leader as being the reason why that country is on that list of 6 — essentially as being targeted by the U.S. for regime-change. Each of the other 5 countries on it is a “foreign adversary” irrespective of the identity of any of its leaders.)
Without Congress having to comply with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires a congressional passage of a declaration of war in order for the President to be authorized to order U.S. troops to invade a foreign country, this Act, if it becomes passed into law, will already institute martial law of strict censorship to prevent, in America, whatever the “Secretary” declares to be allegations from a “foreign adversary” to be published or publicized in the United States. The result, of course, will then be that the U.S. Government will be legally enabled to censor-out and ban whatever the U.S. Government wants to ban, and will need only to claim that the information that is being banned comes from a “foreign adversary.” …
The Ukraine Victory Resolution, which was introduced in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate on April 25th, now appears likely to become passed in both houses of the Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. The Resolution says that, “It is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion and restored to its internationally recognized 1991 borders,” which means that unless Russia will return to Ukraine all of the land that it now is controlling within what had been the 1991 borders of Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporizhia), America will declare war against Russia. …
On April 25th, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Wilson(SC-02) and Ranking Member Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09) introduced the Ukraine Victory Resolution in the House of Representatives. Then, U.S.Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), introduced the same resolution in the Senate. It states that U.S. policy is to assure Ukraine’s victory against the Russian invasion, and that, if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia there, then the U.S. Government will guarantee that Russia will be defeated in Ukraine.
It is not yet a formal U.S. declaration of war against Russia, but commits the U.S. to going to war against Russia if Russia wins its war in Ukraine. In other words: it says that there will be WW III if Russia wins in Ukraine. If this Resolution becomes U.S. law, then there will be only two possibilities: either Ukraine will defeat Russia in Ukraine, or else America will go to war against Russia thereby producing WW III.
Original cosponsors of the resolution in the House of Representatives also include: Mike Lawler (NY-17), Richard Hudson (NC-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Bill Pascrell (NJ-08), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Deborah Ross (NC-02), Jim Costa (CA-21), David Trone (MD-06), Joe Morelle (NY-25), Susan Wild (PA-07), and Marcy Kaptur (OH-09).
The Resolution says: “it is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion.” …
U.S. Executive decisions for war against both Russia and China:
On May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told C-Span in an interview, that there will be no objection by the U.S. Government if Ukraine’s Government attempts to or does assassinate Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. He said: “These are decisions for Ukraine to make, how it’s going to defend itself, how it’s going to get its territory back, how it’s going to restore its territorial integrity, and its sovereignty.” America has supplied over a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine in order for it to defeat Russia, and now says that if Ukraine uses some of it to assassinate Putin, that’s okay. This is unprecedented. (Even Hitler wasn’t as bad as that.)
Also on May 3rd, Japan’s Nikkei Asia news service headlined “NATO to open Japan office” and reported that “NATO is planning to open a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan, the first of its kind in Asia.” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization aims now to become not only America’s anti-Russian military alliance but also America’s anti-Chinese military alliance, which will support the breakaway of China’s province of Taiwan (which since 1972 the U.S. Government has formally recognized Taiwan to be) from China, just as it refuses to support the breakaway of Crimea and three other provinces of Ukraine from Ukraine. (In other words: though the U.S. regime supports the breakaway of Taiwan from China, it rejects the breakaway of Donbass, Crimea, etc., from Ukraine.)
America and its NATO deny that they are either anti-Russian or anti-Chinese and insist that they instead seek merely regime-change in both countries so that both Russia and China will come to provide democracy and human rights like America’s Government (the one that perpetrates far more invasions and coups than all other Governments in the world collectively do) provides (which it actually does not provide). …
U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced on June 22nd a Resolution which if passed and signed by President Biden (whom both Senators praised for his resolute hostility toward Russia), would commit the U.S. as the head of NATO to launch, on behalf of NATO, war directly against Russia, if (regardless of the reason) Russia uses even the smallest tactical nuclear weapon (for example, to destroy a command-center deep underground) in Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country), and which Resolution alleges that the reason why America would do this for NATO (even though Ukraine isn’t a member) is that there might be some nuclear fall-out that might reach a NATO member nation from such an attack by Russia against Ukraine. In other words: they want to enable the U.S. President to launch a U.S. invasion of Russia if Russia becomes forced to use a nuclear device in order to be able to prevent Ukraine from joining America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.
At the press conference introducing their Resolution, Senator Graham said,
“Our message is to those around Putin: If you do this and follow his order, should he give it, you can expect a massive response from NATO. You will be at war with NATO.”
Their Resolution will allegedly be for “NATO” instead of for just the U.S. Government, and so if it becomes U.S. law, then — if the U.S. Government subsequently alleges that Russia has violated it — America will invade Russia and will expect all NATO countries to be on its side in the resulting World War Three. America would be in this War for NATO — not merely for America.
“(2) views the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life, as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty,” which is the Treaty Article that obligates each member-nation to support NATO’s war.
That’s the core passage in this entire proposed document. In other words, not ONLY would Russia’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine trigger WW III under the Graham-Blumenthal Resolution, but ALSO an attack against Europe’s biggest nuclear electric-power plant, which is in Zaporozhia in Ukraine and which nuclear-power facility Ukraine’s government has several times aimed missiles at but not yet successfully hit, would trigger a NATO invasion of Russia, even though Ukraine, and not Russia, had done it. Russia has, in fact, been protecting that nuclear power plant, which is in territory that Russia controls, and this is the reason why none of Ukraine’s missiles against it has yet succeeded at hitting it. (Well, there was one that barely did, but not badly enough to cause any release of radiation from the plant.) The Resolution’s key clause is the sub-clause “or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory.” That’s the clause which (if this Resolution passes) could empower Ukraine’s government to spark a U.S. invasion of Russia — i.e., then a successful Ukrainian attack against that nuclear facility would “immediately” producea U.S. nuclear attack against Russia (since the hypothesis of this Resolution is that in any such case, Russia had already entered a nuclear war against NATO, since a NATO member received some downwind radiation from that plant). …
Essentially, what Bill #3 aims to establish is the congressional authorization for the U.S. President to launch WW III against Russia if Ukraine’s government succeeds in hitting the Zaporozhia nuclear power plant hard enough for that plant to leak some radiation which might reach a NATO country. Interestingly: Bill #3 is written so as to authorize only an “immediate” invasion of Russia, and not to wait the perhaps months that might be necessary for an independent investigative commission to rule on whether it had been Ukraine or Russia that had perpetrated this attack. Also, “immediate” means NOT even to wait until there is any verification that a NATO member had received fall-out from that hit. “Immediate” means immediate.
Since, on May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken already has made clear that the U.S. Government will have no objection if Ukraine kills Russia’s President, America has already made clear that whatever Ukraine’s Government might do in order to provoke Russia’s Government to a full-scale WW III will be acceptable to the U.S. Government.
On 3 August 2022, I had headlined “Ten Truths that Can’t Be Published Under the U.S. Regime”, and documented the history that had led up to this U.S. Government obsession ever since 1945 to ultimately conquer the entire world. This is solidly documented real history, no mere conspiracy-‘theory’ or hypothesis — and it is documented there in the article’s links to its online sources; so, you can check it out for yourself.
Only one U.S. Presidential candidate is campaigning against censorship, and against the U.S. Government’s and press’s hate-Russia and hate-China campaigns, and that person is leading in the approval ratings among the U.S. public, and is being treated by the American press as being a kook and a “conspiracy theorist.” What? — are all conspiracy theories false? None of them is true? Really? No conspiracy ever succeeds? Really? Is the U.S. major media’s overwhelming hostility toward that candidate evidence for intelligent persons to seriously consider possibly voting for that person? Or, has the U.S. Government been doing such a superb job for the American people as to instead foreclose considering to vote against it — to vote against the existing officials, in both Parties?
*
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 Duran.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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 lot of nonsense is being spouted by a bevy of spontaneous “Russian experts” in light of the Prigozhin spray, a mutiny (no one quite knows what to call it), stillborn in the Russian Federation. It all fell to the theatrical sponsor, promoter and rabble rouser Yevgeny Prigozhin, a convict who rose through the ranks of the deceased Soviet state to find fortune and security via catering, arms and Vladimir Putin’s support.
In the service of the Kremlin, Prigozhin proved his mettle. He did his level best to neutralise protest movements. He created the Internet Research Agency, an outfit employing hundreds dedicated to trolling for the regime. Such efforts have been apoplectically lionised (and vilified) as being vital to winning Donald Trump the US presidency in 2016.
His Wagner mercenary outfit, created in the summer of 2014 in response to the Ukraine conflict, has certainly been busy, having impressed bloody footprints in the Levant, a number of African states, and Ukraine itself. Along the way, benefits flowed for the provision of such services, including natural resource concessions.
But something happened last week. Suddenly, the strong man of the mercenary outfit that had been performing military duties alongside the Russian Army in Ukraine seemed to lose his cool. There were allegations that his men had been fired upon by Russian forces, a point drawn out by his capture of the 72nd Motorised Rifle Brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Roman Venevitin. Probably more to the point, he had found out some days earlier that the Russian Defence Ministry was keen to rein in his troops, placing them under contractual obligations. His autonomous wings were going to be clipped.
The fuse duly went. Prigozhin fumed on Telegram, expressing his desire to get a number of officials, most notably the Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, and Chief of the General staff Valery Gerasimov, sent packing. A “march for justice” was organised, one that threatened to go all the way to Moscow.
President Vladimir Putin fumed in agitation in his televised address on June 24, claiming that “excessive ambition and personal interests [had] led to treason, to the betrayal of the motherland and the people and the cause”. Within hours, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, whose diplomatic skills are threadbare, had intervened as mediator, after which it was decided that the Wagner forces would withdraw to avoid “shedding Russian blood”.
This all provided some delicious speculative manna for the press corps and commentariat outside Russia. Nature, and media, abhor the vacuum; the filling that follows is often not palatable. There was much breathless, excited pontification about the end of Putin, despite the obvious fact that this insurrection had failed in its tracks. John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was aflame with wonder. Where, he wondered, was the Russian President? Why did the Wagner soldiers “get from Ukraine to Rostov, take control of Ukraine’s war HQ then move to Voronezh without a hint of resistance”?
John Lough of Chatham House in London claimed that Putin had “been shown to have lost his previous ability to be the arbiter between powerful rival groups.” His “public image in Russia as the all-powerful Tsar” had been called into question. Ditto the views of Peter Rutland of Wesleyan University, who was adamant in emphasising Putin’s impotence in being “unable to do anything to stop Prigozhin’s rogue military unit as it seized Rostov-on-Don”, only to then write, without explaining why, about uncharacteristic behaviour from both men in stepping “back from the brink of civil war”.
Then came the hyperventilating chatter about nuclear weapons (too much of the Crimson Tide jitters there), the pathetic wail that accompanies those desperate to fill both column space. The same degree of concern regarding such unsteady nuclear powers as Pakistan is nowhere to be seen, despite ongoing crises and the prospect of political implosion.
Commentators swooned with excitement: the Kremlin had lost the plot; the attempted coup, if it could even be called that, had done wonders to rattle the strongman. Those same commentators could not quite explain that Prigozhin had seemingly been rusticated and banished to Belarus within the shortest of timeframes, where he is likely to keep company with a man of comparatively diminished intellect: Premier Lukashenko himself. Prigozhin, for all his aspirations, has a gangster’s nose for a bargain, poor or otherwise.
As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskovput it, the original criminal case opened against Prigozhin for military mutiny by the Kremlin would be dropped, while any Wagner fighters who had taken part in the “march for justice” would not face any punitive consequences. Those who had not participated would be duly assimilated into the Russian defence architecture in signing contracts with the Defence Ministry.
The image now appearing – much of this subject to redrawing, resketching, and requalifying – is that things were not quite as they seemed. Assuming himself to be a big-brained Wallerstein of regime stirring clout, Prigozhin had seemingly put forth a plan of action that had all the seeds of failure. Britain’s The Telegraphreported that “the mercenary force had only 8,000 fighters rather than the 25,000 claimed and faced likely defeat in any attempt to take the Russian capital.”
Another reading is also possible here, though it will have to be verified in due course. Putin had anticipated that this contingently loyal band of mercenaries was always liable to turn, given the chance. Russia is overrun with such volatile privateers and soldiers of fortune. Where that fortune turns, demands will be made.
Ultimately, in Putin’s Russia, the political is never divorceable from the personal. Chechnya’s resilient thug, Ramzan Kadyrov, very much the prototypical Putin vassal only nominally subservient, suggests that this whole matter could be put down to family business disputes. “A chain of failed business deals created a lingering resentment in the businessman, which reached its peak when St. Petersburg’s authorities did not grand [Prigozhin’s] daughter a coveted land plot.” The big picture, viewed from afar, can be very small indeed.
*
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]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
I have written two substack articles on COVID-19 vaccinated drivers crashing their vehicles, including:
We are now seeing some of the worst crashes in history. Why?
June 20, 2023 – Windsor, Ontario – A school bus collided with SUV at 9:10am, sending 7 children to the hospital with minor injuries. SUV driver believed to have had a medical emergency. (click here)
June 16, 2023 – Prince George, BC – Bus carrying workers for Coastal GasLink pipeline rolled over, injuring 30 people, some of them critically. Cause of bus crash remains unknown (click here)
June 15, 2023 – 16 dead, 10 hospitalized after collision involving a semi-trailer truck and a bus on Trans-Canada Highway between Winnipeg and Brandon, Man. The bus was full of seniors travelling to a casino (click here)
June 12, 2023 – Hunter Valley, Australia – Passenger bus carrying wedding guests crashed at 11:30pm and killed 10 people, in Australia’s deadliest road accident in 30 years. The 58 year old bus driver has been charged. (click here)
June 8, 2023 – Mississauga, ON, Canada – Eight-vehicle crash reportedly caused by a transit bus in north Mississauga, Ontario at 9:35am, left a woman dead and multiple people injured. (click here)
May 29, 2023 – Oxford County, Ontario – 35 yo police officer Steven Tourangeau collided with a school bus early morning around 7am, police officer and bus driver both died (click here)
May 16, 2023 – Eynesbury, Australia – School bus with 46 children onboard, was struck from behind by a truck at 3:45pm. The 49 yo truck driver with a spotless record had some kind of medical incident. Three primary schoolers had hands or arms amputated. (click here)(click here)
May 13, 2023 – A New Jersey elementary school bus holding around 20 students went missing for an hour after the 80-year-old driver suffered a medical emergency. (click here)(click here)
May 11, 2023 – Fort Cavazos, TX – Pickup truck crashed into a school bus with 56 kids on board from Clear Creek Elementary, 4 kids were taken to the hospital (click here)
We are now seeing some of the worst motor vehicle crashes in decades.
Australia just had its worst road accident in 30 years, involving a bus.
Manitoba just had a bus crash with 16 dead.
The 10 bus crashes I’ve documented in this substack occurred over a period of just over one month, from May 11, 2023 to June 20, 2023.
It’s not always the bus driver at fault, sometimes it’s a truck or SUV driver who had a medical emergency and crashed into a bus.
There is no question that roads are less safe these days, and fully COVID-19 vaccinated drivers are having all kinds of medical emergencies, resulting in horrific accidents.
This very disturbing trend is worth keeping an eye on.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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.
***
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is one of the key people driving US foreign policy. He was mentored by Hillary Clinton with regime changes in Honduras, Libya and Syria. He was the link between Nuland and Biden during the 2014 coup in Ukraine. As reported by Seymour Hersh, Sullivan led the planning of the Nord Stream pipelines destruction in September 2022. Sullivan guides or makes many large and small foreign policy decisions. This article will describe Jake Sullivan’s background, what he says, what he has been doing, where the US is headed and why this should be debated.
Background
Jake Sullivan was born in November 1976. He describes his formative years like this:
“I was raised in Minnesota in the 1980s, a child of the later Cold War – of Rocky IV, the Miracle on Ice, and ‘Tear down this wall’. The 90s were my high school and college years. The Soviet Union collapsed. The Iron Curtain disappeared. Germany was reunified. An American-led alliance ended a genocide in Bosnia and prevented one in Kosovo. I went to graduate school in England and gave fiery speeches on the floor of the Oxford Union about how the United States was a force for good in the world.”
Sullivan’s education includes Yale (BA), Oxford (MA) and Yale again (JD). He went quickly from academic studies and legal work to political campaigning and government.
Sullivan made important contacts during his college years at elite institutions. For example, he worked with former Deputy Secretary of State and future Brookings Institution president, Strobe Talbott. After a few years clerking for judges, Sullivan transitioned to a law firm in his hometown of Minneapolis. He soon became chief counsel to Senator Amy Klobuchar who connected him to the rising Senator Hillary Clinton.
Mentored by Hillary
Sullivan became a key adviser to Hillary Clinton in her campaign to be Democratic party nominee in 2008. At age 32, Jake Sullivan became deputy chief of staff and director of policy planning when she became secretary of state. He was her constant companion, travelling with her to 112 countries.
The Clinton/Sullivan foreign policy was soon evident. In Honduras, Clinton clashed with progressive Honduras President Manuel Zelaya over whether to re-admit Cuba to the OAS. Seven weeks later, on June 28, Honduran soldiers invaded the president’s home and kidnapped him out of the country, stopping en route at the US Air Base. The coup was so outrageous that even the US ambassador to Honduras denounced it. This was quickly over-ruled as the Clinton/Sullivan team played semantics games to say it was a coup but not a “military coup.” Thus the Honduran coup regime continued to receive US support. They quickly held a dubious election to make the restoration of President Zelaya “moot”. Clinton is proud of this success in her book “Hard Choices.”
Two years later the target was Libya. With Victoria Nuland as State Department spokesperson, the Clinton/Sullivan team promoted sensational claims of a pending massacre and urged intervention in Libya under the “responsibility to protect.” When the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, the US, Qatar and other NATO members distorted that and started air attacks on Libyan government forces. Today, 12 years later, Libya is still in chaos and war. The sensational claims of 2011 were later found to be false.
When the Libyan government was overthrown in Fall 2011, the Clinton/Sullivan State Department and CIA plotted to seize the Libyan weapons arsenal. Weapons were transferred to the Syrian opposition. US Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were killed in an internecine conflict over control of the weapons cache.
Undeterred, Clinton and Sullivan stepped up their attempts to overthrow the Syrian government. They formed a club of western nations and allies called the “Friends of Syria.” The “Friends” divided tasks who would do what in the campaign to topple the sovereign state. Former policy planner at the Clinton/Sullivan State Department, Ann Marie Slaughter, called for “foreign military intervention.” Sullivan knew they were arming violent sectarian fanatics to overthrow the Syrian government. In an email to Hillary released by Wikileaks, Sullivan noted “AQ is on our side in Syria.”
Biden’s adviser during the 2014 Ukraine Coup
After being Clinton’s policy planner, Sullivan became President Obama’s director of policy planning (Feb 2011 to Feb 2013) then national security adviser to Vice President Biden (Feb 2013 to August 2014).
Sullivan, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in November 2012 (Licensed under the Public Domain)
In his position with Biden, Sullivan had a close-up view of the February 2014 Ukraine coup. He was a key contact between Victoria Nuland, overseeing the coup, and Biden. In the secretly recorded conversation where Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine discuss how to manage the coup, Nuland remarks that Jake Sullivan told her “you need Biden.” Biden gave the “attaboy” and the coup was “midwifed” following a massacre of police AND protesters on the Maidan plaza.
Sullivan must have observed Biden’s use of the vice president’s position for personal family gain. He would have been aware of Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of the Burisima Ukrainian energy company, and the reason Joe Biden demanded that the Ukrainian special prosecutor who was investigating Burisima to be fired. Biden later bragged and joked about this.
In December 2013, at a conference hosted by Chevron Corporation, Victoria Nuland said the US has spent five BILLION dollars to bring “democracy” to Ukraine.
Sullivan helped create Russiagate
Jake Sullivan was a leading member of the 2016 Hillary Clinton team which promoted Russiagate. The false claim that Trump was secretly contacting Russia was promoted initially to distract from negative news about Hillary Clinton and to smear Trump as a puppet of Putin. Both the Mueller and Durham investigations officially discredited the main claims of Russiagate. There was no collusion. The accusations were untrue, and the FBI gave them unjustified credence for political reasons.
Jake Sullivan is a good speaker, persuasive and with a dry sense of humor. At the same time, he can be disingenuous. Some of his statements are false. For example, in June 2017 Jake Sullivan was interviewed by Frontline television program about US foreign policy and especially US-Russia relations. Regarding NATO’s overthrow of the Libyan government, Sullivan says, “Putin came to believe that the United States had taken Russia for a ride in the UN Security Council that authorized the use of force in Libya…. He thought he was authorizing a purely defensive mission…. Now on the actual language of the resolution, it’s plain as day that Putin was wrong about that.” Contrary to what Sullivan claims, the UN Security Council resolution clearly authorizes a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians, no more. It’s plain as day there was NOT authorization for NATO’s offensive attacks and “regime change.”
Planning the Nord Stream Pipeline destruction
The bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines, filled with 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas, was a monstrous environmental disaster. The destruction also caused huge economic damage to Germany and other European countries. It has been a boon for US liquefied natural gas exports which have surged to fill the gap, but at a high price. Many European factories dependent on cheap gas have closed down. Tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs.
Seymour Hersh reported details of How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline. He says, “Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan.” A sabotage plan was prepared and officials in Norway and Denmark included in the plot. The day after the sabotage, Jake Sullivan tweeted
“I spoke to my counterpart Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe of Denmark about the apparent sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines. The U.S. is supporting efforts to investigate and we will continue our work to safeguard Europe’s energy security.”
Ellerman-Kingombe may have been one of the Danes informed in advance of the bombing. He is close to the US military and NATO command.
Since then, the Swedish investigation of Nord Stream bombing has made little progress. Contrary to Sullivan’s promise in the tweet, the US has not supported other efforts to investigate. When Russia proposed an independent international investigation of the Nord Stream sabotage at the UN Security Council, the resolution failed due to lack of support from the US and US allies. Hungary’s foreign minister recently asked,
“How on earth is it possible that someone blows up critical infrastructure on the territory of Europe and no one has a say, no one condemns, no one carries out an investigation?”
Economic Plans devoid of reality
Ten weeks ago Jake Sullivan delivered a major speech on “Renewing American Economic Leadership” at the Brookings Institution. He explains how the Biden administration is pursuing a “modern industrial and innovation strategy.” They are trying to implement a “foreign policy for the middle class” which better integrates domestic and foreign policies. The substance of their plan is to increase investments in semiconductors, clean energy minerals and manufacturing. However the new strategy is very unlikely to achieve the stated goal to “lift up all of America’s people, communities, and industries.” Sullivan’s speech completely ignores the elephant in the room: the costly US Empire including wars and 800 foreign military bases which consume about 60% of the total discretionary budget. Under Biden and Sullivan’s foreign policy, there is no intention to rein in the extremely costly military industrial complex. It is not even mentioned.
US exceptionalism 2.0
In December 2018 Jake Sullivan wrote an essay titled “American Exceptionalism, Reclaimed.” It shows his foundational beliefs and philosophy. He separates himself from the “arrogant brand of exceptionalism” demonstrated by Dick Cheney. He also criticizes the “American first” policies of Donald Trump. Sullivan advocates for “a new American exceptionalism” and “American leadership in the 21st Century.”
Sullivan has a shallow Hollywood understanding of history: “The United States stopped Hitler’s Germany, saved Western Europe from economic ruin, stood firm against the Soviet Union, and supported the spread of democracy worldwide.” He believes “The fact that the major powers have not returned to war with one another since 1945 is a remarkable achievement of American statecraft.”
Jake Sullivan is young in age but his ideas are old. The United States is no longer dominant economically or politically. It is certainly not “indispensable.” More and more countries are objecting to US bullying and defying Washington’s demands. Even key allies such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are ignoring US requests. The trend toward a multipolar world is escalating. Jake Sullivan is trying to reverse the trend but reality and history are working against him. Over the past four or five decades, the US has gone from being an investment, engineering and manufacturing powerhouse to a deficit spending consumer economy waging perpetual war with a bloated military industrial complex.
Instead of reforming and rebuilding the US, the national security state expends much of its energy and resources trying to destabilize countries deemed to be “adversaries”.
Conclusion
Previous national security advisers Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski were very influential.
Kissinger is famous for wooing China and dividing the communist bloc. Jake Sullivan is now wooing India in hopes of dividing that country from China and the BRICS alliance (Brazil,Russia, India, China, South Africa).
Brzezinski is famous for plotting the Afghanistan trap. By destabilizing Afghanistan with foreign terrorists beginning 1978, the US induced the Soviet Union to send troops to Afghanistan at the Afghan government’s request. The result was the collapse of the progressive Afghan government, the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and 40 years of war and chaos.
On 28 February 2022, just four days after Russian troops entered Ukraine, Jake Sullivan’s mentor, Hillary Clinton, was explicit: “Afghanistan is the model.” It appears the US intentionally escalated the provocations in Ukraine to induce Russia to intervene. The goal is to “weaken Russia.” This explains why the US has spent over $100 billion sending weapons and other support to Ukraine. This explains why the US and UK undermined negotiations which could have ended the conflict early on.
The Americans who oversaw the 2014 coup in Kiev, are the same ones running US foreign policy today: Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan. Prospects for ending the Ukraine war are very poor as long as they are in power.
The Democratic Party constantly emphasizes “democracy” yet there is no debate or discussion over US foreign policy. What kind of “democracy” is this where crucial matters of life and death are not discussed?
Robert F Kennedy Jr is now running in the Democratic Party primary. He has a well informed and critical perspective on US foreign policy including the never ending wars, the intelligence agencies and the conflict in Ukraine.
Jake Sullivan is a skilled debater. Why doesn’t he debate Democratic Party candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr over US foreign policy and national security?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
When faced with questions relating to America’s role in the world, we would be wise to heed the advice of our Founding Founders. George Washington urged distance from the “frequent controversies” of Europe. Thomas Jefferson pursued a course of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
As NATO continues its post-Cold War expansion, it is worth pointing out that, by its own terms, the NATO Treaty does not commit Americans to the military defense of our allies. To that end, I introduced a resolution reasserting that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not supersede Congress’s responsibility to declare war or authorize military force before engaging in hostilities.
For decades, many legislators have incorrectly interpreted Article 5 as an obligation that unquestionably commits the United States to provide military support should a NATO ally be attacked. To support their assertion, those who pine for a perpetual Pax Americana paraphrase Article 5 of the NATO Treaty by stating that, “an attack against one or is an attack against all.”
But that is not exactly what Article 5 states. Article 5 states, “The Parties agree that an armed take against one or more of them . . . shall be considered an attack against them all and . . . each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense . . . will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…” In other words, NATO allies are committed to assist each other in the event of an attack, but military action is not mandated, and the United States maintains its sovereign capacity to determine what kind of response is warranted.
Furthermore, Article 11 of the NATO Treaty states that the provisions of the Treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country’s respective constitutional processes.
The Constitution grants to Congress the sole authority to determine where and when we send our sons and daughters to fight. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the president, the courts, an international body, or our allies. This is a constitutional responsibility that all members of Congress have freely taken and one that the American people expect us to uphold.
I proposed the same text of my resolution when the Senate was considering the inclusion of Sweden and Finland into NATO. At the time, some of my colleagues questioned my approach, and one in particular argued that that my proposal would demonstrate to our allies that the United States is going “wobbly” on Article 5. I would argue that our men and women in the field do not want Congress to go wobbly on the Constitution.
Over the years, there has been a disturbing trend of executive overreach, undermining the checks and balances that our founders established to prevent such abuses of power. Collective defense should not be used as a pretext to bypass the constitutional requirement for congressional approval. By clarifying that the NATO Treaty does not supersede the Constitution, we can respond to those who would deceive the public about what America’s commitments are and renew our commitment to the highest law in the land. Respecting congressional war powers does not hinder our national security or imply a disregard for treaties. On the contrary, it ensures that the decision to use military force is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate by the representatives of the people, just as our Founding Fathers intended.
We must continue to show our fealty to the Constitution and elevate diplomacy to the forefront of United States foreign relations. For years I’ve led the fight to return war-making powers to Congress where they belong, and I’m proud to continue those efforts by introducing this resolution with support in the Senate and House of Representatives. It’s long past time that we respect the balance of power and reassert Congress’s voice.
*
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: Orhan Cam and Gints Ivuskans via shutterstock
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.
***
Most estimates of US military spending mention a figure of 886 billion dollars or so. This is higher than the combined military spending of the next ten biggest spenders, most of whom are allies of the USA. This is 3 times the military spending of China.
However a recent review of US defense spending by defense analyst Winslow Wheeler has mentioned a figure of 1447 billion dollars after making some important corrections and also including related defense expenditures which are generally left out in commonly quoted official figures of 886 billion dollars.
Winslow Wheeler has written,
“The big spenders, especially, like to distort the size of our spending—and to mis-measure it—with gimmicks and yardsticks that have almost nothing to do with dollars spent.”
The revised estimate by Wheeler seeks to correct some figures and to include some left-out figures relating to nuclear weapons, homeland security from terrorists and criminals, and international security.
Wheeler’s complete calculations were reported in a review by Andrew Cockburn published in ‘Responsible Statecraft’ (May 7, 2023).
The Wall Street Journal noted in a recent analysis that spending on defense and veterans’ care is likely to pass 1000 billion dollars next year.
Recently a lot of concern has been expressed by various prominent persons over efforts that keep getting made for further increases even after big military budgets have been sanctioned. One of these efforts relates to the presentation of a list of ‘unfunded priorities’ to the Congress by military sources. It has been seen over the years that this practice results in the further addition of billions of dollars more to the defense budget.
Concern is also being expressed over the very high profit margins of the biggest weapon companies and military contractors. The big profit margins merely on the supply of spare parts by some companies which effectively act as monopoly suppliers has come as a shock to many people.
Serious concern is also being expressed regarding the increases in military spending that can take place even later in the year in the context of funding that is designated as “an emergency requirement or for overseas contingency operation”. As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, funding for this “would not be constrained.”
In the past this was often increased arbitrarily in the context of the conflict in Iraq to include all sorts of military expenditure. Now it is likely to be increased in the coming days in the context of the military assistance being provided to Ukraine.
The high levels of military spending much beyond real defense needs have become part of a vicious cycle. A small and concentrated number of military contractors get huge and inflated orders from the government. They then use a part of their high profits to appoint high profile lobbyists who can ensure huge levels of military funding.
However Pentagon and defense department have repeatedly not been able to pass in audits and failed to account for a lot of spending.
This has understandably raised concerns relating to corruption. The other major area of domestic concern relates to the defense budget eating up so much of resources that adequate funds are difficult to find for many unmet needs of the weaker sections of US society, or for some other priority areas.
However another concern that should receive more attention relates to the impact of ever-increasing military budgets of the most powerful and aggressive country on the safety of people in many other countries, particularly in the context of the forever wars and proxy wars of the USA.
Hence campaigns to reduce the military budget of the USA should be an important concern of the peace movement.
At the same time it needs to be stated that the military budgets of several other countries also tend to present lower than actual figures, and this tendency is by no means confined only to the USA. Hence at world level also the military budget is likely to be significantly higher, compared to the estimates frequently cited.
*
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, Man over Machine and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The sinking of two vessels—the Andrianna, filled with hundreds of desperate migrants, and the Titan, with a handful of multi-millionaires—provides a vivid picture of the world today. All drowning deaths in the ocean are tragic, and one has to sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones. Yet these events also dramatically demonstrate global economic inequality and injustice.
The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 and its subsequent recognition by the United Nations has often been attributed to various factors. This report aims to shed light on the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly within the Evangelical Christian community in the United States, on the support for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in the Arab-settled Middle East.
The Astana peace talks for Syria began in 2017 and recently met in Kazakhstan on June 20-21. It surprised many when the Kazakh Deputy Foreign Minister Kanat Tumysh called the process over while saying the goals were achieved and declared that the 20th Astana meeting was the last.
The heroes at the alphabet agencies who keep us safe day and night and whose vigilance we could never do without have been very busy recruiting mentally handicapped minors to serve as patsies for their false flag terror attacks.
Prudence Bushnell’s book “Terrorism, Betrayal & Resilience” is an unexpected source of stunning inside information about the 1998 bombings of the two American embassies in Africa. Bushnell’s book, published twenty years after the bombings, attracted little notice but it raises key questions about what the U.S. role in the bombings might have been. The 25th anniversary of these bombings is August 7, 2023.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa may underestimate the widespread media attacks inside his domain about the last round-trip intended to broker peace between two warring former Soviet republics, Russia and Ukraine. Both shared geographical borders and down the years since Soviet’s collapse have unreservedly claimed to be observing the international laws relating to their territorial integrity and political sovereignty as recognized by the United Nations.
The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.
Ukraine is losing the war. Everything is breaking down for Kiev and NATO. Moscow needed a motivation for Kiev and NATO to go on fighting their losing war until their own self-destruction. And what better fake motivation to give NATO than playing to their delusions, vanity, and hubris that perhaps Moscow would break down all by itself.
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.
***
Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level military analyst who courageously exposed four administrations’ criminal war on Vietnam and went on to become a leading peace and civil liberties activist, died on June 16 at the age of 92.
Ellsberg was best-known for his 1971 release of 7,000 pages of copies of classified documents, which became famously known as the Pentagon Papers.
The incriminating documents, printed in leading newspapers in the United States and worldwide, showed that U.S. political and military leaders were willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Vietnamese and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers rather than admit defeat that many of them knew was inevitable. Working for the Rand Corporation and the State Department, Ellsberg had spent time in Vietnam and seen first-hand the discrepancy between government reports and the reality on the ground.
As early as July 23, 1965, when the massive U.S. troop buildup was just getting under way, Clark Clifford, a close advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, wrote:
“I don’t believe we can win in South Vietnam … If we lose 50,000 men there it will be catastrophic in this country. Five years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of men … I can’t see anything but catastrophe for our nation in this area.”
But, assured by Pentagon generals that if given enough troops and bombs a U.S. victory was certain, Johnson commenced a huge surge that would deploy more than 550,000 troops to Vietnam by 1968. While inflicting unimaginable death and destruction on the country, victory was no closer at the height of the surge than at its beginning, and Johnson was forced out of office.
His successor, Richard Nixon was elected promising to end the war, but had no intention of doing so. While U.S. troops levels in Vietnam were being drawn down at the time of the Pentagon Papers publication in 1971, Nixon was escalating the genocidal air war on the country and contemplating the use of nuclear weapons.
The publication of the Pentagon Papers, titled “History of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68,” was a bombshell, documenting a quarter-century of lies and deception. Its release enraged Nixon. One of his advisors, Egil Krough, Jr., said later: “We felt so strongly that we were dealing with a national security crisis. Henry Kissinger [then National Security Adviser] said that Dr. Daniel Ellsberg was ‘the most dangerous man in America’ and he had to be stopped.”
A movie titled “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” narrated by Ellsberg himself, was released in 2009.
“Let’s get that son of a bitch into jail,” Nixon told his attorney, John Ehrlichman. “We want to destroy him in the press. Is that clear?”
After the New York Times began printing the papers on June 13, 1971, Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell obtained an injunction blocking further publication. But then, the Washington Post began publishing the documents. Later that year, the injunction was vacated by the Supreme Court, a major victory for press freedom.
Meanwhile, a two-week nationwide search for Ellsberg and an associate, Anthony Russo, called in one media report “the largest manhunt since the Lindbergh kidnapping” of the 1930s, ended when they turned themselves in. Both were charged with espionage and other crimes, Ellsberg facing 105 years in prison and Russo 35 years.
Ellsberg was the first target of the White House “Plumbers Unit,” which was secretly established in August 1971, under the leadership of G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, specifically to go after Ellsberg. The “Plumbers” would become infamous for the 1972 break-ins at the Democratic Party’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. — the Watergate scandal that would play a key role in Nixon’s 1974 resignation.
But earlier, on Sept. 3, 1971, the “Plumbers” had broken into the office of Ellsberg’s psychologist in Santa Monica, California, looking for information that Nixon hoped could discredit Ellsberg. When this break-in was revealed during the trial of Ellsberg and Russo in May 1973, it led the judge to dismiss the charges against both defendants.
Daniel Ellsberg and the antiwar movement
As he pointed out, Ellsberg’s decision to release the Pentagon Papers did not take place in a vacuum, but was instead critically influenced by the growing movement against the Vietnam War. He attended his first antiwar rally in 1965 while still working as a Rand analyst, invited by his soon-to-be spouse, Patricia Marx.
An antiwar conference at Haverford College was a turning point for Ellsberg. At the conference, Randy Kehler, a draft resister, stated proudly that he was about to go to prison. “I hadn’t known that he was about to be sentenced for draft resistance,” said Ellsberg in an interview many years later. “It wasn’t what he said exactly that changed my worldview. It was the example that he was setting with his life … there was no question in my mind that my government was involved in an unjust war that was going to continue and get larger. … If I hadn’t met Randy Kehler it wouldn’t have occurred to me to copy [the Pentagon Papers]. His actions spoke to me as no mere words would have done. He put the right question in my mind at the right time.” (Greenfield Recorder, 12/31/2021)
On May Day 1971, just weeks before the release of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was part of an affinity group with Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and others at a mass antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C. He would remain an antiwar activist for the rest of his life, opposing U.S. wars from Latin America to the Middle East. He was arrested more than 90 times in civil disobedience actions.
In a 2018 interview, Ellsberg said, “I think in Iraq, America has never faced up to the number of people who have died because of our invasion, our aggression against Iraq, and Afghanistan over the last 30 years.”
When in 2019 the ANSWER Coalition initiated a mass march and teach-in in Washington, D.C. opposing Trump’s attempt to impose regime change in Venezuela, Ellsberg was the keynote speaker.
Among his many books was “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.” Nuclear war planning was, according to Ellsberg, his main work as a military analyst. In May 2021, seeking another court challenge over the issue of press freedom, Ellsberg posted on the internet a classified 1958 document outlining a Pentagon plan to launch a nuclear war if the People’s Republic of China attempted to reassert control of the province of Taiwan, which had broken away from the mainland after the 1949 Revolution. The assumption of the planners was that such action by the United States would bring a response from the Soviet Union, and thus World War III.
Ellsberg was a staunch supporter of other “whistleblowers” who exposed the criminality of Pentagon/CIA wars and interventions, including Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. He wore a pink feather boa to represent Chelsea Manning at the San Francisco LGBTQ Pride Parade in 2013 and carried a sign that said, “I was Manning: The Pentagon Papers, 1971.” In 2020, Ellsberg testified against the extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States.
In a 2018 interview, he called upon others in the national security apparatus who know about criminal actions being planned or enacted to come forward:
“My message to them is: Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait ’til the bombs are actually falling or thousands more have died, before you do what I wish I had done years earlier, in ’64 or even ’61, on the nuclear issue. And that is, reveal the truth that you know, the dangerous truths that are being withheld by the government, at whatever cost to yourself, whatever risk that may take. Consider doing that, because a war’s worth of lives may be at stake. Or in the case of the two existential crises I’m talking about, the future of humanity is at stake.”
*
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: Daniel Ellsberg speaking at a press conference in 1972. Photo: Gernard Gotfryd, public domain
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.
***
For years, government-related institutes have experimented on their own citizens, mainly minorities, to serve their own interests. Infamous and not entirely disclosed, here are some of the most unethical operations done by the US on its own people and soil.
Several experiments conducted on human test subjects in the United States have been deemed unethical due to their execution without the subjects’ knowledge or informed consent. These tests have occurred throughout American history, with some of them still being conducted today.
These experiments encompass a range of activities, such as subjecting humans to chemical and biological weapons, including infections with lethal or incapacitating diseases. They also involve human radiation experiments, the administration of toxic and radioactive substances through injections, surgical experiments, interrogation and torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a diverse array of other experimental procedures.
A significant portion of these tests are conducted on children, individuals who are ill, and those with mental disabilities, often disguised as “medical treatment.” Moreover, a considerable number of subjects in these studies are impoverished, members of racial minorities, or incarcerated individuals.
Numerous experiments not only violated US laws but were also backed by government agencies or unauthorized factions within them, including the Centers for Disease Control, the United States military, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Additionally, some experiments were funded by private corporations engaged in military endeavors.
Reader, brace yourself as you are about to delve into a trove of ominous files that unveil the reality of the United States’ self-interest at play.
Tuskegee Experiment (1932)
The Tuskegee Study, initiated in 1932 and spanning four decades, stands as a prominent example of medical racism and mistreatment in the United States. It is widely regarded as one of the most infamous instances of such abuse in American history.
The US Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama conducted a profoundly unethical syphilis experiment, where hundreds of economically disadvantaged African American men were exploited as test subjects without their informed consent. The men were lured to take part in the study through enticing offers of complimentary medical examinations, transportation, meals, and burial insurance.
In 1932, the USPHS and Tuskegee Institute initiated the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” under the pretense of observing the symptoms of syphilis. This experiment focused on a sexually transmitted infection that was deemed incurable during that period. However, due to the influence of white supremacist ideology, it was wrongly believed that syphilis had distinct effects on dark-skinned bodies as opposed to white bodies.
In Macon County, Alabama, the study was conducted, wherein 600 Black men aged 25 and above were enrolled as participants. Among them, 399 men were diagnosed with syphilis, while 201 did not have the infection. The researchers informed these men that they were receiving treatment for a condition known as “bad blood,” a term encompassing syphilis and other health problems such as anemia and fatigue.
Despite the widespread availability of penicillin as a syphilis treatment starting in 1947, the men in the study were never provided with this option throughout the remaining 25 years of the research. Their race led to them being dehumanized and treated as inferior beings. They were used as mere research subjects, akin to laboratory rats, with their sole purpose being to unveil the long-term consequences of this potentially fatal illness.
Plutonium testing: Who is Ebb Cade? (1945)
Ebb Cade, an African American individual with the codename HP (“Human Product”)-12, was the initial recipient of the injection. Cade, a 53-year-old cement mixer employed by a construction company in Oak Ridge, became the subject of the experiment. Following a severe car accident on March 24, 1945, Ebb Cade sustained severe fractures in his arm and leg. Despite his overall good health, contrary to the project’s initial requirement for subjects who were “expected to die,” Dr. Friedell communicated to Los Alamos that he had identified a suitable candidate for the plutonium experiment.
As per previous animal experiments, the established standard dosage for plutonium was one microgram. However, on April 10, Dr. Joseph Howland administered a plutonium dose of 4.7 micrograms to Cade, following recommendations from Los Alamos. This dosage exceeded the acceptable limit by nearly five times. Meanwhile, Cade endured great discomfort as he awaited to be treated for his broken bones. The scenario of white doctors refraining from providing treatment to an injured and unsuspecting black man, opting instead to carry out covert medical experiments, evokes disturbing parallels with the darkest moments of the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
Cade had to endure an agonizing wait of twenty-one days after his accident and a full five days after the injection before his broken bones were finally set. This delay was intentional as the doctors needed to obtain bone scrapings for biopsy. Additionally, fifteen of his perfectly healthy teeth were extracted by the doctors, without providing any explanation to Cade. These teeth were then shipped to Los Alamos for further examination, leaving Cade unaware of the reasons behind the tooth extractions. However, it is highly likely that Ebb Cade became aware that he was being utilized as a government test subject.
Although official documents state that he was “discharged” from the hospital, the reality is that one morning, a nurse discovered he had absconded during the night. Following his escape, Cade resided in Greensboro, North Carolina, until his passing in 1953 due to heart failure. Unfortunately, no autopsy was conducted, and according to Department of Energy (DOE) records, the permission to exhume his body in 1973 was deemed “lost to follow-up.”
With the onset of the Cold War, officials overseeing America’s biological weapons program faced new adversaries and fears. Driven by the determination to prepare for alleged “Soviet attacks,” the United States conducted over 200 domestic tests to evaluate the nation’s susceptibility to biological warfare and identify vulnerabilities at a national level.
Operation Sea Spray (1950)
Serratia marcescens, a bacterium found in soil and water, is notable for its capacity to generate a vivid red pigment. This distinctive characteristic renders this microorganism valuable in experiments, as its visibility allows for easy tracking. Exploiting this trait, the US military conducted a large-scale biowarfare test in 1950, harnessing the vibrant attributes of Serratia marcescens.
Operation Sea-Spray was a covert biological warfare experiment conducted by the US Navy. The objective of the operation was to assess the susceptibility of a city like San Francisco in California to a potential bioweapon attack. As part of the experiment, Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii bacteria were sprayed over the San Francisco Bay Area to gather data on the city’s vulnerability.
From September 20 to September 27, 1950, the US Navy initiated the release of the two bacterial strains from a ship located off the coast of San Francisco. It was believed at the time that these bacteria posed no harm to humans. Monitoring equipment installed across 43 locations throughout the city provided data that led the Army to conclude that San Francisco had been exposed to a significant dosage. In fact, the analysis indicated that nearly all of the city’s 800,000 residents were likely to have inhaled a minimum of 5,000 particles of the bacteria. Over the course of the next two decades, the military conducted similar tests in various cities across the United States.
No evidence indicates that the Army had provided any prior notification to health authorities before conducting the widespread bacterial dispersion. In hindsight, doctors contemplated whether the experiment could be linked to heart valve infections that occurred during the same period, as well as the significant infections observed among intravenous drug users in the 1960s and 1970s. The possibility of a connection between these occurrences and the experimental activities raised concerns among medical professionals.
In 1977, the US Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research conducted a series of hearings during which the US Army revealed the existence of the tests. Army officials acknowledged the occurrence of the outbreak but claimed that any connection to their experiments was allegedly purely coincidental. They emphasized that no other medical facilities reported similar outbreaks, and the 11 affected individuals all had urinary-tract infections following medical procedures, indicating that the source of the infections likely originated within the hospital.
Operation DEW I & DEW II (1951)
Operation Dew occurred between 1951 and 1952 along the southeast coast of the United States, specifically in the vicinity of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This operation comprised two sets of trials known as Dew I and Dew II. The experiments involved releasing 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper stationed off the coast.
Operation Dew I was documented in a US Army report referred to as “Dugway Special Report 162,” dated August 1, 1952. The primary objective of Operation Dew was to investigate the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents. It encompassed a series of five distinct trials conducted between March 26, 1952, and April 21, 1952. The objective of these trials was to assess the feasibility of maintaining a substantial aerosol cloud, released offshore, as it drifted over land, thereby achieving extensive area coverage. Zinc cadmium sulfide was employed during the tests, released along a line spanning approximately 100 to 150 nautical miles (190 to 280 km) located 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, clearly putting their own citizens at risk of contamination.
A report published by the University of #California San Francisco shows that dermatologists performed unethical experiments on prisoners, without the consent of the #UCSF committee to conduct such experiments on humans. pic.twitter.com/DwdcqcqUa6
Two of the trials disseminated clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide, covering expansive areas within all three states. The impact of these tests extended over an estimated 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) in the populated coastal region of the southeastern United States. The releases during Operation Dew I were executed from the USS Tercel, a Navy minesweeper.
Dew II comprised the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft. A 1953 Army report documented the details of Dew II; however, the report remained classified until a 1997 report by the US National Research Council, which focused on the US Army’s zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program from the 1950s.
Project MKULTRA (1953)
Project MKULTRA was the clandestine designation for a secret research program conducted by the CIA, aimed at exploring mind control and chemical interrogation techniques. Administered by the Office of Scientific Intelligence, this covert initiative commenced in the early 1950s and persisted until at least the late 1960s. Notably, it allegedly involved the utilization of American citizens as unknowing participants in various experiments. According to the available evidence, Project MKULTRA involved covertly employing a diverse range of drugs and various techniques to clandestinely manipulate individuals’ mental states and modify brain functioning. The program aimed to explore the effects of these interventions on the human mind and behavior.
Project MKULTRA gained significant public attention in 1975 through the efforts of the US Congress, particularly the investigations conducted by the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission, which was a presidential commission. However, the investigative processes faced obstacles due to CIA Director Richard Helms’ directive in 1973 to destroy all MKULTRA files. Consequently, the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission relied heavily on sworn testimonies from individuals directly involved in the project and the limited number of documents that managed to survive Helms’ destruction order.
While the CIA maintains that the MKULTRA experiment was discontinued, Victor Marchetti, a former CIA veteran with 14 years of experience, revealed in several interviews that the CIA regularly carries out disinformation campaigns and that mind control research persisted within the organization. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti explicitly referred to the CIA’s assertion of MKULTRA’s abandonment as a “cover story.” His statements shed doubt on the official claims regarding the termination of the program and suggest ongoing activities related to mind control research within the CIA.
On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said that: The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an “extensive testing and experimentations” program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens “at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.” Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to “unwitting subjects in social situations.” At least one death, that of Dr. Frank Oslon, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.
To this day most specific information regarding Project MKULTRA remains highly classified.
Operation Big Itch (1954)
In September 1954, Operation Big Itch was conducted at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. This series of tests aimed to assess the coverage patterns and survivability of the tropical rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) for potential use as a disease vector in biological warfare. It is important to note that the fleas employed in these trials were not carrying or infected with any biological agent. The primary focus was on studying the behavior and characteristics of the fleas themselves rather than their disease-carrying potential.
Two types of munitions, the E14 bomb, and the E23 bomb were utilized to disperse the fleas. These munitions could be assembled into cluster bombs known as the E86 cluster bomb and the E77 bomb, respectively. Upon reaching altitudes of 2,000 or 1,000 feet (600 or 300 meters), the cluster bombs would release their individual bomblets via parachute, thereby disseminating the fleas as potential disease vectors. The aim of this method was to study the spread and behavior of fleas in a controlled environment.
The E14 munition was specifically designed to accommodate 100,000 fleas, while the E23 munition had a larger capacity of 200,000 fleas. However, during the initial tests of Operation Big Itch, the E23 munitions encountered significant malfunctions, leading to unintended flea release inside the aircraft. Consequently, the fleas bit the pilot, the bombardier, and an observer. In light of these incidents, the subsequent Big Itch tests proceeded solely with the smaller E14 munitions. Guinea pigs were employed as test subjects and strategically positioned within a circular grid measuring 660 yards (600 meters) in diameter.
The Big Itch tests yielded positive results, demonstrating that the fleas were capable of withstanding the impact of being dropped from an airplane and promptly seeking hosts. The weapon showcased its ability to cover a target area equivalent to that of a battalion, effectively disrupting operations for a duration of approximately one day. The time limit was primarily determined by the fleas’ activity, as the air-dropped fleas remained active for approximately 24 hours before their effectiveness diminished.
Operation Big Buzz (1955)
In June 1955, an experiment known as Operation Big Buzz was conducted in Savannah, Georgia. Additionally, a subsequent iteration of the experiment took place in Avon Park, Florida in 1956, under the name Operation Drop Kick.
During Operation Big Buzz, extensive tests were conducted by releasing more than 300,000 mosquitoes from airplanes and on the ground. The objective was to assess the feasibility of using these mosquitoes, specifically the yellow fever mosquito species known as Aedes aegypti, as a means of dispersing biological warfare agents.
Another objective was to ascertain the survival capability of the mosquitoes throughout the dispersion process and their ability to seek blood meals from the ground. The tests aimed to determine if the mosquitoes could effectively adapt to the environment after being released and exhibit their characteristic behavior of seeking blood meals. In total, the experiment involved the breeding of one million female mosquitoes for testing purposes. Among them, 330,000 uninfected mosquitoes were dispersed into the population through aircraft releases and via the utilization of E14 bombs, allowing them to be released on the ground.
The remaining portion of the mosquitoes was utilized to confirm their susceptibility to yellow fever infection, assess the viability of storing them, and evaluate the process of loading them into potential weapons. The objective was to ascertain the feasibility of using these infected mosquitoes as a means to produce yellow fever and investigate the practicality of their storage and deployment for military purposes. The conducted mosquito release tests revealed that these insects were capable of traveling distances of up to 2,000 feet from the location where they were initially deployed.
Upon entering populated areas, the mosquitoes immediately embarked on an active quest for blood meals, with humans and guinea pigs being their preferred hosts of choice. Within a span of just one day, a significant number of mosquitoes managed to infiltrate the homes of residents and successfully fed on them, providing conclusive evidence that they could be dispersed through multiple means.
While there is no definitive confirmation, there is a widespread belief that the mosquitoes used in the experiment may have been infected with yellow fever.
Additionally, there are suspicions that the Army deployed disguised personnel posing as health workers to observe and document the spread of the disease. Given the government’s extensive track record of utilizing Black communities as testing sites for diseases and infections, it is understandable that Black citizens harbor skepticism and doubt regarding the intentions and potential risks associated with such experiments.
Willowbrook hepatitis experiment (1956)
Established in 1947 with a capacity to accommodate 4,000 residents, the Willowbrook school became overwhelmed as its population exceeded 6,000 individuals for many years. Within its walls, disease, and neglect pervaded, leading to numerous fatalities resulting from untreated illnesses and instances of abuse. In 1965, during an unplanned visit to Willowbrook, Robert F. Kennedy, then a Senator from New York, was shocked by what he witnessed. Testifying before Congress, he expressed his dismay, stating that those confined within the institution had no access to civil liberties and likening Willowbrook to a deplorable “snake pit.”
Utilizing the dire circumstances prevailing at Willowbrook, Dr. Krugman and Dr. Giles capitalized on the institution’s conditions to recruit new families for their hepatitis experiments. Despite the well-documented horrors experienced at Willowbrook, it remained one of the few available options for children with severe disabilities, resulting in a lengthy waitlist. Dr. Krugman presented certain parents, including Nina Galen, with an enticing offer: the opportunity to bypass the waiting period and have their children placed in the newer, more hygienic research wards with increased staffing, on the condition that they participate in the experiments. “I felt coerced,” McCourt reveals, “as if I were being denied assistance unless I accepted this [opportunity].”
Even though some use this as an excuse to argue with the experiment, it is crucial to mention that a parent’s consent does not legalize or humanize the tests on those children. In addition, Krugman assured parents that since hepatitis was already widespread within the confines of Willowbrook, their children might as well have the opportunity to receive a vaccine. McCourt vividly recalls being informed that her daughter could receive an “antidote” to hepatitis if she participated in the experiment. When she questioned why the hepatitis studies couldn’t be conducted on primates instead, she was informed that utilizing animals would be deemed “too costly.”
Despite being aware of the ethical concerns surrounding infecting mentally disabled children with a potentially lethal disease, Dr. Krugman believed that the potential benefits outweighed the risks. In a 1958 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, he acknowledged that the decision to administer the hepatitis virus to patients at Willowbrook was not taken lightly. He pointed out that the strain of hepatitis present at Willowbrook was relatively mild, many of the children were likely to contract the disease anyway, and the knowledge gained from the experiment would benefit other residents of Willowbrook. Dr. Krugman also stressed that the study had received approval from the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene and the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board of the Surgeon General’s Office.
Some of Dr. Krugman’s trials built on previous research that giving children antibodies from patients who had recovered from hepatitis could prevent new infections. The experiments also involved infecting healthy children with the virus through the chocolate milk concoction. The doctors eventually learned how much it took for the children to show symptoms of hepatitis, allowed them to recover, and then gave them the virus all over again. These experiments were done to test if someone who had recovered from hepatitis would remain immune or if they could be reinfected again.
Operation LAC (1957)
Operation LAC, also known as Large Area Coverage, was a secret military operation conducted by the United States Army Chemical Corps. Its objective was to release microscopic zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS) particles over extensive areas of the United States and Canada. The purpose of this operation was to study the dispersal patterns and geographic range of chemical and biological weapons. That said, a researcher has claimed that the experiments were carried out on the residents of St. Louis, Missouri, for an extended period, unethically subjecting them to exposure to radioactive compounds.
According to Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College, although it was acknowledged that the government released “harmless” zinc cadmium sulfide particles over the general population in St. Louis, she alleges that a radioactive additive was also included in the compound. With extensive documentation and photographic evidence, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor has reportedly gathered detailed descriptions of the spraying operations that exposed the clueless public, particularly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles. ‘
During her research, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor discovered photographs depicting the distribution of the particles during two periods: 1953-1954 and 1963-1965.
In Corpus Christi, the chemical was distributed through aerial dispersion from airplanes, effectively covering large areas of the city. In St. Louis, the Army utilized buildings, including schools and public housing projects, as well as mobile units mounted on station wagons, to deploy the chemical using sprayers.
Local politicians were allegedly kept in the dark about the true nature of the testing, despite its significant scope. More importantly, the residents of St. Louis were misled, being informed that the Army was conducting smoke screen tests aimed at safeguarding cities from potential “Russian attacks.”
Martino-Taylor reportedly discovered that the Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex in St. Louis was subjected to the highest concentration of spraying. This complex, which housed approximately 10,000 low-income residents, became a focal point of the experiments. She also revealed that a staggering 70 percent of the residents were children under the age of 12, highlighting the vulnerability of the population affected by the testing.
Operation 112 (1960)
Between 1962 and 1973, the Deseret Test Center, operated by the Department of Defense in Fort Douglas, Utah, undertook a series of tests known as Project 112 and Project SHAD. These tests focused on assessing the vulnerability of biological and chemical warfare capabilities. The experiments included various land-based and sea-based trials conducted at multiple locations.
Around 6,000 US servicemembers, predominantly from the Navy and Army, but also including some from the Marine Corps and Air Force, were engaged in conducting chemical tests aimed at defending against biological and chemical weapons threats. The majority of these participants were involved in Project SHAD.
Project 112 was carried out during John F. Kennedy’s presidency, and it received authorization from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the US military. Reports indicate that funding and personnel were provided by every branch of the armed services as well as the CIA. Additionally, Canada and the United Kingdom were involved in certain activities under Project 112.
The primary focus of Project 112 was the exploration of aerosol-based methods for distributing biological and chemical agents capable of inducing “controlled temporary incapacitation” (CTI). The testing program encompassed extensive operations conducted at “extracontinental test sites” located in the Central and South Pacific as well as Alaska.
More than 50 trials were carried out as part of Project 112, involving various substances. Among them, at least 18 tests used simulants of biological agents (BG), while at least 14 tests involved chemical agents such as sarin, VX, tear gas, and other stimulants. These trials took place at different locations, including Porton Down in the UK, Ralston in Canada, and at least 13 US warships, collectively referred to as Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD). The coordination of the project was managed from the Deseret Test Center in Utah. However, as of 2015, publicly available information regarding the project remains incomplete.
Project SHAD, a component of the broader Project 112, was carried out in the 1960s with the aim of identifying the vulnerabilities of US warships to chemical or biological warfare agents. The tests conducted under Project SHAD were focused on developing response procedures to effectively counter such attacks while ensuring the maintenance of the ships’ war-fighting capabilities.
The classified information related to SHAD was not completely cataloged or located in one facility.
Bio agents in NYC subway (1966)
A team of scientists from the US Army ventured into the New York City subway’s Seventh and Eighth Avenue lines on June 6, 1966. Among them, some were equipped with air sampling machines stored in boxes and attached to belts, while others carried light bulbs.
The light bulbs contained approximately 175 grams of Bacillus subtilis bacteria, previously referred to as Bacillus globigii, with approximately 87 trillion organisms in each bulb. The objective was to break these bulbs and employ the sampling machines to observe the dispersion of the bacteria throughout the subway tunnels and trains.
These experiments, involving the use of bacteria to simulate biological weapons, were carried out on unsuspecting civilians without their knowledge or consent. This action directly contravenes the Nuremberg Code, which explicitly mandates that research participants must provide voluntary and informed consent.
Although the individuals responsible for conducting these experiments believed that the bacterial species they utilized were innocuous, subsequent revelations have shown that they can indeed lead to health issues. He says, “During peak hours, these bacteria were dropped,” adding that “If you can get trillions of bacteria into a light bulb and throw it on the track as a train pulls into a station, they’ll get pulled through the air as the train leaves.”
According to the report, army scientists determined that it took approximately four to 13 minutes for train passengers to come into contact with the bacteria. Just five minutes after the bacteria was released at 23rd Street Station, their presence was detected at every station between 14th Street and 59th Street. Between June 6 and June 10, their calculations estimated that over a million individuals had been exposed to the bacteria.
The germ warfare testing program came to light through a news report in the early 1970s, followed by subsequent requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Scientists who had participated in the program were summoned to testify before Congress. The report concluded that test results revealed that a large number of the working population in New York City were exposed to the disease if one or more pathogenic agents were disseminated in several subway lines during rush hour.
Measles Vaccine experiment (1989)
In 1996, federal health officials disclosed that a government-sponsored study conducted in 1989 on nearly 1,500 minority infants in Los Angeles involved two measles vaccines. However, the study failed to inform the parents that one of the vaccines being administered was experimental. This revelation came to light during a major US measles epidemic at the time.
In 1989, a measles vaccine trial was initiated by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare organization based in California. The trial involved approximately 1500 children in Los Angeles, primarily from economically disadvantaged black and Hispanic families. During the trial, parents were informed that certain children would be administered a vaccine that differed from the standard one typically used in the United States.
“This vaccine has been shown to be effective in younger children,” a brochure stated.
However, the parents were unaware that the alternative vaccine being administered, known as the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine, did not possess approval for usage in the United States. As part of the study, approximately 900 children received the EZ vaccine.
The United States, famous for championing the cause of human rights on a global scale, has been involved with unethical experiments conducted without individuals’ consent. These actions have included the testing of biological weapons and other undisclosed endeavors. Such practices raise valid concerns about the US’ balance between scientific advancement and the rights and well-being of individuals.
Historically, there have been instances where the US government and its agencies engaged in covert research programs that violated ethical standards. While significant progress has been made in establishing ethical standards and regulations, there are still concerns about transparency and accountability in certain research practices.
Concealed beneath the façade of medical research and scientific progress, the United States perpetrated atrocious experiments upon vulnerable individuals, devoid of their consent. These unspeakable acts involved subjecting them to toxins and diseases with the potential to inflict grave consequences upon not just thousands, but potentially millions.
The question here is – can the United States truly retain its status as a beacon of freedom for humanity?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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 sinking of two vessels—the Andrianna, filled with hundreds of desperate migrants, and the Titan, with a handful of multi-millionaires—provides a vivid picture of the world today. All drowning deaths in the ocean are tragic, and one has to sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones. Yet these events also dramatically demonstrate global economic inequality and injustice.
Those who died on the Titan have names. Stockton Rush, chief executive and founder of OceanGate, was the pilot of the Titan. Hamis Harding was a British businessman, chairman of Action Aviation based in Dubai, and an explorer. Paul-Henri Nargeolet was director of underwater research for RMS Titanic, Inc., an American firm that owns the rights to the wreck of the Titanic. And finally, Shazad Dawood and his 19-year-old son Sulem Dawood were scions of one of Pakistan’s wealthiest families.
The four passengers paid $250,000 each for the macabre adventure of descending to 12,500 feet below the surface to see the wreckage of the Titanic where 1,517 people died after the ship hit an iceberg in 1912. The vessel went missing on June 18. The U.S. and Canadian coast guards did everything possible, dispatching ships and planes to locate and save those five. But debris found on June 22 indicates that the submersible vessel apparently imploded.
By contrast, many of those who died when the Andrianna capsized on June 14 still have no names. The ship, an overloaded fishing vessel, sailed from Libya to Italy, carrying between 400 and 750 migrants from various countries. Some 104 were rescued, hundreds of others remain unaccounted for, many of them women and children who were below decks. There were Egyptians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Palestinians among the survivors and perhaps other nationalities among the dead. These passengers were mostly poor people heading for Europe in the hope of finding a way to make a better living and take care of themselves and their families.
But many European governments don’t want any more immigrants, particularly poor people of different nationalities, colors, religions, and languages. With rightwing governments in power in several European countries, all semblance of solidarity has disappeared. The Greek Coast Guard saw that the vessel was in trouble but declined to assist it.
Here, then, is the split screen reality of those who sail the high seas. The rich can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an undersea adventure, while the poor spend the last of their savings to crowd onto an overloaded fishing boat in hopes of getting to Europe and finding a job. Governments mobilize their resources to rescue the rich, but turn their backs on the poor in distress. The sinking of these two vessels should lead Europeans and people around the world to examine their consciences.
What would it have been like if the million dollars that those four individuals spent to visit the Titanic had been spent instead on helping those several hundred migrants? Let’s take it one step further. There are about 45 million migrants in the world today, driven by climate change, economic crises, and oppressive governments. Taxing the global rich, who clearly have more money than they need, could provide considerable resources for addressing this migration crisis.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dan La Botz is a member of the New Politics editorial board and of Internationalism from Below.
Featured image: Shipwreck in Italy in March 2023 (Shutterstock)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
When the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, 110,000-210,000 people were instantly killed. Japan surrendered in the days that followed. Not long after, nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project—the research and development program that produced the bomb—was awarded the highest US honor bestowed on civilians for his contribution to the war effort: a Medal of Merit. But Oppenheimer came to regret his participation in the unprecedented devastation, which included thousands more deaths over time due to radiation exposure.
In a post-war leadership position at the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Oppenheimer voiced strong opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb and argued for international controls on nuclear weapons. His advocacy was seized on by political enemies, and in 1954, he was called before an AEC tribunal that focused on his connections to people associated with communist organizations. That secret, McCarthy-era hearing found no evidence of disloyalty, yet nonetheless revoked his security clearance a mere 32 hours before it was due to expire. The events caused him great personal and professional pain until his death in 1967.
Now, more than 50 years later, US Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich have written a letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.
Page 1 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name. See page 2 below.
“People whose views differ from those in authority should not be targeted for speaking out,” said Tim Rieser, a senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Leahy. “[Oppenheimer] had a unique credibility and perspective on the future development and use of nuclear weapons.”
From the start, Oppenheimer’s case raised questions about the ability of government scientists to work and think independently. Reacting to the injustice of Oppenheimer’s hearing, Albert Einstein scoffed that the initials of the organization might stand for “Atomic Extermination Conspiracy.” David Lilienthal, a former Atomic Energy Commission chairman, wrote in his diary, “They are so wrong, so terribly wrong, not only about Robert, but in their concept of what is required of wise public servants.” Much later, in 2014, unredacted transcripts of the hearing, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, vindicated the nuclear physicist, showing that the prosecution engaged in a wide variety of misconduct.
The four senators have asked President Biden to issue an executive order vacating the AEC decision that Oppenheimer was untrustworthy and unfit to serve his country. “He was neither,” they wrote. This is the second letter to a president they have written in defense of Oppenheimer; the first was addressed to President Obama. As they understand it, that letter was forwarded to the Energy Department, where it “died,” Rieser said.
“During the Trump administration, it was pointless to pursue this. But with the Biden administration, we felt that we should try again,” Rieser said.
Page 2 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.
The four senators’ efforts are as much about correcting the historical record as they are about reminding the president and the public that a scientist’s ability to think independently is a fragile, yet vital element for ethical scientific progress.
“Look at what happened during the Trump years. People lost their jobs because they stood up for what they believed in,” said Rieser. “Some were intimidated into silence for fear of retribution, while others resigned. There are [recent] similarities to what happened with Oppenheimer, and we should be concerned about that.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Susan D’Agostinois an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Her writing has been published in The Atlantic, Quanta Magazine, Scientific American, The Washington Post, BBC Science Focus, Nature, Financial Times, Undark Magazine, Discover, Slate, Times Higher Education, and The Chronicle of Higher Education, among others.
Featured image: J. Robert Oppenheimer. Credit: James Vaughn. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Accessed via Flickr.
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 establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 and its subsequent recognition by the United Nations has often been attributed to various factors. This report aims to shed light on the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly within the Evangelical Christian community in the United States, on the support for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in the Arab-settled Middle East.
Evangelical Christianity and its Beliefs
Evangelical Christianity, also known as evangelical Protestantism, is a global interdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity. With over 50 million adherents in the United States alone, accounting for approximately 25% of the Christian population, Evangelicals place emphasis on personal conversion, the authority of the Bible as God’s revelation, and the dissemination of the Christian message.
Harry S. Truman and the Role of Christian Zionism
Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president of the United States (1945-1953), played a pivotal role in supporting the United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of Palestine. Truman’s decision to back this resolution, despite his initial reservations about the Zionist movement and its proponent, Chaim Weizmann, can be attributed to his alignment with Christian Zionism.
Christian Zionism’s Influence on Truman
Truman’s personal beliefs as a Christian Zionist greatly influenced his stance on the partition plan. While he may not have been naturally inclined to support it, Truman was persuaded by his former business partner, who was involved in the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement. This decision, made by a prominent world leader, held significant sway over other UN member states at the time, leading to broader support for the partition.
Evaluating the UN Vote and Christian Zionist Influence
It is important to contextualise the UN vote in 1947, considering there were only 33 votes in favor of the resolution. At present, with 195 UN member states representing the global community, this number seems relatively small. However, the influence of the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement, both then and now, cannot be overlooked. It has played a substantial role in shaping international support for the State of Israel.
Conclusion
The establishment of the State of Israel was influenced by various factors, one of which was the significant impact of Christian Zionism. The support of influential figures like Harry S. Truman, driven by their alignment with Evangelical beliefs, contributed to the adoption of the United Nations Resolution 181. Recognising this historical context is crucial to understanding the dynamics that led to the creation of the modern State of Israel.
*
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.
Hans Stehling (a pen name) is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Astana peace talks for Syria began in 2017 and recently met in Kazakhstan on June 20-21. It surprised many when the Kazakh Deputy Foreign Minister Kanat Tumysh called the process over while saying the goals were achieved and declared that the 20th Astana meeting was the last.
“Syria’s gradual emergence from isolation in the region could be regarded as a sign that the Astana process has completed its task,” he told reporters.
The meeting was attended by Russian negotiator Alexander Lavrentyev, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Ayman Sousan, Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Burak Akcapar, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, Iranian senior assistant to the Foreign Minister Ali-Asghar Khaji, the head of the Saudi-backed Syrian opposition Ahmed Touma, UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen, and officials from Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon came as observers.
The two-day meeting was to discuss a roadmap developed by Russia to normalize relations between Turkey and Syria, but there appears little progress on that front, and Ayman Sousan repeated the official Syrian position of President Bashar al-Assad, that Turkey must first withdraw its military occupation forces from Syria before normalization can proceed.
“We cannot say that the Astana process is over,” Russian negotiator Alexander Lavrentyev said. “… But if the Kazakh side has decided that they need to be moved to a different location, we will discuss that and pick one.”
The UN has the Geneva peace process for Syria, but that has not been successful in returning Syria to peace, prosperity, and security. The Syrian stakeholders are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, Europe, and the United States. But, the Americans are nowhere to be seen in the process for peace. The US engineered the war on Syria beginning in 2011 using Radical Islamic terrorists as foot soldiers. President Obama and Vice President Biden developed a plan for regime change in Damascus but failed. The US was there to fund and support the war but wants to prevent any plan leading to recovery and reconstruction.
Arab normalization
Syria has returned to the Arab League and has renewed diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia as well as other Arab countries. Jordan has presented an Arab initiative for peace in Syria which follows the UN security council resolution 2254.
However, this has not translated into any economic help for the Syrian people living under the Damascus administration, who are mainly focused on just survival alone after the country’s economy has collapsed. There is still no hope for economic recovery or reconstruction.
Saudi Arabia, oil-rich Gulf nations, and other Arab nations have not been able to help Syria because of the US-EU sanctions in place which prevent any money or products to be sent to Syria, other than humanitarian aid in the wake of the earthquake. Without foreign investment or donations to rebuild Syria, the economy will remain at a standstill, and no jobs will be created for Syrians desperate for an income. The sinking boats full of economic migrants in the Mediterranean Sea are a direct result of the US-EU sanctions which keep the Syrians starving and desperate to help their families.
Drone attacks in Latakia
On Friday, a drone attacked Qardaha, southwest of Latakia, killing one person and injuring another. The day prior, a drone attack on Salhab, west of Latakia, and south of Idlib, killed a woman and a child.
Idlib is northwest of Latakia and is occupied by the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), headed by Mohammed Jolani, who began with ISIS in Iraq, and then came to Syria with Al Qaeda, and eventually rebranded his group with a name change.
HTS is defended and supported by humanitarian aid groups such as the UN, USAID, Save the Children, and Doctors Without Borders among others. Turkey has multiple military outposts in Idlib protecting HTS, who hold 3 million civilians as human shields. The terrorists possess huge amounts of sophisticated military weaponry, some of which were given to them by US President Obama and stockpiled.
The drones used by HTS are given to them by Turkey, which also supplies Ukraine with the same type of drones.
Turkish outposts
Turkey and Russia agreed in 2019 to open the M4 highway from Latakia to Aleppo. It was agreed that Turkey would move back HTS, their ally, and allow the highway to move freely. That was never done. The two-hour drive still takes six hours because Turkey has never controlled their terrorist ally.
Turkish propaganda says they are inside Syria just to protect their border from the Kurds who are protected by the US military occupying Syria. But, there are no Kurds in Idlib.
Yesterday, Turkish military forces set up a new military post on Al-Raqim hill in the northern countryside of Latakia. That brings the number of illegal Turkish military posts inside Syria to 67. This further emboldens the HTS who are protected by the Turkish occupation forces.
The new outpost was supported by a column of 40 military vehicles, including tanks and logistical materials as they crossed the border illegally, invading, north of Latakia at Kafr Losin.
The Turkish foreign policy on Syria seems schizophrenic. On one hand, Turkish President Erdogan insists he wants to normalize his relationship with Damascus while establishing more illegal occupation posts in Idlib, which are opposed to each other.
Experts feel that Erdogan is putting pressure on the US to withdraw its military occupation of Syria before Turkey will do the same. The US supports and defends the Kurdish SDF and YPG, which Ankara considers terrorists linked to the internationally outlawed terrorist group PKK. Turkey maintains they are inside Syria to defend their border against attacks by the SDF and YPG. The YPG is a communist military wing of the Kurdish autonomous region in the northeast of Syria and is directly linked to the PKK. The US has never had any problem working with, or supporting and defending the communist and terrorist groups, who have practiced ethnic cleansing in the northeast of Syria.
Turkey may be in Syria as an affront to the US, and to revenge their betrayal at the hands of a fellow NATO member, the US. Friends don’t support the direct enemies of a friend.
Syrian refugees to go home
In the Turkish election last month, both candidates promised to send all the 3 million Syrian refugees back home. It appears, the guests have overstayed their welcome, and are now blamed for the dismal economy and social ills.
Syrians have suffered in Turkey from racial hatred and discrimination. Many would like to go home, but what about an income? There are no jobs in Syria. The terrorists dismantled the factories and took them to Turkey. The US-EU sanctions prevent ordering machinery to rebuild the factories. There is also the issue of lack of electricity, which is doled out in three periods of 30 minutes three times per day.
The minister stood protected by Turkish tanks and military on Syrian soil while he declared Turkey will build 240,000 homes there within three years and Syrian refugees will be sent there to live.
UN Geir Pedersen
Geir Pederson is the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria. He is working with all sides in the Syrian conflict as he attempts to progress toward the UN resolution 2254 which was established in December 2015.
Pedersen gave an important interview to Majalla, in which he said the status quo in Syria is not acceptable. This refers to the current situation in Syria which sees no battlefields, no war, but the country cut into pieces of foreign occupation: Turkey in the northwest and the US in the northeast.
“The elephant in the room is the US, one of the biggest stakeholders. The US and Europeans up till now are committed to the three nos: No reconstruction, no lifting of sanctions, and no normalization until there is genuine progress in the political process. Does that make your life easier or more difficult?” said Pedersen in the interview.
The US holds the power to prevent any Syrian from finding an income in Syria and staying at home. The migrant tragedies at sea are a direct result of the US-EU sanctions which strangle the Syrian people and prevent them from recovery at home but push them toward desperate and deadly boat rides which can take them to the bottom of the sea.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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 whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” -H.L. Mencken
The heroes at the alphabet agencies who keep us safe day and night and whose vigilance we could never do without have been very busy recruiting mentally handicapped minors to serve as patsies for their false flag terror attacks.
“Last week, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of a teenager in Massachusetts on allegations of providing financial support to the Islamic State group…
The only problem with the case and how it has been described, however, is that according to the government’s own criminal complaint, Ventura had never actually funded any terrorist group. The only ‘terrorist’ he is accused of ever being in contact with was an undercover FBI agent who befriended him online as a 16-year-old, solicited small cash donations in the form of gift cards, and directed him not to tell anyone else about their intimate online relationship, including his family.
The arrest has shaken his family, who denied allegations that their son was a terrorist and said that he had been manipulated by the FBI. Ventura’s father, Paul Ventura, told The Intercept that Mateo suffered from childhood developmental issues and had been forced to leave his school due to bullying from other students.
‘He was born prematurely, he had brain development issues. I had the school do a neurosurgery evaluation on him and they said his brain was underdeveloped,’ Ventura said. ‘He was suffering endless bullying at school with other kids taking food off his plate, tripping him in the hallway, humiliating him, laughing at him.'”
Who among us doesn’t feel safer from the ravages of terrorism now that the good guys with the guns have taken down a mentally impaired teenager for the crime of buying an agent a few gift cards and promising not to tell anyone — just like a child sex crime victim would, manipulated into promising not to tell anyone about his special friend?
*
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.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
German-Polish relations have been in a crisis, and the climate just keeps getting uglier, as exemplified by recent developments. For instance, Alice Weidel, spokesperson for Alternative for Germany (AfD), Germany’s third-strongest political force today, called in a tweet the area of former East Germany a “Central Germany” – thus implying that territories which today belong to Poland are German lands. This has sparked outrage: Poland’s former PM Beata Szydło, in response, said the AfD could in the future power over all of Germany, thus creating a “dangerous scenario for Europe”, because, she claims, it is a party “whose leaders openly negate the existing borders.” She added that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has recently demanded the abolition of the right of veto within the EU and asked: “Should Europe go in this direction? Towards a German-dominated federation?” This provocation from a German political figure takes place in the context of a rising Polish campaign against Berlin.
Meanwhile, two families of Polish WWII victims are suing German companies Bayer and Henschel for €4.3 million over the persecution of Polish businessmen during the Nazi occupation of Poland. Brzozowska-Pasieka, head of the War Compensation Foundation (Fundacja Odszkodowań Wojennych), the Polish organization which represents the claimants, claims that these lawsuits are groundbreaking because they have been filed against private companies instead of the German state. Further claims on behalf of other families are being prepared. Commenting on the lawsuits, deputy culture minister Jarisław Sellin, lent his support, saying that “German companies which used forced laborers and actually participated in crimes during World War Two were never legally held accountable for what they did.”
Considering that Polish officials back these initiatives, one must see them as also part of a larger trend and context. Last month I wrote on the legal campaign Warsaw has been launching against Berlin for wartime reparations. It is accompanied by harsh anti-German rhetoric, which often describes Germany’s prominent role within the European Union as a “Fourth Reich”.
Nations of Europe (plus north African colonies) before the outbreak of World War 1. Colours indicate colonial holdings. Hover over land masses for more information. Micro-states (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City) are not labelled. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
Polish discourse on the issue is not without its dose of hypocrisy: while criticizing Ukraine for celebrating genocidal Nazis, as recently as 2019, with Polish President Andrzej Duda’s support, Warsaw opened ceremonies honoring the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade of the National Armed Forces – an underground force which, in the end of Second World War, collaborated with the Nazis in their anti-Soviet struggle. This was denounced by Poland’s chief rabbi as “dangerous revisionism”. Moreover, Warsaw so far has refused to publish state archives which would expose the degree of Polish collaboration with the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is no wonder the German ambassador to Poland, Thomas Bagger, warned the country not to “open Pandora’s box”.
Behind the weaponization of WWII resentments lie also geopolitical goals. As I wrote in September 2022, Washington has apparently been promoting Warsaw’s ambitions regarding regional hegemony as mainly a means to counter Berlin, Poland in turn also benefits from this situation. For a while, Warsaw has, for example, been urging Washington to support the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) as a Western “counterweight” to Chinese investments in “critical infrastructure” – as Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau and his Romanian counterpart, Bogdan Aurescu, both wrote in a June 2021 piece published in Francis Fukuyama’s “American Purpose”.
Already in 2020, during the “Defender Europe 2020” military exercises, it had become clear that Poland aspired to become the main stronghold of American military presence in Eastern Europe – and the current conflict in Ukraine, since February 2022, has opened a window of opportunity in that regard.
By doing so, Poland aspires to establish itself as a new EU geopolitical center, while challenging Germany’s leading role in the continent. From a German perspective, this is ironic in itself, considering the fact that Berlin’s contribution to the EU budget has been the highest of any other member state, and therefore one could argue that the more recent EU member states such as Poland itself have been able to implement sustainable development policies largely thanks to Berlin’s disproportionate financial injections into the European budget. Therefore, according to this reasoning, Warsaw basically strives to get the maximum financial and economic benefits from its EU membership, at the expense of its “allies”, Germany especially.
For decades, Poland has arguably been on the path of refusing to contribute with the building of an intra-European system of relations. Warsaw pursues exclusively its own interests and shows no interest in building pan-European cooperation within a framework of mutual respect. Germany and France today are potentially forces for strategy autonomy in the European bloc (at least up to a certain point); Poland, on the other hand, is perhaps the main promoter of European “alignmentism”.
Warsaw, for instance, actively opposed the (now gone) Russian-German gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. The pipeline’s still unexplained explosion, denounced by journalist Seymour Hersh as an act of sabotage carried out by Washinton, remains an open wound in Germany – and a German investigation into allegations that Poland could have been used as a hub for the sabotage only make German-Polish tensions even worse. The Polish National Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that such suspicions are “not supported by the evidence.”
In any case, Polish-German and intra-Europeans tensions in all likelihood will keep building up, because the Polish government weaponizes anti-German feelings, as it also does with Russophobia, in its rewriting of history. These tensions mirror a short-circuit in the European narratives as well as the continent’s own ideological and geopolitical contradictions.
*
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.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
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.
***
At what stage can a proxy war between two big powers become a direct war? This question has become very important in the context of the proxy war between the USA and Russia being fought through Ukraine, particularly as Russia and the USA are by far the two biggest nuclear weapon powers in the world, having about 90% of the total stock of nuclear weapons in the world, and the exchange of just one-tenth of their nuclear weapons is enough to destroy the world.
While the entire world recognizes that there should never be a direct war between Russia and the USA, several red lines have been breached in recent times in the context of the Ukraine conflict.
First, these were breached when several kinds of destructive weapons which were not considered earlier for supplying to Ukraine by the USA and its allies started being supplied in abundance. Britain has even sent depleted uranium shells.
Second, training for operating these weapons as well as help for wider strategic planning has also been provided by the USA and NATO allies.
Third, intelligence has been steadily provided in terms of satellite data etc. for knowing enemy deployment and positions.
Fourth, regarding the weapons supplied by the USA or NATO allies it was stated earlier that these will never be used to attack Russia mainland but this is also reported to have happened.
Fifth, Russia has already stated that it is a situation which is like fighting the collective west.
Sixth, the USA has steadily pursued a policy of ensuring that only forces hostile to Russia can be in the ruling regime of Ukraine (to the extent of engineering a coup for this) and of strengthening and arming these forces.
Seventh, the USA while steadily expanding NATO eastwards in violation of previous promises has always supported at least the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine while Russia has always opposed this very strongly.
Eighth, business interests based in the the USA and close allies, including politically influential ones, have been steadily advancing in Ukraine so that there is greater likelihood of the USA maintaining a very strong influence in Ukraine on longer-term basis.
Ninth, those in charge of foreign policy in the USA in recent times have been seen to be increasingly aggressive towards Russia and what is more, have not been observing the necessary cautions regarding not indulging in dangerous brinkmanship which can go out of control.
Last but not the least, some NATO members which are located close to Russia and Ukraine have been very aggressive towards Russia and have many refugees from Ukraine living there. An escalatory action may start from here and in case of Russian responding equally aggressively USA/ NATO members may be drawn in too.
Thus we see a situation in which conditions that were earlier considered to be red lines are being crossed.
In addition on important issues opposite viewpoints which cannot be reconciled are being promoted and the situation is being so manipulated that the ruling regime in Ukraine, a country having a very long border with Russia and very old, many-sided relationships among people of the two neighboring countries, remains always hostile to Russia and under the influence of USA/NATO.
Hence possibilities are increasing that the direct conflict and hostility between two neighboring countries of Ukraine and Russia become very prolonged and also that at some stage, sooner or later, the proxy war between the USA and Russia becomes a direct war.
This is a very dangerous situation and must be checked from further escalation by the collective efforts of all forces of peace.
Longer-term and stable peace along with reduction of distress and welfare of people is best achieved by Ukraine remaining neutral in big power rivalries and mobilizing the people of the devastated country for a broad-based rehabilitation and reconstruction effort which should get unconditional and generous support from all countries which can contribute for this.
*
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 and Earth without Borders.
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.
***
DeAnna Lorraine is joined by Dr. William Makis, who brings evidence that the Canada wildfires that have been roaring are 100% intentional and orchestrated by government arsonists!
He also drops new bombshells about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and pregnancy — disfigured babies with congenital malformations, fetal heart attacks, stillbirths and more that are being hidden by VAERS.
*
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 NaturalNews.com
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
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“I do not have a clear picture yet of what happened when“, “I may not ever have a clear picture of what happened when. None of us may.” — Prudence Bushnell, “U.S. Case Against bin Laden in Embassy Blasts Seems to Rest on Ideas”,New York Times, April 13, 1999
Prudence Bushnell’s book “Terrorism, Betrayal & Resilience” is an unexpected source of stunning inside information about the 1998 bombings of the two American embassies in Africa. Bushnell’s book, published twenty years after the bombings, attracted little notice but it raises key questions about what the U.S. role in the bombings might have been. The 25th anniversary of these bombings is August 7, 2023.
On the morning of August 7, 1998, there were virtually simultaneous truck bomb explosions at two American embassies in Africa that were over 400 miles apart. The bombings, at Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killed over 250 and injured over 5,000; they occurred in countries which were allied to the U.S. and had been regarded as generally peaceful.
The Nairobi bombing, in which the vast majority of the deaths and injuries occurred, took place in the parking lot behind the embassy. While the back of the embassy building was merely scorched and its windows blown out, the explosion destroyed the seven- story Ufundi House office building (reportedly steel and concrete) in front of the truck as well as busses and traffic behind the truck. Hundreds of businesses along the street were damaged and many of the injuries included amputations and blindness.
Bushnell notes that despite the dozen U.S. agencies in the blast area, only 12 of the approximately 250 victims who died were American. The U.S. decided to destroy the embassy building despite its light damage.
The U.S. quickly blamed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for the bombings. The first embassy bombing trial would take place in New York City because the U.S. had filed a secret indictment against bin Laden (and about 20 others) two months before the embassy bombings for attacks on Americans over the past decade. The indictment would be updated in November, 1998, to include the embassy bombings. The trial, at which only the four charged with the embassy bombings would be tried, was held in 2001; they were convicted in May and sentenced to life in prison the following October, the month after 9/11.
Prudence Bushnell was serving as the U.S. ambassador to Kenya at the time of the Nairobi embassy bombing. When the explosion happened, she was in the Cooperative Bank building near the embassy which was not severely damaged, but she was traumatized by the experience and clearly disturbed by what she saw from her position as ambassador. The word “betrayal” in her book’s title seems to be the key to understanding why she wrote this book.
While Bushnell adopts a breeziness about her experiences — we learn that she is a great dancer, has a neat husband and lives in a big house – what she has to relate is significant. She covers her critical observations by affirming her support for the way the U.S. government does business: rendition, torture and even assassinations are acceptable tools, and she accepts that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are responsible for terrorism and for the bombings. She loses some credibility with unreliable background information on Wadih el Hage and the Alkifah Center along with extensive footnotes which are not always reliable.
She weaves into her account, however, information that challenges assumptions about the bombings. She is disturbed by President Bill Clinton’s directives, by the strange American response to the Nairobi victims, by the unexpected U.S. disinterest in bombing information, and by the veiled apology she received from the prosecutors at the 2001 New York trial.
Bushnell notes that many Africans were skeptical about U.S. claims that it had been attacked by anyone. Bushnell’s issues include:
President Bill Clinton’s foreknowledge
President Bill Clinton called Ambassador Bushnell immediately after the Nairobi explosion:
Ambassador, someone yelled, the president wants to talk to you… How are you? he asked. … Pru, he continued, “I want you to secure the perimeter!”
What? Really? I could hardly believe my ears. Where was the famous “I feel your pain”?… I answered hesitantly, thinking, why is he talking about this? “Mr. President, we’re still bringing out bodies.”
“Oh.. well.. okay. But as soon as you can, secure the perimeter and … hold on a second. .. and you need to secure the perimeter of the building next door, too.”
But Mr. President, I argued, “They are digging out bodies there, too, from the rubble.”
Oh, okay, But as soon as possible, secure the perimeter!” he ordered.
… I was far too dumbstruck by the instruction. … We hung up without further conversation.
“Terrorism Betrayal & Resilience” pp. 14-15
The implications of Clinton’s response are stunning on two accounts.
Clinton is aware that Ufundi House — “the building next door” — was involved in the embassy bombing operation; and
Clinton’s command to “secure the perimeter” while people were buried alive inside them demonstrated that he knew that the purpose of the bombing trumped rescuing trapped people. That command was why Americans protected the ruins — even by threatening first responders — rather than helping to save people’s lives.
The U.S. focus on protecting wreckage rather than helping buried victims
Under the dire circumstances, U.S. personnel would have been expected to help rescue the trapped victims; instead, Bushnell notes that Marines threatened first responders and took no part in rescue operations; they were concerned only with protecting the remains of the buildings — presumably to allow the analysis of the explosive residue. US medical personnel were called in, apparently to perform autopsies on the dead rather than to aid the injured.
Bushnell was disappointed that the U.S. not only ignored the African victims on August 7th, but would largely wash its hands of helping them afterward, claiming that it was not responsible for the bombing.
The U.S. refusal to interrogate those who knew about the embassy bombings
Bushnell notes the official dismissals of the several men who warned about the bombing. Mustafa Mahmoud Said Ahmed walked into the Nairobi embassy in November, 1997 and gave a detailed and accurate description of what would happen the following August. The CIA dismissed his warning but interestingly, according to Bushnell, would meet with him “within a week” of the August 7th bombings. He was arrested after the bombings, but instead of facing U.S. interrogation or extradition, he was “deported to Egypt, never to be seen again.” (p. 183)
U.S. investigators did not ask Bushnell for her witness and they were dismissive of African investigations, including of the suspects held by Nairobi and Dar es Salaam police. Highly-respected Sudanese intelligence had arrested two people it believed were connected to the bombings and held them for the U.S., assuming that they would want them. The U.S. was not interested, so the Sudanese released them. (p. 183)
The U.S. government’s presumed foreknowledge from its surveillance
Although Bushnell was shocked by the amount of information the U.S. had on al Qaeda in its November, 1998 indictment, she should not have been because she did document that the CIA, the FBI and the NSA had long had al Qaeda members under surveillance. Osama bin Laden (including his satellite telephone) had been under surveillance since 1993. Wadih el Hage, who led al Qaeda in Nairobi and was among those first charged, had had his computer, phone and address book confiscated in an August 1997 FBI raid on his home; he followed the FBI “advice” to leave Nairobi and return to the U. S., although it wouldn’t save him. El Hage was associated with U.S. intelligence agent Ali Mohamed, whose computer was downloaded and his home wired and phone bugged in 1997. [This is the same “Green Beret” whose military classes in New Jersey had drawn in those who would be convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspiracy! Mohamed would plead guilty to a minor scouting role in the embassy bombings and was allowed to disappear before sentencing.]
The “veiled apology” from the prosecutors of the 2001 trial
“The Wall”, the prosecutors explained, did not allow those in the know to communicate warnings.
Bushnell leaves it up to the reader to analyze the implications of her information on the U.S. government’s role in — or use of — the embassy bombings operation. She draws no controversial conclusions. Despite the evidence at the U.S. government’s disposal that should have anticipated the bombings, her book claims that the bombings were an “intelligence failure”.
Given her evidence, the embassy bombings were either intelligence failures that demonstrated the willful incompetence of U.S. security organizations or successful false flag operations perfectly timed to further various agendas — including obtaining al Qaeda convictions four months before 9/11 that facilitated NATO’s unanimous support for its “War on (‘al Qaeda’) Terror”.
Bushnell lays out the evidence.
*
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.
Karin Brothers is a freelance writer. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa may underestimate the widespread media attacks inside his domain about the last round-trip intended to broker peace between two warring former Soviet republics, Russia and Ukraine. Both shared geographical borders and down the years since Soviet’s collapse have unreservedly claimed to be observing the international laws relating to their territorial integrity and political sovereignty as recognized by the United Nations.
Russia declared a ‘special military operation’ on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. It was approved by the State Duma and Federation Council, the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. But was it approved by the Security Council of the United Nations? Did Russia commit crimes by breaking into Ukraine’s territory with its armed forces?
With threats of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, it becomes absolutely necessary to find suitable solutions. It has created global economic instability and wide-spread social discontent among the population due to rising commodity prices. The situation has adversely affected most countries around the world. African countries are not excluded as they largely depend on imports of fertilizers and grains from Russia and Ukraine.
The disruption in supplies forced a group headed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who went on June 16 to Kyiv and June 17 to St. Petersburg to present the ten-point peace plan to share the continent’s perspectives with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In Saint. Petersburg, Putin interrupted the discussions to reiterate aspects of the situation with Ukraine and categorically indicated to African leaders his logic of war is flawless and consistent with the United Nations Charter. As expected, Russian officials have reacted differently after the high-profile meetings, some expressed signs of pessimism. For instance, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, after the three-hour meeting that the Africans’ peace plan consisted of ten (10) elements, “was not formulated on paper.”
“The main conclusion, in my opinion, from today’s conversation is that our partners from the African Union have shown an understanding of the true causes of the crisis that was created by the West, and have shown an understanding that it is necessary to get out of this situation on the basis of addressing the underlying causes,” Lavrov said, but the African delegation had not brought the Russian leader any message from Zelenskyy.
“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Under the headline – Kremlin’s decision to demilitarize Ukraine has largely been achieved – the Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Kremlin’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, had said the task of the aggressor country on the so-called demilitarization of Ukraine has largely been fulfilled.
During the two meetings in Kyiv and Saint. Petersburg, Ramaphosa was joined by the presidents of Comoros, Senegal, and Zambia, as well as Egypt’s prime minister and envoys from the Republic of Congo and Uganda. The key aim of the African peace mission primarily to propose “confidence-building measures” in order to facilitate peace between the two countries. It was to seek a peaceful settlement of the conflict which began late February 2022. In between, the African peace officers were particularly concerned with issues related to food insecurity, including African access to grain and fertilizer affected by the war.
Long before the peace- brokering trip, Ramaphosa’s administration faced condemnation over its “neutrality” in foreign policy, and especially South Africa’s relations, the friendly partnership, with Russia and China. That has added to mountains of internal problems, including energy deficits, youth unemployment and sky-rocketing cost of living inside South Africa.
Now Ramaphosa, who led the delegation, was criticized upon his final return home. But right from the start, it appeared unlikely to achieve peace in that part of Europe. In a spiky final chess-game, Ramaphosa imported the incredible Russia-Ukraine commodity (conflict or crisis) back to South Africa.
South African media gravitates between the narrating causes of the developments between the two former Soviet republics and its implications particularly for Africa. For Africa, it is the question of food supply, or appropriately how to sustain or preserve addiction for food import-dependency. For these African countries, there is no other alternative than to reconnect to regular supplies from Russia and Ukraine.
Diverse accusations ceaselessly awash the media landscape. The opposition Democratic Alliance called for Ramaphosa to account for the use of public funds in what it called a “failed PR stunt.” Its leader, John Steenhuisen, said Ramaphosa disgraced South Africa in the “so-called peace mission”. And others unreservedly referred to its failure to provide a path to peace. Ultimately, it was a missed opportunity for South Africa to reposition itself on the world stage.
Worse still, most of the leading South African media questioned why Ramaphosa had embarked on that sure-to-fail peace mission. The mainstream reports focused on characterization of the president. For instance, the Business Day’s editorial is typical: “It’s not clear whether Ramaphosa was so naive as to expect that peace could be brokered or was simply cynically making the gesture in an attempt to demonstrate SA’s nonaligned credentials.”
Business Day’s reporter Steven Grootes frankly asked: Do Ramaphosa and his foreign minister Naledi Pandor, as both have consistently acknowledged that Russia is a “friend” to South Africa, still believe Russia is a friend, even after informing them of their arrival in Kyiv? This is almost certainly the first time in the history of South Africa as a nation-state that its leader has been in a city against which missiles have been launched by a “friendly” nation which knew they were there. The criticism will be appropriately crisp: if your friend launches missiles at you, can you name any enemies who have done the same?
Dr. Tristen Taylor’s report in Businesslive media underlined the fact that the president’s diplomatic efforts were wasted on the wrong conflict on the wrong continent. So the president went to Kyiv and St Petersburg on a forlorn peace mission. Both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin declined to implement a ceasefire, and no-one was particularly surprised.
According to the report, the mission was an absolute farce, and not because President Cyril Ramaphosa’s excessively large and exceptionally well-armed security detail and a bunch of journalists ended up getting stuck on a Polish runway. That was actually a surprise. The mission was a tragic farce for three reasons: the composition of the delegation, the diplomatic effort being focused on the wrong war, and because Ramaphosa should have gone to a different country. The report written by Dr. Tristen Taylor, a freelance journalist and photographer. He is also a research fellow in environmental ethics at Stellenbosch University.
In addition. another local media reported that Ramaphosa had hardly finished his peace pitch before Putin interrupted. He offered nothing in response to their pleas to unblock urgent grain exports and end a war which has affected the African continent particularly hard. He rejected their appeals to seek a ceasefire “through negotiations and diplomatic means” reportedly challenging their plan, which is predicated on internationally accepted borders.
It’s not clear whether Ramaphosa was so naive as to expect that peace could be brokered or was simply cynically making the gesture in an attempt to demonstrate South Africa’s nonaligned credentials. Either way, one hopes there was much learnt as a result of his mission – because the bill was steep and the reputational damage deep.
One of the consistent features of the reporting on the South African plane that was stranded in Poland is that it was carrying a large number of weapons. As the Sunday Times reported, “Highly placed South African government insiders said the arms included long-range sniper rifles and weapons normally used in serious conflict.”
At this stage, it is difficult to know what these weapons were for. While snipers are a common feature of presidential security in South Africa (they can often be seen around events like the State of the Nation Address, for example) it seems unlikely that either Ukrainian or Russian officials would grant permission for South African snipers to operate on their soil.
The Sunday Times wrote it was also difficult to believe that these weapons would be necessary (in the event, it turns out that much more important for the safety of Ramaphosa was a bomb shelter in a nearby hotel). This may well lead to more questions being asked about the South African National Defence Force and what is really happening inside it. It is obvious that the debate around Russia and Ukraine in our society is about to enter a new phase with Ramaphosa likely to face criticism of even greater intensity.
Mia Swart is Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Edge Hill University and Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand. Mia Swart wrote in an opinion article that underscoring the fact “one of the reasons South Africa remains tied to Russia is that Russia has helped provide a financial lifeline to the African National Congress (ANC).” Earlier this year, it was reported that the ANC had received R15-million from a company tied to a sanctioned Russian oligarch. But then the South African government cannot continue to be blind to the illegality and inhumanity of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. It cannot continue to be blind to the pre-2022 human rights violations committed during Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.
South Africa’s ties to Russia appear to be not only ideological, but also material. Yet our government wants to convince us that it is not about the money. (In the run-up to next year’s election the ANC knows it needs all the financial help it can get.) Members of the government are not only deaf to the sound of missiles in Kyiv, but they are also tone deaf to the demands of a world order which foregrounds humanitarian concerns and human rights.
If the ANC continues to not honour the human rights commitments on which our constitutional democracy is built, it will lead to economic and reputational ruin. By continuing to support Russia, Pandor and others in the government are committing “kamikaze diplomacy”. This means they are willing to destroy South Africa’s reputation for the sake of supporting Russia, concluded Senior Lecturer Swart.
The first is that African governments, especially in South Africa, can’t do right for doing wrong in the racist imaginary. The second is that the pope and the Japanese prime minister appear to side with Ukraine, but want a peaceful settlement. Ramaphosa and Pandor appear to side with Russia, and (also) prefer a peaceful settlement. It is difficult to ignore or dismiss the racist undertones and Afro-pessimism at the base of intellectual responses to South Africa’s peace mission to Russia and Ukraine. The African Peace Mission had “failed to spark enthusiasm from either Moscow or Kyiv” according the report in the Daily Maverick.
News24, another South Africa’s media added Ivor Ichikowitz in its report. The arms dealer who was ‘supporting’ Ramaphosa’s Ukraine peace mission says he never sold to Russia. Ichikowitz has denied supporting Russia and has been outspoken in support of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The founder of arms manufacturer Paramount, Ivor Ichikowitz, says there is no conflict of interest in his involvement in helping to coordinate African leaders’ peace mission to Ukraine and Russia. The presidency refused to answer questions about the involvement of Ichikowitz and the Brazzaville Foundation’s Jean-Yves Ollivier in the peace mission.
The South African Presidency’s statement did not mention Ollivier, Ichikowitz or the Brazzaville Foundation’s participation. “Participants included the president of the Comoros Islands and current president of the African Union, HE Othman Ghazali, president of Egypt, HE Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, president of Senegal HE Macky Sall, president of Uganda HE Yoweri Museveni, and president of Zambia HE Hakainde Hichilema,” read the statement.
None of the Presidency’s statements on the mission mentioned the involvement of the Brazzaville Foundation. That, however, on May 19, Newsweek quoted Ollivier as saying most of the African leaders were his “personal friends” and he started negotiating with Kyiv and Moscow about a peace mission with African leaders.
Asked about the involvement of Ollivier and Ichikowitz in the peace mission, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, told News24 that he would not answer any questions in that regard. A spokesperson for the Brazzaville Foundation informed News24 Ollivier would not be granting further interviews and referred News24 to a statement from June 12, which read: “We are delighted that the meetings between the African heads of state and the leaderships of Russia and Ukraine have been confirmed. The ongoing arrangements are being handled through the official and diplomatic channels of the respective countries.”
Inside South Africa, the Africa Peace Initiative headed by President Cyril Ramaphosa has sparked a week-long giggling and grinning, debates and discussions in the media. The controversies and complexities surrounding the last peace trip will, to a large extent, influence both the future internal politics and foreign policy. It has become an important matter for the middle-class, the business community and politicians alike in South Africa. Besides that, the Russia-Ukraine crisis indeed threatens Africa’s unity. Majority of the countries in theoretical terms claim neutrality, but the Russia-Ukraine crisis has already visibly divided 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.
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.
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.
***
Documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.
Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.
The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.
During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”
“These adverse event reports are ‘off the charts,’ with myocarditis reports at over 10,000 and pericarditis reports at over 9,000.
“Historically, we know that this would be an under-ascertainment of the actual numbers. It is criminal for the EMA to keep this vaccine on the market.”
According to an analysis by commentator and author Daniel Horowitz, the percentage of adverse events classified as serious was “well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%,” and women reported adverse events at three times the rate of men.
Sixty percent of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” suggesting many of the injuries “were not transient,” Horowitz said.
The highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 age group, of which 92% did not have any comorbidities, making it very likely it was the vaccine causing “such widespread, sudden injury.”
There were 3,280 fatalities among vaccine recipients in the combined cumulative period including the clinical trials and post-marketing, up to July 18, 2022.
According to Horowitz, the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.
The documents are not part of the ongoing court-ordered release of the so-called “Pfizer documents” in the U.S., but according to Horowitz, are pharmacovigilance documents requested by the EMA, the EU’s drug regulator.
The documents were made available to an Austrian science and politics blog, TKP, following “a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request from an anonymous reader.” They were subsequently published on March 4. However, once published, no European English-language media outlet appears to have reported on them.
As a result, they remained under the radar until recently, when several independent English-language bloggers discovered and published the documents.
Thousands of pediatric serious adverse events and deaths
The main Pfizer-BioNTech document revealed 9,605 adverse events (3,735 serious) during the PSUR #3 and 25 cases during the clinical trials among children ages 11 and younger. These included 20 fatalities, in children as young as 5 years old.
Causes of these fatalities included dyspnea, cardiac arrest, cardio-respiratory arrest, pyrexia and myocarditis, though “all events were assessed as unrelated” to the vaccine.
In one example listed in the document, an 11-year-old boy died of acute respiratory failure two days after the first dose of the vaccine. In another case, a 6-year-old girl died seven days following her initial dose of complications that included renal impairment, epilepsy, apnea, seizure and “sudden death.”
The document lists another case, that of a 6-year-old boy whose listed causes of death are myocarditis, cardio-respiratory arrest and COVID-19. He died seven days after the first dose of the vaccine, and although autopsy results were “pending,” “the reporter concluded that the death ‘had nothing to do’ with the administration of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine] and was due to natural causes.”
For children ages 12-17, the document listed 21,945 adverse eventss (19,558 serious) in the post-marketing period and 15 cases during clinical trials. A total of 169 deaths were recorded, with listed causes including dyspnea, pyrexia, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, cardiac failure, seizure and shock.
Nevertheless, the document states “No new significant safety information was identified based on the review of the cases reported in the overall paediatric population.”
‘No safety signals’ despites deaths, injuries of pregnant women and newborns
Pregnant and lactating women also were significantly affected. There were 3,642 post-authorization adverse events and 697 clinical trial adverse events in this population, including spontaneous abortion, fetal death, postpartum hemorrhage, premature separation of the placenta, premature labor or delivery, live birth with congenital anomalies and stillbirths.
Nevertheless, the documentation again states, “There were no safety signals regarding use in pregnant/lactating women that emerged from the review of these cases or the medical literature,” despite two key admissions elsewhere in the documentation.
In one instance, the document stated, “The safety profile of the vaccine in pregnant and/or breastfeeding women was not studied in the pivotal clinical trial and the maternal clinical trial was terminated early due to participant recruitment difficulties.”
And in another instance, Pfizer-BioNTech identified the following as “missing information”:
“Use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities … Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.”
Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” to track “pregnancy outcome[s] in clinical trials.”
Myocarditis and pericarditis deaths among children, young adults
A notable discrepancy appears in terms of reported cases of myocarditis in the clinical trials as compared to the post-marketing period — one myocarditis case (0.15% of all cases) is listed for the clinical trial period, while 5,422 cases (1.1% of all cases) and 5,458 serious events were reported in the PSUR #3 period.
Of these, 87 cases were fatal and 1,608 were listed as “not resolved.” Among children and young adults, 48 cases were reported for those between the ages of 5 and 11 (two deaths), 366 among 12-15-year-olds (three deaths), 345 among 16-17-year-olds and 968 among 18-24-year-olds (four deaths).
In one instance, an 11-year-old girl developed myocarditis two days after her first dose and subsequently died, with the listed causes of death including myocarditis, respiratory failure, acute cardiac failure and cardio-respiratory arrest.
A 13-year-old girl with no medical history developed myocarditis six days after her first dose and also later died.
In the case of a 19-year-old male who developed myocarditis three days after his third dose and who eventually died, an autopsy “revealed extensive necrosis of the left ventricular myocardium (myocardial necrosis); myocarditis/fulminant myocarditis.”
And a 26-year-old male who also took the flu vaccine developed myocarditis four days after his third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and subsequently died. The listed causes of death included myocarditis, arrhythmia, inflammation and left ventricular dysfunction. Autopsy results “showed myocarditis.”
Similarly, while no cases of pericarditis were recorded during the clinical trial, 4,156 were recorded during the PSUR #3 period, including 4,164 serious adverse events and 19 fatalities. This included 30 cases among 5-11-year-olds, 118 cases among 12-15-year-olds, 106 cases among 16-17-year-olds, 479 cases among 18-24-year-olds (and one death), and 417 cases among 25-29-year-olds, again including one death.
In one example, a 22-year-old male developed pericarditis 31 days after his second dose and eventually died of pericarditis and other causes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pericardial mass, pericardial effusion, malignant pericardial mesothelioma and right ventricular failure.
Numerous other cardiovascular adverse events were recorded, totaling 32,712 cases during the PSUR #3 period (496 fatal) and 27 during the clinical trials (two fatal — with none of the events listed as “related” to vaccination).
Nevertheless, “No new significant safety information was identified.”
Many ‘very severe and very rare’ adverse events identified
The 393-page confidential Pfizer document shows that Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many “very severe and very rare,” Horowitz wrote.
These include 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots, many of which “are rare conditions,” hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases and 61,518 adverse events from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, “which is unusual for a vaccine injury,” according to Horowitz.
In addition, “there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus,” “roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders,” “roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders” and “over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction.”
“Over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein” were indicated, as well as “almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.”
There were also “3,711 cases of tumors — benign and malignant,” and “there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed.”
“What is so jarring is that there are hundreds of very rare neurological disorders that reflect something so systemically wrong with the shots, a reality that was clearly of no concern to the manufacturers and regulators alike,” Horowitz wrote, referencing 68 listed cases of a rare diagnosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.
Pfizer-BioNTech usually identified ‘no safety signal’ despite thousands of deaths
Numerous deaths and serious adverse events were recorded for a wide range of other conditions:
Stroke: 3,091 cases and 3,532 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 314 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial (one death).
The document stated, “Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis … and Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke were evaluated as signals during the reporting period and were not determined to be risks causally associated with the vaccine … No additional safety signals … have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
Respiratory: 2,199 cases and 1,873 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 363 fatalities, and 33 cases during the clinical trial (four deaths). Serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory failure, hypoxia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Yet, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
Bell’s palsy: 733 cases were reported during PSUR #3, in addition to 1,428 cases of facial paralysis. Six cases were fatal, with all victims over age 60. One additional case of Bell’s palsy, in a 75-year-old female from the U.S., was recorded in the clinical trial but was deemed “not related” to her vaccination. Again, “No new significant safety information was identified.”
Neurological: 5,111 cases and 4,973 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 67 fatalities, and 15 cases during the clinical trial. Once more, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
Immune-mediated/autoimmune adverse events: 11,726 cases and 8,445 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 133 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial. Serious adverse events included thrombocytopenia, interstitial lung disease, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalitis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Yet, “No new safety signals have emerged.”
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome: 207 cases and 210 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 56 deaths, with 35 involving the elderly. In addition, 38 cases were reported in children. Nevertheless, “No new safety signals have emerged based on a review of these cases [or] literature.”
Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” for “closely monitoring multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and in adults … and reporting of new cases.”
Thromboembolic adverse events: 6,102 cases and 6,724 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 265 fatalities, and 17 cases during the clinical trial (one death). Serious adverse events included pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Again, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
Elsewhere in the document, the case of a 14-year-old male who died of peripheral swelling after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was mentioned, with no additional details.
In another example, a 67-year-old male “with a history of diabetes and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura” suffered chest and gastrointestinal discomfort less than 30 minutes after receiving his third dose of the vaccine. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made, while an electrocardiogram showed “signs of a myocardial infarction.” He later sustained cardiac arrest and died 12 days following his vaccination.
Moreover, 204 fatalities (and 24,077 cases) of vaccination failure, 81 deaths from “vaccination stress,” 24 deaths (and 1,402 cases) of suspected vaccination failure, two deaths from glomerulonephritis and nephrotic syndrome, two deaths (1,326 cases) from “medication error” and 166 deaths from “other” adverse events — mostly pyrexia — were recorded.
Pfizer-BioNTech and EMA: ‘nothing to see here’
Pfizer and BioNTech claimed that the overall efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccine for the PSUR #3 period was 91.3% — and 100% for some populations.
Moreover, only one safety signal was definitively identified: hearing loss, with Pfizer-BioNTech committing to perform a “safety evaluation of tinnitus and hearing loss.”
Two other conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, were determined to be an “important identified risk,” while irritability was determined to be an “identified risk (not important).”
“A statement regarding the reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis after primary series and booster doses” was added to their vaccine’s European product label.
“Although not considered by definition a regulatory action taken for safety reasons because it does not significantly impact the benefit risk balance of use of the product in authorised populations, due to the receipt of spontaneous reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines including BNT162b2 … Japan has required class changes to include GBS in the important precautions section of the Japan package insert.”
Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”
The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”
“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.
However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.
Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.
*
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
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
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.
***
Rep. Ro Khanna on Wednesday was the only member of the House Armed Services Committee to vote against legislation that would authorize an $886 billion military budget for the coming fiscal year, a sum the California Democrat decried as outrageous amid cuts to social spending and attacks on aid programs for vulnerable Americans.
“I was proud to cast the lone NO vote against a defense budget nearing $1 trillion while we are cutting relief for the poor, for students with loans, and for the working class,” Khanna wrote on Twitter. “The Beltway is not with me, but many Americans—particularly the young—want us to improve their lives.”
The 58-1 vote on the House committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came after a marathon markup session replete with Republican hysteria over Pentagon diversity programs and funding for drag shows, which the Defense Department has already banned.
But in a tweet following the committee vote, which sends the NDAA to the full House for consideration, Khanna focused his attention on the massive costs of price gouging by private military contractors and other abuses.
“How is it that ’60 Minutes’ has done better oversight of the Pentagon and found more waste and fraud than our Congressional committees tasked with that very responsibility?” Khanna asked, referring to a recent CBS News investigation detailing rampant profiteering by some of the world’s largest military contractors, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
That’s a wrap on House Armed Services Committe’s markup of the #FY24NDAA. The committee approves the bill in a 58-1 blowout.
Last year, nearly three-quarters of Lockheed Martin’s net sales were from the U.S. government. The weapon manufacturer’s CEO recently welcomed the proposed $886 billion military spending topline in the recently approved debt ceiling agreement, calling it “as good an outcome as our industry or our company could ask for at this point.”
Lockheed and other major military contractors spend big on lobbying and campaign contributions each year, often targeting key congressional panels such as the House Armed Services Committee.
During the 2022 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, the military sector donated millions to the 59 members of the panel. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the chair of the committee, received the most from the sector last year at $517,700.
“Pentagon contractors consistently contribute heavily to House Armed Services Committee members, Senate counterparts, and appropriations committee members in both chambers,” OpenSecrets found. “The top 20 House Armed Services Committee members received almost $2.3 million from the defense sector, and 12 of those members serve in leadership roles on the committee or related subcommittees.”
Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement Thursday that the committee’s approval of an $886 billion military budget was a vote “for military contractor profits and against the climate, against parents trying to provide for their families, and against diplomacy.”
“The people of the United States are dealing with real issues,” said Eikenberry. “Climate change, which our gas-guzzling military accelerates, causes wildfires that clog our skylines. Inflation and the looming restart of student loan payments cut into our personal and family budgets. Inequality—racial, gender, and economic—keeps many communities off-kilter and on the margins.”
“Instead of addressing these enduring sources of insecurity,” Eikenberry added, “Congress decided to grease the wheels of the war machine and its profiteers.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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.
***
Western Illusions
Ukraine is losing the war. Everything is breaking down for Kiev and NATO. Moscow needed a motivation for Kiev and NATO to go on fighting their losing war until their own self-destruction. And what better fake motivation to give NATO than playing to their delusions, vanity, and hubris that perhaps Moscow would break down all by itself.
It has all worked perfectly for Russia.
The West now believes that Moscow could break down any time. Just a little wind, then perhaps.
While in reality, both Russia and the Kremlin are stronger than ever.
Putin in Control
Russia’s president Putin managed the situation quickly and with minimum or no bloodshed. The [former] fighters of Wagner will continue to fight for Russia, now under contract directly with the Russian Ministry of Defense. On the occasion, Putin received allegiance of loyalty personally and directly from each of all top generals and governors in Russia. Russia continues to win in Ukraine, the Russian economy is doing better than probably ever – and Russian diplomacy is successful.
A Successful Military
The Russian military has performed very well, most of the time even excellently. It has successfully adapted, and the war is very different from when it started 24 February 2022. Training, equipment, and doctrine have all been successfully developed – contrary to NATO. Defense Minister Shoigu and Chief of General Staff Gerasimov both deserve honor for this. Shoigu as the manager who has modernized and developed the organization and established the industrial foundation. Gerasimov as the military leader. Look how Ukraine with all its NATO weapons, NATO training, NATO officers, and NATO intelligence is being smashed on their “counteroffensive” which started on 5 June 2023. That is operational excellence achieved by the Russian military, and without any participation from Wagner whatsoever.
A Special Unit in Transition
Wagner has played one central role as special forces and stormtroopers against cities and some of the deadliest fortifications like Soledar. These operations require special skills, and even under the best of circumstances incur high losses. Attacks normally require numerical superiority like 3-1 or more. Wagner captured Artemovsk (Bakhmut) and other deadly targets with numerical inferiority.
Whether Wagner has received the optimal amount of ammunition, equipment, and support for this, is hard to say. On the other hand, it is normal that commanders always complain that they “don’t get enough” – even US generals about to go against Iraq complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, that they needed “more”. Rumsfeld famously rebuffed his complaining generals by saying “maybe you don’t have all you ‘need’, but you’ve got 100% of what you’ve got !!” In the end, Rumsfeld was more than right on that point, as Iraq was completely rolled over (the US problems started later).
Russia has spared the lives of its soldiers and has taken exceptionally few losses. But a large part of the losses taken by Russia have been borne by Wagner. It is an organization led by extremely competent military people with many Spetsnaz (special forces). And to bear many of the losses and swell the ranks quickly, Wagner added a lot of convicts, who have performed well, probably much better than many expected. Wagner has functioned similarly to the French Foreign Legion, which also has recruited convicts, and which is also a unit designed to do special operations, where losses will not create public “discomfort”.
Time for Change
Prigozhin has no military background or education. Some commentators say Prigozhin does not lead Wagner’s military operations, though we have seen that Prigozhin has been playing a leading and probably motivating role with all the men. But a lot of the words and thoughts do not point to great consistency, temper, or analytics. Prigozhin built Wagner but time is right for Wagner to have a very different type of leader to carry it on. Entrepreneurs are not always good at managing big organizations once their creation grows and becomes much more complex. Wagner’s operations in Ukraine are totally different from Wagner’s role overseas in places like Africa. Both roles need to be developed independently. It is time to redefine Wagner.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Moscow State: Alexander Smagin, Unsplash CC0
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.
***
Trailer to the documentary, “Crimes Against Syria”, featuring Global Research, One America News Network, Eva K. Bartlett, and Syrian performer, Treka.
*
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.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.
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.
***
India’s brutal Prime Minister Narendra Modi, personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims, recently visited United States President Joe Biden at the White House. This was a ‘state visit’, the most prestigious hospitality that the U.S. can offer to a foreign dignitary. The reason for the visit was to strengthen the ties between the two nations; as the U.S. increases tensions with China, it is looking for another major player to help reset the balance of power in the U.S.’s favor.
It is interesting to look at the history of the man that Biden invited to the White House for a state visit. Modi has been Prime Minister of India since 2014, but his blatant racism predates that date by many years. Writing in Time on February 28, 2020, journalist Rana Ayyub stated the following: “In February 2002, as Gujarat burned in communal flames for days and a thousand Muslims were killed, leaders of his (Modi’s) Bharatiya Janata Party and its ally, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, gave speeches provoking Hindus to teach Muslims a lesson. Modi himself gave the most incendiary speech mocking riot victims, calling relief camps set up for Muslims, child producing factories.”
In India, under Modi, press freedom and free speech are curtailed, with the government arresting journalists, and generally stifling any voices of dissent. Commenting on the situation, as reported by The New York Times on February 8, 2021, Gyan Prakash, a professor of history at Princeton University, “… cited what he called a creeping dismantling of the pillars of democracy under Mr. Modi, from the coercion and control of the mainstream media to influencing of the courts.”
The blatant anti-Muslim racism that Modi encourages can be seen no more clearly than in Kashmir. In August of 2019, Modi altered the Indian constitution and abrogated Article 370, which gave limited autonomy to Kashmir. Prior to this time, Kashmiris has suffered greatly for decades under Indian violence; this suffering accelerated quickly. Within two weeks of the abrogation, at least 4,000 Kashmiris had been arrested and held under the so-called Public Safety Act (PSA). This laws enables Indian authorities to jail anyone, without charge or trial, for two years. And the 4,000 arrested at that time does not include people whose detentions had not yet been recorded.
“’Pakistan strongly condemns the extra-judicial killing of four more innocent Kashmiris in a fake encounter outside the city of Jammu by the Indian occupation forces in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK),’ the Foreign Ministry said.
“Indian forces said that they killed militants in a shootout on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway.
“Over the past year, more than 300 Kashmiris, including women and children, were killed by Indian forces, the ministry said, calling for an independent inquiry into the ‘extrajudicial killings’.
“Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised his security forces for their ‘bravery and professionalism.’”
One learns all one needs to know about Modi when he praises the killings of innocent men, women and children.
Modi, while in Washington being fawned over by Biden, uncharacteristically answered a few questions from the press. He was asked about his repression of any dissent, and the Indian government’s treatment of religious minorities, specifically Muslims. He said this: “There’s absolutely no space for discrimination. When you talk of democracy, if there are no human values and there is no humanity, there are no human rights, then it’s not a democracy.”
“Muslims in India have been increasingly at risk since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014. Faizan (author’s note: a 23-year-old Muslim who was severely beaten with four other men in February by Indian policemen and forced to sing the Indian national anthem, and who died two days later from his injuries) died in a carnage amidst rising communal tensions in the country. On December 12, 2019, the Modi administration achieved passage of the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Under the act, for the first time in India, religion is a basis for granting citizenship. The law specifically fast-tracks asylum claims of non-Muslim irregular immigrants from the neighboring Muslim-majority countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The amended citizenship law, coupled with the government’s push for a nationwide citizenship verification process through a National Population Register (NPR) and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), aimed at identifying ‘illegal migrants,’ has led to fears that millions of Indian Muslims, including many families who have lived in the country for generations, could be stripped of their citizenship rights and disenfranchised.”
It must be noted that the newly-minted United Nations in 1948 passed a resolution stating that the future of Kashmir, and whether it would become a part of India or Pakistan, was to be determined by a plebiscite, and that that plebiscite should be held ‘as soon as possible’. Seventy-five years later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting for their voices to be heard.
This is the man that Biden invited to the White House; this is the leader who addressed the U.S. Congress on June 22, 2023, and received fifteen standing ovations.
U.S. government spokespeople are forever stating that human rights are a pillar of U.S. policy around the world. Why then is Modi feted with such respect in the White House and the halls of Congress? Why does the U.S. finance and give complete diplomatic cover to Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people? Please remember that at least three, internationally renowned human rights organizations (B’Tselem, located in Tel Aviv; Amnesty International, located in Geneva, Switzerland, and Human Rights Watch, located in New York City) have documented in great detail that Israel is an apartheid regime. Why sanction Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and many other countries? The U.S. issued brutal sanctions against Iraq before invading that country in 2003. It is difficult to forget the response of Secretary of State Madeline Albright when questioned about one of the results of those sanctions. Here is the exchange with journalist Lesley Stahl:
“’We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,’ asked Stahl, ‘And, you know, is the price worth it?’
“’I think that is a very hard choice,’ Albright answered, ‘but the price, we think, the price is worth it.’”
Over 500,000 innocent children died because of U.S. sanctions, and the U.S. Secretary of State found that perfectly acceptable.
In view of all this, Biden’s welcome of another brutal world leader is not surprising. China must not be allowed to take a major role on the world stage; already, that country’s influence is being felt in the Middle East, so Biden will sell the U.S. soul to the devil to try to regain center stage. That devil arrived in the U.S. last week, and was given all the honor the U.S. government can bestow.
The idea of the U.S. as a beacon of freedom and an advocate for human rights around the world has never been true, and that myth is believed less and less outside of U.S. borders. At some point, U.S. government officials will recognize that, if they haven’t already, but power and profits always trump human rights for the U.S. government. Modi’s visit to the U.S. is just the latest in a long line of evidence, proving that fact.
*
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: President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India walk along the Colonnade of the White House, Thursday, June 22, 2023, to the Oval Office following the State Arrival Ceremony on the South Lawn. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
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.
***
Amid numerous disturbing reports about possible false flag operations involving nuclear devices and weapons, the Kiev regime seems to be escalating its actions in this regard. According to various local sources, the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), located in the city of Yuzhnoukrainsk in the Nikolayev region (oblast), has been effectively taken over by the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Although troops have been stationed in and around the NPP since the start of the special military operation (SMO), in recent weeks this has escalated. Apparently, mysterious “guards” have appeared at the NPP and have even restricted access to the reactor facilities, including to the staff responsible for the critically important maintenance of the reactor and the NPP’s key systems and subsystems.
Worse yet, the “guards” are offering no explanation for their behavior, nor does anyone else, be it the military or civilian authorities. In essence, nobody really knows for sure, but many people are skeptical (to say the least). The “guards” have even placed what can only be described as ammunition crates inside the NPP. And it doesn’t seem to be small arms ammunition, but something much bigger, such as shells or even rockets, all of which have foreign markings. For over a year, there have been numerous reports about the Kiev regime hiding NATO-sourced weapons there, obviously in an attempt to prevent their destruction. Needless to say, having any sort of weapons at a nuclear facility of any kind is suicidal in and of itself, but having shells and rockets stored there is simply criminal.
This is particularly dangerous as the political West and the Neo-Nazi junta have been insisting that Russia is supposedly planning to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, supposedly due to mythical “battlefield losses”. On the other hand, Moscow has repeatedly issued warnings about the Kiev regime’s plans to build a so-called “dirty bomb”, for which it has more than enough enriched uranium stored in several Soviet-era NPPs across Ukraine. The previous scenario is extremely unlikely, as it’s not in Russia’s interest to use nuclear weapons. However, Moscow’s “dirty bomb” warnings are certainly not to be dismissed, as the Neo-Nazi junta has been threatening to acquire nuclear weapons for years. This includes threats by the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky himself.
Latest intelligence data suggests that the South Ukraine NPP is also being used as an ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) command and control center for most NATO forces covertly stationed in Ukraine. This is hardly unexpected and is in line with the previous message Russia sent to the belligerent alliance after it hit an underground bunker where hundreds of NATO officers were deployed to command and coordinate their favorite puppet regime’s troops. According to varying estimates, up to 400 officers and other staff were neutralized in a hypersonic missile strike (presumably involving a single 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal”). Obviously, in order to ensure such high casualties among high-value assets are avoided, NATO most likely decided to deploy its higher-ranking personnel in NPPs, knowing that Russia will not target those.
This could also explain why the United States and NATO are suddenly parroting about invoking Article 5 in case of a supposed Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons or if an attack on an NPP causes radiation spikes. Both scenarios clearly imply that a false flag is in the works, as this is precisely how the political West operates during its countless aggressions against the world. The belligerent power pole first threatens to attack in case the side they are targeting does something, and then, all of a sudden, the targeted country supposedly does “exactly that”, even though it’s clearly not in its interest. Obviously, such a scenario is virtually impossible to implement against a country like Russia without leading to a world-ending thermonuclear confrontation.
It has now become clear that the political West is aware of just how much of a failure the Neo-Nazi junta’s much-touted counteroffensive has been, leading to attempts to thwart any possible Russian counterattack that might have devastating consequences for the Kiev regime. This might be attempted through direct intervention by NATO, as the political West probably believes that such escalation could be controlled. And a possible false flag operation simulating a Russian attack on the South Ukraine NPP (or even the Zaporozhye NPP) might be used as an excuse for that. Still, considering how risky such a scenario is, the belligerent power pole might even contemplate the delivery of nuclear weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta in an attempt to cause a localized nuclear confrontation with 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.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
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.
That is pretty rich given that the US is arming Taiwan (which the present US administration confirms is a province of the People’s Republic of China), and certainly Taiwan’s location makes an excellently situated listening post for the CIA. Thus it appears more so, using Gaetz’s analogy, that Taiwan is being made to serve as a stationary US aircraft carrier right off the coast of Fujian. Nonetheless, China’s presence in Cuba does not violate American sovereignty. Contrariwise, the US’s meddling in Taiwan is viewed as objectionable and provocative by Beijing.
And where is the evidence for Gaetz’s claim?
Western media asked Wang Wenbin, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for comment on 9 June 2023:
AFP: Reports by US media outlets say that China and Cuba have agreed to set up a Chinese spy facility capable of monitoring communications across the southeastern part of the US. Officials in Washington and Havana have said these reports are not accurate. Does the Chinese foreign ministry have a comment?
Wang Wenbin: I am not aware of what you mentioned. It is well known that the US is an expert on chasing shadows and meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. The US is the global champion of hacking and superpower of surveillance. The US has long illegally occupied Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for secretive activities and imposed a blockade on Cuba for over 60 years. The US needs to take a hard look at itself, stop interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs under the pretext of freedom, democracy and human rights, immediately lift its economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba, and act in ways conducive to improving relations with Cuba and regional peace and stability, not otherwise.
Prensa Latina: Although China and Cuba denied the recent reports, the US government said over the weekend that it had information about this alleged spy center that they say China has been operating in Cuba. What is your comment about it?
Wang Wenbin: I made clear China’s position on this last week. Over the past few days, we have seen self-conflicting comments from US officials and media on the so-called allegation of China building “spy facilities” in Cuba. This is another example of “the US negating the US.”
What is true can never be false, and what is false can never be true. No matter how the US tries with slanders and smears, it will not succeed in driving a wedge between two true friends, China and Cuba, nor can it cover up its deplorable track record of indiscriminate mass spying around the world.
Thus, Gaetz has once again revealed the absurdity/mendacity of American politicians. Besides, what does it matter if China is building a listening post in Cuba? Is there any country on the planet that believes that the US is not spying on them? What is it that the Five Eyes are doing? What are all those eyes in the sky doing? Do US embassies and consulates not function as intelligence gathering bases? The US collects intelligence on friends and foes alike.
It even surveilles its own citizens. Don’t Americans know this? That is why Edward Snowden faces arrest should he return home. It is a moral contradiction that a whistleblower who exposes government illegality would be arrested by that same government for exposing its illegal actions.
This plays into another US narrative of the Threat of China. (See Paolo Urio, America and the China Threat: From the End of History to the End of Empire, 2022. Review.) Fox News cites an unnamed Biden administration official on the awareness
of a “number of” efforts by the People’s Republic of China “around the world to expand its overseas logistics, basing, and collection infrastructure.” These outposts would allow the People’s Liberation Army “to project and sustain military power at a greater distance.”
That is the rules-based order writ large. The US can do whatever it pleases. It can build military bases around the world and listen in on whoever it wants. But there are rules for the rest of the world to obey.
What does Gaetz propose doing? He supports “an Authorization for Use of Military Force to take out the Chinese assets in Cuba.”
I support an Authorization for Use of Military Force to take out the Chinese assets in Cuba.
We should be a lot more concerned that China is functionally turning Cuba into a stationary aircraft carrier right off the coast of Florida. pic.twitter.com/rH0WIpU5rV
Is this what American citizens need now, another war with a powerful country their government chooses to regard as an adversary — all this while the US and its NATO minions are going down to ignominious defeat in Ukraine?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.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.
***
As well known, the Kiev regime has been carrying out irresponsible attacks against the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) since last year. Russian officials, independent journalists and ordinary citizens have repeatedly reported the Ukrainian strikes, with strong suspicions that the regime deliberately wants to provoke a nuclear leakage in the region. However, Kiev now seriously accuses Russia of planning such a crime, which sounds like a coordinated operation to delude public opinion.
On his social media, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky claimed to have received an intelligence report exposing that Moscow is planning a “terrorist attack” on the ZNPP. The objective would be to destroy the plant and cause a radioactive leak, thus affecting the lives of thousands of civilians. On the occasion, the Ukrainian president also resumed the unfounded accusations that Russia was responsible for the incident at the Novaya Kakhovka dam, in addition to saying that the whole world is being warned in advance about what will possibly happen in ZNPP. He called on Kiev’s international partners to “act” in order to prevent such a tragedy.
“We have just had a report from our intelligence and the Security Service of Ukraine. Intelligence has received information that Russia is considering a scenario of a terrorist attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. A terrorist attack with radiation leakage. They have prepared everything for this. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly had to remind that radiation has no state borders, and who it will hit is determined only by the wind direction. (…) There should never be any terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants anywhere. This time it should not be like with Kakhovka – the world has been warned, so the world can and must act”, he said.
In the same vein, the president’s aide Mikhail Podoliak reiterated the accusations about an alleged “terrorist offensive” and added that mines were being placed around the ZNPP aimed at increasing the chances of radioactive leakage. For Podoliak, in fact, the alleged Russian terrorist plan is already “currently underway” and its objective would be to stop the Ukrainian armed forces’ counteroffensive by creating a “depopulated zone” in the areas affected by radiation.
“Russia (…) is currently considering a large-scale terrorist attack at the ZNPP to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive and create a depopulated sanitary gray zone, fixed for the next years, as part of the territorial status quo without ceasefire. This strategy also includes attempts to attack the dam in Kryvyi Rih with Kinzhals. Additional mining of the nuclear power plant, including the cooling ponds, is currently underway. Whether the Kremlin decides to go ahead with this scenario today depends solely on the reaction of the global world. The red lines have to be defined. The consequences must be announced. Not tomorrow. Today”, he stated.
However, contradicting the words of the Ukrainian official, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), clarified that the organization continues to closely monitor the ZNPP, making it clear that there is no problem with mines in the region.
“The IAEA is aware of reports of mines having been placed near the cooling pond. No mines were observed at the site during the Director General’s visit, including the cooling pond (…) Our assessment of those particular placements was that while the presence of any explosive device is not in line with safety standards, the main safety functions of the facility would not be significantly affected”, Grossi said.
Indeed, Ukrainian accusations against Russia are not new. Since 2022, both sides have mutually accused each other of carrying out attacks against ZNPP. The main point is that Moscow presents concrete evidence when making such claims, while Kiev accuses Russia in an unsubstantiated way. It was the Russian side that repeatedly invited international observers to investigate the ZNPP’s situation on the ground, clearly showing that Moscow has nothing to hide about what happens there.
The same can be said about the attack on the Kakhovka dam, which several analysts say is Ukraine’s fault. The act was consistent with the interests of the regime both in blocking the water supply to Crimea and in destabilizing the functioning of the ZNPP itself, as it risked the cooling of the reactors, increasing the chances of leakage. It is important to remember that months before the operation Ukrainian officials had already admitted their intention to bomb the dam.
Considering these factors, the most plausible explanation for the recent Ukrainian accusation seems to be an attempt to advance the matter in public opinion. Kiev may be planning even riskier raids against the ZNPP, which is why, in advance to any accident, it tries to spread the narrative that it is the Russian side that wants to cause the catastrophe. In this case, the intent would be to prepare western media’s audience for an anti-Russian false flag.
If Ukraine succeeds in its ambition, Moscow could be accused of several crimes, justifying escalations by the western side. Mainstream media and Ukrainian state propaganda would use rhetorical means to move public opinion to support violent measures against Moscow. Kiev is hopeful that this will prompt a direct intervention by the alliance in the war, although this scenario is unlikely as the bloc seems interested in keeping the conflict at proxy level.
On the Russian side, however, the situation continues to be monitored. Moscow has avoided responding appropriately to provocations in order not to escalate violence, but if increasing the intensity of attacks against the Kiev regime is the only way to prevent a nuclear accident from occurring in the ZNPP, certainly Russian forces will accelerate their maneuvers towards the neutralization of 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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
While the many-sided destruction that has taken place and is taking place in the Ukraine conflict is a matter of deep concern, there are two related matters which should cause even higher worry and concern.
Firstly, it is deeply worrying that despite 16 months of conflict having passed, there appear to be no signs today of any breakthrough for bringing peace.
Secondly, many well-informed analysts have repeatedly voiced the warning that the more this war gets prolonged, the greater the risk of the proxy war between Russia and the USA/NATO escalating into a direct confrontation between the two biggest nuclear powers, and hence into a nuclear war and a third world war with the ultimate destructive potential of ending most of the life on earth.
Many people think that world’s leaders can never be so non-rational as to allow such a stage to be reached, but then they should also consider why such warnings have been more frequently issued in the context of the Ukraine conflict by several eminent and well-informed persons.
One important factor here is that you can manage high-tension conditions between the biggest nuclear weapon powers for some time, but if high-tension conditions are prolonged for an indefinite period then the chances of these getting out of control, even if unintentionally, increase (due to misunderstandings or mischief by someone or suspicions or sudden circumstances or technical flaws in offensive and defensive weapon system management).
It is an elementary and very basic rule of safety that one should avoid doing anything or getting entangled in anything in which there are chances of excessively high destruction. This basic rule of safety has been violated by world leadership that has thereby also violated its mandate for ensuring the most basic safety conditions in world.
Hence the greatest urgency now is of avoiding the possibility of a very big catastrophe in the near future, apart from stopping the ongoing destruction. This is best achieved by an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, to be followed by prolonged negotiations till various contentious issues can be sorted out.
Unconditional ceasefire is extremely important at this juncture because if you start bringing in conditions, then the positions taken by the two sides on some important issues are so different that a ceasefire will simply will not be achieved. At the same time, if there is no ceasefire, if fighting goes on, the destruction goes on, then each passing day of conflict increases bitterness, reduces the possibilities of peace and increases the possibility of catastrophe.
Yes, conditional ceasefire was possible in March-April 2022 when at an initial stage very credible peace efforts to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine were made but these were sabotaged by the USA and the UK.
Now if conditions relating to territory and NATO membership etc. are raised then the stated positions of the two sides differ so much that ceasefire will simply not be possible. Hence a beginning has to be made by ceasefire and then other aspects can be sorted out over prolonged negotiations without any actual fighting taking place.
The role of the UN is of course supposed to be very important not only for peace between Russia and Ukraine but also for avoiding a much bigger catastrophe, but unfortunately the UN has been marginalized so much in matters of such critical importance that there is not much hope from the UN for securing an unconditional ceasefire, although there can be some hope still for the role of the UN in implementing it.
A related question is whether the Ukraine regime is currently proceeding on the basis of careful protection of safety and welfare of the people of Ukraine, or is it guided by narrower considerations of the power of certain sections which are unduly hostile to the very idea of making stable peace with Russia. Do these sections derive their power to a large extent from the USA/NATO? How long will the USA push and support them on a path of permanent hostility towards Russia?
Can the USA be prevailed upon to shift to a less aggressive role that has more space for peace proposals such as unconditional ceasefire? Can some of its western allies convince the USA to move towards such a role, or will they merely follow what the USA says? Can the peace movement within the USA and at world level make a contribution to bringing early peace starting with unconditional ceasefire? Can some neutral countries make a contribution to peace?
These are just some of the questions that people committed to peace must be asking and exploring. What is really very important and must be the first priority is to try to achieve an unconditional ceasefire and then keep working for improving goodwill and other conditions necessary for a negotiated settlement of other issues. Ceasefire and peace must be maintained even if negotiations take a long time.
*
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 and Earth without Borders.
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.
***
With so many people dead and injured from the Covid mandates and injections, medical journals that published BS science to support the genocidal agenda, are scrubbing the record to hide their guilt.
Here is a brief but important alert from Dr Scott Jensen, a long-time family physician, and former Minnesota State Senator for Carver County.
*
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 a screenshot from the video
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
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
More and more, Western media outlets seem discredited due to their own propaganda acts. On June 24th, news around the world were marked by reports on the situation in Russia, due to a mutiny organized by the head of the Wagner Group PMC, Evgeny Prigozhin. A day earlier, the ex-restaurateur claimed to have started a “march for justice” to Moscow, with Wagner’s troops occupying military facilities in the city of Rostov. The objective would be to achieve changes in the Russian governmental structure, mainly in the Ministry of Defense, given the public disagreements between Prigozhin and Minister Sergey Shoigu. On the 23rd, Wagner’s head had also officially accused the Russian Army of bombing the PMC’s field camps in the special military operation zone.
With no effective damage to Russian society, the riot ended on the 24th, less than one day after it started. After talking with the President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko, Prigozhin declared that he had reached an agreement, ordering the withdrawal of Wagner’s troops from the streets. In the agreement, it was established that Prigozhin would be moved to Belarus and that both he and the Wagner’s soldiers involved in the mutiny would be amnestied, without any criminal prosecution. In addition, Wagner’s troops who did not participate in the “march” were incorporated into the Ministry of Defense, becoming part of the Russian Armed Forces. No changes in the Ministry of Defense were mentioned in the agreement.
The existence of a deal made it clear that what happened was just a mutiny, not an attempted coup d’état or the start of civil war. If something so serious were attempted by Prigozhin, the situation would not be resolved so quickly with a simple agreement mediated by Lukashenko. Prigozhin would be arrested, and the Russian army would attack Wagner’s soldiers involved in the move. The way Russian forces deal with cases of treason is severe, so if there was an amnesty, it is because the case was seen as a mutiny, without major proportions and side effects.
However, the western media miscalculated what the outcome of the problems in Russia would be and hastily launched a series of baseless predictions about the future of the country and its president. The Financial Times, for example, published: “It is hard to believe that Putin can ultimately survive this kind of humiliation… His prestige, his power, even his life of him, are now on the line”. In the same vein, CNN stated that “Putin’s regime will ever go back to its previous heights of control from this moment… further turmoil and change is ahead”, even predicting that Wagner’s mobilization would “alter the course of the war in Kiev’s favor.”
In some cases, media outlets even promoted curious pro-Wagner propaganda, believing that the PMC would actually start a civil war against the Putin government – but these groups’ enthusiasm was obviously short-lived. For example, the pro-Kiev website “Terror Alarm” even referred to Wagner’s troops on their social networks as “freedom fighters” during the turmoil, but changed the narrative in a few hours, classifying them as “terrorists” after reporting the end of the riot.
Apparently, even Western officials misunderstood the case. The Wall Street Journal reported that sanctions against the Wagner Group have been postponed by US authorities in light of the “possibility” of an anti-Putin rebellion. Also, Politico published a series of erroneous predictions made by US officials about how Prigozhin’s maneuvers would “help” Ukraine. Government sources informed the newspaper that this would be “an unprecedented opportunity to advance”. In the same vein, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow said that the unrest would “almost certainly benefit the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the near term and [Kiev] should move fast to capitalize.”
However, in the end, Western outlets and officials were wrong, misled by their own propaganda machine. The mutiny lasted a few hours and had no positive effect for Ukraine either on the battlefield or in Russian civil society. On the contrary, Moscow emerged undoubtedly strengthened from the event. The Russian government, in cooperation with Union State partner Belarus, has shown itself able to resolve internal conflicts of interest through diplomacy, without generating large-scale problems. Furthermore, a series of strategic maneuvers were taken during the unrest, such as the establishment of an anti-terrorist operation, the mobilization of Chechen troops to Rostov and the transfer of Wagner’s soldiers involved in the “march” to the territory of Belarus.
Some analysts even suggested that the event was a kind of Russian “psyop” to distract the West while such strategic maneuvers were being made. Although there is not enough evidence to prove such a hypothesis, it is undeniable that there were significant gains, which are already starting to be seen even by the enemy side. On the 25th, for example, Poland began mobilizing troops on the border with Belarus, in response to the arrival of the Russian PMC in the neighboring country.
During Wagner’s “march”, there was no challenge to the authority of Vladimir Putin. Prigozhin never spoke of “overthrowing” Putin – despite calling him “mistaken”, directing his words only to the Ministry of Defense. Likewise, all sectors of Russian society, even those who agreed with Prigozhin in his claims, reaffirmed their loyalty to Putin.
*
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.
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.
***
Industry figures and scientists claim pesticide use and GMOs are necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much global agribusiness firms try to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.
There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides or GMOs in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is again not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agri-capital and its international markets and supply chains.
“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”
Current policies favour a (heavily subsidised and inefficient – when externalised health, social and environmental costs are factored in) geopolitical corporate-industrial agriculture and the strengthening of a globalised neoliberal food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on, among other things, unjust trade policies, indebtedness, population displacement and land dispossession, environmental degradation, illness, nutrient-deficient diets and a narrowing of the range of food crops available for public consumption.
These policies prioritise urbanisation, giant retailers, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and inorganic fertilisers, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, commodified corporate knowledge, highly processed food and market dependency at the expense of rural communities, independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources and indigenous knowledge, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient-dense diets and food sovereignty.
Unfortunately, global agribusiness concerns have secured the status of ‘thick legitimacy’ based on an intricate web of processes successfully spun in scientific and policy arenas.
This perceived legitimacy derives from the lobbying, financial clout and political power of agribusiness conglomerates which have set out to capture and shape government departments, public institutions, the agricultural research paradigm, international trade (WTO), the lending strategies of global finance (World Bank, IMF) and cultural narratives concerning food and agriculture (for example, via the industry front-group International Life Sciences Institute).
Nevertheless, an alternative agri-food system is required. And it can be achieved.
The 2009 report Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. It cites the largest study of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the Global South, which analysed 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries and found that on average crop yields increased by 79% (however, the study also included ‘resource conserving’ non-organic conventional approaches).
The report concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.
The message conveyed in the paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity (2020), which appeared in the journal One Earth, is that an organic-based, agri-food system could be implemented in Europe and would allow a balanced coexistence between agriculture and the environment. This would reinforce Europe’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050, allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption and substantially reduce water pollution and toxic emissions from agriculture.
The paper by Gilles Billen et al follows a long line of studies and reports which have concluded that organic agriculture is vital for guaranteeing food security, rural development, better nutrition and sustainability.
In the 2006 book The Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Neils Halberg and his colleagues argue that there are still more than 740 million food insecure people (at least 100 million more today), the majority of whom live in the Global South. They say if a conversion to organic farming of approximately 50% of the agricultural area in the Global South were to be carried out, it would result in increased self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports to the region.
In 2007, the FAO noted that organic models increase cost-effectiveness and contribute to resilience in the face of climatic stress. The FAO concluded that by managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping) organic farmers can use their labour and environmental factors to intensify production in a sustainable way and organic agriculture could break the vicious circle of farmer indebtedness for proprietary agricultural inputs.
Of course, organic agriculture and agroecology are not necessarily one and the same. Whereas organic agriculture can still be part of the prevailing globalised food regime dominated by giant agri-food conglomerates, agroecology uses organic practices but is ideally rooted in the principles of localisation, food sovereignty and self-reliance.
The FAO recognises that agroecology contributes to improved food self-reliance, the revitalisation of smallholder agriculture and enhanced employment opportunities. It has argued that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population but with reduced environmental impact than conventional agriculture.
In 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Petko Draganov stated that expanding Africa’s shift towards organic farming will have beneficial effects on the continent’s nutritional needs, the environment, farmers’ incomes, markets and employment.
A meta-analysis conducted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCTAD (2008) assessed 114 cases of organic farming in Africa. The two UN agencies concluded that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.
But Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the biggest changes in the shortest time in moving away from industrial chemical-intensive agriculture.
Professor of Agroecology Miguel Altieri notes that due to the difficulties Cuba experienced as a result of the fall of the USSR it moved towards organic and agroecological techniques in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2% yearly during a period when production was stagnant across the wider region.
By 2016, Cuba had 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square metre, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70% or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in Havana and Villa Clara.
It has been calculated by Altieri and his colleague Fernando R Funes-Monzote that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency.
A systems approach
Agroecological principles represent a shift away from the reductionist yield-output chemical-intensive industrial paradigm, which results in among other things enormous pressures on human health, soil and water resources.
Agroecology is based on traditional knowledge and modern agricultural research, utilising elements of contemporary ecology, soil biology and the biological control of pests. This system combines sound ecological management by using on-farm renewable resources and privileging endogenous solutions to manage pests and disease without the use of agrochemicals and corporate seeds.
It often draws on agrarian ecosystems based on centuries of indigenous knowhow that is increasingly recognised as valid for achieving food security, as outlined, for instance, in the paper Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India in the Journal of South Asian Studies.
Academic Raj Patel outlines some of the basic practices of agroecology by saying that nitrogen-fixing beans are grown instead of using inorganic fertilizer, flowers are used to attract beneficial insects to manage pests and weeds are crowded out with more intensive planting. The result is a sophisticated polyculture: many crops are produced simultaneously, instead of just one.
However, this model is a direct challenge to the interests of global agribusiness. With the emphasis on localisation and on-farm inputs, agroecology does not require dependency on proprietary inputs or long-line global supply chains.
Agroecology stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing industrial chemical-intensive model of farming. That model is based on a reductionist mindset which is fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm that is unable or more likely unwilling to grasp an integrated social-cultural-economic-agronomic systems approach to food and agriculture.
Localised, democratic food systems based on agroecological principles and short supply chains are required. An approach that leads to local and regional food self-sufficiency rather than dependency on faraway corporations and their expensive environment-damaging inputs. If the last few years have shown anything due to the closing down of much of the global economy, it is that long supply chains and global markets are vulnerable to shocks. Indeed, hundreds of millions faced food shortages as a result of the various economic lockdowns that were imposed.
In 2014, a report by the then UN special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter concluded that by applying agroecological principles to democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and poverty challenges.
But Western corporations and foundations are jumping on the ‘sustainability’ bandwagon by undermining traditional agriculture and genuine sustainable agri-food systems and packaging their corporate takeover of food as some kind of ‘green’ environmental mission.
The Gates Foundation through its ‘Ag One’ initiative is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world. A top-down approach dominated by hugely powerful, unaccountable agribusiness and agritech corporations and institutional investors regardless of what farmers or the public need or want. A system based on corporate consolidation and centralisation.
But given the power and influence of those pushing for such a model, is the outcome merely inevitable? Not according to the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, which has released a report in collaboration with the ETC Group: ‘A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045‘.
It calls for civil society and social movements – grassroots organisations, international NGOs, farmers’ and fishers’ groups, cooperatives and unions – to collaborate more closely to transform financial flows, governance structures and food systems from the ground up.
The report’s lead author, Pat Mooney, says that agribusiness has a very simple message: the cascading environmental crisis can be resolved by powerful new genomic and information technologies that can only be developed if governments unleash the entrepreneurial genius, deep pockets and risk-taking spirit of the most powerful corporations.
Mooney notes that we have had similar messages based on emerging technology for decades but the technologies either did not show up or fell flat and the only thing that grew were the corporations.
Although Mooney argues that new genuinely successful alternatives like agroecology are frequently suppressed by the industries they imperil, he states that civil society has a remarkable track record in fighting back, not least in developing healthy and equitable agroecological production systems, building short (community-based) supply chains and restructuring and democratising governance systems.
And he has a point. A few years ago, the Oakland Institute released a report on 33 case studies which highlighted the success of agroecological agriculture across Africa in the face of climate change, hunger and poverty. The studies provide facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits while ensuring climate justice and restoring soils and the environment.
The research highlights the multiple benefits of agroecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural yields while increasing farmers’ incomes, food security and crop resilience.
The report described how agroecology uses a wide variety of techniques and practices, including plant diversification, intercropping, the application of mulch, manure or compost for soil fertility, the natural management of pests and diseases, agroforestry and the construction of water management structures.
There are many other examples of successful agroecology and of farmers abandoning Green Revolution thought and practices to embrace it.
Upscaling
In an interview on the Farming Matters website, Million Belay sheds light on how agroecological agriculture is the best model for Africa. Belay explains that one of the greatest agroecological initiatives started in 1995 in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, and continues today.
It began with four villages and after good results, it was scaled up to 83 villages and finally to the whole Tigray Region. It was recommended to the Ministry of Agriculture to be scaled up at the national level. The project has now expanded to six regions of Ethiopia.
The fact that it was supported with research by the Ethiopian University at Mekele has proved to be critical in convincing decision makers that these practices work and are better for both the farmers and the land.
Bellay describes an agroecological practice that spread widely across East Africa – ‘push-pull’. This method manages pests through selective intercropping with important fodder species and wild grass relatives, in which pests are simultaneously repelled – or pushed – from the system by one or more plants and are attracted to – or pulled – toward ‘decoy’ plants, thereby protecting the crop from infestation.
Push-pull has proved to be very effective at biologically controlling pest populations in fields, significantly reducing the need for pesticides, increasing production, especially for maize, increasing income to farmers, increasing fodder for animals and, due to that, increasing milk production, and improving soil fertility.
By 2015, the number of farmers using this practice had increased to 95,000. One of the bedrocks of success is the incorporation of cutting-edge science through the collaboration of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology and the Rothamsted Research Station (UK) who have worked in East Africa for more than 15 years on an effective ecologically based pest management solution for stem borers and striga.
It shows what can be achieved with the support of key institutions, including government departments and research institutions.
In Brazil, for instance, administrations have supported peasant agriculture and agroecology by developing supply chains with public sector schools and hospitals (Food Acquisition Programme). This secured good prices and brought farmers together. It came about by social movements applying pressure on the government to act.
The federal government also brought native seeds and distributed them to farmers across the country, which was important for combatting the advance of the corporations as many farmers had lost access to native seeds.
Agroecology should not just be regarded as something for the Global South. Food First Executive Director Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that it offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – prevailing moribund doctrinaire neoliberal economics.
By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work in the richer countries, it can address the hollowing out of the economies of the likes of the US and UK as well as the displacement of existing indigenous food production systems by global agribusiness and the undermining of rural infrastructure in places like India.
If policy makers were to prioritise agroecology to the extent Green Revolution practices and technology have been pushed, many of the problems surrounding poverty, unemployment and urban migration could be solved.
Various official reports have argued that to feed the hungry and secure food security in low-income regions we need to support small farms and diverse, sustainable agroecological methods of farming and strengthen local food economies.
Olivier De Schutter says:
“To feed nine billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live, especially in unfavourable environments.”
De Schutter indicates that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of scientific literature, the study he was involved in calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest. The report calls on states to implement a fundamental shift towards agroecology.
The success stories of agroecology indicate what can be achieved when development is placed firmly in the hands of farmers themselves. The expansion of agroecological practices can generate a rapid, fair and inclusive development that can be sustained for future generations. This model entails policies and activities that come from the bottom-up and which the state can then invest in and facilitate.
A decentralised system of food production with access to local markets supported by proper roads, storage and other infrastructure must take priority ahead of exploitative international markets dominated and designed to serve the needs of global capital.
Countries and regions must ultimately move away from a narrowly defined notion of food security and embrace the concept of food sovereignty. ‘Food security’ as defined by the Gates Foundation and agribusiness conglomerates has merely been used to justify the rollout of large-scale, industrialised corporate farming based on specialised production, land concentration and trade liberalisation. This has led to the widespread dispossession of small producers and global ecological degradation.
Across the world, we have seen a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping and the undermining or eradication of rural economies, traditions and cultures. We see the ‘structural adjustment’ of regional agriculture, spiralling input costs for farmers who have become dependent on proprietary seeds and technologies and the destruction of food self-sufficiency.
Food sovereignty encompasses the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems. ‘Culturally appropriate’ is a nod to the foods people have traditionally produced and eaten as well as the associated socially embedded practices which underpin community and a sense of communality.
Health and wealth
But it goes beyond that. Our connection with ‘the local’ is also very much physiological.
People have a deep microbiological connection to local soils, processing and fermentation processes which affect the gut microbiome – the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.
Capitalism colonises (and degrades) all aspects of life but is colonising the very essence of our being – even on a physiological level. With their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the human body. As soon as we stopped eating locally grown, traditionally processed food cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves.
Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was replaced with corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill.
Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, neurotransmitters in the gut affect our moods and thinking. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s.
Science writer and neurobiologist Mo Costandi has discussed gut bacteria and their balance and importance in brain development. Gut microbes controls the maturation and function of microglia, the immune cells that eliminate unwanted synapses in the brain; age-related changes to gut microbe composition might regulate myelination and synaptic pruning in adolescence and could, therefore, contribute to cognitive development. Upset those changes and there are going to be serious implications for children and adolescents.
In addition, environmentalist Rosemary Mason notes that increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes. Mason lays the blame squarely at the door of agrochemicals, not least the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. Mason argues that it also kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria.
The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It says that agroecology should not be co-opted to become a tool of the industrial food production model; it should be the essential alternative to it.
The declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.
As activist John Wilson says, agroecology goes beyond ‘science’ or sets of practices. It is about creative solutions, a (spiritual) connection to nature and the land, nurturing people, peaceful transformation and solidarity.
It is also about resistance and 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.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
I have written two substack articles on COVID-19 vaccinated drivers crashing:
Jun 15, 2023 – Columbus, OH – A driver had a medical emergency, he crashed into Dublin Methodist Hospital at 12:45pm and died (click here)
Jun 7, 2023 – Killdeer, ND – 49 year old driver of a semi truck had a medical emergency behind the wheel at 7:20am, hit a traffic safety device, crashed into a ditch, was found unconscious and died in hospital (click here)
May 30, 2023 – Mantachie, MS – 40s year old driver had a medical emergency, crashed into a house & died (click here)
May 23, 2023 – 35 year old Yale psychiatric nurse Christopher Andreozzi suffered a medical emergency at 7:50am which led to a 10-vehicle crash! He died after the crash on May 23, 2023 at Yale New Haven Hospital.
May 13, 2023 – Lithonia, GA – Medical emergency triggers multi-car crash sending three people to the hospital (click here)
Apr. 26, 2023 – Los Angeles, CA – A pickup truck driver age 30s, had a medical emergency just before 8am and crashed into a woman & child who were walking to Hancock Park Elementary School, killing her (click here)
Mar. 25, 2023 – Seminole County Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Luxon experienced a medical emergency that caused him to crash his vehicle into a concrete pillar on Mar.25, 2023. An off-duty firefighter pulled him out of the vehicle before it caught fire & saved his life (click here)
Feb. 19, 2023 – New York, NY – 48 year old Detective Del Caraballo died after experiencing a fatal medical emergency while driving. He died from the “fatal medical event”, not the car crash (click here)
Jan. 18, 2023 – (Oak Creek, WI) 37 year old woman driving her SUV had a medical emergency and crashed into a restaurant (Belair Cantina) at 9:30am (click here)
Jan. 2023 – Driver in Denton, Texas crashes into house after having a medical emergency
Jan. 15, 2023 – LASD Detective Steven Lim, age 52, had a medical emergency and crashed his car on his way home from work around 10pm, he did not survive (click here)
Jan. 2023 – Greensboro, NC – A young woman who had COVID-19 booster “was paralyzed while driving my car”, she has now had 4 such episodes.
Spring 2022 – (Macomb, IL) – 18 year old Angel Moritz was COVID-19 vaccinated and started having “little episodes” which resulted in a horrific car crash (click here)
Jan. 2022 (Osoyoos, BC, Canada) – 53 yo COVID-19 vaccinated truck driver Benton Letourneau blacked out while driving a semi, now has had stroke and epileptic seizures, he is upset at COVID-19 vaccine mandates
Sep. 2021 – Erin Louise blacked out behind the wheel in the morning and wondered if her COVID-19 jabs had something to do with it
My Take…
Young COVID-19 vaccinated drivers are having “blackouts behind the wheel” and are crashing their vehicles.
These blackouts often happen early in the morning or in the middle of the day.
Police Officers who were forced, by COVID-19 vaccine mandates, to take mRNA vaccines to keep their jobs are now having medical episodes and crashing their vehicles.
What is causing these blackouts?
When the driver survives the crash, these are most likely COVID-19 vaccine induced micro-clots which are causing TIAs or Transient Ischemic Attacks. These are like mini-strokes that cause a temporary “black-out” but the person recovers quickly.
Some people continue to have these “blackout episodes” repeatedly, because they continue to create micro-clots which go to the brain.
When the driver doesn’t survive the crash, these could be either cardiac arrest caused by myocarditis, or episodes caused by larger blood clots such as heart attacks, strokes or pulmonary embolisms.
Anyone who has had such an incident and has survived should be on Nattokinase to help break down the thrombogenic spike protein as well as micro blood clots, such as the Wellness Company’s Spike Support formula (click here), or other products which contain Nattokinase, which is made from fermented soybeans.
Anyone who is COVID-19 vaccinated and has had such “blackout episodes” must take them seriously!
*
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
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
.jpg){kind=link}
