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

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

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

***

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

• NBC News: “Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive failing? Kyiv and its supporters worry about losing control of the narrative”
• CNN: “Western allies receive increasingly ‘sobering’ updates on Ukraine’s counteroffensive: ‘This is the most difficult time of the war’”
• CNN: “Why a stalled Ukrainian offensive could represent a huge political problem for Zelensky in the US”
• CNN: “‘We expected less resistance’: Ukrainian troops on southern front learn not to underestimate their enemy”
• The Hill: “Alarm grows as Ukraine’s counteroffensive falters”
• Washington Post: “Slow counteroffensive darkens mood in Ukraine”

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

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

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

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

…

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

…

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

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

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

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

• “Poland & Ukraine Are Arguing Over Grain Once Again”
• “Ukraine’s Ungratefulness Is Finally Starting To Perturb Poland”
• “Kiev’s Prediction Of Post-Conflict Competition With Poland Bodes Ill For Bilateral Ties”

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

NV: Yes, that is true.

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

NV: WIKILEAKS: The Secrets of the Belgrade Political Correspondence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NV: Yes, that is true.

TV host: Could you possibly explain?

NV: Vojislav Kostunica is consistent in his advocating for…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Olga Peterson is a writer and translator living in Serbia.

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

11. Vuk Jeremić used to be a member of [the Serbian] Democratic Party but he was later formally expelled so he set up his own political party, Narodna Stranka. 

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Who started the Ukraine War?

Another important development:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

 

This article was originally published in 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that

“the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons,

he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

He later publicly declared,

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

Historians still do not have a definitive answer to why the bombs were used. Given that US intelligence advised the war would likely end if Japan was given assurances regarding the emperor—and given that the US military knew it would have to keep the emperor to help control occupied Japan in any event—something else clearly seems to have been important. We know that some of Truman’s closest advisers viewed the bomb as a diplomatic and not simply a military weapon. Secretary of State James Byrnes, for instance, believed that the use of atomic weapons would help the United States more strongly dominate the postwar era. According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, who met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945,

“[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia’s postwar behavior…[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

History is rarely simple, and confronting it head-on, with critical honesty, is often quite painful. Myths, no matter how oversimplified or blatantly false, are too often far more likely to be embraced than inconvenient and unsettling truths. Even now, for instance, we see how difficult it is for the average US citizen to come to terms with the brutal record of slavery and white supremacy that underlies so much of our national story. Remaking our popular understanding of the “good” war’s climactic act is likely to be just as hard. But if the Confederate battle flag can come down in South Carolina, we can perhaps one day begin to ask ourselves more challenging questions about the nature of America’s global power and what is true and what is false about why we really dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

*

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

Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, is co-founder of The Democracy Collaborative and co-chair of its Next System Project.

Featured image: Mass grave markers in Hiroshima, photographed by Lieutenant Wayne Miller in September 1945. (US Navy / National Archives)

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

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

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

***

Recently, a video went viral on the internet showing a Ukrainian soldier captured by the Russians saying that he learned about the so-called “counteroffensive” through TV and TikTok posts, as Kiev’s officials do not let troops know about what is happening in the conflict. The soldier said that he does not even know if the Ukrainian move has already started or not, as the officers do not comment on the matter with the troops.

In the video, the prisoner of war (PoW) states:

“I have no idea [if the counteroffensive has started or not]. I know just what’s on TV – that there’s going to be a counteroffensive. I watch videos on TikTok. The commanders didn’t say a peep. Some said [Ukraine’s counteroffensive] had already begun, others said it hadn’t started yet (…) So I just don’t get it. I don’t know (…) They have to say something to the soldiers and clarify what they must do”.

In addition to the lack of communication with soldiers about the current status of the conflict, the PoW’s speech also revealed a series of mistreatments that the Ukrainian military are suffering.

He said that his unit was sent to the battlefield in Staromayorsk region with the promise of being replaced in three days. But the rotation did not happen, and the soldiers were left at the front for longer than expected, running out of food, water and other supplies. For this reason, all the soldiers in the PoW’s unit surrendered when the Russians arrived.

“We drove to Staromayorsk (…) They told us to go to the end of the village and sit there, wait (…) and defend ourselves. We sat there for three days. On the third day we were well, they had to take us away. They [the Russian troops] started shooting from artillery. We hid. Then I came out and saw the Russians. So we surrendered. If they [Ukrainian officers] said they would take us, then they should have taken us, not just thrown us away. We had food only for the first day (…) And then there wasn’t even water”, PoW added.

Apparently, the Ukrainian “counteroffensive” is being carried out just by abandoning poorly trained and unexperienced soldiers on the battlefield. And to make matters worse the soldiers do not even know what they are actually doing. They are not aware of what type of operation they are involved in as there is no transparency of information among the military.

With these irresponsible measures of deceiving their own soldiers and sending them to the certain death on the frontlines, Kiev has already lost over 43,000 troops since June, according to Moscow’s official data. In addition to soldiers, the regime also lost “over 4,900 pieces of various weaponry, including 26 aircraft, nine helicopters, and 747 field artillery guns and mortars”. The numbers make clear the failure of the counterattack attempt and explain why it is convenient for officers not to tell the truth to their soldiers. They certainly fear that reality will affect troops’ morale and encourage disobedience, collective capitulations.

Indeed, the Ukrainian attitude towards its own citizens is a real crime against humanity. Trying to achieve the Western-imposed goal to launch a “counteroffensive” in the spring-summer season, Kiev began to send untrained troops to death in unwinnable battles. So, despite the Western media blaming Russia for the current humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine, this information shared by the PoW shows that it is the Kiev regime itself, not Moscow, that is truly to blame for the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

In the end, it seems that the supposed “counteroffensive” was never an actual tactical plan by the Ukrainian military, but simply a media narrative created to generate enthusiasm and hope in the Western public opinion. The Ukrainian officials, obeying what Western sponsors say, were forced to take some measures to increase Kiev’s firepower and thus prove the existence of a “counteroffensive”. Soldiers on the frontlines, however, have just been used as cannon fodder in this entire process without even knowing what was really going on.

The case of this PoW shows very clearly the disrespect and abuse suffered by the Ukrainian military from their own officers. This is not really surprising, since, as a proxy regime, Kiev does not care for the welfare of its people but for Western interests. The best thing to be done by the Ukrainian military in the face of their country’s submission to foreign powers is simply to stop obeying orders and surrender collectively, pressuring the regime to accept Russian peace terms.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Aug. 10, 2023 – Pinson, AL – 17 year old Caleb White, basketball player at Pinson Valley High School, collapsed at school late morning while working out with his basketball team, died suddenly of cardiac arrest (click here).

Aug. 6, 2023 – Lynchburg, VA – 19 year old Tajh Boyd, Liberty University football player died suddenly on August 6, 2023. According to medical examiner, cause of death was ruled suicide (all suicides must be investigated for spike protein brain injury).

Aug. 1, 2023 – TX – 16 year old Callie Marie Mitchell died unexpectedly in cheer camp. She was at Texas A&M University when she was discovered unresponsive by her coach who performed CPR, airlifted to Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston but died a few days later. (Click here)

July 30, 2023 – Olathe, KS – 19 year old Myzelle Law, a defensive lineman at MidAmerica Nazarene University in Olathe, was at practice July 22 when he collided with another defensive lineman and went to locker room where he had “seizure like symptoms”. He died a week later.

July 29, 2023 – China Grove, NC – 17 year old Dalton Gay, football player and star athlete at Jesse C. Carson High School in Rowan County died suddenly from a cardiac arrest (click here).

July 29, 2023 – Philadelphia, PA – 19 year old Bria Deibert died suddenly while on vacation in Florida. She was a sophomore basketball player at Lincoln University. (Click here)

July 26, 2023 – Hendersonville, TN – 17 year old Chase Edwards varsity basketball captain, died suddenly.

July 25, 2023 – Syracuse, NY – 18 year old basketball player Dy’Jierre Jackson died suddenly in his sleep. “He stopped breathing & there was no brain activity” “He passed away in his sleep. There was no struggle” They’re blaming “kidney infection.”

July 23, 2023 – Owen Sound, ON – 18 year old hockey player Tyson Downs died suddenly & unexpectedly at his family’s home.

July 20, 2023 – Stillwater, MN – 16 year old Annie Messelt, avid skier and soccer player, was found unconscious (cardiac arrest) at her Youth Conservation Camp and she died suddenly.

July 17, 2023 – 16 year old Simon Mirkes was on a hiking trip in Alaska for Jewish families, 3.7 miles into Harding Icefield trail in Kenai Fjords National Park he collapsed, paramedics from LifeMed helicopter did CPR but he died of cardiac arrest.

July 12, 2023 – Fort Moore, Georgia – 19 year old Iowa soldier, Pfc Jacob T Atchison died suddenly during infantry training on July 12, 2023, he had a “medical emergency” (cardiac arrest), received CPR, but was pronounced dead at Army Hospital.

July 10, 2023 – 20 year old New Mexico State University soccer player Thalia Chaverria died suddenly in her sleep on July 10, 2023 just 8 days after 20th birthday Police found her dead at 7am at her residence (click here).

July 8, 2023 – 19 year old Lance Pfrimmer, University of Wisconsin-Stout cross country and track athlete died suddenly at a house party with 70 people “he had gone to a pond on the property, went down a water slide and never came up.”

July 7, 2023 – Selden, NY – 17 year old Long Island High School football player Robert Bush was on life support after collapsing on July 3 “He had been on the field for 4 minutes before he bent over, then passed out due to a cardiac event at about 5pm” He received CPR & defibrillator but his brain went without oxygen for 45 minutes. He died July 7.

My Take…

Very few teenagers are still taking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines but high level teenage athletes still continue to die suddenly at unprecedented levels!

Here are 15 deaths of athletes ages 16 to 19 in the past month that made the news (imagine how many didn’t make the news!)

Parents must finally wake up and work together to put an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in children.

Send this to your loved ones. Give it to your teachers and principals.

Give it to your doctors. Give it to your lawyers.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Expose News

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

On June 16, 92-year-old Daniel Ellsberg passed away. At RAND, he contributed to a top-secret 47-volume study of classified documents on the Vietnam War. Even though the war had been acknowledged to be “unwinnable” since the 1950s, successive presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon had lied about the conflict.

As Ellsberg released copies of the classified documents, the 7,000 pages became known as the “Pentagon Papers.” However, from 1958 to 1971, his primary job had been as a nuclear war planner for Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

In his view, nearly every U.S. president from Truman to Trump has “considered or directed serious preparations for possible imminent U.S. initiation of tactical or strategic nuclear warfare.” Most plans focused on the Soviet Union, North Vietnam, North Korea, as well as Iraq, Iran, India, and Libya.

In the case of China, Beijing’s role in the Korean War (1950) and the Taiwan Strait crises (1954-55, 1958) triggered U.S. nuclear plans.

Until recently, it was not known that Ellsberg also copied files on the Pentagon’s nuclear plans to decapitate Russia, China and our planet.

China’s Auto-pilot Nuclear Decapitation                     

In May 2021, the New York Times released Ellsberg’s classified documents on the proposed nuclear attack on China amid tensions over the Taiwan Strait in 1958. Pentagon’s leaders were pushing for a first-strike option, despite their belief that the Soviet Union, China’s then-ally, could retaliate and millions of people would perish.

Urging President Biden and the Congress to take notice, Ellsberg was also weary of media apathy after his book The Doomsday Machine (2017). 

Since the Ukraine conflict, the U.S. and NATO have associated Russia with China, which had no role in the invasion. By October 2022, the Biden administration unveiled a Cold War strategy for “nuclear threats from China and Russia.” In the process, historical realities were turned upside down.

According to The Doomsday Machine, Ellsberg first learned about those realities reading a top-secret document based on President Kennedy’s question to the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“If your plans for general [nuclear] war are carried out as planned, how many people will be killed in the Soviet Union and China?”

The total varied around 275 million to 325 million deaths. In fact, the U.S. nuclear war plan sought the “destruction of China and the Soviet Union as ‘viable’ societies.”

1,100 US Nuclear Targets in 1956. In 2016, The National Security Archives published a declassified list of US nuclear targets from 1956, which spanned 1,100 locations across Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea. (Source: Screen capture close-up of “Nukemap” by Future of Life Institute)

Worse, the nuclear strategy linked a “general war,” which would legitimize a first-strike against the Soviet Union (and today Russia), and China, even if Beijing would have nothing to do with such conflict. So, Ellsberg asked the Chiefs, over the president’s signature, for a total breakdown of global deaths from U.S. attacks.

Another 100 million deaths, roughly, were predicted in Eastern Europe, from direct attacks on Warsaw Pact bases and air defenses and from fallout. Perhaps 100 million more from fallout in Western Europe and still another 100 million in the mainly neutral countries adjacent to the Soviet bloc and China, including Finland, Sweden, Austria, Afghanistan, India, and Japan.

The total death toll would be roughly 600 million dead. That’s a hundred Holocausts.

A Truly “Final Solution”

As Ellsberg discovered, deterring a surprise Soviet nuclear attack or responding to such an attack has never been the only or primary purpose of U.S. nuclear plans and preparations. The real purpose is to limit the damage to the U.S. from Soviet or Russian retaliation to a U.S. first strike against the USSR or Russia.

The devastating impact of “nuclear winter” and “nuclear famine,” both of which have been known since the early ’80s, are systematically ignored by nuclear planners.

If U.S. plans for thermonuclear war will be carried out, that means “smoke and soot lofted by fierce firestorms in hundreds of burning cities into the stratosphere, where it would not rain out and would remain for a decade or more.” It would envelope the globe and block most sunlight. It would lower annual global temperatures to the level of the last Ice Age and kill all harvests worldwide, thereby “causing near-universal starvation within a year or two.”

In his memoir Doomsday Delayed (2008), John H. Rubel, who later served as McNamara’s assistant Secretary of Defense, recalls the first high-level presentation of such a scenario in spring 1960. It showed how over half the Soviet population would perish from radioactive fallout alone, and half of all 600 million Chinese. It horrified Rubel, who was of German-Jewish descent. He thought of the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, when mainly SS bureaucrats, including Adolf Eichmann, agreed on a program to exterminate every last Jew they could find in Europe, deploying technologically-efficient methods of mass extermination:

I felt as if I were witnessing a comparable descent into the deep heart of darkness, twilight underworld governed by disciplined, meticulous and energetically mindless groupthink aimed at wiping out half the people living on nearly one third of the earth’s surface.

In turn, public discussion of American plans for the decapitation of the Soviet command and control led to a “Dead Hand” system of delegation that would assure retaliation to U.S. attack destroying Moscow and other command centers. And the rest of the nuclear states have followed in the footprints.

The Doomsday Profiteers           

Nuclear preparedness doesn’t come cheap. The projected costs of the U.S. nuclear forces from 2021 to 2030 are expected to total $634 billion. Two-thirds of those costs will be incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD), with the largest expenditure for ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) costs will be for nuclear weapons laboratories and supporting activities.

The key beneficiaries of these expenditures are the major contractors for new nuclear delivery vehicles and the operators of the national nuclear weapons complex. A small oligopoly of global contractors and operators – the Big Defense – will reap the profits. Northrop Grumman has identified major suppliers for its new ICBM in 32 states. Its 12 largest subcontractors include some of the nation’s most prominent defense companies, including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the aerospace division of Raytheon.

From 2012 to 2020, these Big Defense conglomerates spent over $119 million in campaign contributions employing 380 lobbyists among them in 2020 alone. Over two-thirds of the monies passed through the “revolving door” from top positions in Congress, the Pentagon, and the Department of Energy to work for nuclear weapons contractors as executives or board members, and vice versa. Typically, secretaries of defense – including James Mattis (General Dynamics); Mark Esper (Raytheon); and Lloyd Austin (Raytheon) – have served as lobbyists or board members of major nuclear weapons contractors before the Pentagon.

Additionally, the Big Defense spends millions of dollars in supporting think-tanks for “independent analysis” on nuclear weapons. Licking the hand that feeds them, the think-tanks, in return, push for increasing nuclear investment in Russia’s near-abroad and Asia via the trilateral U.S.-UK-Australia security pact AUKUS.

Dismantling the Machine

So, where are we today? The Doomsday Machine plan, officially known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), was updated annually until 2003, when it was replaced until revised in 2012 with OPLAN 8010-12, Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment. Its base plan is thought still to be directed against “Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and WMD attacks by non-state actors.”

Even against Russia and increasingly China, which now dominates U.S. nuclear planning, the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community think that “a disarming first strike [against the U.S.] will most likely not occur.” Yet, as over six decades ago, such assessments are subject to perceptions, which have resulted in several false alarms since the 1960s; some of them potentially fatal.

As evidenced by the Doomsday Clock, the likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe is today the highest since World War II. Dismantling the Doomsday Machine in the U.S. and other nuclear states is the only viable way to ensure sustained peace – and the survival of our planet.

*

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

Dan Steinbock is Founder of Difference Group.

---

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

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

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

***

Google’s new global censorship tool’s purpose (found HERE) is to eliminate dissent on any topic Google selects.

Googles partners are the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), plus 71 PAGES of other partners listed in the fine print on this website.

Google’s algorithms are designed to delete websites that criticize topics such as:

• COVID-19 statistics

• the World Bank

• the FBI’s crime statistics

• a one-world global government

• …and many more

Here’s their promo video:

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

When the FDIC put Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank into receivership in March, a study reported on the Social Science Research Network found that nearly 200 midsized U.S. banks were similarly vulnerable to bank runs. First Republic Bank went into receivership in May, but the feared contagion of runs did not otherwise occur. Why not? As was said of Lehman Brothers fifteen years earlier, the targeted banks did not fall; they were pushed, or so it seems. One blogger shows how even JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, could be pushed — not perhaps by local short-sellers, but by China. And that is another good reason not to provoke the Chinese Dragon into “war by other means.”

The Targeted Crypto Banks

SVB, Signature and First Republic were not insolvent: they had sufficient assets (largely long-term Treasuries) to match their liabilities. They were just “illiquid”: they lacked enough readily available funds to meet the unanticipated deluge of deposit withdrawals in March. In fact no bank could withstand a bank run in which 85% of its depositors demanded their money back in the space of three days, as happened to SVB that month.

As of December 31, 2022, SVB had roughly $211 billion in assets, which were primarily offset by $173 billion in deposit liabilities; but it had only $13.8 billion in actual cash and “equivalents” – liquid money available to meet withdrawals. It had been flooded with deposits from tech startups funded by venture capitalists, and the startups did not need loans. The deposited reserves had therefore been used to buy Treasury securities, at a time when interest rates were so low that only long-term securities provided an adequate return. Some were marked “hold to maturity,” meaning they could not be sold at all; and the rest could be sold only at a major loss, since old bonds attracted few buyers after interest rates on new bonds shot up in the last year.

Yet many other banks had followed that path, investing in long-term assets that could not be liquidated or could be liquidated only at a substantial loss. So why did only SVB, Signature and First Republic wind up in government receivership? As explained in my earlier article here, they were considered “crypto-friendly” banks. In a revealing article called “Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, and Crypto Is in Its Crosshairs,” blogger Nic Carter details the “coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services.”

Whoever instigated the raid on the three targeted banks, their stock was heavily short-sold, driving share prices down. This alarmed the venture capitalists, who alerted their tech startup clients. Word spread quickly by social media, and the bank runs were on.

The Infamous Bear Raid

In a 2010 article titled “Wall Street’s Naked Swindle,” Matt Taibbi showed that the bankruptcies of both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, which triggered the banking crisis of 2008-09, were the result of targeted short sales. He wrote:

[W]hen Bear and Lehman made their final leap off the cliff of history, both undeniably got a push —especially in the form of a flat-out counterfeiting scheme called naked short-selling.… Wall Street has turned the economy into a giant asset-stripping scheme, one whose purpose is to suck the last bits of meat from the carcass of the middle class.

Even countries have been victims of targeted short-selling of their currencies. One infamous case occurred in 1992. According to Investopedia:

George Soros is said to have “broken” the Bank of England and precipitated “Black Wednesday” in the U.K. in September 1992 as a result of massive bets he made against the British pound.… As a consequence, the pound rapidly devalued, leading to an estimated $1 billion profit for Soros and his Quantum Fund.

Bear raids were also responsible for the “Asian Crisis” of 1997-98. Again according to Investopedia:

The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.

Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.

No Bank Is Safe from a Targeted Takedown

Which brings us to the largest U.S. bank, J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM). First Republic, SVB and Signature were not small banks. The country’s second, third, and fourth largest bank failures, they had assets of $229B, $209B and $118B respectively. But unlike JPM, they were not GSIBs — Globally Systemically Important Banks. Credit Suisse, however, was; and it too went bankrupt after it was subjected to massive short selling and deposit withdrawals in March 2023. Even GSIBs can be vulnerable.

JPM, however, is the fifth largest bank in the world, with assets of $3.7 trillion. Who could possibly bring that behemoth down or have the motivation or assets to do it? In a March 28, 2023 post titled “How to Wreck a Big Old GSIB Bank,” an anonymous blogger going by the pen name “DeepThroat IPO” laid out a plausible scenario. He observed:

Interestingly enough, JPM has about the same amount of cash on hand (available for immediate wire out) as SVB did when it blew up … $ 27.7 Billion.

However, he wrote, it has other liquid assets, totalling about $884 billion. That sounds like a lot, but

JPM has about “$2.34 Trillion in hair trigger Deposit liabilities (gulp) on the books — 15% of the total $16T deposits sitting on the books of the 2,135 U.S. Banks with assets over $ 300 million — that can move anywhere in the world with a few mouse clicks.”

DeepThroatIPO argues that China has U.S. assets sufficient to trigger a bear raid on this gargantuan bank, largely because of the unique way it handles its own currency. In the domestic Chinese economy, yuan are used, and the PBOC can print them at will. Merchants exporting to the U.S. take their dollars to the bank, trade them for yuan, and pay their workers and suppliers in yuan, leaving the PBOC with “free” U.S. dollars. This maneuver is confirmed in Investopedia:

One major task of the Chinese central bank, the PBOC, is to absorb the large inflows of foreign capital from China’s trade surplus. The PBOC purchases foreign currency from exporters and issues that currency in local yuan currency. The PBOC is free to publish any amount of local currency and have it exchanged for forex [foreign exchange]. This publishing of local currency notes ensures that forex rates remain fixed or in a tight range. It ensures that Chinese exports remain cheaper, and China maintains its edge as a manufacturing, export-oriented economy. Above all, China tightly controls the foreign money coming into the country, which impacts its money supply.

Printing domestic currency is another measure applied by China. The PBOC can print yuan as needed, although this can lead to high inflation. However, China has tight state-dominated controls on its economy, which enables it to control inflation differently compared to other countries. [Emphasis added.]

DeepThroatIPO comments:

The key, for China, Russia, Middle East regimes, etc., is to set up these export relationships with legitimate Western Businesses, continually collect Western Currency, maintain a significant trade surplus, and reinvest the currency in Western Assets, while keeping the RMB/Yuan “walled off”.…

The goal is not “free trade”. The goal, from the Chinese-axis perspective, is the accumulation of Western currency and financial assets … and it’s been working beautifully for more than twenty-five years … and it will continue to work as long as the Chinese-axis Trade Surplus with the rest of the world continues to remain substantially positive….

We know that the Party has been successfully walling off the currency since there are no meaningful RMB/Yuan balances anywhere on the planet (other than the mainland). There’s no need … because nobody uses Chinese currency for commerce/investing (… other than on Mainland China). Today, the World’s 2nd Largest Economy only lets about 2% of global settlements occur in RMB/Yuan.

The Chinese government and affiliated Chinese entities have purchased not just U.S. Treasuries with their dollars, but U.S. stocks, real estate, farmland and other assets. DeepThroatIPO calculates that the Chinese have “accomplished constructive control of approximately $58.58 Trillion of Western Financial Assets, stealthily hiding in Western Financial Markets, likely in plain sight.… [T]hat $58.58 Trillion, focused directly on select targets … is more than enough to sink our previously thought unsinkable fleet of battleship banks.”

Not that China would, but it could. In peaceful times, it profits from trade with the U.S., just as we need Chinese goods. But “all is fair in war,” and it is prudent to be aware of these covert potential weapons before fanning the flames of aggression. Cooperation serves the people on both sides of the conflict better than war.

Other Defenses

DeepThroatIPO admonishes that when a financial institution perceives that it is under attack, there needs to be a “circuit breaker”:  

Our Banks should NOT blindly wire out all of the current withdrawal requests (or accept the incoming wires).… Whenever withdrawals or deposits breach normal daily volume by a significant amount, at any particular institution we need to stop.…

We cannot continue to come to the nebulous conclusion that “Oh boy … it looks like we a need another systemic liquidity boost” and blindly provide it. We need to slow the entire process down.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPM, argues that shortselling bank stock should be banned. Better yet, as argued in my earlier article here, would be to make all shortselling illegal.

Another possibility comes to mind. Banks are vulnerable to shortselling only if they are publicly-traded. State-owned or city-owned banks are impervious to that sort of attack. The Bank of North Dakota, our one and only state-owned bank, is a stellar example. It cannot be short sold and it is not vulnerable to bank runs, since over 95% of its deposits come from the state itself. The Bank of North Dakota also acts as a mini-Fed for local North Dakota banks, extending a lifeline in the event of capital or liquidity shortages.

Like the U.S., China has a vast network of local banks; but most of its banks are government-owned. We may need to follow suit as a matter of defense. We need to ensure, however, that the governments owning our local banks actually represent the people. Banks should be public utilities, serving the public interest.

*

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

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

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

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Abstract

Even months after the demolition of the Nordstream Pipelines it is a widely held opinion that the pipelines were destroyed with a moderate explosive of a few hundred kilograms TNT corresponding to a seismic event of (Richter-) Magnitude 2.3 and that the destruction of the pipeline was the only goal of that act.

An overview over publicly available seismic data all over Northern Europe shows that this could not be farther from the truth: Seismic traces were detected as far as the North Cape (1800km) and Greenland, thus characterizing the Nordstream explosion as a teleseismic event.

An analysis of the waveforms detected at seismic stations around the Baltic and Bothnian Sea characterizes this event to have (‘body-wave‘) magnitude mb = 3:9 +/- 0:15, corresponding to a detonation energy of 200 tons TNT-equivalent or more rather than the 500kg claimed in the press. The actual explosive power involved in the detonation is thus at least by a factor of 400 larger than what has been claimed in the press.

The resulting waveforms reveal little resemblance with conventional underwater explosions, but they share characteristics with known underground nuclear explosions. The explosive was positioned along the pipeline at a deliberately chosen location such that the generated shock wave was channeled and amplified by a natural oceanic canyon of approx. 20km width which runs from the detonation site towards Kaliningrad (RF).

Indeed, in neighbouring Polish Suwałki seismic amplitudes were registered that were 1000-fold of what is expected from a magnitude 3.9 event at that distance from the epicentre. Infrared satellite images of aerosols taken a few hours after the explosion show a cloud extending over more than a hundred kilometers into the Swedish mainland in wind direction while the adjacent coastal town of Karlskrona exhibited brief spell of mild rainfall in the following hours. Hydrodynamic satellite data show the emergence of a strong underwater current near the ocean floor (at 60m depth) away from the explosion site accompanied by significant backflow in the following hours. The topography of the ocean floor exhibits a natural, elliptically shaped depression of about 50km size and the explosive was placed close to the focal point. Such an arrangement is well known to be responsible for strong focussing effects of shockwaves towards the underwater channel directed towards Kaliningrad. This explains the extraordinary seismic amplitudes detected along that direction as registered in Suwałki.

These facts point towards a controlled and carefully prepared attack not only on Nordstream but also on the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Contents

Contents

I. Prologue 

II. Seismic Considerations 

1. Introductory Remarks 

2. Seismic Data of the Nordstream Explosions 

III. Hydrodynamic Considerations 

IV. Atmospheric signature – aerosol coverage in the infrared 

V. Conclusions 

VI. Epilogue

References 

Appendix — Focusing effects of shock waves

Click here to read the article.

*

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

Featured image is from Seymour Hersh

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

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

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

***

The saga of the Nord Stream blow-up has been confusing, and confused with multiple reporting on who-did-it, and who did not do it, who had an interest, about the motives, and who was most suffering from the blast. It seems the saga never ends.

Perhaps it should not end before the truth has been found – and before the culprits are brought to justice, because this is a crime of tremendous proportion.

In early February 2023, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh released a report based on secret but he says highly reliable sources, providing details of how the US intelligence agencies planned the sabotage ordered by US President Joe Biden (confirmed at press conference on 7 February 2022). 

J

The Blame Game. Who Did It?

This was the beginning of the blame game, who did it, how was it done and what were the motives. This speculative debate has not ended – and there is no end in sight.

An Underwater Tactical Nuclear Device?

However, about a month ago, Bombshell news, what appears to be evidence for the “How”, emerged. According to mathematician, physicist and geoscientist Professor Hans Benjamin Braun, the pipelines were devastated by an underwater tactical nuclear device.

This was reported by Swiss journalist Christoph Pfluger during his weekly Swiss “Transition TV” or TTV news show. See screenshot of Abstract (below), of Professor Braun’s report. Scroll dow for link to complete report of Professor Hans Benjamin Braun

Following initial accounts, moderate explosives of a few hundred kilograms of TNT were responsible for the destruction. That would correspond to a seismic reaction of a (Richter) Magnitude of 2.3.

However, after a review of publicly available seismic data throughout Northern Europe, this could not be further from the truth.

“Seismic traces were reported as far as the Nord Cap (1,800km from the detonation) and Greenland, thus, characterizing the Nordstream explosion as a teleseismic event. An analysis of the wave-forms detected at seismic stations around the Baltic- and Bothnian Sea, characterizes this event as …. having a detonation energy of 200 tons of TNT equivalent or more, rather than the 500 kg claimed in the press”, says Professor Braun in his report.

This is an explosive power at least 400 times larger than claimed. The resulting wave-forms share characteristics with known underground nuclear explosions. Professor Braun concludes that only a nuclear explosion could produce these effects, which also include the extreme warming of the seabed, strong underwater currents, and the radioactive fallout that could be measured even in Switzerland.

For the full Swiss TTV report on the Nord Stream presumed nuclear devastation, see this. The news report is in German. The section on the pipeline explosion starts at min. 9:45. Professor Braun’s report, of which a screenshot of the Abstract, you see above, is in English. To view the TV report in German click the screen below

Translated into English, click Screen Below: (starts at 5’27”, following the presentation in German)

After Professor Braun finished his study, he handed it to several colleagues for peer review, among them three physics Nobel Laureates. In April 2023, the final report was handed to the governments concerned, including Sweden, Finland, Poland, as well as NATO’s Secretary General, Russia’s Ambassador in Switzerland, as well as to the UN Security Council, which at that time was chaired by Russia.

Link to the complete report by Professor Hans Benjamin Braun (English) entitled: Nordstream -Anatomy of Dante’s Explosion  which you can download

What happened? Big silence.

None of the countries concerned, not even Russia, and of course not NATO, seems to have an interest to escalate the case, demonstrating to the world that presumably Washington / NATO does not shy away from using a nuclear device to destroy the energy supply that fuels the German and European economy. And that we are indeed already in a nuclear war.

Motives for the “Sabotage”

Officially, the motives were nothing less than making sure that the “sanctions” on Russia over the Ukraine war would hold, could not be broken by Germany under pressure from Germany’s business and manufacturing community. Germany’s economy was going to suffer tremendously without cheap Russian gas.

Unofficially, there is a secret plan by the corporate financial cabal, a plan wholly integrated into the UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF’s Great Reset, to bring the western economies, particularly the ones of Europe and the US, down, possibly to a full-blown ruin. Number one instrument is depriving the economies of energy.

This goes hand in hand with the cabal’s depopulation agenda – also an integral part of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030. Achieving both these targets would make it easier to initiate and implement a new world order, based on full digitization and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The surviving humans would become electronically manipulatable transhumans which could be “turned on and off”, so to speak, as needs dictate.

The entire UN system is sold to the unnamed corporate financial behemoth. UN Agenda 2030 is not just comprising the 17 noble Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It goes much farther. To understand what these SDGs really mean – see this.

As to “unnamed financial cabal”, the number one financier and supporter of the World Economic Forum (WEF) is BlackRock. The WEF is one of the main executing agencies of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030.

The cabal is not there yet, and with humanity’s strength and spiritual power, these dark forces shall not reach their objective.

The cabal knows perfectly well that the world’s economies are fueled by hydrocarbon and that this will remain the main source of energy for the foreseeable future.

The propaganda and hubris talk about “climate change” no end, when real science knows that real climate change happens all the time, has happened for the last 4.5 billion years, since Mother Earth exists. Its main cause of influence is the sun – 97%-plus – and it has nothing to do with CO2 generated by man’s activities and economies. The ever ongoing natural process is slow so nature and sentient beings may adjust.

The brutal changes in weather and climate that we increasingly experience in the last decade or so, are wantonly man-made, meaning they are part of Environmental Modification (ENMOD) technologies called geoengineering. They include numerous highly sophisticated and scientifically studied technologies, which are capable of modifying the composition of the higher atmosphere to bring about rapid weather / climate changes – hot, cold, drought, flooding.

Drought, flooding, in rapid succession can and does destroy vital food crops, fertile agrarian lands, infrastructure, housing, and wellbeing of people. It causes, famine, misery, and death – and a bleak future.

Geoengineering can be targeted on specific societies, countries, or regions of the world. There is much similarity with potential nuclear warfare. See also this.

The chemicals and methods used in geoengineering – even satellites are used – are protected by hundreds of patents, of which the public at large has no idea. And of course, mainstream media is generously paid to remain silent about it.

In order to fight this massive crime on humanity, We, the People, must wake up, and take matters under OUR, We, The People’s control – NOW.

With every day we refuse to wake up, we move a step closer to the abyss of no return. We are seconds before midnight and must act NOW.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

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

Featured image is from Freenations

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

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

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

***

In a recent online poll on Twitter X Joe Biden ended up dead last in an international poll on respected leaders.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin was first with 35.6% of the vote followed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with 33.7% of the vote, followed by Ukraine’s Zelensky with 21.9% of the vote.

Joe Biden was 4th out of 4 with 8.9% of the vote.

Over 826,000 participated in the poll.

Out of 826,945 votes, only 9% respect @JoeBiden. America is now the laughing stock around the world. pic.twitter.com/4ssUXv2UPQ

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) August 9, 2023

But 81 million votes!

Joe Biden is a complete failure and embarrassment on the global stage. And everyone knows it. Democrats don’t care.

Via World of Statistics.

Which current world leader do you have the most respect for and why?

— World of Statistics (@stats_feed) August 7, 2023

*

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

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Featured image is from The Gateway Pundit

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

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

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

***

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

Media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.

“Not really,” she smiles. “They would have picked up on it anyways.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts. “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research—years with low levels of hurricanes.

“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” says Curry. She realized that the critics were right. “Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded “they had a point.”

Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded. Alarmist scientists’ aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.

“Ugly things,” says Curry. “Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

It made Curry realize that there is a “climate change industry” set up to reward alarmism.

“The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program,” says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”

The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.”

“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.”

The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”

This is how “manufactured consensus” happens. Even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.

“The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant,” says Curry. She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”

“What kind of message does that give?” adds Curry. Then she answers her own question: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”

That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.

*

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

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

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

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

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

***

Last week, the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was sentenced to 19 years in a penal colony – accused of financing “extremism” and “rehabilitating the Nazi ideology”.

Quite rightly, the United States and Britain instantly denounced the move, with the US State Department describing the conviction as “an unjust conclusion to an unjust trial”.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary James Cleverly claimed the outcome “shows Russia’s complete disregard for even the most basic of human rights”, piously adding: “Dissent cannot be silenced.”

Three days later, Imran Khan – until last year, the democratically elected prime minister of Pakistan – was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, courtesy of what looked like a kangaroo court, under murky circumstances.

These two cases are eerily similar. Few believe the charges laid against Navalny. Yet it is vital for President Vladimir Putin to remove him from the political stage – especially with Russian presidential elections scheduled to be held in March 2024.

Likewise, few believe the corruption charges laid against Khan carry any plausibility. Yet it is vital to get him out of the way ahead of Pakistan’s general election, scheduled for this autumn.

There are dark forces which want both men out of the way. Navalny was subject to an attempted poisoning three years ago, while Khan was wounded in an assassination attempt late last year.

Let’s spit out the ugly truth. Alexei Navalny and Imran Khan are both political prisoners, held on trumped-up charges by the Russian and Pakistan authorities.

Yet the West is only concerned about the fate of one of them.

Double Standards

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was swift to condemn the additional jail sentence imposed on Navalny, condemning “Russia’s conviction of opposition leader Alexei Navalny on politically motivated charges. The Kremlin cannot silence the truth. Navalny should be released”.

No US condemnation of Khan’s politically motivated trial.

British Foreign Secretary Cleverly was guilty of the same double standard.

Both Britain and America will be well aware that the charges against Khan – profiteering from official gifts – are flimsy.

In fact, when Khan was in office, he changed the law so that it would be more difficult for politicians to profit from gifts received on foreign visits.

Previously, if an official wanted to retain an item, they were able to purchase it at 20 percent of the value set by the Toshakhana evaluation committee. During his premiership, Khan raised the fee to 50 percent.

Khan is probably the least corrupt politician – admittedly not a high bar – in Pakistan’s modern history. He represents a reversion to the early school of post-independence politicians, from the Qaid-i-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, to the country’s first president, Iskandar Mirza, whose integrity was absolute.

None of this matters to the US and Britain, which have always preferred to deal with dictators who are pliable to their interests: Mohammad Ayub Khan, installed in a military coup in 1958; General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled with an iron fist during the 1970s and 80s; and more recently General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and served as Pakistan’s president from 2001 to 2008.

History proves that the US is structurally hostile to any Pakistani political leader with a democratic mandate.

Lonely Battle

Khan, to his enormous credit, had set out to challenge the deeply corrupt, dynastic two-party system that has dominated Pakistani politics, through the Bhutto family’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Sharif family’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), for more than half a century.

In doing so, he sought to end the country’s status as a client state of the US.

Almost unheard of among recent generations of Pakistani leaders, he stuck to his principles – falling afoul of the US in the process.

Throughout his long period in opposition, he fought a lonely battle against the US’s brutal war on terror, condemning drone strikes and standing up for the rule of law.

To his credit, Khan remained a thorn in the flesh of the US once in power. But he has paid the price.

I trace his demise to the fall of Kabul in August 2021, when Khan clashed with Washington over the freezing of Afghan state assets, as well as the American desire for access to Pakistani airspace.

From that moment, his card was marked. Khan had the impertinence to defy the US: the Biden administration’s refusal to denounce his imprisonment amounts to complicity.

I love Pakistan, have travelled to this beautiful country many times, and have respect for the Pakistan army and its role in maintaining stability after independence 75 years ago. But it is widely reported to be the architect of Khan’s downfall. 

Not for the first time, it is allowing itself to be dragged into national politics.

Deceitful Claims

Imran Khan is today the most popular politician in the country. Polls indicate that he would sweep to victory in any free and fair election.

Holding an election in Pakistan without Khan would be like putting on Shakespeare’s Hamlet without the prince.

Whoever wins an election without Khan would carry zero political legitimacy, and be despised as the local client ruler, ruling on behalf of the United States.

As for Khan, he has joined the long list of democratically legitimate national leaders who had the temerity to affect the US by striking out with an independent foreign policy. 

Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected civilian president, spent his final years in jail before dying in court.

Salvador Allende of Chile dared to win an election that the US wanted him to lose – and was dislodged from office in the most brutal of circumstances. 

Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s first democratically elected leader, who challenged the US by building an alliance of non-aligned nations, ended up in a prison where he was judicially murdered.

Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran. Too many others.

The silence of the US and Britain, both countries which deceitfully claim to believe in democracy, says it all. 

*

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

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism. 

Featured image is from IRF

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

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

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

***

The Biden administration has imposed a blockade on advanced computer chips headed for China. The action is expected to slow China’s technological development while inflicting serious damage on the broader economy. The strategy has been widely praised by the media and foreign policy experts, but a growing number of analysts wonder if the plan could backfire?

Dan Wang is skeptical that Biden’s blockade will succeed in the way the authors had intended. Wang is a technology analyst who presented his views in an editorial at the New York Times. Here’s what he said:

The White House is intent on outcompeting China on technology. The ground on which this competition is taking place is chip making. But the Biden administration shouldn’t sit back and savor this accomplishment for one reason: What if its core belief — that advanced semiconductors are one of the critical fronts in the contest — is wrong?…

America’s actions are driven by the assumption, articulated by the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, that computing chips are a force multiplier technology, staking it as critical to continued U.S. leadership. But what if the U.S. government is too focused on the most novel technologies rather than the most important ones? I believe America is in a great power contest with China, one that will be multidimensional and protracted, making it unlikely that success hinges solely on who can stay ahead in a few advanced technologies….

An excessive focus by the United States on A.I. — and on the advanced chip-making capabilities it requires — may represent a failure to appreciate China’s broad technology strengths. While China has suffered serious setbacks in chip production, its companies are vaulting ahead in other sectors. Last year China overtook Germany in automobile exports, and it is on track to overtake Japan as the global leader this year. While most of these exports consist of foreign brands produced in China, the numbers reflect the deep expertise that Chinese companies have built in the next era of automotive technologies, particularly in car batteries.

It’s not just cars. Industry estimates put Chinese companies at owning around 80 percent of the supply chain for solar manufacturing. Chinese electronics makers have produced a rising share of the components in Apple’s iPhone. And increasingly in less glamorous products — such as industrial machinery and basic household equipment…

With one hand, the U.S. government is blocking China’s progress on A.I. and supercomputing, but with the other, it is ushering Chinese companies toward concentrating their efforts on chips for products of daily use. And a world in which Chinese companies dominate the production of mature chips — driven directly by American policy — hardly looks like a victorious outcome for the United States….

We need to spend less time making ever more marginal refinements to restricting an emerging technology. Rather, we should take a more holistic view of a long-term contest with a peer competitor. That means broadening the strategic focus to a wider range of sectors and following through on plans to build unglamorous technologies, too. Biden Is Beating China on Chips. It May Not Be Enough, New York Times

Wang’s op-ed helps to point out the shortcomings of Biden’s blockade. Whatever technological gains the US may achieve in the near-term, they will pale in comparison to China’s forward progress in other, more mundane sectors of the economy. What the blockade illustrates is the administration’s obsessive search for a “silver bullet”, that is, a ‘magical weapon’ that will help them to achieve their broader strategic objectives. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will make a waning empire with dilapidated infrastructure, an aging workforce, a failing educational system, and a hollowed out industrial core, more competitive. The United States will have to spend less money on its wasteful and over-bloated military and more on the development of its productive assets and industries if it wants to compete head-to-head with a manufacturing powerhouse like China.

It’s also worth noting, that the blockade has dramatically impacted the bottom line of the major chip producers. Headlines like these can now be found in all the major mainstream media:

Samsung to extend production cuts after $7 billion chip loss in first half, Reuters

SK Hynix, one of the biggest memory chipmakers, reports record quarterly loss as prices slump, CNBC

Intel, Samsung, Micron and others are being hit by one of the worst chip routs ever in a swift decent from the pandemic sales surge, Bloomberg

Semiconductor giants are losing money on every chip as historic glut threatens to wipe out earnings, South China Morning Post

An industry that still is undergoing post-Covid distress syndrome, has now been whipsawed by precipitous policies aimed at containing a rising China. Here’s more on the topic from an article at the Global Times:

During a recent White House meeting with the chief executive officers of American semiconductor giants, Intel, Nvidia and Qualcomm criticized the Biden administration’s relentless approach to curb exports of advanced chips to Chinese customers, saying the restrictions will surely backfire on them, depleting them of a big revenue source and endangering their ability to lead the sector in the future.

The blunt warning is an attestation that the US government’s so-called “small yard and high fence” strategy to scupper China’s technology sector progress is ill-willed in the first place and to no avail in the end. For an example, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told senior US officials that limiting sales of American chips in China had “just made alternatives more popular.”

The undertone is if the American chip companies lose the market share in the world’s largest semiconductor market, they will lose them permanently. All the more, the availability and quality of the software that Chinese companies are using more than compensates for any hardware restrictions by Washington, the CEOs said. US-led semiconductor technology blockade to backfire on itself, allies, Global Times

Still, the Biden administration is charging ahead blindly despite the protests of industry honchos or skeptical allies. They’re not concerned about the loss of revenues for chip manufacturers or the impact their blockade could have on the industry as a whole. They are convinced that their onerous export controls will succeed and that, eventually, Beijing will submit to Washington’s diktat.

Most analysts, however, believe it is only a matter of time before China catches up and is able to produce its own advanced semiconductors. After all, China spends “$400 billion in annual chip imports” which will now be diverted to domestic production. Given China’s strides in other areas of technological development, we expect that they will bridge the gap within the decade. Consider, for example, what happened to Huawei. This is from an article at the New York Times:

Huawei may prove instructive once again. Battered by American sanctions and China’s strict pandemic controls, the company’s 2022 profits fell by a staggering 70 percent compared with the previous year. But there are signs of life: Despite the plunge in profits, revenues rose slightly, and the company’s operating system, HarmonyOS — which it developed after being cut off from using Android — has been installed on more than 330 million devices, mostly in China. …

Bereft of American chips and technology, Huawei has been forced to redesign and remanufacture all of its legacy products to ensure they contain no American components. The company is dragging along an entire domestic supply chain in its wake, sending its own engineers to help train and upscale Chinese suppliers it once shunned in favor of foreign alternatives. Recently, Huawei claimed that it had made significant breakthroughs in the electronic design software used to produce advanced semiconductors at a size that, though still a few generations behind the U.S., would put it further along than any other Chinese company. If Huawei manages to succeed, it could emerge from American sanctions stronger and more resilient than ever.” ‘An Act of War’: Inside America’s Silicon Blockade Against China, New York Times

So, yes, Trump’s sanctions put Huawei into a steep tailspin, but now the tech-giant is back on its feet and gaining momentum. Can we expect the same from China’s budding chips industry?

Yes, we can. China’s development may be delayed but it won’t be stopped. And when China finally catches up, they will remember the countries that violated WTO rules and abandoned their “free market” principles in order to inflict as much pain on China as possible. This is from a post at Econofact:

The rules of the WTO prohibit countries from acting unilaterally in response to what they perceive as violations by other countries. WTO members are instead required to use the WTO dispute settlement system for their complaints. This is intended to eliminate the possibility of a retaliatory spiral of protectionist measures. Recent moves by the United States to impose tariffs, justified as important to national security, are widely regarded by other countries as unilateral action that is illegal under WTO law…..

Unilateral action violating WTO rules risks destroying a system that the United States has led for decades, and that has benefited this country. U.S. Trade Policy: Going it Alone vs. Abiding by the World Trade Organization, Econofact

Simply put, Biden’s advanced semiconductor blockade is cheating. It is a clear violation of the rules the US agreed to uphold.

As we noted earlier, the vast majority of western journalists not only support the blockade but, also, take great delight in the fact that China is being unfairly targeted. Michael Schuman at The Atlantic, for example, is thrilled that Biden has taken such aggressive action which he thinks is entirely justified. Here’s what he said:

President Joe Biden showed Xi who’s boss. Two days earlier, on October 21, Biden had dropped the hammer on China’s semiconductor industry by fully implementing a slew of tough controls on the export of American chip technology to China. This is a painful blow to Xi’s ambitions to rival the U.S….

Biden’s new policy reveals that the standard narrative of China’s unstoppable ascent and America’s inexorable decline is based on flawed assumptions. The U.S. continues to hold tremendous economic and technological advantages over China, which, as Biden just signaled, Washington is becoming more willing to use against its Communist competitor. Above all, Biden’s export-control measures are a ruthless expression of American clout—and an intentional reminder that, in many respects, America has it and China does not. ...

These controls mark a distinct shift in Washington’s approach to China. On top of trying to outcompete China, which is the intent of the CHIPS Act recently passed to support the U.S. semiconductor sector, Washington is now purposely and openly working to hold back Chinese economic progress. Allen called the controls a “genuine landmark in U.S.-China relations” that heralds “a new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill.” Why Biden’s Block on Chips to China Is a Big Deal, The Atlantic

Not surprisingly, Schuman’s views are shared by a vast number of his colleagues in the media. They all seem to believe that China must be punished for succeeding in a system the US helped to create. What’s striking about Schuman’s piece, however, is the diabolical glee with which he promotes the “new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry… with an intent to kill.” That might sound a bit extreme for an opinion piece, but it does accurately reflect the aims of the Biden team who seem fully-committed to “thwarting Chinese capabilities on a broad and fundamental level.” In short, sabotaging China’s technological rise looks to be Washington’s top priority.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

***

In January 2010, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, doing what she does best, grasped a platitude and ran with it in launching, of all things, an institution called the Newseum. “Information freedom,” she declared, “supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress.”

The same figure has encouraged the prosecution of such information spear carriers as Julian Assange, who dared give the game away by publishing, among other things, documents from the State Department and emails from Clinton’s own presidential campaign in 2016 that cast her in a rather dim light. Information freedom is only to be lauded when it favours your side.

Who regulates, let alone should regulate, information disseminated across the Internet remains a critical question. Gone is the frontier utopianism of an open, untampered information environment, where bright and optimistic netizens could gather, digitally speaking, in the digital hall, the agora, the square, to debate, to ponder, to dispute every topic there was.  Perhaps it never existed, but for a time, it was pleasant to even imagine it did.

The shift towards information control was bound to happen and was always going to be encouraged by the greatest censors of all: governments. Governments untrusting of the posting policies and tendencies of social media users and their facilitators have been, for some years, trying to rein in published content in a number of countries. Cyber-pessimism has replaced the cyber-utopians. “Social media,” remarked science writer Annalee Newitz in 2019, “has poisoned the way we communicate with each other and undermined the democratic process.” The emergence of the terribly named “fake news” phenomenon adds to such efforts, all the more ironic given the fact that government sources are often its progenitors.

To make things even murkier, the social media behemoths have also taken liberties on what content they will permit on their forums, using their selective algorithms to disseminate information at speed even as they prevent other forms of it from reaching wider audiences. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, heeding the call of the very screams and bellows of their own creation, thought it appropriate to exclude or limit various users in favour of selected causes and more sanitised usage. In some jurisdictions, they have become the surrogates of government policy under threat: remove any offending material, or else.

Currently under review in Australia is another distinctly nasty example of such a tendency. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a proposed instrument that risks enshrining censorship by stealth. Its exposure draft is receiving scrutiny from public submissions till August. Submissions are sought “on the proposed laws to hold digital platform services to account and create transparency around their efforts in responding to misinformation and disinformation in Australia.”

The Bill is a clumsily drafted, laboriously constructed document. It is outrageously open-ended on definitions and a condescending swipe to the intelligence of the broader citizenry. It defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.” Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”

The bill, should it become law, will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to monitor and regulate material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”. The Big Tech fraternity will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA, with the regulator even going so far as proposing to “create and enforce an industry standard”. Those in breach will be liable for up to A$7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations.

What, then, is harm? Examples are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill. These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability. It can also include disruption to public order or society, the old grievance the State has when protestors dare differ in their opinions and do the foolish thing by expressing them. (The example provided here is the mind of the typical paranoid government official: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”)

John Steenhoff of the Human Rights Law Alliance has identified, correctly, the essential, dangerous consequence of the proposed instrument. It will grant the ACMA “a mechanism what counts as acceptable communication and what counts as misinformation and disinformation. This potentially gives the state the ability to control the availability of information for everyday Australians, granting it power beyond anything that a government should have in a free and democratic society.”

Interventions in such information ecosystems are risky matters, certainly for states purporting to be liberal democratic and supposedly happy with debate. A focus on firm, robust debate, one that drives out poor, absurd ideas in favour of richer and more profound ones, should be the order of the day. But we are being told that the quality of debate, and the strength of ideas, can no longer be sustained as an independent ecosystem. Your information source is to be curated for your own benefit, because the government class says it’s so. What you receive and how you receive, is to be controlled paternalistically.

The ACMA is wading into treacherous waters. The conservatives in opposition are worried, with Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman describing the draft as “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers. It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.” Not that the conservative coalition has any credibility in this field. Under the previous governments, a relentless campaign was waged against the publication of national security information. An enlightened populace is the last thing these characters, and their colleagues, want.

*

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

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

Video: “There is no corona pandemic but only a PCR Test plandemic”. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich, August 3, 2023

Retired Suddenly: NFL Players and International Soccer Players Injured After Taking COVID-19 Vaccines. Pericarditis, Arrhythmia, “Heart Conditions”, Blood Clots in Legs & Lungs

Dr. William Makis, August 7, 2023

Albert Einstein’s 1948 Letter to the NYT Warning Of Zionist Fascism In Israel

Dr. Albert Einstein, August 5, 2023

Died Suddenly on Vacation: Collapsing on the Beach. Covid Vaccinated while on Holidays

Dr. William Makis, August 7, 2023

New COVID-19 Variants: Propaganda Is Ramping Up and the COVID Con Is Back On

Dr. William Makis, August 9, 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein in the Brain?

Dr. William Makis, August 8, 2023

“Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”(UAP): What’s Up with All the Elites’ Alien Talk? Let’s Talk Motive

Ben Bartee, August 7, 2023

Niger – The Liberation from “Independence”

Peter Koenig, August 8, 2023

Covidian Madness Infects Alberta’s Criminal Justice System. The Truckers Movement and the Case of the “Coutts Four”

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, August 7, 2023

Target China

Mike Whitney, August 4, 2023

The New Woke Order

Richard Gale, August 4, 2023

Fire! Fire! Fire! … But Wait a Moment…

Julian Rose, August 7, 2023

Video: The Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told

StormCloudsGathering, August 7, 2023

List of 30 ‘Elites’ That Support and Promote Worldwide Depopulation

Michael Snyder, July 28, 2023

Carbon Dioxide Is the Least of Our Worries

Josh Mitteldorf, August 7, 2023

Are They Really Fighting Terrorists? U.S. Occupation Forces in Syria Receive New Weapons for a Future Conflict with Syrian and Russian Forces

Timothy Alexander Guzman, August 4, 2023

Strategic Visit? Victoria Nuland in Niamey: Some Interesting Details About Her Discussions in Niger

Andrew Korybko, August 8, 2023

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 5, 2023

The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society

Dr. Pascal Sacré, August 5, 2023

US-NATO Desperate in Ukraine. “No More Big Money, … All that is Left is Drip-Drip Small Handouts”

Karsten Riise, August 9, 2023

COVID Vaccine Myocarditis Relapses in Teenage Boys Following Apparently Complete Initial Recovery: Italian Researchers

By Alex Berenson, August 10, 2023

Both teenagers showed evidence of new heart damage from the recurrences, including high levels of proteins from injured cardiac muscle. Scans showed one boy had new lesions in his heart wall, and he needed nearly two weeks of hospitalization.

How Pacific Nations Are Playing US-China Rivalry to Their Advantage

By Salman Rafi Sheikh, August 11, 2023

Today’s global geopolitics is more about great power competition than any other thing. It is evident from the ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe, and it is evident from the ways in which the US has been trying to build a global coalition against China for the past many years now.

Mayor of Nagasaki Calls for Nations to ‘Break Free’ from Dependence on Nuclear Deterrence

By Roger McKenzie, August 10, 2023

Three days after world’s first nuclear attack hit Hiroshima, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people, a US warplane released another atom bomb over Nagasaki that claimed 70,000 more victims. Japan surrendered on August 15, ending World War II.

Competing War Narratives: Arrest of Gonzalo Lira by Ukraine’s SBU, and “Information Operations”

By Scott Ritter, August 10, 2023

Gonzalo Lira, the well-known Chilean-American YouTube personality, has been in the news lately. A former “lifestyle” coach, Lira re-branded himself as a geopolitical commentator in the leadup to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, providing gripping first-hand observations—often critical of the Ukrainian government and contradictory of the Ukrainian narrative—that were posted on YouTube.

Fauci Successor at NIAID Peddled Dangerous Remdesivir Drug as ‘Silver Bullet’ Against COVID-19

By Jordan Schachtel, August 10, 2023

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the newly minted successor to Dr Anthony Fauci at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was recently one of America’s chief hype women for an antiviral drug that is now unanimously considered an unsafe and catastrophically failed treatment for Covid-19.

All the News the CIA Sees Fit to Print

By David Talbot, August 10, 2023

When Kiriakou was a CIA official, he says, the agency leaked regularly to The Washington Post correspondents Woodward, David Ignatius and Joby Warrick—as well as “a half-dozen reporters” at The New York Times—because Langley spymasters knew they “will carry your water.”

Make Peace, You Fools! America’s Proxy War with Russia Has Transformed Ukraine into a Graveyard.

By Douglas Macgregor, August 10, 2023

Instead of approaching the negotiating table, Washington discarded the caution, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, that had guided previous American dealings with Moscow. Washington’s political class, with no real understanding of Russia or Eastern Europe, subscribed to the late Senator John McCain’s notion that Russia was a “gas station with nuclear weapons.”

‘Watershed Moment’: Over 700 Academics Equate Israeli Occupation with Apartheid

By Middle East Eye, August 10, 2023

More than 700 academics and public figures from Israel, Palestine and other countries have signed an open letter equating Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with apartheid, signalling what supporters say is a “watershed moment” for how Israel’s occupation is viewed.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 10, 2023

The report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”

China Trade Going Down. A Country in Crisis. Significant Reduction of Chinese Exports to US and EU

By Karsten Riise, August 10, 2023

China’s property market is down, and in spite of few young Chinese people, the youth unemployment is running above 20%. South Korea depends on exports to China (especially chips) and saw its exports fall 16.5% in July. Biden and the Neocons are rejoicing — their anti-China trade & sanctions policy is succeeding.

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

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

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

***

Two teenage boys who suffered heart inflammation following Pfizer’s Covid jabs and then seemed to recover had relapses months later, Italian researchers have reported.

Both teenagers showed evidence of new heart damage from the recurrences, including high levels of proteins from injured cardiac muscle. Scans showed one boy had new lesions in his heart wall, and he needed nearly two weeks of hospitalization.

The researchers could not determine why the boys suffered the relapses, which came 8 to 12 months after the initial myocarditis episodes. They called for tighter monitoring of anyone diagnosed with mRNA-caused myocarditis – and more research to determine if young people who suffered it might face severe future complications.

Published in late May in the journal Vaccine: X, the paper appears to be the first case report showing mRNA jabs can cause recurring myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. But public health authorities and the media, which since 2021 have played down cardiac side effects from mRNA shots, have ignored it.

Myocarditis has many causes, including viral infection and mRNA Covid vaccination.

It is often diagnosed when people go to emergency rooms with chest pain but can also occur without symptoms, causing people to have cardiac damage that is clear on heart scans or in blood tests but does not cause pain or fever.

Studies have shown myocarditis requiring hospitalization may occur in as many as 1 in 3,000 teenage boys or young adult men who receive a Covid jab, with the highest risk after the second dose. Many studies show Moderna’s shot, which has more mRNA than Pfizer’s, has a higher risk.

The underlying reason that the mRNAs cause myocarditis – and why it seems to affect young men more than anyone else – remains a mystery.

Researchers have proposed many different mechanisms, including direct damage from the spike protein the mRNA shots cause the body to make, immune system antibodies that mistakenly attack heart tissue instead of the spikes, or a more generalized immune system overresponse. So far they have not settled on a definite answer.

(Relapsing myocarditis. That’s not good, right?)

Source

In 2021 and 2022, public health experts and schools and universities – particularly in the United States – pushed mRNA Covid shots on teenagers and young adults at essentially no risk from Covid.

As the connection between the mRNAs and myocarditis became more clear, they downplayed its risks, calling it mild and tranisent.

But studies from South Korea, Qatar, and the Tokyo medical examiner’s office have proved that mRNA myocarditis can kill and has led to dozens of sudden deaths of young adults in those countries. The link to the deaths was generally discovered only after autopsies or medical record reviews of deaths within days or weeks of vaccinations.

The United States and most other mRNA vaccine countries have not conducted similar reviews, so the total post-jab myocarditis death toll remains a mystery.

(Everything was fine. Until it wasn’t.)

Another mystery is the long-term prognosis of teenagers and young adults who have suffered either mild or more severe post-jab myocarditis.

Some studies have shown changes in heart function up to a year later, but cardiologists disagree about whether the scarring visible on scans is severe enough to have meaningful long-term impact.

But the heart cannot regrow muscle after injury.

Any damage it suffers is effectively permanent, which is why the possibility that the mRNAs might caused repeated episodes of inflammation or scarring is so worrisome.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

The mayor of Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the United States dropping of an atom bomb on the city by calling today for nations across the world to “break free” from dependence on nuclear deterrence.

Three days after world’s first nuclear attack hit Hiroshima, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people, a US warplane released another atom bomb over Nagasaki that claimed 70,000 more victims. Japan surrendered on August 15, ending World War II.

The US remains the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in armed conflict.

At 11.02am, the moment the bomb exploded above the southern Japanese city, participants in today’s ceremony observed a moment of silence with the sound of a peace bell.

During his peace declaration, Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki said:

“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence.

“As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realise a world without nuclear weapons.”

Mr Suzuki expressed concern that the nuclear bombing could be forgotten as time passes and memories fade.

Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks have expressed frustration about the slow progress of disarmament, while the facts about what happened and their ordeals are not yet widely shared around the world.

Mr Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha — survivors of the Nagasaki attack — said that knowing the reality of the atomic bombings was the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

He described the survivors’ testimonies as a true deterrence against the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr Suzuki demanded that the government of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida quickly sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and clearly show “Japan’s resolve to abolish nuclear weapons.”

Japan, as a key ally of Washington, is covered by the US nuclear umbrella but is rearming as the allies ramp up threats against China and North Korea.

Under its new national security strategy, Mr Kishida’s government is pushing for a military build-up focusing on its strike capability.

As of March, 113,649 survivors, whose average age is 85, are certified as hibakusha and eligible for government medical support, according to the Health and Welfare Ministry.

However, many other victims of the atomic bombing, including those known as victims of the “black rain” that fell outside the initially designated areas, have been left with no government support.

*

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

Featured image is from NHK via Teller Report

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

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

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

***

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Gonzalo Lira, the well-known Chilean-American YouTube personality, has been in the news lately. A former “lifestyle” coach, Lira re-branded himself as a geopolitical commentator in the leadup to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, providing gripping first-hand observations—often critical of the Ukrainian government and contradictory of the Ukrainian narrative—that were posted on YouTube. As his popularity grew, his social media footprint expanded, with his Twitter and Telegram accounts garnering tens of thousands of followers, and his YouTube videos garnering hundreds of thousands of views and subscribers.

Gonzalo Lira was arrested by the SBU, or Ukrainian intelligence service, on April 15, 2022, and released five days later. Lira has been circumspect about both the arrest and the conditions of his release—he blithely calls it his “missing week.” Lira does acknowledge that his computers and phone were seized by Ukrainian authorities, and that he was released under conditions of “house arrest,” implying some sort of continued monitoring and control of his activities by the SBU. Nonetheless, he was able to gain access to a computer, set up a new email account, and immediately begin posting information critical of the Ukrainian government.

Alex Christoforou, of The Duran, interviews Gonzalo Lira after his release from SBU custody, April 22, 2022

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

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

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

***

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the newly minted successor to Dr Anthony Fauci at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was recently one of America’s chief hype women for an antiviral drug that is now unanimously considered an unsafe and catastrophically failed treatment for Covid-19.

Prior to moving to her Government Health post, Marrazzo was the longtime director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). 

In partnership with Big Pharma drugmaker Gilead, UAB played a major role in the research and development of Remdesivir. The drug was developed over a decade ago with the hopes to treat Hepatitis C and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but was suddenly repurposed to “treat” Covid-19 when coronavirus hysteria reached the United States.

Given the UAB-Gilead partnership, one would think that Dr. Marrazzo would refrain from commenting on issues through which she maintained a clear conflict of interest. Or at the very least, she had the duty to disclose her conflict of interest when speaking to the media about the UAB-developed “wonder drug.” She did no such thing.

Even worse, Dr. Marrazzo bashed harmless and low cost alternatives like hydroxychloroquine, while hyping the super expensive Gilead-UAB competitor drug.

“The hope was maybe, if you treat early in the disease, you don’t need a silver bullet” such as remdesivir, she told The Washington Post in a July 2020 piece. “Hospitals are on the razor’s edge,” she added, contributing to the fear and paranoia that was enveloping the nation at the time.

In interview after interview, Dr. Marrazzo had nothing but good things to say about remdesivir, despite the incredible lack of data available to support her outandish claims about the drug.

On social media, Marrazzo lavished endless praise upon Remdesivir, declaring it the best agent against coronavirus disease, and boasting that her hospital tries to use it on every covid-hospitalized patient. 

“We don’t have enough remdesivir to treat everybody who’s in the hospital,” she said in a late 2020 news conference about the state of her hospital system. “It’s a really challenging situation.”

Her predecessor at the NIAID, Mr Fauci, infamously paraded Remdesivir as the “standard of care” for Covid-19 treatment, adding that it can “block the virus.”

Unsupported pseudoscientific claims about very expensive drugs (a full course of remdesivir costs the patient thousands of dollars) is nothing new for NIAID officials, who, under Fauci’s leadership, have created an agency that acts as a government marketing department for pharmaceutical companies.

Undoubtedly, Marrazzo’s Remdesivir maximalism had disastrous implications for patients hospitalized at UAB. The so-called silver bullet later took on a morbid nickname, “run, death is near,” because of the severe side effect portfolio associated with the IV drug. 

The headlines speak for themselves:

Remdesivir not only failed, but actively harmed hospitalized patients, who were being injected with the antiviral agent following the recommendations of Dr. Marrazzo.

The most exhaustive studies on the Gilead-UAB drug show that there are zero clinical benefits to injecting patients with remdesivir. Many studies show that Remdesivir can severely injure vital organs such as the heart and kidneys.

Dr. Marrazzo has never publicly expressed remorse for her longtime promotion of the drug she once described as a “silver bullet” against Covid-19. She last promoted the unsafe drug in December, 2021, long after most hospital systems stopped treating patients with the Gilead-UAB disaster drug.

*

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

John Kiriakou looked up from his desk at CIA headquarters and was stunned to see The Washington Post investigative reporter, Bob Woodward, walking through the secure area without an agency escort. On another occasion, Kiriakou—who rose at the CIA to become executive assistant to the deputy in charge of operations, the spy agency’s dark activities—saw CNN host Wolf Blitzer wandering unattended through the same area, despite the CIA’s ban on communicating with the media.

“We like to think there’s a Chinese wall between the CIA, especially senior CIA officials, and the American media,” Kiriakou recently told the London Real podcast. “In fact, they’re in bed together.”

Kiriakou later became a well-known whistleblower. He was the only CIA employee who went to prison for the agency’s torture program, sentenced in 2013 to 30 months behind bars—not because he himself tortured anyone, but because he told an ABC News reporter about the waterboarding to which the agency subjected a war on terror captive.

These days, Kiriakou is outraged for a different reason: the tight connection between the CIA and the media elite. All too often, he says, the national security journalists who are granted access by Langley can be trusted to see world affairs—and the U.S. empire’s dominant role in them—the way the CIA wants them to. Whether it’s the war in Ukraine, tensions with Russia and China, or U.S. military exploits in the Middle East and Africa, coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and on television reflects the slanted view of the national security establishment.

When Kiriakou was a CIA official, he says, the agency leaked regularly to The Washington Post correspondents Woodward, David Ignatius and Joby Warrick—as well as “a half-dozen reporters” at The New York Times—because Langley spymasters knew they “will carry your water.”

Washington journalists who contradict the U.S. national security line—even legendary ones like Seymour Hersh, who enjoyed CIA access for many years—soon find themselves in the cold, according to Kiriakou. Hersh once worked for The New York Times and The New Yorker, but was forced to publish his exposé on the lethal U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, which tied the alleged 9/11 mastermind’s execution more to clandestine collaboration with Pakistani intelligence than to American heroics, in the low-circulation London Review of Books. Last year, Hersh was relegated to Substack to publish his investigative report on the explosion of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline, which blamed the act of war on U.S. Navy divers in a secret CIA operation ordered by President Joe Biden. (The New York Times still finds the sabotage a “mystery.”)

Hersh forced to self-publish? “That’s how bad it’s gotten in the United States,” Kiriakou says.

“Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world,” observed Caitlin A. Johnstone in MR (Monthly Review) Online. Now the CIA is the media, she ruefully concluded.

In 1977, Johnstone reminded her readers, Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame exposed the fact that the CIA supervised 400 reporters as agency “assets.” (Bernstein conveniently overlooked The Washington Post, which has a long history of coziness with intelligence. The newspaper’s current owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is a major CIA contractor.) When Bernstein’s article ran in Rolling Stone, it caused a tempest. Nowadays, nobody blinks an eye when “liberal” TV channels like CNN and MSNBC openly employ veterans of the CIA, FBI, NSA and other security agencies, such as commentators John Brennan, Jeremy Bash, Michael Hayden, James Clapper and Malcolm Nance.

Even Rolling Stone, once the voice of 1960s counterculture, which published radical and progressive writers like Tom Hayden, David Harris, Dick Goodwin and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—can no longer be trusted by free-thinking readers. RS is one of the publications vacuumed up by the upstart empire, Penske Media, which also purchased Variety, Hollywood Reporter and most of the entertainment industry media as well as New York Magazine. 

Under Penske Media—run by Jay Penske, the 44-year-old known for his floppy hair, model-like looks and not much else save the fact that his father is trucking mogul Roger Penske—Rolling Stone has taken a sharp turn to the right. When not attacking Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer” and “conspiracy”-obsessed lunatic, RS touts the bloody stalemate in Ukraine and the presidency of “boring” Biden.

Jay Penske went on his media buying spree courtesy of investment from Saudi Arabian royalty and New York hedge fund billionaire Daniel Loeb, who reportedly used former CIA agents to teach his staff deception techniques. (For the first time, Penske Media even brought CIA recruiters to the SXSW festival, the annual lollapalooza of indie music and technology which the media juggernaut also snapped up. The CIA’s message to young festival-goers: it’s cool to be a spy!)

In 2021, Penske Media hired 50-year-old Noah Shachtman to be the editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone. It was a strange choice to run the iconic music magazine. Shachtman was known mainly as an entrepreneurial national security journalist whose publications were avidly read by generals and weapons manufacturers. He uses military lingo to describe his editorial targets at Rolling Stone, referring to them as “bad actors” like Eric Clapton and Kennedy. Although he worked for the 1992 Bill Clinton presidential campaign, Shachtman says we need more leaders like Clinton’s opponent, former President George H. W. Bush—a man who was “a coalition-builder, someone who talked sense and had a bit of decency to him… an old-school internationalist.”  And a former CIA director—but definitely not a “bad actor.”

The view that the world is a dangerous place, filled with bad actors—and must be dominated by the U.S. militarily—now prevails not only at Rolling Stone, but throughout our mainstream media.

Social media also has been colonized by the national security ideology. Last December, after buying Twitter, Elon Musk stated that internal documents revealed the company had taken money from the FBI to censor tweets the bureau considered objectionable.

Last week, Glenn Greenwald interviewed Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, who charged that government security agencies have imposed an “over-the-top biased view” on the online encyclopedia since 2008.

“We do have evidence that as early as 2008 CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” Sanger told Greenwald. “Do you think they stopped doing that? No. We know that a great part of intelligence now, information wars, is conducted online. And where if not on websites like Wikipedia? So, they pay off the most influential people, to push their agendas—which they’re mostly already in line with. Or they just develop their own talent within the community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people.”

Kennedy recently sued YouTube and its parent company Google, charging the social media giant with censorship. Among the RFK Jr. videos taken down by YouTube are his interviews with Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and his speech at Saint Anselm’s College, all from this year.

“This complaint concerns the freedom of speech and the extraordinary steps the United States government has taken under the leadership of Joe Biden to silence people it does not want Americans to hear,” the lawsuit reads. “Mr. Kennedy is not the only victim of this censorship campaign, which is unprecedented in American history. But he is a high-profile victim, especially since he is now challenging President Biden for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.”   

Democracy can’t function without a free press. But there is no such thing as unfettered journalism when secretive agencies control the media. Spooks have no place in the newsroom. And yet most of our reporting comes from closely supervised news outlets or even subsidiaries of the permanent government.

It’s time to reject the brainwashing and think for ourselves.

*

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

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo

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

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

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

***

Incrementalism—the tendency to inch forward rather than to take bold steps—is usually preferred by political and military leaders in warfare, because the introduction of a few forces into action puts fewer personnel at risk, and, in theory, promises a series of improvements over time, often through attrition.

In 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by the then-chairman General J. Lawton Collins, recommended short envelopments along the Korean coastline that were designed to gradually increase the size of the U.S. and Allied enclave known as the Pusan Perimeter. The idea was to buy time to assemble enough forces to launch a breakout on the Normandy model. But General of the Army Douglas MacArthur disagreed. He argued for a daring, deep envelopment that promised to cut off the North Korean Forces south of the 38th Parallel that were encircling Pusan.

As it turned out, MacArthur was right. Today, we know that the short envelopments were exactly what the North Korean command was prepared to defeat. In retrospect, it is certain that along with their Chinese allies, the North Koreans were familiar with the operational employment of U.S. and Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower’s insistence on a broad front strategy that moved millions of troops in multiple armies in parallel across France and Germany to Central Europe conformed to the low-risk formula.

In light of this history, it was reasonable for the North Koreans to believe that MacArthur would never split his forces and launch an amphibious assault far behind North Korean lines. It was simply too risky. And the operational concept for Inchon was also inconsistent with the way U.S. forces were employed during the Civil War and World War I—wars won through attrition, not maneuver.

In February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin opted for incrementalism in his approach to the “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine. Putin committed fewer than 100,000 Russian troops to a shallow penetration attack on a broad front into a country the size of Texas. Having failed over a period of nearly 15 years to persuade Washington and the collective West of Moscow’s opposition to NATO’s advance to the east, Putin seems to have concluded that Washington and its NATO allies would prefer immediate negotiations to a destructive regional war with unknowable potential for escalation to the nuclear level.

Putin was wrong. He made a false assumption based on rational choice theory. Rational choice theory attempts to predict human behavior based on the assumption that individuals habitually make choices in economics, politics, and daily life that align with their personal best interest.

The problem with the theory is that human beings are not rational. In fact, the human mind is like a black box. It is possible to observe what goes into the black box and the decisions that come out of it, but the actual decision-making process that unfolds inside the black box is opaque.

In international relations and war, the defining features of human identity—history, geography, culture, religion, language, race, or ethnicity—must also figure prominently in any strategic assessment. For reasons of culture, experience, and innate character, MacArthur was a risk-taker. As Peter Drucker reminds his readers, culture is the foundation for human capital. These realities routinely defeat the unrealistic expectations that rational choice theory creates.

Instead of approaching the negotiating table, Washington discarded the caution, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, that had guided previous American dealings with Moscow. Washington’s political class, with no real understanding of Russia or Eastern Europe, subscribed to the late Senator John McCain’s notion that Russia was a “gas station with nuclear weapons.”

Putin is not a risk-taker. But he abandoned incrementalism, and rapidly reoriented Russian forces to the strategic defense, an economy of force measure designed to minimize Russian losses while maximizing Ukrainian losses until Russian Forces could return to offensive operations. The Russian change in strategy has worked. Despite the unprecedented infusion of modern weaponry, cash, foreign fighters, and critical intelligence to Ukrainian forces, Washington’s proxy is shattered. Ukraine’s hospitals are brimming with broken human beings and Ukrainian dead litter the battlefield. Kiev is a heart patient on life support.

Russia’s attrition strategy has achieved remarkable success, but the success is making the conflict currently more dangerous than at any point since it began in February 2022. Why? Defensive operations do not win wars, and Washington continues to believe Ukraine can win.

Washington discounts Ukrainian losses and exaggerates Russian losses. Officers present at meetings in the Pentagon tell me that minor Ukrainian battlefield successes (that are almost instantly reversed) loom large in the discussions held in four-star headquarters, the White House, and Foggy Bottom. These reports are treated as incontrovertible evidence of inevitable Ukrainian victory. In this climate, staff officers are reluctant to highlight effective Russian military performance or the impact of Russia’s expanding military power.

The Western media reinforce these attitudes, arguing that the Russian generals and their forces are dysfunctional, mired in corruption and sloth, and that Ukraine can win if it gets more support. As a result, it is a good bet that Washington and its allies will continue to provide equipment and ammunition, though probably not in the quantities and of the quality they did in the recent past.

Warsaw, whose leadership of NATO’s anti-Russian crusade is prized in Washington, finds comfort in the Beltway’s belief in Russian military weakness. So much so, that Warsaw seems willing to risk direct confrontation with Moscow. According to French sources in Warsaw, if Ukrainian forces are driven back, “the Poles may introduce the first division this year, which will include the Poles, the Balts, and a certain number of Ukrainians.”

Now, Washington is misjudging Moscow. The Russian national command authorities may well think that Warsaw’s actions align with Washington’s intentions. President Biden’s executive order to extend hazard pay to American soldiers currently serving in Ukraine (who are not supposed to be there) no doubt reinforces this opinion.

But it is far more likely that the Polish tail wants to wag the American dog. The Poles know their military intervention in historic Galician Ukraine will provoke a military response from both Belarus and Russia, but Warsaw also reasons that Washington’s air and ground forces in Europe are unlikely to sit quietly in Ukraine, Romania, and the Baltic littoral while Polish forces fight a losing battle.

America’s proxy war with Russia has transformed Ukraine into a graveyard. Indulging Poland’s passion for war with Russia encourages Poland to follow the Ukrainian example. The very idea must leave Moscow no choice but to bring all of Russia’s military power to bear simultaneously against Ukraine, before the collective West stumbles into regional war. Make peace, you fools, before it’s too late.

*

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

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Featured image: “Plans love silence. There’ll be no announcement of the start.” Photo credit: Ukraine Defense Ministry

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

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

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

***

More than 700 academics and public figures from Israel, Palestine and other countries have signed an open letter equating Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with apartheid, signalling what supporters say is a “watershed moment” for how Israel’s occupation is viewed.

The letter, which began circulating on Friday, has received around 200 signatures per day with “more coming in, quite literally, by the minute”, Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University and organiser of the letter, told Middle East Eye.

The letter featured 752 signatories at the time of publication.

The authors said there was a direct link between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to overhaul Israel’s judiciary and its illegal occupation of millions of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian Territories.

“The ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population,” the letter said.

Notably, the letter made a clear reference to “the elephant in the room: Israel’s long-standing occupation that, we repeat, has yielded a regime of apartheid.”

“There cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid,” it added.

Bartov told MEE that there were a number of Israeli academics who signed the letter who previously would have likely refused to equate the occupation with apartheid. One of the most prominent he identified was Benny Morris, professor emeritus at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

“The main change is that Israeli behavior, in the West Bank, but also apparently unfolding vis-a-vis Israel’s Arabs now, has become increasingly brutal over the past few years, and especially more in the past half year. It has made more and more people realise that continued occupation is morally and politically impossible,” he said.

‘Watershed Moment’

Leading academics such as Peter Beinart from the City University of New York, and Avrum Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel also signed the letter.

Academics whose backgrounds span from evolutionary biology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to choreography and rabbinical studies at Hebrew College also endorsed the letter. Besides leading academics in Israel, it received support from professors at Yale, Brown, Columbia, and Harvard University in the United States.

On social media platform X, previously known as Twitter, one user anticipated potential accusations of anti-semitism.

This is an impressive list of Jewish Studies scholars, both within and outside of Israel, signing a statement explicitly stating the Occupation now amounts to apartheid: https://t.co/udb1aAw1CE

Benny Morris even signed! I don't see how they can all be dismissed as antisemites.

— Joel S. (@jh_swanson) August 7, 2023

“The broad inclusion of so many academics representing a stunningly broad spectrum of distinguished Jewish voices, indicates a watershed moment also in American Jewish views about Israel, and a new willingness by public figures, reflecting the sentiments of the younger generation, to honestly criticise Israeli policies,” Bartov added.

According to a Middle East Eye tally, at least 208 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire this year, including 36 children – a rate of nearly one fatality per day.

A total of 172 people have died in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, making 2023 one of the bloodiest years in the occupied Palestinian territories. Another 36 people were killed in the Gaza Strip.

Lior Sternfeld, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies at Penn State University and organiser of the letter, said people were beginning to see a link between the moves by Israel’s far-right government to remake the country’s judiciary and the occupation.

“Now more than ever before, regular middle-way people, intellectuals, and leaders see that unbreakable connection between the occupation and the current political moment,” she told MEE.

“Israelis and Americans who in the past disagreed with the occupation but were willing to look past it are fed up.”

*

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

Featured image is from IMEMC

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

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

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

***

Chinese exports in July 2023:

• – 23% to the US
• – 21% to the EU
• – 21% to ASEAN
• + 52% to Russia

Overall, a reduction in July of 14.5% in total Chinese exports.

China’s property market is down, and in spite of few young Chinese people, the youth unemployment is running above 20%.

South Korea depends on exports to China (especially chips) and saw its exports fall 16.5% in July.

Biden and the Neocons are rejoicing — their anti-China trade & sanctions policy is succeeding.

The West is decoupling from China, and China is being destroyed by lack of access to chips and hi-tech.

The bad news for many Chinese manufacturers and exporters is that rich countries in the West are reducing their reliance on Chinese goods. U.S. officials and their allies in Europe have been prompting firms to move production away from China toward a circle of trusted nations instead. See this.

The total effects hit the whole world, however.

The IMF expects world trade to slow by 2% in 2023 – a clear sign of global economic setback. See this.

This is also bad news for the US, the EU – and even India, ASEAN, and Africa.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Trade containers are seen at the Horgos Port in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, February 6, 2021. Photo: Xinhua

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

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

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

***

On May 27, 2023, I wrote a substack article about multiple COVID-19 vaccinated family members, who died suddenly. 

Now, I am starting to see multiple COVID-19 vaccinated family members develop Turbo Cancers (often stage 4) and their stories are shocking and difficult to believe.

Click here to view the video

(See video above) July 18, 2023, San Juan Capistrano, CA – Parents of 3 children, Zak and Cori Salazar were both diagnosed with cancer, mom Cori with an “aggressive form of thyroid cancer” had two surgeries and dad Zak was diagnosed with aggressive Stage 4 Astrocytoma and just had surgery (click here).

July 23, 2023, Davenport, FL – Michael Ruopoli was just diagnosed with “cancer of the blood”, presumably leukemia, after developing a whole body rash while his mother is currently battling Stage IV Lung Cancer (click here).

June 29, 2023, Baraboo, WI – Three family members develop cancer! – Both of Jessica Dominguez’s parents have been battling end stage cancer, her mother fighting lung cancer last 4 years, and her father diagnosed with late stage Colon cancer in March 2023. Jessica Dominguez herself has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor!

June 26, 2023, Brampton, ON – Daniel Siewdass and Ferria Siewdass were both diagnosed with high grade cancer, Daniel with brain cancer glioblastoma and Ferria with high grade breast cancer (triple negative). (click here)

June 26, 2023 – Brazil – 37 year old mother Heliana Barbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2023 and within 20 days her 18 year old daughter Emanuely was diagnosed with a rare Hodgkin’s lymphoma tumor in the lungs (click here).

June 8, 2023, Mamaroneck, NY – John Flynn suffered a catastrophic brain bleed while his wife EJ Flynn was diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer (click here).

June 6, 2023, Agoura Hills, CA – Julie Ranoa and her mother Janis Ranoa have both been diagnosed with breast cancer at the same time (click here).

Mar.16, 2023 – Atlanta, GA – Three family members develop cancer. 34 year old Chasity Nolton was dealing with her mother’s recent breast cancer diagnosis and had recently lost another family member to breast cancer, when she herself was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Click here)

Feb. 10, 2023 – Hamburg, NY – Kelly Englert is a nurse who was diagnosed with Stage IV Lung Cancer 3 years ago that has recently spread to her brain. Her daughter Kaitland was just diagnosed with recurrence of her brain tumor which has “mutated into an aggressive form and is a Grade 4 Glioma”. Both have simultaneous CANCER RECURRENCES into more aggressive forms! (Click here)

Jan, 2023, Aitkin, MN – Mother and son are both fighting cancer. Sarah Fjeld had Stage 3 breast cancer in 2017 and was cancer free. She developed COVID in March 2021 and was found to have Stage 4 breast cancer recurrence that spread to lungs, bones and liver. Her 20 yo son Noah Fjeld was diagnosed with rare Nasopharyngeal cancer in Nov. 2022 (click here).

Nov 8, 2022, Valley Cottage, NY – Nicole Smit is a teacher. In Dec.2021, Nicole’s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. In June 2022, Nicole was diagnosed with the same type of breast cancer as her mother and was also diagnosed with a secondary breast cancer. (Click here)

June 24, 2022, Waverly, AL – Husband and wife battle cancer together. Chris was diagnosed with lung & bone cancer while his wife Tina Wright was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Click here)

My Take…

Genetics may be a factor in some of these cases, for example involving mother and daughter battling the same type of breast cancer, etc.

But there are also many couples coming down with aggressive late stage cancers at the same time.

Turbo Cancers can develop following COVID-19 vaccination and often present at Stage 4. They are often described by oncologists as “rare” or “aggressive”.

The most common and most aggressive turbo cancers we are seeing now are leukemias, lymphomas, brain cancers (glioblastomas) and breast cancers.

When multiple family members come down with cancer and a COVID-19 vaccine induced turbo cancer is suspected, always look for the presence of at least one of these: leukemia, lymphoma, brain cancer, breast cancer.

Presumably, if multiple family members went to get their COVID-19 vaccine at the same time, they may have received a “bad batch” or “hot lot”, a toxic pharmaceutical product with poor quality control that may have had too much mRNA or may have been contaminated with DNA plasmids containing the carcinogenic SV40 promoter (discovered in Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine), for example. Or that vaccine vial may have contained something much worse than mRNA.

The immune system damage and organ damage that those family members could then experience from a “bad vaccine batch” or a “hot lot”, may be similar and may give rise to turbo cancers in multiple family members.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Expose News

---

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

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

“Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention and Resistance”

By Rick Sterling, August 10, 2023

Many nations in the Americas have suffered from US promoted coups, dictatorships, sanctions and outright invasions. Nicaragua may take the cake for being the most victimized. Dan Kovalik has written a book which reviews the history of intervention and resistance up to the present day.

Feminism and the Historical Struggle for Gender Equality

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, August 10, 2023

It is important to have a short look at the history of this battle for more women’s rights. That is why I will shortly explain the ideology and social movement of Feminism, the factor which has driven women in their battle for equal chances and respect.

Niger: A Coup Against French Control and Dominance

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, August 10, 2023

The situation in Niger is still in flux. On 26 July 2023 a military coup took place in that West African state that led to the ouster of its elected President, Mohamed Bazoum, by Brigadier General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The Brigadier General has proclaimed that he is the new president of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP).

NATO/EU Throw 300,000 Ukrainians to Their Deaths: “Like Germany in 1945″: Western Support Ebbing Away

By Rodney Atkinson, August 10, 2023

While some estimates of Ukrainian dead vary between 300,000 and 400,000 Ukrainian sources admit to 310,000 deaths and the Wall Street Journal estimates between 20,000 and 50,000 have lost one or more limbs. Other estimates are that several hundred thousand are severely wounded.

Syrian Civilians Struggle Between Deadly Israeli Air Strikes and US Sanctions

By Steven Sahiounie, August 09, 2023

Israeli airstrikes on Syria have become routine and deadly. On Monday, Israeli airstrikes on Damascus at 2:20 am local time killed four Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

US-NATO Desperate in Ukraine. “No More Big Money, … All that is Left is Drip-Drip Small Handouts”

By Karsten Riise, August 09, 2023

After months and months of US media lies about how “phantastic” Ukraine is doing, it is for the cynical a fun to watch how the US narrative is breaking down these days. After months of heavy losses and no gain, the US belief that Ukraine can ever win is vanishing – even CNN cannot keep tight about it anymore.

Zelensky Irritated by Lula, Says He Should Have “a Broader Understanding of the World.”

By Ahmed Adel, August 09, 2023

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a press conference that he thought his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “had a broader understanding of the world.” The comments were triggered by Lula suggesting that Zelensky, as a minimum, needs to accept that Crimea is a part of Russia.

New COVID-19 Variants: Propaganda Is Ramping Up and the COVID Con Is Back On

By Dr. William Makis, August 09, 2023

The COVID con is back on. The usual COVID con-artists have their scripts and the propaganda is being churned out by mainstream media. I have zero concerns about EG.5.1 or “Eris” variant. This variant is BS – just more theatre for the COVID-19 vaccine addicted, and the brainwashed.

The Second Russia-Africa Summit: A Continent at the Crossroads

By Samir Bhattacharya, August 09, 2023

Similar to the last summit, the agenda of this year’s summit included technology transfer and development of industry and critical infrastructure in Africa, developing power engineering, agriculture and mineral extraction, and ensuring food and energy security.

Jakarta Is Alert but Not Alarmed Over the US–PNG Defence Agreement

By Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, August 08, 2023

The United States and Papua New Guinea recently concluded a comprehensive Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement will give the US military unimpeded access to many PNG key naval facilities. This new agreement is expected to increase the US military presence in the Pacific region amid the intensifying US–China rivalry.

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

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

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

***

“He didn’t expect such opposition, he fully realized that messing with people’s lives is not as easy as putting a virus in a computer. Around the world thousands of people are looking for evidence to put him in court.”

Il ne s’attendait pas à une telle opposition, il a pris pleinement conscience que jouer avec la vie de gens n’est aussi facile que de mettre un virus dans un ordinateur. Dans le monde entier des milliers de personnes cherchent des preuves pour le mettre devant un tribunal. pic.twitter.com/sUpBADy8qZ

— VERITY France (@verity_france) August 7, 2023

*

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

As I was reading an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday condemning Russia for its war of aggression in Ukraine and the torture of Ukrainians, I just kept asking myself: Why isn’t the Post condemning the U.S. government for the same thing? And yet, not one single mention of what the U.S. government did to the people of both Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Why? Why not use the opportunity to show the world that U.S. officials deserve to be punished for what they did to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq just as much as Russian officials deserve to be punished for what they are doing in Ukraine? 

Let’s begin with Iraq, a nation that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The U.S. war on that nation was a pure, unadulterated “war of aggression,” the type of war condemned by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. 

The Post clearly understands the concept of a “war of aggression” because it describes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “an unjustified war of aggression.” Given such, why didn’t the Post use its editorial to condemn both regimes — the U.S. regime and the Russian regime — rather than focus only on the Russian regime?

One of the fiercest battles in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq occurred in the city of Fallujah. When that battle was going on, the mainstream media was referring to U.S. troops as the “good guys” and to the Iraqi defenders as the “bad guys.” I kept thinking: But those “bad guys” are just defending their country from illegal invaders. Why are they “bad guys” for doing that? The Ukrainian soldiers are not considered “bad guys” for defending their country, are they? Is it because U.S. forces are automatically and always to be considered “good guys,” even whey they are waging a war of aggression against another country?

Afghanistan was labeled a “good war” because Osama bin Laden, who was accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, was living there. U.S. officials claimed that that fact removed that particular invasion from the realm of a “war of aggression.” 

Not so! The reason that President Bush ordered his army to invade Afghanistan is that Afghanistan had refused to accede to his extradition demand for bin Laden. Bush called such refusal “harboring” terrorists. But Afghanistan had the legal right to refuse to accede to Bush’s extradition demand, given that there was no extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. Moreover, there was never any evidence that the Afghanistan government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Thus, the U.S. war on Afghanistan was a pure, unadulterated war of aggression. Just as the U.S. war on Iraq was.

Sometime after the launching of those two wars of aggression, rumors began circulating that U.S. forces were torturing people. Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we immediately began calling for investigations and condemning all acts of torture. 

We were inundated with vicious attacks from U.S. interventionists who fervently denied that U.S. forces would ever engage in torture and fiercely criticizing us for even suggesting the possibility that they would do so. 

And then the proof began surfacing, such as the vicious torture at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, secret CIA prison camps, and elsewhere. 

What did our critics say then? No, they didn’t apologize. Instead, they maintained that the torture was no big deal. Some of them even defended the torture, which to me was very bizarre, given that the people who were being tortured were the victims of U.S. wars of aggression. 

I recall reading about one Iraqi man who kept exclaiming during his torture session, “Sir, why are you doing this to me?” I found it fascinating that he would refer to his torturer as “Sir,” and I concluded that it was because he had a high respect for Americans. I could easily see why he couldn’t understand why Americans were torturing him, given that he and his nation had never done anything against the United States. In fact, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had even been a partner and ally of the United States during the 1980s. Americans often tend to forget that but certainly the Iraqi people had not forgotten it. 

At one point, it was discovered that the U.S. national security establishment was videotaping its torture sessions. My immediate reaction was: Why would they do that? For fun viewing later on? For future torture training sessions? When it was discovered that the torture tapes had been destroyed to prevent Congress from viewing them, I was not surprised that no one was prosecuted for intentionally destroying evidence of a crime. By this time, I had come to the realization that the higher-ups in the U.S. national security state form of governmental structure are immune from criminal liability.

One of the points I kept making about all this mayhem is that wars of aggression and torture are what communist and other totalitarian regimes do and that America should not be doing what they do. Supporters of these two U.S. wars of aggression and the torture that came with them had a difficult time seeing my point. 

And that’s the real value of the Washington Post’s editorial yesterday condemning Russia for its war of aggression and the torture of prisoners and detainees. It’s always easy to pull the speck out of someone else’s eye. It’s not so easy to pull the plank out of one’s own eye. Even though the Post’s editorial fails to mention the U.S. government, one can easily apply the principles enunciated in the editorial to the U.S. wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and to the U.S. torture of people from those two countries.

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email. 

Featured image is from FFF

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

Many nations in the Americas have suffered from US promoted coups, dictatorships, sanctions and outright invasions. Nicaragua may take the cake for being the most victimized. Dan Kovalik has written a book which reviews the history of intervention and resistance up to the present day.

Kovalik includes his own experiences from several decades visiting Nicaragua. The first time was with a Veterans for Peace (VFP) convoy of trucks bringing aid to Nicaragua in 1987. Incredibly, for two months the US government blocked the aid trucks from exiting the US en route to Nicaragua. The story has a happy outcome. After months of effort, the antiwar activists succeeded in exiting the US and reaching Nicaragua wherea they were greeted with open arms and celebrations. That experience triggered a lifelong interest in Nicaragua by Kovalik, who has worked for decades as an international human rights lawyer and is a retired attorney for the United Steel Workers.

The book describes key periods of US intervention. In 1855, William Walker declared himself president of Nicaragua. Backed by a small army of European and US soldiers, he seized control of the Nicaraguan city of Grenada. Walker re-introduced slavery, arguing that it was introduced in the Americas “in a spirit of benevolence and philanthropy.” With the US Civil War on the horizon, he was also supported by southern US states. Within a couple years, Walker’s forces were defeated, and he was executed.

Beginning in 1909, US Marines invaded and occupied Nicaragua. They dominated the country for the next three decades. The US occupation led to armed resistance organized by Augusto Cesar Sandino.

In 1934, the “National Guard” of Nicaragua (trained by US Marines) reneged on a peace agreement with Sandino and  murdered him and his staff. The Somoza family dominated the country for the next forty-five years. They were notoriously corrupt and even robbed international donations following the devastating 1972 earthquake. Kovalik describes how Puerto Rican baseball great Roberto Clemente died while trying to bring relief aid to Nicaragua.

In 1961, armed opposition to the Somoza dictatorship was formed under the banner of the Sandinista Front for the Liberation of Nicaragua (FSLN). After fifty thousand deaths, with many caused by blanket bombing, the Somoza dictatorship was overthrown in July 1979. Under the FSLN, the country made huge strides toward eliminating illiteracy and peasant impoverishment. For the first time, medical help was made available in remote communities. For the first time, schools were open to all children.

Angered by the threat of a popular government outside their control and allied with Cuba, the Reagan administration was hell bent to stop the Sandinistas. They did this by creating a “Contra” army, which attacked Nicaraguan infrastructure such as gas pipelines, killed healthcare and rural cooperative members, and even killed foreign aid workers such as young US engineer Ben Linder. Nicaragua was forced to divert scarce resources into defending itself. Kovalik describes how Reagan kept funding the Contra war through a diabolical scheme whereby weapons were sent to the Contras and cocaine brought back, to be sold in crack form in poor and largely Black communities.

Despite the Contra war, the Sandinistas held national elections. In 1984 the FSLN won decisively. In 1990, with Washington explicitly threatening to continue the illegal war while the Sandinistas remained in power, the majority voted for the US-promoted candidate. Many Nicaraguans were exhausted from the continuing Contra war. The death toll was thirty thousand dead and many more injured in a country of only 3 million.

The US establishment and media was surprised when the Sandinistas acknowledged the electoral defeat and stepped down. Neoliberal policies reigned for the next 16 years. Public institutions were privatized. Unemployment and poverty increased dramatically. Government spending on healthcare was slashed, while illiteracy spread once again. Kovalik gives us that statistics and summaries from Oxfam, the UN and other sources.

The Sandinistas went through internal debates, including a split, but did not go away. In 2006, Nicaraguans voted Daniel Ortega and the FSLN back into power. Ever since then, they have gained increasing levels of support. Kovalik describes how they have invigorated the economy and prioritized policies favoring the working class and farmers. The FSLN re-instituted free education and healthcare plus small loans with “zero usury” for businesses. They made major infrastructure improvements with roads and a highway to the east coast. They have steadily expanded reliable and renewable electricity to all parts of the country. Nicaragua is now ranked #1 in the western hemisphere for gender equality.

Unfortunately, the popularity and effective management of the FSLN continues to be seen as a “threat” by Washington. In the spring of 2018, something close to a “color revolution” took place. With extensive quotes and descriptions from people who were on the ground, Kovalik analyzes and gives evidence showing that the turmoil was prepared and promoted by the US using social media techniques with support from conservative church, business and political rivals.

Kovalik describes how the Ortega administration took the unusual step of ordering police to stay in the barracks. They had to endure attacks and watch as the “peaceful protesters” attacked schools, clinics, and government offices. Ultimately the Sandinista strategy exposed who was instigating the violence and harming the economy with roadblocks. With minimal conflict, the uprising and “regime change” effort collapsed. The roadblocks were taken down and the economy slowly restored. Some coup leaders left for Costa Rica and others for the US.

Kovalik addresses the criticisms of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas which are sometimes heard in the West. Regarding the opposition “Sandinista Renovation Movement” (MRS), Kovalik shows that their policies have little popular appeal. They are more popular in the West than in Nicaragua where their support is minuscule. Many western critics of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas have not been there for many years or even decades.

Opponents of the Sandinistas were hoping the FSLN would not do well in the November 2021 election. Instead, FSLN candidates Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo received 75% of the vote against five competing parties. This international observer was impressed with the high turnout, efficiency and authenticity of the election.

Kovalik covers all these topics with a good level of depth including sources. There are many references and interesting quotations from North Americans and Europeans who live in Nicaragua. The book also includes many references to movies, songs and poetry. Poets are still revered and music is still a big part of Nicaragua. At the recent 44^th celebration of the Nicaragua revolution, the first two hours were devoted to songs.

Kovalik’s book on Nicaragua is highly relevant because US interference in Nicaragua and Central America continues. For years there has been a drumbeat of biased and false claims in western media about Nicaragua. Washington is steadily increasing sanctions on Nicaragua.

What happens in Nicaragua is important for other countries in Central America. Neighboring Honduras is currently trying to escape US dominance. Both Honduras and Nicaragua recently broke relations with Taiwan and established relations with China. That is, of course, their right as sovereign nations. But the US does not approve. The 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine has not been rescinded  and we can safely predict US intervention in Nicaragua will continue.

Told in an engaging and persuasive way, this book presents the history of a small nation that has resisted continual efforts to dominate and control it. It is truly a David vs Goliath tale.  Anyone interested in Latin American history or US foreign policy should add this book to their reading list.

*

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

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

---

Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention & Resistance

By Dan Kovalik

Publisher: Clarity Press (January 15, 2023)

Paperback:‎ 332 pages

ISBN-10:‎ 1949762602

ISBN-13:‎ 978-1949762600

Reviews

“Professor Kovalik sweeps away fake news and fake history disseminated by the mainstream media concerning Nicaragua, documenting a gruesome history of US interventionism and crimes in Nicaragua. Highlighting the achievements of the Sandinistas in the field of human rights and social justice, he refutes US caricatures and denounces CIA attempts to destabilize Nicaragua to facilitate undemocratic ‘regime change’.” ALFRED DE ZAYAS, UN Independent Expert for the promotion of an international democratic and equitable order

“Kovalik demolishes the dominant Western narrative. He shares the hard-won gains of today’s Nicaragua, explains Daniel Ortega’s enduring popularity and powerfully defends why the Sandinistas are deserving of our continued solidarity. This book is must-read to understand Nicaragua in the 21st century and fills a stark gap in contemporary Latin American Studies. May it lead to further study in situ and less arm-chair pontificating by politicians and intellectuals.” — SOFIA M. CLARK, Professor of Political Science, UNAN-Managua.

“Daniel Kovalik, international human rights attorney, who has been visiting Nicaragua since 1987, has provided a clearly written and well-documented (453 Endnotes) factual account of an honest history of Nicaragua from the 1850s to the present in less than 180 pages. By reading this account, the reader will be well versed to contradict the constant lies presented to the public by the incredibly controlled corporate and Silicon Valley news media. Hats off to Mr. Kovalik, for setting the record straight.” S. BRIAN WILLSON, lawyer, author of Don’t Thank Me For My Service, resident of Nicaragua

Click here to purchase.

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

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

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

***

The situation in Niger is still in flux. On 26 July 2023 a military coup took place in that West African state that led to the ouster of its elected President, Mohamed Bazoum, by Brigadier General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The Brigadier General has proclaimed that he is the new president of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP).

The coup has been condemned by the 15 member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) of which Niger is a member, the African Union, the European Union and the United States of America. On the 30^th of July, ECOWAS whose current head is Nigeria (not to be confused with Niger) issued an ultimatum to the coup leaders to restore Bazoum to power within one week, or face the consequences including possible military action. The deadline has expired. ECOWAS has not acted. It is alleged that the regional grouping would now prefer diplomacy.

One of the reasons why ECOWAS has changed its stance is because of strong opposition to any military intervention from some of its member states. Mali and Burkina Faso have made it explicitly clear that they would view military intervention as a “declaration of war” against the people of Niger and would defend the newly installed military junta. Besides, Niger is geographically one of the biggest countries in West Africa and possesses a well-trained army.

But an even more compelling reason why military intervention may not be an option for ECOWAS or anyone else for that matter is because the 26^th July coup, it is obvious to most observers, has widespread support among the people. The people see the coup as an attempt to end continuous Western — mainly French and now also American — exploitation and dominance of Niger. Niger, once a French colony, is rich in natural resources, uranium, oil and gold. Its uranium industry for instance is owned and operated by a so-called joint venture between Niger and France, the Societe des mines de l’Air (Somair). 85% of Somair is owned by France’s Atomic Energy Commission and two French companies, while 15% is owned by Niger’s government. Niger is the world’s seventh largest producer of uranium, vital for nuclear energy while France relies heavily upon nuclear energy for 70% of its domestic power supply. As Vijay Prasad and Kambala Musavuli put it in a recent article,

“One in three lightbulbs in France are powered by uranium from Niger, at the same time as 42% of the African country’s population live below the poverty line.”    

France’s grip over Niger’s uranium is just one example of the former colonial power’s hold on Niger’s economy. This neo-colonial dominance expresses itself in many other ways. Niger, like other ex-French colonies in Africa, is tied to the French currency and the French financial system. It uses the Communaute Financiere Africaine (CFA) for its domestic and foreign financial transactions. 50% of the reserves of these African states are held in the French Treasury as part of an arrangement forged between the ex-colonies and France. Consequently, when France devalued the CFA, the impact upon the African economies including Niger was disastrous. If we look at these economies as a whole, it is only in the fields of external trade and investments that some positive changes have occurred in recent years largely because of the emergence of China as an important partner.

Outside the Nigerien economy, the neo-colonial presence is most visible in the form of French and American soldiers and bases. French and American militaries were brought in by the government to fight Muslim insurgents. The rise of these insurgents is linked — to some extent at least — to the US-NATO overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 which paved the way for the growth of so-called jihadist groups in parts of North and West Africa. Of course, the Jihadist phenomenon cannot be divorced from US and British intelligence operations in the post 9/11 period.

Resentment against French and American troops has reinforced the perception that leaders like Bazoum, though elected, were mere puppets of Western interests. This explains why in the huge demonstrations that have taken place in the Nigerien capital, Niamey, and elsewhere Bazoum was denounced for betraying the people. It is not just in Niger that anti-French and anti-Western sentiments have peaked. In three other states, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea such sentiments have also found expression. The presence of French and American troops in those states has also played a role in the mounting anger towards Western power. Economic difficulties faced by the people which are often attributed to Western dominance have exacerbated popular feelings. It is significant that in all 3 states military coups had taken place between August 2020 and September 2021.

As feelings against France in particular and the West in general have become more pronounced in West Africa, the mood towards Russia seems to have become more positive. An article in The Guardian (5 August 2023) notes that

“Russian flags were brandished by those demonstrating outside the French embassy in Niamey, with many calling for Vladimir Putin to replace Macron as their biggest global backer.”

Putin himself has been critical of the coup and has expressed the hope that civilian rule would be restored.

And indeed, civilian rule should prevail in Niger and other states in the region. But civilian rule should reflect the people’s legitimate desire for liberation from neo-colonial dominance. Civilian rule should uphold the dignity of the human being and the sovereignty of the people. It should protect the independence of the people which must include their right to own and control their economy and define and defend their own security.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

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

***

Preface

It is important to have a short look at the history of this battle for more women’s rights. That is why I will shortly explain the ideology and social movement of Feminism, the factor which has driven women in their battle for equal chances and respect. Finally, I will come to my main topic which is the specific problems with which women have to deal concerning politics in Western democracies of (post)industrialized societies.[i] For instance, the question is: What is the representation of women in Western politics today? It would be taken a look at their representation in the Parliaments, and in which number they are able to occupy some key political positions. It will be discussed some evolutions and also the difficulties they still have to deal with because of their gender belonging. The crucial examples are coming from the European Union (the EU) and its Member States. Consequently, it is also important to try to propose some solutions to the issue of female representation in the Parliaments, for instance. Here, I will present the EU’s policy towards this issue as an example to try to answer two questions: Is a policy of active interference positive or not? What is about quota policy?

Feminism

Feminism can be seen as an ideology and a social movement that historically has been concerned with the unequal status of women (Steans, 2006, pp. 7-8).

In history, there were three big waves of feminism as a social movement; the first one is situated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and refers mainly to women’s suffrage movements which were political and mainly concerned with women’s right to vote. The second wave is situated in the 1960s and refers to the ideas and actions associated with the women’s liberation movement which campaigned for legal and social equality for women. The third wave is situated at the beginning of the 1990s and still goes on. This wave refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to the perceived failures of second-wave feminism (Krolokke & Soronsen, 2005, pp. 24).

Furthermore, feminism can be seen as an ideology with different writings and investigations on the unequal status of women. In the 1920s and 1930s social science began to investigate gender[ii]. There was a main focus on sex roles investigation and while social scientists did not see sex and gender as synonymous, they believed that they were closely connected. They claimed that the particular characteristics of men and women led to the performances of particular social roles. The prevailing sexual division of labor reflected the close correspondence between gender traits and sex roles. Gender was thus held to be, if not immutable and natural, then at least relatively stable and fixed and, moreover, socially useful. It was even possible to speak about deviancy in relation to those people who were held to be insufficiently ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ and who could not be accommodated within this schema.

In the 1960s there was an upraise of feminist analyses which claimed that sex roles were assigned by society and male-identifying roles were frequently seen to be more important and deserving of greater social rewards than female-orientated roles. The theories that explained women’s particular status in terms of either their ‘natural’ or ‘essential’ characteristics were ideological, serving to legitimize an unjust social order that valued men and the ‘masculine’ more highly than women and the ‘feminine’.

On the basis of this analysis, feminists argued that the route to sexual equality and women’s liberation lay in challenging conventional sex roles. This was not an easy task as sex roles were deeply entrenched in a complex system of stereotyping, supported by a whole range of social institutions and practices and the state as a patriarchal power (Steans, 2006, pp. 8-10).

The feminist movement has given rise to a large body of theory that attempts to explain gender inequalities and set forth agendas for overcoming those inequalities. While feminist writers are all concerned with women’s unequal position in society, their explanations for it vary substantially. Competing schools of feminism have sought to explain gender inequalities through a variety of deeply embedded social processes, such as sexism, patriarchy, capitalism, and racism (Giddens, 2004, pp. 114).

An example of a feminist school is liberal feminism, which focuses on inequalities in social and cultural attitudes and independent deprivations from which women suffer, such as sexism, unequal payment, and the ‘glass ceiling’. Liberal feminists do not focus on gender study though and they do not deal with the root causes of gender inequality and do not acknowledge the systemic nature of women’s oppression in society, unlike radical feminists. Radical feminists believe that men are responsible for and benefit from the exploitation of women and belief the world system is a patriarchal one. Radical feminists do not believe that women can be liberated from sexual oppression through reforms or gradual change. Because patriarchy is a systemic phenomenon, they argue, gender equality can only be attained by overthrowing the patriarchal order. (Giddens, 2004, pp. 114-115).

There are many other feminist schools that are worth taking a look at, to mention a few others there is also black feminism, critical feminism, Marxist feminism, poststructuralist feminism, and postcolonial feminism. To discuss all is very interesting but then, I would not have the time left to discuss my main point of focus; the influence of gender in politics.

Politics and Gender

In most political systems, women are vastly underrepresented. Throughout the world, women face obstacles for their participation in politics. These barriers exist in prevailing social and economic systems, as well as in existing political structures. It is not the case that women are not represented, rather than that, they do not have the share of political power that would be expected given free and equal access. In other words, there is a democratic deficit (European Commission).

In 2007, the rate of female representation at the national level stands at merely 18 percent globally. Although this figure has increased in recent years, minimal progress has been made, meaning that the ideal of parity between men and women in national legislatures remains distant (IDEA).

Moreover, there are also very few women in ‘high politics’ (or key positions in politics). The achievements of some female individuals like I. Gandhi, G. Meir, B. Bhutto, and M. Thatcher, remarkable as they are, mask a considerable imbalance in the number of women who have political power (Clements & Spinks, 2006, pp. 82-83). The question can be asked if this is a consequence of discriminatory practices based on the belief that women are not ‘up’ for the job (Steans, 2006, pp. 28), a belief that is a consequence of traditions and stereotypes.

Some factors which make it hard for women to rise to the top levels of industry and commerce operate with even more vigor in politics. This includes firstly, the enormous drain on an individual’s time if they are to rise to the key political functions. Far fewer women, particularly if they choose to have children (and then become locked into a childcare role), are able to devote the time it takes to reach the top positions. Research made clear that childcare and housework are very unequally shared with the women taking on most of the burden. Secondly, the alleged operation of the ‘old boys’ network in the selection of key positions. Even where the policy is one of promotion to key jobs on merit alone, there are far fewer suitable qualified women (in terms of experience) to choose from. This is largely because access to such suitable qualified previous positions is not there for them in the first place. Thirdly, men also set the very standards by which women will be judged when they apply for senior positions, and these may discriminate against women because they are based on male assumptions of a ‘woman’s place’. Fourthly, political power might well represent the ultimate ability to influence things. Are men especially reluctant to loosen their grip on this? (Clements & Spinks, 2006, pp. 83, 85-87).

Women have certainly boosted their presence in European governments, thanks in part to electoral quotas, but are still under-represented despite high-profile exceptions like Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher. According to a study by the commission, the European Union’s executive arm, even if there are increasing numbers of women candidates their male counterparts still have a better chance of getting elected due to ingrained prejudices and customs.

‘It’s wrong to blame women voters. The main problem is that male voters vote for male candidates, argues Drude Dahlerup, a professor in the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University. ’We are changing from the idea that equality will come by itself. Today we realize this is not the way things work, added Dahlerup, who has researched gender quota systems (European Commission).

The proportion of female members of national parliaments (single/lower house) across the EU has risen by around half over the last decade, from 16% in 1997 to 24% in 2008. Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland are the only EU countries with more than 40% women in parliament, the majority (17) of the EU Member States still have less than 25% women Members of Parliament.

The European Parliament is just above the national parliament’s figure with 31% women and 69% men. This is a better balance than in national parliaments[iii] but progress towards gender equality has stagnated and there has been little change since the 1999 elections, the representation of women remains more or less static. The 2009 elections represent an opportunity to take the next step forwards. On average, men outnumber women among ministers in national governments by around three to one (25% women, 75% men) (European Commission).

While the last few years have seen a general increase in the number of women in decision-making positions in Europe, women remain very much in the minority in the political (and economic) spheres. In parliaments, governments, and ministries and in the private sector too, power is still firmly in men’s hands. The EU sees equality between women and men as a fundamental right. The Commission that handles the subject of gender equality is the ‘European Commission for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities’. The EU is committed to promoting gender equality in decision-making positions, raising awareness of the gender gap in this area, and taking action to improve the situation. That is why the Commission’s ‘Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010’ lists equal participation of women and men in decision-making as one of its priorities. Thus, the Roadmap is the basis for action towards gender inequality in the EU in which the participation of women in decision-making is a part.

The Commission has made an investigation around this issue and has come to some general facts which are worthwhile to take a look at.

A balanced choice of candidates for election ought to result in equality amongst elected representatives. Data from across Europe show that in general more women candidates result in more women being elected but that men still have a better chance of being elected. Extrapolation of results from the most recent national elections across Europe implies that, on average, an election with 50% women candidates would result in a parliament with just 39% women members or, putting it another way, there would need to be 63% women candidates to achieve parity in the final assembly.

Positive action in the form of electoral gender quotas can help bring about rapid change but they are not a guarantee of success. The way in which political parties allocate candidates to winnable seats or distribute them on lists has a significant part to play in the limited success to date in electing more women from the available candidates. Some types of electoral systems are more open to promoting favored candidates than others and the result is that women candidates are too often left with a low chance of being elected. The re-election of incumbents severely restricts the rate of member turnover at each election. Estimates suggest that, on average, around two-thirds of members are reelected on each occasion meaning that there are limited opportunities for new faces and, therefore, for change in the gender balance. At the last European elections in 2004 around two-thirds of the candidates were men and just one-third women. If the 2009 elections are to bring about any real progress in terms of gender equality then more women candidates need to be found. Although many voters indicate that they would like to see more women in elected positions, there is no strong evidence to suggest that people actually vote on the basis of gender (so it is wrong to think that people that want more women in politics, also in practice vote on the basis of gender).

Possible solutions

It is a mistake to think that the problem of the underrepresentation of women in parliaments, governments, and high politics will solve itself. The problem is a direct consequence of the gender inequality problem, which is very complex and has a lot of causes that are deeply rooted in society and its people. Therefore there is a need for a concrete policy on this issue.

In the EU document ‘Women in European Politics – time for Action (2009)’, of the European Commission certain methods of closing the representation gap are evaluated.

Quotas

The introduction of gender quotas, whether legislative or voluntary, can help to speed up change but they are not without controversy –some would argue that such affirmative actions contradict the principles of equal opportunity– and they are also not always the quick fix they might appear to be. Quotas can quickly boost the number of women candidates but do not guarantee that these women are positioned fairly on candidate lists or in electoral districts where they have a reasonable chance of being elected. Further action may therefore be necessary to ensure a coincident increase in the number of women, actually, elected.

In Slovenia, the elections held at the end of September were the first to be held at a national level since the 2006 National Assembly Elections Act, which imposes a quota for candidates by gender (minimum 25% in the transitional period, 35% thereafter). The quota was well respected with women accounting for more than one-third of the candidates but the final result saw just one more woman elected compared to the previous, pre-quota, parliament, and an overall membership of just 13% women and 87% men. Interestingly, the 2007 elections in Belgium (49% candidates; 37% elected) and the 2008 elections in Spain (47% candidates, 36% elected) both gave results very close to the projected result with 50% women candidates. However, there are of course exceptions on either side of the trend – the most recent elections in Slovenia, France, and Romania all saw far fewer women elected than would be expected from the fairly high shares of candidates, whilst in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden more women were elected compared to the general trend and the final results were even ahead of the parity line. Thus, on average, as would be expected, more women candidates generally result in more women being elected but it is striking how far the trend line deviates from parity.

Quotas can help the move towards gender parity but are not a guarantee of success. The first step in promoting female representation must be to promote more women candidates.

Electoral Systems and Political Parties

The most important factors that do prevent quotas from working are the allocation of candidates between electoral districts and/or the position of each candidate on lists (where relevant). All political parties want to win elections and even though many parties promise action on improving the representation of women, the bottom line is that their electoral strategy will always focus on maximizing the number of candidates elected ahead of any other issues.

Quotas are hardest to apply in single-winner systems where each party nominates a single candidate per constituency so that it is not possible to offer individual voters any choice by gender. Even if an overall quota is applied, the party is still at liberty to allocate candidates between constituencies and put favored candidates into ‘safe’ seats where votes for the party are generally secure. In multiple-winner systems where candidates are selected from party lists, usually by some form of proportional representation, then the order of candidates on the list significantly influences who is elected. In completely closed lists, voters effectively choose only which party they want to support and candidates are elected based on their position in the list and the proportion of votes received by the party. Even in the most open list systems, where voters select individual candidates who are then elected purely on the basis of the total number of votes received, analysis of voter behavior indicates that those near the top of the list have an advantage over those at the bottom. There is a variety of list-based electoral systems and most fall somewhere between the extremes of fully open or fully closed and offer considerable scope to influence who is elected from the full complement of candidates. In short, although quota systems can dramatically improve the gender balance amongst candidates, if they are to succeed in getting more women elected they need to be applied in a way that pays careful regard to the intricacies of the electoral system.

Thus the historical predominance of men and electoral systems combine to restrict the rate at which women are integrated into political life.

Re-election of incumbents

More women candidates usually means more women elected, yet a man has a better chance.

Politics is often a career choice and many incumbents seek re-election. Incumbents are more likely to be (re)elected than new candidates. given a choice of candidates from the same political party, voters tend to choose the well-known ones (usually the incumbents).

Political parties have an important role in determining the composition of elected bodies, to the extent that they can override the effect of quotas. At election time, voters will always tend to support someone that they know, and most of the time that will be the incumbent member. As a result, incumbents seeking re-election will tend to be favored by the party and benefit from any strategy to ensure electoral success for the party.

One solution to the problem of incumbent retention at infrequent elections could be to impose term limits, where elected members are only allowed to be re-elected a fixed number of times, thereby increasing turnover, or even prohibiting immediate re-election, which would immediately bring zero retention and 100% turnover. However, this type of approach can reduce the effectiveness of the legislature by excluding experienced policymakers and is unlikely to be voted in by the current incumbents. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the rate at which women can be integrated into political decision-making will remain slow unless the incumbency problem is addressed. Of course, once there is a good gender balance in an elected assembly then retention of incumbents can help to maintain that balance but this situation has not been reached in many assemblies.

Other measures

Of course, there are also other actions to think of to help solve the problem of unbalanced representation. The recruitment and selection of female candidates by political parties could be made better (more open), policies or action plans with the purpose of stimulating girls to take on political studies, women to make different career choices, and to take the step to political functions, to stimulate the ‘political sector’ to be more open towards women and to adapt itself.

Also, anti-discrimination policies in general could help people to think less about stereotypes and to change their mentality towards women and politics.

In elections also the role of the media is also playing, they could make an effort to increase their focus on female candidates.

Final remarks

We have seen that gender differences can lead to inequality in treatment and chances people get in life, simply based on the fact that they are a woman or a man. However, equality between women and men is a fundamental right. That is why the representation of women in politics requires an active policy to solve this democratic deficit.

However there have been some improvements in the situation, and there is still no equality in chances to be elected or to build out a political career, this is even less so at the very top.

Solutions are very diverse, and cannot stand alone, but need to be interactive. A policy towards this issue has to be full and involve a package of solutions to really be effective.

Further investigation towards the solutions and the effects of the solutions, not only on the representation of women in parliaments but also on their representation in high politics, is necessarily to close the gap of female representation in politics.

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) (2009). Democracy and Gender.http://www.idea.int/gender/

Krolokke, C. & Sorensen, A.S. (2005). Gender Communication Theories and Analyses: From Silence to Performance. Sage.

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2009, 23 February). Gender Equality.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=418&langId=en

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2008, 2 June). European network set to boost women in power.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=681&langId=en&newsId=133&furtherNews=yes
European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2009, January). Women in European Politics – Time for Action.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/publications/booklets/equality/pdf/ke8109543_en.pdf

European Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (2008, January). Women and Women in decision-making 2007.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/publications/2008/ke8108186_en.pdf

Notes

[i] About modernist industrial society, see [Brooker P. at al (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modernisms, Oxford‒New York: Oxford University Press, 2016]. About the postmodern societies, see [Malpas S., The Postmodern, London‒New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005]. The term post-modernity usually refers to a fully developed modernity which emerged in the affluent societies of West Europe and of European descent in the 1970s. [Kuper A., Kuper J. (eds.), The Social Science Encyclopedia, Second Edition, London‒New York: Routledge, 1996, 654‒655].

[ii] In the early social sciences, sex differences were largely taken for granted, reflecting the degree to which gender differences where uncontested –or perhaps unnoticed- among male-dominated scholarly communities (Steans, 2006, pp. 8-10).

[iii] The result of women representation may be better in European parliament because the perception of the European Parliament may also affect the selection of candidates and voter behavior. Although the European Parliament deals with a range of issues including environmental protection, consumer rights, equal opportunities, transport, and the free movement of workers, capital, services and goods, all of which have a direct impact on the daily lives of citizens, a recent survey reported that 51% of respondents were not interested in European elections. It may be that this contributes to making it easier for women to be selected as candidates for European elections than for national elections where voters tend to vote for well known individuals – often the established, and mostly male, incumbents (European Commission).

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

While some estimates of Ukrainian dead vary between 300,000 and 400,000 Ukrainian sources admit to 310,000 deaths and the Wall Street Journal estimates between 20,000 and 50,000 have lost one or more limbs. Other estimates are that several hundred thousand are severely wounded.

This horrendous death total is not far short of the total British deaths during the whole of the Second World War and it is the result of the West’s genocidal exploitation of Ukraine as a battering ram for American neocon attempts to destroy Russia and the irresponsible hubris of hurling poorly trained troops (increasingly draftees with no military experience), with insufficient artillery, little missile defence and no air support, across dense minefields against well-entrenched Russian positions.

An Australian TV channel showed a story about foreign mercenaries fleeing Ukraine: they are simply afraid. To the question “What is it like on the front lines now? At the zero line?”

A mercenary replied: “At “zero” – horror. Just awful. It’s just genocide. It’s creepy there. Dead people everywhere. Corpses of Ukrainian soldiers. They were just left there. Just left there and I don’t know why.” It was into this cauldron that a British Foreign Secretary urged (illegally) British and other troops to go and fight!

The Ukrainian channel Rezident published a video, saying:

We thought for a long time whether to publish the video, but then we decided to show the reality of what the massacre of Azov (troops) looks like, to which the West sent the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the Office of the President supported this plan.

8 units of equipment burned down in a matter of minutes. All fields are monitored (by the Russians) 24/7 from copters that coordinate artillery fire. All fields are mined and do not allow the use of Zaluzhny’s tactics of quick cuts in the front and strikes on the flanks. In each attack (even a successful one), we lose dozens of pieces of equipment and a hundred soldiers.

In audio negotiations, you can hear how the fire is being coordinated, at the moment when our equipment is not supported by artillery and one (Russian) enemy tank stops the movement of the column.

So massive have troop losses been that, according to The Guardian journalist Nick Hauer, one of the problems of the Ukrainian counter-offensive is the lack of time to train fighters to make up for losses. As an example, he cites a conversation with the battalion commander of the 68th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

These guys are not so young, are they?

Yes, they are completely different. Actually, I don’t like it. It reminds me of Germany in 1945: here is a group of fighters who have never served and two weeks of training is not enough, but we simply do not have time.

 Also, his interlocutor noted high losses during the winter battles on the Ugledar front: out of 420 people, 100 were killed and wounded. According to the Ukrainian commander, “we are losing the best.”

Ukraine is also losing its youth. This young man was not even 17. The post was followed by over 700 angry comments filled with pain and denial.

“The West knew that Kiev would not have enough weapons for the offensive, but they believed in the “resourcefulness” of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Those who threw these troops into a battle they knew they could not win but were trying to make some meagre gains “in order to better negotiate” are guilty of genocide of Ukrainians. One of the soldiers of the 23rd brigade told reporters from the New York Times that his battalion was literally destroyed by artillery fire. Of the attack, in which ten American MaxxPro armored vehicles took part, only one returned. The losses were horrific. In one month of fighting, as a Ukrainian military man told the NYT, only ten people remained in the ranks of the entire battalion (about 400-500 men).

63% of Ukrainians now say they know at least one close relative or friend who have died in the war, with the average number being three. This is a huge increase from the last survey in February, which found only 17% of Ukrainians reported a loss, while the figure in September  of 2022 was just 9%. Link to the original survey data by KIIS.

Press Gangs Roam the Streets and “Snitch on a Draft Evader”

Daily there are videos on the internet of Ukrainian men of all ages being seized on the street for recruitment into the armed forces. Often they – or their women – folk fight back – and win! Ukrainian gas receipts contain the following: 

‘You can receive a discount on payment for services if you report a collaborator or an (draft) evader using the єVorog bot.’

#source 

The extent to which the western press, especially in the USA, are at last awakening to the pointless slaughter is this report of the New York Times about the full cemeteries in Lviv:

“The old, unmarked graves of those who died in past wars will be dug up to make way for a seemingly endless stream of the dead.”

One woman who lost her 30-year-old son says: “The best of the best died. He graduated from the university. He had an honours degree. Why did he die?” Another: “It’s so hard to think – last summer there were so few of them [the dead), and now there are so many of them.”

Western Support Ebbing Away

The tensions within the western alliance are growing, with Germany unable to supply more tanks, the USA refusing to supply the latest Abrams tanks and Germany terminating  an agreement with the Polish authorities on the repair of Leopard 2 tanks transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the territory of Poland (Handelsblatt) because Poland was asking 10 times the reasonable price for repairs!

SWITZERLAND has refused arms to Ukraine and ISRAEL denied Ukraine the supply of the Iron Dome air defense system and other heavy weapons, citing the fact that these weapons, if they get to Ukraine, could fall into the hands of Iran. (There is also an understanding with Russia that Israel does not supply heavy weapons to Ukraine, and Russia does not supply certain weapons and technologies to Iran.

Ukraine’s Zelensky was blocked from attending the summit of the EU and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States despite an invitation by the Spanish PM

Poland (which has historic claims on western Ukraine) demands more thanks for its support of Ukraine and an apology for the Volyn massacre in WW2. In 2022, Poland took in almost 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees which has resulted in a 50% rise in the population of Rzeszów, the largest city in south-eastern Poland. Warsaw’s population has increased by 15%, Kraków’s by 23%, and Gdansk’s by 34%). Poland has sent over 20,000 fighters to Ukraine.

Support for the war is falling in all European countries and only 31% of Americans are prepared to see US troops fighting in Ukraine (although of course many already are!)

Time to End this Mad War

I have already described the madness of this war which could so easily have been settled by agreeing to devolution for Russians and Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine and the guaranteed neutrality of Ukraine. But that did not fit the long held plans of the American neocons who were determined to use Ukraine as a battering ram to “break up Russia” and have “regime change in Moscow”. 

These imperialist US notions were mad enough but to use them to sacrifice not Americans  but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives is unforgivable. PEACE NOW!

*

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

Featured image is from Freenations

Author’s Note and update

Since this article was first published almost three years year ago on July 11, 2020 under the title LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir on July 3, 2020, there has been a virtual censorship of debate on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin largely directed against medical doctors.

In recent developments Remdesevir is making the headlines. Remdesevir is now approved for babies. 

On May 22, 2020 Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, was published by the New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM)

On June 29, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the head of NIAID granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. despite the fact that the study of the new experimental drug was “preliminary”.The NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

A $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. was announced on June 29th, 2020 despite the fact that NIH NIAID study published in the NEJM was considered “preliminary”. In the late 1990s, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006).

In recent developments, there is an ongoing campaign to suppress both Hydroxycholoroquine as well as Ivermectin as effective preventive and curative drugs.

The objective has been to sustain the vaccination campaign on behalf of Big Pharma.

A revised version of this article was published as a chapter in the author’s E-book. Free Download. See below

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 25, 2020, August 10, 2023

---

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

Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression

By Michel Chossudovsky

Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.

Price: $11.50. FREE COPY Click here to download.

---

LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

By Michel Chossudovsky

Introduction

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed “a tiny US based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian). This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.

While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.

When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at  Brigham and Women’s Hospital apologized:

I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.

It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC  (official statement on BWH website)

But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?

Studies on Gilead Science’s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)

While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc:

… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”

While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: “He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)

What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?

According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)

Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).

Who are the Main Actors? 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.

Gilead Sciences Inc: History

Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.

In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the  time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences”.

Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would: 

“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (WPo report)

In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”

The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project

We will be focussing on key documents (and events)

Chronology 

February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

April 29: NIH Release: Study on Remdesivir (Report published on May 22 in NEJM)

May 22, The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet

May 22, Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM) 

June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is Retracted.

June 29, Fauci announcement. The $1.6 Billion Remdevisir HHS Agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc. study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled  “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19” . It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc.

Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.

The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) … Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.

The NEJM article states that “Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020”. From whom, From Where? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.

Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast  doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test  is less that the number of co-authors: “53 patients” versus “56 co-authors”

Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article:

“‘Compassionate use’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available. Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard, Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.

 “It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds.

 “The research is interesting but doesn’t prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study.  Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written.  Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

 “It’s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don’t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity.” Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.

To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here

April 29: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdevisir. 

On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in the NEJM on April 10, a press release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Remdevisir was released.  The full document was published on May 22, by the NEJM under the title:

 Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) 

The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. The title of the April 29 Press Release was:

“Peer-reviewed data shows remdesivir for COVID-19 improves time to recovery”

It’s a government sponsored report which includes preliminary data from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are preliminary, conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).  (emphasis added)

In the NIH’s earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the methodology was described as follows:

… A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) …

Numbers. Where? When? 

The February 21 report confirmed that the first trial participant was “an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship” that docked in Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters). “Thirteen people repatriated by the U.S. State Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship” were selected as patients for the placebo trial test. Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the “confirmed cases” Worldwide (542 cases out of 924) (outside China),  were on the Diamond Cruise Princess from which the initial trial placebo patients were selected.

Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because on February 19th (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see Table Below).

“A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study—47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia.” (emphasis added)

In the final May 22 NEJM report entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report: 

There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8), the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1), and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment

The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci’s announcement (April 29):

“The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, …  fall short of the magic bullet or cure… But with no approved treatments for Covid-19,[Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients …The data shows that remdisivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Fauci said.

The government’s first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday — but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand.

The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death.

… Fauci’s remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.

In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM]

The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world (??), offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??) clinical study of remdesivir’s effectiveness against COVID-19.

The NIH placebo test study provided “preliminary results”. While the placebo trial test was “randomized”, the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See the full report.

May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

It is worth noting that the full report of the NIH-NIAID) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report was released on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM, on the same day as the controversial Lancet report on Hydroxychloroquine.

Immediately folllowing its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding the NIH-NIASD report released on the same day.

Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, … “It’s a very safe and effective drug,” said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations.”

When the Lancet HCQ article by  Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure “had been killed”.

June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc

Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020.

The semi-official US government NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

On June 29, based on the findings of the NIH-NIAID Report published in the NEJM, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America’s private hospitals and clinics.

The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10), of 53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been  questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.

Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth)

The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union. under the brandname Veklury.

If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.

 

[error in above title according to HHS: $3200]

According to The Trump Administration’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):

Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

Careful timing:

The Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th. The legitmacy of this agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered “preliminary”. 

What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been “studied” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections.  And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries.

According to the Virology Journal (2005) “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC. 

HCQ is not only effective, it is “inexpensive” when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated “$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance”.

Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard’s Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22 Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report (prior to its Retraction).

Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May 22 Lancet study]

France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?

MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another.

FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all speculation?  …

MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition, our study shows that there are harmful effects.

It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.

FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous?

MM: Exactly. …

All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective.

The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications

FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor’s chair.

He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate.

France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)

In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra’s Lancet report was revealed.

Concluding Remarks

---

ANNEX

Retraction by France Soir

The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June. France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La connexion de Boston, namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved.

 

 

(excerpts here, to access the complete text click here translation from French by France Soir, emphasis in the original article)

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

… However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.”

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.  …

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ,  another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ  in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby”* Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

“While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

“Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.”

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

” It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better.

“The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.**

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

“At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.”

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.:

“Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.**

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

…”Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 

– One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone

– The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

“We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks.

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?

 

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

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

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

***

Introduction

For the last 40 years, the media and the academics of the West have been telling us that North Korea has all the sins and none of the virtues in the world, whereas the U.S. has all the virtues and no sins in the world. That is, North Korea is a bad boy while the U.S. is a good boy.

Therefore, if the “nuclear crisis” is not resolved, it is the fault of the bad boy; if it succeeds, it results from the good deeds of the good boy.

Such a terribly simplified picture of the nuclear crisis drawn by Washington has prevented us from understanding what has been really going on between North Korea and the U.S.

I have been watching the West’s dichotomous version of the nuclear crisis of North Korea and I have come to the conclusion that we must find the real picture of the crisis outside the analytical frame of the West’s media an academic writings.

We all know that the story of North Korean nuclear crisis is terribly complex, complicated and confusing. This is so because the lawmakers and policymakers involved in the crisis hide truth or manufacture stories in order to promote the interests of their countries or their own personal interests. This is so particularly in the case of the strong countries which can dictate media information.

The story of the nuclear crisis is the story of the unipolar world in which Washington tries to manipulate the regional security dynamics of East Asia. It is a story of how the Pro-Japan conservative South Korea (PJCSK), Japan and the U.S. China and Russia have been trying to define their North Korea policy in function of their national interests.

It is especially the story of the tiny country known as Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) which has been struggling to survive with dignity and pride and advance in a hostile geopolitical situation.

The 75-year history of North Korea is the story of how the North Korean people have dealt with America’s persistent nuclear threat, multinational merciless economic sanctions, the West’s policy of perpetual diplomatic alienation and blind ideological attacks.

To write these stories, I need to write several books, which I cannot. What I am trying to do is to write a short article focussing on the drama from a Korean perspective of the so-called, “nuclear crisis.” 

I am fully aware that many countries have been involved directly or indirectly in the dynamics of the nuclear crisis. But in this paper, I am limiting my thoughts to the bilateral nuclear relations between Pyongyang and Washington. 

To be more precise, this paper asks the following questions: 

1. What is the origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis? 

2. How has the North Korean nuclear crisis evolved? 

3. Which country is responsible for the North Korean nuclear crisis?

4. What are the real objectives of America’s policy on the North Korean nuclear crisis?  
5. What will happen to the North Korean nuclear crisis? 

1. What is the Origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis?  

U.S. War Crimes against the People of North Korea

The origin of the North Korean nuclear crisis is the mutual hate and mistrust between the country of Juche and the country of Uncle Sam.

For North Korea, the U.S. is a hateful enemy. For America, North Korea is hateful but a useful enemy.

North Koreans have reasons to dislike and even hate the U.S. government. They were crucified by the Americans during the Korean War and they have been demonized.

During the Korean War, North Korea lost more than 20% of its population due to US napalm bombing and the use of chemical and biological weapons. Its women were raped en masse on the streets by GIs.

Every single standing structure was destroyed by American planes and canons.

General Curtis LeMay who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53) candidly acknowledged that:

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

The criminal bombings of Pyongyang in 1951 ordered by president Truman, were acknowledged by General Douglas MacArthur who was commander of allied forces in Korea:

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

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

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, “and it just curdled my stomach.”  (quoted by the Washington Post, August 10, 2017)

Video: The Criminal Bombing of North Korea

The Country of Juche 

The country of Juche has been the most demonized by Americans on the basis of lies or intentionally fabricated information. One thing we have to know is the fact that most of the published information on North Korea come from North Koreans who left their country for personal reasons including crimes committed. 

In many cases, these people are forced by anti-Pyongyang Intelligence services to fabricate stories. Moreover, in many cases, these defectors are generously paid for lies.

The country of Juche doctrine is blamed for not believing in God. But North Koreans believe in their gods which can be different depending upon the believer. However, religion should not be used for political interests.

It is accused for having concentration camps torturing 100,000 prisoners. Nobody knows where such information came from. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a scale purge for re-education of those who were against the Juche regime.

North Korea is suspected for executing people on the street. It is possible that it happened. In one case, the person was executed because of treason. But it should not happen. Even in developed countries, the police kill people on the street because of skin colour. Is it not the case of street execution?

The North Korean leaders are labelled as merciless dictators. They may be dictators like most political leaders in the world. Remember this. The dictatorship may come from the money, the power and the corruption.

The North Korean government is accused for making its people suffer from hunger. This accusation is partly true. The hunger comes from various sources including the will of Mother Nature, bad economic policy and, especially, economic sanctions imposed by Washington and the UN.

North Korean political regime is ridiculed for violating human rights. This is the most regular item found in the menu of international diplomacy. But, which human rights are we talking about?

One thing we should know is that there are two principal types of human rights adopted by the UN. 

One is the civic and political rights. When public authority prevents the citizen from participating in demonstrations against government policy, the public authority violates such human rights. Every country violates these human rights including the U.S. The other is the economic, social and cultural human rights. This is the right to physical survival, that is, the right to eat, to dress up and to live in decent housing.

In other words, if the government fails to provide food, clothing and housing, it violates such human rights. For this human right, it can be said that North Korea is trying its best despite economic sanctions. Does Washington respect this type of human rights with its awesome wealth?

Above all, I may add that the West led by Washington use human rights issues as an unethical diplomatic weapon. I think that it is a shame.

The recent trend is that the most popular criterion for human right abuse is whether the target country is pro-U.S. or not pro-U.S.

Above all, the country of Juche is made a global outcast for the alleged reason that North Korea threatens the regional security with its nuclear weapons. This is something difficult to digest.

Remember this. The combined GDP of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. is about USD 32,000 billion as against about USD 45 billion for North Korea. The combined annual national defence budget of the U.S., South Korea and Japan is about USD 1,000 billion against USD 10 billion for North Korea.

You tell me how such a tiny country can be threat to the region? Besides, as far as I know, North Korea has no intention to invade any country. In fact, peaceful cooperative co-existence with neighbouring countries is what Pyongyang wants.

Thus, the crucifixion and the demonization of North Korea by Americans are good reasons for which North Koreans to dislike and mistrust Americans, especially the pro-war elite group in Washington.

On the other hand, the U.S. hates North Korea for all sorts of reasons. It killed GIs; it prevented the U.S. from winning the Korean War; it has refused to become America’s vassal state.

Image: United States Navy Lockheed EC-121M Warning Star Bu. No. 135749 in pre-1969 paint scheme. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

Moreover, North Korea captured US spy ship, Pueblo, on 23 December 1968 and shot down US Air Force spy plane, EC-121M on April 15 1969. These events humiliated VIPs in Washington.

Washington wanted to make South Korea the model of democratic and rich country so that North Koreans envy South Koreans.

But to the displeasure of Americans, North Koreans have little respect for the military dictatorship and the corruption culture created by the pro-Japan conservative government. For this, the U.S. is displeased with North Korea.

Under these circumstances, North Korea and the U.S. are enemies; they dislike each other, they do not trust each other.

Moreover, ever since the armistice of 1953, the U.S. has been threatening North Korea with nuclear attacks. In fact, Washington had been deploying (since 1953) 100 nuclear war heads in South Korea until 1991.

In short, there are two factors responsible for the origin of the nuclear crisis.

The first factor is Washington’s hatred against North Korea and its decision to destroy the country of Juche even with nuclear weapons.

The second factor is Pyongyang’s hatred against and its mistrust of Washington forcing North Korea to defend itself with nuclear weapons.

Since the initiative of nuclear confrontation was taken by Washington, the U.S. is the origin of the U.S.-DPRK nuclear conflict. 

2. How Has the North Korean Nuclear Crisis Evolved? 

By the way, I define the nuclear crisis used in this paper. The word “crisis’ means a situation which can become “dangerous” if it is not corrected. In this paper, nuclear crisis refers to the Washington-Pyongyang nuclear confrontation even without imminent military confrontation. Therefore, the nuclear crisis in North Korea has existed ever since 1953.

My definition of nuclear crisis may be a little broader than the usual definition which relates to imminent military attack.

The evolution of the nuclear crisis has taken place in three stages:

• North Korea’s nuclear development planning
• Vicious circle of denuclearization
• Nuclear development for nuclear statehood

2.1. The stage of North Korea’s nuclear development planning: 1953-1991

This is the stage where North Korea felt obliged to prepare nuclear weapons to defend itself from the American nuclear threat.

1953: This year was the year of armistice and not the end of the Korean War. Washington’s possible hidden purpose was to maintain the state of war so that the Washington can control Korean affairs and sell weapons

1957: North Korea started to develop tactical weapons

1959: Soviet assistance for nuclear research and the establishment of the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center

1965: North Korea obtained 2-MW light water reactor. The Soviet left North Korea

1980s: North Korea started to build 5-MW natural uranium reactor which could produce 6kg weapon-grade plutonium. Washington begun to pay attention

1985: North Korea joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under pressure of Washington.

1991: With the closing of the Cold War, the U.S. removed 100 nuclear warheads from South Korea, which facilitated the negotiation for denuclearization.

2.2. The stage of vicious circle of denuclearization, 1992-2016

1992: Since the U.S. removed the nuclear weapon from the Korean soil, North Korea thought of denuclearizing and promised the following:

• No nuclear weapon testing,
• No nuclear weapon production,
• No receiving of nuclear technology and
• No deployment of nuclear weapons.

1993:

• The U.S carried out the Team Spirit military exercises
• North Korea withdrew from NPT
• North Korea refused IAEA inspections
• Former U.S. President Bill Clinton planned to attack North Korea
• Former president Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and met Kim Il-sung in order to denuclearization

And, in 1993, there as a hope that Washington would not continue nuclear threat and in 1994, North Korea signed so called the Framework Agreement.

But, North Korea’s dream for denuclearization was shattered because of what I call, the vicious circle of denuclearization.

There were five steps in the vicious cycle of denuclearization in the period 1992-2016:

Step 1: International pressure for dialogue

Step 2: Denuclearization agreements

Step 3: North Korea’s implementation of the Agreement

Step 4: Washington’s claims that North Korea cheats, hides something

Step 5: North Korea stops denuclearization and resumes nuclear development programs

Vicious cycle 1: The Framework Agreement, October 21, 1994

Step 1: 1993:  U.S. President Jimmy Carter persuaded President Bill Clinton to abandon his plan to attack North Korea, which led to the agreement of denuclearization after the Geneva Meeting in October, 1994.

Step 2: The Framework Agreement, October 21, 1994 

North Korea agreed to

• stop plutonium enrichment program,
• stop the construction of nuclear facilities.

The U.S. agreed to

• remove sanctions,
• provide 500,000 crude oil,
• build two light water reactors for civil use.

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement 1994-2003

Step 4: Washington spoiled the agreement arguing that North Korea did not implement the agreement

• Clinton hoped that North Korea would collapse due to the death of President Kim Il-sung (July 8, 1994) and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
• North Korea tested a missile in 1998 (August 31); Washington argued that this was the violation of the agreement. But it was not included in the agreement
• In 2002, President George W. Bush put North Korea on “the axis of evil”

Step 5: North Korea being disappointed with Washington’s strategy resumed its nuclear development program.

Vicious Cycle 2: The September-19 Joint Statement of 2005

Here, I may say a few words about the 6-Party Talks. After the failure of the 1994 Agreement, the international community put pressure on Washington to engage dialogue with Pyongyang. Washington could do it, rather it should do it, but it did not for some reasons.

Perhaps, because, it wanted to let North Korea to continue its nuclear development program provided that it would not be a threat against the U.S. I will explain later why.

But, given the international pressure, Washington had to do something. The something was to ask China to organize the dialogue. China accepted to organize and lead the dialogue.

At first, it was 3-Party Talk: China, the U.S. and North Korea. But the U.S. invited South Korea and Japan which prevented  the 3 Party Talk from succeeding.

Washington knew that Tokyo and Seoul were not in favour of denuclearization so that they could reap electoral benefits from  the North-South tension. The continuation of the North-South tension resulting from North Korea’s nuclear weapon development has been one of the best allies of electoral wins of South Korea and Japan.

On its side, China invited Russia which would favour dialogue. Thus, from the beginning, the 6-party talk took place among three countries in favour of the dialogue and three other countries against the dialogue.

Thus, from the beginning, the 6-Party-Talk had little chance of success. However, owing to China’s leadership and devotion, the Talk produced three Joint Statements (Agreements), although they were all made useless by Washington.

We will see below what happened to these agreements. Now, we come back to the second vicious circle of denuclearization.

Step 1: The pressure of the 6-Party Talk members

Step 2: The September-19 Joint Statement of 2005

North Korea agreed to

• give up all current nuclear programs,
• return to NPT.

The U.S. agreed to:

• provide light water reactors to North Korea,
• not to invade North Korea and guarantee security,
• normalize relations with North Korea,
• the U.S sanctions remained.

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement.

Step 4: The agreement was not carried out due to U.S. behaviour

• September 25, 2005: the U.S. Treasury Department accused North Korea of money laundering with funds in the Banco Dela Asia (BDA) in Macao; the funds were frozen;
• October 21, 2005: Washington put North Korea back on the list of state sponsor countries

Step 5: North Korea

• Resumed its nuclear development program.
• North Korea conducted its first nuclear test on October 9, 2006 in order to continue the talks in a better bargaining position.

Vicious Cycle 3: The February 13 Joint Statement of 2007

Step 1: Pressure of the 6-Party Talk member

Step 2: The February-13 Joint Statement of 2007 

North Korea agreed to

• shut down the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon,
• abandon nuclear program.

The U.S. agreed to

• accept the bilateral talk,
• remove North Korea from the list of state sponsor countries,

Step 3: North Korea was ready to implement the agreement.

Step 4: G.W. Bush qualified North Korea as “as brutal regime”.

Step 5: North Korea did not object and refrained from conducting nuclear development program.

Vicious Cycle 4: The October 3 Joint Statement of 2007 

Step 1: Pressure by the 6-Party Talks members.

Step 2: The October-3 Joint Statement of 2007.

North Korea agreed to: 

• disable the nuclear reactor,
• declare all nuclear programs,
• disable the 5-MW reactor in Yongbyon,
• declare all the nuclear development programs.

The U.S. agreed to

• increase bilateral meetings to increase mutual trust,
• remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism,
• provide 100,000 tons heavy fuel oil,

Step 3: North Korea implemented the agreement.

Step 4: The U.S. made North Korea disappointed by Rice’s behaviour.

The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, raised the issue of the verification of North Korea claims; the verification was not in the agreement.

Step 5: North Korea slowed down its denuclearization.

In April 2009, North Korea launched a satellite of communication, but Washington insisted it was ICBM.

Disappointed once again with the American attitude, North Korea left the 6-party talks for good on April 14, 2009

North Korea conducted its second nuclear test on May 25, 2009 to show its displeasure with Washington’s behaviour. 

Vicious Cycle 5: Leap Day Agreement of February 29 of 2012

Step 1: International pressure for the restoration of the dialogue and the 6-Party Talk

Step 2: Leap Day Agreement February 29, 2011

North Korea agreed to

• suspend nuclear tests and long-range missile tests,
• not to undertake uranium enrichment activities,
• allow the IAEA to verify and supervise North Korean nuclear activities.

The U.S. agreed to

• stop hostility toward North Korea,
• provide 240,000 tons of nutritious foods to North Korea.

Step 3: North Korea was ready to implement the agreement

Step 4: North Korea announced that it would launch a satellite; Washington said that it violated the agreement. But the satellite launch was not in the agreement.

Step 5: Dissatisfied with Washington’s accusation, North Korea resumed its nuclear development program.

Thus, the U.S. had five chances to denuclearize North Korea. But, it has obliged North Korea to continue its nuclear development program. Why? We come back to this question later.

North Korea’s 3rd Nuclear test on February 12, 2013 was designed to show that North Korea can go further with the development of nuclear weapons.

2.3. The stage of nuclear development for nuclear statehood

This period was characterized by the projection of two images of North Korea. One was North Korea’s pride of having become at last a bona fide nuclear state. The other image was the bold and self-confident behaviour of Chairman, Kim Jong-un as the head of a nuclear state.

2016 February 7: North Korea launches a satellite with a long-range rocket

2016 March-April: The U.S. and South Korea conducted the Key Resolve joint military exercise with 300,000 South Korean soldiers and 17,000 American soldiers with carrier battle group and performed the simulation of “decapitation” meaning cutting off the head of the North Korean leader.

 2016 June 6: North Korea’s 4th Nuclear Test

This test was a step closer to North Korea’s nuclear statehood. This test was a hydro bomb test and North Korea thinks that it has attained its nuclear goal to have effective deterrence against any foreign invasion.

2016 September 9: the 5th Nuclear Test

This nuclear test was intended to show to the world that North Korean nuclear technology is further progressing.

2017 January: Donald Trump becomes US president

2017 July 4: launching of ICBM Hwasong-14. This event was the most important moment in the evolution of North Korean nuclear technology. The message was that now North Korea had the capacity to carry miniaturized nuclear weapon as far the U.S. territory.

Hwasong-14 flight test, July 2017. Photo: KCNA

2017 September 3: 6th nuclear test (hydro bomb). This test took place two month after the Trump’s threat of nuclear attack against North Korea and was intended to tell Trump that North Korea is ready to defend itself.

The launching of Hwasong-14 combined with the three latest nuclear tests meant that North Korea has become a nuclear state deserving respect.

2017 November: North Korea was put back on the list of state sponsor of terrorism

2018 February 9-25: Pyongchang Winter Olympics. This event and a series of summits which took place after the Winter Olympics showed the possibility of the North-South and the U.S-DPRK dialogue and peace process was possible.

The brilliant diplomatic performance of Kim Yo-jong, now number 2 leader in North Korea, showed that, in North Korea, there were well-educated and world-class leaders. She contributed to the projection of favourable image of North Korea.

2018 April 27: Moon – Kim summit at DMZ. This summit between Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea and Kim Jong-un, the Chairman of North Korea showed North Korea’s wish of ending the Korean War and the establishment of peace on the peninsula and sustained economic cooperation.

2018 June 12: Kim-Trump summit, Singapore: 

This summit between Chairman, Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Donald Trump, President of the U.S. was of historical importance.

The summit did not produce any concrete results, but it indicated the possibilities of Washington-Pyongyang direct peace dialogue.

I may add that this summit was possible owing to the inspiring diplomacy of Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea.

2018 September 6: Kim-Moon Summit in Pyongyang. The outcome of this summit may be summarized in terms of demilitarization of hot regions in the east coast lines and the west coast lines on the one hand and, on the other, the mutual wish for the reunification of two Koreas.

2019 February 27-28: Kim-Trump summit in Hanoi. Chairman, Kim Jung-un made a 6-day train trip by train to meet with Trump.

The hope was high. Both Presidents, Donald Trump and Chairman, Kim Jong-un seemed eager to solve the nuclear crisis. The two leaders were supposed to simply sign the agreement prepared before hand by advisors.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un shake hands at the Hanoi Summit in Vietnam, February 27, 2019. Photo credit: White House

But, at the critical moment, John Bolton, the champion of for the Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Denuclearization (CVID) gave a small piece of paper which made Trump leave the conference room. The world wonders about the contents of the piece of paper.

It is likely that it contained some sort of threat forcing Trump to abandon the peace-process with North Korea.

2019 June 30: Kim-Trump summit in DMZ South Korea. It was said that they would resume the peace process, if and when time comes for it.

2023 April 13: launching of ICBM Hwasong-18 which can reach 15,000 km.

This took place 13 days before the Yoon-Biden summit to warn against Washington-Seoul military alliance. North Korea can be a real threat to the U.S, if the Pentagon or Seoul or Japan attack North Korea.

2023 April 26: Yoon-Biden summit in Washington. In this summit, South Korean President, Yoon Suk-yeol would have asked Joe Biden, President of the U.S. to protect Yoon’s government and the pro-Japan conservatives in South Korea from North Korean nuclear attack in exchange with the deployment of South Korean armed forces to China-Taiwan War.

Biden promised two things. On the one hand, Washington would deploy, if needed, American war assets including nuclear submarines at the cost of South Korea. On the other hand, South Korea would be a part of a nuclear consultative committee.

As a result, the Yoon-Biden summit has intensified the nuclear crisis of North Korea

2023 July 18: Proposal of Summit with no conditions. Biden’s Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan proposed DPRK-U.S. bilateral talks without preconditions.

He surely knows that North Korea is not naïve enough to fall again into the trap of Washington’s “without condition” proposal. Then, why did he make such empty proposal?

If Pyongyang refuses, then Washington’s favourite rhetoric comes in and tells the world that North Korea refuses the peace dialogue.

But, as far as North Korea is concerned, this is an empty gesture with no meaning. It is hard to see how talks without conditions can achieve anything.

Kim Yo-Jong, key member of the State Affairs Commission (SAC) replies with dismay and even with anger,

“It is a day dream for the U.S. to think that it can stop the advance of the DPRK and, furthermore, achieve irreversible disarmament by reversible by such incentives as sanctions relief, suppression of Pentagon’s joint military exercises with South Korea and a halt to deployment of strategic weapons in the region.” (Rt report quoted in 21cir Century, July 18, 2023)

The evolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis may be summed up this way.

The DPRK planned nuclear development for 37 years (1953-1991) under the leadership of late President Kim Il -sung;

North Korea has experienced the vicious circles of denuclearization for 23 years, (1993-2016) under the government of late Supreme leader Kin Jong-il who really wanted to denuclearize his country.

In 2002, he was reported to have told the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi who visited Pyongyang that North Korea was so eager to get rid of nuclear development program and that North Korea had to have nuclear weapons only to defend his country.

And, since 2017, under the chairmanship of Kim Jong-un, North Korea has been ready to meet any external threat with its nuclear weapons as a full-fledged nuclear state.

3. Which Country Is Responsible for the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

To find the country responsible for the nuclear crisis in North Korea, we have to find the country which has done two things.

First, we have to find the country which has forced North Korea to undertake the development of nuclear protection. As we saw above, it was the United States which forced North Korea to feel obliged to develop nuclear arsenal.

Second, we have to find the country which has been responsible for the continuation of the North Korean nuclear crisis. As we saw above, it has been Washington which has prevented North Korea from abandoning nuclear development

So, to sum up, the responsible of the nuclear crisis is Washington, because it forces North Korea to go for nuclear defence on the one hand, and on the other, it allowed the crisis to perpetuate.

But, why did Washington behave the way it behaved? Now we turn to this question:

4. What Are the Real Objectives of America’s Policy on the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

It appears that the North Korean nuclear crisis serves two policy objectives of Washington, namely weapon sales and the regime destruction.

The nuclear crisis of North Korea creates North-South tension and it allows the Pentagon to justify bigger defence budget and higher profit for the American war industry.

Moreover, the nuclear crisis provides excuse to Washington to qualify the Juche regime as “dangerous regime” deserving to be changed, or rather, to be destroyed.

In this way, the nuclear crisis serves the double purpose of making money and destroying a regime which is unacceptable to the West led by the U.S.

The destruction of the North Korean regime is a common wish of pro-Japan conservative South Korea, Japan and the U.S. for different reasons.

For the pro-Japan conservative South Korea (PJCSK), the survival of the Juche regime leading to the peaceful unification of Korea means that the PJCSK people becomes shrinking minority leading to the loss of power and wealth.

For Japan, the survival of the Juche regime leading to peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula means increasing economic, political, trade and even military threat.

Now, we may also examine why Washington is so eager to destroy North Korean regime. As far as Washington is concerned, North Korea’s regime is bad and it can pollute good regimes.

In short, all these three countries wish the destruction of the Juche regime. There are two ways of doing it, namely, by force or by internal turmoil. But the regime destruction by force is costly, at least for now.

So, the best way of destroying the North Korea regime is the maintenance of nuclear crisis which will harm the economy and increase North Korean people’s suffering thus leading to internal revolt. Therefore, the nuclear crisis should be allowed to continue.

The nuclear crisis combined with economic sanctions will destroy the Juche regime.

Moreover, as mentioned above, the nuclear crisis is the good source of profit for the American war industry. South Korea buys each year American weapons amounting to USD 10 billion to USD 20 billion. Japan buys much more. The Philippines buys American military wonders along with other East Asian countries.

But, despite the pressure coming from nuclear weapons programs and economic sanction, there is no sight of North Korean people’s uprising; the Juche regime is solid.

Here, the Washington has underestimated the Juche regime which makes North Koreans to be loyal and devote themselves to their country and to their leaders.

The North Korean life philosophy is the combination of Taoism (pragmatism), Buddhism (freedom from secular desires) and Confucianism (hierarchical social order). These traditional values make North Korean people to be practical, to be ready to endure hardship and to give greater priority to common goods than to private interests.

The Juche doctrine (or religion) is, in a way, an integration of these Asian values into “the belief of trinity.”

The Juche doctrine begins with the notion that man is free and master of himself. Now, the individuals identify themselves, out of free will, with .the nation. Moreover, the individuals identify themselves with the leader.

The individuals are the center of the nation. Moreover, the individuals, the nation and the leader are “one” and “the same.”

What the leader is doing and thinking is what the individual and the nation are doing and thinking.

What the individual is doing and thinking is what the leader and the nation are doing and thinking.

What the nation is doing and thinking is what the leader and the individual are doing and thinking.

In this doctrine, when individual is revolting against the leader, the individual is revolting against himself.

In this doctrine, the individual is in the leader; the leader is in the individual.

That is why North Koreans do not revolt against the leader.

The Juche doctrine was the idea of late president, Kim Il-sung but refined by his son, late Kim Jong-il, who was quite a thinker. But, it took decades of education before the doctrine has become North Koreans’ way of living and thinking.

If there were no popular protests against the government despite nuclear threat, despite economic hardship largely due to sanctions and despite years of famine, it was the results the Juche doctrine.

The Juche doctrine was something which the Washington did not understand or did not want to understand.

Thus, Washington’s anti-North Korea policy failed as far as the regime destruction is concerned. However, it succeeded in weapon sales and making huge profit for the American Pro-War Community (AMPC).

5. What Will Happen to the North Korean Nuclear Crisis?

We can think of the following scenarios in connection with the future of the North Korean nuclear crisis.

First Scenario: the nuclear crisis will continue as long as the North Korea is not a real threat, because the nuclear crisis brings money and weaken further the North Korean economy. North Korea has never been a real threat and it will remain so, unless provoked.

Second Scenario, North Korea undertakes moratorium on nuclear development and allows the opening of its huge reserve of rare earth to the U.S. and Japan in exchange of sanction lifting and even normalization of Washington-Pyongyang relations.

The amount of rare earth reserve of 7 countries which are in the American camp (Vietnam, India, Brazil, U.S., Australia, Greenland and Canada) is 40 million MT s against 65 million MT for combined reserve of Russia and China.

The world reserve is 130 million MT. But, imagine, North Korea has 216 million MT. Remember this. The issue of the future world war depends much on the access to semiconductors, which cannot be produced without rare earths.

The combination on the moratorium on nuclear development with the access of the American war camp to North Korean rare earths may persuade Washington to terminate the nuclear crisis.

The third scenario is troublesome. If the U.S.-DPRK confrontation continues, if the trilateral (ROK-Japan-U.S.) military alliance becomes a reality and if the alliance threatens Chairman, KIm Jong-un, North Korea might join the war camp of China-Russia.

This possibility was shown in a dramatic way by the participation of Russia’s Defence Minister, Sergey Shoigu at the Pyongyang military Parade of July 27 organized to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Armistice of the Korean War.

When this happens, there will be no more nuclear crisis in North Korea, but, the third world war will come sooner that we might have thought.

The fourth scenario is a situation where North Korea becomes an ally of Washington in exchange with relations normalization, economic aid, invitation to Washington-led international organizations. If this happens, the West’s striking power will increase so that the probability of the 3rd world war will increase.

What are the probabilities of realization of theses four scenarios? Here is my evaluation.

Scenario 1: 80%: this scenario is the most probable, but at the same time the most undesirable.

Scenario 2: 40%: This scenario is highly desirable, but it needs special efforts by Washington.

Scenario 3: 70%: This scenario is the worst scenario because it increases the probability of the global nuclear war.

Scenario 4: 10%: This scenario is unlikely, but if it happens, it may hasten the step of the global nuclear war, because the combination of the mighty armed forces of ROK and those of DPRK may strengthen the American temptation to hit China.

Conclusion

I may conclude this paper this way.

First, Washington is responsible for initiating and perpetuating the North Korean nuclear.

Second, Washington has failed to change (destroy) the Juche regime due to its lack of will or insufficient capacity to understand the Juche doctrine.

Third, nonetheless, the American pro-war community (APWC) made a fortune through weapons sales to pro-U.S. East Asian countries who would have accepted North Korea as regional security threat

Fourth, of the 4 scenarios examined, the first scenario of perpetuation of the nuclear crisis is the most probable, because it the most lucrative.

*

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

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and member of Research Centre on Integration and globalization (CEIM-UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

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

***

After months and months of US media lies about how “phantastic” Ukraine is doing, it is for the cynical a fun to watch how the US narrative is breaking down these days. After months of heavy losses and no gain, the US belief that Ukraine can ever win is vanishing – even CNN cannot keep tight about it anymore.

“Russians have a number of defensive lines and they [Ukrainian forces] haven’t really gone through the first line,” said a senior Western diplomat. “Even if they would keep on fighting for the next several weeks, if they haven’t been able to make more breakthroughs throughout these last seven, eight weeks, what is the likelihood that they will suddenly, with more depleted forces, make them? Because the conditions are so hard.” See this.

US support for Ukraine is crumbling.

55% of voters now saying Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine.

71% of Republicans think that Congress should not authorize new funding. See this.

Republicans control the House of Representatives – the part of Congress where members are on election every second year, that is, all the time. House Republicans on election therefore cannot afford to ignore that 71%, close to three-quarters of their voters want them to block any future aid to Ukraine.

And many Republicans of the Trump wing are already against giving Ukraine more money and weapons. This is a desperate situation for US Neocons like Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, and Nuland who want to continue the Ukraine war at all costs, not only in Ukrainian lives, but even in US treasury. No more big money for Ukraine will come through Congress.

The last big NATO weapons package to Ukraine will be precisely that, the last big weapons package. All there is left for Ukraine will be drip-drip – small handouts. Millions, not billions. The US and NATO have no more left to give.

Germany cannibalized its own small tank army in order to give Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Those Leopard 2 tanks are all mostly gone already. Wasted for nothing. Germany will not do that again.

The same for the UK, which cannibalized their minuscule tank army for Challenger tanks as well.

Poland stripped itself of available tanks to give Ukraine. Poland has no more to give either. Even small NATO countries like Denmark are left in the desert after sending their best equipment for destruction in Ukraine.

Denmark sent all its most “precious” CAESAR artillery to Ukraine – only enough to be destroyed by Russia in just a few days.

The US set to make special constrution of Abrams tanks to Ukraine (which are not even delivered yet) – that will also not happen again.

NATO has no more artillery ammunition – the US itself has only got ammunition left for 30 days in case of a conflict.

The US stripped Middle East countries for Patriot missiles and even took Hawk air defense away from Taiwan in order to send it for destruction in Ukraine. NATO has no more air defense to send. NATO has nothing to send – at all.

As the CNN articles linked above also show, NATO is also suddenly becoming aware, that NATO cannot train Ukrainian soldiers to become a modern complicated force in just 8 weeks. What a surprise. Ukraine itself has lost 350,000+ dead and probably 3-5 times as many wounded for a total loss of 1-2 million Ukrainian men.

Due to refugees, war losses, and losses of territories, Ukraine itself is reduced to a country of just 18-20 million people and cannot make any big recruitments of soldiers anymore. After the break-down of the fake grain-deal which never sent significant amounts of food to poor countries, Russia has blocked Ukraine’s remaining ports and Ukraine has become a landlocked country. Ukraine is crushed.

On the frontlines, we these days see the result of this.

Nowhere is Ukraine making progress. On the contrary.

Russia is rolling Ukraine back in the north on the Kupyanks-Lyman line.

As Ukraine bleeds manpower, trying to hold the Kupyansk-Lyman line stretches Ukraine’s forces thin to the breaking point everywhere else.

In spite of US lies, Russia on its side has plenty of forces in reserve everywhere – even to meet a possible NATO invasion of Ukraine from Poland. Ukraine’s efforts around Artemovsk (Bakhmut) have been stopped too.

Even in the south, Ukraine’s defined main strategic thrust “towards Crimea”.

Russia has started to push Ukraine back at “Bradley square”, the graveyard of burned-out Bradley and NATO vehicles south of Orekhov. Come Autumn 2023, and Ukraine will be pushed back everywhere and Ukraine’s front will be breaking down against superior Russian forces. This is a tragedy brought upon Ukraine by the Kiev puppet régime, Ukrainian Nazis, and US neocons like Biden and Nuland.

The ensuing spectacle in the US is a comedy, however.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from Geopolitical Economy Report

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

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

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

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a press conference that he thought his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “had a broader understanding of the world.” The comments were triggered by Lula suggesting that Zelensky, as a minimum, needs to accept that Crimea is a part of Russia.

On August 3, Lula suggested that Ukraine accept that it lost sovereignty over Crimea as part of efforts to end the war with Russia, stressing that Zelensky “cannot want everything.”

“The world needs tranquillity… We have to find a solution,” Lula added.

This naturally triggered adverse reactions from Zelensky, who is suffering a major humiliation after figureheads of the Kiev regime promised to be in Crimea within weeks of launching the much-lauded Ukrainian counteroffensive, which began over two months ago in the first week of June.

“To be honest, I thought he [Lula] had a broader understanding of the world. I think it’s very important to see the world as a whole,” Zelensky said in an interview at the presidential palace in Kiev on August 6.

Previously, the Brazilian president stated that Zelensky and Putin would not be interested in a peace agreement to end the Ukraine conflict.

“For now, we haven’t heard from Zelensky or Putin the idea that ‘we’re going to stop and let’s negotiate.’ For now, the two are in that phase of ‘I’m going to win, I’m going to win, I’m going to win, I’m going to win,’ you know? Meanwhile, people are dying,” Lula said on August 2.

The Brazilian president is not wrong that neither side at this moment in time are interested in a peace deal – the Kiev regime delusionally believes it can conquer lost territories, including Crimea, while Russia is in a prime position to liberate the territories in Zaporozhye, Luhansk and Donetsk still held by the Ukrainian military, and even push on to take the historically Russian cities of Odessa and Kharkov.

Following Lula’s comments about the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, Brazil’s special advisor for international affairs, Celso Amorim, stated that an eventual agreement should consider the Russian security concerns. Moscow’s concern for NATO’s unrelenting expansion into Eastern Europe was a major reason for the special military operation, especially as Zelensky continually announced Ukraine’s intentions to become an alliance member.

Commenting on the Brazilian government’s statements, Zelensky told a press conference on August 6 that he did not understand what was happening and that Lula’s statements did not bring peace.

“I think President Lula is an experienced person, but I don’t quite understand one thing: does he believe that his society [Brazil] does not fully understand what is happening, and he is counting on that? Lula’s statements do not bring peace at all. It’s strange to talk about Russia’s security. Only Russia, Putin and Lula talk about Russia’s security, about the guarantees that must be given for Russia’s security. I believe that he [Lula] has his own opinion. But the ideas do not have to coincide with Putin’s,” said Zelensky indignantly.

Zelensky also declared that Brazil is a respected and peaceful country, as well as the Brazilian people and that they should disagree with Putin. After the press conference, analysts stated that Zelensky was trying to embarrass and pressure the Brazilian government.

In an interview with Folha de São Paulo, Gunther Rudzit, a specialist in international security and professor of international relations, stated that Zelensky’s words aimed to embarrass the Brazilian government and force the Latin American country to take a firmer position.

“President Lula is running away from a meeting with Zelensky. And the Ukrainian’s insistence puts Brazil on the defensive and in an uncomfortable position to say it is neutral,” said the specialist.

The attempt to embarrass the Brazilian government, according to Rudzit, tries to force Brazil to take a firmer stance. The strategy is justified by the leadership exercised by Brazil over other countries in Latin America – a factor also mentioned by Zelensky in an interview with Folha de São Paulo.

Zelensky arrogantly believes that Brazilians have a major interest in the war in Ukraine, which could not be further from the truth as they are interested in their country’s development and regional issues. Instead, his lambasting of Lula will only make even more Brazilians indifferent and disinterested in a conflict thousands of kilometres away. Now the Ukrainian president will realise he cannot shame countries, besides the masochistic West, into severing their ties with Russia and providing financial and/or military aid to Ukraine.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

I will review latest COVID variant propaganda published on Aug. 7, 2023 by USA today, and a substack by one of USA’s top COVID con-artists Dr.Eric Topol:

EG.5.1 – “Eris Variant”

On Aug. 7, 2023, USA Today ran a story about the new COVID-19 variant being pushed by big pharma as becoming the prevalent one in the US and UK: EG.5.1, nicknamed “Eris”.

EG.5.1 is a subvariant of Omicron B.1.1.529

2023 COVID Variants that Didn’t Catch On

Let’s review some of the 2023 COVID “scariants” that failed to catch on:

Kraken was a great name (although Jimmy Fallon sang a horrible cringe-worthy song with it’s other name XBB.1.5), Arcturus was awkward and a mouthful, neither caught on. Anyone remember Deltacron? Gryphon? Hyperion? Acrux? Orthrus?

The latest COVID-19 variant is oddly named “Eris”. USA Today tells us the name was invented by a Canadian COVID con-artist, University of Guelph biology professor Ryan Gregory (who has blocked me on Twitter).

It’s fitting that a Canadian academic is credited with choosing “Eris”, the Greek Goddess of Chaos and Discord, often depicted as a DEMON who enjoys “inflicting pain, suffering and destruction”. Very fitting for Canada, and the pain, suffering and destruction being inflicted on our population by gleeful demons.

Where Is the New Variant Eris Spreading? 

Eris has already surpassed Arcturus in the US, becoming the most prevalent variant in the two-week period ending on August 5, with 17% of cases, according to CDC.

Both the US and UK have an increase in COVID hospitalizations over the summer months, with the U.S. seeing a recent 12% increase in hospital admissions and UK 41% increase in admissions.

Ireland seems to have the most “Eris”:

Some UK hospitals seem to have the most hospitalizations from Eris:

What Are the Signs of Eris Variant?

Eris has similar symptoms to Omicron. The most common include:

• Runny or stuffy nose
• Headache
• Fatigue
• Sneezing
• Sore throat
• Coughing
• Changes to sense of smell

COVID Booster Push

Professor Gregory tells us what the COVID-19 vaccine push in the fall will be like:

Dr. Eric Topol and the Scary “FLIP” Variant

The “FLIP Variant” is a set of two adjacent spike protein mutations L455F and F456L that significantly increase binding to ACE2 receptor and decrease neutralizing antibodies.

EG.5.1 has only one of these two mutations. So one more mutation and you get the FLIP Variant. It can also arise from Kraken (see the complicated chart above).

“(FLIP Variant) evolution of the virus will be more troubling than EG.5.1 and we can expect it to show further growth advantage in the weeks ahead. At present, it is at low levels globally (~2%)”

Brazil and Spain are the hot spots for the FLIP Variant:

Again, Topol tells us that the new Omicron booster (designed for XBB.1.5 Kraken) will be effective against EG.5.1 because they only differ by two mutations.

He’s just upset that the new Omicron booster shots are taking too long and may not be released until October 2023.

Topol concludes: “Whatever tricks beyond FLip the virus will find are not known, but what is incontrovertible is that SARS-CoV-2 will unfortunately be with us for many, many years to come. Yet we’re not using our big advantage—human intelligence—to get ahead of it. Even just getting an updated, monovalent, well aligned (XBB.1.5) booster out there in a timely manner, which is not a monumental achievement, by any means. We can and must do better than this….”

Indonesia Variant – “Most Mutated Variant Ever” (113 Mutation Delta)

On July 28, 2023, Business Today reported a “morphed version of the Delta variant” collected from a patient in Jakarta that has 113 unique mutations, with 37 mutations in the spike protein.

In comparison, Omicron had only 50 mutations.

“This highly mutated variant has sparked concerns among the scientific community due to its potential impact on immunity and vaccine efficacy.”

“The emergence of this variant further highlighted that the virus continues to mutate as it spreads”

My Take… 

The COVID con is back on. The usual COVID con-artists have their scripts and the propaganda is being churned out by mainstream media.

I have zero concerns about EG.5.1 or “Eris” variant. This variant is BS – just more theatre for the COVID-19 vaccine addicted, and the brainwashed.

Who will be hospitalized with EG.5.1? The 5x, 4x and 3x COVID-19 vaccinated (in that order). The more jabs you have, the more likely you are to end up in hospital or dead from EG.5.1 or “Eris”. Expect another “pandemic of the vaccinated”.

The spikes in hospitalizations in the UK and Ireland are already being used to push masking, testing and of course COVID-19 booster shots.

25% of Canadians took Omicron bivalent boosters (9.4 million), so I’d expect the same population to line up for the Jimmy Fallon booster or Kraken booster that will be released in the fall (designed against XBB.1.5 which is apparently close enough to EG.5.1).

Soft Propaganda Push

What I see right now, is a soft propaganda push to get COVID-19 mRNA booster shots going again, and they know they have 25% of the population guaranteed to line up like sheep for their next dose of mRNA poison.

But what they are really after are the rest of the 85% who took 2 doses but have stopped taking boosters. This is the target. And it’s tricky to get them back.

This EG.5.1 Eris theatre won’t work and they know that. They also don’t want to overplay their hand so they tell us EG.5.1 is not too worrying.

But there are 3 key messages they are pushing right now:

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is not over – #CovidIsNotOver
2. They want to bring back masking – #MaskUp
3. The COVID-19 virus is evolving and there are “scary” variants ahead

This is how the propaganda looks on Twitter:

Conclusion 

Whether it’s Kraken or Eris, or EG.5.1, these variants are of concern ONLY to the COVID-19 vaccinated whose immune systems have been destroyed.

They are at risk of hospitalization or death, even more so if they take the Kraken booster in the fall as well. More jabs = more immune destruction = more deaths.

For the rest of us, I’m far more concerned about the attempts to jail Trump, and ongoing efforts to silence and destroy all dissident doctors. Canada is going all out on internet censorship and Twitter is glitching again, with shadowbans and suspensions.

Whatever catastrophe they’re going to hit us with next, they want a lot of us silenced first. And that is what frightens me at this point.

Eris “delights in the bloodshed” and enjoys inflicting pain, suffering and destruction.

They are laughing at us in the process.

*

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

From 27-28 July 2023, the second Russia-Africa Summit took place in Russia’s St Petersburg. Initially, the summit was scheduled in Addis Ababa in October 2022. However, the summit got postponed, most likely due to complications emerging from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Despite the presence of 49 out of 54 African nations, there were Ministers from only 27 countries: 17 Heads of State and 10 Prime Ministers. This is in high contrast with the 2019 summit, where 43 African Heads of State and two Vice Presidents were in attendance, along with 109 ministers and the Heads of the African Union (AU) Commission, the African Export–Import Bank and several regional economic communities.

Similar to the last summit, the agenda of this year’s summit included technology transfer and development of industry and critical infrastructure in Africa, developing power engineering, agriculture and mineral extraction, and ensuring food and energy security. As the 2023 edition expanded to include a humanitarian element, a Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum also took place in parallel. Additionally, there were exhibitions and a platform for holding business meetings.

At the end of the summit, both parties agreed upon a 74-point joint Declaration for collaboration on security, trade, and the environment. However, with the frequent use of words such as neo-colonialism, neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, Russophobia, illegal sanctions, import substitution, and traditional values, the document appears to be an implicit African endorsement of Russia’s justification for its war against Ukraine. Indeed, the 4,000-plus words document contains multiple statements subtly used to encourage Africa to back Moscow’s position in the war.

In the wake of the summit, ever-deteriorating food security was the key concern for African policymakers. On 17 July, nearly one year after it was signed in Istanbul, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to withdraw from the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI). The BSGI was intended to ease the Russian blockade, thus allowing Ukraine to export grain to Africa. During the summit, Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, and five other leaders who were part of the African Peace initiative urged President Putin to change his mind. But their request was firmly rejected. Instead, the declaration attributed the entire blame for the food shortages to Western sanctions. 

Definitely, the pledge from President Putin to deliver 25,000 to 50,000 tons of free grains to six countries, namely Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic and Eritrea, is encouraging for these poor nations. However, it will not be done immediately but within three or four months- too little for a continent of 54 countries. 

Decoding the Summit’s Achievement: Advantage Russia

Africa presently imports five times as much as it exports to Russia, resulting in a $12 billion trade imbalance. Following the 2019 Russia-Africa Summit, President Putin planned to increase Russia’s trade with Africa from roughly $16.8 billion to $40 billion annually within five years. Instead, it is now stuck at approximately $18 billion annually or about 2% of all trade on the continent. Moreover, 70 per cent of the total trade is restricted to only four countries: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa. During the first summit, the organisers subsequently boasted of dozens of agreements that were signed, worth an estimated $15 billion, but according to some reports, most of those were memorandums of understanding (MOU) and not legally binding. Further, Russia’s direct investment in Africa is currently about 1 per cent of the total inflow. 

Indeed, Russia has waived off a large part of its debt to different African nations worth $23 billion. This is almost 90% of the total African debt. According to President Putin, this leaves Africa with no more “direct” debts for Russia but some financial obligations. However, given Russian loan to Africa is only a tiny part, this will have minimal impact on this highly indebted continent. Putin added that his government would also provide over $90 million for development purposes at the request of African countries. Last but not least, Russia announced that it will spend about US$13 million on “large-scale assistance” to healthcare systems in Africa. 

Indeed, Russia lacks the resources to compete with the US, France, Germany and Japan or China as a bilateral development donor. However, it does have some cards to play. Last year it was Africa’s largest source of fertiliser, supplying 500,000 tonnes. It is also a significant power in oil, gas and mining. Another significant effort by Russia to strengthen ties with Africa is its commitment to education. In 2023, Russia offered a record 4,700 scholarships to African students, a considerable increase from the 1,900 scholarships awarded in 2019. Currently, there are about 35,000 African students in Russia, and about 6,000 of them are on different government scholarships.

Arms trade consists the most successful pillar of Russia’s conventional trade with Africa, which is mostly managed by state-controlled Rosoboronexport. Currently, Russia accounts for 44 percent of major arms imports to the continent between 2017 and 2021, surpassing other major players like the US (17 per cent), China (10 per cent), and France (6.1 per cent). Alrosa, which manages diamond projects in Angola and is exploring possibilities in Zimbabwe; Rusal, which mines bauxite in Guinea; and Rosatom, which is constructing a nuclear power station in Egypt, are some other Russian companies with substantial interests in Africa. During the latest summit, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe signed nuclear development contracts with Rosatom.

In addition to importing weapons, many African nations have hired Russian mercenaries. These Russian mercenaries in Africa work under the Wagner Group, a company connected to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a personal friend of Vladimir Putin. About the future of the Wagner group in Africa, particularly in the backdrop of mutiny by the Wagner group, both Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, in separate statements, have clarified that the group will continue to operate in parts of Africa. And the cameo appearance of Prigozhin during the summit and his celebratory in Niger make it clear that Wagner will continue to expand in Africa. 

An Evaluation in Lieu of a Conclusion

Russia has shown a remarkable commitment to engaging with Africa, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov making three visits to the continent this year. These diplomatic efforts underscore the increasing importance Moscow places on support from African countries. Clearly, Russia wanted to demonstrate its strong support base of many old and loyal allies from Africa in its fight against Western hegemony.  And from that perspective, the gathering served the Russian purpose. And for Africa, except for some of these garden-variety announcements, African leaders have very little concrete to take home from the event. 

However, it was also crucial for African leaders to demonstrate to other foreign powers that they were open to hearing various points of view. African leaders are used to foreign leaders making bold promises but falling short of keeping them. The low attendance at the summit may also suggest that African leaders are readjusting their place in the multipolar world. 

And they realised that in the new age of multilateralism, jeopardising their relationships with either the West or Russia is not the best diplomacy. Almost all African nations are nonaligned, eschewing global power blocs and resenting Western pressure. This is also probably why the Heads of State and Ministers stayed away but sent their representatives. Africa’s representation in the summit can be hailed as a statement from Africa: blind loyalty to one state is no longer the norm. Therefore, Africa had gained nothing from the conference mirrors Macbeth’s half-truth instrument of darkness: it is neither a simple fact nor a deliberate lie. 

*

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

Featured image: Azali Assoumali and Vladimir Putin during the conclusion of the summit on 28 July (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

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

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

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

***

Israeli airstrikes on Syria have become routine and deadly. On Monday, Israeli airstrikes on Damascus at 2:20 am local time killed four Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

Damascus residents were awoken from sleep to sounds and flashes of bright lights from the attacks. Regardless of the numerous attacks, the civilian populations are held hostage to the Israeli military and their relentless attacks which cause emotional distress on innocent people sleeping in their own homes, while trying to survive in a collapsed economy which has pushed the majority to the poverty line.

The US has strangled the Syrian civilians with years of sanctions which have prevented pharmacies and hospitals from ordering special medicines from US and European manufacturers. For example, in a case last month, a woman in Syria had a case of ocular herpes (herpes virus attack in the eye) and the required injections of a medicine made in France were unavailable due to US and EU sanctions. 

While the US sanctions deprive Syrian civilians from medicines, the US military is occupying the northeast of Syria and has confiscated the oil produced at the largest production wells. This has translated into chronic gasoline shortages and long lines at the gas pumps, sometimes for days.

The US supports the Kurdish militia, SDF and YPG, which are considered by Turkey to be linked to the outlawed terrorists group PKK, responsible for 30,000 deaths in Turkey over decades. Although the US government is anti-communist, the Kurdish administration in northeast Syria is run under strict communist political ideology and supported by the White House and US Congress.

The Syrian government condemned the Monday attack and requested the UN Security Council to take action to prevent further Israeli attacks on Syria.

This latest attack on Damascus, the oldest capital in the world, targeted areas near Damascus International  Airport, Dimas Airport and Kisweh causing deaths, injuries and property damage.

The attack was launched from the Golan Heights, which is Syrian land according to international agreements, but is occupied by Israel since 1967. The local population is living under a brutal and long lasting military occupation. During the Trump regime, the US recognized the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, contrary to UN resolutions.

Syrian air defenses intercepted the Israeli missiles and shot down some of them according to a Syrian military source reporting to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

Israeli forces attacked seven targets in Damascus in July. They were said to include warehouses used by the Lebanese Resistance group and other allies of the Syrian military.

Israel has attacked Syria hundreds of times over the years, and all have been unprovoked attacks on a sovereign state. In every case but one, Syria has never retaliated and attacked Israel. In fact, Syria has been fighting terrorists who could have threatened the security of Israel, and Syria has kept their borders with Israel secure. However, in the armed conflict which began in Syria in 2011, which was a failed US-NATO plan for regime change, armed Radical Islamic terrorists with Jibhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate, crossed into Israel from the Golan Heights to receive medical treatment in the Israeli public hospitals, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally made bedside visits to injured terrorists.

By 2015, terrorists had occupied large swaths of land across Syria. Iran, Russia and the Lebanese Resistance group all were called upon to participate in the liberation of Syria, as well as the fight against terrorists, including the ISIS.

President Trump would have you believe his administration defeated ISIS across Iraq and Syria, but in reality it was a large international effort by  Iraq, Iran, Russia and Syria which defeated the group.

 On July 19, Israeli air strikes near Damascus killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded four others.

On June 14, Israel carried out air strikes near Damascus wounding a soldier.

In late May, Israeli air strikes hit Damascus wounding five.

Previous Israeli strikes have put both Damascus and Aleppo airports out of service. Both airports are vital international lifelines for humanitarian aid after the February 6 earthquake registering 7.8 and called the earthquake of the century. Those airports are also commercial passenger terminals for Syrians leaving and returning, as well as international aid group delegates and international diplomatic delegations.  Experts have expressed shock and concern that Israel could have shot down a fully loaded commercial passenger plan in their air strikes.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

McCarthyism Is Back: Together We Can Stop It

By The People’s Forum, August 08, 2023

We stand together against the rise of a new McCarthyism that is targeting peace activists, critics of US foreign policy, and Chinese Americans. Despite increased intimidation, we remain steadfast in our mission to foster peace and international solidarity, countering the narrative of militarism, hostility, and fear.

Indoctrination, Intimidation and Intolerance: What Passes for Education Today

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, August 09, 2023

Instead of being taught the three R’s of education (reading, writing and arithmetic), young people are being drilled in the three I’s of life in the American police state: indoctrination, intimidation and intolerance.

Jakarta Is Alert but Not Alarmed Over the US–PNG Defence Agreement

By Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, August 08, 2023

The United States and Papua New Guinea recently concluded a comprehensive Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement will give the US military unimpeded access to many PNG key naval facilities. This new agreement is expected to increase the US military presence in the Pacific region amid the intensifying US–China rivalry.

Economic Fallout: Sanctions and Energy Prices Propel Russia to the Status of “Europe’s Largest Economy”

By Drago Bosnic, August 08, 2023

Ever since the start of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe, the question of the economic fallout of this dangerous confrontation was always presented as a one-way street – the Russian economy is doomed. However, time and again, the Eurasian giant is demonstrating not only resilience, but also pushback that’s historically unprecedented.

The Oppenheimer 2023 Film: Henry Stimson Didn’t Go to Kyoto on His Honeymoon

By Prof. Alex Wellerstein, August 08, 2023

This is used for one of the very few deliberately humorous notes in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023) film, which came out last week. I am in the process of writing a longer review of that, and will probably post something else on it here, but it has served as an instigator for me to push out a blog post I had been working on in draft form for several months about this question of the “honeymoon.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein in the Brain?

By Dr. William Makis, August 08, 2023

On August 5th, 2023, 40-year-old Dr. Krystal Cascetta shot herself and her 4 month old baby dead at their $1 million Westchester home in what police are calling a murder-suicide. (click here)

Some New Developments in the Spy Business. The CIA Is in the News but Not for the Right Reasons

By Philip Giraldi, August 08, 2023

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), famed for its hidden agendas and its preference to operate in the shadows, has featured in a couple of recent breaking stories. On July 22^nd the White House announced that CIA Director William Burns would be stepping up to cabinet level in the Joe Biden Administration.

Strategic Visit? Victoria Nuland in Niamey: Some Interesting Details About Her Discussions in Niger

By Andrew Korybko, August 08, 2023

Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland of “EuroMaidan” infamy traveled to Niger to hold discussions with its interim military-led government after the expiry of ECOWAS’ one-week deadline for reinstalling ousted President Mohamed Bazoum.

History of World War II: Axis Position Weakens in North Africa: “The end of the Axis’ power in Africa was only a matter of time.”

By Shane Quinn, August 08, 2023

On 21 June 1942 the Axis divisions in North Africa, consisting of German and Italian forces, finally completed the capture of Tobruk in the far north-east of Libya, inflicting a decisive defeat there on the Allies made up of British, South African and Indian soldiers.

Emerging New Political Order: Niger’s Military Coup d’Etat and Its Implications for Africa

By Prof. Maurice Okoli, August 08, 2023

The latest political situation unfolded in Niger, the unexpected removal of democratically-elected President Mohamed Bazoum late July and the deepening differences in perception across Africa explicitly shows Africa’s level of political illusions and, practical reality towards attaining unity dimension in Africa.

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 lockdown under no circumstances could be considered as a means of containing an epidemic because when you want to contain an epidemic, you must make sure that your economy is functioning,” said Prof. Chossudovsky at the National Citizens Inquiry.

*

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

“Every day in communities across the United States, children and adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in schools that have increasingly come to resemble places of detention more than places of learning.”—Investigative journalist Annette Fuentes

This is what it means to go back-to-school in America today.

Instead of being taught the three R’s of education (reading, writing and arithmetic), young people are being drilled in the three I’s of life in the American police state: indoctrination, intimidation and intolerance.

Indeed, while young people today are learning first-hand what it means to be at the epicenter of politically charged culture wars, test scores indicate that students are not learning how to succeed in social studies, math and reading.

Instead of raising up a generation of civic-minded citizens with critical thinking skills, government officials are churning out compliant drones who know little to nothing about their history or their freedoms.

Under the direction of government officials focused on making the schools more authoritarian (sold to parents as a bid to make the schools safer), young people in America are now first in line to be searched, surveilled, spied on, threatened, tied up, locked down, treated like criminals for non-criminal behavior, tasered and in some cases shot.

From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment he or she graduates, they will be exposed to a steady diet of:

• draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior,
• overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech,
• school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students,
• standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking,
• politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them,
• and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

This is how you groom young people to march in lockstep with a police state.

As Deborah Cadbury writes for The Washington Post, “Authoritarian rulers have long tried to assert control over the classroom as part of their totalitarian governments.”

In Nazi Germany, the schools became indoctrination centers, breeding grounds for intolerance and compliance.

In the American police state, the schools have become increasingly hostile to those who dare to question or challenge the status quo.

America’s young people have become casualties of a post-9/11 mindset that has transformed the country into a locked-down, militarized, crisis-fueled mockery of a representative government.

Roped into the government’s profit-driven campaign to keep the nation “safe” from drugs, disease, and weapons, America’s schools have transformed themselves into quasi-prisons, complete with surveillance cameras, metal detectors, police patrols, zero tolerance policies, lock downs, drug sniffing dogs, strip searches and active shooter drills.

Students are not only punished for minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight, but the punishments have become far more severe, shifting from detention and visits to the principal’s office into misdemeanor tickets, juvenile court, handcuffs, tasers and even prison terms.

Students have been suspended under school zero tolerance policies for bringing to school “look alike substances” such as oregano, breath mints, birth control pills and powdered sugar.

Look-alike weapons (toy guns—even Lego-sized ones, hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in hot water, in some cases getting them expelled from school or charged with a crime.

Not even good deeds go unpunished.

One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.

Having police in the schools only adds to the danger.

Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers (a.k.a. school resource officers) to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting.

Indeed, the growing presence of police in the nation’s schools is resulting in greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”

Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers have become de facto wardens in elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepper spray, batons and brute force.

In the absence of school-appropriate guidelines, police are more and more “stepping in to deal with minor rulebreaking: sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes. What previously might have resulted in a detention or a visit to the principal’s office was replaced with excruciating pain and temporary blindness, often followed by a trip to the courthouse.”

Not even the younger, elementary school-aged kids are being spared these “hardening” tactics.

On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”

In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids—some as young as 4 and 5 years old—for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums.

Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.

Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers in the nation’s public schools.

This is what happens when you introduce police and police tactics into the schools.

Paradoxically, by the time you add in the lockdowns and active shooter drills, instead of making the schools safer, school officials have succeeded in creating an environment in which children are so traumatized that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, anxiety, mistrust of adults in authority, as well as feelings of anger, depression, humiliation, despair and delusion.

For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.

These police state tactics have not made the schools any safer.

The fallout has been what you’d expect, with the nation’s young people treated like hardened criminals: handcuffed, arrested, tasered, tackled and taught the painful lesson that the Constitution (especially the Fourth Amendment) doesn’t mean much in the American police state.

So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country?

How do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?

Most of all, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when, for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?

As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if we want to raise up a generation of freedom fighters who will actually operate with justice, fairness, accountability and equality towards each other and their government, we must start by running the schools like freedom forums.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

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

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

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

***

We stand together against the rise of a new McCarthyism that is targeting peace activists, critics of US foreign policy, and Chinese Americans. Despite increased intimidation, we remain steadfast in our mission to foster peace and international solidarity, countering the narrative of militarism, hostility, and fear.

As the US government grapples with a major crisis of legitimacy, it has grown fearful of young people becoming conscious and organized to change the world. Influential media outlets like The New York Times have joined right-wing extremists in using intimidation tactics to silence these advocates for change, affecting not only the left but everyone who supports free speech and democratic rights.

The political and media establishments, both liberal and conservative, have initiated McCarthy-like attacks against individuals and organizations criticizing US foreign policy, labeling peace advocates as “Chinese or foreign agents.” This campaign uses innuendo and witch hunts, posing a threat to free speech and the right to dissent. We must oppose this trend.

Scientists, researchers, and service members of Chinese descent have been falsely accused of espionage and unregistered foreign agency, often with cases later collapsing due to insufficient evidence. Similar to the old “Red Scare” and McCarthy periods, when scores of organizations and leaders like W.E.B Du Bois, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr and others were attacked with fact-less accusations, today, prominent organizations and individuals, including CODEPINK, The People’s Forum, and Tricontinental Institute have been targeted, with smears and accusations propagated by outlets like The New York Times.

Their strategy paints a sinister image of a secret network funding the peace movement. However, there’s nothing illegal or fringe about opposing a New Cold War or a “major power conflict” with China, views shared by hundreds of millions globally. Receiving donations from US citizens who share these views is not illicit.

Media outlets have tried to scandalize funding sources of several organizations that are on the frontlines working with anti-racist, feminist, anti-war, abolitionist, climate justice, and other movements throughout the United States and globally. Meanwhile, when white neoliberal philanthropists flood the non-profit complex with significant funds to support their political agendas this is rarely scrutinized or made accountable to the communities they impact.

From The New York Times to Fox News, there’s a resurgence of the Red Scare that once shattered many lives and threatened movements for change and social justice. This attack isn’t only on the left but against everyone who exercises their free speech and democratic rights. We must firmly resist this racist, anti-communist witch hunt and remain committed to building an international peace movement. In the face of adversity, we say NO to xenophobic witch hunts and YES to peace.

Signed,

CODEPINK
The People’s Forum
Tricontinental Institute for Social Research
ANSWER Coalition
Anticapitalism for Artists
Defend Democracy in Brazil
Families for Freedom
Mulheres de Resistencia do Exterior
Nodutdol
NYC Jericho Movement
NYC Young Communist League
Pivot to Peace
Radical Elders

Abby Martin
Andy Hsaio
Ben Becker
Ben Norton
Bhaskar Sunkara
Brian Becker
Carl Messineo
Chris Hedges
Claudia de la Cruz
Corinna Mullen
David Harvey
Derek R. Ford
Doug Henwood
Eugene Puryear
Farida Alam
Fergie Chambers
Gail Walker
Geo Maher
Gerald Horne
Gloria La Riva
Hakim Adi
Heidi Boghosian
Immanuel Ness
James Early
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Jill Stein
Jim Garrison
Jodi Dean
Jodie Evans
Johanna Fernandez
Karen Ranucci
Kenneth Hammond
Koohan Paik-Mander
Lee Camp
Lisa Armstrong
Manolo de los Santos
Manu Karuka
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
Matt Hoh
Matt Meyer
Matteo Capasso
Max Lesnik
Medea Benjamin
Michael Steven Smith
Nazia H. Kazi
Radhika Desai
Rania Khalek
Richard M Walden
Robin D.G. Kelley
Roger Waters
Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz
Ruth Wilson Gilmore
Salvatore Engel di-Mauro
Sheila Xiao
Stella Schnabel
Vijay Prashad
Vivian Weisman

*

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 TPF

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.

***

Ever since the start of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe, the question of the economic fallout of this dangerous confrontation was always presented as a one-way street – the Russian economy is doomed. However, time and again, the Eurasian giant is demonstrating not only resilience, but also pushback that’s historically unprecedented.

Namely, it was expected that Russia would outperform Germany and the United Kingdom which are among the most powerful Western economies. This is partially due to Berlin’s suicidal subservience to Washington DC, as this disastrous strategic miscalculation has led to Germany’s deindustrialization, a process that has only accelerated its dethroning by Russia.

There have been numerous wide-ranging and long-term consequences since the start of Moscow’s special military operation (SMO). This includes a surge in weapons sales from the United States and South Korea, both of which have benefitted greatly from this, a consequence that was certainly predicted by the belligerent thalassocracy.

The US knew that the fledgling European economies would have been unable to produce enough weapons and munitions for a head-on collision with Russia. That’s precisely why it was essential for Washington DC to back Moscow into a corner. And yet, just like for the umpteenth time in history, this has backfired in ways the Eurasian giant’s enemies never anticipate, causing shock and disbelief among their political elites.

Worse yet for US hegemony and the chorus of its numerous vassals and satellite states, the actual world is also benefiting from this shift. Central Asian and Arab Gulf oil producers have profited enormously from the surge in oil prices, while Indian refineries have experienced an unprecedented (and completely unexpected) windfall by reselling Russian oil to the European Union.

Washington DC’s geopolitical pendant is suffering greatly due to this, as it’s paying exorbitant prices for commodities that used to be cheap, particularly oil and natural gas. This has resulted in a ripple effect that’s still ravaging entire sectors of the EU’s economy, as the aforementioned commodities simply cannot be replaced.

In addition, the loss of access to the massive Russian market was a major hit for the troubled bloc. In addition, many Russian companies kept their funds in European banks, but the attempted theft of this money has resulted in a complete destruction of trust that once existed, promoting not only Russians, but many others to lose interest in the EU’s once virtually unrivaled finance sector.

In the meantime, China, India, the Arab Gulf states, Turkey and other countries have filled the gap in the Russian market. In years since the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, Moscow was seen as a sort of “sick man of Europe”, serving largely as the source of cheap but essential natural resources, while providing its top talent and hundreds of billions of dollars in investment.

Concurrently, Russia was also seen as the leading market for the much-needed expansion of the EU’s exports. Now, all this is largely a thing of the past. EU economies are simply unable to replace Russia as both the source of cheap commodities (particularly oil and natural gas) and a massive, growing market that is actually one of the world’s largest in many respects.

Germany is by far the biggest loser in this case, as its industrial might has experienced an unprecedented unraveling, almost a sort of reverse of what was once called the “German economic miracle” in the aftermath of the Second World War. Berlin wrongfully assessed Moscow’s resilience as it anticipated that launching the unparalleled sanctions war against Russia will actually work.

Still, the fact that only Japan, South Korea and Singapore imposed any sanctions among non-Western countries (although they can rightfully be seen as Western satellite states) and that no sanctions could be passed through the UN, meant that the attempt to isolate Russia failed miserably.

In addition, this was one of the key contributing factors to Moscow’s economic rise, particularly as its trade with the actual world surged to epic proportions. The Eurasian giant’s import substitution program, well organized and executed swiftly, created massive market expansion opportunities for Chinese, Indian, Iranian and numerous other companies from around the globe. It has also pushed the rise of countless Russian companies that are replacing import products with domestic equivalents.

This process has paved the way for the emergence of entire industrial sectors which effectively didn’t exist before the sanctions were imposed. Coupled with the cutting of massive flow of funds out of Russia and the rise in energy exports, this provided a massive boost to Moscow’s economy.

The results of these historically unprecedented economic shits were revealed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in early August, when they published new data on the world economy for 2022.

The newly released information revealed that Russia is now the largest economy in Europe and also the world’s fifth for the very first time since Soviet times. In doing so, it overtook Germany, and is now behind China, the US, India and Japan, standing at a staggering $5.51 trillion.

Even more astonishingly, the figure is 38% larger than the official projected estimate of $3.993 trillion. The report showed Russia’s GDP PPP (purchasing power parity), which is the metric used by the CIA, the World Bank and many other organizations to most accurately measure the economic might of any given country, as the much-touted nominal GDP is mostly irrelevant in practical terms and largely serves for propaganda purposes. Russia is also expected to boost its position in many key industries, including advanced communications and high-tech, particularly as it further connects to China and provides additional support to domestic companies in the sector. In part due to Germany’s aforementioned deindustrialization, Moscow is expected to keep its fifth place for the foreseeable future.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

This is used for one of the very few deliberately humorous notes in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023) film, which came out last week. I am in the process of writing a longer review of that, and will probably post something else on it here, but it has served as an instigator for me to push out a blog post I had been working on in draft form for several months about this question of the “honeymoon.”

As the post title indicates, my conclusion, after spending some time looking into this, is that the honeymoon story is more probably than not a myth. Stimson did go to Kyoto at least twice in the 1920s, but neither trip could be reasonably characterized as a honeymoon, and explaining his actions on Kyoto in World War II as a result of a “honeymoon” is trivializing and misleading.

Nolan’s portrayal of Stimson is, well, not very charitable. Within the narrative construction of the film, Stimson exists to emphasize a growing theme of Oppenheimer becoming sidelined as a “mere” technical expert by the military and government officials.

In the one meeting that Stimson appears (it is a fictionalized version of the May 31, 1945, meeting of the Interim Committee that Oppenheimer attended as a member of a Scientific Panel of consultants), Oppenheimer strains to get Stimson and others to see the atomic bomb as something worth taking seriously as a weapon and long-term problem. (This was the same meeting in which Oppenheimer reports on the Scientific Panel’s conclusions against a demonstration of the bomb.)

In the film, Stimson expresses some skepticism at the impressiveness of the bomb (Oppenheimer has to convince him otherwise), shoots down any suggestions about warning the Japanese ahead of it, impresses on the men there that the Japanese are intractably committed to war in the face of defeat, and then agrees that the atomic bomb might save American lives.

He then, at the end, looks over a list of 12 possible targets, and without fanfare or opposition removes Kyoto from the list, smiling and saying it was an important cultural treasure to the Japanese, and incidentally, where he and his wife had their honeymoon. In both showings of the film, this gets a big laugh. We’ll come back to that laugh.

Stimson’s opening statement to the Interim Committee meeting on May 31, 1945.

The reality of Stimson, and that meeting, is a lot more complicated than that. One could unpack each of the various components of that meeting as depicted in the film (they are all wrong in some way), but I would just emphasize that Stimson was probably the most high-placed government official to see the atomic bomb in the kinds of terms Oppenheimer cared about. Stimson was the highest-ranked government official to closely follow the atomic bomb’s development, and cared deeply about it as a wartime weapon and as a long-term issue. (His interest in the atomic bomb was essentially the only reason he had not retired from his office.)

He absolutely did not believe the Japanese were intractable (he was one of those advocating for a weakening of the terms of unconditional surrender, because he understood the Japanese need to protect their Emperor, even before the MAGIC decrypts showed concrete evidence of this as a sticking point), he absolutely did not frame the atomic bomb’s usage as something that would save American lives. To give a sense of Stimson’s mindset, here is how Stimson opened the May 31, 1945, Interim Committee meeting, according to the minutes:

The Secretary [Stimson] expressed the view, a view shared by General Marshall, that this project should not be considered simply in terms of military weapons, but as a new relationship of ·man to the universe. This discovery might be compared to the discoveries of the Copernican theory and of the laws of gravity, but far more important than these in its effect on the lives of men. While the advances in the field to date had been fostered by the needs of war, it was important to realize that the implications of the project went far beyond the needs of the present war. It must be controlled if possible to make it an assurance of future peace rather than a menace to civilization.1

Could one imagine a sentiment more aligned with that of Oppenheimer’s? Anyway, I digress — but my point is to emphasize that the movie does Stimson dirty here, in turning him into a dummy stand-in representing “the powers that be” and how much their interests could diverge from Oppenheimer’s. In reality, Oppenheimer’s positions were pretty well-represented “at the top” for quite some time; making him into an “outsider” here, I think, obscures the reality quite a bit. There will be more on this in my actual review.2

But let’s get back to the question of Kyoto and the alleged “honeymoon.” I don’t mention the “honeymoon” story in my own work, because I’ve never been able to substantiate it, despite trying.

I am quite interested in the events that led to Kyoto being “spared” from the atomic bombing (and all other bombing) in World War II.

I believe, and will be writing quite a bit more on this in my next book, that this incident has not been taken seriously enough by historians. For one thing, it was the only targeting decision that President Truman actually directly participated in, when he backed Stimson in removing it from the list.

For another thing, the fact that Truman was involved at all was because Stimson was (correctly) afraid that the military (in the personage of Groves and his subordinates) would not recognize his authority as a civilian to make “operational” decisions of this sort.

So it is an important moment in the question of civilian-military relations regarding nuclear weapons. And I believe there is other significance to the Kyoto incident that I have written on elsewhere, and will write on more in the future. The point I’m trying to make is that perhaps more than others, I have really wanted to get into the ins-and-outs of the Kyoto question, including Stimson’s motivations, for some time now. 

Target map of Kyoto, June 1945, with atomic bomb aiming point indicated, from General Groves’ files — a sign of how far along the plans were for Kyoto to be the first target of the atomic bomb. For more on the non-bombing of Kyoto, see my 2020 article.

I’ve come to the conclusion, after digging and digging, that the “honeymoon” story is false both in its strict sense (in the sense that Stimson did not “honeymoon” there, under any reasonable definition of “honeymoon”) and in its broader sense (attributing his actions on Kyoto during the war simply to that is misleading).

I was suspicious of it early on, when I found that no serious sources actually asserted this apparently-verifiable fact, and because it has a “too clever by half” feeling to it. It feels like a “fact” that was a factor tailor-made for catchy headlines and click-bait news stories, the notion that an entire city and the million people who lived there were saved by the fortunate fact of a pleasant trip of a single man. Now, history often does have such coincidences and idiosyncrasies, to be sure. But you’ve got to be on the watch for fake ones, for half-rumors that get elevated to the status of full facts — especially when such “simple” explanations get used at the expense of interrogating more complex ones. 

None of the serious, scholarly accounts of the Kyoto incident mention that he took a honeymoon there. Stimson himself never claimed this in any of his published writings, from what I have been able to find. There are, as well, several biographies and even an autobiography of Stimson. Thanks to the essential service of the Internet Archive, perusing these quickly is a trivial task. Here are the ones I looked at, searching for any discussion of a honeymoon to anywhere, coming up with nothing: 

• Richard N. Current, Secretary Stimson: A Study in Statecraft (Rutgers University Press, 1954)
• Robert Ferrell,  Frank B. Kellogg, Henry L. Stimson (Cooper Square Publishers, 1963)
• Godfrey Hodgson, The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson, 1867-1950 (Knopf, 1990)
• Sean Malloy, Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan (Cornell University Press, 2008)
• Elting Morison, Turmoil and Tradition: A Study of the Life and Times of Henry L. Stimson(History Book Club, 2003 [1960])
• David F. Schmitz, Henry L. Stimson: The First Wise Man (Scholarly Resources, 2001)
• Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (Harper and Brothers, 1948)

Now, not all of the above are as equal in rigor or quality as the others. (Of them, Morison, Hodgson, and Malloy are the ones which dive deepest into his early life.) And yet not one of the above authors has any indication towards the “honeymoon” story. Would not a single of the above authors found it an interesting thing to point out, had they come across any positive proof of it?

And it is not that the above do not discuss the Kyoto incident — many of them do, although they do not take it as centrally important as I do. It is often discussed in terms of the apparent contradiction of Stimson’s “old values” (not bombing cities) with his advocacy of the atomic bomb use in general. If the Kyoto “honeymoon” story was true, surely that would inform such a discussion. In addition to the above, I also looked at scholarly articles in JSTOR, and it shows up in the work of no scholars of World War II history, either. 

The photo of Henry Stimson used for his 1917 passport application. Scanned by Ancestry.com.

Did Stimson have a honeymoon? Yes. But to where? That is somewhat unclear, but it doesn’t sound like Asia. Henry Lewis Stimson married Mabel Wellington White in New Haven, Connecticut, on July 6, 1893, after a long and difficult five-and-a-half-year courtship. The delayed marriage was in part to Stimson wanting to secure a solid career “position,” which by 1893 he had done: he had been, at the age of 25, made full partner in the law firm of the famous and prestigious Elihu Root, and his star would just continue to rise from them onward. Their wedding was of sufficiently high social class to carry a notice in both the New York Times and the New York Sun. The only indication that they took any kind of honeymoon that I have found comes from the Times‘ announcement, which mentions that: “The wedding tour of Mr. and Mrs. Stimson will last several weeks.”3 

It is hard to get a firm sense of where Stimson may have gone in this period. This is several years before he began keeping a daily diary (he started in 1909, and it was originally not very verbose in any event). Morison says that “from 1893 through 1903 he went either to Canada or, more frequently, to the old stamping ground in the West.” He mentions trips to Europe, including a climbing of the Matterhorn in 1896, and hiking in Montana. He mentions no trips to Asia in this period, and no honeymoon. Again, one would think, especially given his later high involvement with the affairs of several Asian nations, that if there was such a trip, it would have been noticed and noted. Again, none of the above biographies of Stimson imply that he honeymooned in Asia, nor his autobiography.

The end of Stimson’s 1926 “Trip to Orient” diary, in which he mentions his arrival to Kyoto: “Kyoto at 6. [???] room a delicious dinner at Miyako Hotel. October 3rd. Beautiful day devoted to sightseeing.”

In the summer of 1926 — over thirty years after their wedding — Stimson and his wife (ages 59 and 60) engaged on what he called in his diary the “Trip to Orient.” They started out from New York City by train in late June, crossing through various parts of Canada in July, making various stops along the way to Vancouver. By July 10, they were at sea, crossing the Pacific on a ship. Over the course of July and August, he tracked his progress: Yokohama, Kobe, Shanghai (“very hot”), Nanking (“very hot”), and finally, on August 3, Manila. From here, most of his time was spent in the Philippines, either in meetings in Manila, or traveling to different cities for more meetings. 

This was not really a pleasure trip. Stimson treated it largely as a “fact-finding” mission regarding complicated diplomatic relations with regards to Asian nations and the United States, and had been invited by the Governor General of the Philippines, General Leonard Wood, a friend of Stimson’s.

He documented this trip extensively, in over 80 pages of hand-written notes, mostly about conversations he had with people in the Philippines (including the rather dubious views about the “self-governing” potential of different races of man offered up by the Governor General — a reminder of the colonial and imperial nature of this endeavor). On the basis of his mission, in that impressively inexpert way of elite politics in the 1920s (apparently being rich and smart and connected with other rich and smart people was enough to make one a regional expert) was sufficient to later get him audiences with the President, would lead to Stimson becoming Governor General of the Philippines in two years, and Secretary of State after that. So it was quite an important trip for him.

In mid-September the Stimsons began the return trip, which was more leisurely and included stops in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Peking, Kobe, and Kyoto. In China and Japan, he visited temples, dined with Americans and locals. He describes many things he saw, in all of these cities, as “beautiful.” He arrived in Kyoto on October 6, and wrote that he had a “delicious dinner at Miyako Hotel.” The next day, October 3, he describes a “beautiful day devoted to sightseeing,” mentions a Buddhist monastery and temple “on high hill” (“Kiyumizu“), mentions going into Gion, and other things that are still fun to do there. Then the diary ends, which is both frustrating and remarkable, given that his time in Kyoto is what we care about, and that he documented pretty much every aspect of the trip in detail except Kyoto. Through other evidence, we know that on October 5, the Stimsons boarded a ship at Yokohama which arrived in San Francisco on October 20, so he could not have spent too much more time in Kyoto.4

The brief mention of Kyoto in Stimson’s 1929 diary, and his stay (for a second time) at the Miyako Hotel.

Three years later, in March 1929, the Stimsons spent the night in Kyoto. This visit came when Stimson was returning to the United States having ended his position as Governor General of the Philippines, in order to be sworn in as Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of State. It was basically an overnight stay: according to his diary, they arrived around 6pm, went to their hotel, and were on a train to Tokyo by 8:15am. 

I would not call any of the above a “honeymoon” under even a broad definition of the term. Certainly Stimson did not appear to call it this in anything he ever said or wrote, which is really what matters. It is also not at all clear, from the above, that Kyoto was particularly “special” to Stimson in any particular way. His 1926 diary entry seems to reflect he had a nice time there. But it doesn’t contain anything that “cracks the code.” (“Sure would hate to see this city ever bombed!”) 

I am absolutely fine with suggesting that Stimson had a really nice time in Kyoto, and that he saw it as something wonderful, and that these resonances played a part in his later decision. It is a remarkable city — I visited it myself for several days in 2016, and one can see why it is regarded as an important cultural monument today, with its ancient temples, castles, streets, districts, and so on. (Some of this specialness is a little circular: Kyoto is one of the only major cities in Japan that has significant pre-war architecture and infrastructure because Stimson had it spared.) 

But let us posit that Stimson had a special attachment to it because of his trip(s) there. That is not, I don’t think, a totally satisfactory answer to why he went to such lengths to keep it off of the target list — nor, I would say, were his professed reasons, which related to avoiding the postwar animosity of the Japanese — but let us, for the sake of argument, accept that it played a role. This is still something different than saying that his took a “honeymoon” there. It is a rather significant trip (in 1926, anyway) that involved a lot more than sightseeing, and his acquaintance with Asia was not superficial. It was not some kind of kooky coincidence, and in any event, the reasons behind Stimson’s actions on Kyoto were more significant than just having a nice time with his wife.5 

So where did the “honeymoon” story come from? I haven’t definitively traced the source, but it seems to come purely out of the world of journalism. If you search for “Stimson + Kyoto + honeymoon” in the ProQuest Historical Newspapers Archive (which is not comprehensive, but has many major newspapers in it), the first relevant entry is a bit of British journalism from 2002 (which describes it as his “second honeymoon,” an interesting qualifier). It appears in another British newspaper in 2006, and then “jumps the pond” to the Wall Street Journal in 2008. None of these stories attribute the statement to any source, or any expert, in particular.

A photo I took in the Gion district of Kyoto, 2017. 

Forgive me for implying that these are not what I would consider particularly strong cases of journalistic research. I have not found any invocations of this trope in any databases I have access to (which are considerable). All of which makes me suspect this is a very recent (~20 years old) myth, one propagated by journalists and the Internet into the realm of “fact.” If I had to guess, calling his 1926 trip a “second honeymoon” was a bit of inventive flourish used by a journalist that, because of its potency as an idea, became repeated and repeated until it took status as fact.6

So why does this matter? Let’s get back to the Nolan film and that audience laugh I mentioned. Why laugh? Why is it funny, or interesting, to assert that Stimson scratched Kyoto off the list because he honeymooned there? Because it is discordant: one is talking about something of great historical importance and tremendous weightiness (the atomic bombings of Japan) being influenced by the idiosyncratic coincidence of an old man having fond memories of a city. It is deeply unexpected, because it pushes against the idea of the targeting of the Japanese cities as being part of a strictly rational, strategic process.

And so here’s the rub, for me: the removal of Kyoto was due to the idiosyncratic sensibilities of a single person (however inscrutable), and the targeting process was less strictly rational and strategic as most people think. But it was not quite as arbitrary and capricious as “Kyoto was spared because of a honeymoon” would imply, and the trivializing of the sparing of Kyoto obscures the actually weighty issues regarding authority (who decides the targets of an atomic bomb?) and Truman’s actual role in the bombings (far less than people think). There’s an interesting and important story here, and treating it for a laugh is, well, annoying to me, to say the least. But more to the point, we should stop repeating the honeymoon myth. If I were giving an alternative framing for journalists (and others) to use, it would be this: “For reasons both personal and strategic, Stimson fought to remove Kyoto from the target list, and to keep it off the list after the military repeatedly tried to put it back on.” That gives Stimson a bit more credit, for one thing, and also invites further interest, rather than closing the door with a too-clever-by-half explanation.

*

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

Notes

1. “Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting,” (31 May 1945), copy in Correspondence (“Top Secret”) of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942-1946, microfilm publication M1109 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1980), Roll 4, Target 6, Folder 3, “Interim Committee and Scientific Panel.” This entire folder is so interesting that I have opted to, unusually, upload it.
2. Also, they did not give the actor playing Stimson, James Remar, a mustache. I counted three prominently “missing mustaches” — characters whose appearances were quite defined by their mustaches in real life, but whose actors did not have any: Henry Stimson, Richard Tolman, and Kenneth Nichols (in his postwar visage). In each of these cases, the roles were relatively minor, but it’s mysterious to me why they wouldn’t have had them grow one, or use some makeup. In the case of Tolman, I feel it would have made him stand out a bit more from the crowd, as his presence is used in a non-trivial way in the plot of the film, but he has only one speaking line. The actor playing Nichols is quite small and a “babyface,” which makes it a little hard to see him as a hard-nosed Nichols, especially when he is in his postwar role. This is not really meant as a serious critique, but is the kind of thing that puzzled me, given that the film put a lot of emphasis on small details.
3. “Weddings Yesterday,” New York Times (7 July 1893), 4. 
4. For this account, I both looked at Hodgson’s book, which describes some of it, but then also turned to Stimson’s diary: The Henry Lewis Stimson Diaries, microfilm edition retrieved from the Center for Research Libraries, original from Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, New Haven, Connecticut. His “Trip to the Orient” is labeled as volume 6a of his diaries. The date of his return trip aboard the S.S. President Taft I got from a manifest on Ancestry.com. 
5. I don’t want to take the time here to go into my own theory of what Kyoto meant for Stimson, but let us just say I find more compelling an interpretation which sees Kyoto as a symbolic representation of Stimson’s guilt about the burning of Japan in general, which he was not a fan of. Stimson could not spare Japan, for many reasons, but he could spare Kyoto. Stimson attempted, at various times, to rationalize this — he could hardly convince anyone with that kind of emotional and vague argument — but my sense is that the rationalizations came after the decision. Of all of the speculations about Stimson’s motivations for Kyoto, the most interesting ones are contained in Otis Cary, “The Sparing of Kyoto: Mr. Stimson’s ‘Pet City,’” Japan Quarterly (Oct.-Dec. 1975), 337-347, which suggests that it was the affection of a “ward” of the Stimson’s for Kyoto that pushed him in that direction, but even that seems a little too “literal” for making sense of Stimson’s actions. 
6. And Wikipedia may be partially to blame as well, in a process that XKCD’s Randall Munroe calls Citogenesis. Perhaps this post will be dubbed sufficiently rigorous to change how it discusses the matter? We shall see. One of the tricky aspects of Wikipedia’s internal epistemology is that for an issue like this, where a myth is asserted by not-great sources but not explicitly debunked by good ones, it becomes all-too-easy for something that experts don’t talk about to become talked about as a fact. 

Featured image: Stimson was not invited by Truman to attend the Potsdam Conference — his rivals, like Byrnes, appear to have gotten him excluded — but the “old man” showed up anyway, with this defiant look on his face. Truman would tell him that he was glad, as Stimson was Truman’s primary conduit of information about the Trinity test and the atomic bomb.

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 Financial Times newspaper reported that since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, European companies have lost €100 billion. The media outlet indicated, citing preliminary data from a survey of 600 European groups’ annual reports and 2023 financial statements, that 176 European companies faced the depreciation of their assets while other companies closed or reduced their activities due to the sale, closure, or reduction of Russian businesses.

According to FT, energy companies such as BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies, suffered the most losses, losing €40.6 billion in total. “The losses were far outweighed by higher oil and gas prices, which helped these groups report bumper aggregate profits of about €95bn ($104bn) last year,” the outlet reported.

Financial corporations such as banks, insurance companies and investors lost approximately €17.5 billion, while car manufacturers lost €13.6 billion. The countries that lost the most are the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Ireland, and Denmark.

After the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, several foreign companies announced their withdrawal or suspension of work in the Russian market, starting a series of losses in Europe. In fact, the sanctions and exit from the Russian market have only hurt European companies and economies, and not Russia, as has been proven beyond a doubt.

The bloc’s industry has been especially hurt by rising energy costs since Brussels sanctioned Russia. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the decline in industrial production in the European bloc is responsible for the crisis.

The demand for electricity in the European Union (EU) will fall 3% this year, to the lowest level in two decades, predicted the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a report on July 20. The agency pointed to the decline in EU industrial production as the main factor behind the crisis.

Combined with last year’s 3% drop in demand, the fall is now the biggest in EU history, bringing the bloc’s electricity consumption back to levels not seen since 2002, the report said. According to the report, two-thirds of the reduction came from energy-intensive industries last year, and “this trend has continued well into 2023, despite the prices for energy commodities and electricity falling from their previous record highs.”

Combined with increased demand following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the power embargo pushed wholesale electricity prices in Europe to a record €430 per megawatt-hour in August 2022, a more than double increase since January. Although prices have stabilised, the EU’s manufacturing sector has not recovered.

According to the EU statistics agency, industrial production across the bloc fell 1.3% between February 2022 and March 2023. The decline was most pronounced in Germany, which relied heavily on Russian energy to power its huge industrial sector before the imposition of sanctions. Some of Germany’s biggest manufacturers – such as chemical giant BASF and carmaker Volkswagen – have cut production at home and announced the construction of new factories abroad.

At the same time, an unexpected drop in Germany’s industrial output in May sparked fears of a prolonged recession, which is now deepening since industrial production in Europe’s biggest economy fell 1.5% in June compared with May. Although Germany narrowly avoided a deepening recession in the April-to-June period, the latest provisional data suggests the slight economic improvement will not be sustained.

The declining economic situation brings into question why Europe is insistent on imposing self-sabotaging sanctions against Moscow, especially in light of the Wall Street Journal admitting that targeting the Russian economy has been a “failure.” The article’s authors highlight that sanctions have become a frequently used foreign policy tool of the US and even recalled how a White House official assured that the strategy would reduce the Russian economy in half.

The WSJ points out how a year and a half after the US and its allies made the Russian economy the most sanctioned globally, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced its projected growth for Russia of 1. 5% by 2023. The article also cited Cornell University history professor Nicholas Mulder, who specialises in sanctions, as saying that the West’s failed attempt to restrain Moscow could become a long-term warning and that Russia’s sheer size makes it impossible to isolate it from the world economy.

Despite the impossibility of isolating and economically ruining Russia through sanctions, something every self-respecting economist and analyst forewarned before the West unleashed its barrage of sanctions, the West continues its destructive policy. A year and a half on since the imposition of sanctions, and it is the Russian economy thriving, in relative terms, compared to Europe – the most shocking part obviously being that it is Europe causing its own economic ruin. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Westchester County, NY – On August 5th, 2023, 40-year-old Dr. Krystal Cascetta shot herself and her 4 month old baby dead at their $1 million Westchester home in what police are calling a murder-suicide. (click here)

New York State Police have said 40 year old Dr. Krystal Cascetta, entered the baby’s room around 7am on Saturday in the town of Somers, which is in Westchester County, New York, and shot the baby before turning the gun on herself.  

Dr. Cascetta was a well renowned hematology and oncology specialist with Mount Sinai in New York City 

She was married to 37 year old Timothy Talty, an enterpreneur and energy bar tycoon, who was not home at the time. 

Cascetta and Talty were married in 2019 at a ceremony in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Talty owns the protein bar company Talty Bars. 

The company’s website says that Cascetta used her medical and science background to help advise in the creation of the product.

Officials said Cascetta’s parents were inside their $1 million house during the fatal shootings.

Cascetta was a breast cancer researcher and an award winning doctor:

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine spike protein in the brain?

I have written several substack articles about COVID-19 vaccine spike protein accumulation in the brain and the resulting neurological and psychiatric injuries.

As a top Mount Sinai, New York hematologist/oncologist, she would have taken at least 4 or 5 COVID-19 vaccines to be considered “up to date” on her vaccinations and to “protect her cancer patients”.

I have heard this argument advanced by my own Oncology colleagues in Alberta, Canada, all of whom are 4 or 5 COVID-19 vaccines deep and continue taking them as they think the mRNA jabs protect their cancer patients (they don’t).

Canadian doctor suicides have skyrocketed since COVID-19 vaccines rolled out in 2021. (click here) 

In the biggest mainstream media hit piece that was done on me by Global News and 20-something year old reporter Ashleigh Stewart, she claimed that after “months of investigation”, of the 80 Canadian doctor sudden deaths I reported at the time, she discovered 6 had died by way of suicide.

The number is probably a bit higher than that. Here are the Canadian doctors rumored to have died by way of suicide. Most of them are very young:

While Global News latched onto the doctor suicides as a way of “discrediting” me, in reality, they simply confirmed that there is a very serious problem with COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated Canadian doctors committing suicide in high numbers.

Suicide Attempts Post-Pfizer or Moderna

Here are the types of post COVID-19 vaccine reactions being recorded in the literature. These are from a previous substack article I wrote in March 2023:

Case 1: 37 yo Japanese man has psychosis after Moderna 

A 37 yo Japanese man with no psychiatric history had Moderna booster shot and complained of headache, a floating sensation and difficulty concentrating. (Kita et al)

He presented 4 days later with talkativeness, and grandiose delusions, saying that he had won 2 billion yen in horse racing. He also presented with emotional instability, such as crying, sleeplessness, excitement, hyperactivity and sexual deviance.

He was discharged. Nine days after Moderna booster he jumped from the 2nd floor of his house, and was brought back to hospital by ambulance. He exhibited flight of ideas, hyperactivity, distraction, hyperthymia and religious delusions, such as saying “my child is God”. He displayed lack of insight and became enraged when his actions were restricted.

He was diagnosed with acute mania with psychotic features and stayed 66 days in the hospital.

Case 2: 45 yo Latvian man has psychosis & suicide attempt after mRNA

45 yo Latvian man with no psychiatric history presented 1 month after 2nd dose of mRNA vaccine, accompanied by his parents because of bizarre behavior and an attempted suicide by hanging in the early morning. (Renemane et al.)

Immediately after his 2nd mRNA dose, he developed insomnia, unreasonable anxiety and tremor.

After 2 weeks, he realized that he has been jinxed as he found some white powder under the carpet in his apartment. From that moment, he became cautious, did not leave the apartment, and reported persecution.

On the last day before his visit to the psychiatric clinic, the patient saw a man walking past the windows of his apartment and watching him. The patient described the thoughts in his head as not his own, giving him commands to observe the person on the street. He did not sleep that night and had a strong belief that he should commit suicide. He attached a rope, tried to hang himself, but his father stopped him.

Case 3: 45 yo Croatian man has psychosis & suicide attempt after AstraZeneca 

45 yo Croatian man developed unusual behavior 5 days after AstraZeneca. He became anxious, suspicious, paranoid, disorganized and complained of headaches. (Borovina)

Two weeks after COVID-19 vaccination, persecutory delusions and delusions of reference led him to suicide attempt by stabbing himself in the abdomen.

He had surgery and spent 23 days in the hospital.

My Take… 

We simply never hear about the post COVID-19 vaccination suicide attempts documented above .

According to UK Goverment Data (Dept of Work and Pensions), psychiatric injuries and disabilities are up 124% in 2022:

2022 Psychiatric: +124%

• anxiety and depressive disorders +126%
• hyperkinetic disorder +336%
• stress reactions +191%
• mood disorders +106%

I believe that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine spike protein accumulates in the brain and causes tremendous injuries which can be neurological and psychiatric.

I believe that COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated individuals have a much higher risk of developing mental health conditions that lead to suicide ideation and attempt, than the unvaccinated.

I now wonder if this same mechanism of spike protein injury in the brain translates to an increased risk of mental health conditions that lead to homicide ideation and attempt.

*

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.

---

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

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