No mês passado, uma comitiva governamental se reuniu com altos funcionários chineses em Pequim. Dela, participaram o ministro Rui Costa, Celso Amorim, a ex-presidenta Dilma e o futuro presidente do Banco Central, Gabriel Galípolo, entre outros.
Os adversários da aproximação do Brasil com a China aproveitaram a oportunidade para pressionar o governo contra acordos fundamentais para o País, particularmente a entrada do Brasil na Nova Rota da Seda. No final de setembro, O Estado de S. Paulo, acompanhando as constantes movimentações, alertou, em editorial: “é preciso ponderar se isso é realmente necessário e se o custo geopolítico de um alinhamento desse tipo à China não será alto demais.”
O jornal O Globo já havia sinalizado preocupação semelhante com a possibilidade. “Promessas de investimento precisam ser bem analisadas, e só fazem sentido se canalizadas para projetos transformadores”, escreveu um colunista ainda em abril de 2023.
Em agosto, o presidente Lula disse, em evento na Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI), que “os chineses querem discutir conosco a Rota da Seda” e que, portanto”, “nós vamos discutir a Rota da Seda”. O interesse do presidente é absolutamente legítimo, levando em consideração que a Iniciativa Cinturão e Rota (outro nome para o empreendimento chinês) é nada menos do que o mais importante projeto de integração econômica da história mundial.
Ao contrário do Plano Marshall – o principal projeto econômico internacional dos EUA, executado para reconstruir a Europa no pós-II Guerra –, a BRI (na sigla em inglês) não é dirigida somente a um continente, mas, dez anos após o seu início, já está presente em todos os cantos do mundo. São 150 países participantes até agora e o mais importante é que trata-se de uma integração dos países de desenvolvimento econômico atrasado e que, portanto, tem como tarefa principal desenvolver suas economias (particularmente o setor produtivo) e realizar uma interligação.
É curioso que o BRICS surgiu como uma iniciativa voltada fundamentalmente para a economia, mas inegavelmente se tornou um projeto mais geopolítico do que simplesmente econômico. E que a Nova Rota da Seda assumiu o papel de impulsionador da integração e do desenvolvimento econômico dos países do chamado “Sul Global”. Assim, a BRI está para a economia o que o BRICS está para a política internacional.
O imperialismo, sobretudo o americano, tem calafrios quando vê a China executando extensas obras de infraestrutura por toda a África. Logo esse continente amaldiçoado, que não sabe até hoje o que é uma verdadeira independência e cujas enormes riquezas têm sido confiscadas há quase 600 anos pela Europa e pelos Estados Unidos.
É claro que eles se assombram ao pensar que os países pobres podem querer deixar de ser seus escravos e, unidos, buscar um caminho de verdadeiro desenvolvimento. Por isso uma das principais acusações contra a BRI é que ela não passa de uma “armadilha” para a China endividar os países parceiros, financiando projetos que ninguém conseguirá pagar. Ora, não são os Estados Unidos quem fazem exatamente isso, por meio do FMI e do Banco Mundial? Não são eles os principais responsáveis pela dívida externa brasileira, avaliada em torno de 230 bilhões de reais?
A Nova Rota da Seda já financiou mais de 5 mil projetos, estimados em até 2 trilhões de dólares. Na América Latina, 21 países já fazem parte da iniciativa, tendo recebido 12 bilhões de dólares em investimentos. Somos apenas 9% dos países que participam da BRI, embora 70% da América do Sul já tenha aderido. Os únicos que ainda não aderiram são o Paraguai (que não tem relações diplomáticas com a China), Colômbia (que vinha de governos totalmente controlados pelos EUA) e o próprio Brasil. Por outro lado, o Peru foi um dos principais destinos de investimentos da BRI em 2023, uma vez que é um ponto estratégico para as rotas comerciais marítimas do continente com a China.
Efetivamente, o Brasil não tem como não se integrar de uma vez por todas à Nova Rota da Seda, porque isso seria uma sabotagem até mesmo aos nossos vizinhos. A iniciativa chinesa pretende investir em portos, ferrovias, estradas, aeroportos e na infraestrutura de comunicação e internet do país. Isso significa um aporte de grande importância nos esforços para reindustrializar o Brasil após quase quatro décadas de devastação neoliberal. E essas obras de infraestrutura, principalmente na área de transporte, se vinculariam às obras no Peru e nos outros vizinhos. Ou seja, a BRI é um caminho mais curto para a tão sonhada integração sul e latino-americana, que o presidente Lula defende.
Zhu Qingqiao, embaixador da China no Brasil, explicou recentemente à CNN que, além de receber as obras cruciais de infraestrutura para reindustrializar o país, o Brasil também poderia elevar a qualidade das exportações para a nação asiática. O imperialismo americano sempre impediu o Brasil de se desenvolver e deixar de ser uma semicolônia exportadora de commodities. Bem, agora o Brasil poderia dar um grande salto adiante. Atualmente, nossas exportações para a China giram principalmente em torno da soja, minério de ferro e petróleo. A partir da entrada na BRI, afirmou o embaixador, a China irá facilitar a exportação brasileira de produtos de alto valor agregado, podendo o montante chegar a 110 bilhões de dólares. Isso tende a aumentar o superávit já existente na balança comercial com a China, enquanto a balança comercial com os Estados Unidos é deficitária. Importamos produtos industrializados dos EUA e exportamos produtos de baixo valor agregado – somos tratados como uma colônia.
Mas há quem ame ser tratado como uma colônia. Além dos grandes jornais da burguesia brasileira, os parlamentares bolsonarista não cansam de atuar contra os interesses nacionais. Eduardo Bolsonaro, o ursinho de pelúcia de Donald Trump, encabeça a oposição às aspirações de uma maior independência do Brasil. Só que, se já não fosse o suficiente a oposição de extrema-direita atuar contra os interesses nacionais, dentro do próprio governo há setores que não querem largar o mastro da bandeira dos EUA. De acordo com a CNN Brasil, são membros do Itamaraty (os mesmos que estão sabotando as relações com a Venezuela e com o BRICS?) e da Fazenda (aqueles que tentam agradar os banqueiros com o corte de gastos?).
É claro que essa defesa tão encarniçada da eterna submissão aos Estados Unidos não pode ser apenas uma paixão ideológica. Quando a representante do Comércio do governo dos EUA, no final do mês passado, aconselhou abertamente o Brasil (em plena São Paulo!) a não aderir à Nova Rota da Seda, ficou claro para qualquer um de onde vem todo esse medo em fazer parte do maior projeto geoeconômico da história. Afinal, quem ainda manda no Brasil é o Tio Sam. Lula briga contra elementos antinacionais guiados pela potência imperialista e a reunião que terá este mês com Xi Jinping, em Brasília, pode ser um passo decisivo para quebrar essa resistência reacionária e mostrar que quem deve governar o país é ele e a maioria do povo brasileiro, que o elegeu.
Eduardo Vasco
*
Eduardo Vascoé jornalista especializado em política internacional, correspondente de guerra e autor dos livros-reportagem “O povo esquecido: uma história de genocídio e resistência no Donbass” e “Bloqueio: a guerra silenciosa contra Cuba”.
O cenário político norte-americano parece completamente incerto para o futuro, tendo em conta a eleição de Donald Trump das pessoas que vão ocupar os altos cargos do seu governo. Atualmente, o senador republicano da Flórida, Marco Rubio, é um dos candidatos mais prováveis a se tornar o próximo secretário de Estado dos EUA. Rubio mudou, mesmo parcialmente, o seu discurso público sobre a Ucrânia para melhor se adequar à agenda de Trump, mas é difícil acreditar que ele adotará verdadeiramente uma posição pró-paz.
Analistas e eleitores nos EUA estão ansiosos por saber quem Trump escolherá para liderar a política externa americana nos próximos quatro anos. Recentemente, os meios de comunicação social democratas lançaram uma campanha pública de pressão para a nomeação de Mike Pompeo, que, entre a equipe próxima de Trump, parece ser o mais belicoso e pró-guerra, tendo em conta as suas atitudes durante o mandato anterior de Trump. No entanto, apesar do lobby midiático, Trump deixou claro que Pompeo não será a sua escolha para o cargo.
Um dos nomes mais prováveis é Marco Rubio. Inicialmente, não haveria muita diferença entre nomear Pompeo ou Rubio, uma vez que o senador da Flórida há muito mantém uma postura pró-guerra, encorajando o apoio militar à Ucrânia e os esforços americanos para “desgastar” a Rússia tanto quanto possível. No entanto, Rubio parece estar a “mudar” de ideias, tendo recentemente feito algumas declarações a favor de uma solução diplomática.
Rubio afirmou que a guerra na Ucrânia está num impasse e que é necessária uma conclusão rápida. Ele enfatizou a sua condenação das ações russas, mas pareceu pensar de forma mais realista, dizendo que deve ser encontrada uma solução para evitar que os EUA continuem a gastar milhares de milhões de dólares dos seus fundos estatais para prolongar o conflito.
“O que estamos a financiar aqui é uma guerra em impasse, e ela precisa de ser concluída porque esse país vai retroceder cem anos (…) Isso não significa que celebremos o que Vladimir Putin fez, ou estamos entusiasmados com isso, mas acho que também deve haver algum bom senso aqui”, disse ele.
É curioso que Rubio tenha começado a difundir este tipo de retórica, considerando que foi um dos mais veementes apoiantes do esforço de guerra a favor da Ucrânia. Rubio e outros falcões republicanos lideraram esforços para promover sanções contra a Rússia e assistência à Ucrânia já em 2022, pouco depois do início da operação militar especial. Rubio defendeu medidas coercivas americanas específicas contra os então grupos separatistas no Donbass, mostrando uma posição sólida a favor das exigências de Kiev.
Além disso, Rubio sempre foi um representante da ala mais agressiva dos republicanos. Chegou a criticar a política externa de Trump no seu primeiro mandato, defendendo uma postura mais incisiva por parte de Washington na política global. Na prática, escolhê-lo seria na verdade como escolher Mike Pompeo, que é outra figura pública republicana que em todas as questões internacionais concorda com o intervencionismo típico dos democratas – não sendo por acaso apoiado pelos meios de comunicação social.
Porém, mais recentemente, Rubio mudou sua narrativa, tentando parecer mais realista e pragmático. Ele agora afirma ser “contra” o apoio financeiro e militar contínuo à Ucrânia e fez declarações a favor do chamado “plano de paz” de Trump – que parece ser apenas mais uma tentativa fútil de acabar diplomaticamente com o conflito sem aderir aos termos de paz de Moscou.
Em vez de uma mudança genuína, esta parece ser uma estratégia adequada à agenda política de Trump. Parece claro que uma das principais razões para a vitória de Trump foi a sua promessa de acabar com o financiamento da guerra. Milhões de americanos estão cansados de ver o seu dinheiro ser gasto num conflito invencível noutro continente. O ativismo anti-guerra é atualmente popular nos EUA. Rubio entendeu isso e mudou seu discurso público para aumentar suas chances de ser escolhido para um cargo governamental relevante.
Assim que se tornar Secretário de Estado, Rubio poderá simplesmente regressar à sua velha retórica pró-Ucrânia. Ou, mais pragmaticamente, ele poderia hipocritamente manter o seu discurso público pró-paz, mas tomar decisões que vão absolutamente contra esta narrativa, implementando políticas para fomentar a guerra com a Rússia.
Na Internet, vários ativistas pró-Trump alertam que Rubio é uma espécie de “infiltrado” e que a sua eventual nomeação poderia arruinar o plano de desescalada militar de Trump. Na verdade, isto é apenas mais uma prova de como é pouco provável que o presidente eleito republicano, mesmo que realmente queira fazê-lo, seja capaz de “acabar com a guerra”.
Mais uma vez, foi relatado que tropas ucranianas cometeram crimes contra civis russos na região de Donbass. Uma investigação recente revelou que os cidadãos de língua russa em Ugledar foram severamente assediados por soldados ucranianos, com casos de homicídio, espancamentos e humilhação pública dos residentes locais.
Uma equipe de investigadores liderada pelo ativista russo de direitos humanos Maksim Grigoriev publicou um relatório em 11 de novembro expondo uma lista de crimes cometidos por militares ucranianos e militantes neonazistas em Ugledar, uma cidade mineradora de carvão na República Popular de Donetsk que os russos recentemente libertaram.
Segundo Grigoriev, embora os ucranianos controlassem a cidade, as autoridades mentiram sobre o verdadeiro número de habitantes, alegando que não havia mais civis na área, quando na verdade mais de 3.000 residentes permaneciam nas suas casas. Como resultado desta mentira, foram autorizados bombardeamentos em grande escala por parte do exército ucraniano, resultando na morte de vários civis.
“O prefeito [da cidade] informou em 2022 que não havia ninguém aqui, embora restassem cerca de 3.000 pessoas (…) Eles [tropas ucranianas] estavam andando fora de Ugledar… e atirando contra ela com morteiros para incitar o pânico e fazer as pessoas saírem o mais rápido possível”, disse Maksim.
Só quando as tropas russas assumiram o controle total da cidade, no início de Outubro, foi possível avaliar adequadamente os danos causados à população local pelos ucranianos. Os crimes não começaram com a operação militar especial, mas são uma realidade local há dez anos. Testemunhas entrevistadas por Maksim e sua equipe disseram que os abusos se tornaram frequentes na área desde 2014, com casos de quase todo tipo de crime, desde roubo de utensílios domésticos até assassinato.
Uma mulher não identificada disse a Maksim que seu filho foi assassinado publicamente por militantes neonazistas ucranianos em 2016. Ele brigou com membros do batalhão nacionalista Aidar enquanto tentava impedir que os militantes abusassem sexualmente de jovens mulheres russas na área. Como punição”, ele foi morto a facadas pelos neonazistas, e as autoridades ucranianas nada fizeram para prender os criminosos.
Segundo testemunhas, os ucranianos realizaram uma espécie de “saque total” em Ugledar. As tropas neonazistas simplesmente invadiram as casas locais e roubaram tudo o que encontraram. Não havia propósito material para tais atos. O saque não tinha como objetivo roubar itens caros que pudessem trazer lucro aos ucranianos. O único propósito era perturbar a vida dos cidadãos locais comuns. Além disso, os artigos roubados eram referidos pelos ucranianos como “bens do Donbass” e eram frequentemente recolhidos ou comercializados como “troféus de guerra”.
“Algumas casas foram demolidas, com torneiras, tomadas elétricas e até azulejos levados por saqueadores, segundo testemunhas”, diz o relatório.
Esta não é a primeira vez que crimes ucranianos são expostos depois de as tropas russas assumirem o controle de uma região. Em todas as grandes cidades libertadas pelas forças russas, a realidade no terreno foi exposta logo após a vitória militar. Por exemplo, anteriormente, quando os russos libertaram Artyomovsk (chamado de “Bakhmut” pelos ucranianos), civis locais disseram a jornalistas e investigadores que estavam a ser sujeitos a várias práticas criminosas por parte dos ocupantes neonazistas. Foi até revelado que crianças de etnia russa estavam a ser raptadas por ucranianos disfarçados de “voluntários humanitários”, com várias famílias a perderem os seus filhos em falsas “operações de resgate” levadas a cabo pelas forças de Kiev.
“Eles estavam levando as crianças embora. Eles chegavam às 18h, às vezes às 22h. (…) Eles se autodenominavam voluntários, mas não eram, eram da SBU ou talvez alguma outra organização que coleta informações (…) Eles tinham uma lista de pessoas, eles sabiam quem era morador e quantas pessoas estavam ali (…) Os voluntários chegavam de carro, distribuíam algumas caixas, coletavam informações, e aí com essas informações vinham pessoas uniformizadas correndo e olhando para as crianças (…) Eles estavam caçando nossos filhos, e nós estávamos escondendo eles nos prédios (…) Escondemos nossos filhos durante um mês inteiro”, disseram testemunhas locais aos investigadores na época.
Esta situação é apenas mais uma prova de que o problema ucraniano só pode ser resolvido por meios militares. Recentemente, o Presidente russo, Vladimir Putin, suspendeu todas as propostas diplomáticas em resposta ao massacre de civis por soldados ucranianos na região de Kursk. A razão da decisão da Rússia de partir para a ação militar é muito simples de compreender: o regime de Kiev provou ser incapaz de qualquer tipo de diálogo, uma vez que a sua ideologia oficial é o ódio contra o povo russo. É impossível para Moscou negociar com uma junta neonazista que tolera todo o tipo de crimes contra os russos, sendo a vitória militar a única opção que resta.
É claro que muitos outros crimes brutais cometidos pelos ucranianos ainda não foram revelados. Com cada cidade libertada pelos russos, mais casos de abusos contra civis por parte de Kiev serão expostos. Para a população local de língua russa, a vitória da operação militar especial é a única esperança contra a crueldade neonazista.
Sumner, WA – 30s year old music teacher Carrie Huss believed in medical freedom.
Aug. 2021: “I made the choice to get vaccinated. I think others should have the choice as well. And even if you believe differently than me, I still love you.”
Oct. 2024: “Carrie found herself in the hospital diagnosed with Stage 4 colon cancer.”
Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause turbo cancer, and colon cancer is in the top 5 most common.
Teachers have been decimated by COVID-19 vaccine mandates which have led to thousands of teachers across the US dying suddenly or developing life crippling illnesses, including cancer.
I feel really bad for Carrie Huss – she believed in medical freedom and she is a victim of the vaccine cartel. This is a tragic story.
.
.
*
Click the share button below 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. 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 Carrie Huss’s Facebook via COVID Intel
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook,Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
[This important article by Dr. Mark Trozzi was first posted on GR on September 8.]
The Netanyahu regime and Hamas, are currently taking daily pauses from bombs, fires, and toxic fumes in Gaza; to administer an experimental genetically modified oral polio virus vaccine to six hundred and forty thousand children there. This experimental GMO polio virus is a project involving Bill Gates and the WHO.
Israeli military attacks on water wells, sanitation and sewage treatment, and the obstruction of essential hygiene supplies into the Gaza have created major waste-water and hygiene problems.
Israeli authorities claim to have detected “vaccine derived polio virus 2” in sewage samples in Gaza.
The “vaccine derived polio virus 2” is as the name suggests, an infectious polio virus that originated from oral polio vaccines. Vaccine-derived polio occurs when an attenuated poliovirus used to make oral vaccines, regains its virulence, and begins circulating,
Recently four Palestinian children presented with acute flaccid paralysis. One of them tested positive for “vaccine derived polio virus 2”. The author does not have access to details regarding what laboratory tests were performed on either the children or the sewage.
There are various possible causes of flaccid paralysis including toxic fumes from the bombs and fires, polio, and others.
To put this in context, please consider that at least thirteen thousand children have been killed in the war on Gaza in the past two years.
Does it concern my dear reader that after claiming a diagnosis of vaccine derived polio in four children, Bill Gates and the WHO are now targeting six hundred and forty thousand Palestinian children with a genetically modified experimental polio virus, that has previously caused polio.
Please consider that so far, the experimental covid-19 genetic “vaccines” from Bill Gates, the WHO and their partners, have killed tens of millions and injured hundreds of millions of people. I believe that we have more than ample reason not to trust Bill Gates, the WHO, or their partners.
More than a century of vaccine history reveals that it is not vaccines, but improved standards of living including water, septic, hygiene, food supply and security that are responsible for dramatic reductions in most infectious diseases.
Save the children!
They need restored living conditions, clean water, functioning septic, healthy food supply and security; not Bill Gates and the WHO.
*
Click the share button below 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 vast majority of the missiles representing the firepower of the US Navy for land attack firepower (Tomahawk Block IV -V), air defense (SM2-3-6-ESSM) and surface warfare (ESSM) are launched from vertical launchers (VLS-Vertical Launching System) of the combatant ships.
Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom, but concentrated power across all three branches is the very definition of tyranny: a dictatorship disguised as democracy. When one party dominates all three branches of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—there is even more reason to worry.
In the immediate aftermath of the media calling the elections in favor of the Trump-Vance ticket, African Americans in various states across the U.S. received text messages ordering them to report to plantations to resume the slave labor which was the bulwark of colonial and antebellum periods of North American history.
When Donald Trump takes office on January 20th, all his campaign promises to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and almost as quickly end Israel’s war on its neighbors will be put to the test. The choices he has made for his incoming administration so far, from Marco Rubio as Secretary of State to Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador make for a rogues gallery of saber-rattlers.
At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the assembly and stated his opposition to U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his opposition to Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership bids.
The Washington Post’s (WaPo) report alleging that Trump called Putin the Thursday after he won the election and told him not to escalate the conflict was contradicted by both the Kremlin and Kiev.
One of the most startling revelations in our discussion was the WHO’s extensive network of collaborating centers embedded within various national institutions. In Australia, Lucinda explained, these centers exist in universities, government agencies, and healthcare organizations, each tasked with promoting WHO directives.
Team Trump won a decisive victory on November 5, 2024 in part because of the dream team that came together in the last few months of the campaign including Trump, Vance, Gabbard, Kennedy, Musk all supported with a final hour endorsement from podcaster Joe Rogan. Part of the truly populist win was the mantra MAHA or Make America Healthy Again coined by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
With the dizzying array of concerns that have emerged over the past five years, how will the administration prioritize the ongoing safety concerns of the genetic COVID-19 vaccines effectively mandated in children by school requirements without exemptions. While states such as Texas have banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates given the clear and present danger posed by taking a shot, other states have not provided those protections. Dangers from routine childhood vaccines, pharmaceutical drugs, water, food, and air all could get on the public health radar screen for intervention during Trump #47.
Deny certain federal funding to any state that does not provide an as-of-right philosophical exemption for current and future vaccines for all citizens in every setting. This would ensure a student’s right to an education as well as an employee’s right to work is preserved and protected. Mandates must end; this became clear as a result of the COVID-19 era.
End liability protection for the vaccine industry and restore America’s Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury, by either advancing Rep. Paul Gosar’s bill, HR 9828, that restores liability, or, direct the head of the CDC to take all steps possible to support the removal of liability protections for vaccine manufacturers.
Please enjoy this full-length interview hosted by political analyst Shannon Joy with Dr. McCullough as they work through these issues and sort out priorities for Kennedy and others who do not have medical and public health training.
[Start at 00:54:00]
*
Click the share button below 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: An Urgent Conversation with Lucinda Van Buren
In my recent interview with Lucinda Van Buren, we delved into the alarming impact of global health organizations, particularly the WHO, on healthcare systems worldwide. Lucinda, a nurse with over 26 years of experience, has been an ethical beacon throughout the COVID era, preserving scientific integrity in a field fraught with political and financial agendas. Our discussion shed light on the troubling, often covert influence of the WHO and its affiliates in shaping national health policies that bypass local needs and ethical standards.
The WHO Collaborating Centers: A Global Network with National Consequences
One of the most startling revelations in our discussion was the WHO’s extensive network of collaborating centers embedded within various national institutions. In Australia, Lucinda explained, these centers exist in universities, government agencies, and healthcare organizations, each tasked with promoting WHO directives. This network, guided more by global agendas than local interests, exemplifies a trend toward centralized control that undermines national sovereignty and accountability.
Conflicts of Interest: WHO’s Funding and the Influence of Private Donors
Image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation
A significant point of concern lies in the WHO’s funding sources, with private entities like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributing heavily. This financial structure has raised ethical questions, as WHO policies often align closely with the interests of these donors. The organization’s aggressive promotion of COVID-19 “vaccines,” despite mounting evidence of adverse effects and limited efficacy, reflects this influence. It has become clear that the WHO’s policy priorities do not align with the well-being of the public, but instead with the financial interests of its most significant benefactors.
Ethical Violations and Psychological Coercion in Healthcare
Lucinda spoke passionately about the erosion of medical ethics she witnessed firsthand. Throughout the pandemic, healthcare workers were pressured into compliance with mandates, often at the expense of their ethical responsibilities to patients. For those like Lucinda who resisted, the professional consequences were severe, yet they underscored the importance of integrity in healthcare. She highlighted the psychological manipulation that leveraged fear to enforce compliance, and how her practice of mindfulness and meditation enabled her to see through this coercion.
Reclaiming Healthcare from Global Control: A Call to Action
Our conversation concluded with a powerful message on the need to reclaim control of healthcare from unaccountable global entities. The WHO’s actions during the pandemic—redefining medical terms, monopolizing health narratives, and utilizing its vast network of collaborating centers—underscore the dangers of centralized authority over national health policy. To protect public health, we must hold these organizations accountable, ensuring that healthcare policies prioritize the welfare of the people they serve.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
Lucinda’s courage in speaking out highlights the responsibility we all share in holding these organizations accountable. As healthcare professionals, citizens, and advocates, we must work to dismantle these global mechanisms that undermine transparency and ethics in healthcare. Only by restoring sovereignty and accountability can we ensure that public health policies genuinely serve the interests of the people.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Since 75% of the settlers are ultra-orthodox (over 500,000), in recent years a dangerous symbiosis has developed in the occupied territories of Palestine between the political leaders of the settlers and the rabbis who have for decades preached their opposition to any territorial commitment to the Palestinians. They have tried to give a religious justification to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
Operation “Annexation of the West Bank” was reportedly launched after the bloody Hamas attack on 7 October and nearly 700 Palestinians have already died as a result of Israeli army operations and attacks by Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Image: Israel Katz (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
For his part, the new Minister of Defence, Israel Katz, last August proposed “to temporarily evacuate the West Bank in order to thwart terrorist infrastructures by taking all necessary measures, including forced displacement,” of the Palestinian population settled in the West Bank.
After Katz’s appointment as Minister of Defence, the plan was taken up again by the Israeli extreme right and the settler movement that try to take advantage of the inertia in Gaza to advance their objective of occupation of the West Bank which for them would be the “Area of Judea and Samaria” within the atavism of Greater Israel.
In this context, the State of Israel declared in 2023 more than 2,300 hectares in the occupied West Bank as “state land” and at the end of May, the Israeli army ceded important legal powers in the occupied West Bank to settler officials led by Smotrich. The transfer was described by legal experts as “a de facto annexation.”
The existence of the West Bank annexation plan would be corroborated by Israel’s Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who at a recent meeting of his party, the ultra-nationalist Religious Zionism, stated that “both Gaza and the West Bank will be taken from the Palestinians forever” while he indicated that “2025 is the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria”, not being a new nakba to Jordan that would mean de facto the disappearance of the Palestinian state.
*
Click the share button below 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.
There are numerous arguments being advanced as to the reasons behind the outcomes of the November 5 presidential and congressional elections which resulted in the declaration of former President Donald Trump as the winner of the race for the White House.
Republicans retook control of the Senate while the final composition of the House of Representatives remains to be determined.
Among some of the leading Democratic Party officials and pundits there have been sharp disagreements over why the campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz did not prevail in their attempts to defeat Trump in what would have been his final attempt at occupying the Oval Office. Some officials such as former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have blamed incumbent President Joe Biden for not exiting the race earlier allowing for a primary contest which could have determined his successor over a period of several months.
Vermont Senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders accused the Harris-Walz ticket of not placing enough emphasis on the plight of the working class in the United States allowing for the right-wing demagoguery Trump and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance to mascaraed as champions of ordinary people attempting to stay ahead of inflationary pressures.
Upsurge in Racist Threats
Neither of these explanations took serious considerations of the continuing racist, sexist, misogynist and anti-LGBTQ plus bigotry which permeates the ideological framework of the U.S. and its dominant social groupings. Although Harris has never been considered a left-wing radical within the Democratic Party, the Republican campaign media tactics centered around labelling her and Walz as such.
In the immediate aftermath of the media calling the elections in favor of the Trump-Vance ticket, African Americans in various states across the U.S. received text messages ordering them to report to plantations to resume the slave labor which was the bulwark of colonial and antebellum periods of North American history. The abolition of African enslavement grew out of an international movement to end this economic system in the U.S. and other geopolitical regions in Western Europe and the Western Hemisphere.
.
Source: Abayomi Azikiwe
.
In the U.S., it would take a Civil War between 1861-1865 to destroy the structural basis for African enslavement. Later at the conclusion of 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified nearly three years after the Emancipation Proclamation issued by then President Abraham Lincoln.
At the time of the conclusion of the Civil War there were nearly four million Africans subjected to involuntary servitude. Another 500,000 were considered “free” although they were denied the legal rights of social equality and self-determination. Then of course, the passage of several Civil Rights Acts and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution during the period of 1866-1875 ostensibly granted African Americans full “citizenship.”
Nonetheless, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist terrorist organizations ensured the overthrow of Federal Reconstruction and the return of near slave-like conditions for African Americans after the contested presidential elections of 1876. The adoption of segregationist laws ushered in the era of Jim Crow where African Americans were the victims of thousands of lynchings, forced geographic removals, land thefts and the imposition of sharecropping, tenant farming and peonage.
.
Source: Abayomi Azikiwe
.
Consequently, the arrival of text messages to the mobile phones of African Americans in Alabama, Georgia, Detroit, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and South Carolina provided a clear picture of what the upcoming era will entail. These texts targeted African Americans studying on college and university campuses such as Clemson University, Ohio State University, University of Alabama, among others. A number of messages threatened racist violence against African Americans from the Klan and other racist groups.
The Economic Crisis and the Expansion of Imperialist War
One of the central myths of the Trump-Vance campaign was that the economic crisis facing the U.S. is the direct result of the policies adopted and implemented by the Biden-Harris administration. The falsehoods that during the Trump administration of 2017-2021 there was a major improvement in the socioeconomic conditions of working class and oppressed peoples can be easily refuted with the facts.
If the actual situation is correctly examined, it will reveal that tremendous problems existed for the majority of people in the U.S. even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in the early months of 2020. Corporate tax cuts given to the transnational corporations by the Trump administration along with massive subsidies to the Pentagon exacerbated the federal budget deficit and lowered real wages for working people.
During 2019 a record number of store closings exceeded 9,300 with 23 corporate bankruptcies costing workers hundreds of thousands of jobs. These closings included long-time retail outlets such as Payless Shoe Source, Sears, Forever 21 and many others.
The following year was one of the most distressing in modern history. The worst pandemic in over a century resulted in more than a million deaths, tens of millions of job losses and tens of thousands of permanent business closings. The Trump administration initially released $2.2 trillion in stimulus funds in order to avoid a complete economic collapse and prolonged depression.
Trump’s handling of the pandemic created confusion and pandemonium. Although MRNA vaccines were distributed on an emergency use basis, there were conflicting messages over whether they should be accepted among the people. Attacks on healthcare workers, including physicians and nurses, reached unprecedented levels. By the end of the first Trump administration the spread of COVID-19 persisted without any clear strategy to bring the pandemic under control.
In response to the police executions of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and numerous African Americans, mass demonstrations and rebellions erupted throughout the U.S. The outrage over the brutal deaths of African Americans spread to other geopolitical regions in Europe, Africa and Asia. The United Nations Human Rights Commission held hearings on racist state violence in the U.S. at the aegis of the African Union (AU), which evoked the resolutions submitted by Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) when he attended the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Cairo, Egypt in July 1964.
Consequently, the failure to respond adequately to the pandemic and the attempted suppression of anti-racist demonstrations in 2020 was instrumental in sealing the fate of the first Trump administration. With the ascendancy of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, there was great expectations on the part of many oppressed and working peoples for fundamental reforms.
During Biden’s first year in office with a Democratic Party effective majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, an additional stimulus package was approved. All together $5.5 trillion in stimulus funding was made available in the U.S. by the end of 2021.
Despite this massive infusion of federal money into the U.S. economy, real wages declined while consumer prices skyrocketed impacting the ability of working people to purchase food, gasoline, housing and other important necessities of life. Measures by the Federal Reserve Bank to calm inflation has not resulted in a substantial improvement in the living standards in the U.S.
It was these contradictions which were exploited by the Trump campaign to win 73 million to the 68 million votes of Harris-Walz in the presidential elections. However, the advocacy of tariffs, mass deportations and political retributions against perceived enemies will not bring about the promised economic revival for the tens of millions experiencing hardships and impoverishment in the U.S.
World War, Fascism and the Anti-Imperialist Struggle
It is important to review the history of the rise of fascism during the early decades of the 20th century beginning with Italian National Fascist Party under Benito Mussolini during World War I. Like the White House tenure of Trump, there are many myths surrounding the improvement of the economic conditions under Mussolini where it was said that “the trains ran on time.”
The reign of the Italian fascists from 1922-1943 was characterized by the subjugation of the North Africa territory of Libya and the execution of the liberation movement leader Omar al-Moktar in 1931. The Ethiopian people were subjected to a genocidal war from 1935-1941 where the use of mustard gas and a systematic policy of extermination led to the deaths of 70,000, the injuring of 200,000 and the displacement of millions. Other North African territories were contested by Italian and German fascist regimes against Britain, France and the U.S. from 1940-1943.
In Germany, the seizure of power by Adolph Hitler in 1933 eventually led to World War II which resulted in the defeat and destruction of Germany by May of 1945. Neither Italy nor Germany has gained the economic and military dominance which the fascists sought in the aftermath of the First Imperialist War.
Trump has run three electoral campaigns under the theme of making America great again. If history is a guide to the contemporary world situation, Trump’s program for reclaiming the uncontested supremacy of Washington and Wall Street will inevitably fail. The overwhelming majority of people throughout the world will vigorously fight the imperialist onslaught by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led by the U.S.
As has been demonstrated in Palestine and other states within West Asia, the determination of people to resist Zionism and their U.S. imperialist backers has only grown exponentially. Trump’s policies will end in economic ruin for the U.S. as well as defeat at the hands of oppressed and working people domestically and throughout the globe.
*
Click the share button below 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 way raw video evidence debunked the “Amsterdam pogrom” narrative in real time in full view of the entire world is exactly why Israel hates journalists. It’s why it won’t let the western press visit Gaza, and it’s why it murders Palestinian journalists at every opportunity.
.
.
.
.
.
Trump’s “America First” cabinet is being packed full of swamp monsters who want to pour American money into helping Israel destroy the middle east, pour American money into the unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine, and prepare American troops to fight a war with China to defend Taiwan.
*
And just as we’re reacting to the news of Trump filling his new cabinet with murderous warmongers, the Biden administration comes in with a helpful reminder that they too are evil blood-soaked monsters. The White House has announced that it will be imposing zero consequences on Israel for failing to abide by its 30-day deadline to let more aide into Gaza. The “deadline” was a phony election ploy, just as we said it was at the time.
Friendly reminder that Biden could still end the genocide in Gaza right now. He could end it today. He could have ended it any day over the last thirteen months. Israel’s atrocities will continue into the next administration because the Biden administration wants them to.
*
Everything American liberals are worried will be done to them by the Trump administration are things that were done to people in other countries by the Biden administration.
Anyone who supported Trump on anti-war grounds already has more than enough evidence to stop doing so. If you’re still supporting him after his cabinet picks thus far you’re going to support him no matter what he does on foreign policy, because you don’t really care about peace — you just care about your favorite political party winning.
*
I’m already getting Trump supporters all over my replies telling me that the hawkish inclinations I’m seeing from the incoming administration aren’t what they look like. They did this throughout his entire first term. Four fucking years of morons telling me the insane acts of warmongering I was witnessing were actually fine and good, or even brilliant strategic maneuvers against the deep state warmongers. Really not looking forward to another four years of this shit.
*
Being pro-Israel is being pro-war, because the state of Israel cannot exist in its present iteration without nonstop US-backed military violence. Supporting Israel necessarily means supporting endless western military interventionism in the middle east. Trump supporters keep lying to themselves about this.
It was obvious that Trump’s “anti-neocon” schtick was bullshit even before his cabinet picks. You cannot be “anti-neocon” and also be Israel’s BFF. That’s not a thing. US military support for Israel is absolutely central to the neoconservative ideology — just research the history of neocons and PNAC. Trump and his allies talk a big game about massively unpopular Bush-era neocons, but Trump has always been fully aligned with those same neocons on Israeli warmongering. He had actual PNAC members in his cabinet like Elliott Abrams and John Bolton for fuck’s sake, and he has openly admitted to being bought and owned by the Adelsons.
So the Trump faction is doing this weird cognitive dissonance straddle where they’re more or less completely aligned with the neocons on middle east policy (and China policy as well for the record) while posturing as big opponents of neoconservatives and warmongers. There is a faction of the “MAGA” movement which is anti-Israel, or at least anti US aid for Israel, but they are a much smaller and far less powerful contingent. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
*
When people defend the Gaza genocide by saying “those Arabs hate gay people” or whatever, they’re admitting that they think someone having different beliefs than their own justifies wiping out their entire population.
You normally hear this argument from right wing Israel supporters speaking to left-wing Palestine supporters. They assume it’s a debate-winning argument because they know leftists support LGBTQ rights, so upon hearing this the leftist will say “Oh okay well kill them all then.”
Leaving aside the premise that all Palestinians hate gay people (which is of course silly), the fact that they project this assumption onto others says a lot about their own worldview. Anyone making this argument is telling you they would support the mass military slaughter of you and everyone who thinks like you if given the opportunity, because they believe those who think differently than themselves should be exterminated.
*
Leftists, liberals and rightists all mean very different things when they say they support free speech.
When an anti-imperialist socialist says they support free speech, they mean they want the freedom to hold power to account, scrutinize their government’s actions, and share dissident ideas and information. This is the original reason freedom of speech has been enshrined as an important value in our society, and it’s why leftists (the real kind) aggressively defend it.
When a rightist says they support free speech, they typically mean they want to be able to say racist things without any consequences and make mean jokes about trans people on social media. It’s less about holding power to account and more about being able to say what you want wherever you want for its own sake, because not being allowed to say what you want doesn’t feel very nice. This is what you’re looking at when you see Trump talking about the importance of free speech rights while also saying he wants to jail people for burning the American flag and telling donors he’ll crack down on pro-Palestine protests. He’s not promising the freedom to speak truth to power, he’s promising the freedom to say racial slurs.
When a liberal says they support free speech, they typically mean they support free speech for themselves and people who think like them, and for the citizens of enemy countries like Iran and China. They’re more than happy to see speech critical of the powerful curbed in the name of stopping “disinformation” or “Russian propaganda”. They support Silicon Valley tech platforms collaborating intimately with US government agencies to suppress dissident ideas and information, so long as doing so doesn’t benefit a rival political faction. They believe their worldview is the way, the truth and the light, and that information needs to circulate in a way that helps others believe this too.
There are of course exceptions and variations on this; American libertarians are often an odd hybrid of the leftist and rightist schools of thought on free speech, for example. It’s good to be aware that when someone says they support free speech, they could mean something very, very different from what you mean when you say it.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
It is dangerous for Trump supporters to think that the battle is over with the election victory. The battle has not begun, and it never will if Trump cannot put together a fighting administration.
There are about 4,000 political appointees in the Executive branch, 1,200 of which have to be confirmed in office by the Senate. The confirmation power gives the Senate input in controlling staffing in a presidential administration.
Trump and his transition team do not know 1,200 people, much less 4,000. Desperate to get a government underway, their inquiries will result in input from many sources, especially from the ruling establishment. At best a president and transition team can only focus on a few key areas where the president’s key agendas are. Even here Trump is not doing a great job.
Image: The official portrait of Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) (From the Public Domain)
Let’s start with the war front. Trump has said he can immediately stop the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran war in the Middle East. But Trump’s appointees to US Ambassador to the UN, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, US Ambassador to Israel, and Secretary of Defense are war hawks. UN Ambassador Elise Stefanik is a warmonger for Israel. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has called for enforcing the energy sanctions on Russia and taking the handcuffs off long-range missiles provided to Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is a warmonger. Trump has appointed Mike Huckabee US Ambassador to Israel to the great delight of Israeli extremists. Huckabee has said that Israel has title to Palestine. Trump has appointed Steven Witkoff Special Envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff who is Jewish is tasked with dealing with the Iranian threat, the Israel–Hamas war, the Israel–Hezbollah fighting, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
For Defense Secretary Trump has chosen Fox News co-host and commentator Pete Hegseth, a non-Woke masculine man without faith in a DEI military.The downside is that he believes in the official narratives constructed by the military/security complex and neoconservatives of America’s Russian, Chinese, and Iranian enemies.He describes Iran as “an evil regime” and wants to modernize the US military so that it is a match for China’s.It seems we are in for a rise in the defense budget and no closed bases, an obstacle to Musk’s plan to cut $2.5 trillion from the budget.Together with Stefanik, Waltz, and Rubio, Hegseth gives Trump a quattro for war.Do any of these Trump appointees have the flexibility to see the Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and Palestinian point of view?
In his comments about John Bolton, Trump indicated that he thinks presenting adversaries with warmongers is what will bring them to concessions. I doubt this will work with Russia, China, and Iran.
Let’s now look at the prospects for RFK Jr. and Elon Musk.The UK newspaper, The Telegraph, reports that Trump’s advisors are distancing Trump from Bobby Kennedy.As I predicted would happen, Trump’s advisors are questioning whether Kennedy can be confirmed.The Big Pharma and fluoride lobbies have asserted their muscle, and it looks like Trump’s advisors are backing down. They lack the intelligence to see that Big Pharma’s blocking of Kennedy would play into Trump’s hands.But as we all know, Republicans simply are not fighters.Most in Congress are RINOs and they are not going to burn their bridges with the Establishment.
The Telegraph is an unreliable newspaper as its totally incorrect coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict demonstrated.The Telegraph’s report could be a Big Pharma plant that seeks to raise questions in the minds of those on the transition team about Bobby Kennedy.Trump transition team member Howard Lutnick had already announced that Bobby would not be getting a job.Instead of having executive authority as Secretary of Health and Human Services or as Director of the Food and Drug Administration, Bobby will collect data on vaccines.It seems Big Pharma and agri-business have killed any improvement in the safety of medicines and food during Trump’s second term.
It seems that Elon Musk also is to be denied a position of executive authority. Initial reports were that the person ideally suited to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget was to be made head of a Commission on Government Efficiency. The commission has now become a new cabinet department, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) jointly led by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Trump says that
“these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.”
How are they going to do that if they have no executive power over spending?
It is paradoxical that Trump begins his assault on government bureaucracy and waste by creating a new bureaucracy. The way to control the budget is to appoint Musk Director of the Office of Management and budget.What Trump has done is to create a new government bureaucracy that will grow and grow and grow.
Image: Posted by Tulsi Gabbard on Facebook
Will the talent of Tulsi Gabbard also be thrown away?She would have been a far better Secretary of State than Rubio.What commission will she be sent offstage to chair?
It could not be more clear that this is not shaping up as a government that will renew America. All we need now is a milk toast for Attorney General, and we can write off making America great again.
Trump has picked former U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin as Head of EPA. Zeldin has a 14 percent score from the League of Conservation Voters, an indication that environmental regulations will be loosened up to facilitate fracking, which Trump is relying on to make America the top oil and gas producer, a key part in Trump’s mind of making America great again.
So far Trump’s administration is shaping up to deliver only on the border promise.Trump appointed Thomas Homan “Border Czar” and Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary.But, actually, Homeland Security, an anti-American operation created during the “war on terror” hoax, is a threat to American civil liberties and should be abolished. Homeland Security is all cons and no pros.We can have border security without it. Remember, it was the Department of Homeland Security that announced that the terrorism focus had shifted from Muslims to white American citizens, especially those “domestic terrorists” who support Trump.
Any attempt to control the border will be beset with endless law suits.Democrat governors and city authorities have alreadypledged to shield illegal immigrants from Trump’s Agenda.The Democrat governors of Massachusetts, California, and Illinois have announced that they will use their authority to keep borders open and immigrant invaders from being deported.
The Woke CaliforniaGovernor Newsom promised to “protect California values,” by which he means no distinction between a citizen and an illegal.California is a sanctuary state whose law prevents cooperation between state and local police and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. Newsom has called a special legislative session to “Trump-proof” the state’s anti-deportation rules.
Woke Illinois Governor Pritzker told Trump, “you come for my people, you have to come through me.”“My people” are the immigrant-invaders.Pritzker calls them Illinoisans, and says “anyone who intends to come take away the freedom and opportunity and dignity of Illinoisans” is in for a fight.
Woke Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has banned the state police from assisting in any way the deportation of illegals. Massachusetts is also a sanctuary state
In other words, the three Democrat governors do not acknowledge any difference between a US citizen and those who illegally enter the country. See this.
Now consider the Senate Majority Leader.Having captured the Senate and with Mitch McConnell’s retirement, a crucial position to Trump’s success is to be filled.McConnell is holding the election of the Senate Majority Leader today.He has presented two candidates, both non-MAGAs: John Thune and John Cornyn.Senator Rick Scott, more likely to be supportive of Trump’s agendas, has entered the race.Considering that most Republican Senators are RINOs, Scott’s chances aren’t great.
Trump has not only jeopardized a peaceful foreign policy with his ill-considered appointments, but also the neoconservatives, Biden regime officials, British PM and French President are working to get Biden’s agreement to allow the long-range missiles to be fired into Russia. The Telegraph reported three days ago that
“Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are expected to plot a last-ditch attempt to thwart Donald Trump’s efforts to scale back US support for Ukraine.”
As I warned, the two and one-half months between Trump’s election and his inauguration is a lot of time for enemies to commit US policy in directions Trump didn’t intend.
Perhaps the most crucial appointment is Attorney General.If Trump appoints a milk toast, Trump’s administration dies that day.Again, the confirmation argument will be used.Anyone who might take up the Hunter Biden laptop, or look into Hillary Clinton’s dealings, or those of the DOJ officials who conspired with state and local attorneys general and prosecutors to concoct the Trump indictments, or the criminal activities of members of the ruling elite, the Epstein list, the criminal leaks to media, and a large variety of other indictable offenses is clearly off-limits.The Establishment is not going to have themselves submitted to even a fraction of what they imposed on Trump.
Trump has declared that he hasn’t an enemies list.It would have been better to leave the question open, as it would have provided some restraint on the attacks he is going to experience.
Image is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Woke New York Governor Kathy Hochul says she had a cordial phone conversation with Trump and is open to working with him. This is the governor who labeled Trump supporters “anti-Americans” and “anti-women,” and unleashed George Soros’ NY Attorney General Letitia James on Trump and his supporters.”Working together, of course, means compromises, and not all the compromises will be made by Democrats and the ruling elites. There is a substantial risk that Trump will be worked directly into the Establishment.
How likely is it that Trump wants to relive the stress of his first term?
How likely is it that he can find even 200 of the 1,200 appointees who require Senate confirmation who will fight for him, putting their own careers at risk by burning bridges to the ruling establishment, an entrenched, institutionalized establishment that has not folded its tents and left the field?
The prospects for American renewal might actually be worse than reports depict. Alan Sabrosky Provides a Darker Take on the Election and Who Won. See this.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is a White House photo by Shealah Craighead
On February 9, 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Mikhail Gorbachev that if the Soviet leader would cooperate with German unification, NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” This was just one of many assurances of Soviet security made by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991.
On December 12, 2017, the National Security Archive at George Washington University declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents about these assurances. As the National Security Archive reported at this time:
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
As we now know, the U.S. broke these assurances—a decision characterized by George Kennan, America’s chief architect of Soviet containment policy during he Cold War—as “A Fateful Error” in his Feb. 5, 1997 New York Timeseditorial.
At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the assembly and stated his opposition to U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his opposition to Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership bids.
I suspect that by stating his vehement opposition to Ukraine’s membership in NATO, Putin signaled to NATO leaders precisely how they could bait him into committing to a risky military adventure in Ukraine. Since I read George Kennan’s 1997 Times editorial, it’s been clear that the U.S. government has sought to maintain enmity with Russia in order to maintain NATO and to justify the DoD’s enormous ongoing expenditures on weapons systems. In other words, during the Cold War, NATO became a Sacred Cow that no one in Washington would dare slaughter.
Likewise, anyone who has seriously studied medical history understands that rigorous public sanitation and antibiotics are the true vanquishers of infectious diseases, and NOT vaccines. The Vaccine Cult was born and promulgated during a time when most of humanity lived in squalor. Enormous advances in sanitation, clean water, modern washing appliances for bed linens, etc., have revolutionized public health. Moreover, many infectious diseases that formerly killed children are now easily treatable with antibiotics and other medical advances.
And yet, vaccines remain, like NATO, a Sacred Cow. Will Trump & Kennedy take on two of the most powerful entrenched interests in the history of mankind?
*
Click the share button below 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 Washington Post’s (WaPo) report alleging that Trump called Putin the Thursday after he won the election and told him not to escalate the conflict was contradicted by both the Kremlin and Kiev. The first called it “pure fiction” while the second said that it was “unaware” of the call despite allegedly being informed of it. The Trump team hasn’t commented on it at the time of writing. Nevertheless, the report’s timeframe raises questions about its credibility, which will now be elaborated on.
Putin participated in his traditional Q&A session that evening at the Valdai Club’s annual meeting, which lasted until around midnight. He claimed not to have talked to Trump by that time but said that he’d be interested in speaking with him if he calls. If WaPo’s report is correct, then it means that Putin either talked to Trump before the aforesaid event but lied about it or that he talked to him sometime afterwards but before 8am Moscow time, which would be midnight of the next day at Mar-a-Lago.
It can only be speculated why Putin would lie about this if that’s indeed what happened,which is unlikely, and it’s also equally unlikely that he’d agree to have a detailed discussion with Trump between midnight and 8am in the morning after the prior evening’s long Q&A session. After all, these sorts of calls aren’t impromptu but are arranged ahead of time, and Putin could always have rescheduled. Therefore, WaPo’s report is probably fake news, thus making one wonder why it was published in the first place.
One possibility is that someone on his team was tasked with introducing the report’s two narratives, that Trump told Putin not to escalate but also informed Ukraine of the call too, into the discourse. This could have been done to test the water by gauging their reactions to what he might have planned to do. Another possibility is that subversive elements close to him wanted to undermine his planned call. And finally, the last possibility is that it was made up, whether by WaPo or whoever else for whatever reason.
In the order that they were shared, the first “trial run” theory would have shown that Russia is uncomfortable with being told what to do while Ukraine doesn’t want to be left out of the loop. As for the second, both might now know what to expect, but Trump could also switch it up to surprise them. Regarding the last one, it drove traffic to WaPo’s site and reaffirmed the perception of them as one of the preferred outlets for insiders to leak to, but it had no noticeable effect beyond that.
Looking forward, the first official Putin-Trump call (whenever it may be and assuming that WaPo’s report is fake news as was argued) will probably see the returning American leader sharing more details with his Russian counterpart about exactly what he has in mind for ending the Ukrainian Conflict. Readers can learn more about what that might look like here, here, and here. It’ll take more than one call to achieve this, most likely at least one in-person meeting too, but everything is moving in that direction.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin By Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock
When Donald Trump takes office on January 20th, all his campaign promises to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and almost as quickly end Israel’s war on its neighbors will be put to the test. The choices he has made for his incoming administration so far, from Marco Rubio as Secretary of State to Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, Pete Hegsethas Secretary of Defense and Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador make for a rogues gallery of saber-rattlers.
The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Marco Rubio voted against a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.
Rubio recently appeared on NBC’s Today Show saying,
“I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we’re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion… I think there has to be some common sense here.”
On the campaign trail, Vance made a controversial suggestion that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established, and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to U.S. security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.
Any attempt by Trump to stop U.S. military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and rescinded the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.
Image: President Joe Biden travels to Kyiv, Ukraine Monday, February 20, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And let’s not forget the efforts by European countries, and NATO, to keep the U.S. in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.
The Middle East, however, is a more difficult situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the Abraham accords between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the U.S. embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders; and recognized the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis.
Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut U.S. weapons to Israel, despite public opinion polls favoring such a halt and a recent UN human rights report showing that 70% of the people killed by those U.S. weapons are women and children.
Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the U.S. election, Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.
Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant, and has led a campaign to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.
Other powerful voices, national security ministerItamar Ben-Gvir and finance ministerBezalel Smotrich, who is also a “minister in the Defense Ministry,” represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trump’s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the U.S. transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trump’s options when he takes office.
The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible, confronting President Trump with a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in which Gaza’s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area, with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant, and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people.
The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.
Image: Palestinian families walk through destroyed neighbourhoods in Gaza City on 24 November 2023 as the temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli army takes effect (MEE/Mohammed al-Hajjar)
Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties, and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But, as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called “buffer zone.” When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater U.S. involvement to help them “finish the job.”
The big wild card is Iran. Trump’s first term in office was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew America from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy, and ordered the killing of the country’s top general. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be talked out of attacking Iran in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.
Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently described to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on U.S.military war-games he was involved in.
Wilkerson predicts that a U.S. war on Iran could last for ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer Iran. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. So, once unleashed, the war would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving U.S. ground forces, in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand mile long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink U.S. warships.
But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. And they believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the assassination of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.
By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had reportedly spoken on the phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see “eye to eye on the Iranian threat.” Trump has already hired Iran hawkBrian Hook, who helped him sabotage the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.
So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
Trump’s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently tweeted that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities, the most certain path to a full-scale war.
Trump’s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and she led the aggressive questioning of American university presidents at an anti-semitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.
So, while Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahu’s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.
If he wanted to, President Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and work through U.S. partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.
But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite–actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking “steps in the right direction” and Biden refused to take any action.
We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the Ukraine war towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, with an updated edition due in February 2025. They are regular contributors to Global Research.
Featured image: A boy sits in rubble in Gaza. Photo Credit: UNICEF
The vast majority of the missiles representing the firepower of the US Navy for land attack firepower (Tomahawk Block IV -V), air defense (SM2-3-6-ESSM) and surface warfare (ESSM) are launched from vertical launchers (VLS-Vertical Launching System) of the combatant ships.
US VLS Capacity
Today, the US Navy has 96 VLS cells on each of its 70, DDG51-class destroyers; 80 VLS cells on each of its 3, Zumwalt-class cruisers; 122 VLS cells on each of its 17, CG47-class cruisers; and 12-40 VLS cells on each of its 12 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines. If we assume and accept that all the ships in question, namely 102 destroyers, cruisers and submarines, are active and all VLS cells are full, we will have a total missile capacity of 10,000 (an average of 98 per ship) ready to fire.
VLS Capacity of US Allies
On the other hand, while the total VLS cell capacity of the United Kingdom, an inseparable ally of the US, is 732 missiles (38 per ship) on 19 ships, Japan has 1000 missiles (62 per ship) on 16 ships, and South Korea has 700 missiles (41 per ship) on 17 ships.
China and Russia VLS Capacity
If we examine the Chinese Navy, the biggest rival of the US Navy, there are 112 VLS cells on each of the 10, 055-class destroyers; 64 VLS cells on each of the 30, 052D-class destroyers; We see that there are 32 VLS cells in each of the 40, 054A class destroyers; 64 VLS cells in each of the 3, 075 class Amphibious Assault ships; 48 VLS cells in each of the 2, 901 class aircraft carriers, and a total of around 5000 missile capacity in 85 ships (an average of 58 per ship). These missile cells can fire HQ-10, HQ-16 missiles for air defense purposes; YJ-12, YJ-83 anti-ship missiles in surface warfare and YJ18 missiles forland attack missions. There is no VLS system in Chinese submarines. China’s ally Russia’s capacity is 828 missiles (26 per ship) in 32 ships/submarines.
Changing Missile Loads
As can be seen, there is no other navy other than the US and Russian navies that have vertical launcher systems in their submarines. In vertical launcher missile capability, missile loads change depending on the ship’s mission. Since the primary mission of warships is to ensure their own survival first, most vertical launcher loads, except for submarines, are given to air defense missiles. Missiles used against ships and land targets are prioritized according to the ship’s operational area and mission types. Let’s remember that in some warships, anti-ship missiles are fired from separate systems other than VLS. For example, American Harpoon missiles are fired from quadruple canisters.
The USA Is By Far Ahead in VLS Capacity
In short, although American warships are fewer than Chinese warships in terms of the number of platforms (450 against 297), they are twice as large in terms of VLS missile capacity, with 5000 missiles against 10,000 respectively. If Japan’s 1000 and South Korea’s 700 missile capacity are added to this number, it is seen that the situation is clearly disadvantageous for China.
VLS Alone Is Not a Criteria
Considering that the US’s biggest naval rival is the Chinese Navy and if we make an assessment for the Taiwan Island scenario in parallel with current conditions in the Pacific theater of operations, we need to look at three areas. The first is the number of VLS-capable ships that the US Navy can operate in the western Pacific theater of operations in parallel with overall combat readiness. The second is the procurement processes of these weapons and the third is the overall logistics for the support of US Navy in the Pacific theater of operations.
The US and the Number of Combat-ready VLS Ships
According to the statistics of the US’s own naval think tank, the USNI, as of November 4, 2024, the combat power of the US Navy was a total of 295 ships. (235 combat ships and 60 auxiliary ships.) 98 of these ships (69 combat ships and 29 auxiliary ships) were in the deployed status, away from their home bases. Only 75 of these ships were underway. USNI does not specify how many of the 75 ships are the combatant ships of the navy and how many are auxiliary ships. If we assume that 20 are auxiliary ships as of November 4, the number of combat ships on the move in all the seas of the United States is 55 ships. If we consider that a total of 102 combat ships have VLS systems and that this constitutes 43% of the total 235 combat ships, then a rough calculation shows that 20-25 of the 55 ships on the move in all the oceans and seas on November 4, 2024 have VLS capability.
Low Combat Readiness Level of the US Navy
The fact that 98 ships out of a total of 295 ships of the US are deployed is actually an indication that the combat readiness of the fleets is low. According to these statistics, the combat readiness level of the US Navy is around 40%. In addition to the fact that it will take years to bring the remaining ships up to combat ready status, it also should be noted thatthe average number of warships held in the US reserve fleet that will be used in mobilization is over 40 years old and they are in poor condition.
If we accept that some of the ships in their main bases will be made ready for combatin a short time in wartime, we can accept this level of %40 to be up around 50% with the highest optimism. The US Naval Forces Command aims to increase this very low value to 80% by 2027 under the Project 33. However the planned maintenance and repair activities of the US Navy today are 7 years behind the schedule. This is a very serious weakness.
2027 Scenario and Missile Loads
Under these conditions, if the US achieves 80% readiness in 2027, on which it bases its possible conflict scenario with China at best and deploys all of its combat-ready combat ships, which will be 188 in total, in the Western Pacific, the total number of ships with VLS capability will be around 80. With this number, the total VLS missile bay capacity can be evaluated as 8000.
For China, which has a total of 420 combat ships, the number of VLS-capable ships was 85 ships if all ships were ready for combat. Since China’s level of combat readiness is higher than the US Navy in terms of both the number of shipyards and the number of qualified personnel, if a 90% war readiness level is accepted, we come up with 76 VLS-capable ships.
.
An American guided missile cruiser fires a tomahawk missile during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq [Credit: US Navy]
.
In other words, we can talk about a rough parity in VLS capabilities between the US and China in the Western Pacific in 2027. However, let us remind you that the US’s ability to launch Tomahawk missiles from its submarines creates a great advantage. The US has 300 VLS capabilities in its 22 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines (SSNs). If we consider that 16 of these ships will be deployed to the region at 80% readiness, the fact that at least a total of 240 missiles will be fired from underwater offers a great advantage to the US. Meanwhile, due to the intense need for air defense in the VLS missile loads of American surface ships, we can assume that 75% of the load will be air defense and the rest will be anti-ship and land attack missiles. On the other hand, considering that American warships within the first and second island chainsandeven the US base Guam are vulnerable to the Chinese missiles fired from both land, airand ships, it should be noted that the chance of survival or not being damaged of American combatant surface ships is low especially duringthe first hours of the war. American warships that enter the range of China’s anti-ship missiles fired from both sea and land or from the air will spend their air defense missiles for survival within hours.
The Serious Problem of the USA Is Missile Procurement
Although the US Navy is the one with the highest VLS missile firing capacity in the world, after these missiles are fired, they need to be replaced with new ones.
In the article titled “It’s Past Time to Re-Supply Our Munitions-Depleted U.S. Navy” in the June 14, 2024 issue of the American “The National Interest” Magazine, the author Jim Feine has written that the US Navy has procured 12,000 SM-2; 400 SM-3 and 1500 SM-6 air defense missiles and 9000 Tomahawk missiles (TLAM) until 2023; similarly, at least 2800 Standard and 2900 Tomahawk missiles were consumed in the wars, exercises and trainings after the Cold War in the same period. In this case, the author states that on paper, the US has a maximum of 11,000 missiles in SM-Standard air defense missiles ready to be launched with VLS and 6,000 missiles in Tomahawks and reveals that this inventory of 17,000 in total will not be enough for the second loading of 102 VLS ships/submarines with a total capacity of 10,000.
The article rightly attributes this weakness to the US’s focus on the Global War on Terror (GWOT) after 2001 and wars against relatively very weak opponents that US Navy didn’t require intensive air defense (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria). This situation, naturally, has significantly reduced the need for VLS missiles, except for Tomahawks. According to the same article, the Pentagon has purchased 125 SM-6s every year since 2017. It has also procured 122, 70 and 68 new Tomahawks in 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively. Interestingly, the US President did not approve the new Tomahawk order for the 2025 budget.
Missiles Running Out Due to Israel
On the other hand, the main reason why the number of air defense missiles in the US is rapidly decreasing today is that the US VLS-capable warships are launching dozens of missiles to prevent missile attacks from Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah in the Middle East armed conflicts. In the article titled ‘Destroying Houthi and Iranian missiles cost the US $1 billion’ by Peter Suciu in the American ‘’The National Interest’’ Magazine dated April 17, 2024, the statements made by the US Navy Secretary Del Toro for the US Congress were mentioned. The secretary said the following: “We have countered more than 130 direct attacks on U.S. Navy ships and merchant ships, over the past six months. The Navy has fired nearly $1 billion worth of air defense missiles to counter air threats from Iran and its proxies.” Del Toro underlined the financial pressure this situation is putting on naval stockpiles, stressing the urgent need for $2 billion in short-term funding to replenish ammunition and $95 billion in additional funding later.
The US Is Draining Its Essential Stockpiles
No U.S. warships equipped with VLS systems have yet been hit by a Houthi or Iranian missile, but the war of attrition in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is eating away at resources set aside for the upcoming major conflict with China. For example, the SM-3, which is suitable for intercepting long-range ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, costs between $9.7 million and $27.9 million, depending on the range. It was announced that the Navy fired ‘four to seven’ of them during the defense of Israel on April 14, 2024.
According to the Wall Street Journal dated October 29, 2024, American warships have spent a total of nearly 100 air defense missiles worth $1.8 billion in both the Mediterranean and the Red Seas in the last year when added the VLS firings of the 4 Aegis cruisers in the Mediterranean to support Israel in the missile and drone attack defense against Iran on October1. As required by the air defense doctrine, American warships fire 2 missiles at an approaching target to ensure destruction which increases the cost. An American congressional official said:
“These are expensive munitions to hit the Houthi targets… It takes months to replace each one and it is very costly.”
On the other hand, the US defense industry does not only use these missiles in the Prosperity Guardian Operation carried out against the Houthis in the Red Sea to protect merchant ships.
In the event of war, these VLS ships will protect aircraft carrier strike groups. Considering that the US has 11 strike groups of 11 aircraft carriers, in the event of a war, at least 44-55 VLS capable ships will have to be allocated solely to this task. On the other hand the US Navy is extremely wary of China’s 5000-8000 km range DF 27 hypersonic anti-ship missiles which is very effective anti-access and area denial weapon. Therefore, they are looking for other solutions, considering that their current air defense capacity will not be sufficient.
The Reuters, Mike Stone article dated October 25, 2024 states the following :
“The US Navy, fearful of China deploying hypersonic weapons to sink ships in the Pacific, will equip some of its ships with Patriot interceptor missiles.”
In the details of this news, we understand that the integration of PAC 3 missiles into Aegis-class air defense ships will be initiated. The news emphasizes that PAC 3s were successful in shooting down hypersonic missiles in the Ukraine-Russia war.
MIC (Military Industrial Complex) Is Not Ready
The main problem is that the US Navy and defense industry do not have the production infrastructure designed for a large-scale war of attrition in both Europe and the Middle East. Considering that the real war will take place in the Pacific, both the Ukrainian and Israeli fronts cause vulnerabilities in American defense industry plans. The US is spending the missiles it will use in the war with China, in the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. On the other hand, short-range SM-2s cost a little over $2 million each, and SM-6s cost approximately $3.9 million. However, most importantly, the production of one SM 3 missile takes 2 years at the fastest and 3 years at the longest. Considering that its standard missiles are used by 13 countries, including Turkiye, we can also predict that the RTX company, which produces these missiles, will be under great pressure in the coming days. In short, the US faces a serious air threat from its rivals. The old days are over. The attack capabilities of Iran, Russia and especially China are at a level that will limit the air defense capabilities of the US Navy.
American Maritime Logistics in the Pacific
The most important fact that the US observed in the Russia-Ukraine crisis is the difficulties it faces in establishing a sea bridge between Europe and the US in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea since the American merchant fleet is insufficient. They have only 200 ships flying their own flag. The US auxiliary ship fleet MSC (Military Sealift Command) also has very limited resources. It is not enough for its own needs. They have 19 fleet support ships, 14 ammunition transport vessels; 15 military supply transport ships; 21 pre-positioned stockpiling ships in overseas bases. For China, this number is 5,500. The Pentagon will conduct approximately 90% of its logistics activities by sea in the event of a conflict with China. These numbers will be extremely insufficient in a two-front war with China and Russia on the Atlantic/European and Asia/Pacific fronts. The war time load of a mechanized division alone weigh over 100 thousand tons.
According to NATO’s cold war plans, in a war in Europe, the first months of the war the amount of cargo that needed to be reinforced from the US was around 25 million tons. The military operation requirement was 100 million barrels of petroleum products then. Now, let’s add the Pacific theater of operations to this picture, where the distances are 2-3 times longer than the European front and can be measured in values of 2000-5000 miles. There isa difficult picture. In February 2024, a committee of the House of Representatives described the maritime logistics capacity of the Pentagon’s Transportation Command (Transcom) as “insufficient.” The most important US allies in the Pacific, such as Japan, Australia and South Korea, do not have oil. At least for fuel, they are dependent on US protection. Let’s add to this the requirements of Ukraine and Israel which will need American protection in the Middle East. I’m not even counting the sea lift that will last for months in the Pacific and therefore the need to protect these logistical support convoys against three-dimensional threats. Except for 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, every ship needs to refuel at sea several times during ocean crossings. However, US Navy does not have enough ships. Even if they do, the number of VLS ships to defend these ships is not enough because priorities are different. On the other hand the meeting the navy’s missile needs is at least as important as meeting the fuel needs.
Surface ships will exhaust their standard missile loads in the first days of the war, and the available ones do not allow for a second full load anyway. If an Iran-Israel war breaks out and the US is drawn into war with Iran, we can say that the stocks will decrease much faster and will not be enough for a single load, let alone a second load, by 2027. On the other hand, the transfer of these missiles manufactured in the homeland to the navy and loading them onto ships in Pacific theater of Operations under the Chinese missile threat is a separate problem area.
Furthermore, if Chinese submarines apply the aggressive submarine warfare like American submarines practiced in World War II, the supply ships carrying these missiles could be sunk en route. The fact that the closest American base to the region, such as Guam, is under threat from Chinese Air and Missiles is a separate problem.
In short, although the US’s VLS capabilities are twice that of China, it is not easy to say that this situation will make a serious difference in the US-China war that will be fought far from the homeland. The problems that the US needs to solve are much, much more than the two-fold advantage. The top priority of the Trump era will be to overcome the problems of the US Navy.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”—James Madison
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom, but concentrated power across all three branches is the very definition of tyranny: a dictatorship disguised as democracy.
When one party dominates all three branches of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—there is even more reason to worry.
There’s no point debating which political party would be more dangerous with these powers.
This is true no matter which party is in power.
This is particularly true in the wake of the 2024 election.
Already, Donald Trump, who promised to be a dictator on “day one,” is advancing plans to further undermine the nation’s already vulnerable system of checks and balances.
To be fair, this is not a state of affairs that can be blamed exclusively on Trump.
America’s founders intended our system of checks and balances to serve as a bulwark against centralized power being abused.
“Within the separation of powers, each of the three branches of government has ‘checks and balances’ over the other two. For instance, Congress makes the laws, but the President can veto them, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional. The President enforces the law, but Congress must approve executive appointments and the Supreme Court rules whether executive action is constitutional. The Supreme Court can strike down actions by both the legislative and executive branches, but the President nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms or denies their nominations.”
Unfortunately, our system of checks and balances has been strained to the breaking point for years now, helped along by those across the political spectrum who, in marching in lockstep with the Deep State, have conspired to advance the government’s agenda at the expense of the citizenry’s constitutional rights.
By “government,” I’m not referring to the farce that is the highly partisan, two-party, bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.
This is exactly the kind of concentrated, absolute power the founders attempted to guard against by establishing a system of checks of balances that separate and shares power between three co-equal branches.
“The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance. The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”
The outcome of the 2024 elections is not a revolutionary bid to recalibrate a government run amok. Rather, this is a Deep State coup to stay in power, and Donald Trump is the vehicle by which it will do so.
In fact, during Trump’s first term, the Department of Justice quietly trotted out and tested a long laundry list of terrifying powers to override the Constitution. We’re talking about lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level): the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die…
Bear in mind, however, that these powers the Trump Administration, acting on orders from the police state, officially asked Congress to recognize and authorize barely scratch the surface of the far-reaching powers the government has unilaterally claimed for itself.
Unofficially, the police state has been riding roughshod over the rule of law for years now without any pretense of being reined in or restricted in its power grabs by Congress, the courts, the president, or the citizenry.
This is why the Constitution’s system of checks and balances is so critical.
Those who wrote our Constitution sought to ensure our freedoms by creating a document that protects our God-given rights at all times, even when we are engaged in war, whether that is a so-called war on terrorism, a so-called war on drugs, a so-called war on illegal immigration, or a so-called war on disease.
The attempts by each successive presidential administration to rule by fiat merely plays into the hands of those who would distort the government’s system of checks and balances and its constitutional separation of powers beyond all recognition.
Set in the year 2020, V for Vendetta (written and produced by the Wachowskis) provides an eerie glimpse into a parallel universe in which a totalitarian government that knows all, sees all, controls everything, and promises safety and security above all comes to power by capitalizing on the people’s fear.
Concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) are established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” Populist uprisings and protests are met with extreme force. The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.
In V for Vendetta, as in my novel The Erik Blair Diaries, the subtext is that authoritarian regimes—through a vicious cycle of manipulation, oppression and fear-mongering—foment violence, manufacture crises, and breed terrorists, thereby giving rise to a recurring cycle of blowback and violence.
Only when the government itself becomes synonymous with the terrorism wreaking havoc in their lives do the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny.
V, a bold, charismatic freedom fighter, urges the British people to rise up and resist the government. In Vendetta, V the film’s masked crusader blows up the seat of government on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, ironically enough the same day that Trump won his landslide return to the White House.
Yet there the comparison ends.
So, while we are overdue for a systemic check on the government’s overreaches and power grabs, this year’s electoral victory for Republicans was no win for the Constitution.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the Deep State works best through imperial presidents—empowered to indulge their authoritarian tendencies by legalistic courts, corrupt legislatures and a disinterested, distracted populace—who rule by fiat rather than by the rule of law.
*
Click the share button below 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 2024 Presidential election is over. The people have spoken. And now our work really begins.
Back on September 28, I announced the commencement of what I called Operation DAWN. The name was derived from four questions designed to challenge American voters regarding how they would vote on November 5:
What would you do to save Democracy?
What would you do to save America?
What would you do to save the World?
Through your vote in November?
My goal was to compel the American voter to withhold committing to a particular candidate until which time they had articulated sound policy positions on some of the existential issues facing Americans in this election—the threat of nuclear war, the war in Ukraine, the assault on free speech, the genocide ongoing in Palestine, and the state of democracy in America today.
We followed up the Kingston event with a massive information campaign which engaged what I have come to call the “family of podcasts” to get out the word. Including Judging Freedom, with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Dialogue Works, with Nima Rostami Alkhoroshid, the eponymously named podcasts done by Garland Nixon and Danny Haiphong, and my own Ask the Inspector (together with co-host Jeff Norman).
Through the “family of podcasts,” I was able to articulate the underlying message of Operation DAWN to over a million discreet viewers a week, far outstripping mainstream media shows such as Fareed Zakharia’s GPS, which airs on CNN every Sunday and, in October 2024, averaged some 440,000 discreet viewers per week.
I tapped into the “family of podcast” concept on October 27 when, in cooperation with the Eisenhower Media Network, Operation DAWN organized three expert panels as part of a brunch gathering at the Tudor City Steakhouse in New York City that covered the policy areas of focus—nuclear war, free speech, and saving democracy.
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: The author (second from right) with Randy Credico, Joe Lauria, Gerald Celente, Judge Napolitano, and others at the Operation DAWN launch in Kingston, NY, September 28, 2024. (Source)
See last year’s COP28, attending by more than 150 Heads of State and Government. (30 November to 13 December 2023). See COP 28 decisions
COP29 November 2024 (program) is being hosted (barely a week following the US elections) in Baku, Azerbaijan in the unstable Geopolitical Hub of the Caspian Sea.
The host country is among the largest producers of oil and natural gas worldwide. Ironically the government of Azerbaijan has committed itself to green energy (CO2 Net Zero), requiring a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Sounds absurd.
Among the COP29participants are representatives of civil society organizations, business interests, international organizations, billionaire philanthropies and international organizations.
COP29 as well as the host government have endorsed CO2-Net Zero.
Thefake narrative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions sets the stage for triggering economic and social chaos including devastating impacts on family farms Worldwide.
Assisting the Global South is COP29’s multi-billion dollar mandate: it’s a fraud! The Global South is targeted as one of main causes of global warming. The big oil companies are not the target. Quite the opposite.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed itself to funnelling billions of dollars, coming to the rescue of impoverished farmers in the Global South.
This money will be used to initiate a new phase of neo-colonialism, leading the confiscation of land, assets and mineral resources.
Bill Gates wants to become a Top Owner of Farmland extending across the Global South. He or a member of his foundation is to address the plenary on the 14th of November, 2024.
See below:
In turn, Sir Jeff Bezos, the second richest person on the planet is committed to coming to the rescue of the Global South.
The modus operandi of coming to the rescue of the Global South is outlined in the following video:
Video: Climate Goal. “There is no Global Unity”
Our analysis confirms that there is no such things as “Global Unity”. Climate Philanthropy is a fraud.
As in previous COP Summits, the issue of weather modification, namely Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) has been dismissed in blatant violation of a May 1977 United Nations Convention. (see below).
ENMOD Techniques
Environmental modification techniques which are the object of this article have been carefully excluded from the debate on climate change. There is a long and complex history of ENMOD techniques:
“US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’ (See my article below)
ENMOD. The Hurricane Crisis in South-East United States
Greg Reese provides evidence regarding the cloud seeding technique for controlling hurricanes, going back to the 1950s focussing on North Carolina.
See the statement of V-P Lyndon B Johnson in 1962.
Today’s “control of the weather” implies the use of advanced electromagnetic technologies. (see my analysis below)
While Environmental modification (ENMOD) techniques have been available to the US military for more than half a century, there is no 100% proof that these techniques have been used to trigger extreme weather conditions.
The 2022 Summer heat waves accompanied by devastating wildfires, in Western Europe, North Africa, California, India, Pakistan and China’s Valley of the Yangtze River have simultaneously affected the lives of millions of people Worldwide, with devastating social and economic consequences.
According to August 2022 reports, the daily hydropower generation on the Yangtze has plunged by 51%, resulting in the suspension of production in the Chongqing mega-industrial region which has a population in excess of 30 million people.
In May 2022, Pakistan was among the top 23 countries Worldwide experiencing severe drought and desertification. A couple of months later during the monsoon period, the Valley of the Indus River experienced the most severe flood in living memory. Rainfall in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces “was at least seven times the normal amounts“.
“Manmade Climate Change” was casually heralded as the cause of Pakistan’s floods which “killed 1,508 people, inundated millions of acres of land and affected 33 million people. More than half a million people have been left homeless”
C02? Causality of Extreme Weather Events
While there is no concrete evidence that the 2022 heat waves and floods were caused by ENMOD techniques, the issue of climate manipulation must nonetheless be addressed and analyzed.
U.S. military documents as well as scientific reports confirm that “environmental modification techniques” (ENMOD) were fully operational in the mid-1990s.
On the other hand, there is no firm evidence as outlined by the mainstream media (routinely quoting authoritative climate scientists) that these extreme weather conditions are the result of so-called “human-induced greenhouse gas emissions“.
Moreover, it should be understood that these greenhouse gas emissions –which allegedly trigger “global warming”– are being used as a pretext and a justification to adopt drastic and unnecessary measures conducive to the outright destabilization of agriculture. These measures have been applied simultaneously in several countries. They are upheld as part of a “climate consensus” which also consists in banning the use of fossil fuel.
The underlying procedure is as follows: The “climate agenda” (i.e global warming) consists in restricting fertilizer use with a view to “cutting nitrogen emissions” (e.g. in the Netherlands, Western Canada) . “to the point where it is impossible for farms to continue operating.” This in turn is conducive to triggering extensive food shortages as well as famine.
There are too many coincidences and contradictions. The causes of extreme weather conditions must be addressed. Much of the information on the use of ENMOD and its impacts is “classified”.
The UN Convention on the “Prohibition of Hostile Use” of ENMOD
The matter should be the object of an inter-governmental investigation (under the auspices of the UNGA) conducted in accordance with the terms of the historic 1977 International Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.” (See AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention:
….Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)
It is worth noting that in February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:
“Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.”
Weather Warfare
Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) constitute instruments of “weather warfare”. They are an integral part of the US military arsenal.
“Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”
It should be noted that with the closing down of The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) program in Alaska in 2014, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been actively involved in ENMOD research, most of which is classified. In a 2009 Science report:
An official advisory group to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is convening [March 2009] an unclassified meeting … to discuss geoengineering, … DARPA is the latest in a number of official science funding agencies or top scientific societies that are exploring the controversial idea. …
In relation to the current context including the war in Ukraine, the Pentagon has formulated the contours of a global military agenda, a “long war”, a war without borders. “Weather warfare” is part of a diversified military arsenal of conventional and strategic weapons systems. ENMOD is potentially a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), with the capacity of destabilizing an enemy’s ecosystem, destroying its agriculture, disabling communications networks.
Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or even “friendly nations”, without their knowledge.
The manipulation of climate can be used to destabilize an enemy’s economy, ecosystem and agriculture. ENMOD techniques can undermine an entire national economy, impoverish millions of people and “kill a nation” without the deployment of troops and military hardware.
The article below, focusses on the history and analysis of ENMOD.
It also provides direct quotes from a publicly available 1996 US Air Force document which confirms the Pentagon’s plan to “Weaponize the Weather”.
Michel Chossudovsky, September 16, 2022, October 8, 2024, November 13, 2024
***
Does the US Military “Own the Weather”?
“Weaponizing the Weather”
as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?
By
Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 2017
Introduction
US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP –which was officially abolished in 2014– is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.
Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails. HAARP documents confirm that the technology was fully operational as of the mid 1990s.
(For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, article Entitled Weather Warfare published in the Ecologist first published in 2008. (which summarizes earlier research on the HAARP project)
It should be emphasized that while the US military confirms that weather warfare is fully operational, there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US. The subject matter is a taboo among environmental analysts. No in-depth investigation has been undertaken to reveal the operational dimensions of weather warfare.
The impacts of ENMOD techniques for military use were documented by CBC TV in the mid 1990s:
The CBC TV report acknowledged that the HAARP facility in Alaska under the auspices of the US Air Force had the ability of triggering typhoons, earthquakes, floods and droughts:
“It isn’t just conspiracy theorists who are concerned about HAARP. In January of 1999, the European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility.”
“Electromagnetic weapons … pack an invisible wallop hundreds of times more powerful than the electrical current in a lightning bolt. One can blast enemy missiles out of the sky, another could be used to blind soldiers on the battlefield, still another to control an unruly crowd by burning the surface of their skin. If detonated over a large city, an electromagnetic weapon could destroy all electronics in seconds. They all use directed energy to create a powerful electromagnetic pulse.”
Directed energy is such a powerful technology it could be used to heat the ionosphere to turn weather into a weapon of war. Imagine using a flood to destroy a city or tornadoes to decimate an approaching army in the desert. The military has spent a huge amount of time on weather modification as a concept for battle environments. If an electromagnetic pulse went off over a city, basically all the electronic things in your home would wink and go out, and they would be permanently destroyed.” (CBC, 1996)
CBC 1996 TV Report on the HAARP Project
The Invisible Machine: Electronic Warfare: History Channel
“History Channel excellent program on Electronic Warfare (EW) involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum”
“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather”
In this article we will provide key quotations from a US 1996 US Air Force document which analyzes weather modification techniques for military use.
The underlying objective from a military standpoint is “Owning the Weather”.
At the time this study was commissioned in 1996, the HAARP program was already fully operational as documented by the CBC documentary.
The stated purpose of the Report (in the public domaine) is described below:
In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness there, waiting for us to pull it all together;” in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.”(Commissioned by US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,(public document)
“offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”
….From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1. (emphasis added)
Why Would We Want to Mess with the Weather? is the subtitle of chapter 2 of the Report
“According to Gen Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, “As we leap technology into the 21st century, we will be able to see the enemy day or night, in any weather— and go after him relentlessly.” global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting CINCs with a powerful force multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all possible futures, a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across the entire spectrum of conflict. The capability of influencing the weather even on a small scale could change it from a force degrader to a force multiplier.”
Under the heading:
What Do We Mean by “Weather-modification”?
The report states:
“The term weather-modification may have negative connotations for many people, civilians and military members alike. It is thus important to define the scope to be considered in this paper so that potential critics or proponents of further research have a common basis for discussion.
In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least controversial cases it may consist of inducing or suppressing precipitation, clouds, or fog for short times over a small-scale region. Other low-intensity applications might include the alteration and/or use of near space as a medium to enhance communications, disrupt active or passive sensing, or other purposes.” (emphasis added)
The Triggering of Storms:
“Weather-modification technologies might involve techniques that would increase latent heat release in the atmosphere, provide additional water vapor for cloud cell development, and provide additional surface and lower atmospheric heating to increase atmospheric instability.
Critical to the success of any attempt to trigger a storm cell is the pre-existing atmospheric conditions locally and regionally. The atmosphere must already be conditionally unstable and the large-scale dynamics must be supportive of vertical cloud development. The focus of the weather-modification effort would be to provide additional “conditions” that would make the atmosphere unstable enough to generate cloud and eventually storm cell development. The path of storm cells once developed or enhanced is dependent not only on the mesoscale dynamics of the storm but the regional and synoptic (global) scale atmospheric wind flow patterns in the area which are currently not subject to human control.” (page 19)
Is U.S. intelligence involved in Climate Engineering?
Back in July 2013, MSN news reported that the CIA was involved in helping to fund a project by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) focusing on geo-engineering and climate manipulation. The report not only acknowledged these technologies, it confirmed that US intelligence has been routinely involved in addressing the issue of climatic manipulation:
“The goal of the CIA-backed NAS study is to conduct a “technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques,” according to the NAS website. Scientists will attempt to determine which geoengineering techniques are feasible and try to evaluate the impacts and risks of each (including “national security concerns”).” (See Slate, July 2013)
“The CIA is helping fund the research because the NAS also plans to evaluate “the national security concerns (that could be) related to geoengineering technologies being deployed somewhere in the world,” Kearney said.
In an emailed statement, Christopher White, a spokesman for the CIA’s office of public affairs, told MSN, “On a subject like climate change, the agency works with scientists to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security.” (Slate)
America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world.
The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.
This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.
It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.
Comments Off on COP29. Climate Instability Worldwide: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?
Dieser Artikel ist umstritten. Er widerspricht dem vorherrschenden Narrativ des großen Geldes und der Pharmaindustrie, das weltweit durchgesetzt wurde.
Viele meiner Freunde und Kollegen, Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, die sich aktiv an der Kampagne gegen den mRNA-Impfstoff Covid-19 beteiligen, sind der Ansicht, dass es sich lediglich um eine Krise der öffentlichen Gesundheit handelt. Angesichts des politischen Drucks und der Drohungen, die von Politikern und Gesundheitsbehörden auf sie ausgeübt werden, verstehe und respektiere ich ihre Haltung voll und ganz.
Die Komplexität dieser Krise muss angegangen werden. Sie betrifft die Menschheit in ihrer Gesamtheit. Sie ist keineswegs auf einen gefährlichen „Impfstoff“ beschränkt. Im Folgenden gebe ich eine kurze Zusammenfassung, bevor ich mich mit den komplexen Zusammenhängen befasse.
Blicken wir zurück in den Januar 2020.
Die Menschen auf der ganzen Welt wurden in dem Glauben gelassen, dass es eine gefährliche Epidemie gäbe und dass der dramatische „Covid-19 Lockdown“ vom März 2020 – der Einschluss der Menschen in ihre Häuser -, der weltweit angewandt und durchgesetzt wurde, eine Lösung zur Bekämpfung eines tödlichen Virus sei, der sich von Land zu Land ausgebreitet hatte.
Meine Recherchen, die auf einer sorgfältigen Überprüfung der WHO-Daten, -Konzepte und -Methoden“ beruhen, bestätigen, dass es nie eine gefährliche Epidemie gegeben hat und die Identität des neuen Virus nie bestätigt wurde.
Die offizielle WHO-Zahl der bestätigten Covid-19-Fälle, die zur Rechtfertigung der Ausrufung des weltweiten Notstands (PHEIC) am 30. Januar 2020 herangezogen wurde, war lächerlich niedrig: 83 PCR-Covid-19-„bestätigte Fälle“ weltweit außerhalb Chinas (6,4 Milliarden Menschen)
Drei Wochen später, auf einer Pressekonferenz am 20. Februar 2020, deutete der WHO-Generaldirektor Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus an, dass die Pandemie unmittelbar bevorstehe:
„[Ich bin] besorgt, dass sich die Chance, den Ausbruch des Coronavirus einzudämmen, „schließt“ … Ich glaube, dass das Fenster der Gelegenheit noch da ist, aber dass das Fenster kleiner wird.“ (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)
Welche Beweise hat Dr. Tedros zur Untermauerung seiner kühnen Behauptung angeführt? Am 20. Februar 2020 gab es nur 1076 bestätigte [kumulative] Fälle außerhalb Chinas.
„Außerhalb Chinas gibt es jetzt 1076 Fälle in 20 Ländern, mit insgesamt sieben Todesfällen….
Von allen Fällen außerhalb Chinas sind mehr als die Hälfte unter den Passagieren des Kreuzfahrtschiffs Diamond Princess aufgetreten.
Offizielle Erklärung des WHO-Generaldirektors Dr. Tedros, Genf, 20. Februar 2020
.
Die Angstkampagne lief auf Hochtouren und wurde von grotesken Medienlügen begleitet: Laut BBC:
„Am folgenden Tag [12. März 2020] wurde dem Sage-Ausschuss der Regierung, der sich aus wissenschaftlichen Experten zusammensetzt, eine überarbeitete Modellierung der wahrscheinlichen Zahl der Todesopfer vorgelegt. Die Zahlen, so die Sunday Times, seien „erschütternd“. Wenn nichts unternommen würde, gäbe es 510.000 Tote [Großbritannien]. Im Rahmen der derzeitigen „Abmilderungs“-Strategie – bei der die Schwächsten geschützt werden, während alle anderen ihren Geschäften weitgehend normal nachgehen können – würde es eine Viertelmillion Tote geben.
In einer Pressekonferenz forderte der Premierminister [Johnson] jeden, der ständig hustet oder Fieber hat, auf, sich selbst zu isolieren. Seine Anweisung war verbunden mit der Warnung, dass „viele weitere Familien Angehörige vor ihrer Zeit verlieren werden“. Die Unverblümtheit war schockierend. Einige fragten, warum in diesem Fall nicht mehr getan wurde.“ (BBC, Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)
Ein weiterer gefälschter BBC-Bericht, der die „wissenschaftliche Analyse“ eines Virologen aus Cambridge zitiert, personalisiert das Virus und stellt es als „Terroristen“ dar:
„Es verhält sich wie ein ‘hit and run’ Killer …
Das Virus ist also wie ein gefährlicher Autofahrer, der vom Unfallort flieht – das Virus ist zum nächsten Opfer weitergezogen, lange bevor wir uns entweder erholen oder sterben.
Um es ganz deutlich zu sagen: „Dem Virus ist es egal“, ob man stirbt, sagt [Cambridge]-Professor Lehner, „es ist ein hit and run Virus“.
Bedenken Sie, dass die BBC großzügig von der Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation finanziert wird und Prof. Lehner Mitglied des Wellcome Trust von Big Pharma ist.
Das Wort verbreiten
Mein Ziel ist es, dass dieser Artikel an der Basis der Gesellschaft ausgiebig gelesen und debattiert wird. Es handelt sich nicht nur um eine „Krise der öffentlichen Gesundheit“.
Die Implikationen meines Artikels sind weitreichend, weil sie „alles“, was mit der Covid-Pandemie zusammenhängt, widerlegen und entkräften. Dazu gehören die Maßnahmen im Zusammenhang mit dem Lockdown, der weltweit zu Massenarmut geführt hat, und der Covid-19-„Impfstoff“, ganz zu schweigen von dem berüchtigten Pandemievertrag und dem „Great Reset“ des Weltwirtschaftsforums.
Die offizielle „Corona-Erzählung“ basiert auf einer „Großen Lüge“, die von korrupten Politikern unterstützt wird.
Dieser „offizielle Konsens“ ist äußerst brüchig.
Was letztlich auf dem Spiel steht, ist der Wert des menschlichen Lebens und die Zukunft der Menschheit.
Unser Ziel ist es, Leben zu retten, auch das von Neugeborenen, die Opfer des Covid-19-„Impfstoffs“ sind.
Zu diesem Zeitpunkt in unserer Geschichte haben wir folgende Prioritäten:
1.Aufdeckung der Wahrheit über die Auswirkungen des Lockdowns, 2. die Aufdeckung des Betrugs bezüglich der Identität des „neuen Virus“: 2019 nCoV und die angebliche Pandemie und 3. die „Angstkampagne“ und die Desinformation der Medien auszuschalten, 4. „Sagen Sie den Impfstoff ab“ weltweit
Wir hoffen, dass dies die Voraussetzungen für die Entwicklung einer weltweiten Solidaritätsbewegung schaffen wird, die die Legitimität der mächtigen Finanzeliten des „Großen Geldes“ in Frage stellt, die hinter diesem berüchtigten Projekt stehen.
Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, vielleicht möchten Sie sich vor dem Lesen des Artikels das untenstehende Video ansehen.
Sie können auch mein E-Book herunterladen (kostenlos)
—Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 5. Dezember 2023, überarbeitet am 30. Oktober 2024
„Wenn die Lüge zur Wahrheit wird, gibt es kein Zurück mehr“
ZENSUR: Das Originalvideo von Global Research wurde von Ariel Rodriguez im Februar 2021 produziert. Es wurde am 5. März 2022 von Vimeo entfernt.
Unten ist die Version auf Rumble.
Die verheerendste Krise in der Geschichte der Menschheit
Beginnt bei 6’47“
Unser Dank geht an Vaccine Choice Canada
„Die Hölle ist leer und die Teufel sind alle hier“. William Shakespeare, „Der Sturm“, 1623
Meine Antwort auf Shakespeare: „Schickt die Teufel dahin zurück, wo sie hingehören“
„Wenn die Lüge zur Wahrheit wird, gibt es kein Zurück mehr“
„Steig aus dem verrückten Zug. Ich weiß, es ist beängstigend, es kann wehtun. Holen Sie sich Ihre körperliche und geistige Autonomie zurück und schützen Sie Ihre Kinder“. Dr. Pascal Sacré, belgischer Autor und Arzt, November 2021.
***
Einleitung
Die Destabilisierung der sozialen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Struktur von 190 souveränen Ländern kann keine „Lösung“ für die Bekämpfung eines neuartigen Coronavirus sein, das Ende Dezember 2019 auf mysteriöse Weise in Wuhan in der Provinz Hubei (VR China) auftauchte. Das war die auferlegte „Lösung“ – die von Anfang an in mehreren Schritten umgesetzt wurde -, die zum „Lockdown“ im März 2020 und zur Einführung eines sogenannten Covid 19-„Impfstoffs“ im Dezember 2020 führte, der seit seiner Einführung zu einer steigenden Tendenz der Übersterblichkeit geführt hat.
Es geht um die Zerstörung von Menschenleben weltweit. Es ist die Destabilisierung der Zivilgesellschaft.
Gefälschte Wissenschaft unterstützte diese verheerende Agenda. Die Lügen wurden durch eine massive Desinformationskampagne in den Medien gestützt. 24/7, unaufhörliche und sich wiederholende „Covid-Warnungen“ im Laufe von mehr als drei Jahren. Die anhaltende Angstkampagne hatte wiederum verheerende Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der Menschen.
Die historische Abriegelung vom 11. März 2020 löste weltweit ein wirtschaftliches und soziales Chaos aus. Es war ein Akt der „wirtschaftlichen Kriegsführung“: ein Krieg gegen die Menschheit.
Der neue Virus: 2019-nCoV
Offiziell heißt es, dass im Dezember 2019 in Wuhan, Provinz Hubei, China, ein gefährlicher NEUER VIRUS entdeckt wurde. Es trug die Bezeichnung 2019-nCoV, was für „2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V)“ steht.
Am 1. Januar 2020 schlossen die chinesischen Gesundheitsbehörden den Huanan-Meeresfrüchte-Großmarkt in Wuhan, nachdem westliche Medien berichtet hatten, dass die dort verkauften Wildtiere die Quelle des Virus gewesen sein könnten.
Ab Anfang Januar 2020 war der Markt Gegenstand umfangreicher Medienberichterstattung und einer weltweiten Angstkampagne. Die Desinformation in den Medien lief rund um die Uhr auf Hochtouren.
Die chinesischen Behörden haben (angeblich) am 7. Januar 2020 mit Hilfe des RT-PCR-Tests einen neuen Virustyp identifiziert“. Über das Verfahren zur Isolierung des Virus wurden keine genauen Angaben gemacht.
Fehlgeschlagene Identifizierung des neuartigen Coronavirus
Wir berichten hier über die Etablierung und Validierung eines diagnostischen Arbeitsablaufs für das 2019-nCoV-Screening und die spezifische Bestätigung, der in Ermangelung verfügbarer Virusisolate oder Originalproben von Patienten entwickelt wurde. Design und Validierung wurden durch die enge genetische Verwandtschaft mit dem SARS-CoV aus dem Jahr 2003 ermöglicht und durch den Einsatz der synthetischen Nukleinsäuretechnologie unterstützt.
11. Februar 2020. Das vermeintliche „neue Virus“ wird umbenannt
Anfang Februar. 2020, nachdem das neuartige Coronavirus nicht identifiziert werden konnte, wurde beschlossen, seinen Namen zu ändern:
„Schweres Akutes Respiratorisches Syndrom Coronavirus”: SARS-CoV-2, das (laut WHO) einem 20 Jahre alten Virus „ähnlich“ ist mit der Bezeichnung:
2003-SARS-CoV.
Ein zwanzig Jahre altes Coronavirus von 2003 wird im Februar 2020 als „neues Virus“ eingestuft?
„Big Money“ und ‚Big Pharma‘ treffen sich in Davos
Das angeblich neue Virus wurde auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) in Davos (Schweiz) (22. Januar 2020) heftig debattiert.
Auf Vorschlag der Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), einer von der Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation finanzierten Einrichtung, wurde ein Impfstoffprogramm für 2019 gegen nCoV vorgestellt. Das in Seattle ansässige Unternehmen Moderna (mit Unterstützung von CEPI) kündigte in Davos an, einen mRNA-Impfstoff herzustellen, der eine Immunität gegen 2019-nCoV aufbauen soll.
Die Beweise und die Aussagen in Davos deuten darauf hin, dass das 2019-nCoV-Impfstoffprojekt bereits Anfang 2019 in Angriff genommen wurde. Und CEPI hatte Vorwissen bezüglich der Ankündigung von 2019-nCoV. (Michel Chossudovsky, Kapitel VIII).
.
.
The development of a 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced at Davos, 2 weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement, and barely a week prior to the official launching of the WHO’s Worldwide Public Health emergency on January 30. The WEF-Gates-CEPI Vaccine Announcement precedes the WHO Public Health Emergency (PHEIC) (January 30, 2020) which was predicated on 83 positive Covid-19 confirmed PCR cases outside China (official WHO statistics).
Lügen und Unwahrheiten
All dies geschah zu einem Zeitpunkt, als das angeblich neue Coronavirus mit der Bezeichnung 2019-nC0V noch nicht isoliert worden war, seine Identität noch nicht bestätigt war und die Zahl der gemeldeten Fälle in China äußerst gering war: „Mit Stand vom 3. Januar 2020 wurden 44 Fälle gemeldet, von denen 11 schwer erkrankt sind, während sich die übrigen 33 Patienten in stabilem Zustand befinden“ (WHO-Bericht).
Es gab weder Beweise für eine sich ausbreitende Epidemie in China noch für ein Leck in einem Labor. Die Erklärung von CEPI in Davos über „die schnelle globale Ausbreitung des neuartigen Coronavirus“ ist eine dreiste Lüge. (Siehe Bild oben)
Und dann, am 30. Januar 2020, erklärte der Generaldirektor der WHO, Dr. Tedros, einen internationalen Gesundheitsnotstand (PHEIC), obwohl es keinerlei Anzeichen für eine drohende Epidemie gab.
Am selben Tag gab es weltweit 83 positive Fälle in China bei einer Bevölkerung von 6,4 Milliarden Menschen. Siehe Tabelle unten: 5 positive Fälle in den Vereinigten Staaten, 3 in Kanada, 4 in Frankreich und 4 in Deutschland.Stellen Sie sich die Frage, ob dies einen weltweiten Notfall darstellt?
Und diese (kumulativen) Fälle basierten auf dem RT-Polymerase-Kettenreaktionstest (PCR), mit dem die Identität des Virus nicht nachgewiesen werden kann. (Siehe Anhang).
.
Bildschirmfoto der WHO, 29. Januar 2020.
Anzahl der bestätigten positiven Fälle in den USA, Kanada, Frankreich und Deutschland
„[Ich bin] besorgt, dass sich die Chance, den Ausbruch des Coronavirus einzudämmen, „schließt“ …
„Ich glaube, dass das Fenster der Gelegenheit noch da ist, aber dass das Fenster kleiner wird.“
Welche Beweise hat Dr. Tedros zur Untermauerung seiner kühnen Behauptung angeführt?
Am 20. Februar 2020 gab es nur 1076 bestätigte [kumulative] Fälle außerhalb Chinas (einschließlich derer des in Japans Hoheitsgewässern gestrandeten Kreuzfahrtschiffs Diamond Princess).
„Außerhalb Chinas gibt es jetzt 1076 Fälle in 20 Ländern, mit insgesamt sieben Todesfällen….
Von allen Fällen außerhalb Chinas sind mehr als die Hälfte unter den Passagieren des Kreuzfahrtschiffs Diamond Princess aufgetreten.
Offizielle Erklärung des WHO-Generaldirektors Dr. Tedros, Genf, 20. Februar 2020
.
Wahnsinn!
„Ohne die Daten der Diamond Princess lag die Zahl der weltweit bestätigten Fälle außerhalb Chinas am 20. Februar 2020 bei 452, bei einer Bevölkerung von 6,4 Milliarden“ (Seite 18-19).
***
11. März 2020: Die historische COVID-19-Pandemieabriegelung, „Closing Down“ von rund 190 Volkswirtschaften
Der WHO-Generaldirektor hatte bereits in seiner Pressekonferenz am 20. Februar die Weichen gestellt.
„Die Welt sollte mehr tun, um sich auf eine mögliche Coronavirus-Pandemie vorzubereiten.“
Die WHO erklärte offiziell eine weltweite Pandemie zu einem Zeitpunkt, als es 44.279 (kumulative) positive PCR-Covid-Fälle außerhalb Chinas bei einer Bevölkerung von 6,4 Milliarden gab. (Für Details und Analysen siehe Michel Chossudovsky, Kapitel II).
Die 80 981 Fälle für China sind ebenfalls bestätigte kumulative PCR-positive Fälle. Beachten Sie die neuen positiven PCR-RT-Fälle für China, die am 12. März 2020 registriert wurden: eine bescheidene Zahl von „26 neuen“, die darauf hinweist, dass die Pandemie in China am 11. März 2020 zu Ende war.
Selbst wenn das angebliche nCoV 2019 nachgewiesen und ordnungsgemäß identifiziert worden wäre, war die am 12. März 2020 veröffentlichte Zahl der (kumulativ) positiven PCR-RT-Fälle (44.279), die als Begründung für die Abriegelung von mehr als 190 Ländern herangezogen wurde, lächerlich gering (und dies ohne Berücksichtigung des Versagens des PCR-RT-Tests, der das Virus nicht nachweist oder identifiziert) (siehe Anhang für eine Übersicht über den PCR-RT-Test).
Die WHO-„Risikobewertung“ grenzt an Lächerlichkeit
Und doch wurde sie von 190 Mitgliedsstaaten der Vereinten Nationen akzeptiert
Die folgenden Daten wurden am 12. März 2020 veröffentlicht
Screenshot aus dem WHO-Bericht
.
Bestätigt durch die WHO gab es in den Vereinigten Staaten am 9. März 20203.457 „bestätigte Fälle“ (RT-PCR-positiv) bei einer Bevölkerung von 329,5 Millionen Menschen (Screenshot der WHO-Grafik Interaktive WHO-Grafik) [ Der Link auf WHO ist nicht mehr verfügbar]
.
Screenshot aus dem WHO-Bericht
.
In Kanada gab es am 9. März 2020125 „bestätigte Fälle“ bei einer Bevölkerung von 38,5 Millionen Menschen
Screenshot der WHO-Grafik Interaktive WHO-Grafik.Daten für Kanada
.
In Deutschland gab es am 9. März 2020 2948 „bestätigte Fälle“ bei einer Bevölkerung von 83,2 Millionen Menschen
Screenshot aus dem WHO-Bericht
.
Infolge der Angstkampagne und der weltweiten Ausweitung der PCR-RT-Tests stieg die Zahl der sogenannten „PCR-RT-“bestätigten Fälle“ sprunghaft an.
Die „Event 201“-Simulation eines „gefährlichen Virus“ im Oktober 2019 mit dem Titel nCoV-2019
Event 201 war eine Tischsimulation einer Coronavirus-Epidemie, die von John Hopkins und der Gates Foundation gesponsert wurde.
Die WHO übernahm zunächst dasselbe Akronym, nämlich 2019-nCoV (zur Bezeichnung des neuartigen Coronavirus), wie bei der von Johns Hopkins simulierten Pandemie Event 201 Exercise.
Der Name des neuen Coronavirus war (abgesehen von der Platzierung des Jahres 2019) identisch mit dem der Simulation von Ereignis 201.
Die Simulation, an der prominente Persönlichkeiten teilnahmen, fand am 18. Oktober 2019 statt, weniger als drei Monate vor der Ankündigung eines neuen Coronavirus Anfang Januar 2020.
Unter den Teilnehmern waren Vertreter (auch Entscheidungsträger) der WHO, des US-Geheimdienstes, der Gates-Stiftung, der Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) (finanziert von der Gates-Stiftung), der Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), des Weltwirtschaftsforums (WEF), der Vereinten Nationen, der US-Zentren für Seuchenkontrolle und -prävention (CDC), des chinesischen Zentrums für Seuchenkontrolle und -prävention (CDC, Direktor Dr. George Fu Gao), Big Pharma, der Weltbank und andere.
Diese verschiedenen Organisationen spielten eine Schlüsselrolle, als die sogenannte Pandemie Anfang 2020 in Gang gesetzt wurde. Viele Merkmale der „Simulationsübung“ von 201 entsprachen tatsächlich dem, was geschah, als die WHO-Generaldirektorin am 30. Januar 2020 einen globalen Gesundheitsnotstand (PHEIC) ausrief.
Darüber hinaus waren die Sponsoren von Event 201 – darunter der WEF und die Gates Foundation – sowie die Teilnehmer von Anfang an aktiv an der Koordinierung (und Finanzierung) von Maßnahmen im Zusammenhang mit COVID-19 beteiligt, einschließlich des RT-PCR-Tests, der Abriegelung im März 2020 und des mRNA-Impfstoffs, der im Dezember 2020 eingeführt wurde.
Der chinesische CDC-Direktor Dr. George Fu Gao – der an der Simulation von Event 201 teilnahm – spielte eine zentrale Rolle bei der Überwachung des COVID-19-Ausbruchs in Wuhan Anfang 2020, wobei er in enger Zusammenarbeit mit seinem Mentor Dr. Anthony Fauci sowie mit der Gates-Stiftung, CEPI und anderen agierte.
Oktober 2019: Ereignis 201 Simulationsszenario: nCoV-2019
Dezember 2019, Wuhan: 2019-nCoV
Und dann fand am 11. Februar 2020 auf mysteriöse Weise eine weitere Namensänderung des neuartigen Coronavirus statt.
von 2019-nCoV zu SARS-CoV-2, was für „Schweres Akutes Respiratorisches Syndrom“ steht: SARS – Corona (Co) Virus(V)-2″.
Die Vorsilbe „n“ (als Hinweis darauf, dass es sich um einen NEUEN VIRUS handelt) entfiel. Die Vorsilbe „n“ wurde durch die Nachsilbe „2“ ersetzt.
Was ist die Bedeutung von SARS-CoV-2. Genauer gesagt, welche Bedeutung hat die mysteriöse „2“ als Suffix? Sie bezieht sich auf ein 20 Jahre altes Virus mit dem Titel:
2003 -SARS-CoV, das keineswegs als NEUES VIRUS eingestuft werden kann
„Neues Virus“ versus ‚altes Virus‘: das ‚Schwere Akute Respiratorische Syndrom‘ (SARS) 2002-2003
SARS-CoV-2 – das seit dem 11. Februar 2020 die offizielle Bezeichnung für das neue Coronavirus 2019 ist – ist keineswegs ein NEUES VIRUS.
Rückblende nach China, Provinz Guangdong 2002-2003. Bestätigt durch die WHO und durch Peer-Review-Berichte:
“A Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” broke out in Guangdong, Province, PRC in 2002. (NEJM, May 2003)
SARS wurde 2003 als neuartiges Coronavirus eingestuft, d. h. als nicht mehr NEU. Es wurde vor 20 Jahren, Anfang 2003, entdeckt und isoliert.
„Das Schwere Akute Respiratorische Syndrom (SARS) ist eine virale Atemwegserkrankung, die durch ein SARS-assoziiertes Coronavirus verursacht wird. Es wurde erstmals Ende Februar 2003 [vor mehr als 20 Jahren] während eines Ausbruchs in China festgestellt, der sich auf vier weitere Länder ausbreitete. …
Ein weltweiter Ausbruch des schweren akuten respiratorischen Syndroms (SARS) wurde mit einer Exposition in Verbindung gebracht, die von einem einzigen erkrankten Mitarbeiter des Gesundheitswesens in der Provinz Guangdong, China, ausging. Wir haben Studien durchgeführt, um den Erreger dieses Ausbruchs zu identifizieren.
… ein neuartiges Coronavirus wurde von Patienten isoliert, die die Falldefinition von SARS erfüllten. … Mit Hilfe von Consensus-Coronavirus-Primern, die für die Amplifikation eines Fragments des Polymerase-Gens mittels reverser Transkriptions-Polymerase-Kettenreaktion (RT-PCR) entwickelt wurden, konnte eine Sequenz gewonnen werden, die das Isolat eindeutig als einzigartiges Coronavirus identifizierte, das nur entfernt mit zuvor sequenzierten Coronaviren verwandt ist.
Wichtig an diesem Bericht ist, dass die WHO bestätigte, dass das neuartige Coronavirus aus dem Jahr 2003 mit der Bezeichnung 2003 SARS-CoV aus Patientenproben isoliert, identifiziert und im Mai 2003 als „schweres akutes respiratorisches Syndrom“ bezeichnet wurde.
*
.
Die im NEJM (15. Mai 2003) angenommene Identifizierung des Virus lautet wie folgt: (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)
„Wir erhielten klinische Proben von Patienten aus sieben Ländern und untersuchten sie mit Hilfe von Virusisolierungstechniken, elektronenmikroskopischen und histologischen Untersuchungen sowie molekularen und serologischen Tests, um ein breites Spektrum möglicher Erreger zu identifizieren
ERGEBNISSE: Keiner der zuvor beschriebenen Krankheitserreger der Atemwege wurde durchgängig identifiziert. Allerdings wurde bei Patienten, die der Falldefinition von SARS entsprachen, ein neuartiges Coronavirus isoliert. Zytopathologische Merkmale wurden in Vero-E6-Zellen festgestellt, die mit einer Rachenabstrichprobe geimpft worden waren. Die elektronenmikroskopische Untersuchung ergab ultrastrukturelle Merkmale, die für Coronaviren charakteristisch sind. Die immunhistochemische und Immunfluoreszenzfärbung ergab eine Reaktivität mit polyklonalen Antikörpern gegen Coronaviren der Gruppe I.
Mit Hilfe von Consensus-Coronavirus-Primern, die für die Amplifikation eines Fragments des Polymerase-Gens mittels reverser Transkriptions-Polymerase-Kettenreaktion (RT-PCR) entwickelt wurden, konnte eine Sequenz gewonnen werden, die das Isolat eindeutig als einzigartiges Coronavirus identifizierte, das nur entfernt mit zuvor sequenzierten Coronaviren verwandt ist.“
Im Laufe der letzten zwanzig Jahre muss es zu mehreren Varianten des ursprünglichen 2003-SARS-Coronavirus gekommen sein.
*
Fehlen eines Isolats des „Neuen 2019-Virus (2019-nCoV)“
Während das SARS-CoV von 2003 ordnungsgemäß isoliert wurde, räumte die WHO im Januar 2020 ein, dass sie nicht über ein Isolat und eine gereinigte Probe des NEUEN Coronavirus von 2019 von einem infizierten Patienten verfügt, was bedeutet, dass sie nicht in der Lage ist, die Identität des („gefährlichen“) neuartigen Coronavirus von 2019 mit der Bezeichnung 2019-nCoV zu bestätigen. So lautete die Begründung. Klingt absurd.
Wie wurde die Angelegenheit geklärt? Auf Anraten der Gates-Stiftung stand die WHO in Verbindung mit dem Berliner Virologischen Institut der Charité.
Unter der wissenschaftlichen Leitung von Dr. Christian Drosten trug die Studie der Berliner Virologie den Titel:
[Während] … mehrere virale Genomsequenzen veröffentlicht worden waren, … waren Virusisolate oder Proben [von 2019-nCoV] von infizierten Patienten nicht verfügbar …“
„Die Genomsequenzen deuten auf das Vorhandensein eines Virus hin, das eng mit den Mitgliedern einer viralen Spezies verwandt ist, die als schweres akutes respiratorisches Syndrom (SARS) CoV bezeichnet wird, eine Spezies, die durch den Erreger des SARS-Ausbruchs beim Menschen 2002/03 definiert wurde [3,4].
Wir berichten über die Entwicklung und Validierung eines diagnostischen Arbeitsablaufs für das 2019-nCoV-Screening und die spezifische Bestätigung [mit dem RT-PCR-Test], der in Ermangelung verfügbarer Virusisolate oder Originalproben von Patienten entwickelt wurde. Design und Validierung wurden durch die enge genetische Verwandtschaft mit dem SARS-CoV aus dem Jahr 2003 ermöglicht und durch den Einsatz der synthetischen Nukleinsäuretechnologie unterstützt.“ (Eurosurveillance, 23. Januar 2020, Hervorhebung hinzugefügt).
Diese zweideutige Aussage legt nahe, dass die Identität von 2019-nCoV nicht erforderlich war und dass „bestätigte COVID-19-Fälle ‚ (d. h. Infektionen durch das neue Coronavirus von 2019) durch ‘die enge genetische Verwandtschaft mit dem SARS-CoV von 2003“ bestätigt würden .
Wie könnte das neue Virus als ähnlich eingestuft werden, ohne identifiziert worden zu sein, d. h. ohne ein „Isolat“? Außerdem ist zu bedenken, dass der PCR-Test zwar nicht das Virus, aber genetische Fragmente (zahlreicher Viren)nachweist.
Rauchende Waffe
Das bedeutet, dass ein Coronavirus, das vor 20 Jahren (zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung dieses Berichts) in der Provinz Guangdong entdeckt wurde (SARS-CoV von 2003), zur „Validierung“ der Identität eines sogenannten „neuartigen Coronavirus“ verwendet wurde, das erstmals Ende Dezember 2019 in der chinesischen Provinz Hubei entdeckt wurde.
Sie wurden anschließend vom Generaldirektor der WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, gebilligt.
Die WHO war nicht im Besitz des „Virusisolats“, das zur Identifizierung des neuen Virus erforderlich war.
„Macht nichts“. Es wurde beschlossen, dass ein Isolat des neuen Coronavirus nicht erforderlich sei.
Wenn der PCR-Test das SARS-CoV-Virus von 2003 als Stellvertreter oder „Bezugspunkt“ verwendet, kann es keine „bestätigten“ Fälle geben, die mit dem neuen Coronavirus 2019-nCoV in Verbindung stehen.
Das neuartige Coronavirus 2019 soll dem 2003-SARS-CoV „ähnlich“ sein, dasspäter in SARS-CoV-1umbenannt wurde (um es von SARS-CoV-2 zu unterscheiden).
Das NEUE Virus (2019 nCoV) ist „nicht existent“ (keine RT-PCR bestätigten Fälle).
Kurze Klammer, Zusammenfassung
Die Omicron-, Delta-, Alpha- usw. Varianten und Untervarianten
Da das SARS-CoV-1 von 2003 laut WHO der Bezugspunkt oder Stellvertreter für das angebliche Neue Virus (SARS-CoV-2) ist, gehören die (gefährlichen) Omicron-, Delta- und Untervarianten, die angeblich durch den PCR-Test identifiziert wurden, zu den Hunderten von Varianten des zwanzig Jahre alten SARS-CoV-1 von 2003 (das durch ein vom NEJM im Mai 2003 bestätigtes Isolat identifiziert wurde)
Im Dezember 2021 wurden wir von unseren Regierungen angewiesen, uns auf Weihnachten unter Lockdownvorzubereiten . Um Sie und Ihre Lieben vor der sogenannten tödlichen Covid Omicron-Variante zu schützen.
Die Ankündigung zu Omicron erfolgte am Schwarzen Freitag, dem 20. November 2021, dem Tag nach Thanksgiving. Anthony Fauci leitete die Desinformationskampagne und deutete an, dass Omicron „bereits in den Vereinigten Staaten ist, aber noch nicht entdeckt wurde“.
Die angebliche Ausbreitung von Omicron während der Weihnachtsfeiertage 2021 wurde als Rechtfertigung für die Einführung von teilweisen Schließungen, Reisebeschränkungen sowie Hausarrest und Hausarrest während der Weihnachtsfeiertage benutzt.
Die Omicron-Variante „ist außerordentlich ansteckend“, und wenn Sie sich jetzt in einer Menschenmenge aufhalten, und ganz sicher, wenn Sie nicht geimpft sind, besteht ein großes Risiko, dass Sie sich mit diesem Virus anstecken“.
Eine kleine Party im Haus eines Freundes sollte in Ordnung sein , wenn alle geimpft, aufgefrischt und vor der Party negativ getestet wurden… Große Partys im Freien sind weniger riskant, es sei denn, sie sind überfüllt.
„Ich werde nicht mehr ohne Maske in einem Restaurant essen“
“Ich werde auf keinen Fall in eine Bar gehen.“ Hervorhebung hinzugefügt.
.
.
Der „gefährliche“ Omicron Spread:Spekulationsgeschäfte an den Aktienmärkten
Siehe auch unseren Bericht über die RT-PCR im Anhang zu diesem Artikel.
Die Bedeutung und Zweideutigkeit der WHO-Entscheidung – auf Anraten des Berliner Virologie-Instituts -, nämlich die Frage nach dem „Isolat“ des neuartigen Coronavirus, wird beiläufig übersehen. „No Questions Asked“
Die britischen Medien berichteten am 6. Februar 2020 über die Änderung des Namens des Virus:
„[Das] tödliche Coronavirus wird ENDLICH einen Namen bekommen: Wissenschaftler planen, die Krankheit ‘in den nächsten Tagen’ offiziell zu benennen – aber sie wird nicht nach Orten oder Tieren benannt werden. Das Internationale Komitee für Taxonomie der Viren hat einen Namen vorgeschlagen. ..
Großes Geld, große Pharma.Patentrechte
Halten wir uns vor Augen: Die Covid-Krise, die immer noch andauert, ist eine weltweite Big-Money-Operation mit zahlreichen Big-Pharma-Produkten, die vom weltweiten Missbrauch des RT-PCR-Tests bis hin zu dem milliardenschweren Big-Pharma-Impfstoffprojekt reichen, das weitgehend von Pfizer dominiert wird.
War die Änderung des Namens des Virus in SARS-CoV-2 eine Frage von „Lizenzgebühren“ und geistigen Eigentumsrechten? Das US-Patent für SARS-CoV aus dem Jahr 2003 wurde im April 2004 angemeldet und im Mai 2007 an das US-Gesundheitsministerium übertragen:
Patent Nr.: US 7,220,852 B1 Datum des Patents:22. Mai 2007. (Dies ist eine Angelegenheit für weitere Untersuchungen.)
Die „große Lüge“ und das „nicht existierende neue Virus“.Was sind die Konsequenzen?
Wie oben dokumentiert (und von der WHO bestätigt) wurde das neue Coronavirus 2019 nie identifiziert.
Die Verwendung eines 20 Jahre alten Virus namens SARS-CoV aus dem Jahr 2003 als Stellvertreter für das angebliche neue Virus bestätigt, dass es im Januar-März 2020 KEINE PANDEMIE aufgrund eines NEUEN CORONAVIRUS gab.
ES GAB KEIN „NEUES VIRUS“.
Dies bedeutet, dass sowohl die verheerenden Abriegelungsmaßnahmen, die 190 Ländern auferlegt wurden (11. März 2020), als auch der weltweite Rollout des Covid-19-Impfstoffs (Mitte Dezember 2020) betrügerisch sind.Sie beruhen auf einer „Großen Lüge“, die im Laufe von fast vier Jahren dazu beigetragen hat, das Leben von Menschenbuchstäblich zu zerstören.
Die unaufhörliche Angstkampagne wiederum hatte verheerende Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der Menschen, ihre psychische Gesundheit, einschließlich einer weltweiten Welle von Selbstmorden. In mehreren Ländern wurdenSelbstmorde unter Schulkindern verzeichnet (siehe Michel Chossudovsky, Kapitel VI)
Die „große Lüge“ löst den Lockdown aus
Die unausgesprochene Wahrheit ist, dass das neuartige Coronavirus den mächtigen Finanzinteressen und korrupten Politikern einen Vorwand und eine Rechtfertigung geliefert hat, um die ganze Welt in eine Spirale von Massenarbeitslosigkeit, Bankrott, extremer Armut und Verzweiflung zu stürzen.
Die Abriegelung war ein Akt der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Kriegsführung. Die Arbeitskräfte wurden eingesperrt, der Arbeitsplatz wurde eingefroren, was zu einem künstlichen weltweiten wirtschaftlichen Zusammenbruch führte.
In den Worten der WEF-Milliardäre an diejenigen, die ihr Haus verlieren oder ihre monatliche Miete nicht bezahlen können: ihr Motto ist:
„Besitzt nichts, seid glücklich“.
„Wenn die Lüge zur Wahrheit wird, gibt es keinen Weg zurück“
ZENSUR: Das Originalvideo von Global Research, das von Ariel Rodriguez im Februar 2021 produziert wurde, wurde am 5. März 2022 von Vimeo entfernt.
Hier ist die Version auf Rumble
Die verheerendste Krise in der Geschichte der Menschheit
Beginnt bei 6’47”
Unser Dank geht an Vaccine Choice Canada
Der mRNA-„Impfstoff“, der die Menschen gegen ein „nicht existierendes neues Virus“ schützen sollte
Es ist hinreichend dokumentiert, dass der mRNA-„Impfstoff“, der die Menschen vor dem nicht existierenden neuen Coronavirus, das in SARS-nCoV-2 umbenannt wurde, schützen sollte, zu einem Aufwärtstrend bei der Übersterblichkeit geführt hat.
Auf den Covid-19-„Impfstoff“ zurückzuführende übermäßige Sterblichkeit
Es gibt zahlreiche Studien zur impfstoffbedingten Übersterblichkeit. Im Folgenden finden Sie eine Zusammenfassung einer einschneidenden Studie über die krebsbedingte Übersterblichkeit in England und Wales, die vom Team von Edward Dowd durchgeführt wurde
Dowds Methode bestand darin, die Zahl der krebsbedingten Todesfälle in England und Wales zwischen 2010 und 2022 zu analysieren (basierend auf den Daten des britischen Amts für nationale Statistiken).
Die nachstehende Tabelle bezieht sich auf die überzähligen Todesfälle im Zusammenhang mit bösartigen Neubildungen (Krebstumor) in England und Wales, die in drei aufeinanderfolgenden Jahren aufgezeichnet wurden: 2020, 2021 und 2022 im Vergleich zu einem 10-Jahres-Trend (2010-2019).
Die Daten für die Übersterblichkeit im Jahr 2020 (dem Jahr vor der Impfung) sind negativ, mit Ausnahme von „bösartigem Neoplasma ohne Angabe des Ortes“.
Der Anstieg der Übersterblichkeit (%) beginnt im Jahr 2021. Der Anstieg der Übersterblichkeit im Zusammenhang mit bösartigen Neubildungen ist für die ersten beiden Jahre der Einführung des Impfstoffs tabellarisch dargestellt .
England und Wales:Überschüssige Sterblichkeit
.
.
Nachstehend finden Sie eine ähnliche Tabelle zur Übersterblichkeit in Deutschland, die die Abweichung der beobachteten Sterblichkeit von der erwarteten Sterblichkeit (nach Altersgruppen) in den Jahren 2020, 2021 und 2022 aufzeigt.
Beachten Sie die Verschiebung der Übersterblichkeit nach oben in den Jahren 2021 und 2022 nach der Einführung des Covid-Impfstoffs im Dezember 2020
Deutschland:Überschüssige Sterblichkeit
.
Deutschland: Übermäßige Sterblichkeit nach Altersgruppen (%)
Übermäßige Sterblichkeit in Rot nach Altersgruppe, Übermäßige Sterblichkeit in Grau insgesamt
.
Japan:Übermäßige Sterblichkeit
Japan. Überschüssige Sterblichkeit (2020-2022): Anstieg der Übersterblichkeit in den Jahren 2021 und 2022 (Januar-Oktober 2022)
Das nachstehende Diagramm: “Alle an VAERS gemeldeten Todesfälle nach Jahr “, beginnend im Jahr 1990. (z. B. von der Familie des Opfers an VAERS gemeldet). Dies sind offizielle Zahlen, Todesfälle, die auf den Impfstoff zurückzuführen sind. Nur ein sehr kleiner Prozentsatz der Todesfälle durch Impfstoffe wird gemeldet. Dennoch zeigt die nachstehende Grafik, dass es im Jahr 2021 in den USA mehr als 19.000 Todesfälle im Zusammenhang mit Impfstoffen geben wird. Weder die Medien noch die US-Regierung haben die Öffentlichkeit darüber informiert.
Festzustellen ist, dass die Zahl der gemeldeten Impftodesfälle im Laufe des Jahres 2021, dem ersten Jahr des Mitte Dezember 2020 in den USA eingeführten Impfstoffs Covid, drastisch gestiegen ist.
Es gibt zahlreiche Studien über die durch den Impfstoff bedingte erhöhte Sterblichkeit, die von den Medien ignoriert werden.
In den Presseberichten heißt es immer, dass das Virus „gefährlich“ oder „tödlich“ sei, während es in Wirklichkeit der „Impfstoff“ ist, der einen Aufwärtstrend bei der Sterblichkeit ausgelöst hat.
Die Daily Mail (6. Februar 2020) spricht von einem „tödlichen Coronavirus “ und deutet an, dass es sich weltweit ausbreitet.
Die Bezeichnung als gefährliches Virus ist eine glatte LÜGE:
Wie von der WHO, der CDC und von Fachleuten geprüften Berichten bestätigt, ist das nCoV-19 von 2019 nicht gefährlich. Siehe den Anhang unten.
Unsere Analyse in diesem kurzen Artikel hat den Beweis erbracht:
dass das angebliche NEUE CORONAVIRUS mit der Bezeichnung 2019 nCoV nie isoliert wurde,
das umbenannte neue Coronavirus mit der Bezeichnung SARS-CoV-2 KEIN NEUES VIRUS ist. Es ähnelt einem ALTEN VIRUS mit der Bezeichnung 2003-SARS-CoV.
Ich sollte erwähnen, dass es viele andere Punkte gibt, die die „offizielle Darstellung“ entkräften, insbesondere der RT-PCR-Test, der das Virus nicht identifiziert.
Siehe die Abschnitte 1, 2, 3 und 4 des Anhangs unten sowie unseren Bericht über den RT-PCR-Test (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction).
Scrollen Sie nach unten, um den Anhang zu lesen.
***
Michel Chossudovskys Botschaft
Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,
Wir stehen weltweit in Solidarität.
Ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Unterstützung im Laufe von mehr als zweiundzwanzig Jahren.
Sie sind herzlich eingeladen, mein Buch (15 Kapitel) herunterzuladen, das eine detaillierte Analyse der noch immer andauernden Krise enthält. Erstmals veröffentlicht im August 2022. Druckfassung auf Japanisch.
Die weltweite Corona-Krise, ein globaler Staatsstreich gegen die Menschlichkeit
von Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky untersucht im Detail, wie dieses heimtückische Projekt „das Leben der Menschen zerstört“. Er liefert eine umfassende Analyse all dessen, was man über die „Pandemie“ wissen muss – von den medizinischen Dimensionen bis hin zu den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Auswirkungen, den politischen Hintergründen und den mentalen und psychologischen Folgen.
„Mein Ziel als Autor ist es, die Menschen weltweit zu informieren und das offizielle Narrativ zu widerlegen, das als Rechtfertigung für die Destabilisierung des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Gefüges ganzer Länder und die anschließende Einführung des ‚tödlichen‘ COVID-19-“Impfstoffs“ diente.Diese Krise betrifft die Menschheit in ihrer Gesamtheit: fast 8 Milliarden Menschen.Wir sind solidarisch mit unseren Mitmenschen und unseren Kindern weltweit.Die Wahrheit ist ein mächtiges Instrument.”
Bewertungen
Es handelt sich um eine ausführliche Quelle von großem Interesse, wenn es um die breitere Perspektive geht, die Sie besser verstehen möchten. Der Autor ist sehr sachkundig in Sachen Geopolitik, und das zeigt sich in der Art und Weise, wie Covid in einen Kontext gestellt wird. –Dr. Mike Yeadon
In diesem Krieg gegen die Menschheit, in dem wir uns befinden, in diesem einzigartigen, unregelmäßigen und massiven Angriff gegen die Freiheit und das Gute im Menschen, ist Chossudovskys Buch ein Fels, auf dem wir unseren Kampf aufbauen können. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fünfzehn prägnanten, wissenschaftlich fundierten Kapiteln zeichnet Michel die falsche Covid-Pandemie nach und erklärt, wie ein PCR-Test, der nachweislich bis zu 97 % falsch-positive Ergebnisse liefert, in Verbindung mit einer unerbittlichen 24/7-Angstkampagne eine weltweite Panik-geladene „Pandemie“ auslösen konnte; dass diese Pandemie ohne den berüchtigten DNA-verändernden Polymerase-Kettenreaktions-Test niemals möglich gewesen wäre – der bis zum heutigen Tag einer Mehrheit von unschuldigen Menschen aufgezwungen wird, die keine Ahnung haben.Seine Schlussfolgerungen werden von renommierten Wissenschaftlern bestätigt. –Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky deckt die Wahrheit auf, dass „es keine kausale Beziehung zwischen dem Virus und wirtschaftlichen Variablen gibt“.Mit anderen Worten, es war nicht COVID-19, sondern die absichtliche Umsetzung der unlogischen, wissenschaftlich unbegründeten Abriegelungen, die den Stillstand der Weltwirtschaft verursacht haben. –David Skripac
Die Lektüre von Chossudovskys Buch bietet eine umfassende Lektion darüber, wie ein globaler Staatsstreich mit dem Namen „The Great Reset“ im Gange ist, der, wenn er nicht von freiheitsliebenden Menschen auf der ganzen Welt bekämpft und besiegt wird, zu einer dystopischen Zukunft führen wird, die wir uns noch nicht vorstellen können.Geben Sie dieses kostenlose Geschenk von Professor Chossudovsky weiter, bevor es zu spät ist.Sie werden nicht so viele wertvolle Informationen und Analysen an einem Ort finden. –Edward Curtin
Um Millionen von Menschen weltweit zu erreichen, deren Leben von der Corona-Krise betroffen ist, haben wir beschlossen, das eBook im Laufe der nächsten Monate KOSTENLOS zu verteilen.
Anhang
Unsere obige Analyse liefert den Beweis:
dass das angebliche NEUE CORONAVIRUS mit der Bezeichnung 2019 nCoV nie isoliert wurde und dass
das umbenannte neue Coronavirus mit der Bezeichnung SARS-CoV-2 einem 20 Jahre alten Virus mit der Bezeichnung 2003-SARS-CoV ähnlich ist.
Es sollte klar sein, dass es viele andere Punkte gibt, die das „offizielle Narrativ“ entkräften, die in dem Artikel nicht angesprochen werden (siehe Abschnitte 1, 2, 3 und 4 unten sowie unseren Bericht über den Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test)
Von Bedeutung für unser Verständnis von „Angstkampagnen“ ist, dass die WHO und die CDC bestätigen, dass das nCoV 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) kein gefährliches Virusist .
1.Die Erklärung der WHO zu 2019-nCoV
“Das jüngst entdeckte Coronavirus verursacht die Coronavirus-Krankheit COVID-19. Die häufigsten Symptome von COVID-19 sind Fieber, trockener Husten und Müdigkeit. … Diese Symptome sind in der Regel mild und beginnen allmählich. Manche Menschen infizieren sich, haben aber nur sehr leichte Symptome. Die meisten Menschen (etwa 80 %) erholen sich von der Krankheit, ohne dass sie im Krankenhaus behandelt werden müssen. Etwa 1 von 5 Personen, die sich mit COVID-19 infizieren, erkrankt schwer und bekommt Atembeschwerden.“ (Für weitere Einzelheiten siehe Michel Chossudovsky, August 2022, Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)
2.Dr. Anthony Fauci in Bezug auf SARS-CoV-2 im NEJM
Von Anfang an hat Fauci beharrlich vor den drohenden Gefahren des SARS-CoV-2 (einschließlich seiner Varianten und Untervarianten) gewarnt, während er in seinem von Fachleuten geprüften Artikel im New England Journal of Medicine(zusammen mit H. Clifford Lane, M.D. und Robert R. Redfield, M.D.) einräumte, dass:
„Die klinischen Folgen von Covid-19 könnten letztlich eher denen einer schweren saisonalen Grippe (mit einer Sterblichkeitsrate von etwa 0,1 %) oder einer Grippepandemie (ähnlich wie 1957 und 1968) ähneln…“ (Siehe Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted, NEJM)
3.Die WHO-Definition von 2003-SARS
„SARS wird über die Luft übertragen und kann durch kleine Speicheltröpfchen ähnlich wie Erkältungen und Grippeverbreitet werden. … SARS kann auch indirekt über Oberflächen verbreitet werden, die von einer mit dem Virus infizierten Person berührt wurden.
Die meisten Patienten, bei denen SARS festgestellt wurde, waren zuvor gesunde Erwachsene im Alter von 25-70 Jahren. Einige wenige Verdachtsfälle von SARS wurden bei Kindern unter 15 Jahren gemeldet. Die Sterblichkeitsrate unter den Erkrankten, die der aktuellen WHO-Falldefinition für wahrscheinliche und vermutete SARS-Fälle entsprechen, liegt bei etwa 3 %.
Einen Monat vor der Namensänderung des neuen nCoV-Coronavirus 2019 in SARS-CoV-2 (am 11. Februar 2020) veröffentlichte die WHO ein ausführliches Dokument über das Schwere Akute Respiratorische Syndrom 2003 (Operational Support & Logistics Disease Commodity Packages pdf).
4.Der Vergleich der CDC von SARS-CoV-2 mit der saisonalen Grippe
„Influenza (Grippe) und COVID-19 sind beides ansteckende Atemwegserkrankungen, die jedoch durch unterschiedliche Viren verursacht werden. COVID-19 wird durch eine Infektion mit einem neuen Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 genannt) verursacht, während die Grippe durch eine Infektion mit Influenzaviren hervorgerufen wird.
Da einige der Symptome von Grippe und COVID-19 ähnlich sind, kann es schwierig sein, sie allein anhand der Symptome zu unterscheiden, und es können Tests erforderlich sein, um die Diagnose zu bestätigen. Grippe und COVID-19 haben viele gemeinsame Merkmale, aber es gibt auch einige wichtige Unterschiede zwischen den beiden.
Wäre die Öffentlichkeit informiert und beruhigt worden, dass COVID „grippeähnlich“ ist, wäre die Angstkampagne ins Leere gelaufen.
Die Abriegelung und Schließung der Volkswirtschaft wäre rundweg abgelehnt worden, ganz zu schweigen von der anschließenden Einführung des Covid-19-Impfstoffs.
Der Reverse Transkription Polymerase-Kettenreaktion (RT-PCR) Test
Die nach WHO-Richtlinien angewandte Methode zum Nachweis der angeblichen Verbreitung des Virus ist der RT-PCR-Test (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction), der seit Februar 2020 weltweit routinemäßig angewendet wird. (Dieser Text ist ein Auszug aus dem Buch von Michel Chossudovsky, August 2022)
Der RT-PCR-Test wurde weltweit eingesetzt, um Millionen von falschen „bestätigten COVID-19-Fällen“ zu generieren, die dann verwendet werden, um die Illusion aufrechtzuerhalten, dass die angebliche Pandemie real ist.
Diese auf falschen Zahlen basierende Einschätzung wurde dreieinhalb Jahre lang genutzt, um die Angstkampagne anzuführen und aufrechtzuerhalten.
“Bestätigt “ ist eine falsche Bezeichnung. Ein „bestätigter RT-PCR-positiver Fall“ ist nicht gleichbedeutend mit einem „bestätigten COVID-19-Fall“.
Eine positive RT-PCR ist nicht gleichbedeutend mit der COVID-19-Krankheit! PCR-Spezialisten weisen darauf hin, dass ein Test immer mit der klinischen Akte des getesteten Patienten und dessen Gesundheitszustand verglichen werden muss, um seinen Wert [Zuverlässigkeit] zu bestätigen. (Dr. Pascal Sacré)
Das von den nationalen Gesundheitsbehörden angewandte Verfahren besteht darin, alle RT-PCR-positiven Fälle als „bestätigte COVID-19-Fälle“ (mit oder ohne medizinische Diagnose) einzustufen. Ironischerweise verstößt dieses Routineverfahren zur Identifizierung „bestätigter Fälle“ gegen die eigenen Richtlinien der CDC:
„Der Nachweis viraler RNA ist kein Hinweis auf das Vorhandensein eines infektiösen Virus oder darauf, dass 2019-nCoV der Erreger der klinischen Symptome ist. Die Leistungsfähigkeit dieses Tests wurde nicht für die Überwachung der Behandlung einer 2019-nCoV-Infektion nachgewiesen. Dieser Test kann Krankheiten, die durch andere bakterielle oder virale Erreger verursacht werden, nicht ausschließen. „8 (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)
Die zur Erkennung und Abschätzung der Verbreitung des Virus angewandte Methodik ist fehlerhaft und ungültig.
Falsche Positivmeldungen
Die Debatte zu Beginn der Krise konzentrierte sich auf die Frage der „falsch positiven Ergebnisse“.
Die WHO und das CDC räumten ein, dass der RT-PCR-Test bekanntermaßen einen hohen Prozentsatz an falsch positiven Ergebnissen liefert. Laut Dr. Pascal Sacré:
„Heute, da die Behörden mehr Menschen testen, wird es zwangsläufig mehr positive RT-PCR-Tests geben. Das bedeutet nicht, dass COVID-19 zurückkommt oder dass die Epidemie in Wellen verläuft. Es werden mehr Menschen getestet, das ist alles. „9
Die (von den Gesundheitsbehörden eingeräumte) Debatte über falsch-positive Ergebnisse weist auf so genannte Fehler hin, ohne notwendigerweise die allgemeine Gültigkeit des RT-PCR-Tests als Mittel zum Nachweis der angeblichen Verbreitung des SARS-CoV-2-Virus in Frage zu stellen.
Mit dem PCR-Test lässt sich die Identität des Virus nicht feststellen
Mit dem RT-PCR-Test wird das Virus nicht identifiziert/nachgewiesen. Was der PCR-Test identifiziert, sind genetische Fragmente zahlreicher Viren (einschließlich Influenzaviren der Typen A und B und Coronaviren, die Erkältungen auslösen).
Die Ergebnisse des RT-PCR-Tests können nicht „bestätigen“, ob eine Person, die den Test durchführt, mit SARS-CoV-2 infiziert ist.
Das folgende Diagramm fasst den Prozess der Identifizierung positiver und negativer Fälle zusammen. Es muss lediglich „virales genetisches Material“ vorhanden sein, um als „positiv“ eingestuft zu werden. Mit dem Verfahren wird COVID-19 nicht identifiziert oder isoliert. Was in den Tests erscheint, sind Fragmente des Virus.10
Versagen des PCR-Tests, lächerlich niedrige Zahlen
Selbst wenn das nCoV 2019 nachgewiesen und ordnungsgemäß identifiziert worden wäre, waren die Zahlen der bestätigten (kumulativen) PCR-RT-positiven Fälle im Zeitraum bis zum 11. März 2020, die als Begründung für die Verhängung der Sperre gegen mehr als 190 Länder angeführt wurden , lächerlich gering. Die 80.981 Fälle für China beziehen sich ebenfalls auf bestätigte (kumulative) PCR-positive Fälle.Beachten Sie, dass die neuen Fälle in China (PCR-positiv) am 12. März 2020 in der Größenordnung von „321 neuen“ liegen.
.
Abbildung: Gesamtzahl der kumulativen Fälle am 12. März 2020 (Quelle: WHO)
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.
[First published on October 18, 2023]
GR Note: This is a carefully research video. As of approximately 40’00”, it includes statements of a religious nature which some readers might find inappropriate and/or misleading.
[This article by Dr. Brenda Baletti was first posted on GR in July 2024.]
A study released today of excess mortality in 125 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found the major causes of death globally stemmed from public health establishment’s response, including mandates and lockdowns that caused severe stress, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We conclude that nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon,” the authors of the study wrote.
Researchers from the Canadian nonprofit Correlation Research in the Public Interest and the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières analyzed excess all-cause mortality data prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with the March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic declaration and ending on May 5, 2023, when the WHO declared the pandemic over.
The results, presented in a detailed 521-page analysis, establish baseline all-cause mortality rates across 125 countries and use those to determine the variations in excess deaths during the pandemic.
The researchers also used the baseline rates to investigate how the individual country variations in excess death rates correlated to different pandemic-related interventions, including vaccination and booster campaigns.
Not all of the results on a country-by-country basis were the same. For example, in some countries, mortality spikes occurred before the vaccines were rolled out, while in other places, the mortality spikes tracked closely with vaccine or booster campaigns.
In some places, excess mortality rates returned to baseline or close to baseline in 2022, while in others, the rates persisted well into 2023. Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., lead author of the study, told The Defender the disparities result from the complex nature of pandemic measures — and the data — in different areas.
Once Rancourt’s team was able to establish the baseline and excess mortality data for each place, they clustered and examined the data through different filters to interpret it, and drew several conclusions.
Data ‘Incompatible with a Pandemic Viral Respiratory Disease as a Primary Cause of Death’
The researchers established that there was significant excess mortality worldwide between March 11, 2020, and May 5, 2023.
Overall excess mortality during the three years in the 93 countries with sufficient data to make an estimate is approximately 0.392% of the 2021 population — or approximately 30.9 million excess deaths from all causes.
The conventional explanation for the excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, Rancourt said, is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus caused virtually all deaths — and there would have been even more deaths if there hadn’t been a vaccine.
The variations in excess all-cause mortality rates across space and time, the authors wrote, “allow us to conclude that the Covid-period (2020-2023) excess all-cause mortality in the world is incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death.”
They said the theory that the virus caused the deaths is propped up by mass virus-testing campaigns that should be abandoned.
‘Idea that Vaccines Saved Lives Is Ridiculous’
Rancourt and his team cited several factors they believe disprove the theory that the virus caused a spike in all-cause mortality.
For example, they wrote that excess mortality surged almost simultaneously across several continents when a pandemic was declared, while there were no comparable surges in areas that had not yet declared a pandemic.
This suggests that pandemic interventions like lockdowns, which were implemented synchronously across many countries, likely caused the surges.
The researchers also pointed out the significant variation in mortality rates during the pandemic in all time periods, even across different political jurisdictions directly adjacent to each other. If the virus caused the deaths, it would follow that the infection fatality rate would be the same, or at least similar across political boundaries.
The researchers also found a lot of variability in death rates within countries over time, which also would not be an expected outcome if those deaths were caused by a pathogen.
Rancourt said they found “the idea that the vaccine saved lives is ridiculous,” and based on flawed modeling as he and colleagues also showed in a previous paper.
Here again, they found no systematic or statistically significant trends showing that vaccination campaigns in 2020 and 2021 reduced all-cause mortality.
Instead, they found that in many places, there was no excess mortality until the vaccines were rolled out, and most countries showed temporal associations between vaccine rollouts and increases in all-cause mortality.
Medical Interventions — Including Denial of Treatment — Caused Premature Deaths
Rancourt said the excess deaths his team identified are strongly associated with the combination of two major factors — the proportion of elderly in a country’s population and the number of people living in poverty. Both factors increased peoples’ vulnerability to “sudden and profound structural societal changes” and “medical assaults.”
While the proximal cause of death may be classified on death certificates as a respiratory condition or infection, the researchers noted, they argue the true primary causes of death are actually biological stress, non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccination rollouts.
The study provides an overview of plausible mechanisms for this hypothesis, including research showing that some people experienced severe biological stress from measures like mandates and lockdowns.
“If you structurally change the society by preventing people from moving, breathing, working, having their lives, having to stay at home, lock them in. If you do all these incredibly huge changes, structural changes in society, that is going to induce biological stress,” Rancourt told The Defender.
“There’s very compelling scientific evidence that biological stress is a massive killer,” he added.
Rancourt also pointed out that the stress of lockdowns affected poor people quite differently than it did people who could easily work from home, have food delivered and live relatively comfortably.
The authors also pointed to extensive evidence showing that medical interventions — including denial of treatment — caused premature deaths.
Such interventions included but were not limited to the denial of antibiotics and ivermectin against bacterial pneumonia, the systematic use of mechanical ventilators, experimental treatment protocols, new palliative medications and overdoses, isolation of vulnerable people and encouraged voluntary or involuntary suicide.
The March-April 2020 COVID-19 peak they identified in several countries is difficult to explain without such medical interventions, they wrote.
17 Million Excess Deaths Tied to COVID Vaccines
Finally, the researchers projected that 17 million of the excess deaths they identified were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, confirming the findings of their previous research on a smaller sample of countries.
Those vaccine-related estimations were based on analyses of places that had large spikes immediately following vaccination or booster campaigns and also by examining the numbers of vaccine doses and their relation to deaths over time.
Thirty percent of the countries they analyzed had no excess deaths until either the vaccine rollouts or the booster campaigns. And there were significant correlations between COVID-19 vaccine rollouts and peaks or increases in excess all-cause mortality. Ninety-seven percent of countries showed a late-2021 or early-2022 peak in excess all-cause mortality temporally associated with booster rollouts.
It is highly unlikely, the researchers wrote, that the vaccine-mortality associations are coincidental.
Rancourt noticed that people critical of this idea point to the fact that in some places, there are sometimes campaigns or booster campaigns that aren’t associated with spikes in excess mortality.
However, he said vaccination campaigns don’t always lead to such spikes because vaccination was not related to death in the same way in every situation. Vulnerability factors like the age of those vaccinated, the health of the population and other sociological factors related to stressors on the immune system change how they are affected by vaccine toxicity or the vaccines’ effects on the immune system.
Based on their analysis and interpretations, they concluded,
“We are compelled to state that the public health establishment and its agents fundamentally caused all the excess mortality in the Covid period.”
*
Click the share button below 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.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Featured image is from CHD
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
[We bring to the attention of our readers this important study first published by GR in August 2024.]
Abstract
Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena.
The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna.
Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory “bench science” aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions.
From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures.
As time progressed during incubation, simple one- and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time.
Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables. [Emphasis added]
Click the share button below 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.
Young Mi Lee, MD, is a practicing physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, and is also a reproductive endocrinologist; because of her work over the last three years she has become an expert in stereomicroscopy and in the microbiology of incubated COVID-19 injectables, especially, Pfizer and Moderna
Daniel Broudy holds a doctorate in applied psycholinguistics from the School of Communication and Creative Arts at Deakin University. He is a professor of applied linguistics at Okinawa Christian University. His research integrates research in cognitive linguistics, developmental and social psychology, semiotics, and communication theory as an effort to describe the ways in which centers of power organize campaigns of persuasion and engineer consent for policies and actions across cultures. His work appears with Palgrave, Macmillan, Westminster University Press, Opole University Press, the University Press of Wrocław, Peter Lang, Media Theory, Ethical Space: The International Journal of Ethics, Peace News, Truthout, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Fast Capitalism, Propaganda in Focus, and System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.
Featured image is from Mercola
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
In the past three years, we started our online e-Book project, which is a thematic compilation of articles published individually on the Global Research website.
Our online e-Books are our authors’ comprehensive and elaborate analyses on a wide range of contentious issues and topics.
We undertake this endeavor with the objective of providing a safe and free online access to important information that would otherwise be censored by mainstream publications.
These e-Books can be read online and/or downloaded as PDF.
.
.
If you have the means, we encourage you to support the online e-Book project by making a donation to Global Research.
Click the image below to donate.
.
1. The US-NATO War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia
Author: Michel Chossudovsky
Published: March 2021
Twenty-four years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named “Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker” according to Nebosja Malic.
When Belgrade was bombed, the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target.
NATO stated that to “save the lives” of the newly born, they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, instead they targeted the building which housed the power generator, which meant no more power for the incubators. What this meant was that the entire hospital was for all sakes and purposes destroyed and many of the children died.
I visited that hospital, one year after the bombing in June 2000 and saw with my own eyes how they did it with utmost accuracy. These are war crimes using NATO’s so-called smart bombs.
The causes and consequences of this war against the people of Yugoslavia have been the object of a vast media disinformation campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and US war crimes.
2. Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity
Authors: Vilma Almendra,Rosalie Bertell, Michel Chossudovsky,Josefina Fraile, Elana Freeland, Claire Henrion, Maria Heibel, Conny Kadia, Linda Leblanc, Claudia von Werlhof
Edited: Prof. Claudia von Werlhof
Published: December 2021
After more than one year of “lockdowns” all over the world, the issue of “global warming” and “climate change” is back on the table of the international debate.
It seems that natural catastrophies have started to surround us everywhere – from the animal world next to us as well as from the sky above us. Is “nature” the enemy that has to be combatted today, be it by vaccinating humanity against the coronavirus that allegedly jumped out of the wilderness attacking us, be it by tearing down industrial production and consumption in order to avoid the alleged greenhouse gas CO2 emissions, being officially identified as the sole culprit of a so-called global warming? Or be it by applying methods of an alleged civil “geoengineering” against an ongoing climate change that seems to threaten the world?
This is the best moment to publish our book “Global War-ning! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity”. Our warning, however, is not a warning against CO2 emissions that are the alleged reason for the warming of the planet. This is claimed from above, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), from governments, the media, and the super rich, as well as from corrupted social movements everywhere (see Second Letter to Greta Thunberg, Annex).
We are, however, warning against the effects of a form of geoengineering that is not of civil, but of military origin, and a technology which alone is able to produce effects that appear as global warming, climate change, and much more, such as damage to the planet’s ozone layer (Werlhof in this vol.).
3. Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes
Author: David Skripac
Published: December 2021
When the alleged “pandemic” was declared in March of 2020, I, like millions of other people around the world, was paying close attention to politicians and public health officials as well as to bureaucrats from the Rockefeller Foundation-created World Health Organization (WHO), all of whom announced, in almost perfect synchronicity, “This is the new normal until a vaccine can be developed.”
How odd, I thought. Why is it that the immediate default position is a vaccine? And why is it that a single coronavirus is being blamed for causing people to fall ill in every corner of the earth? Could something else—perhaps one or more toxins in the environment—be the real culprit?
My hope is that I have succeeded in deconstructing the official narrative: first, by explaining how viruses have been blanketing the earth with their genetic codes for eons, creating biodiversity and allowing for adaptation throughout the ecosystem, and, second, by pointing out the myriad ways reckless human behaviour is creating a real environmental catastrophe—not the carbon-is-the-culprit con, but actual pollution and deforestation and species extinction, to name a few such scourges. These real problems are being ignored by the fake “climate change” crowd, who hide their mercenary motives behind euphemisms like “sustainable development goals” (SDGs) and “environmental, social, and governance” benchmarks (ESGs) and florid phrases such as the “Great Reset” and “Build Back Better.”
4. Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
Author: Colin Todhunter
Published: February 2022
The following text sets out some key current trends affecting food and agriculture and begins by looking at the Gates Foundation’s promotion of a failing model of industrial, (GMO) chemical-intensive agriculture and the deleterious impacts it has on indigenous farming and farmers, human health, rural communities, agroecological systems and the environment.
Alternatives to this model are then discussed which focus on organic agriculture and specifically agroecology. However, there are barriers to implementing these solutions, not least the influence of global agri-capital in the form of agritech and agribusiness conglomerates which have captured key institutions.
The discussion then moves on to focus on the situation in India because that country’s ongoing agrarian crisis and the farmers’ struggle encapsulates what is at stake for the world.
Finally, it is argued that the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ is being used as cover to manage a crisis of capitalism and the restructuring of much of the global economy, including food and agriculture.
5. History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests
Author: Shane Quinn
Published: May 2022
The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.
The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.
6. The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
Author: Michel Chossudovsky
Published: August 2022
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
7. Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
Author: Robert J. Burrowes
Published: January 2023
Answering the question ‘Why do human beings kill each other?’ so that I might know how to end it, became my life passion.
With the benefit of more than 50 years of investigation behind me, when prominent global and national figures starting expressing concern about the threat supposedly posed by a novel coronavirus in early 2020, some brief research soon revealed that there was no documented scientific proof that a unique ‘virus’ had been isolated and it was just the latest medical hoax to be perpetrated on humanity. From there, it was an easy step to identify and comprehend the basic components of this latest (technocratic) stage in the Elite program to impose control over all humanity. Still, after nearly three years, it felt like it was time to spell out, more fully, how what is happening now had a 5,000 year ‘lead time’. So this is my attempt to do so.
8. Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth
Author: Colin Todhunter
Published: December 2023
This is a follow up to the author’s e-book Food, Dispossession and Dependency — Resisting the New World Order, which was originally published in February 2022 by Global Research and is hosted on the Centre for Research on Globalization’s [CRG] website.
9. World War III Is “On” But the Empire Has Already Lost. An American Civil War Looms. Spiritual Transformation Is the Only Way to Prevent Extinction.
Author: Richard C. Cook
Published: September 2024
I was then the student head of the James Blair High School International Relations Club. Our faculty adviser had gotten us an invitation to a conference being held at the Williamsburg Lodge. We showed up, but before our group was able to attend any sessions, I got word that we had been disinvited due to the “bad behavior” of some of our student members. It was a surprise. I had never witnessed any of this. The date was April 11, 1964.
Or maybe someone was hiding something.
Many years later I learned that the conference was being put on by the Bilderberg Group. At this conference there took place the first meeting between Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei and mega-banker David Rockefeller. It was the start of the merger between globalist finance and worldwide population reduction that is still going on and ruling world events today.
From the assassination of JFK and the meeting between Peccei and Rockefeller, there is a straight line that marks the trajectory of the catastrophe that I characterize in this eBook as the start of World War III and possibly the American Civil War II.
I have been a close-up witness to that trajectory, including 32 years as a federal government analyst and the years of writing I have done since then. It’s what I have witnessed that this eBook is about.
Are we living RussiaGate 2.0? Below is my article entitled:
“Trump, The Manchurian Candidate. U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency, Regime Change in America” — published on January 4, 2017, two weeks prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017,
The 2017 article is followed by my June 2024 article entitled “RussiaGate 2.0. Regime Change in America (2024)”, which was published a month prior to the attempted assassination of President Trump. (image below)
RussiaGate 1.0
The ultimate intent of the 2016-2017 campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction was to destabilize the Trump presidency.
Prior to the November 8 [2016] elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.
RussiaGate 1.0 contends that Trump was “in bed with the enemy”, namely Russia. In the wake of the 2016 elections, prior to his inauguration, Trump was accused of high treason.
There was a carefully planned “Disrupt Campaign” formulated well before the November 8, 2016 elections which consisted in a media smear campaign, an engineered anti-Trump protest movement across the US, coordinated with media coverage, petitions, the objective which was “to disrupt”
RussiaGate 2.0
While it is too early to make predictions, several of the strategies against Trump in 2016-2017 will no doubt be envisaged under RussiaGate 2.0.(2024-25)
Already there are “insinuations” that the Russians intervened in the “Swing States”:
“Polling places in states including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin have been targeted by bomb threats, law enforcement has confirmed, which led to evacuations and voting getting paused—though it’s not clear if they’re all linked.
Many targeted polling places were in areas that favor Democratic candidates, including Philadelphia and predominantly Black areas around Atlanta.
None of the threats have been deemed to be credible and officials said there does not appear to be any threat to the broader public, and the FBI noted earlier on Tuesday [November 5] that many of the threats received by that point “appear[ed] to originate from Russian email addresses.”
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have repeatedly warned about Russian election interference efforts, … releasing a statement on Nov. 1: [which stated that] ” Russian interference in the presidential election has become a major issue since the 2016 election, when, special counsel Robert Mueller wrote, “the Russian government believed it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” (Read the full report: Forbes, November 6, 2024, emphasis added)
It all sounds DÉJÀ VU. While accusing Russia, according to the Dems, Trump is still “Sleeping with the Enemy”, modelled on Russia-Gate 1.0 (2016-2017).
.
More to come. Expect extensive media misinformation.
.
My Question: Will the July 2024 attempted assassination against president Trump be the object of an in-depth investigation?
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 7, 2024
Trump, “The Manchurian Candidate”
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency,
Regime Change in America
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 4, 2017
Introduction
Obama has formally accused Moscow of interfering in the US elections on behalf of Donald Trump [December 2016]. These are serious allegations. Whereas the sanctions are directed against Russia, the ultimate intent is to undermine the legitimacy of president-elect Donald Trump and his foreign policy stance in relation to Moscow.
According to the US media, the sanctions against Moscow were intended to “Box in President-elect Donald J. Trump” because Trump “has consistently cast doubt” that Putin was involved in the alleged hacking of the DNC. \In an earlier report on Kremlin meddling, the NYT (December 15, 2016) depicted Donald Trump as “…a Useful Idiot”… an American president who doesn’t know he’s being played by a wily foreign power. (emphasis added)
But the accusations against Trump have gone far beyond the “Box in” Narrative.The unspoken truth pertaining to Obama’s Executive Order is that the punishment was intended for Trump rather than Putin.
The objective is not to “Box-In” the president-elect for his “unfamiliarity with the role of intelligence”. Quite the opposite: The strategy is to delegitimize Donald Trump by accusing him of high treason.
In recent developments, the director of National Intelligence James Clapper has “confirmed” that the alleged Russian cyberattack constitutes an “existential threat to our way of life”.
“Whether or not that constitutes an act of war [by Russia against the US] I think is a very heavy policy call that I don’t believe the intelligence community should make,” said Clapper.
That “act of war” not by Russia but against Russia seems to be have been endorsed by the outgoing Obama administration: several thousand tanks and US troops are being deployed on Russia’s doorstep as part of Obama’s “Operation Atlantic Resolve” directed against the Russian Federation.
Are these military deployments part of Obama’s “act of retribution” against Russia in response to Moscow’s alleged hacking of the US elections?
Is this a “fast-track” procedure on the part of the outgoing president with the support of US intelligence, intended to create political and social chaos prior to the inception of the Trump administration on January 20th?
According to Donbass DINA News: “A Massive US military deployment [on Russia’s border] should be ready by January 20 [2017].” (emphasis added)
Political Insanity prevails.
And insanity could potentially unleash World War III.
Meanwhile the “real story” behind the hacking op. is not front page news. The mainstream media is not covering it.
Destabilizing the Trump Presidency
The ultimate intent of this campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction is to destabilize the Trump presidency.
Prior to the November 8 [2016] elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.
Vanity Fair November 1 2016
The Atlantic October 8 2016
In the wake of the Grand Electors’ Vote (in favour of Trump) and Obama’s sanctions against Moscow, the accusations of treason directed against Donald Trump have gone into high gear:
“A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump. He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a “ridiculous” political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.” (Boston Globe, December 16, emphasis added)
“Liberals are suggesting President-elect Donald Trump is guilty of treason after President Obama announced new sanctions against Russia and Trump praised Vladimir Putin’s response to the sanctions.” (Daily Caller, December 30, 2016, emphasis added)
Coordinated Operation to Destabilize the Trump Presidency?
Is Trump “in bed with the enemy”?
These are serious accusations allegedly backed up by US intelligence which cannot be brushed away.
Will they just be forgotten once Trump accedes to the White House? Unlikely. They are part of a propaganda campaign on behalf of powerful corporate interests.
What is at stake is tantamount to a carefully coordinated operation to destabilize the Trump presidency, characterized by several distinct components.
The central objective of this project against Trump is to ensure the continuity of the Neocons’ foreign policy agenda geared towards global warfare and Worldwide economic conquest, which has dominated the US political landscape since September 2001.
Let us first review the nature of the Neocons’ foreign policy stance.
Background on The Neocons’ Foreign Policy Agenda
In the wake of 9/11, two major shifts in US foreign policy were devised as part of the 2001 National Security Strategy (NSS).
The first pertained to the “global war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda, the second introduced the preemptive “defensive war” doctrine. The objective was to present “preemptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:
“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
The preemptive war doctrine also included the preemptive use of nuclear weapons on a “first strike” basis (as a means of “self-defence”) against both nuclear and non-nuclear states. This concept of a preemptive first strike nuclear attack was firmly endorsed by Hillary Clinton in her election campaign.
In turn, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) launched in the wake of 9/11 has come to play a central role in justifying US-NATO military intervention in the Middle East on “humanitarian grounds” (R2P), including the instatement of so-called “No Fly Zones”. GWOT also constitutes the cornerstone of media propaganda.
The military and intelligence dimensions of the Neocons’ project are contained in The Project for the New American Century formulated prior to the accession of George W. Bush to the White House. The PNAC also posits a “Revolution in Military Affairs” requiring a massive budget outlay allocated to the development of advanced weapons systems including a new generation of nuclear weapons.
The Neocon project also includes a menu of “regime change”, “color revolutions”, economic sanctions and macro-economic reforms directed against countries which fail to conform to Washington’s demands.
In turn, the globalization of war supports Wall Street’s global economic agenda: The (secretly negotiated) Atlantic and Pacific trade blocks (TPP, TTIP, CETA, TISA), coupled up with IMF- World Bank- WTO “surveillance” are an integral part of this hegemonic project, intimately related to US military and intelligence operations.
“The Deep State” and The Clash of Powerful Corporate Interests
Global capitalism is by no means monolithic. What is at stake are fundamental rivalries within the US establishment marked by the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency. In this regard, Trump is not entirely in the pocket of the lobby groups. As a member of the establishment, he has his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his commitment to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow does not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors, which supported Clinton’s candidacy.
There are powerful corporate interests on both sides, which are now clashing. There are also overlapping allegiances and “cross-cutting alliances” within the corporate establishment. What we are witnessing are “inter-capitalist rivalries” within the spheres of banking, oil and energy, the military industrial complex, etc.
Is “The Deep State” divided? These corporate rivalries are also characterized by strategic divisions and clashes within several agencies of the US State apparatus including the intelligence community and the military. In this regard, the CIA is deeply embedded in the corporate media (CNN, NBC, NYT. WP, etc) which is waging a relentless smear campaign against Trump and his alleged links to Moscow.
But there is also a countervailing campaign within the intelligence community against the dominant Neocon faction. In this regard, the Trump team is contemplating a streamlining of the CIA (aka purges). According to a member of the Trump transition team (quoted by the Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017),
“The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized, … They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.”
This project would also affect CIA operatives responsible for propaganda embedded within the mainstream media. This would inevitably create profound divisions and conflicts within the US intelligence apparatus, which could potentially backlash on the Trump presidency. it is unlikely that a Trump administration would be able to undermine the inner structures of US intelligence and CIA sponsored media propaganda.
Continuity in US Foreign Policy?
Crafted in the late 1940s by US State Department official George F. Kennan, the “Truman Doctrine” sets the ideological foundations of America’s post-war hegemonic project. What these State department documents reveal is continuity in US foreign policy from “Containment” during the Cold War to today’s post 9/11 doctrine of “Pre-emptive Warfare”.
In this regard, the Neocons’ Project for the New American Century’s blueprint (cited above) for global conquest should be viewed as the culmination of a post-war agenda of military hegemony and global economic domination formulated by the State Department in 1948 at the outset of the Cold War.
Needless to say, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been involved in carrying out this hegemonic blueprint for global domination, which the Pentagon calls the “Long War”.
In this regard, the Neocons have followed in the footsteps of the “Truman Doctrine”.
In the late 1940s, George F. Kennan called for building a dominant Anglo-American alliance based on “good relations between our country and [the] British Empire”.
In today’s world, this alliance largely characterizes the military axis between Washington and London, which plays a dominant role inside NATO to the detriment of Washington’s (continental) European allies. It also includes Canada and Australia as key strategic partners.
Of significance, Kennan underscored the importance of preventing the development of continental European powers (e.g. Germany, France, Italy) which could compete with the Anglo-American axis.
The objective during the Cold War and its aftermath was to prevent Europe from establishing political as well as economic ties with Russia.
In turn, NATO largely dominated by the US has prevented both Germany and France from performing a strategic role in World affairs.
Trump Foreign Policy Realignments
It is highly unlikely that a Trump administration would depart from the mainstay of US foreign policy.
While the Trump team is committed to a socially regressive and right wing agenda on the domestic front, certain foreign policy realignments are possible including a softening of the sanctions against Russia, which could potentially have an impact on the multibillion dollar contracts of the military industrial complex. This in itself would be a significant achievement which could contribute to a period of Detente in East-West relations.
Moreover, while Trump has put together a right wing cabinet of generals, bankers and oil executives, which largely conforms to the mainstay of the Republican Party, the bi-partisan “entente cordiale” between Democrats and Republicans has been broken. Meanwhile, there are powerful voices within the GOP who are supportive of the “anti-Trump faction”.
The divisions between these two competing factions are nonetheless significant. With regard to US foreign policy, they largely pertain to US-Russia bilateral relations which have been jeopardized by the Obama administration as well as to the ongoing US military agenda in Syria and Iraq. They also have a bearing on the European Union, which has been affected by Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia.
The sanctions have resulted in a dramatic decline in EU trade and investment with the Russian Federation. In conformity with the “Truman Doctrine” discussed above, US foreign policy under the Neocons, particularly since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had sought to dismantle the Franco-German alliance and weaken the European Union.
Of relevance in relation to recent developments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, George F. Kennan explicitly pointed in his 1948 State Department brief, to “a policy of containment of Germany, within Western Europe”. What Kennan’s observations suggest is that the US should be supportive of a European Project only inasmuch as it supports US hegemonic interests. And that is precisely what the Neocons have achieved under the Bush and Obama administrations:
“Today both Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel are taking their orders directly from Washington. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a turning point. The election of pro-US political leaders (President Sarkozy in France and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany) was conducive to a weakening of national sovereignty, leading to the demise of the Franco-German alliance. ” (Michel Chossudovsky America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. Global Research, 2014)
The more significant question is whether this realignment under a Trump administration will restrain the deployment of NATO troops and military hardware in Eastern Europe on Russia’s doorstep. Will it be conducive to nuclear disarmament?
While Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been the target of “dirty politics” by the Clinton faction, the new administration has powerful corporate backers who will no doubt challenge the Neocons including those operating within the intelligence community. It is worth noting that Trump also has the support of the pro-Israel lobby as well as Israeli intelligence. In December, the head of Mossad met up with the Trump team in Washington.
The Timeline of the Destabilization Project
At the outset, prior to the November 8 elections, the project to disrupt and destabilize the Trump presidency consisted of several coordinated and interrelated processes some of which are ongoing while others have already been completed (or are no longer relevant):
the media smear campaign against Trump, which has taken on a new slant in the wake of the November 8 [2016] elections (ongoing);
the engineered anti-Trump protest movement across the US, coordinated with media coverage, petitions, with the objective to disrupt (ongoing);
The vote recount in three swing states, (No longer relevant)
The passing of H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which includes a section directed against so-called “pro-Moscow independent media”, in response to Moscow’s alleged interference in the US elections in support of Donald Trump;
The Electoral College Vote on December 19 [2016] (No longer relevant)
The Petition launched by California Sen Barbara Boxers on Change.org pertaining to the electoral College vote (No longer relevant)
The ongoing “Disrupt” Campaign intent upon disrupting the January 20, 2017 Presidential Inauguration Ceremony.
The possibility of an impeachment procedure is already contemplated during the first year of his mandate.
The Catch Phrase is “Disrupt”. The Objective is “Disrupt”
In turn, the Disruptj20.org website [link no longer functional] is calling for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:
#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.
What are the Possible Outcomes?
The propaganda campaign together with the other components of this operation (protest movement, anti-Trump petitions, etc) are used as a means to discredit an elected-president.
This media propaganda campaign against an incoming president is unprecedented in US history. While the MSM routinely criticize politicians in high office including the president of the US, the media narrative in this case is fundamentally different. The incoming president is the target of an organized media smear campaign which will not subside upon Trump’s accession to the White House.
Concurrently, an engineered and coordinated protest movement against Trump has been ongoing since November 8. [2016] In fact it started on the evening of November 8 prior to the announcement of the election results. The protests have all the appearances of a “color revolution” style op.
The media also provides a biased coverage of the engineered protest movement. The organizers and recruiters are serving the interests of powerful corporate lobby groups including the defence contractors. They are not serving the interests of the American people
It is unlikely that these various initiatives including the Disrupt campaign will have a significant bearing on Trump’s inauguration. Our assessment suggests, however, that the president-elect will accede to the White House amidst an aura of controversy.
Impeachment is the “Talking Point”
The propaganda campaign will continue in the wake of Trump’s inauguration intimating accusations of treason. The impeachment of Donald Trump has already been contemplated, prior to his accession to the presidency. In the words of the Huffington Post (January 1, 2017):
“There is only one constitutional way to remove a president, and that is via impeachment.
What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.
The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.”
Change.org which organizes the engineered protest movement has launched a petition to impeach Trump:
Change.org petition campaign
Boston Globe, December 16, 2016
Huffington Post, December 26, 2016
The American People are the Unspoken Victims: The Need for A Real Mass Movement
The American people are the unspoken victims of this clash between competing capitalist factions. Both factions are serving the interests of the elites to the detriment of the US electorate.
In turn, meaningful real grassroots opposition to Trump’s right-wing social policy agenda has been “kidnapped” by an engineered protest movement financed and controlled by powerful economic interests. The organizers of this movement are acting on behalf of powerful elite interests. People are misled. What is required in the months ahead is the development of “real” social movements against the new Trump administration with regard to broad social and economic issues, civil rights, health care, job creation, environmental issues, foreign policy and US led wars, defense expenditure, immigration, etc.
Independent grassroots movements must consequently be divorced from the engineered protests backed and financed (directly or indirectly) by corporate interests. This is no easy task. The funding and “manufacturing of dissent”, the manipulation of social movements, etc. are firmly entrenched.
Ironically, neoliberalism finances activism directed against neoliberalism. “Manufacturing dissent” is characterized by a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.
“Co-optation is not limited to buying the favors of politicians. The economic elites –which control major foundations– also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 20, 2010)
Is America gearing Towards a Deep-seated Constitutional Crisis
At this stage it is difficult to predict what will happen under a Trump administration. What seems abundantly clear, however, is that America is gearing towards a deep-seated political crisis, with major social, economic and geopolitical ramifications.
Is the tendency (at some future date) towards the adoption of martial law and the suspension of constitutional government?
Note: This article relies in part on previous texts written by the author pertaining to the US elections.
Updated on January 5, 2017
.
.
RussiaGate 2.0
Regime Change in America (2024)
by
Michel Chossudovsky
June 2024
Introduction
The constitutional crisis which has been ongoing in the course of the last 7-8 years –overlapping with the Covid crisis– has concurrently triggered an unprecedented collapse in the basic tenets in U.S. foreign policy, largely directed against Russia and China. It has also resulted in the most serious economic and social crisis in World history.
Moreover, The Biden Administration has also endorsed the insidious role of NATO and its unbending support of the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime.
RussiaGate is alive and kicking. Normalization of diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation as proposed by Donald Trump in 2017, not to mention real peace negotiations are not part of ruled based foreign policy pronouncements of the outgoing Biden presidency.
The levels of political manipulation, fraud and criminality have reached their pinnacle.
Donald Trump has opted for real peace negotiations
It’s an integral part of his election campaign.
Trump’s national security advisory team has prepared a balanced plan: if the Kiev regime does not enter into peace talks with Moscow, the U.S. would (under a Trump presidency) immediately suspend the flow of US weapons to Ukraine:
“Under the plan drawn up by General Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who both served as chiefs of staff in Trump’s National Security Council during his 2017-2021 presidency, there would be a ceasefire based on prevailing battle lines during peace talks, Fleitz said.
They have presented their strategy to Trump, and the Republican presidential candidate responded favorably”. (Reuters, June 23, 2024)
This strategy was formulated a few weeks prior to the failed attempt to assassinate Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.
On the campaign trail, “Trump has repeatedly said he could end Russia’s war within 24 hours if elected president”
without specifying the steps for reaching a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine is ready to cooperate with the Republican Party if Trump is elected as the U.S. president.
Video. Trump Assassination Attempt
Pennsylvania, July 13, 2024. This video was added to the article on July 14, 2024
RussiaGate 2.0 and the Project of the New American Century (PNAC)
What was initiated in 2016 under RussiaGateis now unfolding under RussiaGate 2.0
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a corrupt political clique within the Democratic Party:
“…began the assault on Donald Trump seven years ago with absurd accusations that Trump teamed up with Russian President Putin to interfere in the US presidential election, throwing the victory to Trump.
This led to the absurd Department of Justice (sic) investigation of “Russiagate” which ended after years of dragging Trump through the mud with a Special Council’s report that the charge had no basis in fact and reflected poorly on the FBI’s honesty and professionalism”.
Trump was considered by “The Deep State” as a “political impediment” to the conduct of America’s “Long War” as defined by the Project for the New American Century.
The PNAC dispels the planning of “consecutive” military operations: it describes:
America’s “Long War” is defined as follows:
“fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”
The conduct of “Simultaneous theater Wars” is the backbone of America’s hegemonic Agenda.
It’s a project of global warfare. The PNAC controlled by the NeoCons also dispels diplomacy and the holding of real peace negotiations.
The PNAC was published at the height of the presidential election campaign in September 2000, barely 2 months prior to the November 2000 elections. It has become the backbone of US foreign policy at the outset of the G.W. Bush administration
It is the basis for the carrying out a hegemonic global warfare agenda, coupled with the imposition of a “Unipolar World Order”.
The Nuclear Agenda and Global Warfare
The threat of nuclear war has reached new heights under Biden. In recent developments, the Pentagon has announced the development of the B61-13 gravity bomb which is
“24 times more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima in WW II, aims to address evolving security challenges. It won’t increase the total nuclear stockpile. This decision aligns with a changing security landscape, with a focus on deterrence and alliance assurance, as stated by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb.”
Why Does the Biden administration require a $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program which is slated to increase to $2.0 trillion in 2030?
Superiority in Nuclear War is the backbone of the NeoCon agenda as expounded in the PNAC. The objective is to “Maintain Nuclear Superiority”, specifically in relation to the US-Russia balance.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, this is a troubling development:
“the United States is building or proposing, … that a new nuclear arms race is expanding. ….Most tragically, it further cements an absolute commitment on the part of the United States to retain nuclear deterrence as the centerpiece of its security policy for decades to come. While most of us hope the world can eventually stop relying on the threat of mass murder at a global scale as the basis for international security, the B61-13 moves everyone further away from that day. (Stephen Young, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)
The “new nuclear arms race” is part of the PNAC as well as the restructuring of NATO which is predicated on “Investing in our Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defence capabilities”
Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security. The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. (NATO Summit Declaration)
Flash Forward to June 2024. RussiaGate 2.0
The RussiaGate objective THEN AND NOW is:
“to get rid of a President who intended to normalize relations with Russia, thus curtailing the budget and power of the military/security complex” (Paul Craig Roberts, emphasis added)
In January 2019, the FBI Russia investigation was quoted by the media as “evidence” that Trump was “wittingly or unwittingly” an agent of the Kremlin.
Even prior to the inauguration of president Trump, the US media in liaison with US intelligence had launched successive waves of smears directed against President elect Donald Trump.
The objective from the very outset was to discredit president Trump, presenting him as a Manchurian candidate serving the interests of the Kremlin.
RussiaGate initiated in 2016 is a continuum?
It has once again reached a new climax. In recent developments, as outlined by Ralph Nader:
After the jury came in with its verdict that Donald Trump was guilty of a scheme and coverup to illegally influence the 2016 election, the Biden campaign issued a statement saying that the judgment demonstrated that “no one is above the law,” not even a former President. The overwhelming truth is that the majority of criminal laws are not a deterrent to the serious violations of law committed by sitting presidents of the United States.
This includes the incumbent Joe Biden, especially with regard to foreign and military decisions.
At least five long-standing federal laws explicitly condition the shipment of weapons to foreign countries. It is legally impermissible for the U.S. government to provide weapons to countries that violate human rights or use these weapons offensively.
Day after day, Joe Biden has become a co-belligerent with Netanyahu’s genocidal war crimes and mass slaughter of innocent children, women and men. He has violated all five of these federal laws. (See Nader’s February 16, 2024 column: Biden & Blinken – Rule of Illegal Power Over Rule of Law).
It is worth noting that Tulsi Gabbard has also condemned Biden for abusing the US justice system:
“Joe Biden has turned our country into a banana republic, “where those in power use the legal powers and the law enforcement against their opponents”:.
Martial Law
What is at stake in the months leading up to the 2024 November elections, is complex.
Inasmuch as Trump remains committed to restoring diplomatic relations with Moscow, he may be sidetracked or he may be used as a carefully negotiated “solution” by the Deep State.
I should mention that Trump is fully aligned with Israel. He has the support of the Zionist lobby.
What however is more serious, Martial Law could be invoked in relation to the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East prior to the November elections.
At the same time martial law could be adopted concurrently in relation to the evolving Covid crisis, the mRNA vaccine and its devastating economic and social aftermath.
My January, 4, 2017 article concluded with the following sentence:
“Is the tendency (at some future date) towards the adoption of martial law and the suspension of constitutional government?” (emphasis added)It is worth noting that war preparations against Russia were already ongoing in 2016 under Obama’s “Operation Atlantic Resolve”.
John Forbes Kerry succeeded Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in February 2013, exactly one year prior to the U.S. sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat in Ukraine.
Victoria Nuland –who was directly involved in the February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat– was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, working under the helm of Secretary of State John F. Kerry.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 13, 2024, video of Attempted Assassination of President Donald Trump, added on July 13, 2024
Author’s Note:
Global Research is based in Canada. As an independent media, we support the normalization of diplomatic relations and peace negotiations with Russia. Global Research has no links to U.S. party politics. Our mandate is to reveal the truth. We are in solidarity with the American people.
A crise política na Alemanha não parece terminar no curto prazo. O colapso do governo preocupa as autoridades do país, e há também um cenário social desequilibrado que coloca em risco toda a estabilidade alemã. Num discurso recente, Olaf Scholz reconheceu que a situação na Ucrânia é a principal razão desta crise, particularmente devido ao apoio sistemático prestado por Berlim ao regime de Kiev.
O primeiro-ministro alemão afirmou que a principal razão da crise política do país é a falta de consenso entre as autoridades sobre o apoio militar à Ucrânia. Ele culpou o ex-ministro das Finanças, Christian Lindner, por se recusar a aprovar um plano orçamentário para aumentar ainda mais o financiamento para Kiev. Segundo Scholz, a posição de Lindner criou polarização entre as autoridades e desfez a coalizão do governo.
Scholz demitiu recentemente Lindner do seu cargo, criando fortes atritos entre os diferentes grupos que apoiam o governo. Lindner também é o líder do Partido Democrático Liberal, um dos três partidos que compõem a coalizão pró-Scholz. A sua demissão causou descontentamento não só entre os membros do partido, mas também entre os sociais-democratas e os “Verdes”, criando um ambiente de desconfiança entre a equipe de Scholz.
A rivalidade entre Scholz e Lindner começou como uma disputa sobre como estabelecer uma política de apoio à Ucrânia consistente com a situação financeira da Alemanha. Os dois responsáveis tiveram uma discussão amarga e possivelmente desrespeitosa durante uma reunião em que Scholz tentou forçar Lindner a aprovar um novo plano econômico que permitiria mais ajuda militar à Ucrânia, ignorando assim alguns dos principais problemas sociais da Alemanha, como o declínio econômico e a desindustrialização. .
Scholz tenta disfarçar a natureza do seu plano econômico alegando que este inclui esforços para promover o desenvolvimento de energias limpas e investimento na indústria automóvel. Contudo, a questão ucraniana é o fator central da proposta. Scholz afirma que é necessário ampliar as políticas de ajuda a Kiev, considerando que o inverno está chegando e os ucranianos necessitarão cada vez mais de ajuda internacional para superar as dificuldades da temporada. O chanceler afirma ainda que, com a vitória de Donald Trump nos EUA, a principal responsabilidade pelo apoio à Ucrânia recairá sobre a Alemanha e os europeus, razão pela qual espera que seja aprovado um plano econômico que estabeleça uma assistência clara a Kiev.
“O ministro das Finanças não demonstra vontade de implementar esta oferta no governo federal em benefício do nosso país. Não quero mais sujeitar nosso país a tal comportamento”, disse Scholz.
Scholz está atualmente em uma situação política crítica. Os seus seguidores tornaram-se uma minoria no governo, uma vez que a demissão de Lindner também encorajou a demissão de outros ministros e funcionários. É possível que sejam convocadas eleições antecipadas em Março, e o Presidente alemão Frank-Walter Steinmeier já se pronunciou a favor disso. É evidente que a Alemanha atravessa um dos momentos mais críticos da sua história pós-Guerra Fria, deixando de ser o país estável, pacífico e desenvolvido tão elogiado pelos social-democratas europeus nos anos anteriores.
Além disso, os adversários políticos de Scholz estão a pressionar os restantes funcionários do seu governo para estabelecerem uma agenda diferente da do chanceler. Por exemplo, de acordo com a mídia alemã, Lindner pediu ao Ministério da Defesa que impusesse novos limites à ajuda militar à Ucrânia, justificando o seu pedido com base em cálculos econômicos que provam a incapacidade da Alemanha de continuar a aumentar a assistência. Berlim já reduziu para metade a sua ajuda a Kiev, mas Lindner e outros políticos realistas dizem que esta precisa de ser ainda mais cortada para superar o défice de milhares de milhões de dólares do país.
No final, fica claro como o conflito na Ucrânia é responsável pela crise política alemã. O próprio Olaf Scholz admite que a falta de consenso sobre a questão ucraniana levou ao colapso do seu governo, o que parece ser razão suficiente para Berlim repensar a sua política em relação à Ucrânia. Em vez de demitir ministros que pensam diferente, Scholz deveria prestar mais atenção aos cálculos que expõem a realidade alemã, reconhecendo que não é viável para o país continuar a apoiar o regime ucraniano no longo prazo.
Se Scholz não mudar a sua estratégia em relação à Ucrânia, será derrotado em novas eleições parlamentares. Além disso, o custo político dos seus esforços será em vão porque a ajuda alemã à Ucrânia não é capaz de mudar nada no cenário de conflito. No final, o governo Scholz deverá tornar-se mais um dos muitos governos europeus que ruíram no meio da crise que afeta o continente desde 2022.
He deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic.
Former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Richard Haass recently published a detailed article for his think tank’s journal about how “The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine: Why Washington Must Redefine Its Objectives”. He observed that the US never clearly defined what victory means, which has led to false expectations, deep disappointment, and confusion about the endgame. Haass then proceeds to explain why the US should push Ukraine to compromise with Russia.
Zelensky’s much-ballyhooed “Victory Plan” “is not a plan for victory, but a prescription for continued war”, Haass wrote, warning that “If Kyiv’s allies walk away, it could end up being a prescription for defeat.”
Instead, he suggests settling for Ukraine remaining “an independent, sovereign, and economically viable country”, which requires ending hostilities as soon as possible.
.
.
To that end, its Western partners “should tell Kyiv that Western support cannot be expected to continue at or near current levels without it. But they should also make an ironclad pledge to do everything in their power to provide Ukraine with arms for the long haul.” This includes giving it long-range weapons as a deterrent to Russia resuming the conflict at a later date. A buffer zone would also ideally be carved out along the Line of Contact, potentially with peacekeepers, but neither side would give up their claims.
Haass then proposes that the second diplomatic phase “could involve territorial transfers in both directions and a degree of autonomy for the inhabitants of Crimea and Ukraine’s east. It would also involve the creation of a security guarantee for Ukraine.” He added that this should involve formal NATO membership, but a coalition of the willing therein that provides credible security guarantees could suffice. Phased sanctions relief for Russia could also induce compliance with the ceasefire.
Moreover, “the West might ask Ukraine to forswear nuclear weapons” while NATO “could pledge not to station its forces on Ukraine’s territory”, which could meet some of Russia’s stated interests. Haass then ends by calling on Biden to implement this policy regardless of whoever his successor might be, arguing that he could take the heat for Kamala to carry out this much-needed policy change whereas Trump’s promised efforts to broker a peace deal would be shaped by the conditions that he inherits from Biden.
The former CFR chief deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic. Russia’s Permanent UN Representative recently reaffirmed his country’s position that it won’t accept Ukraine being admitted to NATO in any shape or form. This means that it’ll never agree to its formal membership like Haass proposed even if troops aren’t based there.
Nevertheless, the argument can be made that the raft of bilateral security guarantees that Ukraine clinched with NATO members since the start of this year is practically equivalent to formal membership, with the only exception being that there’s no implied obligation to dispatch troops in its support. About that, Article 5 is misinterpreted by friends and foes alike as mandating the aforesaid, but all that it actually involves is each country deciding on its own the best way to support a beleaguered ally.
The bloc’s unprecedented military aid to Ukraine from early 2022 onwards de facto amounts to the implementation of Article 5 without crossing the line of sending troops there so formalizing this existing form of support through the abovementioned security guarantees simply solidifies the status quo. Russia obviously disapproves of it, but it hasn’t ramped up its surgical strikes against military targets or its battlefield operations in response, thus implying that it tacitly accepts this “new normal”.
Likewise, the West also tacitly accepts that its sanctions failed to inflict the strategic defeat on Russia that they expected, just like it also tacitly accepts that Ukraine won’t reconquer any of its lost regions. Awareness of these “politically incorrect” observations sets the stage for a potential compromise whereby the West and Russia can consider formalizing this state of affairs as the basis for an armistice since each can claim victory in their own way without the other “overreacting” like some have feared.
Russia won’t use nukes against Ukraine in response to that country formalizing its existing Article 5-like relationship with NATO while the West won’t deploy troops to help Ukraine reconquer its lost territory. Phased sanctions relief could incentivize Russia to abide by the armistice, while a mix of Western and non-Western (particularly BRICS countries) peacekeepers could possibly be deployed in the buffer zone. Ukraine might also be coerced to demilitarize part of its universally recognized border with Russia.
On the topic of autonomy for Crimea and Donbass that Haass touched upon in his piece, that’s already in effect since both Russian regions formalized such relations with the federal center upon their accession to the country. Haass is either unaware of this, forgot, or has something else in mind, but in any case, no changes are expected since this arrangement already works well for them. On the flipside, Russia wants Ukraine to grant its co-ethnics cultural autonomy at least, but this is unlikely.
None of the conflicting parties, which includes indirect participants like the West, will be fully satisfied with what was suggested by Haass or was proposed in this analysis in response to his piece. Even so, some of the compromises that were put forth could help lead to an armistice, though the challenge is preventing Russia and/or Ukraine from violating it out of fear that their rival is rearming under this cover ahead of a seemingly inevitable unannounced first strike. There’s no perfect solution to this dilemma.
Both sides will indeed rearm under this cover, but Russia could be positively influenced by phased sanctions relief at a comparatively accelerated pace while Ukraine could be restrained if the US has the political will and international peacekeepers do their duty monitoring compliance with the ceasefire. There’ll still remain the chance that one or the other could “go rogue” due to their unresolved security dilemma, but these additional proposals are the most realistic means for reducing that possibility.
All told, Haass’ proposed compromise is very imperfect, but it’s also still impressively better than anything that his peers have thus far put forth. Considering his influence in policy formulation, both directly and over those who are tasked with carrying this out, it’s possible that some of his ideas might be seriously considered or at least generate a debate about their merits among those who matter. The sooner that this happens, the sooner that the US can cut its losses while it still has the opportunity.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
For those who understand what full digitization of everything means, it is clearly pointing the way to digital tyranny, to a digital Gulag – promoted by UNCTAD, a UN organization, well-aware of what they are doing.
One should expect to see the US increasing pressure on Latin American countries towards alignment amid the ongoing Chinese-American geopolitical dispute. Oliver Stuenkel (a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) argues that Trump has his own Monroe Doctrine, and that his “isolationist” foreign policy translates into safeguarding hegemony in the New World.
On November 11, 1918, when the guns fell silent in Europe, some 16 million had been left dead. A ceremonial ritual grew up around commemorating the fallen. So horrific were those events that a convention known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was born, an instrument that initially began as a bilateral agreement between the United States and France to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy.
Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa.Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.”
Zionist hooligans stormed through the streets of Amsterdam on Thursday tearing down Palestinian flags and intimidating passers by. The scene resembled the incidents that occur regularly in the West Bank where fanatical settlers bully and brutalize the sheep herders and olive growers who live on the land.
Let us rather talk today about the six tools of tyranny that are employed to run this country but that you are not empowered to change, or even to address, through elections or any part of the political process.
The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump wants to create a Western-patrolled DMZ along the Line of Contact (LOC) for freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, which was analyzed here and here, dangerously runs the risk of escalating tensions with Russia to the point of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis.
The deeply entrenched fascism of the collective West, the merger of the corporate and the state, is mostly disguised but shockingly palpable in its proxies.
Investigative journalist Abby Martin describes Israeli fascism with these words:
“I hate when I see politicians just trying to denounce Netanyahu as some sort of aberration from Israeli society. No, this is the norm.
This is the norm. Look at every single cabinet minister, every single member of the Knesset is out there spewing genocide, advocating mass murder of not just Palestinians, but babies, babies. It is sick.”
The current Western-supported Zionist holocaust of Palestinians is the distilled essence of Western fascism, Western settler-colonialism, genocide.
And what are some of the real goals behind the Western-supported genocide?
“The ultimate objective,” explains Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.” (1)
Western/Zionist proxies in Syria and beyond (al Qaeda, ISIS and affiliates) serve the same fascist agenda. Investigative reporter Vanessa Beeley explains,
“many in the US are not aware that US forces occupy one third of Syrian territory illegally. The justification of being in Syria to fight ISIS is dishonest. In 2016, in a closed UN session with Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry and Syrian so-called opposition that was recorded and published by the NYT – this recording confirmed three things:
1: Obama policy in Syria was the removal of the Syrian government and President Bashar Al Assad
2: In order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS in the hope that ISIS would advance on Damascus and pressure President Assad into stepping down
3. Weapons that were for the “rebels” under the Obama Train and Equip program mysteriously ended up in the hands of ISIS.
Beneath the veils of war propaganda, Dana Stroul– Joe Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense – then co-chair of the Syria Study Group – “nomalizes” Empire’s illegal occupations and theft of Syrian resources, even claiming that Washington and is proxies “own” one third of Syian territory.
Illegal occupations, support for internationally-proscribed terrorist groups, unilateral coercive economic measures (collective punishment) amount to bald-faced imperialism, which amounts to fascism, given the barbaric nature of Empire’s sectarian proxies.
And what are some of the underlying motivations? Empire seeks to weaken, to subjugate and to balkanize, to impose “Regime Change”, to open up new territories for corporate exploitation, to plunder resources, and to further project its power in the so-called New Middle East. All of this is in contravention of international law and all of it is consistent with fascism laid bare.
Empire disguises its West Asian fascism as ‘humanitarian” even as the death toll in its concurrent wars of aggression amounts to millions of souls. (3)
What About Ukraine?
Here, the fascism presents as literal nazism and genocidal ethnic nationalism, (4) both fostered since the end of World War Two by Western intelligence agencies. These are the Western-supported extremist elements that spearheaded the violent coup against the elected Yanukovych government and instated a Washington-supported nazi-controlled regime that would soon after bomb and kill and genocide its own people in the East of the country.
When the war ends, and the likely outcome of Ukraine’s military defeat materializes, Western corporations will still profit. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), Cargill, Monsanto, and Blackrock will all profit from Ukraine’s misery and the mass-slaughter of its youth. (5) Russia was the fabricated enemy, but never the real enemy.
Elections and democratic posturing are all disguises that conceal the collective West’s deadly fascism and its globalized permanent war agenda, which destroys one country after another, in lockstep, for the narrow benefit of international financial interests — including armament manufacturers, but to the detriment of humanity.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.
As we write, New York City is an unsettling 70 degrees in November. Meanwhile, a cohort of war profiteers, their pockets lined by the very industries destroying our climate, are flying to COP, the annual U.N. climate summit hosted by a petrostate, no less. They’re gathering to “discuss climate solutions”—but one of the world’s biggest contributors to the climate crisis will be entirely overlooked: the U.S. military-industrial complex.
The world’s largest institutional emitter, the U.S. military, sits beyond the reach of the metrics meant to hold countries accountable for climate pollution. Exempt from transparency requirements at the COP or within U.N. climate agreements, the military sector is, in fact, the leading institutional driver of the climate crisis. It burns through fossil fuels on a scale that surpasses entire nations while waging wars that destroy lives, communities, and the land itself. It’s a deliberate omission, one meant to hide the environmental and social costs of militarism from view.
Leading the U.S. delegation to COP is John Podesta — a career defender of militarism, a lobbyist who has worked to fortify the very military establishment poisoning our air, water, and land. Now, he arrives in the conference halls of COP wrapped in a cloak of environmentalism. Yet, as long as he skirts around the elephant in the room, no amount of recycled paper or energy-efficient lighting at COP will address the core driver of the climate crisis. If Podesta ignores the environmental impact of U.S. militarism, he’ll be dooming us.
For those of us directly feeling the crisis, there’s no question that the U.S. Empire’s military machine is central to our climate emergency. Appalachians living through floods and those of us in New York watching temperatures soar out of season are witnesses to the toll. And yet we watch as our leaders, claiming to care about climate, push forward with policies and budgets that only deepen our climate emergency.
In the past year alone, the war on Gaza has been a horrifying example of militarism’s environmental toll. Entire communities were leveled under the firepower of U.S.-funded bombs. In just two months, emissions from these military activities equaled the yearly carbon output of 20 countries. This violence bleeds beyond borders. U.S. police forces train with the Israeli military, and they’ll soon bring their war tactics to Atlanta’s Cop City, where a training center is planned on sacred Indigenous land. Militarism is woven into every facet of our society — taking lives, razing homes, and desecrating land — all while stoking climate disaster.
This crisis can’t be solved by those who are its architects. It can’t be fixed by Podesta’s well-crafted speeches or the administration’s empty pledges. The Biden administration just passed one of the largest military budgets in history, pumping more dollars — and more carbon emissions — into the climate catastrophe. Each weapon shipped, each tank deployed, is an environmental crime in the making, one funded by American tax dollars. We can’t ignore this fact as COP progresses and climate talks fall short yet again.
It’s easy to despair in the face of such unaccountable power. But in times of crisis, clarity can become a weapon. We must expose the truth that militarism is antithetical to climate justice. True climate solutions don’t come from polite panel discussions led by those who wield the tools of destruction. They come from radical honesty and demands for accountability. They come from a commitment to ending the empire choking our planet and communities. And they come from a shared goal of mutual liberation that doesn’t ignore the plight of the many to serve the few.
The cost of militarism is clear, and its environmental toll demands our fiercest opposition. This COP, let’s not let the elephant in the room fade into the background. It’s time for those responsible for our climate crisis—the war machines, the lobbyists, and the industries that back them—to be held accountable. For our survival and for each other, we must demand climate justice that tells the truth.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Aaron Kirshenbaum is CODEPINK’s War is Not Green Campaigner and East Coast Regional Organizer. Based in, and originally from Brooklyn, NY, Aaron holds an M.A. in Community Development and Planning from Clark University. They also hold a B.A. in Human-Environmental and Urban-Economic Geography from Clark. During their time in school, Aaron worked on internationalist climate justice organizing and educational program development, as well as Palestine, tenant, and abolitionist organizing.
Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. Based in Mississippi, Melissa holds a B.A. in Public Relations from Tulane University.
Already in November 2023, UNCTAD has made infamous headlines by announcing a digital future; see this:
“UNCTAD – in blatant derogation of its historical mandate on behalf developing countries, namely the Global South–, will level the playing field, as the saying goes, on behalf of the entire UN System by announcing in a Press Release in Geneva on 15 November 2023, itse-Week from 4 to 8 December 2023, in a major revamp of its annual e-Commerce Week series which began in 2016.
“The digital economy plays a critical role in advancing development goals at all levels. Through inclusive and multi-stakeholder discussions, we can together build a global digital future that works for all.”
“More than 3,000 stakeholders from 130 countries will examine how to turn digital opportunities into shared development gains and close existing divides for a sustainable future.””
For those who understand what full digitization of everything means, it is clearly pointing the way to digital tyranny, to a digital Gulag – promoted by UNCTAD, a UN organization, well-aware of what they are doing.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) seems to have become the UN spearhead for announcing – or re-announcing – the UN system’s anti-human Agenda 2030 ongoing and to come.
Now UNCTAD is helping in selling to the world the climate hoax, big time.
It is warning the world of an imminent climate disaster, as the globe once again is entering one of the most CO2-generating world events, COP29, which will take place in Azerbaijan’s capital city, Baku, between November 11 and 22, 2024.
The official meaning of COP is Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is an international climate summit, which is held annually. At COPs, world leaders gather to work together on solutions to tackle climate change.
As of the current date, the number of participants who have successfully registered for COP29 has surpassed 32,000. The official registration has only begun in June 2024. So, this may just be the beginning of more [participants] to come.
COP28 took place a year ago in Dubai with more than 85,000 participants. If you believe the official interpretation, COPs are for world leaders to find solutions to the inevitable and rapidly progressing climate change.
.
COP28 in UAE (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
.
Really? Does the world have 32,000 or even 85,000 “leaders”? With their reasonable entourage, you might get to 2,000.
What about all the others?
First, all fly into Azerbaijan in CO2-emitting fuel-guzzling jets, hundreds, if not thousands, in private jets.
Imagine? To go and pretend chatting about protecting the environment from earth-killing greenhouse gases?
Most of the world and participants may have never known that COP21 of 2015 in Paris issued a “clandestine” agreement, not to be published, saying that CO2 from wars and other military activities, as well as from air traffic and ocean travel, is not to be counted. Very smart because the military, worldwide, is by far the biggest polluter.
Yet, even considering all human CO2-produced, including from wars, planes and ships, amounts to less than 0.5% of all CO2 and has no impact on the world’s climate, whatsoever. Some real scientists [not bought] are talking about extreme arrogance of mankind pretending to be able to influence our Mother Earth’s climate.
These scientists – those who have escaped the threats of coercion— openly admit that we, humanity, are living in a fake world, one that wants Us, the People, to submit to “guilt-imposed” fear from man-made (us, the people) climate change; a lie.
We have allowed an obscure inhuman elite to create a world way beyond the worst imaginations of George Orwell’s 1984.
Besides, CO2 is as necessary for life as is oxygen. CO2 is food for trees and plants that, in turn, produce oxygen which almost all living beings need to breathe.
Any excess CO2 is immediately absorbed by the oceans, and given off, when needed. It is Mother Earth’s perfect balance that plays with the seasons.
More than 97% of climate influence on earth comes from the sun. And that happens in smaller and larger cycles which, in turn, are linked to the wide-wide universe. But that may be the subject for other debates, many of which are ongoing.
Second, every COP raises hopes among the believers that eventually the solution to stop climate change will be found, if we only pay the right price – and the price of course is money, money from the poor to the rich. Not vice-versa.
Some 95% or more of all the COP attendees, since the COPs exist, are there to make “deals”, seeking networking for big-big business connection, most of which include large, millions of tons CO2-generating contracts. That is what the COPs are good for. The rest is an abject lie.
The fluke of annual COPs started with the first global Environment Conference in Rio, the so-called Rio Earth Summit of 1992. That was the officialization of a long planned criminal lie – namely, that we the people are responsible for a rapidly changing world climate — so that we can be squeezed into strait-jackets, of recurring plandemics, economic crises, natural disasters, famine, excessive poverty, endless wars, leading to an endless chain of confusing and humanity-surmising disasters.
.
Group photo of world leaders meeting at the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13 June 1992. UN Photo/Michos Tzovaras
.
The “climate change” idea is at least 70 years old, but was first advanced by the Club of Rome’s disastrous report called “Limits to Growth” (1972), complemented later by the Club’s “The First Global Revolution” (1991) — a brilliant idea for the unhumans attempting to control humanity.
The United Nations (UN) was created after WWII in 1945 in San Francisco, by 50 countries emerging from WWII, as a serious organization. The leaders of these first 50 members agreed on an international treaty to enshrine equal rights of all people and maintain peace.
Today, the UN system has been overrun by a dark worldwide Deep State, a diabolical cult, aiming at controlling humanity – and that should happen in a fast-forward mode from 2020 to 2030, the infamous UN Agenda 2030.
UNCTAD, the forerunner of the UN system, is now propagating to halt the impending “damage” to the earth through climate change, asking for US$ 1.46 trillion to be pledged during COP29, foremost by the rich countries for the Global South, so that they may take measures to fight climate change.
Following UNCTAD’s mandate, they must address their financial sectors to reorient their investments towards “sustainable development” [whenever you see the word sustainable, be on guard, it is suspect – authors note]; develop “sustainable” growth policies; establish “equitable carbon markets” [whatever that means]; and work for “Energy Transition Minerals”, most likely meaning, let foreign corporations exploit their natural resources, so they can pay back the US$ 1.46 trillion, or whatever they get.
Dear Global South, nothing comes for free. In short, the west needs your natural resources for its extravagant way of life, steels them from you and pays you back with money you will never see, under the pretext that you must fight climate change. A perfect fraud executed grand style, sponsored by a leading UN organization, UNCTAD.
Why wouldn’t you suggest to UNCTAD to fight environmental degradation by requesting its members and business leaders to reduce the ever-growing output of plastic – a huge business of course that ought not to be touched especially not by UNCTAD, the UN-business and trade promoter? Plastic is everywhere. Some of it degrades into nano-plastic, which invisibly in the air, ending up in people’s lungs and brains. See this.
Some rich countries export their plastic waste to so-called developing countries, alias, the Global South, against payment – so the western elites don’t have to deal with it.
Larger amounts of plastic wastes end up in the oceans as small islands, killing bird fish and other sea animals.
This is the real environmental damage that should be fought and eliminated – and it affects most the Global South. Stand up and tell UNCTAD that this is our real problem, NOT climate change.
As long as you participate in these COPs, you are part and parcel of the worldwide fraud.
Instead of human-created CO2 emissions that are supposedly killing our, the world’s, climate, maybe we all should think about the technologies of geoengineering that have been developed for the last at least 80 years and are today mastering the most cutting-edge technologies, which, of course, nobody wants to talk about.
What could cause these excessive floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves, all-destructive “forest fires”, destroying infrastructure, entire towns, living quarters, agriculture, production and industry centers – entire economies, causing havoc, famine, misery, extreme poverty – and eventually death.
Yes, man-made, but not the man-made you are lied to by the COPs and by UNCTAD on behalf of the UN and the dark cult.
It is high time to open eyes, ears, and our superior conscience against the lies, fraud and the power of non-humans attempting to control and enslave humanity.
*
Click the share button below 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.
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 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.
With Donald Trump’s recent victory, Latin America seems to be under the spotlight. For one thing, earlier this month, Trump (who will take office on January 20, 2025) said that, if elected, he would call Mexico’s newly inaugurated President Claudia Sheinbaum “on day one or sooner” to inform her that “if they don’t stop this onslaught of criminals and drugs” coming into the US, he would “immediately impose a 25 percent tariff” on everything Mexico sends into the US. The Republican did call her on November 7 – but, despite the previous harsh rhetoric, it was “a very cordial” conversation – according to Sheinbaum.
Now going further southwards in the Latin continent, Argentine’s Javier Milei will apparently be the first President to meet with Trump this week, even before the latter’s presidential inauguration. The meeting will take place at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s south Florida club, during the exclusive Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Billionaire Elon Musk, owner of X, will also be present. This could indicate Trump will be “favoring” Argentina over its regional rival Brazil.
Together with Trump’s call to Mexico’s Sheinbaum the very same day his electoral victory was announced, those are signs that Latin America is going to be a big deal for the new administration. One should expect to see the US increasing pressure on Latin American countries towards alignment amid the ongoing Chinese-American geopolitical dispute. Oliver Stuenkel (a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) argues that Trump has his own Monroe Doctrine, and that his “isolationist” foreign policy translates into safeguarding hegemony in the New World.
One should note that some degree of Monroeism is not exclusive to Trump. In late 2023, analysts such as Tom Long (a reader in international relations at the University of Warwick) and Carsten-Andreas Schulz (an assistant professor in international relations at Cambridge University) were already warning about the “return of the Monroe Doctrine”. Long and Schulz wrote that, under Joe Biden, the “White House’s warnings about China’s growing footprint in the Western Hemisphere” carried “a distinctively Monroeist undertone.” They argue that Biden might not go so far as to praise the Monroe Doctrine at the United Nations (as Trump did), but Biden’ initiatives in the continent are nonetheless perceived in a similar light by Latin Americans.
Therefore, talking about the Monroe Doctrine “coming back” is, to be more accurate, a matter of focus and intensity – such a doctrine in fact has never really gone away. Moreover, in more recent years, be it with Trump or Biden, it has become clear that being “pro-American” spells disaster for Latin America countries, as I wrote in December 2023. When it comes to being thusly inclined, Argentina’s Milei is indeed quite an extreme case, with his “nightmarish” economic measures.
One may recall that, during his presidential campaign, he even promised to “get rid” of the peso currency by replacing it with the dollar – which would take away the Argentinean Central Bank’s role in the nation’s economy, handing it to the US Federal Reserve – thereby fully giving up any autonomous monetary policy. This plan is still under discussion. Under Milei, Argentina has also stepped back from joining the BRICS group. With Milei’s heavy austerity measures, Argentina’s poverty rate, in the first six months of the new administration, has risen to 53% (which means 3.4 million Argentinians have been pushed into poverty this year). The new poverty rate is the highest level for two decades – Washington has been his economics.
Image: Trump and Bolsonaro meeting in Florida on the weekend of March 7, 2020 via EPA
Under the previous Jair Bolsonaro’s “Westernalist” administration Brazil got a taste of what “automatic alignment” with Washington looks like. The 2019 “Technology Safeguards” agreement on the Alcantara Space Center is a pretty good example. In addition to other things, it granted access to some parts of the strategically placed Brazilian Space Agency’s launching facility to US personnel only. The deal also imposed a number of limitations on personnel as well as resources from non-MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) countries, which excluded China. What’s more, it limited Brazil to launching rockets that are made with US-developed technology, and money thereby earned by the Brazilian government could not be invested into Brazilian rockets.
Bolsonaro ruled Brazil from January 2019 to January 2023 and thus his presidency also coincided with the first years of the ongoing Joe Biden’s presidency. At the time so much was talked about Brazilian alignment with Washington being limited to a Bolsonaro-Trump “friendship”, with Joe Biden even refusing to talk to his Brazilian counterpart. The truth is that fondness aside, Biden handled his Bolsonaro pretty much the same way Trump would: demanding alignment and offering nothing (or not much) in return. This is illustrated, among other things, by Biden’s administration’s pressure to stop Chinese company Huawei from taking part in building Brazil’s 5G network.
The Biden administration in any case “contributed decisively to the maintenance of Lula da Silva in power after the failed coup attempt attributed to former President Jair Bolsonaro”, as Fabiano Mielniczuk, a research member of NEBRICS, describes it. With Bolsonaro’s successor and incumbent Brazilian President Lula da Silva, a healthy partnership did not materialize, though: for instance, Washington has weaponized the environmental rhetoric, maintained pressure on Brasilia to disengage from BRICS, and forced Brazil to postpone the request of Iranian warships.
It was during Trump’s years, in his previous presidency, that the Monroe Doctrine hit Latin America hard, though – with “Bay of Pigs”-like plans (that did not come through) to invade Venezuela through Colombia, for instance. Besides alleged CIA plans to kill Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, in May 2020 American mercenaries attempted to enter the country on speed boats from Colombia as part of so-called Operation Gideon to launch a coup d’etat against Maduro. Caracas accuses Washington and Bogota of having played a role in it. Operation Gideon has been described as a lousy display of incompetence and hubris.
.
Operation Gideon. SEBIN agents displaying captured former US Green Berets (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)
.
With a new empowered Trump’s presidency, the country risks having to face way more efficient operations. The issue of Venezuela has been haunting elections in South America – as we have seen more recently in Uruguay. Tensions between the Bolivarian Republic and Guyana over territorial claims (amid major oil discoveries) are still on the rise and the specter of both a regional conflict and a US intervention haunt the region.
I’ve recently written on how Trump’s recent victory marked the end of an over three-decade long Bush-Clinton Era and how this development could be, overall, good news for the planet, considering the record. I argued that Trump’s previous 2017-2021 presidency was no match for the Bush-Clinton years in terms of the destruction of nation-states, complicity in genocide, and war-mongering. However, merely pointing out this fact by way of comparison does not amount to implying Trump was or will be a “peace-maker” by any chance.
The Abraham Accords (which lie at the core of the ongoing predicament in the Middle East in so many respects) were, to some degree, his making. The whole issue of Israel itself will be a test and a challenge for the new administration. As for Washington’s foreign policy under Trump pertaining to Latin America, one should not expect, as argued here, anything other than the good old Big Stick approach.
*
Click the share button below 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 President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign promises in his victory speech, the Pentagon could see personnel fired, especially “woke” generals who have embraced progressive movements associated with racial and social issues.
In his last term, Trump faced numerous forms of resistance, especially from the Pentagon, largely due to his position on security issues such as NATO or his willingness to put troops on the streets to suppress protests in the US. Former generals and defence secretaries have been some of the former president’s fiercest critics, labelling him a fascist and saying he was unfit to be president, a Reuters investigation found.
Having gained experience in his first term, Trump is expected to prioritise loyalty in key elements of his administration, which could lead to the removal of military officers and career civil servants he deems disloyal.
In June, when questioned by Fox News, Trump said he would fire generals described as “woke.”
“I would fire them. You can’t have (a) woke military,” Trump said.
According to the Reuters investigation, sources believe that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, a former fighter pilot and widely respected black military commander, is in Trump’s crosshairs after he spoke out on racial discrimination in the US following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.
During the election campaign, Vice President-elect JD Vance expressed his opinion during an interview by stating that political leaders have to “get rid of them and replace” the people who are not aligned with the political vision that the head of state is trying to implement.
This speech corroborates the fear of some of the American elite who understand that this anti-woke movement by Trump could become broad.
Trump’s strongest anti-woke messaging during the election campaign aimed at transgender troops, and it is recalled that he had previously banned transgender service members, posting a campaign ad on X portraying them as weak, with the vow that
“WE WILL NOT HAVE A WOKE MILITARY!”
Removing woke ideology from the US military is seen as imperative by Trump, especially after US News & World Report ranked Russia, and not the US, as having the world’s “strongest military.” Therefore, Trump will not only purge woke ideologues from the military but also those responsible for the war in Ukraine since, as it turns out, the war is responsible for strengthening Russia instead of weakening it.
US military figures facing repercussions for their fervent support for the war in Ukraine is something welcomed by Moscow, which has consistently called for peace negotiations, while the Kiev regime has consistently rejected them despite losing the war and experiencing catastrophic economic decay and demographic decline.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump’s statements in favour of peace in Ukraine differentiate him from other political figures in the US.
“At least [Trump] is talking about peace [in Ukraine]. He is not talking about confrontation, about the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This distinguishes him favourably from the current US administration. It is difficult to predict what will come next,” Peskov told Rossiya 1 television.
At the same time, Peskov noted that Trump is “less predictable” than current US President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, the failed Democratic candidate and rival in the presidential race. According to the Kremlin spokesman, it is not possible to say now whether Trump will stick to the pacifist statements he made during his election campaign.
However, what is certainly predictable is that Trump’s war on “woke” ideology in the US military will not be limited to the purging of generals but also career civil servants at the Pentagon, who could be subjected to loyalty tests, according to current and former officials.
A senior US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters there was increasing concern within the Pentagon that Trump would purge career civilian employees from the department.
“I’m deeply concerned about their ranks,” the official said, adding that several colleagues had expressed concern about the future of their jobs.
“This will be 2016 on steroids and the fear is that he will hollow out the ranks and expertise in a way that will do irreparable damage to the Pentagon,” the official predicted.
In effect, it appears that great changes are coming to the Pentagon and US military once Trump enters the White House on January 20. How this reflects on policy remains to be seen, but it can be expected that the president-elect will focus more on challenging China and supporting Israel against Iran than the current administration’s priority of challenging Russia and supporting Ukraine.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Donald Trumphas named Republican congressman Mike Waltz as his next national security advisor, a position that was held by ultrahawk John Bolton in the last Trump administration.
Like Bolton, Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enough in Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States.
Trump has also confirmed that Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik will be taking on the role of US ambassador to the UN, a role previously held by warmonger Nikki Haley in the last Trump administration. Again, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the old hawk and the new one.
Stefanik is best known for her congressional efforts to stomp out free speech on college campuses, making a lie of Trump’s lip service to the importance of First Amendment rights. As explained by Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp, she’s a hawkish swamp monster whose political career was primed in some of the most odious neoconservative think tanks in Washington, and opposes placing any limits on US military support for Israel. Earlier this year Stefanik actually flew to Israel to give a speech before the Israeli Knesset vowing to help stop the “antisemitism” of protesters against Israel’s genocidal atrocities at American universities.
And now we’re getting reports throughout the mass media that deranged war slut Marco Rubio has been tapped as Trump’s new secretary of state. It’s really hard to imagine anyone worse for the role of Washington’s top diplomat than a warmonger who has spent his entire political career pushing for more wars, sanctions and slaughter at every opportunity.
This should dash the hopes of Trump supporters everywhere that this time their guy really will end the wars and drain the swamp. Trump’s appointment of Iran hawk Brian Hook to help staff the State Department for the next administration and his rumored consideration of Mike Rogers for secretary of defense are likewise bad signs, as is Tucker Carlson’s claim that virulent China hawkElbridge Colby is likely to play a role in the administration.
Trump’s anti-interventionist supporters loudly applauded the other day when he unexpectedly announced that Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley would not be playing a role in the next administration. In response to the announcement, libertarian comedian and podcaster Dave Smith said on Twitter that stopping Pompeo was not enough and that “we need maximum pressure to keep all neocons and war hawks out of the Trump administration.” In response to Smith’s post, Donald Trump Jr tweeted, “Agreed!!! I’m on it.”
“Ignore their words and watch their actions. Been saying it for years, and I’m going to keep on saying it. Ignore their words, watch their actions. Talk, as they say, is cheap.”
Their actions are telling us a lot more than their words right now.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
It was catastrophic, cataclysmic and all destructive. It wiped out empires and aristocracies and tore through the middle class. The First World War was a conflict that should never have happened, was pursued foolishly and incestuously by the royal families of Europe and fertilised the ground for an even greater war two decades later. It produced an atmospheric solemnity of grief and loss, and a lingering, collective neurosis.
On November 11, 1918, when the guns fell silent in Europe, some 16 million had been left dead. A ceremonial ritual grew up around commemorating the fallen. So horrific were those events that a convention known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was born, an instrument that initially began as a bilateral agreement between the United States and France to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy. Eventually, virtually all the established states of the day signed it, heralding a most fabulous illusion, pursued even as countries began rearming.
.
Briand-Kellogg Treaty, with signatures of Gustav Stresemann, Paul Kellogg, Paul Hymans, Aristide Briand, Lord Cushendun, William Lyon Mackenzie King, John McLachlan, Sir Christopher James Parr, Jacobus Stephanus Smit, William Thomas Cosgrave, Count Gaetano Manzoni, Count Uchida, A. Zaleski, Eduard Benes. (From the Public Domain)
.
The commemorators that tend to make an appearance on Remembrance Day often prove to be the war makers of tomorrow. The demand that we all wear red poppies and contribute to the causes of veterans would be all the more poignant and significant were it to discourage killing, foster peace and encourage the brighter instincts of human progress. Instead, these occasions are used by the military minded to ready the populace for the next conflict, a form of vulgar conditioning. Before his death in 2009 at the ripe age of 111 years, Harry Patch, a veteran of the Great War’s trench warfare, proposed that war was “a license to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn’t speak?” That logic is hard to better.
The statement here is not “lest we forget” but “what should be remembered?” Corpses are only memorable if they are useful. The fallen serve as bricks and masonry for the next slaughter, engineered by war criminals, the negligent and the incompetent. They died so that you could live and prosper, or so we are told. The commemorative classes repeatedly refer to “democracy”, “freedom” and “our way of life”, a seedy way of suggesting value in sending the young to an early grave. Accordingly, so that your children should be able to live in a way befitting their standing, you must participate in the next murderous, maiming conflict.
If these commemorations served as lessons, then they should be revered, repeated and rerun with mighty fortitude. Unfortunately, those lessons are never observed. Were that to be the case, such quixotic, costly provocations as the AUKUS pact, which incites nuclear proliferation and arming for future conflict against phantom threats, would be matters of the past.
As things are, these commemorative days mark human idiocy and venality, anticipating the next bloodbath that will enlist the docile for war, leaving the planners untouched by accountability, be it in any legal or ethical sense. To this day, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard,former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former US President George W. Bush, remain at large for illegally invading Iraq in March 2003. It was an invasion based on a monstrous lie on Iraq’s capabilities, notably in the Weapons of Mass Destruction department, one that dismembered a state and unleashed an Islamic fundamentalist whirlwind in the Middle East.
Those in the Remembrance Day promotions business are keen to remind younger converts that the occasion is not just for previous generations. Bianca Wheeler, the new Director of Veterans SA, offers some unconvincing waffle to any unsuspecting newcomers to the creed: “Remember Day is about linking the past to the present, and then taking that and considering what it means for the future.” Wheeler, herself a former naval officer, is keen to change the conventional view of what a veteran is: not necessarily one festooned in medals from the great conflicts, but one dedicated to service. How eye-piping in sweetness.
With each November 11, there is a growing concern. The young seem increasingly estranged and disassociated from these occasions, worry those in the Remembrance Day amnesia racket. “For many young people,” ponders the Hawkesbury Post, a New South Wales paper, “Remembrance Day may seem like an event disconnected from their daily lives. After all, the wars it commemorates feel like ancient history.”
If history is but a record of agreed upon facts, then this occasion is one about agreed upon mythology. Wheeler would have you believe that a historical exercise is at play, hence the following platitude: “You can’t know where to go in the future without knowing where you come from.”
The onus should be on the warmaker, the arms manufacturer and merchants of death, to explain why their nasty handiwork needs to be remembered. By focusing on the dead, we can ignore the reasons for their deployment, the circumstances they found themselves in countries they barely knew existed, falling for causes they could hardly articulate. The statues, monuments and honour boards always mention the heroically fallen; never do they mention those who signed their death warrants to guarantee the Grim Reaper his fill.
As things stand, the armaments complex has far better things to do than turning up at war memorials. Killing fellow human beings is a frightfully pressing business, and there is always ruddy cash to be made from the quarry of the eternally gullible.
*
Click the share button below 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. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
Featured image: A remembrance poppy distributed by the Royal Canadian Legion worn on a lapel (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
This article originally published on November 11, 2023 was revised on January 14th, 2024 with a focus on the dangers of escalation and the role of “False Flags”. It was updated on October 4, 2024
On October 1st, Iran launched Operation “True Promise 2: about 180 missiles were deployed (NYT).A coordinated missile Strike has completely destroyed Israel’s F-35 Base Nevatim “among other key targets”.
“The facility hosts both of the Israeli Air Force’s F-35 fifth generation fighter squadrons, and was previously intended to host a third squadron of the fighters after they were delivered” (Military Watch Magazine)
Teheran has confirmed that the attack was launched in response to Israel’s assassinations of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s chairman Hasan Nasrallah:
“According to a statement released by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the attack was aimed at “three military bases” in the Tel Aviv area:
Labelled “True Promise 2,” the operation follows a year of escalating tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv, and represents a long awaited retaliatory attack after an Israeli strike on Tehran on July 31.
Iran was previously reported to have agreed not to retaliate if Israel deescalated hostilities, with Israel’s invasion and intensive bombardment of Lebanon and assassination of the leadership of the Iranian aligned militia group Hezbollah having been seen to have broken this agreement.” (Military Watch Magazine)
The fundamental question is whether this retaliatory attack will lead to escalation, including an Israeli counter-attack on Iran.
We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
.
And this must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”.
The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking
Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.
Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel.
The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.
.
2. Triggering “False Flags”
Inciting Escalation in The Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean
Let us be under no illusions. Remember Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11. “False Flags” are part of the history of modern warfare. They are sophisticated intelligence operations often requiring infiltration into enemy ranks.
Starting in the immediate wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, US-NATO war ships –including aircraft carriers, combat planes, naval vessels have been deployed in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
These deployments have been described in chorus by the mainstream media as a response to “Palestine’s [alleged] Aggression against the Jewish State”.
They are tagged as humanitarian undertakings: Coming to the rescue of Israel. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
The False Flag concept requires inciting your enemy or an armed jihadist group to confront or “attack America” thereby providing a justification to strike back in self defense: The Houthis in the Red Sea and Hezbollah in the Eastern Mediterranean both of which are allies of Iran.
Trigger one or more incidents with a view to justifying a process of military escalation.
In recent developments, the “False Flag agenda” has evolved towards US-NATO air and naval attacks against Yemen.
“Sadeh, Zubaydah, Abs, Bani, Sana, Hudaydah, and Taiz have been attacked by American forces, initiating yet another war without Congressional approval, a branch of the US government emptied of power.
The New York Times, of course, blames the expansion of the conflict on the Houthis for interfering with shipping to Israel.” (Paul Craig Roberts)
The endgame is to incite Iran through various means to enter the Middle East battlefield, which would lead eventually to a process of escalation. The media is now using the term: “Iranian Proxies” in an ambivalent report by the NYT:
There is no direct evidence to show senior Iranian commanders ordered Yemen’s Houthi rebels to launch attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to a New York Times report citing US intelligence officials.The unnamed sources said they continue to assess that Iran isn’t interested in a wider war, even though it encouraged Houthi operations in the Red Sea.
“The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war that Iran wants to avoid,” the news report said.
“There is no direct evidence that senior Iranian leaders, either the commander of the elite Quds Force or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the recent Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea.” (Quoted by Al Jazeera)
.
.
3. America’s Military Doctrine: Targeting and Killing Civilians
.
The targeting of civilians and the killing of children in Gaza is modelled on numerous US sponsored massacres of civilians (1945-2023) including the 2004 attack on Fallujah. (More than 30 Million mainly civilian deaths in US-led wars in what is euphemistically called the “post War Era”).
.
Veteran War correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot reflected on the indescribable barbarity of the 2004 Fallujah massacre, which resulted in countless deaths and destruction. It was a genocide conducted by the U.S military:
.
“The Americans invaded, chillingly: “house to house, room to room”, raining death and destruction on the proud, ancient “City of Mosques.”
Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard …
One correspondent wrote: “There has been nothing like the attack on Fallujah since the Nazi invasion and occupation of much of the European continent – the shelling and bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, the terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.”
Fallujah, 2004
.
The U.S. is supportive of the Israeli genocide directed against the people of Palestine. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a criminal. He is Washington’s proxy, unreservedly endorsed and supported by the Biden Administration as well as the U.S. Congress.
.
Zionism constitutes the ideological underpinnings of contemporary U.S. imperialism and its unending war against the people of the Middle East.
.
The Zionist “Greater Israel” dogma –as in all wars of religion since the dawn of mankind– is there to mislead people Worldwide as to “who is really pulling the strings”.
.
Zionism has become a useful instrument which is embodied in U.S. military doctrine. The “Promised Land” broadly coincides with America’s hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, namely what the U.S. military has designated as the “New Middle East”.
Cui Bono: “To Whom Does it Benefit”
There are strategic, geopolitical and economic objectives behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine. “Crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators”:
Who are the Perpetrators?
Israel’s War against the People of Palestine serves the interests of Big Money, the Military Industrial Complex, Corrupt Politicians… The Genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.
The US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. The unfolding Middle East War is largely directed against Iran.
.
Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux
Historical Antecedents. Using Israel As a Means to Attacking Iran
In 2003, the war on Iran project (Operation Theatre Iran Near Term, TIRANNT)) was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 15 years.
Let us recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America. And that Israel would, so to speak,
“be doing the bombing for us” [paraphrase] , without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”. For further details see my article below was first published by Global Research in May 2005, as well as PBS Interview with Z. Brzezinski
This Dick Cheney-style option is currently (November 2023) once more on the drawing board of the Pentagon, namely the possibility that Israel which is already bombing Lebanon and Syria, would be incited to wage an attack on Iran (acting on behalf of the United States).
US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons
Careful timing: In June 2023, the US House of Representatives adopted Resolution (H. RES. 559) which provides a “Green Light” to wage war on Iran.
The US House passed a resolution that allows the use of force against Iran, intimating without a shred of evidence that Iran has Nuclear Weapons:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States—
(1) that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable;
(2) that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon under any circumstances or conditions;
(3) to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; and
(4) to recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Whereas Iran is tagged (without evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power.
The Times of Israel reported that: “Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday [November 5, 2023] that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”
Video on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Facility
English subtitles
.
5. The War on Energy
.
Unspoken Objective of a US-NATO-Israel War against Iran: Natural Gas
Reserves of Natural Gas: Iran ranks Second after Russia. Russia, Iran and Qatar possess 54.1 percent of the World’s reserves of natural gas.
-Russia 24.3%,
-Iran 17.3%,
-Qatar, 12.5 % (in partnership with Iran)
versus
-5.3 % for the US
President Joe Biden ordered to “blow up” (September 2022) the Nordstream Pipeline, which constitutes a U.S. Act of War against the European Union.
America’s strategic objective is, despite its meagre reserves of natural gas:
To Force the European Union to buy LNG “Made in America”.
What this implies is that America’s military agenda against Russia and Iran constitutes a means to hike up EU energy prices, which is an Act of Economic Warfare against the People of Europe.
The Iran-Qatar Natural Gas Partnership
The maritime gas reserves of the Persian Gulf are under a (joint ownership) partnership between Qatar and Iran (See diagram below).
The Biden Administration is Intent upon Destabilizing the Iran-Qatar Partnership
This partnership is supportive of the People of Palestine.
In March 2022, “President Joe Biden following a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheik Tamim “designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, fulfilling the promise that he had made to Qatar earlier this year [2022], the White House said” ( Reuters, March 10, 2022 )
“The designation is granted by the United States to close, non-NATO allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. military.
Biden promised Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, in January [2022] during a meeting at the White House that he would grant Qatar the special status.” Reuters See also Reuters (January 31, 2022)
What is at stake are cross-cutting coalitions. Qatar is a “Partner” of Iran in relation to the strategic reserves of maritime gas in the Persian Gulf. There is no formaI military cooperation between the two countries.
Washington’s unspoken agenda is to break and/or destabilize Qatar’s Partnership with Iran, by integrating Qatar into the US-NATO military orbit.
“the Emir of Qatar said the groundbreaking for the Northern Dome expansion project was laid today, which is in line with Qatar’s strategy to strengthen its position as a global LNG producer …
This joint gas field, known as “South Pars” in Iran, is the largest natural gas field in the world and contains 50.97 trillion cubic meters of gas and about 7.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas condensate.
At the time of writing, the implications of Sheik Tamin’s October 2023 expansion project in South Pars Fields (which is in Iranian territorial Waters) as well as Qatar’s “Special Status” Military Alliance with the U.S. remain unclear.
America’s Al-Udeid military base in Qatar (left) is the largest US base in the Middle East.
Have the status and functions of Al Udeid changed since the signing of the March 2022 agreement designating Qatar as a “Major Non NATO Ally of the US”
The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.
The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.
Qatar, Russia and Iran (the 3 largest holders Worldwide of natural gas reserves) reached an agreement in 2009 to create a ‘Gas Troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.
A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing LNG from Qatar.
Last year (November 2022), “QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”. Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.
Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf
Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar)
Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market,
Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries
.
Iran. Third Largest Reserves of Oil Worldwide
Iran is not only second in terms of its gas reserves after Russia, it ranks third Worldwide in relation to its oil reserves (12% of Worldwide oil reserves) versus a meagre 4% for the U.S.
6. Strategic Waterways: The Ben Gurion Canal Project
.
U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways
The Ben Gurion Canal Projectwas initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.
The Ben Gurion Canal project is currently contemplated as means control the channels of international maritime trade to the detriment of the people of the Middle East. It also seeks to destabilize China’s maritime commodity trade.
In the context of the broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”.
According to Yvonne Ridley:
“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)
The U.S led war is intent upon confiscating all Palestinian territories, which would be appropriated by the State of Israel, acting as a strategic “Anglo-American Hub” in the Middle East:
The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.
Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.
Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.
Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)
The Promised Land of Greater Israel coincides with America’s Colonial Design in the Middle East
The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.
In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel– is accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.
Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey
“The New Middle East”: Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
.
8. “America’s Promised Land”. Global Warfare
When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East coincides with America’s long war against the Middle East. As we mentioned earlier the Zionist agenda provides an ideological and religious justification of America’s long war against the Middle East.
The 1979-80. the so-called Soviet Afghan War, engineered by the CIA
The 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War engineered by the U.S.
The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq,
The 2001 The US-NATO Invasion of Afghanistan,
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The 2006 War on Lebanon,
The Arab Spring,
The 2011 war on Libya,
The 2015 war on Yemen
Obama’s 2014-2017 “Counter-Terrorism” Operation against Iraq and Syria
The ongoing wars against Syria, Iraq and Yemen
The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO.
Needless to day, the ideological and religious underpinnings of the “Greater Israel” project are consistent with America’s imperial design.
While the Zionist agenda is not the driving force, it serves the useful purpose of misleading public opinion concerning America’s long war against the people of the Middle East.
The Historical Context: A Sequence of Military Plans and Scenarios to Wage War on Iran
Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT)war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified doc), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage.
TIRANNT was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.
Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Israel does not act without Washington’s approval.
U.S.-Israeli Air Defense
Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.
The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would
“integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.” (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )
What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:
”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).
At the outset of Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel.
And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated.
According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.
Of utmost relevance:
Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.
In practice, a war on Iran, would be a joint US-NATO-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.
Michel Chossudovsky, November 11, 2023, Updated January 14, 2024
Below is my May 2005 Global Research article which provides a detailed historical perspective on US war plans to attack Iran.
At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not “encouraging Israel”. What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (see Seymour Hersh)
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.
“A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. ‘It is getting quite scary.'” (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003)
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran’s nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger “regime change” in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).
Bush advisers believe that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 “smart air launched weapons” including some 500 BLU 109 ‘bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than “adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster“:
“Given Israel’s already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement.” (See Richard Bennett)
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”. (See W Madsen)
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, see also this)
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are “safe for civilians”. Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
“To attack Iran’s nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.” (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible “scenario” at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
“We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don’t think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that.” ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).
Iran’s Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005).
It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
The US “Military Road Map”
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world’s oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:
“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, USPolicy , emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See this)
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness” and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter’s observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel’s IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and “anti-terror maneuvers” together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery)
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as “the appointment of the right man at the right time.” The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz’s appointment was specifically linked to Israel’s Iran agenda: “As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario.”
March 2005: NATO’s Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel’s military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:
“The more Israel’s image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel’s links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey’s impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel’s operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. ” (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an “initial authorization” by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”. (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and “unconnected to events in the Middle East”: “As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises.” (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld (right) was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.”
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran’s North-Western border. US military bases described as “mobile groups” in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to “neutralize Iran”. The longer term objective under the Pentagon’s “Caspian Plan” is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing “American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:
“Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku.” ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld’s visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan’s Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of “The Shanghai Five” military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials “is not being tough enough on Iran…” Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See VOA). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.”
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated “Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator” (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as “a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World’s most deadly “conventional” weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release)
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.
Iran Surrounded?
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
“since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches – Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries… Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran’s reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory.” (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. (“they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”)
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the “war on terrorism” and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.
Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities
John Steinbach,
March 2002
( This article describes Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal. Several of the statements are no longer valid or relevant in 2023
It is understood that in the course of the last 21 years, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have significantly evolved).
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow…
The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes.
The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.
Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, Global Research
The puppet show election is over and the CEOs and political operatives are dividing up the spoils behind the curtain.
In pro-wrestling, there is a winner and a loser. But whether anyone really “won” or “lost” is the talk of fools.
What we do know without any doubt, is that the myth of a Democratic Party that stands for working people has had a wooden stake driven through its zombie heart. That does not mean the Republicans were better, but that their vague offers of change won over some who would otherwise never have supported a con man like Donald Trump.
.
.
.
As candidate for president, let me state again that we cannot accept this bogus election, one pumped full of fraud and deception from the start, covered over with bribes from left to right, and disinformation from North to South. The two so-called candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, had no legitimacy to start with and would never have been selected by the people.
I do not congratulate Donald Trump on his “victory” but rather call on him to step down because his direct participation in state crimes and his acceptance of blatant bribes from the rich and powerful disqualifies him from any public office.
We must hold a transparent, scientific, and internationally monitored presidential election in the near future. There is no other choice.
We the people must lay the stones in the ashes of this burnt house that will be the foundations for a new republic, starting today, and we should do so with confidence, and assurance, knowing that the sound and fury that the decadent puppet masters produce is but an annoying echo of tyranny in the halls of history.
The second Declaration of Independence from the Shadow Empire rooted in Washington, London and Jerusalem offers us a starting point from which we must go forth as we rewrite the rules by which politics is conducted, rather than trying to conform to the bankrupt and rigged rules, the political scraps, that the powerful deign to allow us to have.
Let us forget about elections for the moment. They will not mean anything until we have solid institutions and reliable journalism, until our citizens are entitled to quality education and accountable government—and that process starts with the organization of citizens, block by block, town by town, state by state, into ethical and transparent communities.
.
.
Better to face the truth, and to speak honestly with your family. Better to start your own garden and encourage your neighbor to do so too. Better to print a local newspaper about real issues and distribute it to everyone. Better to explain to your children honestly how the economy works and why we must have these wars. That honest discussion is the start of a new republic and it must never be a matter of raising money from the rich.
Six tools of tyranny that the so-called revolutionaries of the left and right will not mention, and cannot stop:
Let us rather talk today about the six tools of tyranny that are employed to run this country but that you are not empowered to change, or even to address, through elections or any part of the political process.
These six tools of tyranny can be stopped by citizens, but only by building constitutional accountable transparent local organizations and embracing a revolutionary stance in accord with our Declaration of Independence. This revolution cannot be bought, cannot be outsourced, and cannot be brought into being by anyone else but you. As Hillel the Elder said, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
1. Stock Market, derivatives market, and other bogus “markets”
The first tool of tyranny is the stock market. This rigged casino where the rich force us to play our game by their rules and in which they can bankrupt us at any time by changing the rules in midstream is the economic rack on which they torture us. All the politicians and the devious economists bow before this false god shamelessly, Wall Street, offering up the futures of our children to its ugly gods and their bloody fangs. If we cannot create policy that regulates, or eliminates, Wall Street because of its thievery and blatant criminality, then we are but subjects of a horrible shadow tyranny.
2. Advertising, entertainment, and public relations complex
From the cradle we are told what to value and what not to value, not by wise elders, not by the enlightened writings of past ages, not by our parents, but rather by the advertising, entertainment, and public relations complex that brainwashes us without our knowing. We are told we must crave sex and sweet food, that we must live in a big house and indulge in waste if we want to be happy—all by the advertisers and entertainment moguls. We are seduced by the superficial, distracted by titillations of voyeurism, and dumbed down by thrills bereft of meaning, and thus induced into a narcissistic coma—all courtesy of the entertainment industry.
The covert public relations industry spends billions to convince us, using Harvard professors and movie stars, that war is peace, that slavery is freedom, and that false politicians on leashes can lead us to the promised land.
3. The lobbying and consulting complex
The lobbying industry allows corporations and the rich to bribe public officials, to force them to rely on the most despicable elements in our society for the money demanded for election campaigns. Lobbying must be made illegal; yet in this depraved age politicians have their speeches written by lobbyists, have their laws drafted by lobbyists and count on lobbyists to provide cushy jobs for their family and friends. The consultants are a breed of their own, just behind the scenes, making the real decisions for the puppets on TV. Consultants can do anything and they are accountable to no one. They carry the real messages from the billionaires mouths to the ears of those in government.
4. The Federal Reserve, bank, and intelligence/military complex
The Federal Reserve, which creates and devalues our money, is the pawn of private banks, and no longer under the control of the Congress, and far beyond the reach of the people who are forced to use the money it prints up. That means that BlackRock or Black Stone, State Street or Goldman Sachs, or any number of hidden players located overseas, pretending to be “American” can just order money printed up and your money will diluted by inflation as a result. It is called theft. Such monetary thievery has grown worse and it is tied to intelligence now, which is run, in turn, by IT firms like Google, Amazon, Oracle, and Microsoft, and they are working hard to force you to employ digital money which they can take away from you at any moment.
They also cooperate with the Pentagon which uses bogus military budgets as a means of laundering the fake money, or dirty money, that the bankers bring in.
5. The automation, electrification, and digitalization scam
Big business has planted talking heads in universities, in journalism, and in politics who keep telling us we must be on the cutting edge of semiconductors, and must install as soon as possible the latest million-dollar systems for the automation and digitalization of our society in order to remain competitive. But the technologies that we are told we must have they do not improve our lives, but rather they make society more fragile and easily disrupted and they assure that hacking, a break in the supply of energy, or even a software update we never asked for can bring us all to our knees in a way that even a war could do not previously.
Automation and digitalization not only destroy jobs, not only create a Gaza of the soul at the shopping center, or your office, they also make us passive and dependent, they consume massive amounts of energy, they establish a totalitarian form of governance in which people without credit cards or mobile phones do not exist, and they purposely hollow out institutions so that there is no one there behind the websites we see.
As a result, the departments of government, of universities, of all public institutions are managed for profit by private firms that exploit us, rather than assist us, and whose very existence is hidden. Correspondence and telephone calls received from our citizens are handled by 1 people who have no authority or accountability. AI, a scam that allows multinational corporations to determine our lives in secret and to give dictatorial orders that are supposedly produced by supercomputers who are wiser than us, is being introduced in every corner of the nation as part of this war on the people.
6. Medicine as war on the bodies of citizens
The takeover of the entire medical field, from basic research at universities, to academic journals, to hospitals and clinics, to pharmaceuticals, to insurance and public policy by investment banks has created a new form of medicine whose purpose is to extract profit from the citizens at any price and to destroy their bodies using a new form of warfare.
This war went into overdrive in 2020 with the complete takeover of medicine by the military and intelligence during the Covid-19 operation which took as its mission, starting at DARPA, the destruction of the bodies of citizens with dangerous medications that have no scientific value, but are rather new types of weapons and the issuance of pandemic scares meant to induce mind-numbing trauma.
We need to grab these six tools of tyranny by the horns and wrestle them to the ground. The political parties will not touch them; the journalists are silent. We the citizens must do the heavy lifting ourselves.
The peace activist Philip Berrigan described our predicament perfectly,
“We will suffer as a people, and that suffering will take one of several courses. We will continue our obstinate and heavy-handed idiocy up to and through World War Three and burn as the world burns with us. Or we will keep our counsel while America is torn by bloody revolution until domestic chaos makes impossible the false unity needed to fight war. Our decent Americans will learn, as they do not now understand, that proportionate power is no longer in their hands—that power rests today with the economic conglomeration and their political representatives in Washington, and that regaining power must mean introducing nonviolent revolution. Otherwise, power will be taken from its inhuman masters by inhuman means, foreshadowing its inhuman use by new masters.”
*
Click the share button below 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 on Fear No Evil.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
The Israeli media spoon feeds the Jewish population with anti-Arab rhetoric, while keeping world opinion on Israel out of sight. When the Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans arrived in Amsterdam for a match against Ajax, they were shocked to see Palestinian flags flying. Israel bans all Palestinian flags in Israel, Gaza and the Occupied West Bank.
Football fans are usually young, and passionate about their team. Many traveling football fans have reputations for violence, hard drinking and hooliganism. Add to the mix an ongoing genocide in Gaza which almost every country on earth has condemned, and the Israeli fans felt isolated, unwelcome and angry.
The young Jews were caught off guard in Amsterdam, and perhaps they had not been well informed about the atmosphere they were entering into. Last spring, the University of Amsterdam had held student and faculty protests in support of Palestine, following the trend in America. Dutch students demanded that their universities divest of any ties with Israel, as part of the Boycott, Sanction, Divest (BSD) movement gaining worldwide support. The protests were met with an extremely brutal police crackdown in Amsterdam.
On November 6, the Israeli fans tore down Palestinian flags around the city, burned one flag and attacked a taxi driver who they targeted as looking like an Arab. In response, a group of taxi drivers came to confront the Israelis, but the police were alerted to the risk of violence and stepped in to prevent danger to the Israelis.
On November 7, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters had gathered in Dam Square in the afternoon, and around 10 people there were arrested for criminal offences including disrupting public disorder, police said. Later, the Israelis were en route to the game and were videoed on an escalator shouting “F**k the Arabs” and while sitting in the stadium they were heard to chant praises to the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza, and mocking the dead children in Gaza. The game authorities had asked all in attendance to observe a minute of silence in honor of the hundreds dead from floods in Spain. The Jews mocked the silence and jeered the victims in Spain, in reaction to Spain’s embargo on weapons sent to Israel.
On November 8, the news of the actions and attitudes of the Israeli fans had swept through the city, and some residents were ready to react to the visitors who they felt were out of touch with Dutch and global opinion.
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said it was concerned by the violent events in Amsterdam, which it said began with the words and actions of the Israeli fans.
The PFA recalled a previous incident where an Arab man was beaten unconscious by a group of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters in Greece, and called on UEFA and FIFA to address the normalization of genocidal, racist, and Islamophobic rhetoric among Israeli football fans.
The Dutch King, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Ursula von der Leyen, and Josep Borrell all labeled the three days of violence as acts demonstrating anti-Semitism. European leaders decided the easiest way out was to blame themselves, the Dutch, and paint the Israelis as innocent victims of Jew-haters, while ignoring that Europeans have become aware of the injustices Palestinians are suffering in Gaza.
US President Joe Biden said the attacks “echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted”. Lame-duck President Biden will go down in history as the man who could have stopped the genocide in Gaza, but refused. The War on Gaza is Biden’s war. If he had stopped the cash and weapon flow to Israel, lives could have been saved, but he instead turned on the green light even brighter for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Dutch who fly a Palestinian flag, or march in a street protest, or participate in a campus sit-in in solidarity with Palestine are doing so because they enjoy freedom and self-determination in the Netherlands. They feel that Palestinians deserve the same freedom, and that a brutal military occupation in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank should be ended since the International Court of Justice ruled the Israel’s occupation is unjust and must stop.
It is possible that some in Amsterdam are anti-Semitic; however, the vast majority of Europeans are not. In general, the Dutch are freedom-loving and open-minded. They are well-educated and well-informed by a media which is free and access to divergent opinions through the internet is readily available. The Dutch, like most of the world, have come to view the Israeli attack on the Palestinian people in Gaza, in which over 40,000 have been killed and are mainly women and children, is unjust and should be stopped immediately through a ceasefire and negotiations.
In the aftermath of the Amsterdam violence, the Dutch media has spun the story with a Moroccan twist. Media personalities and political figures have come out blaming Moroccans in Amsterdam as the cause of violence.
Sander Sassen, a political commentator for NieuwRechts outlet, accused Moroccans of causing the chaos in Amsterdam. He claims the viral videos show that Moroccan youths targeted the Israeli fans in Amsterdam. The news outlet is associated with the far right in the Netherlands.
Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), well known for his anti-immigrant stance including the Moroccan community, criticized the Dutch authorities for not better protecting the Israeli fans.
Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands, currently numbering about 419,272, have long been singled out for collective, and unfounded blame. Politicians, eager to place blame on people and not themselves, have fueled negative stereotypes and social divisions.
Wilders was convicted of discrimination and inciting hatred after he referred to the Moroccan community in the country as a “scum” during a campaign rally back in 2014. He was convicted for his remarks in 2016, and a court upheld the conviction in July of 2021.
On 28 May 2024, Norway, Ireland and Spain recognized the State of Palestine, the latter two being EU member-states. The Netherlands does not recognize Palestine, but does support the UN ratified two-state solution.
*
Click the share button below 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.
There are 15,000 Jews that live in Amsterdam. They seemed to be just fine until some Israeli hooligans showed up…. Turns out when spend a year making your national anthem “may your village burn”, somebody’s gonna knock your teeth out because—unlike the ICC and the ICJ—the streets have a quicker judicial process… @yoUsaama
Zionist hooligans stormed through the streets of Amsterdam on Thursday tearing down Palestinian flags and intimidating passers by. The scene resembled the incidents that occur regularly in the West Bank where fanatical settlers bully and brutalize the sheep herders and olive growers who live on the land. According to an early report from the Middle East Eye:
Israeli hooligans provoked clashes with Dutch youth in Amsterdam on Thursday after they chanted racist anti-Arab slogans, tore down Palestinian flags and ignored a minute of silence for the Spanish flood victims.
Traveling Maccabi Tel Aviv fans stirred trouble on Wednesday and Thursday in different parts of of the Dutch capital ahead of their Europa League match against Amsterdam club Ajax.
Hooligans were seen removing at least two Palestinian flags from what appeared to be the front of local residents’ homes a night before the match, according to the AD daily newspaper.
An Arab taxi driver was also attacked by mobs who appeared to be with the Israeli fans, although police said they couldn’t identify the nationality of the attackers as no arrests were made.
A group of Israeli fans gathered in the Dam Square on Wednesday were filmed sparking confrontations with locals, shouting “Fuck you” at some of them and “Fuck you Palestine.”Middle East Eye
The spillover of racist bravado and thuggery onto the streets of a European capital should concern those who thought that toxic Zionist ideology could be contained within the Middle East. We now see the flaw in that theory. Fanaticism has no boundaries or geographic borders. These young people are emboldened by their own deeply-ingrained sense of superiority, a phenomenon that Washington elites have fueled for decades thinking it served their overall geopolitical interests. One can only wonder whether this latest explosion of racist violence will trigger some desperately-needed self reflection leading to a reset of the current policy. One can always hope. Here’s more from the MEE:
Ahead of match on Thursday, fans heading to the Johan Cruyff Arena stadium were seen shouting: “Let the IDF [Israeli army] fuck the Arabs”. They also refused to participate in a minute of silence before kick-off for at least 200 people who died in the Valencia floods.
The police have not made any known arrests of the Israeli fans involved in provocative act ahead of the match…..
Amid the provocations against Arabs in the city, clashes erupted between the Israeli hooligans and some youth before and after the match and late into the night.
Footage shared on social media showed people clashing with each other and police intervening. Other videos showed people attacking and chasing some of the Israeli fans…..
A police spokesperson said five people were hospitalized and 62 arrested. MEE
We can safely assume that this recent clash would not have taken place had the international community made some effort to enforce its own resolutions (242) requiring Jewish settlers to withdraw from (internationally-recognized) Palestinian land creating the opportunity for a two-state solution.
But instead of using the tools at its disposal (economic sanctions and peacekeepers) the UN Security Council has allowed itself to fall under the coercive influence of Washington that effectively operates in the interests of the most fanatical elements in Israel. Washington has sabotaged every effort to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis laying the groundwork for widespread social unrest, hooliganism and even genocide. The results of America’s deranged machinations and endless pandering are clear to see. Violence is breaking out everywhere. Here’s more from MEE:
Israeli far-right ultras are notorious for anti-Palestinian verbal and physical violence. In March, travelling Maccabi Tel Aviv fans brutally beat a man who was carrying a Palestinian flag in Athens ahead of their team’s match against Greek team Olympiacos….
“Israel’s most senior leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly courted far-right football supporters in Israel and have received their violent support in return. The well-documented racism and violence exhibited by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam mirrors the thuggery of the Israeli government in Gaza and Lebanon,” Mcgeehan told MEE....
“To rid European football of the type of genocidal chanting we saw from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, Uefa should remind the Israel Football Association of its obligations under article 7(7) of its statutes to stamp out racist behaviour, and impose appropriate sanctions if the IFA does not take action.”MEE
So, the cat is out of the bag. Netanyahu and his allies actually encourage this obnoxious behavior and claim that anyone who opposes it is an antisemite. Anti-Muslim leader of the largest party in the Dutch government, Geert Wilders, who appears to share Netanyahu’s worldview, called the riots a “pogrom” while, at the same time, referring to the Arab victims as “multicultural scum”. Like we said, his views are closely aligned to those of the Israeli prime minister.
Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg summarised this week’s events in Amsterdam in an interview that appeared on Aljazeera on Friday. I transcribed his comments so readers could reflect more easily on what he had to say:
The important thing to remember here, is that this is not the Prime Minister pushing a narrative. This is the Israeli narrative at the moment. Palestinians—simply by “being”—are an existential threat to Israel, to everything Israeli, and also to the general ‘good fight.’ Israelis are shocked that the Dutch don’t realize that Israel is fighting their war for them. Israelis are fighting the existential threat that is threatening to take over Europe. And the fact that Israeli fans rampage and riot in the middle of Amsterdam, sing racist songs, climb the walls of private homes to tear down Palestinian flags; they are just doing what needs to be done. (Sarcasm) That is a major part of the Israeli condition at the moment; a complete rejection of the notion that actions have consequences. ….In this instance, the policies of Netanyahu and his government reflect the Israeli consensus. …This is not indoctrination by government power; this is what Israeli society actually thinks. We are under threat simply by being in the same space as Palestinians. We are perennial victims. What we do we do because we must, we do in self defense, or we do as part of ‘fighting the good fight’. If anybody doesn’t understand that, that’s their problem. We are not subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else and, perhaps more than anything else, this is a demonstration of how deeply ingrained in the Israeli psyche is the sense of ‘rightful impunity’ is. Israelis should not suffer the consequences of any of their actions. We ‘do what we do’ because we have no other choice. Ori Goldberg, comments on Zionist rampage in Amsterdam, Al Jazeera
Finally, here’s a short recap of what took place in Amsterdam by someone who was there and who seems like a credible witness:
The incident with the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam is only getting more insane because last night they were targeted after their horrendous behavior. And instead considering why UEFA (The Union of European Football Associations) let a country that is currently committing a genocide and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, and whose football league is filled with racist teams who pride themselves on not employing Arabs. Well, instead of dealing with that, of course, Zionists and western media are pretending that this is somehow similar to the extermination of Jewish people in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. And, I am sorry, but this is ridiculous, and it diminishes the legacy of these horrors, because these people were not targeted on the basis of their Jewishness. They were targeted because Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are violent hooligans who were rampaging through the streets of Amsterdam, attacking people, tearing down flags, chanting about there being no children and schools left in Gaza, saying let the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) win so it can “Fu** the Arabs” and other horrors. These people need to be banned from international football.
The blame is squarely with UEFA. This isn’t some antisemitic outburst against Jewish people that came from nowhere. This comes from the racism that permeates Israeli society and the way in which this spills over whenever Israelis travel to other countries. And, as I say, UEFA is to blame, because this is not the first incident with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans…. In March they beat a Palestinian man unconscious in Athens before their game…. And, yet, instead of dealing with them, UEFA let’s this group of people who celebrate genocide and violently attack those who oppose it, continue to go around Europe and do more celebrating and expect people not to react. This is farcical and ridiculous, and the way it is being framed is just disgusting. @Teammichael777
As always, the media’s version of events is skewed in favor of the perpetrators. None of the mainstream coverage can be trusted. But you already knew that.
*
Click the share button below 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 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).
AE911Truth is proud to bring you our most illustrious online conference ever!
The 24th Hour. September 7, 2024
This free online broadcast will feature some of the most important voices in our society – including those who are not only calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 but also challenging the establishment position on the most impactful issues facing our world today!
Our guests will include:
Presidential candidate Jill Stein
Comedian and podcaster Jimmy Dore
Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies
Bio-terrorism expert Meryl Nass
Historian Daniele Ganser
Also participating are
Alex Stein,
Sean Stone,
Ian Crossland,
Roland Angle,
Madhava Setty,
Kelly David,
Kamal Obeid,
Craig McKee,
John Schuler,
Barrie Zwicker, and
Anthony Hall.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: Lower Manhattan skyline after a Boeing 767 hit the World Trade Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. (Michael Foran, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
America’s War on Terrorism
by Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
In den letzten Jahren haben Sie, die Schweizer Regierung, sich schrittweise, still und ohne öffentliche Diskussion der NATO, der „North Atlantic Treaty Organization“ genähert.
Heute hat die Schweiz bereits eine assoziierte Mitgliederdelegation mit 6 Sitzen in der Parlamentarischen Versammlung der NATO (NATO-PA). Siehe hier.
Dies ist eindeutig ein Schritt gegen die neutrale Schweiz.
Und antidemokratisch, denn Sie, verehrte Schweizer Regierung, haben das Schweizer Volk nie konsultiert.
Die NATO wurde 1949 nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg als Verteidigungsapparat gegründet – hauptsächlich unter dem Vorwand, Europa gegen die drohenden Gefahren der damaligen Sowjetunion – dem heutigen Russland – zu verteidigen.
Die NATO war DIE Organisation, die den Kalten Krieg förderte und die Menschen bereits damals mit der Angst vor einer bevorstehenden Invasion der Sowjetunion indoktrinierte. Später wurde es klar, dass nie die Gefahr eines USSR-Angriffs auf Europa, geschweige denn die USA bestand.
Die NATO hätte spätestens nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 aufgelöst werden müssen.
Der Warschauer Pakt, 1955 als Gegenstück zur NATO gegründet, wurde Anfang der 1990er Jahre aufgelöst.
Die NATO nicht.
Die NATO war nie ein Verteidigungsbündnis – die NATO ist eine Kriegsmaschine.
Und Sie, liebe Bundesräte, wollen sich der NATO weiter annähern und ihr möglicherweise sogar beitreten?
1991 hatte die NATO 16 Mitgliedstaaten. Heute hat sie 32 Mitglieder, von denen 30 in Europa sind. Die einzigen transatlantischen Mitglieder sind die USA und Kanada.
Heute ist die NATO auf über 800 US-Militärstützpunkten auf der ganzen Welt vertreten; fast 700 davon befinden sich im Umkreis von Russland und China.
Wenn man sich die Schweizer Neutralität vor fast 210 Jahren – im Jahr 1815 – ins Gedächtnis ruft, kann dieses Zitat aus einem internen CIA-Dokument vom 23. April 1955 [OCI Nr. 3377/55, Kopie Nr. 2] eine wichtige Erinnerung an die Bedeutung der Schweizer Neutralität sein:
„Die Neutralität der Schweiz, wie sie im Wiener Vertrag vom 28. März 1815 vorgesehen ist, war weder ein neues Konzept, noch war ihre Anerkennung durch ausländische Mächte eine neue Idee.“ … „Und der berühmte Akt der immerwährenden Schweizer Neutralität und Unverletzlichkeit, der am 20. November 1815 von Österreich, Großbritannien, Russland und Preußen unterzeichnet wurde, erklärte die Schweiz zu einem für immer neutralem Land und enthält die viel zitierten Zeilen: „Die Neutralität und Unverletzlichkeit der Schweiz und ihre Unabhängigkeit von allen ausländischen Einflüssen liegen im wahren Interesse der Politik ganz Europas.“
Das Schweizer Außenministerium preist die Neutralität der Schweiz auf seiner Website als „unantastbares“ Gut an, und verweist dabei auf die Den Haager Konventionen vom Oktober 1907 – siehe hier.
Doch unsere Verteidigungsministerin und derzeitige Bundespräsidentin der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft rückt die Schweiz immer näher an die NATO heran, ohne das Schweizer Volk zu konsultieren.
Ein Beitritt zur NATO wäre der Todesstoß für die Schweizer Neutralität.
Das wissen Sie, sehr geehrte Bundesräte.
Schließlich wurde eine erfolgreiche Volksinitiative für die Schweizer Neutralität abgeschlossen und am 11. April 2024 mit fast 130.000 gültigen Unterschriften (100.000 sind erforderlich) bei der Bundeskanzlei eingereicht. Sie wird voraussichtlich 2025 / 2026 zur Volksabstimmung vorgelegt, und wenn angenommen, wird die Neutralität in der Schweizer Verfassung verankert werden.
NATO-Haushalt
Geehrte Bundesräte, Sie wissen vielleicht, dass sich das gesamte NATO-Budget 2024 auf etwa 1,4 Billionen US-Dollar beläuft – wovon etwa zwei Drittel von den USA und ein Drittel von Europa und Kanada finanziert werden. Es handelt sich um einen „jährlichen Fonds“ zum Töten und Zerstören – und für die Bereicherung des internationalen Militär- Industriekomplexes.
In seiner ersten Amtszeit forderte Präsident Trump die europäischen NATO-Mitglieder auf, ihr Militärbudget auf mindestens 2 % ihres BIP zu erhöhen. Einige Länder haben dies möglicherweise getan, andere sind noch weit davon entfernt, dieses Ziel zu erreichen.
Es ist denkbar, dass Herr Trump in seiner neuen Amtszeit als US-Präsident diese Forderung an die europäischen NATO-Mitglieder wiederholen wird.
Das Schweizer Militärbudget für die kommenden vier Jahre – 2025 bis 2028 – beläuft sich auf etwa 30 Milliarden CHF, also etwa 7,5 Milliarden CHF pro Jahr. Dies entspricht weniger als 1 % des geschätzten Schweizer BIP für 2024 (784 Milliarden CHF). Wenn die Schweiz der NATO beitreten und dem Auftrag von Herrn Trump folgen würde, müsste das Militärbudget auf etwa 15 Milliarden CHF pro Jahr verdoppelt werden.
Alternative zum NATO Budget
Mit einem Bruchteil des NATO-Budgets von 1,4 Billionen US-Dollar im Jahr 2024 könnte die Hungersnot in der Welt beseitigt werden. Oxfam schätzt, dass die Beseitigung des Welthungers in all seinen Formen 31,7 Milliarden US-Dollar erfordern würde, zuzüglich 4 Milliarden US-Dollar für den Schuldenerlass der ärmsten Länder der Welt, insgesamt also etwa 35,7 Milliarden US-Dollar. Dies sind weniger als 3 % des jährlichen Militärbudgets der G7 oder etwa 2,55 % des NATO-Budgets für 2024.
Sehr geehrte Bundesräte, glauben Sie, dass die Schweizer Bürger an diesem monströsen und mörderischen Unterfangen namens NATO teilnehmen wollen? Und das zum Nachteil der Schweizer Neutralität?
Ich persönlich glaube, dass die meisten Schweizer nicht NATO-Mitglied werden und ihre legendäre Neutralität aufgeben wollen.
Deshalb, liebe Bundesräte, möchte ich Sie dringend bitten, als souveräne Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, die keinen Druck von außen akzeptiert, diesen Schritt gegen die Neutralität zu überdenken und aufzugeben.
Eine neutrale Schweiz wäre in der Lage, zwischen Konfliktparteien zu vermitteln und beim Wiederaufbau einer stabilen, harmonischen und friedlichen Weltgesellschaft zu helfen.
*
Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche „Teilen“ unten, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research weiter zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.
Peter Koenig ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Ökonom bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang weltweit tätig war. Er ist der Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftskrimi über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Unternehmensgier; und Co-Autor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch „When China Sneezes: Vom Coronavirus-Lockdown zur globalen politisch-wirtschaftlichen Krise“ (Clarity Press – 1. November 2020).
Peter Koenig ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist außerdem nicht ortsansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang-Instituts der Renmin-Universität in Peking.
Trump has everything to gain by picking up where everyone left off over two and a half years ago.
The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump wants to create a Western-patrolled DMZ along the Line of Contact (LOC) for freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, which was analyzed here and here, dangerously runs the risk of escalating tensions with Russia to the point of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis. It would therefore be much better for him to revive the draft Russian-Ukrainian peace treaty from spring 2022 instead. Other than averting World War III, which is an obvious motivation, here are five others:
1. Fulfill His Democratic Mandate to Bring Peace to Europe
Trump won the popular vote and therefore has a democratic mandate to fulfill his campaign pledge to bring peace to Europe. Doing so would be a strong start to his second term and reassure his supporters that he won’t backtrack on his commitments like last time. Additionally, other countries will see that he’s serious about doing what he promised, thus leading to them taking him more seriously and making them less likely to haggle with him. He might also set himself up to win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
2. Create Less Space for the Deep State to Manipulate Him
Another one of Trump’s promises is to purge the country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) of warmongering neoconservatives. If he backtracks on the most important of his foreign policy promises, then they’ll have more space to manipulate him. After all, it was his decision to bomb Syria early on into his first term that set the stage for every other foreign policy disappointment. Failure to hold his ground on Ukraine would be a very bad omen.
3. Compel the EU to Take More Responsibility for Its Defense
Trump’s reported plan for NATO aims to compel the EU to take more responsibility for its defense so as to rebalance the burden that the US carries in this regard and then facilitate the latter’s “Pivot (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China. This won’t be achieved with nice words or even threats, but only through shocking the system by forcing them to step up after he ends the conflict in this way, which is their worst fear and would thus leave them with no choice but to do what demands afterwards.
4. Help “Un-Unite” Russia and China as Realistically as Possible
He promised on the eve of the election to “un-unite” Russia and China, and while it’s impossible to turn them against each other, the most realistic outcome that he can hope for is to reduce Russia’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China by gradually restoring the European vector of its balancing act. Phased sanctions relief as a reward for compliance with a ceasefire/armistice could do a lot to avert the aforesaid scenario in a non-threatening way that would also be tacitly acceptable for Russia too.
5. Replenish Stockpiles to Better Prepare for Contingencies
And finally, swiftly ending the Ukrainian Conflict by reviving spring 2022’s draft peace treaty as the basis for this would enable the US to fully focus its military-industrial complex on replenishing its depleted stockpiles in order to better prepare for contingencies, such as those that might soon develop in Asia. This would be difficult to do if Trump keeps arming Ukraine after either being manipulated into turning this into another forever war or as an additional security guarantee to go with his reported DMZ plan.
*
As can be seen from the five points above, Trump has everything to gain by picking up where everyone left off over two and a half years ago to sustainably end the Ukrainian Conflict on the terms that Kiev and Moscow tentatively agreed to shortly after it began, albeit with minor modifications. The current territorial realities, whether with regard to the LOC or the entire administrative borders of the four Ukrainian regions that joined Russia, would have to be recognized. If he does so, then a deal is certain.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary in the Conservative government, told the BBC that the Labour government had undermined the UK’s effort to help Ukraine. His lambasting of the Starmer government comes as support for Ukraine continues to wane, especially following Donald Trump’s election in the US, which is affecting the attitudes of European allies.
The UK has already sent a staggering £12.8 billion in security assistance to Kiev, including £7.8 billion worth of arms – aid that Russia warns will only prolong the conflict.
“I definitely have a sense that that momentum has dropped back,” Wallace said.
He added,
“You can’t just do a statement and then float around,” in an apparent nod to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s previous remarks that allies should “step up” support for Kiev.
Wallace said one reason the Conservative government supplied arms to Ukraine was to show who was calling the shots.
“[Britain] took a position to lead and the leadership did bring lots and lots of Europeans with us…” the former defence secretary said.
Wallace’s comments came after The Guardian quoted a Ukrainian government official on conditions of anonymity as saying that Starmer “isn’t giving us long-range weapons,” a reference to the Storm Shadow, high-precision long-range cruise missiles manufactured in the UK.
Ukraine’s last attack by a Storm Shadow on Russian forces occurred on October 5.
“The situation is not the same as when Rishi Sunak was prime minister. The relationship has got worse,” the Ukrainian official admitted.
Britain’s former defence secretary said companies wanting to export equipment to Ukraine had been waiting six months for their export licences to be processed.
“That doesn’t sound like a government that wants to help Ukraine, if its bureaucracy in the Foreign Office is holding out some pretty basic technologies that Ukrainians need to make their own weapons systems to defend their nation,” he added.
London has provided the Kiev regime with a total of £7.8 billion in military support since the start of the Russian special military operation in 2022, and although London will continue to support Ukraine in the short term, evidently, support will drop once Trump enters the Oval Office in January.
World leaders are reacting to Trump’s election by preparing for a drastic change in relations with the US. This applies particularly to the Middle East and Ukrainian crises, with Zelensky and Middle Eastern leaders congratulating the Republican on his victory.
As Bloomberg highlighted,
“President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t take office for more than two months but he’s already shaping US policy in two major hot spots: Israel and Ukraine.”
The outlet also highlighted that while Israel will benefit greatly from Trump’s arrival, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcoming his election victory with great joy and describing it as “history’s greatest comeback!” and a “huge victory,” the same event is forcing Zelensky to consider negotiations with Moscow.
Trump’s inevitable policy change toward Ukraine worries not only many in Kiev and London but also Brussels.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s head of diplomacy, said he will appeal to the bloc’s countries to maintain support for Ukraine in the face of uncertainty over Trump’s plans.
“Next week I will chair the regular meeting of the European Union foreign and defence ministers. [… Ukraine] will be high on the agenda, as it has been since the starting of the war. It has been a priority topic, and I will convey to Member States the importance of our continued support, both in the diplomatic field with the Foreign Ministers Council, and in the defence and security [field] in the Council that joins the Defence Ministers of the European Union Member States,” Borrell said during his visit to Kiev on November 9.
He stressed that it was too early to speculate on Trump’s intentions regarding aid to Ukraine and assured that the EU’s commitments to Kiev “remain valid.”
“This is something in which I want to insist: […] More military support, more training capacities, more money, faster supplies, and also the permission to strike the enemy’s military targets on its territory,” the EU foreign policy chief added.
However, Borrell has no way of enforcing EU countries to continue contributing to Ukraine, especially when Trump inevitably scales back US support so it can instead be redirected to Israel. This is the new reality that Zelensky will face in the new year, and there is nothing the UK’s Conservative party or Borrell can do to change this, which will be a devastating blow since the Biden administration has already wasted well over $100 billion on the war effort, well above any other country.
*
Click the share button below 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 federal jury in Detroit awarded more than $12 million Friday to a former Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) employee who was terminated after declining to get a COVID-19 vaccination, citing religious discrimination.
According to the verdict form, Lisa Domski, who worked at the insurance company for more than 30 years as an IT specialist, received $10 million in punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The jury also awarded her approximately $1.7 million in lost wages and $1 million in noneconomic damages.
Newsweek contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield via email on Saturday for comment.
Domski claimed she was a victim of religious discrimination after the company denied her request for an exemption from its 2021 vaccine policy. She maintained that the requirement conflicted with her Catholic beliefs.
Court records show Domski worked 100% remotely during the pandemic and 75% remotely before COVID-19 emerged in 2020. Her attorney, Jon Marko, argued that even without vaccination, she posed no risk to others due to her remote work arrangement.
“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion. Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience,” Marko said in a statement. “Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells BCBSM that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan had implemented its vaccine policy in October 2021, requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated for COVD-19 or obtain a religious or medical accommodation. The company denied any discrimination during the trial. In earlier court filings, the insurer questioned whether Domski held a sincerely held religious belief.
In response to the verdict, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan released a statement defending its actions:
“Throughout the pandemic, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, together with its employees, worked to promote the health and safety of our colleagues, stakeholders, and communities. As part of that shared work, in October 2021, Blue Cross, and its subsidiaries, enacted a vaccine policy requiring all of its employees to be fully vaccinated for Covid-19 or obtain a religious or medical accommodation.”
The company further stated:
“In implementing the vaccine policy, Blue Cross designed an accommodation process that complied with state and federal law and respected the sincerely held religious beliefs of its employees. While Blue Cross respects the jury process and thanks the individual jurors for their service, we are disappointed in the verdict. Blue Cross is reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has indicated it is reviewing potential legal options, suggesting a possible appeal of the verdict.
*
Click the share button below 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 Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Trump had already met with Putin during his previous term in office, which is why he was the subject of the first impeachment attempt in the United States. Today, with the majority in Congress, there is a possibility that he will reopen a negotiating table with Putin to end the Russia-Ukraine war, in other words, the war that NATO is waging against Russia under US command.
Over 180 media workers have been killed and 60 detained as Israel’s methodical destruction of the brutalized Gaza Strip continues. The US and UN have given Israel free reign to methodically kill the population of northern Gaza Palestinians. This is a genocide within a genocide.
Although Cuba has endured the longest comprehensive blockade of a nation in peace time (over six decades, so far), under Trump the pressure was substantially ratcheted up.
Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.
Trump believes that an increase in government revenue from raising tariffs and a big cut to social programs spending and deregulation will result in a major offset to US budget deficits, which rose last year to $1.8 trillion and is currently running at a $2 trillion estimate for 2025.
The fertility rate in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level since records began, according to government data. The average total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime – was 1.44 children per woman in 2023.
So much is being written now about Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ presidential election. Few analyses however, if any, are paying attention to a remarkable development, namely the end of the Bush-Clinton era. You might have not paid much attention to it (in all likelihood, you never heard of it), but it started in the 1980’s, and lasted all the way to 2016. Let us go back in time, then.
Elderly people across the globe were assured that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 would safeguard them from death. However, a major new peer-reviewed study has exposed the devastating betrayal: COVID-19 mRNA boosters directly contributed to the deaths of millions of nursing home residents worldwide.
Promised protection, these vulnerable populations instead experienced increased mortality after receiving booster doses, with the very intervention meant to safeguard their lives actually hastening their deaths.
The study by researchers Prof. Sourafel Girma and David Paton published in Science Direct exposes this disturbing reality, reveling that far from offering a clear and consistent benefit, COVID-19 vaccinations — particularly the boosters — contributed to increased mortality in these vulnerable populations.
Using machine learning to analyze vaccination data, the study found only a small, short-term benefit in two of three mortality measures among care home residents.
However, after the booster doses were administered, there was a significant increase in COVID-related deaths—a troubling finding that contradicts the vaccines’ intended purpose.
.
Announcement of the new research paper on X
.
The authors noted:
“In the later period, we find some evidence that higher vaccination rates are associated with higher Covid mortality.”
.
.
Even more alarmingly, vaccinating care home staff appeared to have a consistently negative impact on resident mortality.
Across all seven time periods analyzed, and for every vaccine dose given, the data showed that staff vaccinations were linked to higher rates of both COVID and all-cause deaths among residents. These findings were statistically significant with 99% confidence for the primary vaccine series.
This study raises critical concerns about the ongoing push for COVID-19 vaccinations in care homes, especially when the data increasingly shows no clear benefit—and in most cases, significant harm.
With no strong evidence supporting continued vaccination of residents or staff, the question becomes: Why are healthcare authorities still promoting these vaccines?
As is often the case, the mainstream media has remained silent on this issue, despite the growing body of evidence that calls into question the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in care home settings.
The Girma and Paton study is just the latest in a series of findings suggesting that the current vaccination strategy is not only failing to protect the most vulnerable but may be putting them at even greater risk.
The time has come for an open, honest dialogue about the true impact of COVID-19 vaccines on care home residents—and whether continuing this approach makes sense at all.
There was zero benefit from COVID-19 vaccines, even in the “high risk populations” for COVID-19 Infection: age over 70 and in a long term care home setting.
COVID-19 vaccines only hastened the deaths of those over 70.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People’s Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Featured image is from TPV
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
The fertility rate in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level since records began, according to government data.
The average total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime – was 1.44 children per woman in 2023.
It is the lowest value since records began in 1938, new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.
Some 591,072 live births were recorded – the lowest number since 1977.
Figures for 2022 showed the average TFR had declined to 1.49 children per woman, down from 1.55 in 2021.
.
.
Greg Ceely, head of population health monitoring at the ONS, said:
“Total fertility rates declined in 2023, a trend we have seen since 2010.
“Looking in more detail at fertility rates among women of different ages, the decline in fertility rates has been the most dramatic in the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups.”
Research by thinktank the Centre for Progressive Policy (CPP) discovered the fertility rate has dropped by 18.8%.
Women have increasingly had children at older ages, with only one in five women born in 1997 having a child before the age of 25 – the lowest of any earlier generation.
Not feeling ready, financial pressures and not finding the right partner are preventing millennials who want children from trying to have them, research from the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies has found.
The cost of housing and childcare have been cited as reasons, as well as people not feeling ready to have children because other major life events are happening later.
A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is needed on average to ensure the long-term “natural” replacement of the population, according to the ONS.
Yet the rate has been falling since 2010 – and there is a similar picture globally.
The global total fertility rate was 2.3 children per woman in 2022, less than half the rate (5.3) in 1963, with most countries seeing a decline.
The lowest fertility rate is in Taiwan, where women are having 1.09 children on average, closely followed by South Korea with a rate of 1.11 and Singapore at 1.17, according to CIA data.
Ukraine – which was invaded by Russia in 2022 – Hong Kong, Macau, Italy and Moldova are also seeing the lowest rates.
Despite falling fertility rates, populations can still continue to grow for some time.
This is because it takes time for population growth to reverse, and also because of factors such as immigration.
Comment by Dr. William Makis
In 2021 when COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, the 20-24 age group would have been 17-21.
This is one of the reasons why so many universities and colleges implemented draconian COVID-19 vaccine mandates on all their students.
This had to be one of the desired outcomes. There is no way around it.
*
Click the share button below 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 Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
At the Valdai Forum, Putin said that neoliberalism stifles national sovereignty and traditional values and erodes national cultures, thus eliminating diversity.“There is no room for difference in the neoliberal order. It seeks to flatten diversity rather than celebrate it.” Washington’s unipolar system “only serves a small number of powerful elites.”Now that Putin has come to these realizations, perhaps he will replace his neoliberal central bank director.
Putin thanks Washington for the economic sanctions that forced Russia off the mistaken path of globalism. “The sanctions have forced us to look inward, to focus on developing domestic industries.”Globalism is a one-way street to economic death.For Americans the consequence was the offshoring of American industry and middle class jobs, pressure on state and local budgets, and the loss of a trained work force.
Putin says that he respects Western civilization–probably more than do graduates and professors of Western universities. The problem is not Western culture. The problem is with the aggressive policies of Western governments.Putin is puzzled that such weak political and military countries are so aggressive toward such a powerful unified country as Russia.
Putin said Trump was a capable leader who has shown courage and resilience.Putin declared willingness to work with Trump to normalize relations and put them on a more constructive path.
Now that both powers have capable leaders perhaps the world can escape from war. Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do.
It was recently assessed that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump plans to organize a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without the US’ participation in order to freeze the conflict. This is obviously a lot easier said than done. Here’s what can offset this scenario by either delaying it long enough for Russia to end the conflict on its own terms or capsizing Trump’s plan completely:
1. The Europeans Fear a Direct Kinetic Escalation with Russia
France’s tough talk earlier this year about conventionally intervening in the conflict and Poland subsequently refusing to rule out its participation as well mask the Europeans’ fear of a direct kinetic escalation with Russia. Trump will have to masterfully leverage the US’ influence over them and NATO as a whole in order to coerce his country’s European partners into putting their security on the line by going through with this risky plan. It could always backfire, after all, and inadvertently spark World War III.
2. Public Opinion in the Polish Lynchpin Is Strongly Against This
It’s difficult to imagine a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without Poland’s leading participation, but public opinion is strongly against this after a reputable survey over the summer showed that 69% of Poles are opposed to dispatching troops to that neighboring country in any capacity. As mutual Polish-Ukrainian mistrust worsens as explained here, here, and here, it’ll become a very tough sell, plus Poles fear that they’ll once again be exploited by the West while getting nothing at all in return.
3. Trump’s Prior Rhetoric About Article 5 Doesn’t Inspire Confidence
Another hurdle that’ll have to be overcome is regaining confidence in Trump due to his prior rhetoric about Article 5 after he declared in February that the US won’t protect those NATO members who haven’t spent at least 2% of their GDP on defense. He even threatened that “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.” Even though most now meet that target, they might still fear that he’ll attach more strings to Article 5, which they’ll rely on for defense if they participate in this mission.
4. It’s Unclear Exactly What Trump Would Do If Russia Hit NATO Troops
Trump will also have to convince NATO members that his response to Russia hitting their troops will balance the line between fulfilling Article 5’s perceived commitments while avoiding an escalation that could spiral into World War III. They also need to be sure that he’ll go through with it and not back down. Moreover, this would have to be clearly communicated to Russia too, who he’ll have to deter. There’s a lot that can go wrong anywhere along this sequence of events so its success can’t be taken for granted.
5. NATO Is Unprepared for a Prolonged Non-Nuclear Hot War with Russia
Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes in the event of direct kinetic exchanges between them, then NATO would be unprepared for waging a prolonged non-nuclear hot war with Russia. It’s losing the “race of logistics” by far, no progress was made during the last NATO Summit on the “military Schengen” for facilitating such movements eastward, and the bloc only has 5% of the air defenses needed to protect itself. NATO might therefore ultimately lose to Russia.
6. External Mediation Could Lead to a Scaled-Back Peacekeeping Mission
Hungary and India have excellent ties with Russia and the US so it’s possible that they could independently or jointly work to broker a scaled-back peacekeeping mission instead. This could result in Western troops deploying west of the Dnieper, Ukraine demilitarizing everything that it still controls in the east of heavy weapons, and Russia agreeing to freeze the Line of Contact. Such a scenario was broadly discussed here in mid-March. It’s unlikely, admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless still possible.
7. Cautious Europeans Might Wager That It’s Better to Just Cut Their Losses
All the same, the preceding six points might lead to the cautious Europeans waging that it’s better to just cut their losses and let everything play out however it will without risking the consequences that their participation in any Ukrainian peacekeeping mission could entail. It would be an unprecedented defeat for the West if it possibly lets Russia achieve a maximum victory, but growing fatigue as well as the fear of inadvertently sparking and losing World War III could result in this world-changing outcome.
8. A Cuban-Like Brinksmanship Crisis Could Break Out Before Trump’s Reinauguration
Another possibility is that anti-Russian hawks in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) and/or Zelensky provoke a major escalation with Russia before Trump’s reinauguration out of desperation to prevent him from “selling out Ukraine” as they might see it. If that happens, then Trump would be powerless to influence the course of events. He’d have no choice but to inherit whatever the outcome would be, whether it’s World War III or a possibly lopsided peace deal.
9. There’s a Chance That Russia Achieves Maximum Victory Before Then Too
This scenario is unlikely due to the high probability that the aforesaid point would materialize, specifically in the form of a conventional NATO intervention to at least race Russia to the Dnieper, in the event that the front lines collapse before mid-January and Russia is about to achieve maximum victory. Even so, there’s always the chance that it’s averted for whatever reason, in which case there’d be no need for the NATO peacekeeping mission that Trump reportedly envisages.
10. The West Asian Wars Worsen & Become Trump’s Immediate Priority
And finally, nobody knows whether or not the West Asian wars might worsen and thus become Trump’s immediate priority upon resuming office, with there being compelling arguments to predict that both Israel and Iran might be plotting precisely this scenario in advance of their respective interests. Briefly, Israel might want to bait the US into helping it destroy Iran once and for all, while Iran might want to inflict a devastating blow to US regional interests as revenge for Trump’s assassination of Soleimani.
*
Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then he might resort to threatening Russia and NATO alike, but such psychological warfare might have no effect. In that case, he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends, participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!
We are starting the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.
I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.
.
.
[Start at 00:25:29]
Transcript
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,
I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.
We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.
New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.
Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.
You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.
Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.
There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.
At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.
The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.
Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.
I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.
Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You’re either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“
Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.
I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.
In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You’re either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.
The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.
So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.
These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.
I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.
As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.
It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.
We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.
I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.
The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.
Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?
Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.
Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.
Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.
But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.
I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.
Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.
I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.
To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.
What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.
At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.
What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West’s monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.
The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.
Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.
In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.
Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.
During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.
Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.
To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.
The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.
Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.
Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.
The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.
The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.
Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.
Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.
Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.
In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.
What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.
As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.
There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.
Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.
Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.
The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.
We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.
You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.
Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.
It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.
Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.
Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.
The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.
This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.
We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.
The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.
My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.
There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.
In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.
There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.
Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.
We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.
My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.
However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.
The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.
I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.
It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.
The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.
The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.
Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.
It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.
Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.
We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.
Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.
That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.
We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.
I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.
Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.
Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.
Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.
Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.
Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.
Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.
This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.
Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.
Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.
Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100thanniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.
I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.
Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21stmeeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.
I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.
Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.
It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?
Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.
Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.
We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.
We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.
We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.
Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.
We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.
Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.
Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.
In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.
Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.
It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.
It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.
To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: I would also like to say a couple of words, if I may.
First, of course, artificial intelligence is a highly important development tool. AI development ranks among our priorities, primarily, of course, in the economic sphere and in other fields, including the use of big data. We are facing major workforce shortages and posting minimal, 2.4 percent, unemployment rates. This amounts to a shortage of human resources. In the future, we believe that these economic problems can be resolved by developing state-of-the-art technologies, and we prioritise the use of AI technologies in this context.
Do pros outweigh cons? Does the development of nuclear energy technologies spell more benefits or more negative consequences? Civilian nuclear technologies play a tremendous and highly important role in medicine, agriculture and transportation, and their role will continue to increase. I am confident that this will become particularly relevant in the context of climate change issues.
At the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This creates major threats for humankind. The same is absolutely true of AI technologies. How is this regulated, and how do people use them? This is a good question. Of course, many countries regulate this. As you say, certain countries ban them. I believe that it is impossible to ban them. AI will eventually make its way, no matter what, especially in conditions of greater competition. I am not talking about armed confrontation, but overall economic competition is increasing. AI will inevitably continue developing in conditions of a competitive struggle. In this respect, we can certainly join the ranks of leaders, considering our certain advantages.
Sovereignty is a highly important component. Of course, these platforms are mostly created abroad, and they form people’s world outlook; this is absolutely correct. We should realise this and expand our sovereign AI network. Of course, we need to use all available assets, but we have to develop our own aspects here.
Sber and Yandex are actively engaged in this area, and overall, their work has been quite successful. We will certainly persist in our efforts, there is no doubt about that, especially as AI begins to replicate itself, which is both fascinating and highly promising.
However, there are, of course, potential risks involved. We must recognise and understand these risks and adjust our work accordingly. As I mentioned, this is one of our most critical areas of focus. By “our,” I mean the state, industry specialists, and society as a whole, because the development of AI technologies inevitably raise many moral and ethical issues that require our full attention.
You mentioned the risk of forming radical views, and so on. Indeed, we must counter these risks by offering our own perspective and worldview on the events unfolding within our society and globally. This is something we will address together.
Thank you for highlighting this issue.
Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyse the developments in this area.
Vladimir Putin: By all means.
Ruslan Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to ultimately reflect our culture.
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. We certainly have the capability to do this, that’s clear. I am confident we will succeed, and it will provide strong support for our development, bringing us significant benefits.
Thank you.
Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, when we have sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us the Russian idea for the 21st century?
Vladimir Putin: It can only assist us in addressing the challenges we face, and it is very important how we define these challenges.
Given that AI works with big data, we have all the necessary resources: intellectual and technological capabilities, along with abundant free energy. There is much for us to collaborate on, including tackling profound philosophical and fundamental issues that you mentioned.
We need to make use of all the resources at our disposal. It is up to us to decide whether we trust or not the results of research based on modern principles, which, among other things, involve the use of artificial intelligence.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
We have also discussed a related topic: artificial intelligence and digitalisation go together with information and everything happening to it right now, and there are indeed many things happening: both positive and negative.
Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in this session.
Please, go ahead.
Arvind Gupta: Thank you.
My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr President, and I come from India. I work at the intersection of technology and society, and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.
Thank you, Mr President. You have already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan has talked about on AI. I thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI – and I will in the end mention that – of information manipulation, surveillance, using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today.
Mr President, you know, the group discussed that internet was designed about 40–45 years ago to be a global public good. Unfortunately now, like many other things it has become very unipolar. It is controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings. And some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.
The second issue we discussed, Mr President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also, really define how we think.
AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time. And they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. You know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So, the algorithms themselves are biased.
The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponisation of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, is giving certain nation states massive power and it is influencing national security, democracy and the public order in general.
So, Mr President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 Presidency to these Western technology platforms. It is a platform which takes society into account. It is a bottom-up platform built around identity – a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It is actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it. This is to present how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today.
Mr President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the MIR platform very successful in Russia in a very, very short time. That also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.
Mr President, the issue that you just discussed – I mean progress with this biased nature of technology and technology platforms, and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head on to us – the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence?
What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI? How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponisation of AI, for non-weaponisation of artificial intelligence?
Lastly, Mr President, we would like to hear from you how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large. That was one of the most defining things that the group debated and we are looking forward to hearing your view.
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Of course, this is a very important topic similar to the previous question about artificial intelligence, its use and development. There are several aspects here.
First, of course, the use of the internet should be based on sovereign algorithms. We must strive for this.
Second, it is very difficult for us as a state – it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive – to prohibit everything. In Russia, the professional community arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to decide on the rules of behavior in the internet, and independently adopted certain self-restraints, especially related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.
Of course, the internet must obey the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is taking place. This is obvious.
What we witness is an information manipulation. Most unfortunate, this is happening. But, let me repeat: if the activity of the internet is subject to internal laws, to internal legislation, then we will be able to minimise possible negative consequences.
I understand that there are technological limitations and technological difficulties to implement all this. But if we take the relevant efforts together with the professional community, which sees where threats to society as a whole can emerge and works professionally to suppress these threats, then the state will by all means support these efforts.
For such countries as India, as Russia, this problem is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good maths schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are leaders in this field. We have all the resources for this. I repeat once again, this is not a problem for such countries as India or Russia.
As for the Mir payment system, then yes, this can be regarded as success. It works well, reliably. It would work even better, in more countries, if there were no artificial obstacles created to hinder its operation. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate success of this kind.
The theme of the internet has already become eternal, to my mind. You said that it was created to be used for the benefit of humankind. It was certainly created for other purposes but at some point, its intended purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activity in the internet, just like any human activity, be subject to the moral and ethical rules and laws of the states where this system operates.
I repeat once again: it is not always easy to do this in terms of technology, but we should certainly try to achieve this. Society must protect itself from destructive influence, but it should do everything to ensure that the exchange of information is free and that it benefits the development of a particular state, and indeed the entire international community.
We in Russia will aspire to this. I know that India is following the same path. We will be happy to cooperate with you in this area.
Thank you for paying attention to this. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to this and not to engage in this work. I wish you every success.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you use the internet yourself?
Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way: I press a few buttons from time to time to look something up.
We discussed in great detail the environment and the state of the world in terms of climate, among other things. I would like to ask our good comrade Rasigan Maharajh from South Africa to tell us more about it.
Rasigan Maharajh: Thank you very much, Mr President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself.
Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organisation, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather.
This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear: we are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the wellbeing of people and the planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures are at record levels. The emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.
The colonial and imperial phases of globalisation largely established the current wealth systems. And they are essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the Global North and the Global South or, as you framed it, the Global Minority and the Global Majority.
Some colleagues – Hickel and associates working at the London School [of Economics] – calculated that the Global North extracted raw materials, land, energy and labour worth approximately $10.8 trillion in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.
Between 1990 and 2015, the 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the Global South was approximately $242 trillion. It is abundantly clear that unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development and ecological breakdown.
Whilst the heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, has served to maintain the hegemony of the Global North, and specifically the advantages of the G7.
The global Covid-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system, while reminding us, as you have mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives.
Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponise intellectual property systems. There are thorough restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies. These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition.
Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generate more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan – this was from the Secretary-General of the UN –the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.
This was echoed recently, just to the west of us, in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crises and to mobilise sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals.
Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems, actively promoting knowledge sharing, and ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.
Now, I want to round up by saying that our very survival is at risk, should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, everything that you have discussed with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club clearly represents a critical area of research for humanity. We will not go into detail or debate the causes of ongoing developments now.
Clearly, climate change and global warming is what is happening. Why is it happening? Is it caused by human activity, or are there other factors at play, including outer space, or is it something that happens to Earth now and then, which we do not really understand? However, changes are clearly there. That is a fact. It would be reckless on our part to do nothing about it, and that is undeniable.
We in Russia know this first-hand because warming in our country is going at a faster pace than anywhere else around the world. Over the past 10 years, we have seen temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees, and even more – by 0.7 degrees – in the Arctic. We see this clearly. For a country with 60 percent of the territory in the permafrost zone, this factor has practical consequences. We have entire towns and cities, as well as production facilities and more, built on permafrost. This is a very serious matter with serious consequences for us. So, we understand what this is all about.
Incidentally, we have one of the world’s greenest energies, 40 percent of which comes from gas and nuclear generation, as well as hydrogeneration. Overall, low-emission energy accounts for 85 percent of the total energy generation in Russia, which makes it one of the greenest operations globally. Also, I believe Russia is home to about 20 percent of the world’s forests, which represents a significant absorption capacity.
We are pondering this and we have plans, which we made public some time ago, stating the year by which we will work to reduce man-made emissions. And, of course, we will work on it.
By the way, those who made the biggest fuss over this issue are, unfortunately for everyone and most likely for themselves as well, moving in exactly the opposite direction.
For instance, coal generation in Europe is sharply up. Not long ago, there was a lot of clamour in Europe against coal-fired generation. What they did after all is they have expanded it instead of shutting it down. This is strange, but it is a fact. Again, they did so for some far-fetched political reasons. But that is a separate topic.
Now, regarding artificial obstacles to the development of the emerging economies linked to the environmental agenda. These so-called green obstacles, which some countries have started creating for the emerging economies and markets, are nothing other than a new instrument they have invented to hinder development.
If they are concerned, really concerned about climate change, which is something we should think about, of course, they should provide sources of funding and technologies for the countries that are ready to work in this sphere, so that they can calmly adopt these innovative technologies without sustaining losses. Otherwise, they would be trailing behind progress.
Some rightly tell those who demand immediate conversion to innovative technologies that they themselves had used up all the sources of energy and had polluted everything, including the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately move to new levels of power generation. They wonder how they can accomplish this. Should they spend all their remaining resources on purchasing innovative technology from them? This, again, is a tool of neo-colonialism.
Give people an opportunity to live and develop, if you really and sincerely think that we all must take care of this issue together. Provide the sources of funding and technologies instead of limiting access to them. I fully agree with you, if that is what you hinted at in your speech. It cannot be any other way, the way I see it.
The same goes for funding. As I have said, according to our experts, whom I fully trust, the United States cashed in $12 trillion out of thin air over the past 10 years simply because the US dollar is a global currency. They did it by printing and circulating more dollars, which usually get back to their banks and their financial system, which are getting an additional income and profit from that. It is a tactical position. They just make money out of thin air, and this is what everyone should bear in mind.
If they simply issue this money which represents windfall profit for them. This money should be used as a source of funding, including for the environmental agenda. Share your windfall profits with us, if you are really concerned about the environment. If that is what you hinted at, I can say that you are absolutely right, and it is difficult to argue with this approach. This is how it should be done.
Well, this is probably all I can say. I have nothing more to add to this. That is, there is much more to say, but I have outlined the main points.
Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, has President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited you to the climate conference scheduled for next week?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, he has.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Will you go?
Vladimir Putin: I have recently been there, and President Aliyev and I have agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will participate in this event.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Excellent.
Let us segue to the next topic that concerns us all, since most of us here specialise in international affairs. You initiated the idea of Eurasian security. We have dedicated many discussions to this issue, and this year’s Valdai paper largely focused on it as well, and the session was quite engaging.
I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to share the main takeaways with us.
Glenn Diesen: Thank you. Mr President, my name is Glenn Diesen. I am a professor of political economy from Norway. Our panel was on Eurasian security. I would like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity. To a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs, as in the 19th century we had Great Britain as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time it is somewhat different, as we have the United States again as the dominant maritime power.
But on the Eurasian continent we are now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities because even the largest economy, China, does not really have the capability and does not even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So, this puts us in conflict between the unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction for many countries.
However, in our discussions we also discovered a consensus that there were some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being an anti-Western one, as the objective should be to harmonise interests and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of the BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rests on the idea that we could overcome bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.
The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also to a large extent the multivectoral foreign policy, that is, the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power. And this is seen as a necessity, a requirement to have more political independence, more autonomy in the economy and foreign policy, and not merely being a spectator in international affairs. And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonising. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity, as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one, which is also being promoted under Washington.
And the third and final point was that multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonising interests because the great powers in Eurasia have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration, and different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centres of power. So, this creates incentives to harmonise interests. It seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful.
I remember a decade ago many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation. So, this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So, under the alliance system, there is always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weaken adversaries.
So, in the spirit of harmonising interests I also had a question premised on the inability we had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. And I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 1990s by instead going with NATO expansion.
So, my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because a few years ago I had a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering about your opinion, if you see a possibility of this path forward. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I apologise. Could you please repeat what you said at the end? Please rephrase your question.
Glenn Diesen: My question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we have seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if there were some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there was an ability to use BRICS or some other institution to also foster better relations between Russia and Europe, so [that] we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe, which we were never able to overcome after the Cold War.
Vladimir Putin: You know, once the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and bloc policy itself. I will say it again: when the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome bloc mentality and policy.
I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I am convinced that the United States did not need that. Clearly, they were afraid that this would weaken their control over Europe, whereas they wanted to keep it, which they did and have tightened it even more.
I think this will eventually weaken the vassal subordination system. I do not mean anything bad by what I am about to say, and, God forbid, I am not accusing or reproaching anyone of anything. We can see, however, that many European countries, nearly all European NATO members, are in fact acting against their own interests for the benefit of the US politics and economy.
In some US states, energy is 65 to 80 percent cheaper than in the EU countries. They are making deliberate taxation moves, such as reducing revenue tax, or creating favourable conditions for relocating entire businesses and industries from Europe to the United States. And some do relocate.
Sectors directly relying on primary energy sources, such as the fertiliser and the glass industries, to name a few, were the first ones to get affected by it. These industries have wound down their operations because they no longer made economic sense, and are relocating to the United States.
The second phase of restructuring affected the metallurgical industry, and now the automotive industry.
Governments can blame corporate management for inefficiency all they want, but the current state of affairs primarily stems from the government policies, and the management was forced to find ways to save their businesses and jobs in these circumstances, which it is not always doable.
So, the conflict of which we are, unfortunately, part, has made it possible for the United States to reinforce its leadership, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries have found themselves in a state of semi-colonial dependency. Frankly, I did not expect to see that happen, but it is their choice.
The same is happening in Japan, which is surprising. What have we done to deserve this? We have done nothing wrong, in word or in deed. But they have imposed sanctions on us. Why would they do that to us?
Now, the question is what we should do about that. We have not done anything wrong. There are colleagues from Japan here, maybe they have questions.
The situation with Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. “Take some rest,” he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting.
As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer.
Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts. My jaw dropped. He went on in the same spirit, speaking about his views on the situation in America and where and how the United States would direct its efforts. I will not repeat what he said, but he did not say anything bad about the United States. He spoke as an analyst and an expert, not as a German chancellor.
However, 80, 85 or even 90 percent of what he said is happening now. I can see this happening; all of us can see this. Of course, we must try to create a Eurasian security system. It is a vast continent. And Europe obviously can, and I believe that it must, become an integral part of this system.
You have said that China does not have the capability or the intention to dominate this continent. You also mentioned Central Asia; I will speak about it here too. I think our friends from China are certainly with us today. There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination. That is the point and the attraction of the concept or initiative which President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has formulated, the Belt and Road initiative. A common belt and a common road. This is not just a Chinese road; it is a common road. This is what we believe and how we act, at least in bilateral relations, that is, in the interests of each other.
What is happening in Central Asia? Many expected it to be a site of conflict or clash between China and Russia. This has not happened. You see, the point is that these are young states with economies that need to be developed. Demography is on the rise there, for example, the population of Uzbekistan grows by a million every year. A million every year, can you imagine that? It has a population of 27 or 28 million, and it grows by a million every year. The population of India grows by 10 million a year, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, told me. But India’s population is 1.5 billion, while Uzbekistan has 37–38 million people, and will have 40 million soon, up one million every year. That is a lot. There are many problems there.
If the People’s Republic of China comes and helps these economies, this means that their economic cooperation helps stabilise their domestic processes and statehoods, which is in Russia’s interests. We want to see a stable situation and stable development there. This is in our interests as well. That is why there is no rivalry there; there is cooperation there. It is not hindering our traditional relations with that part of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which had been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not just remember but also value the special contacts and special ties between us. This is benefitting everyone.
If we are doing this to create a security system for the Eurasian continent… Incidentally, I see and hear that some European countries have again started talking about creating a common security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and have returned to the idea which, I believe, was proposed by Charles de Gaulle in his time. Actually, he proposed a common security system to the Urals. But it should be created all the way to Vladivostok, of course. So, the idea has been revived. If our colleagues decide to do this…
But the most important thing that you have said and I have mentioned, which is set out in the OSCE documents, is that the security of some must not contradict or infringe on the security of others. This is extremely important. If all of us do so, and if we increase the level of trust, as you said… The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries.
You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? Come on, guys, what kind trust are you talking about? You have openly said that you cheated us, that you lied to us and played foul, and now you expect us to trust you? However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. We can sit here talking about it all night, but this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not?
Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Ms Merkel, whom you mentioned and who spoke about the Minsk process?
Vladimir Putin: You know, we were just talking, the three of us. It was in Bonn where the German government was sitting, whereas Ms Merkel, whom you have mentioned, spoke in an atmosphere of a certain public pressure and in conditions of a crisis. The situation was different. Unlike Ms Merkel, who spoke in the presence of and for the media, Mr Kohl spoke calmly, freely expressing his views not just in the absence of the media but also in the absence of his interpreter whom he had sent away. That is why I proceed from the assumption that he was speaking absolutely sincerely.
Fyodor Lukyanov: One more question, if I may, on the same subject raised by Glenn and mentioned by you. In the neighbouring countries the population is growing, and in your remarks, you mentioned migration flows. This has been a very hot topic lately, including in our country.
Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your Eurasian colleagues?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, certainly, we discuss this frequently.
I have already said that unemployment is at its all-time low today at 2.4 percent. In fact, this amounts to full employment. We have a labour shortage. And of course, we need labour to develop the economy.
Moreover, labour shortage is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have half a million people or even 600,000 who can get a job in construction right now, and the industry will not notice. We need 250,000 people in manufacturing industry right now, and it would not cover all its needs either.
At the first stage we need to create conditions so that people who come to work for us are ready for this: they must have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions – we have talked about this many times – know our laws, and not only know all of this, but be ready to abide by them.
This way, there will be no irritation or rejection on the part of our citizens; and we need, above all, of course, to focus on the interests of the people of Russia. This is absolutely obvious. I want my colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation – the heads of regions, to hear me, as well as the law enforcement agencies.
As for the people that come to us: they must also benefit from a modern environment and live in dignity, enjoy all the benefits of civilisation in health care, education and so on. There are distortions here too. I will not go into details now, but we must work on this.
My colleagues, my friends, the leaders of the republics of the former Soviet Union and I discuss this all the time. And they themselves want to train people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for this kind of work in the Russian Federation.
What is needed for this? We must answer this question too. We need to create schools, we are now building schools, we are creating schools. We need to send Russian language teachers, who are in short supply and whom they would gladly accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent in our court. They are ready and willing to do this. We will do this together.
However, in the future, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we need to make sure that the Russian labour market receives, first of all, people with good education, well-trained professionally – and some of the people who come to us today would stay to work at home – and that we create manufacturing facilities there that would be included in the overall value-added chain for making of certain goods. We would give them orders, they would produce certain components, and the final assembly could be either with us or with them, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, in their homeland, living in the environment of their native language, their culture. In general, we could work together this way.
To a certain extent, we need to restore the cooperation chains that we had in the Soviet Union, of course, on a new technological basis, on a new logistical basis. And then the overall system will be more sustainable, and growth rates for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will not be such tension in this sphere.
We have just talked about artificial intelligence and other possibilities. We need to deal with labour shortages – of course, this is what all the experts are talking about – by relying new technological capabilities, and to adopt a new technological framework, improving performance and efficiency. I looks quite possible to me.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
Mr President, something important happened yesterday, and the whole world was watching, holding its breath. The United States elected its next president. This will be already the sixth head of state for the United States on your presidential watch, but he was also the fourth. It happens, you know.
Did any of them leave any trace in your memory? Maybe you have positive or less positive memories about some of them. And whom did you enjoy working with?
Vladimir Putin: You know, they are all interesting people. I can hardly imagine a man getting the highest political office in one of the world’s leading countries while being mediocre, dumb or uninteresting.
What do I mean? In fact, domestic politics in the United States has been evolving towards more political infighting and more political tension with opponents and political rivals of the head of state using all kind of tricks to derail his agenda. Quite often, they use dirty tricks which are far removed from the kind of political culture they pretend to adhere to.
Remember all the attacks Bush had to face? He was called illiterate, not smart, or ignorant. But this was not true. We had a lot of differences and contradictions. I believe that in terms of US policy towards Russia, most of them focused all their efforts in staging what amounted to a covert intervention, once you take a general view of their actions.
However, as a person, I can tell you that George W. Bush, who was the Governor of Texas before becoming President, and was in charge of a very challenging state, a huge one, by the way – he succeeded in this position. Judging by my experience with him, he is just as smart as anyone in this room, no matter what they say about his low IQ, etc., and he was just as smart as any of his political rivals. And I know this for a fact, since I talked to him in person, and I spent a night at his ranch in Texas. I also met his parents many times who invited me to their home, and they visited me too.
Here is what I can tell you: when I talked to his father, who was former President of the United States too, but when we talked he was no longer President, of course – he told me quite honestly and in a calm voice: “We made a big mistake when we decided to stonewall the Moscow Olympics. This prompted Russia to do the same with our Olympics. This did not make any sense.” This is what he told me face-to-face: “This was nonsense, and a big mistake. Why are we doing all this?”
But so what? This did not change anything. Faced with outside pressure, the International Olympic Committee literally turned into a circus. They have gone the whole nine yards in transforming the Olympic movement into a marketing ploy, and are destroying it with their own hands.
But that is not what I am getting at – I am not talking about that now, I am talking about the people I have had to work with. Each of them is a remarkable person. They reached as high as they did for a reason.
Fyodor Lukyanov: What is the next President like from this point of view?
Vladimir Putin: You know, you can regard him in any way you like. After all, at the outset – during his first presidential term – everyone said that he was mainly a businessman and that he did not understand much about politics, that he could make mistakes.
But, first, I can tell you: his behaviour when he faced an assassination attempt really impressed me. He turned out to be a courageous man. And it was not just the raised hand and the call to fight for their shared ideals. It was not just that, although, of course, this was more of a reflex. A man shows himself in extraordinary conditions – this is where a man shows himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in the right way: he showed his courage, as a man.
As for politics during his first term in office, I do not know whether what I say reaches him, but still I will say it now. I am saying this absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was hounded from all sides, that they would not let him do anything. He was afraid to take a step to the left, to the right, to say an extra word.
I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: this is his last term after all, so it is up to him to make his choices. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I do not want to comment now on what was said during the presidential campaign, I think it was said consciously trying to win votes, but whatever. And what has been said in terms of trying to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion at least deserves attention.
Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people. We will live up to this pledge.
Fyodor Lukyanov: And if he fulfils everything that he has been talking about all the time, and if calls you before the inauguration and says: “Vladimir, let us meet”?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I do not think it would be shameful for me to call him. I do not do this because there was a time when the leaders of Western countries have been calling me almost every week, and then suddenly they stopped. If they do not want to do it, so be it. As you can see, we are alive and well, and are developing, moving ahead.
If someone of them wants to resume contacts, I have always said and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. We are ready to resume our contacts and have discussions. But there are many people willing to have discussions, there is a whole audience here, but if not, we will have a discussion with you then.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Does this mean that you are ready to have discussions with Trump?
Vladimir Putin: We are ready, of course.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Good.
Well, since Trump is not in this room, I suggest that we have a discussion with those who are here. Let us start with Professor Feng Shaolei.
Feng Shaolei: Mr President.
I am very glad to see you once again. First, I want to convey the gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the brilliant organisation of the Kazan Summit by our Russian friends.
I also want to say a big thank you to you for personally supporting our club, including for this lively and interactive discussion.
I have recalled that eight years ago at this forum I had the honour of asking you: what are your thoughts on the relationship between Russia, the United States and China? Your answer was spot on: you said that they should be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial. Eight years have passed since that time. There are so many changes taking place around the world. On the one hand, there is all this competition, and all these terrible sanctions. But, on the other hand, China has been there for Russia as its strategic partner, and there has been a lot of positive momentum in developing cooperation within BRICS.
Here is my question: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the Russia-China strategic partnership?
Second, will it be possible to bring relations between Russia, the United States and China back to normal in the new environment?
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding relations between Russia and the Chinese People’s Republic, they have reached a historical high and are based on mutual trust, which is something we lack in our relations with other countries, above all with Western countries. I have already said why.
I know, if we had representatives here of those whom I am targeting in my remarks, they would have presented a lengthy list of claims against Russia and against me. But this is not the point right now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at its highest point in recent history. And this, precisely this, and our personal, friendly – genuinely friendly – relations with President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, offers a solid foundation for enabling our two countries to forge closer ties.
I will not go into details now but still, 240 billion in trade does not make you the biggest trade partners, but it is still the fourth largest trade balance among China’s major trade and economic partners. This is quite a result already, and also a very important fact. And we really complement each other well. We started with energy, including nuclear energy. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, this is very important, and this importance is growing. Therefore, we are expanding our cooperation across the board, the palette of our capabilities, focusing more and more on high technology in all kinds of domains.
China has achieved a lot. I have already said – I do not remember if I mentioned this here during the previous session – but at other events I said that our experts believe that China has adopted and developed an economic model organically, based on its needs. This model has proved to be much more effective compared to many other leading economies around the world. Let us admit that Chinese specialists have been able to combine economic planning with a market economy, while at a political level, our friends have managed not to stand in the way of these specialists and let them do their job. This is very important. And the results are there. This goes to say that the Chinese economy outperforms other economies despite a slight deceleration in terms of growth rates lately.
Unfortunately, the United States adopted a double containment policy by trying to contain and deter both China and Russia. Why do they need this, considering that they have to focus on two fronts at the same time? Of course, it is clear that the United States views China’s growing economic might as a threat, a threat to their dominance.
In my opinion, if they want to work and be effective in their efforts, these are the wrong methods. They must change them. They need to prove that they have an edge through fair and open competition, which would enable the United States to trigger its internal resources and development drivers. But what has the United States been doing? It has been undermining its own development with all these bans and restrictions. It seeks to ban Chinese goods or Chinese technology on the US market. But what will come out of this? Higher inflation and higher manufacturing costs. This will be the result – nothing more.
As for our interactions, our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China can be quite complementary in the sectors where the United States has been trying to contain China.
For example, we started with the energy sector. And there has been a lot of momentum in the oil and gas sector, and in the nuclear industry too. We are proactively working together to build new units at nuclear power plants, and on oil and gas deliveries too. All this contributes to China’s efforts to achieve its energy security in a reliable and sustainable manner. In fact, we are neighbours, so there is no one who could stand in our way – no storms, or efforts to close down navigation routes. Nothing can stand in the way of our cooperation, since we share the same border. This way, we can guarantee supplies today and in the future.
I think that everyone would win and there would be no losers if the United States, for example, changes course in the way it treats both Russia and China by moving away from its double containment policy towards a trilateral cooperation framework.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There was another question on the topic of trilateral cooperation.
Vladimir Putin: This is what I have just said in the end of my reply. You missed my point.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, I got distracted.
Vladimir Putin: You had something else on your mind.
To be continued.
*
Click the share button below 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 people of the United States and most of the rest of the world woke up this week to the last news they wanted to hear.
Not only had Donald J Trump presiding over a proto-fascist Maga mass movement been elected president of the United States, he will enjoy a comfortable Republican majority in the Senate, and he also may have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
He obtained about the same number of votes as in 2020, 74 million, and he scored an electoral victory because the Democrat candidate, Kamala Harris, got well over 10 million votes less than Joe Biden in 2020.
If one adds the strong political identification of the US Supreme Court with Trump’s overall political views, he will enjoy few obstacles from the key institutional structures of the United States to implement his cherished aim, the establishment of a strongly authoritarian government that would endeavour to turn all existing institutions into instruments of his political movement, his ideology and his government plans.
Throughout the election campaign and since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has projected a government programme of wholesale retribution against his political opponents including what he perceives as a hostile media, which he has labelled “the enemy within.”
He also intends to expel millions of — principally Latino — immigrants, who he accuses of “poisoning the blood of the country.”
His strategic plan for the US has been systematised in a 900-page document by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, which, if fully implemented, will erase most of the existing mechanisms and practices that, despite its gross imperfections, broadly qualify the US as a democracy.
Many have exhaled a premature sigh of relief when Trump in his victory speech promised “no more wars” in his coming administration. However, during his 2016-20 government he conducted a mutually damaging “trade war” against China, a country he harbours a deep hostility to.
Hostility to China is likely to become the centre of his concerns on foreign policy, for which he can escalate the intense cold war and the massive military build-up around the South China Sea, including arming Taiwan, already developed by Biden.
Open US hostility to China began with president Barack Obama’s “Pivot to East Asia” in 2011, which prepared the militarisation of US policy towards the Asian giant. US military build-up 8,000 miles away from the US is stirring trouble in the region.
Image: US Embassy in Jerusalem. Image: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Flickr
There ought to be little progress to be expected from the coming Trump government on the Middle East and on Palestine-Gaza. In December 2017, less than a year in office, reversing nearly seven decades of US policy on this sensitive issue, Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. There was worldwide dismay, including in substantial sections of the US Establishment, because it “shattered decades of unwavering US neutrality on Jerusalem.”
About Latin America, the 2016-20 Trump government specifically targeted what his national security adviser, John Bolton, called the “troika of tyranny” — namely, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua — which he also referred to as “a triangle of terror.”
Bolton in outlining Trump’s policy accused the three governments of being “the cause of immense suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism.”
In 2018, Trump’s state secretary, Rex Tillerson, affirmed the Monroe Doctrine because it had asserted US “authority” in the western hemisphere, stating that the doctrine is “as relevant today as it was when it was written.” Tillerson’s was a strong message to Latin America that the US would not allow the region to entertain building links with emerging world powers such as China.
It was during Trump’s 2016-20 administration that, after several years of careful and methodical preparations, the US orchestrated and financed the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua. It convulsed the small Central American nation for more than six months of vicious levels of violence, leading to wanton destruction of property, massive economic losses, and nearly 200 innocent people killed. The Biden administration, under pressure from cold warriors in the US, has continued its policy of aggression against Nicaragua by applying an array of sanctions.
Trump inflicted hundreds of sanctions on Venezuela with horrible human consequences, since in 2017-18 about 40,000 vulnerable people died unnecessarily. Venezuela’s economy was blockaded to near asphyxiation. Its oil industry was crippled with the double purpose of denying the country’s main revenue earner and preventing oil supplies to Cuba. Trump repeatedly threatened Venezuela with military aggression; Venezuela (2017) was subjected to six months of opposition street violence; an assassination attempt against President Nicolas Maduro (August 2018); Juan Guaido proclaimed himself Venezuela’s “interim president” (January 2019, and he was recognised by the US); the opposition tried to force food through the Venezuela border by military means (February 2019); the State Department offered a reward of $15 million for “information leading to the arrest of President Maduro” (March 2020); a failed coup attempt (May 2019); a mercenary raid (May 2020); and in 2023 Trump publicly admitted that he wanted to overthrow Maduro to have control over Venezuela’s large oil deposits.
Although Cuba has endured the longest comprehensive blockade of a nation in peace time (over six decades, so far), under Trump the pressure was substantially ratcheted up. In 2019 Trump accused the government of Cuba of “controlling Venezuela” and demanded that, on the threat of implementing a “full and complete” blockade, the 20,000 Cuban specialists on health, sports culture, education, communications, agriculture, food, industry, science, energy and transport, who Trump falsely depicted as soldiers, leave.
Due to the tightening of the US blockade, between April 2019 and March 2020, for the first time its annual cost to the island surpassed $5 billion (a 20 per cent increase on the year before).
Furthermore, Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” against Cuba meant, among other things, that lawsuits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, were allowed; increased persecution of Cuba’s financial and commercial transactions; a ban on flights from the US to all Cuban provinces (except Havana); persecution and intimidation of companies that send fuel supplies; an intense campaign to discredit Cuban medical co-operation programmes; USAid issued a $97,321 grant to a Florida-based body aimed at depicting Cuban tourism as exploitative; Trump also drastically reduced remittances to the island and severely limited the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, deliberately making companies and third countries think twice before doing business with Cuba; and 54 groups received $40 million in US grants to promote unrest in Cuba. Besides, Cuba has had to contend with serious unrest in July 2021 and more recently in March 2024, stoked by US-funded groups in as many cities as they could. The model of unrest is based on what has been perpetrated against Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Trump’s final act of sabotage, just days before Biden’s inauguration, was to return Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list by falsely charging it with having ties to international terrorism. The consequences have been devastating: between March 2022 and February 2023, 130 companies, including 75 from Europe, stopped any dealings with Cuba, affecting transfers for the purchase of food, medicines, fuel, materials, parts and other goods.
Trump, despite being so intemperate and substantially discredited worldwide due to his rhetorical excesses, threats and vulgarities, leads a mass extremist movement, has the presidency, the Senate and counts on the Supreme Court’s explicit complicity, and is, therefore, in a particularly strong position to go wacko about the “troika of tyranny,” especially on Cuba. In short, Trump’s election as president has a historic significance in the worst possible sense of the term.
From his speeches one can surmise he would like to make history and he may entertain the idea of doing so by “finishing the job” on Cuba (but also on Venezuela and Nicaragua). If he does undertake that route, he has already a raft of aggressive policies he implemented during 2016-20. Furthermore, he will enjoy right-wing Republican control over the Senate foreign affairs committee.
Worse, pro-blockade hard-line senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are leading members of this committee and have a fixation with Cuba. Trump got stronger support in Florida, where the anti-Cuban Republicans in Florida bolstered his support and election victory. He also has a global network of communications owned by his ally, billionaire Elon Musk. Furthermore, no matter who the tenant in the White House, the “regime change” machinery is always plotting something nasty on Cuba.
So, buckle up! Turbulent times are coming to Latin America. Our solidarity work must be substantially intensified by explaining the increased threat that a second Trump term represents for all Latin America, but especially for Cuba.
*
Click the share button below 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 on Morning Star.
Francisco Dominguez is national secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and co-author of Right-Wing Politics in the New Latin America. He will be speaking together with the Cuban ambassador Ismara Walter Vargas, Keith Boleder and Kevin Courtney at a public meeting, What Will the Next US President Mean for Cuba? on Thursday November 14, 6pm, Hamilton House, London. See www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk for full details.
Below is an excerpt from an article on Daily Mail:
A British Airways pilot has died during a layover between flights at a resort on the island of St Lucia, according to reports.
The 47-year-old Senior First Officer is believed to have collapsed at a luxury hotel in front of shocked tourists on the Caribbean island yesterday.
His death meant that BA had to cancel Flight BA2158 from Vieux Fort, which was due to land at London Gatwick at 08.50 today.
‘This tragedy has left British Airways staff stunned and deeply upset,’ a source reportedly told The Sun.
‘The Senior First Officer was very popular and his death was completely out of the blue.’
Devastated crew members are expected to return to the UK on another flight tonight.
The crew who had flown with the pilot have been offered counselling by bosses.
BA said in a statement to MailOnline: ‘Our thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of our colleague at this difficult time.’
.
.
Pilot Incapacitations on Duty in 2024 (12 So Far)
Nov. 3, 2024 – British Airways Flight BA2158 (UVF-LGW) Saint Lucia to London, 47 year old pilot died suddenly during layover, after collapsing in Saint Lucia resort.
Oct. 9, 2024 – Turkish Airlines Flight TK204 (SEA-IST) from Istanbul to Seattle, Captain Ilcehin Pehlivan, age 59, died mid-flight
Sep. 8, 2024 – Southwest Flight SW3584 (LAS-DAL) departed LAS at 0834PDT headed to DAL, diverted to LBB due to incapacitation of the captain. FO landed, stopped and removed the captain from the seat to get to the gate.
Aug. 19, 2024 – Wizz Air Flight W6-1451 (WAW-LCA) from Warsaw (Poland) to Larnaca (Cyprus), pilot became incapacitated, plane forced to return to Warsaw, incident identified as serious
July 22, 2024 – Edelweiss Flight WK-5 (TPA-ZRH) from Tampa, FL, USA to Zurich, Switzerland, pilot suffered a medical condition and was incapacitated
June 12, 2024 – Nesma Airlines Flight NE-130 (CAI-TIF) Cairo, Egypt to Taif (Saudi Arabia) – pilot Captain Hassan Youssef Adas in his late 30s collapsed and died from a presumed heart attack
June 4, 2024 – Aeromexico Flight AM-34 (MTY-MAD) from Monterrey (Mexico ) to Madrid (Spain), first officer became unwell, had a medical problem, flight diverted to Mexico City.
Mar. 24, 2024 – Jetblue Pilot Captain Keith Duncan died suddenly during layover in Curacao
Mar. 14, 2024 – British Airways BA-2272 (JFK-LGW) New York to London-Gatwickone of the pilots became incapacitated, plane forced to divert to St.John’s, NL, Canada.
Feb. 17, 2024 – Lufthansa Flight LH-1140 (FRA-SVQ) Frankfurt to Seville on Feb.17, 2024 – First Officer Incapacitated, plane turned around back to Madrid
Feb. 16, 2024 – DELTA – NYC – 58 year old Capt Geoffrey John Brock died unexpectedly on Feb.16, 2024 during a layover in Honolulu, HI
Jan. 16, 2024 – LATAM Brasil Flight LA-3744 (BSB-JPA) Brasilia to Joao Pessoa on Jan.16, 2024 – Pilot Incapacitated, plane diverted to Salvador for safe landing
*
Click the share button below 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. 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 licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Israel is really struggling with how difficult its present circumstances make playing the victim. It keeps having to invent new abuses to be victimized by like the imaginary Amsterdam “pogrom” and the fake mass rape narrative that surfaced months after October 7, because it can’t sit comfortably in the role of victimizer while on trial for genocide in international courts.
Playing victim is too deeply ingrained in the narrative control strategies of Israel and its apologists, so they have to keep coming up with new and innovative ways for Israel to be victimized even when it is very clearly the last state on earth who has any business being viewed as such.
*
We keep seeing the word “pogrom” used to refer to Israeli hooligans getting their asses kicked for obnoxious behavior in Amsterdam even as Israeli settlers keep committing textbook pogroms in the occupied West Bank.
Just a week ago armed Israeli settlers went on a violent rampage torching Palestinian people’s houses, vehicles and olive trees in order to terrorize them and drive them away. This is the exact type of behavior that the word “pogrom” has historically been used to describe, but you never hear that word used in the mass media to describe Israeli thuggishness. Instead we’re seeing it used to describe Israeli soccer hooligans getting beat up after they tore down Palestinian flags and sang chants about murdering children in Gaza.
So we’re seeing some good news and some bad news about Donald Trump’s potential cabinet picks when it comes to US warmongering and militarism.
The good news is that Trump has publicly ruled out giving psychopathic war hawks Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo a role in his next administration, explicitly naming them in a post on Truth Social and saying they won’t be invited.
This announcement suggests that Trump is at least trying to win the favor of the more anti-interventionist faction of his base. Pundits like Tucker Carlson have been publicly crusading against both Haley and Pompeo throughout this election cycle, and I mention Carlson specifically because he reportedly has Trump’s ear and was believed to have played a role in talking Trump out of bombing Iran in 2019.
The bad news is that other professional warmongers appear to be working their way into the administration. Reports from both Bloomberg and Fox News say the horrible Mike Rogers is under consideration to be the next secretary of defense. The Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams has a good thread on Twitter calling Rogers “an utter warhawk neocon” who is “arguably worse than Pompeo and Rubio,” noting that Rogers has promoted insanely hawkish positions on Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Iran, and China.
This news, in addition to Trump’s selection of Iran hawk Brian Hook to help staff the incoming State Department, makes it clear that Trump could still easily wind up with a cabinet packed full of warmongering swamp monsters just like last time. Hopefully he keeps getting pressured not to do so.
In a new article on “the expanding ground occupation of the Gaza Strip by the IDF” about the way Israel has been carving up Gaza and seizing more and more territory, Israel’s Ynet News reports that far right elements within the Israeli government are simply waiting for the Israeli hostages held by Hamas to die so that their deaths can be used to justify continued occupation and the construction of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
It’s like a false flag conspiracy theory, except it’s definitely happening and is being done right out in the open, and is even being announced ahead of time.
*
Democrats: Oh no the right wing voters we again tried to win over voted Republican again and we lost again.
Leftists: So stop doing that and win over the left instead by promoting immensely popular social policies.
Democrats: No way man, if we do that we’ll lose.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Over 180 media workers have been killed and 60 detained as Israel’s methodical destruction of the brutalized Gaza Strip continues.
The US and UN have given Israel free reign to methodically kill the population of northern Gaza Palestinians. This is a genocide within a genocide.
In spite of experiencing two Israeli wars on Gaza, I never imagined the horrific scenes coming out of northern Gaza now: Israel is exterminating the population in broad daylight, broadcast for all the world to see.
And no one is doing a damn thing to stop it.
As of October 21, Israel has besieged northern Gaza for 17 consecutive days, preventing humanitarian aid from entering, putting the population of 400,000 already starved Palestinian civilians in the north at severe risk of full starvation.
More recently, the Israeli parliament has voted to ban UNRWA, the United Nations agency for humanitarian aid, which has been the sole lifeline for many Palestinians.
Israeli forces have also bombarded water stations and wells, depriving Palestinians there of water, and cut off communications with the outside world, leaving the civilians trapped, isolated, and unable to communicate to the outside world what terrorism Israel is unleashing on them.
“For nearly a month, a full-scale invasion of northern Gaza has been unfolding openly, aiming to eradicate the Palestinian population and forcibly displace residents through terror. In addition to a crippling siege that blocks aid, prevents ambulance services, and shuts down hospitals, the Israeli army has conducted numerous massacres, killing over 1,300 people and injuring around 2,000 more.“
As they did elsewhere throughout the Gaza Strip during the past over one year of genocide, Israeli forces are targeting hospitals in Gaza’s north. Euro-Med reported that,
“Israeli army forces surrounded the Indonesian Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia. They fired two artillery shells at the hospital, cut off its electricity, and targeted anyone moving in the area.”
The army is firing on medics and other rescuers, as they’ve done throughout 2023-2024, as they did in 2009 when medics I was with came under Israeli sniper fire, another medic I knew killed by Israeli shelling with a flechette (dart) bomb. By killing the rescuers and destroying the hospitals, Israel ensures maimed Palestinians will go without medical care, and probably die.
This is, of course, illegal under international law. But as Israel’s genocidal actions have shown the world, the Israeli government (and army and illegal colonists) believe laws don’t apply to them.
Take the horrific video of an Israeli drone precision-targeting a Palestinian child, killing it, and then bombing the civilians who ran to try to rescue the child. Par for the course for the Israeli army. Were the perpetrator one of the United States’ enemies, there would be calls for No Fly Zones, sanctions and corporate media howling 24/7.
Not content to merely murder Palestinian civilians by bombing, sniping and starvation, the Israeli army has been deploying robots with explosives and leaving booby trapped barrels to remotely detonate.
The scenes which journalists have been able to publish are surreal, like science fiction, with quadcopters policing the streets. A few weeks ago, a friend messaged me that he had to choose between starving or risking being shot dead by Israel soldiers or quadcopters if he tried to get bread.
Some days later he messaged me at 4 in the morning: Israeli tanks were outside his home, the audio he sent was terrifying. He chose to stay in his home, not endure another Nakba.
In early October, Palestinian cameraman Fadi al-Wahidi was shot in his neck by an Israeli quadcopter, leaving him paralyzed.
.
.
Aside from al Jazeera, for which Fadi worked, most Western media and journalist projection organizations are unsurprisingly not reporting on Fadi being targeted by Israel.
Reporters Without Borders, which I previously wrote about for its downplaying the number of Palestinian journalists killed by Israel, has no entry on Fadi.
.
.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, at least, does. Its entry notes:
“Al Wahidi was critically injured in the neck by a bullet fired from an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft while Al Wahidi and correspondent Anas Al-Sharif were covering an Israeli siege on northern Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp. Both men were wearing “Press” vests and clearly identifiable as journalists.”
Anas al-Sharif—who continues to courageously report from northern Gaza—told CJP they’d been in an area
“completely far from the areas of operations of the Israeli occupation forces,” and full of residents when, “an Israeli reconnaissance drone fired at us. After the shooting, we tried to move to another safer place and hide from any danger, but a bullet from the plane hit our colleague Fadi Al-Wahidi in the neck, which led to his complete paralysis.”
Wahidi has since fallen into a coma. His colleagues and friends are pleading for some sort of international intervention to allow him to be taken abroad for medical care, to save his life.
In central Gaza, Ali Al-Attar is likewise in critical condition after an Israeli airstrike. He, too, needs lifesaving medical care unavailable in Gaza (because Israel destroyed Gaza’s health care system). See this.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported, citing the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS), that (between 7 October 2023 and 10 October 2024) 168 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed in the Gaza Strip, including 17 women, 360 were injured, and 60 were detained (taken hostage).
Al Mayadeen updated on November 2 that the number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza is now 183.
.
.
Israel’s Mass Extermination Campaign Continues
It’s absolutely devastating to watch every day pass with alarming new updates from or on northern Gaza. Like Anas al-Sharif, Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat courageously reports apocalyptic scenes of Israeli bombarding in northern Gaza.
“We are witnessing genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, specifically in Jabalia, which is under siege from all directions. Israeli occupation forces are bombing displaced civilians, detaining them, and attempting to ethnically cleanse them. They are targeting shelters for displaced civilians, and bodies are scattered everywhere in the north, along the roads. Thousands of civilians are being forcefully displaced (ethnically cleansed) from the north.”
Meanwhile, in a bout of meaningless theatrics, US Secretary of State and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin have, “demanded Tel Aviv improves the humanitarian situation in Gaza within 30 days or risk losing US military aid and face possible legal action.”
But clearly Israel’s biggest backer is spouting nonsense: there will be no cut to military aid, there will be no legal action, the US will never take a position to cease the Israeli genocide of Gaza. In fact, giving Israel one month before any supposed repercussion is, in my opinion, giving Israel a green light to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza as quickly as possible.
Israel seems hell-bent on implementing former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s ‘Five Fingers’ project, which envisioned carving Gaza into segments, all under Israeli security control.
If this is Israel’s intent, we will see block by block Israel repeating its extermination campaign of northern Gaza all over the rest of the already brutalized Strip.
.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Featured image: Palestinian families walk through destroyed neighbourhoods in Gaza City on 24 November 2023 as the temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli army takes effect (MEE/Mohammed al-Hajjar)
Netanyahu’s dismissal of the Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant, would have created an underground crisis within the army that could lead to a coup de main against Netanyahu, who is led by the former member of the Israeli emergency government, Benny Gantz, the recently dismissed Minister of Defence, Galant and the Army Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi.
Netanyahu and the Banality of Evil
Netanyahu would have trivialized evil because of the total absence of morality in his actions that leads him to commit crimes against humanity without thinking about their consequences and without discerning the good or bad of their acts. Thus, the use by Israel of systematic torture, the genocide of the Gazan population and other evil practices would not be considered by Netanyahu from their effects or their final outcome because the deities have chosen him to “the high mission of eliminating Hamas from the face of the earth and building the Great Israel,” a dystopian situation that has led the Jewish civil rights activist and Holocaust survivor, Israel Shakak to affirm “The Nazis made me fear being a Jew and the Israelis make me ashamed of being a Jew.”
Coup de Main Against Netanyahu?
Following the decision of the International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant accused of “crimes against humanity,” Netanyahu is aware that once the asymmetric war against Hamas has ended, he risks an international criminal prosecution.
Consequently, after razing Gaza, Netanyahu decided to invade South Lebanon to displace the 400,000 inhabitants of Southern Lebanon across the Litani River, hoping to gain time until Donald Trump’s victory in the certainty that he will be able to count on his blessings to exonerate him from all guilt before the International Criminal Court.
However, the Biden administration holds Netanyahu directly responsible for the massive loss of votes in the recent US elections, reflected in a very high abstention among the Muslim population and the left wing of the Democratic Party, what would have facilitated the comfortable victory of Trump. Thus, Joe Biden, in an interview published by Time magazine, admitted that
“Netanyahu, would be prolonging the war for political reasons and to stay in power at the head of a complex coalition government.”
This —coupled with the obvious anger of the Israeli military leadership after the manifest failure of the Israeli army to engage in a ground offensive on Lebanon, the pressing need to enlist another 20,000 troops due to the countless casualties suffered against Hizbullah and the refusal of reservists to join the ranks— would be the ideal breeding ground for a coup de main led by former Israeli Emergency Government member Benny Gantz and the recently dismissed Minister of Defence, Galant and the Army Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi.
This coup should materialize before President Trump is inaugurated in the month of January and would count on the support of high-ranking officials of the Israeli Army and the blessings of the Biden Administration and AIPAC. And after ending the invasion of Gaza and the hostages held by Hamas, this would lead to the early calling of new elections with the declared objective of forming a Government of National Unity of Benny Gantz with Yair Lapid and whose primary task will be to rewrite the Oslo Accords, which make possible the peaceful coexistence of two peoples in two states.
While Netanyahu, a nefarious politician who attempted an autocratic coup d’état to subsequently establish a presidential regime, could face criminal prosecution where he will be accused of negligence and crimes against human rights, what could mean a criminal conviction and his definitive exit from the Israeli political scene.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The New York Post reports that Russians are floating the idea of a “reset” with the US made possible by Trump’s election as President.Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund said that Trump’s “convincing victory shows that ordinary Americans are tired of the unprecedented lies, incompetence, and malice of the Biden administration.This opens up new opportunities for resetting relations between Russia and the United States.”
Trump and Putin are in favor of this, and so is the Russian media which is asking these kind of questions:
“What does the Trump administration mean for the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine? Do you think he will be able to broker a peace, or at least a ceasefire, in at least one of those conflicts?
“Do you expect the US to scale back its defense commitments in Europe under Trump? If so, will this create an opportunity for European countries to move ahead with some sort of of vision of collective security that does not rely on the US? Perhaps something in line with Macron’s proposals?
“Do you expect any changes in the US-NATO relations? Willthe alliance’s new secretary general, Mark Rutte, be able to effectively deal with the Trump White House?”
My response is that these are relevant questions. Trump has these intentions.Does he have the means?
Trump has confidence, but he also has ego and blusters, two traits unsuitable to dealing with Putin, Xi, and the Iranian “Supreme Ruler”.
Also, Trump is a strong personality. Some strong men are comfortable with strong subordinates, but others prefer yes-men.Trump’s first term was littered with people of weak character and low integrity and they were traitorous.Did he learn his lesson as he claims, and can he find strong men who will put their reputation in the line of fire? If so, will he fight for their confirmation by the Senate, or will his advisors convince him that he risks bad publicity and defeats at the beginning of his administration?
There is some indication of that already in a report that a businessman on Trump’s transition team said that Bobby Kennedy is not to have a position except as an advisor who collects information on harmful food and vaccines. Little doubt, nominating Bobby as FDA chief or Health and Human Services Secretary would have Big Pharma in every Senator’s office threatening the cut-off of all campaign contributions and their redirection to challengers. Maneuvering Trump into non-confrontation erodes his image as a fighter for America and will disappoint his supporters. It is unlikely that Trump’s advisors realize that the Senate’s refusal to confirm Bobby in office would enhance Trump’s power. He could present the people with the names of the Senators who are actively blocking the restoration of Americans’ health and ask why voters elected obstacles to making America great again. Trump has the people. He could bring the power of the people to bear on the Big Pharma stooges.
Another problem is that many, probably most, of Trump’s supporters believe America loses its wars because leaders are too weak to “stand up for America” and properly fight wars.It is important to Trump to stand up strong for America.Being tough for America also protects him against media lies that he is a Russian agent or some such accusation, whereas a reasonable deal with Putin opens him to these charges.Unfortunately, this plays into the hands of the warmonger neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy since the Soviet collapse.Their hawkishness makes them attractive associates for Trump, because together they present a tough front which Trump’s supporters want to see. Even Trump supporters have been indoctrinated with the belief that Russia, China, and Iran are America’s enemies.
A big problem for Trump in the trouble in the Middle East is that he is so heavily aligned with Israel, as are the US Congress and US media.There is so much he has to go against, including the powerful Israel Lobby, in order to bring Israel to heel.Moreover, some analysts are convinced that it is the US that uses Israel in behalf of US hegemony over oil in the Middle East.If they are correct, to change this policy is an enormous undertaking.
I believe Trump would like to withdraw from NATO. Like Putin, Trump wants to focus on domestic problems and issues. Whether Trump can put together a government that would support a NATO withdrawal is not easy to believe. Many American economic interests benefit from Washington’s rule over Europe and Ukraine. (According to reports US agri-business now owns one-third of Ukraine’s farmland.) Moreover, the threat to Europe is not Russia.European ethnic nations are being turned into Towers of Babel by their own governments who allow the countries to be over-run by immigrant-invaders while they warn of Russian invasion. It is unclear that such a nonsensical situation as this can be dealt with politically.
Ukraine, of course, will be played as another American defeat if Putin stays true to his goals of de-militarizing Ukraine and prohibiting NATO membership.If Trump accepts Putin’s terms, Trump’s opponents will try to play it not as a victory of peace over war but as an American defeat on Trump’s watch.If Putin accepts a Trump face-saving solution, it likely will play as a Putin defeat, which after three years of sacrifice will be difficult perhaps for Russians to accept.
NATO is Washington’s creation, and the General Secretary is Washington’s Puppet.Absent the US, NATO is meaningless and cannot possibly take a hostile position toward Russia.In place of mutual defense, European countries would have to develop civilized relations with Russia.
To sum up, the questions being asked cannot be answered until we see the government that Trump is able to form.Moreover, for the next two and one-half months the US government remains in the hands of Democrats and the ruling elite.This gives them plenty of time to commit the US in directions contrary to Trump’s agendas.It also gives them time for another assassination attempt.Trump has no executive power until he is inaugurated in mid-January.It is important to understand that, unless the ruling elite can tame Trump or box him in, the ruling elite regard Trump’s presidency as an existential threat to themselves. They will not fold up their tents and fade away.
The world’s population supports a reset.People everywhere are tired of wondering if some fool in Washington is going to commit them to nuclear Armageddon.Let’s pray that Trump can break the hold that the corrupt American ruling elite has on the United States and the world. It will require strong men and women, such as Tulsi Gabbard, in strong positions. A compromised administration will fail. It is past time to end war for US armaments industry profits and the unrealism of the neoconservatives’ ideology of US hegemony.
*
Click the share button below 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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this articlewas originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
[This was first published by GR in May 2015, updated on 11 November 2024.]
The enthusiasm for war in the summer of 1914 was never as great or as widespread as we have been conditioned to believe. By early 1915, after six months of massacres and with no end in sight, the soldiers and civilians of all the belligerent countries were disillusioned and disgusted, and this alarmed the authorities. In Britain, and throughout the British Empire, the widespread war weariness manifested itself in a drastic reduction of the number of men who volunteered to join the army, and the government was forced to consider introducing compulsory military service, a measure that might trigger opposition, resistance, possible even unrest, and even worse.
The fact that the enthusiasm for the war had virtually gone up in smoke, was reflected in 1915 by the success of a pacifist song born in the United States, then still a neutral country, which became an immediate hit in Britain. Its title said it all: I Didn’t Raise My Boa to Be a Soldier.
Ten million soldiers to the war have gone,
Who may never return again.
Ten million mothers’ hearts must break
For the ones who died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrow
In her lonely years,
I heard a mother murmur thro’ her tears:
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier,
I brought him up to be my pride and joy,
Who dares to place a musket on his shoulder,
To shoot some other mother’s darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,
It’s time to lay the sword and gun away,
There’d be no war today,
If mother’s all would say,
“I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier.”
Indeed, in 1915, leading personalities in all belligerent as well as many neutral countries began to argue in favour of ending the war by means of negotiations. However, both sides stuck stubbornly — and literally — to their guns. It is remarkable also that the song mentions ten million mothers whose “hearts must break”: the Great War would indeed cause the death of approximately ten million soldiers.
The popularity of this song was a matter of grave concern for Britain ‘s political and military leaders. They wanted at all costs to fight on to a victory they had expected before Christmas 1914. Even more disturbing for these gentlemen was an echo that reached them from the front in France and Belgium, where the murderous battles of the war’s early stages had given way to an equally deadly trench warfare. The ordinary British soldiers as well as their comrades from the other countries of the Empire had produced, and popularized, a song with a title that expressed their war weariness: “I want to go Home”:
I want to go home, I want to go home. I don’t want to go in the trenches no more, Where whizzbangs and shrapnel they whistle and roar. Take me over the sea, where the Alleyman can’t get at me. Oh my, I don’t want to die, I want to go home.
(…) Take me over the sea, where the snipers they can’t get at me. Oh my, I don’t want to die, I want to go home.
The British authorities would undoubtedly have preferred more patriotic and warlike songs to be cranked out by their cannon fodder.
It was in this context that on May 3, 1915, an officer came to the rescue. in the vicinity of Ypres, a town right on the front line in Flanders, John McCrae a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian army, known as a keen supporter of the British Empire and of the war, wrote a poem in which he urged the men to carry on with their task despite all the hardship. This composition, entitled “In Flanders Fields”, was predestined to become famous all over the world, presumably on account of its potent description of poppies floating in a sea of crosses marking the tombs of the dead, and also of larks singing, high above the heads of the trench-bound combatants, in spite of the rumble of the guns:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie, In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders Fields.
In his brilliant book on the First World War, The Great War and Modern Memory, the American historian Paul Fussell has critically dissected this poem. He denounces it as an almost “vicious and stupid” but particularly powerful and effective literary instrument of war propaganda, of what the French called jusqu’au boutisme, “fighting until the [triumphant] end,” in which the line “take up our quarrel with the foe” naturally jumps to the fore.
The poem was indeed potent and effective, because it evoked images the denizens of the trenches were familiar with and found appealing, such as they sky stretching high above their heads, the dawn and sunset they observed keenly every single day, the mesmerizing larks, untouchable high in the sky, the blissful “mock-death” (Fussell) of the sleep they cherished so much – and the red poppies, traditionally associated not only with sleep, dreams, and oblivion, but also with love, blood, and martyrdom. To the British soldier and poet Isaac Rosenberg too, the poppies were a strong symbol in the sense of blood and sacrifice; in his poem “Break of Day in the Trenches”, he wrote that “the roots” of the poppies “are in man’s veins.”
Larks and other birds deserve some comments, as they were important to soldiers on both sides of no man’s land, who were aptly described as moles by the Irish poet and actor Cyril Morton in a poem, “The Moles,” written in 1915. For years on end, hundreds of thousands of men did indeed live underground like moles in a stinking labyrinth of narrow and crooked corridors, between two walls of dirt, with high above their heads a sky that was all too often grey, but sometimes tantalizingly blue. Only the sky made them realize that they were not holed up in a long and narrow kind of mass grave. And so it is not surprising that the birds flying and singing high above their heads played an important role in the life of the combatants.
Larks appealed to the imagination of the British soldiers, while the Germans were mesmerized by nightingales. This was not a coincidence: in the British literary tradition back to Chaucer and Shakespeare, the lark, with its appearance and its song, announces the dawn and therefore, symbolically, a new life, as well as “passage from Earth to Heaven and from Heaven to Earth,” in other words, the link between life and death, which was of course particularly fragile at the front. And the German fascination for the nightingale had a lot to do with the fact that for them this songbird conjured up foreboding, above all a presentiment of death, but also a sign of spring and of love, in other words, of the life to which one was so attached, of the joy of life to which one aspired so passionately; and the Nachtigall also bespoke the loved ones who, for the denizens of the trenches, were as far away and as untouchable as the birds circling and singing high in the sky.
The soldiers lived below ground and, other than their comrades, they never saw a human being. One could occasionally look at the other side through a periscope, but in most cases no sign of life was visible, neither in no man’s land nor at the enemy lines beyond. One saw virtually nothing and no one, but one could smell all the more, namely, a repulsive stench. Indeed, countless corpses of men and horses were lying around unburied near the trenches, and it even happened that parts of bodies were integrated in the walls and parapets of the trenches.
The stench not only of cadavers, but also of excrement, was part and parcel of life in a system of trenches that had become one huge open sewer, a modern-day cloaca maxima. Admittedly there were latrines, and it goes without saying that the very class-conscious British had separate privies for officers and ordinary soldiers; however, the latrines were often hit by shells, which caused the contents to be scattered over a large area. It also did not help that diarrhoea was pandemic. Bits and pieces of horse carcasses might also rain down occasionally on the soldiers on account of explosions. And the cadavers of horses reportedly smelled even worse than those of human beings. In any event, the “human moles” had no choice but to learn to live with the stench. They got used to the odour, as is illustrated by the following two lines from George Willis’s poem “Any Soldier To His Son”: “I learned to sleep by snatches on the fire step of a trench, And to eat my breakfast mixed with mud and Fritz’s heavy stench.” If the soldiers of all armies smoked a lot, pipes as well as cigars and cigarettes, it was to calm their nerves and forget their hunger, but most of all to mask the omnipresent and insupportable stench of corpses and excrement.
The generals and other high-ranking officers who occasionally visited the trenches were not used to the odours that prevailed there and were disgusted by the stench and the sight of excrement. But they did not get any sympathy from the ordinary soldiers who had to live permanently in such nasty circumstances. This lack of sympathy oozes out of the text of a humorous song that was very popular among the Tommies, “That Shit Shute”:
The General inspecting the trenches
Exclaimed with a horrified shout,
‘I refuse to inspect a division Which leaves excreta about’
But nobody took any notice
No one was prepared to refute
That the presence of shit was congenial Compared with the presence of Shute
And certain responsible critics
Made haste to reply to his words
Observing his staff of advisers Consisted entirely of turds
For shit may be shot at odd corners
And paper supplied there to suit
But shit would be shot without mourners
If someone shot that shit Shute.
A typical day in the trenches started before the first rays of sunlight pierced through the darkness of night, which, during the summer, meant around 4:30 a.m. Everybody had to appear fully equipped, weapon in hand, as if an attack were imminent. The British called this routine “stand-to,” or “standing to arms.” The Tommies, like the French, stared in the direction of the rising sun, saw the first larks, and wondered if they would survive the coming day and if they would ever return home and reunite with their loved ones. On the other side of no man’s land, the Germans’ gaze chased the fleeing night and their ears strained to hear the nightingales’ finales, conjuring up life and loved ones. Then came the order to “stand down,” followed by permission for the men to have breakfast. In certain British units, rum was served on this occasion, two spoonfuls per person, to add to tea or to drink separately. The distribution of rum was a much-prized ceremony. And before an attack the Tommies received a more generous ration than usual. After an attack by the British, an odour not only of corpses and excrement but also of rum floated throughout the no man’s land.
During the day, there was work to be done. The majority of the soldiers were peasants or industrial workers, very much used to hard work. And their bosses — the officers — liked to order them to perform all sorts of tasks, feeling that it had to be that way, and observed keenly to see that the work was done properly. They also felt that it was necessary to keep the soldiers permanently occupied in order to prevent boredom and keep morale high. Trenches had to be dug, enlarged, strengthened, or repaired after a bombardment. The weapons had to be cleaned and the uniforms and boots made to look as good as possible under the circumstances. The men were subjected to frequent inspections, and there was a constant need for soldiers to perform guard duty. The daily routine ended in the evening with the same stand-to ritual as in the morning. This time, the Germans eyed the sun setting in the west, and the British, French, and Belgians observed the approaching night; everyone looked out longingly for larks and nightingales.
McCrae wrote his poem in the spring of 1915, and it was not a coincidence that poppies flowered abundantly in Flanders’ Fields at that time. Normally, that flower’s minuscule seeds penetrate deep into the earth to wait there, sometimes for years, for the soil to be upturned for some reason, and thus exposed to the sunlight and warmth they suddenly germinate. With the digging of miles of trenches and the explosion of tens if not hundreds of thousands of shells starting in the fall of 1914, the conditions were created for an unprecedented burgeoning of poppies the following spring in that corner of Belgium, of course most spectacularly so in the immediate vicinity of the trenches and in the pockmarked no man’s land.
With its poppies, McCrae’s poem thus certainly catered to the sensibilities of the Canadian and British soldiers. Even more effective as a tool of motivation was the fact that the poem loomed like an appeal emanating from the fallen comrades, rather than from officialdom, including officers like McCrae himself. It insinuated in a particularly subtle way that not to persevere in “our [sic] quarrel with the foe” would have amounted to a kind of treason, a gross shattering of the chain of solidarity that bound the men together – the living as well as the dead! Not “holding high the torch” thus became unthinkable, as it would have meant betraying the dead comrades. Such disloyalty would have prevented the latter from finding rest in an eternal sleep, even though they were cradled by a lovely landscape bursting with soporific blossoms:
If ye break faith with us who die, We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
Such a jusqu’au-boutiste poem could hardly fail to find favour with military and political authorities keen to find ways to motivate the men, with the media, and thus with the public. McCrae received heaps of letters and telegrams congratulating and praising him. In Flanders Fields was published on December 6, 1915, in the satirical but nationalist British magazine Punch and thus embarked on a career as one of the most celebrated and cited literary products of the Great War. The reason was not its literary merits, nor was it because ordinary soldiers liked it, which does not seem to have been the case at all. It became famous because it would be used systematically, year after year, to make propaganda in favour of the war and against pacifism, in favour of the sale of war bonds, of the recruitment of volunteers all over the British Empire and later, in 1917, in the United States – and in Canada, again in 1917, in favour of the introduction of conscription, a measure that met with much opposition, especially in the province of Québec. Even today, the red poppy is associated not only with remembrance, but with nationalism and militarism, which is why on occasions such as Remembrance Day pacifists have turned to wearing an alternative, white poppy.
The poppy also made an appearance in a very different literary and musical creation of 1915, but one of a strongly anti-militarist nature, namely a French song inspired by the bloody fighting in the infamous forest known as Bois-le-Prêtre, in Lorraine. In this song, entitled Au bois Le Prêtre, the red poppy is an analogue of the futile medals bestowed on the soldiers who “fell” for the fatherland on that particular “field of honour”:
Si, du canon bravant l’écho,
Le soleil y risque un bécot,
On peut voir le coquelicot
Partout renaître…
Car, dans un geste de semeur,
Dieu, pour chaque Poilu qui meurt,
Jette des légions d’honneur
Au Bois-le-Prêtre If the sun dares to ignore the gunfire,
And comes to bless us with a little kiss,
Red poppies all around us
Spring to life again . . .
It is God who, like a sower,
Generously casts decorations
One for every soldier
Who dies in Bois-le-Prêtre
*
Click the share button below 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. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His books include The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015), Big Business and Hitler (2017), and Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War — new perspectives on key events (2022).
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed itself to funnelling billions of dollars, coming to the rescue of impoverished farmers in the Global South.
„Die Hölle ist leer und die Teufel sind alle hier“. William Shakespeare, „Der Sturm“, 1623
Event 201 war eine Tischsimulation einer Coronavirus-Epidemie, die von John Hopkins und der Gates Foundation gesponsert wurde.
At the same time martial law could be adopted concurrently in relation to the evolving Covid crisis, the mRNA vaccine and its devastating economic and social aftermath.
