Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) published a statement on Monday alleging that “Washington is considering holding presidential and parliamentary elections [in Ukraine] next year in the context of continued hostilities with Russia.” The purpose is to act “As one of the ‘legitimate’ ways to eliminate the ‘overly presumptuous’ V. Zelensky”, “if necessary.” To that end, the US is already supposedly leveraging its agents of influence in Ukraine to “create[e] a new party designed to occupy a pro-American niche”.

This analysis here from August “Assessing The Veracity Of SVR’s Latest Report About Impending Political Changes In Kiev” hyperlinks to three associated analyses from December 2023, January 2024, and May 2024 in an attempt to account for why prior predictions of political changes there have yet to happen. As regards the latest prediction, which is importantly caveated with the vague claim that it’ll only be done “if necessary”, there are reasons to expect it to be more difficult to pull off than SVR’s statement implies.

.

.

The only realistic way that the US can coerce Zelensky into holding elections without a ceasefire first, remembering that he said that he supposedly can’t hold them till the conflict ends due to his government’s interpretation of the martial law decree, is by withholding military aid. If Trump goes through with that, then he risks facilitating a Russian military breakthrough that could raise the chances of Russia achieving its maximum goals in the conflict, which the US naturally wants to avoid happening.

Despite Trump promising to end the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine that Biden was responsible for provoking, he’s still a businessman at heart and therefore likely isn’t comfortable with his country receiving no return on their hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of investments. For that reason, it’s improbable that he’ll create the conditions for Russia to achieve its maximum goals in the conflict by withholding military aid from Zelensky until the latter holds new elections as a means for replacing him.

What’s more likely is that Trump coerces Zelensky into agreeing to a ceasefire and then demands that he hold elections shortly after that, perhaps on the pretext of ensuring a democratic mandate for proceeding further with peace talks, after which he and his party could then be replaced. This “phased leadership transition” would only occur “if necessary” since Trump might also let Zelensky continue putting off elections while using the SBU to consolidate his one-party rule if he does his bidding.

It’s premature to predict whether or not Trump would demand that elections be held after a ceasefire, but it can be assessed with a high degree of confidence that he wouldn’t demand that they be held before then since that could facilitate Russia inflicting a strategic defeat on the US. Whenever elections finally arrive, it’s a certainty that the US will do everything possible to perpetuate its influence over Kiev, even if this requires “democratically” replacing Zelensky and his party with more popular proxies.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zalensky Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, at the InterContinental New York Barclay in New York City. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

There is no doubt that the leaders of Washington, Moscow and Beijing could stop that horrifying massacre at once.

President-elect Donald Trump has said on many occasions, during his campaign and after his election, that he will stop the Ukraine war in less than 24 hours. If this is possible, and there is no doubt that it is, the same applies to halting almost instantaneously the abject slaughter-genocide of Zionist-Israel against Palestinians in Gaza, in the West Bank, and against Lebanon – and the threat on Iran, the entire Middle East, and whatever and whoever else may be on the domineering hit list of the Chosen People.

A month ago, the Biden Administration has told Netanyahu that within a month, the situation in Gaza must have improved, sufficient food trucks must be allowed into Gaza, the indiscriminate bombing must stop, adequate amounts of drinking water must be made available to the Gazan population, schools, and hospitals – those that still exist – must remain untouched, otherwise no more US weapons will be shipped to Israel.

Today is the deadline.

The situation in Gaza has worsened. Before October 7, 2023, around 500 trucks per day with nutrition and medication were allowed into Gaza.

Today, recently only fraction of about 35 to maximum 50 per day enter Gaza.

On many days, none at all.

Mind you, and just so everybody understands, this October 7, 2023 is an artificial date, and the Hamas attack is “artificial” in the sense that it had been planned by Israel (Mossad), CIA, MI6, for several years before. The same with Hamas – its creation was a western Secret Service achievement. Precisely for the reason and purpose that it serves today.

As testified by high-level officers of the Israeli security force protecting the border to Gaza – “not even a rat could cross that border unobserved”; thus, a several hour-long pause in border protection must have been ordered in the early morning of October 7, 2023, so that Hamas could carry out their planned attack. See this video, dated 13 November 2024:

Ex-NHS surgeon Nizam Mamode broke down as he told the international development committee what he witnessed when working as a surgeon in Gaza.

One could call it a “False Flag” of gigantic proportions.

Today, deadline day of the Biden Administration’s ultimatum – bombing of Gaza, especially northern Gaza, continues indiscriminately. Targeting schools and medical facilities – as if no such ultimatum existed. It would appear that Netanyahu and those who command him, never actually listened, or agreed to it.

What would you believe the Biden Administration’s response and reaction is to the continuous attack and obliteration of Gaza?  Yeap — continue with weapon shipments and indiscriminate support of the Zionist genocide as per status quo, despite the broken ultimatum.

This is not just shame – it is first-hand testimony of what our rudderless, rules-based world has become today.

Here comes a relatively simple solutions for the three World Powers, Washington, Russia, Beijing: to act in unison and to stop the killing, destruction, and misery at once.

Now that the US ultimatum expired, these three world powers could simply occupy Israel with minimal casualties, block deliveries of fuel, food, medication, water supply [much of which belongs to Palestine anyway] – and of course, weapons and money. All blocked at once.

From one day to the other, the killing would stop.

Or, is somebody telling the world that there are powers, obviously Zionists or Zionist-associated supremacies, that are above the United States, Russia, and China?

If this is so, it is high time (it is a second before midnight) for those in the know —Big Tech, Big Finance— to come to the fore and reveal the perpetrators. If they do not, sooner or later – rather sooner than later – We, the People, will find out on our own and take the reins into our hands. What then follows is not a Revolution, but and Evolution of a “higher’ kind, taking care of the criminals in a “Nuremberg 2.0” and ascending towards a New World of sovereign states, harmoniously living together.

Wait, we are not there yet.

We are still at the point where the three superpowers in unison could stop this war – as well as the Ukraine war, and all wars and conflicts —at once. All they need to do is joining together for the sake of humanity – and apply their genius, willpower and political might for lasting peace.

This is what this APPEAL is all about:

It is for a threesome act of the mighty to save humanity.

For a union of the three, as if they had to save their own lives.

Not tomorrow.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Featured image source

“The old lie: Dulce et decorum est /Pro patria mori (It is a sweet and fitting thing to die for one’s country”) – Wilfred Owen

Yes, it seems fitting that I am writing these words on November 11, Veterans Day in the U.S. and Remembrance Day in Commonwealth countries, a day that began as Armistice Day to celebrate the ending of World War I, the “war to end all wars.”

That phrase has become a sardonic joke in the century that has followed as wars have piled up upon wars to create a permanent condition, and the censorship and propaganda that became acute with WW I have been exacerbated a hundredfold today. The number of dead soldiers and civilians in the century since numbs a mind intent on counting numbers, as courage, love, and innocence wails from skeletons sleeping deep in dirt everywhere. The minds of the living are ravished at the thought of so much death.

Almost a year ago I reviewed a film – Four Died Trying – about four American men who were assassinated by the U.S. government because they opposed the wars upon which their country had come to rely: President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. I wrote of this documentary film, directed by John Kirby and produced by Libby Handros, that it was powerful, riveting, and masterful, the opening 58 minute prologue to a film series meant to be released at intervals over a few years. This prologue was released at the end of 2023 to great applause.

I wrote of it:

Today we are living the consequences of the CIA/national security state’s 1960s takeover of the country. Their message then and now: We, the national security state, rule, we have the guns, the media, and the power to dominate you. We control the stories you are meant to hear. If you get uppity, well-known, and dare challenge us, we will buy you off, denigrate you, or, if neither works, we will kill you. You are helpless, they reiterate endlessly. Bang. Bang. Bang.

But they lie, and this series of films, beginning with its first installment, will tell you why. It will show why understanding the past is essential for transforming the present. It will profoundly inspire you to see and hear these four bold and courageous men refuse to back down to the evil forces that shot them down. It will open your eyes to the parallel spiritual paths they walked and the similarity of the messages they talked about – peace, justice, racism, colonialism, human rights, and the need for economic equality – not just in the U.S.A. but across the world, for the fate of all people was then, and is now, linked to the need to transform the U.S. warfare state into a country of peace and human reconciliation, just as these four men radically underwent deep transformations in the last year of their brief lives.

This 58 minute prologue touches on many of themes that will follow in the months ahead. Season One will be divided into chapters that cover the four assassinations together with background material covering “the world as it was” in the 1950s with its Cold War propaganda, McCarthyism, the rise of the military-industrial complex, the CIA, red-baiting, and the ever present fear of nuclear war. Season Two will be devoted to the government and media coverups, citizen investigations, and the intelligence agencies’ and their media mouthpieces’ mind control operations aimed at the American people that continue today.

Then in March of this year I wrote about the second film in the series, The World As It Was, that explores the very disturbing history of the 1950s in the U.S.A., a decade that lay the foundation of fear upon which the horrors of the 1960s were built, and from which we now are reaping the flowers of evil that have sprung up everywhere we look because the evils of those decades have never been adequately addressed.

But I was hopeful that if enough people got see to see these illuminating and brilliantly done films, built on more than 120 interviews over six years with key historical figures, including many family members of the four men, change was possible because more people would demand accountability. That the movies were also entertaining, despite their profoundly serious content, boded well for their reaching a wide audience.

Just recently, I was again asked by the filmmakers, as were others, to preview the third film, Jack Joins the Revolution, about John F. Kennedy, from his youth to the hope he inspired when he entered politics in 1947 until his death on November 22, 1963 and the shock and despair that overtook the nation and the world. This third film matched the brilliance of the first two, but I did wonder why there had been a lapse of more than six months between this one and the previous.

It seemed to me that this was the perfect time for these films to be released in quick succession to have a profound effect.

But having watched this third film, I discovered to my great surprise that it has not been released, nor, even more shockingly, has the second one that I previewed eight months ago. Why? I do not know, but it is very odd, to put it mildly. I do know that by not releasing them now a significant opportunity is being lost. These films would be of great help to the country, because they depict what a truly populist presidency looks like and the malign forces that oppose him.  But alas, for reasons that are hard to fathom, the films are being suppressed by someone.  We can only hope that the filmmakers will be successful in their efforts to free the films in time for them to be of value at this crucial moment in our history.

It is well known that JFK was a naval war hero in WW II, but less well known that his war experience turned him fiercely against war, that to end all wars was a fundamental theme of his for the rest of his life.

Image: United States Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade John F. Kennedy, 1942 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum Photograph by Frank Turgeon Jr.)

Jack Joins the Revolution explores this and reminds the viewer that Kennedy was well acquainted with death, having almost died eight times before he was assassinated, something he knew was coming. He was courageous in the extreme. Thus my earlier reference to Veterans Day, for JFK was a veteran of exceptional courage who not only saved his comrades when their PT boat was sunk by the Japanese in the south Pacific, but tried to the end to save his country and the world from the madness of the endless wars that have followed his death at the hands of the CIA and the U.S. warfare state.

This film clearly shows why he became such an obstacle to the imperial war machine and the CIA that to this very day have a huge stake in suppressing the truth about the man. If the film (and the others) is not released, these forces will have been successful. It will be another posthumous assassination.

For what is most striking about this episode is the light it sheds on John Kennedy’s forceful, long-standing anti-colonial and anti-imperial convictions for which he was attacked by politicians of both parties. It is suggested, and I think rightly, that this grew out of his Irish roots, for Ireland’s long fight for independence from British colonial occupation was dear to his heart and also a fundamental inspiration in the following decades for anti-colonial freedom fighters everywhere. It still is.

To listen to the film’s clips of his speeches on these topics is a revelation for those unfamiliar, not only with his radical views for a politician, but to his passionate eloquence that is sorely missing today. Attacking the policies of support for dictators and the coups against foreign leaders under the Eisenhower administration and the CIA led by Allen Dulles, JFK called for freedom and independence for people’s everywhere and the end of colonialism supported by the U.S. and other nations. Algeria, Iran, Cuba, Latin America, Africa – it’s a long list.

Even before he became president, in 1957, then Senator Kennedy gave a speech in the U.S. Senate that sent shock waves throughout Washington, D.C. and around the world. He came out in support of Algerian independence from France and African liberation generally, and against colonial imperialism.

As chair of the Senate’s African Subcommittee in 1959, he urged sympathy for African and Asian independence movements as part of American foreign policy. He believed that continued support of colonial policies would only end in more bloodshed because the voices of independence would not be denied, nor should they be.

That speech caused an international uproar, and in the U.S.A. Kennedy was harshly criticized by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even members of the Democratic party, such as Adlai Stevenson and Dean Acheson. But it was applauded in Africa and the Third World.

Yet JFK continued throughout his 1960 presidential campaign to raise his voice against colonialism throughout the world and for free and independent African nations. Such views were anathema to the foreign policy establishment, including the CIA and the burgeoning military industrial complex that President Eisenhower belatedly warned against in his Farewell Address, delivered nine months after approving the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in March 1960; this juxtaposition revealed the hold the Pentagon and CIA had and has on sitting presidents, as the pressure for war became structurally systematized and Kennedy was removed through a public execution for all the world to see.

Many voices speak to this and other issues in the film: Oliver Stone, James W. Douglass, RFK, Jr., Robert Dallek, Monica Wiesak, his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Peter Dale Scott, James Galbraith, his nephew Stephen Smith, David Talbot, Peter Janney, and others.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaks about the 1953 U.S. coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and of the approximately 72 CIA-led known coups the United States engineered between 1947 and 1989; author Stephen Schlesinger of the Dulles brothers’ work for the United Fruit Company and their subsequent involvement in the 1954 coup d’état against the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz who was instituting land reform that threatened United Fruit’s hold on so much of the country. In both cases, and many others, the U.S. supported vicious dictators and decades of terrible bloodshed and civil wars. We see a clip of JFK himself condemning the U.S. support of the Cuban dictator Batista, who was finally overthrown by Fidel Castro and his rebel compatriots, the Cuban Revolution that Kennedy understood and sympathized with.

All this just leading up to Kennedy’s presidency, which will be covered in the next film.

Watching this riveting documentary, one cannot but be deeply impressed with a side of John Kennedy few know – his hatred of oppression, colonialism, imperialism, war, and his love of freedom for all people. One comes away from the film knowing full well why the CIA had branded him an arch-enemy even before he took office, and then when in office he rattled their cage so much more in the cause of peace.

And one is left asking: why then has this film (and its predecessor about the right-wing witch hunt and crackdown on dissent in the 1950s) not been released to the public at a time when nothing could be more timely?

It is a very strange kind of executive action, considering the brilliance and importance of these films for today – this very moment in history.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Thyroid dysfunction is extremely common, affecting up to 70% to 80% of people by age 60, with symptoms including fatigue, weight gain, depression and low body temperature

Body temperature and pulse rate are indicators of thyroid health, with optimal morning temperature being 98 degrees F and midday reaching 98.6 degrees F with a pulse of between 60 to 100 beats per minute

Conventional T4-only treatments like Synthroid may be insufficient; many patients benefit from balanced T3/T4 therapy through natural glandular supplements or timed-release T3 formulations

Progesterone and adrenal health directly impact thyroid function, making it essential to address these hormones together rather than treating thyroid issues in isolation

Supporting thyroid health requires a comprehensive approach including iodine supplementation, gut health optimization, stress reduction and minimizing exposure to environmental toxins

*

Maintaining optimal thyroid function is necessary for overall health, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood and mismanaged aspects of endocrine health. In my recent in-depth interview with pharmacist and health coach Carol Petersen, we explored the complexities of thyroid health, uncovering insights that challenge conventional medical practices.

Your thyroid gland, though small, plays a pivotal role in regulating your metabolism, energy production and overall hormonal balance. Just as progesterone, which we discussed in our last interview, is essential for balancing estrogen and supporting various bodily functions, thyroid hormones are indispensable for maintaining metabolic rate and cellular energy.

Petersen pointed out the intricate relationship between progesterone and thyroid health: “Progesterone is so pivotal to good thyroid activity. You can’t uncouple the two things.” This connection underscores the importance of addressing hormonal balance holistically rather than in isolation.

Progesterone supports adrenal function, which in turn supports thyroid activity. Without adequate progesterone, your thyroid cannot function optimally, leading to a cascade of metabolic issues.

Understanding this relationship is important because many individuals may experience thyroid dysfunction symptoms without realizing that progesterone imbalance is the underlying cause. By ensuring that progesterone levels are sufficient, you create a supportive environment for your thyroid to operate effectively, enhancing overall metabolic health and energy levels.

The Prevalence of Hypothyroidism

Hypothyroidism is alarmingly common, with estimates suggesting that by age 60, up to 70% to 80% of the population may experience low thyroid function. Petersen noted, “There’s hypothyroidism all over the place,” highlighting the silent epidemic that many suffer from without proper diagnosis or treatment. This high prevalence is often masked by the subtlety of symptoms and the inefficacy of conventional testing methods, which fail to capture the full picture of thyroid health.

Most people remain undiagnosed because they do not seek medical advice until their metabolic rate is severely compromised. Symptoms such as fatigue, weight gain and depression are often dismissed as normal aging processes rather than indicators of thyroid dysfunction. This widespread underdiagnosis contributes to the ongoing struggle many face in maintaining energy levels and overall health.

Hypothyroidism presents a broad spectrum of symptoms that significantly impact daily life. Recognizing the symptoms early leads to more effective interventions and prevents the progression of thyroid-related health issues. Key indicators include:

• Fatigue — Persistent tiredness that’s not alleviated by rest.
• Weight gain — Unexplained increases in body weight despite no changes in diet or activity levels.
• Dry skin and hair — Skin becomes rough and dry, and hair may fall out or become brittle.
• Constipation — Reduced gut motility leading to infrequent or difficult bowel movements.
• Inability to sweat — Decreased sweating can lead to overheating and discomfort.
• Depression and anxiety — Mood swings, feelings of depression, and heightened anxiety levels.
• Low body temperature — A consistently low body temperature may indicate a sluggish metabolism.
• High cholesterol — Elevated cholesterol levels are often a marker of hypothyroidism, as the thyroid plays a crucial role in lipid metabolism.

The Importance of Body Temperature and Pulse Rate

Conventional medicine typically relies on a basic thyroid panel measuring T4, T3, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). However, this approach often misses the nuanced aspects of thyroid function. Advanced panels that include free hormones and reverse T3 provide a more accurate picture of thyroid health but are seldom utilized in mainstream practice.

One of the simplest yet most effective screening tools for thyroid health is measuring your body temperature and pulse rate. This approach is effective because T3 levels are generally higher in the morning and decline as the day progresses.

Elevated T3 levels in the tissues correlate with a more active metabolism, leading to increased body temperature and pulse rate. A morning body temperature of approximately 98 degrees Fahrenheit signifies healthy thyroid function. By midday, a temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit combined with a pulse rate between 60 and 100 beats per minute typically indicates a normal metabolic response.

When consulting your doctor about your thyroid function, a common test they may order is the TSH test, which measures the level of thyroid-stimulating hormone in your blood. It’s important to recognize that while a low TSH level is generally considered desirable, it’s sometimes suppressed by cortisol and adrenaline. Petersen explains:¹

“TSH is your pituitary signal to the thyroid to be stimulating the release of more thyroid hormone. And we have these accepted ranges, again, pretty much by committees, of a normal TSH is 0.35 or 0.5, can be to 3.5, 4.5, 5.5 depending on the lab. Although the Endocrine Society has recommended 3.5 as an upper limit …

So, we have the situation where conventional medicine doesn’t recognize your hypothyroidism until you’re way off that range. And I zero in on around 0.8 to 1.0 as a more optimal range.”

Dr. Ray Peat considered a normal TSH below 0.5. Furthermore, even if your lab results are within normal ranges, unusual body temperature and pulse readings still suggest subclinical hypothyroidism. “Take your temperature before you get up in the morning … you should have gotten a temperature of 97.8 to 98.2,” Petersen notes, referencing Dr. Broda Barnes’ work.

You can use the basal body temperature thermometer to measure your temperature as they are more accurate and measure it to 100th of a degree.

A consistently low body temperature indicates a sluggish metabolism, while monitoring pulse rate offers insights into metabolic rate, as thyroid hormones play a key role in regulating heart rate and overall energy expenditure. An elevated pulse rate may reflect an overactive thyroid. These physiological signs are often overlooked in conventional medical settings but provide valuable information about your thyroid’s operational status.

Critiquing the Conventional T4-Only Therapy

Your hypothalamus secretes thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) that triggers your pituitary gland to release TSH that then causes your thyroid to release T4. Nearly 90% of your thyroid hormone is released in an inactive form of T4. Your liver then converts T4 to T3 with the help of an enzyme.

The most common thyroid medication in the U.S. is Synthroid (levothyroxine), a synthetic form of T4. “Conventional wisdom says our thyroid gland makes about 80% T4, and therefore we should treat with T4. But T4 is relatively inactive till it’s converted to T3,” Petersen explained.² Relying solely on T4 therapy downregulates the enzyme responsible for converting T4 to the active T3 form, worsening hypothyroid symptoms.

This highlights a fundamental flaw in conventional treatment paradigms. By focusing only on T4, doctors may create a situation where patients remain symptomatic despite appearing to receive adequate thyroid hormone replacement. “Using T4, in some patients you actually make them more hypothyroid,” Petersen noted, emphasizing the need for a more balanced approach that includes lifestyle changes and active T3 supplementation when necessary.

Safe Dosing Strategies for T3 Supplementation

For those requiring T3 supplementation, timed-release formulations offer a more stable hormone level throughout the day. This method prevents the spikes and crashes associated with conventional dosing, ensuring a steady metabolic rate and hormone balance. Using timed-release T3 formulations or compounding T3 to create a steady release throughout the day is another option.

Petersen advises cautious dosing when using T3 supplements: “Use multiple times per day, a smaller dose … Just not really over 20 to 25 micrograms per day.” This method ensures that your body receives a consistent supply of T3, supporting optimal metabolic function without the negative side effects associated with high-dose, single-time administrations.

Exploring Natural Glandular Supplements as Alternatives

Glandular supplements, such as Armour Thyroid, offer several advantages over synthetic thyroid medications. They provide a natural balance of T4 and T3, which leads to better overall thyroid function and symptom relief. However, sourcing and quality control remain critical factors in their effectiveness.

“Armour used to be good. I personally use ERFA. It’s available in Canada and other countries,” Petersen shared, advocating for high-quality glandulars sourced internationally. She explains that over-the-counter thyroid glandulars in the U.S. have undergone regulatory changes that require the extraction of T3, leaving only T4 in the supplements. This alteration diminishes their efficacy, as T3 is the active form of thyroid hormone crucial for metabolic processes.

Ensuring that glandular supplements contain adequate levels of both T4 and T3 is essential for maintaining optimal thyroid function and preventing the pitfalls associated with T4-only therapy.

The Essential Role of Adrenal Health in Thyroid Function

Thyroid function is intricately linked to adrenal health, a connection often neglected in conventional treatments. “Before you’re supplementing thyroid, you have to look at how is this person doing with their adrenal glands? Because the adrenals support the thyroid,” Petersen emphasized.³ Without adequate adrenal support, thyroid treatments may exacerbate symptoms, leading to issues like palpitations and anxiety.

Assessing adrenal function involves more than just looking at thyroid levels. Petersen advises monitoring blood pressure as an indicator: “If your [systolic] blood pressure is running … 100 or less, they don’t have the adrenal support to take thyroid. They’re going to have a problem with it.” Low blood pressure signifies insufficient adrenal function, which undermines the effectiveness of thyroid therapy.

Supporting adrenal health through supplements like progesterone and DHEA, as well as lifestyle modifications, is important for ensuring that thyroid treatments are effective and do not lead to adverse side effects.

Chronic stress also undermines adrenal health, which in turn impairs thyroid function. Consider stress-reduction techniques such as meditation, adequate sleep, and relaxation practices as part of your comprehensive thyroid health regimen, ensuring that both adrenal and thyroid functions are supported and optimized.

Iodine Supplementation: Balancing Essential Nutrients

Iodine is fundamental for thyroid hormone production, yet its role is complicated by the presence of halides like chlorine and bromine. Petersen recommends using Lugol’s solution to ensure adequate iodine intake: “I’ve been recommending two to four drops of Lugol’s solution in water daily. So, one drop is 6.25 milligrams (mg), so basically 12.5 to 25.”

Proper iodine supplementation supports thyroid hormone synthesis, but it must be balanced to avoid adverse reactions, especially in individuals with high halide exposure. Halides such as chlorine, fluorine and bromine interfere with iodine uptake by the thyroid gland.

“We know the halides, chlorine and fluorine, interfere with our thyroid. And bromine. It interferes with that thyroid function,” Petersen explained. These halides replace iodine in thyroid hormones, leading to dysfunctional molecules that impede thyroid activity.

Chlorine is commonly found in tap water, while bromine is present in various industrial chemicals and consumer products. Reducing exposure to these halides involves adopting practices such as using filtered water, avoiding chlorinated pools and being mindful of the products you use daily.

Ensuring adequate iodine intake while minimizing exposure to halides is essential for maintaining optimal thyroid function. This balance is best achieved through careful dietary choices and targeted supplementation, as recommended by Petersen.

Progesterone and Coconut Oil for Thyroid Health

Progesterone plays a vital role in supporting both adrenal and thyroid function. By addressing progesterone deficiency, hormonal balance is restored, creating a supportive environment for thyroid activity. Progesterone supports adrenal function, which in turn supports thyroid function. Without adequate progesterone, your adrenal glands cannot effectively support the thyroid, leading to a cascade of metabolic issues.

Supplementing progesterone helps stabilize hormonal balance, reduce anxiety, improve sleep quality, and enhance overall thyroid function. Incorporating progesterone into a thyroid health regimen is essential for ensuring that all aspects of hormonal balance are addressed, thereby optimizing thyroid function and overall metabolic health.

Coconut oil, rich in medium-chain triglycerides and steroidal molecules, aids in the conversion of T4 to the active T3 form, thereby enhancing thyroid function and overall energy metabolism. Including coconut oil in your diet can be a simple yet effective strategy to support thyroid health. Its unique composition not only provides a source of healthy fats but also supports the biochemical processes necessary for optimal thyroid hormone activity.

Addressing Autoimmune Thyroiditis: Beyond Standard Treatments

Autoimmune conditions like Hashimoto’s thyroiditis complicate thyroid health but may be managed effectively with the right strategies. Petersen highlighted the importance of testing for thyroid antibodies: “60% of us have antibodies to thyroid peroxidase and thyroglobulin. You can have these tests run.” Elevated antibodies indicate autoimmune activity that impairs thyroid function, requiring a targeted approach to manage and reverse the condition.

Conventional medicine often overlooks the role of autoimmune activity in thyroid dysfunction, focusing instead on hormone replacement without addressing the underlying immune response. By identifying and addressing thyroid antibodies, it’s possible to mitigate autoimmune attacks on your thyroid gland, improving thyroid function and overall health.

The key to managing autoimmune thyroiditis lies in repairing your gut health. A healthy gut barrier prevents the leakage of proteins into your bloodstream, reducing your immune system’s attack on thyroid tissues. The solution to this problem is extensively covered in my new book, “Your Guide to Cellular Health.”

Implementing gut-healing protocols involves adopting a diet rich in anti-inflammatory foods, eliminating food sensitivities and supporting gut microbiota through probiotics and prebiotics. Your microbiome, the community of bacteria in your gut, is also crucial for converting the thyroid hormone T4 to its active form, T3. Certain bacteria produce enzymes necessary for this conversion, while others can inhibit it.

For healthy thyroid function, you need to make sure T4 is efficiently converted into T3. To encourage the conversion of T4 to T3, eat a diet of whole, unprocessed or minimally processed foods and make sure you include enough protein and healthy, easily digested carbs that won’t cause intestinal irritation or endotoxin production, such as whole fruit.

Lifestyle Factors: Diet and Exercise for Thyroid Health

Beyond supplements and medications, lifestyle choices significantly impact thyroid function. A balanced diet rich in the right carbohydrates — and free of ultraprocessed foods — supports cellular energy production, which is necessary for thyroid health. Excess polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) intake, including linoleic acid in seed oils, is a major culprit, as PUFAs interfere with your cell’s ability to use active thyroid hormone.

Incorporating a variety of nutrient-dense foods ensures that your body receives the essential vitamins and minerals necessary for optimal thyroid function. Additionally, consistent, moderate exercise enhances metabolic rate and supports thyroid function.

“Your metabolic rate is dependent on T3 thyroid, the active form of thyroid, plus your movement,” Petersen explains. Regular physical activity not only boosts metabolism but also supports overall hormonal balance and energy levels. By maintaining a balanced diet and engaging in regular exercise, individuals can support their thyroid health and enhance their overall well-being.

Exposure to toxins like endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in plastics also interferes with thyroid hormone production and function, leading to a range of metabolic and endocrine issues. Using filtered water, avoiding the use of chemicals in your home and being mindful of the products you apply to your skin will help you reduce your exposure.

Avoiding these harmful substances will significantly improve thyroid health and prevent further hormonal disruptions. Sauna usage is another option for detoxification, which also helps to raise your body temperature.

Comprehensive Strategies for Thyroid Health

Thyroid health is a cornerstone of overall well-being, influencing everything from metabolism and energy levels to hormonal balance and immune function. The insights shared by Petersen offer a roadmap for those struggling with thyroid issues, advocating for a comprehensive, integrative approach that goes beyond conventional treatments.

For personalized support, consider reaching out to Petersen through her coaching program at The Wellness By Design Project. Additionally, her YouTube channel offers a wealth of instructional videos to help you understand and manage your thyroid health effectively.

Optimal thyroid health is within your reach. With the right strategies and support, you can navigate the complexities of thyroid function, address underlying hormonal imbalances and achieve a state of vibrant health and well-being. To support your thyroid function, consider the following steps:

• Comprehensive testing — Move beyond basic thyroid panels to include free hormones and reverse T3 for a complete picture of thyroid health.
• Balanced hormonal support — Address progesterone and adrenal health to support thyroid function.
• Iodine supplementation — Use Lugol’s solution to ensure adequate iodine intake while minimizing halide interference.
• Natural supplements — Explore high-quality glandular supplements and timed-release T3 formulations as needed.
• Gut health — Prioritize gut repair to manage autoimmune thyroiditis effectively and increase cellular energy.
• Lifestyle adjustments — Maintain a balanced diet, engage in regular exercise and implement stress management techniques to support overall thyroid health.
• Minimize toxin exposure — Reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals to protect thyroid function.
• Consistent monitoring — Regularly monitor body temperature, pulse rate and thyroid hormone levels to ensure optimal thyroid function.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Notes

^1, 2, 3 Youtube, Dr. Mercola, Essential Guide to Understanding and Optimizing Thyroid Health — Interview with Carol Petersen

A recent gathering of two multilateral organizations, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has demanded united action to halt the genocide in Gaza and the rapidly spreading war throughout the West Asia region.

Representatives from Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia among many others delivered addresses which condemned the Zionist regime in Palestine saying emphatically that Tel Aviv must be isolated from the global trade and international bodies such as the United Nations.

Since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, the military forces of the settler-colonial state have killed more than 43,000 people in the Gaza Strip. These are the official figures given by the Gaza Health Ministry which are combined with more than 102,000 injured.

All of the 2.3 million people living in the enclave which even prior to the latest genocidal onslaught was described as the largest open-air prison in the world, today are displaced. The Israeli military routinely issues evacuation orders prior to bombing civilian areas. In other cases, there are no orders to leave the impacted areas which are housing units, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches.

Throughout the world there have been mass demonstrations in solidarity with the people in Gaza and Lebanon. Within the region itself, the Axis of Resistance have engaged in military operations against the outposts within the Palestinian occupied territories and against commercial and military allies of Tel Aviv.

In response, the Israeli military forces have carried out extensive aerial bombardments in Lebanon killing over 3,000 since last October. The U.S. has bombed areas in Yemen where ports along with urban areas have been targeted. There has been a sharp increase in the number of Pentagon forces in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden waterways.

Role of the Arab and Muslim States

Consequently, the long-established organizations such as the Arab League and OIC are compelled to make public statements on the current situation. These gatherings reinforce what is regularly said within the halls of the United Nations General Assembly and its affiliates, the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), BRICS, among others.

Even within the imperialist states such as the U.S., Britain and the European Union (EU) countries there is growing support for the cause of the Palestinians. Demonstrations demanding the full disclosure and disinvestment from Israel and those conducting business with the racist regime are involving millions of youths and workers.

The concluding declaration of the Arab League-OIC meeting encompassed 38 resolutions, two of which read:

“To start working to mobilize international support to suspend Israel’s participation in the United Nations General Assembly and all its affiliated entities, in preparation for submitting a joint draft resolution to the General Assembly – the tenth special session (Uniting for Peace), on the basis of its violations of the United Nations Charter, its threat to international peace and security, and its failure to fulfill its membership in the United Nations and based on the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice on July 19, 2024. To call on all countries to ban the export or transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel; urging countries to join the initiative proposed by the Republic of Turkey and the core group consisting of (18) countries, which was signed by (52) countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States, and to send a joint letter to the UN Security Council, the President of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General to halt the provision of arms to Israel, and to invite all countries to sign it.” 

Host Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman spoke to the summit condemning the actions of the Israeli state. His sentiments were echoed by Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Secretary General of the League of Arab States, who emphasized that:

“Words cannot express the plight of the Palestinian people. The actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian people are undermining efforts to achieve lasting peace. It is only with justice that we will be able to establish lasting peace.” 

.

Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan heads the preparatory ministerial meeting for the extraordinary Arab and Islamic summit ahead of Monday’s session. (A photo by Saudi media)

.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addressed the gathering where he denounced the Israeli aggression against Palestine, Lebanon and Iran. At the same time Sharif expressed his country’s unwavering support for the liberation of the Palestinian people.

Sharif pointed to the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza emphasizing:

“The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a level beyond imagination. For over one year, the occupied Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, have fallen in endless darkness and despair with devastated homes, lives lost and families torn apart. These atrocities committed against the Palestinians have rightfully been labelled as genocide, not only by the media but the International Court of Justice. With each passing day, every moral code is flagrantly violated by Israel. Yet the killing and destruction continue with no end in sight. I ask … how long will this annihilation be ignored?” 

While the Arab and Islamic states met to decry the horrendous treatment of the Palestinians, no gathering of the Western governments have even criticized what Tel Aviv and its allies are doing let alone drafting a plan to reverse the genocidal reality. The U.S. and its allies have largely ignored the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly which oppose the genocide and the ongoing occupation.

President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic attended the extraordinary summit where he said that the primary issue for those at the gathering was the liberation of Palestine. He described those dominating the occupied Palestinian territories as “herds of settlers.”

After leaving the summit in Riyadh, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that his government had broken all ties with the Israeli regime:

“The government of the Republic of Turkey, under the leadership of Tayyip Erdogan, will not continue or develop relations with Israel. [Our ruling coalition] is resolute in its decision to cut ties with Israel, and we will maintain this stance in the future as well. We, as the Republic of Turkey and its government, have currently severed all relations with Israel.” 

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian was not able to attend the summit due to administrative duties although he spoke to the Saudi head-of-state prior to the beginning of the meeting saying,

“I have no doubt that this summit will have effective and tangible results leading to the cessation of the Zionist regime’s crimes and the war and bloodshed in Gaza and Lebanon.”

Iranian media sources say that extraordinary joint summit was held at the suggestion of Tehran as the situation in the West Asia region has worsened. Iran has been a major target of the Zionists and imperialists as a result of its stance on the liberation of Palestine and solidarity with the resistance forces throughout the region.

Incoming U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major General Qasem Soleimani at the Baghdad, Iraq International Airport on January 3, 2020. Soleimani was killed alongside the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Deputy Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Both military leaders played a significant role in the eradication of ISIS as a fighting force in Iraq and Syria.

Trump during his first administration in 2017 imposed a Muslim ban on entry into the U.S. While campaigning for his reelection, Trump pledged to engage in the largest deportation campaign in the history of the country. These factors should clearly indicate to Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. and internationally that the second Trump administration will pose major challenges to their existence.

Arab and Muslim Countries Must Unite to Defeat the Intensification of Imperialist War

The U.S. is the major contributor and facilitator of the genocidal war against Palestine and Lebanon. Any effective strategy to provide solidarity to the Palestinians and other contiguous states will inevitably place people living in the 52 countries which signed the declaration at the joint summit in a direct confrontation with Washington and Wall Street.

Trump in his first administration moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in violation of international law. His regime sought to undermine the Palestine solidarity movement through the “Abraham Accords” where regional states were encouraged to “normalize” relations with the Zionist state.

Since the Al Aqsa Flood, the plans aimed at normalization with Tel Aviv have faded amid rising demonstrations and resistance activity. Nonetheless, both imperialist-dominated political parties in the U.S. are firmly committed to the maintenance of the settler-colonial regime occupying Palestine. Until the U.S. power structure is transformed into a genuinely democratic state, the military funding of the genocidal entity will continue resulting in further humanitarian crises, deaths, injuries and displacements.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: A general view of the joint Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, November, 11, 2023. (Source: PressTV)

A federal jury held a defense contractor legally responsible for contributing to the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib for the first time on Tuesday.

The jury awarded a total of $42 million to three Iraqi men — a journalist, a middle school principal, and fruit vendor — who were held at the notorious prison two decades ago. The plaintiffs’ suit accused Virginia-based CACI, which was hired by the U.S. government to provide interrogation services at Abu Ghraib, of conspiring with American soldiers to torture detainees. 

Tuesday’s verdict marks a rare victory for plaintiffs seeking to bring American corporations to justice for playing a part in the country’s so-called war on terror. 

“What the jury did today is send a very clear message that the contractors who go to war or go work with the government overseas, they will be held accountable for their role in whatever violations their employees may commit,” said Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon. “They need to have far better oversight over their employees to ensure that something like what happened at Abu Ghraib never happens again.”

The case hinged largely on the legal definition of conspiracy, which doesn’t require an overt act but can also include cooperation with others engaging in torture, said Stjepan Meštrović, a sociology professor at Texas A&M University and expert witness in multiple courts-martial of soldiers who served at Abu Ghraib.

“This ruling opens the door to future findings of responsibility based upon conspiracy to commit war crimes by civilian contractors and other adjuncts to military forces,” he said in an emailed statement. 

CACI had argued that while abuses did occur at Abu Ghraib, it was ultimately the Army who was responsible for this conduct, even if CACI employees may have been involved. The defense contractor also argued there was no definitive evidence that their staff abused the three Iraqi men who filed the case — and that it could have been American soldiers who tortured them. The jury did not find that argument persuasive.

A lawyer for CACI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The monetary compensation for plaintiffs includes $3 million each for compensatory damages and $11 million each for punitive damages. Their lawyers say that’s what they requested. Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a press conference on Tuesday that the verdict “sends a strong message that this kind of corporate malfeasance and neglect and recklessness and deflection is outrageous and deserves to be punished.”

The case was filed 16 years ago but got caught up in procedural hurdles, as CACI tried more than 20 times to dismiss the lawsuit. November’s case was a retrial; in an initial trial in April, jurors were deadlocked following more than a week of deliberations. The judge declared a mistrial. That trial, earlier this year, also marked the first time that an American jury heard directly from Iraqis who were detained at Abu Ghraib.

The lawsuit was first brought in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows noncitizens to bring cases involving clear violations of international law, such as torture, to an American federal court when there’s a substantial connection to the U.S.

“It was the United States that invaded Iraq, it was the United States that detained our clients, and it was a US company that profited from their torture and abuse,” Gallagher said in Tuesday’s press conference. 

That Al Shimari v. CACI survived so many procedural hurdles is impressive, notes Shirin Sinnar, a law professor at Stanford University, in an emailed statement. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it harder for cases involving national security concerns to get a trial.

“It’s exceedingly rare for torture survivors or other human rights victims of the U.S. global war on terror to prevail in U.S. courts, whether against government officials or military contractors,” Sinnar wrote. “The Supreme Court has made it incredibly difficult to hold the national security state accountable in court. So this victory is exceptional in every sense of the term.”

It’s also notable that an American jury sided with the Iraqi men against an American military contractor, says Yumna Rizvi, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Victims of Torture, an international nonprofit.

“It shows that they’re clearly not in lockstep with the decisions of their government,” Rizvi said. “The American public is putting its government and its contractors on notice that, ‘We see you and we don’t agree with what you’ve done or are doing.’”

Rizvi wonders about the precedent that could have been set for other cases if plaintiffs had been able to go to trial earlier.

“You can’t just go around destroying people’s bodies and spirits and minds and just walk away from it,” she said. “Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve seen for too long in the U.S. war on terror and how the U.S. has behaved around the world.”

The plaintiffs — Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Zuba’e — had testified about facing sexual abuse and harassment, as well as being beaten and threatened with dogs at Abu Ghraib in the early 2000s.

“My body was like a machine, responding to all external orders,” Al-Ejaili, a former journalist with Al Jazeera, had previously said. “The only part I owned was my brain, which could not be stopped by the black plastic bag they used to cover my head.”

Al-Ejaili flew to the U.S. to be present for both trials, but he first heard the jury’s verdict while he was at home with his family in Sweden. On Tuesday, he was expecting a call from Azmy notifying him about the jury’s decision. When his phone rang, Azmy’s first words were:

“Salah, we won.” 

“It was pure, profound joy,” Al-Ejaili said.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

[This article was first published by GR in March 2018.]

Western populations are inundated with war propaganda, and all of the MSM is guilty.  It serves to promote criminal warfare rather than peace.

Once we enter the ring of propaganda fabricated by western agencies of deception, we start to lose, since it is at that point that we become entwined in the convoluted narratives.  Intelligence agencies are specialists at creating such fake narratives.[1]

Fundamental lies and omissions persist because we insist on using them as talking points despite the preponderance of evidence that negates them.

There are, for example, no “moderate terrorists”[2] in Syria.  The term itself is an oxymoron and quite ridiculous. All of the terrorists in Syria are there precisely because the West and its allies are waging a supremely illegal war against the Syrian government. They are all proxies for the West.

The War on Terror is a fraud and the West is not waging war against ISIS either.[3]  ISIS are monsters, but they are not Frankenstein monsters who have turned on their masters in Syria.  They remain Western assets, sometimes expendable[4], but assets nonetheless.  They served to deliver key strategic areas to the West and they still serve that function, as outlined in the 2012 DIA document.

The ring of propaganda includes Hollywood. The 2018 Oscars featured Bana al-Abed[5], falsely conflating her with feminism and freedom. Omitted from the spectacle is the fact that Bana’s father worked for both al Qaeda and ISIS[6], and that Western terrorist supporters and propagandists are exploiting her to create illegal war propaganda.

The White Helmets[7] fall into the same category.  They are terrorist-auxiliaries, and they exploit children, and murder children, to create fake narratives centered around their heroic “humanitarian” deeds. The White Helmets are not a legitimate source of information for news.

Also omitted from MSM narratives is that terrorists in East Ghouta[8]  murder civilians who try to escape occupied areas, just as terrorists murdered civilians trying to flee occupied Aleppo. Civilians continue to be used as human shields.  Most do not stay in terrorist-occupied areas of their own volition.

The choice in Syria is not between two monsters.  The Western terrorists are monsters, but the elected Syrian government is not a monster.  All of the demonization campaigns against Assad have proven false.  The Saydnaya torture evidence is fraudulent[9].  The Caesar “kills his own people”[10] photo evidence is fraudulent, and Assad does not gas his own people either.

The only monsters in the whole dirty war are the West and their allies.  We are the ones committing the Supreme international crime, we are the ones fabricating the war narratives, and we the people are accomplices in our governments’ crimes when we fail to denounce them.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “ ‘Stories within Stories’ ”: The CIA’s Strategies to Dupe the American Public.” Global Research. 24 July, 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/stories-within-stories-the-cias-strategies-to-dupe-the-american-public/5537635) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[2] Mark Taliano, “U.S–Led NATO’s Tree Of Lies.” Global Research. 17 May, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-led-natos-tree-of-lies/5590456) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[3] Makia Freeman, “ISIS Is a US-Israeli Creation. Top Ten ‘Indications’. Global Research, 7 March, 2018/The Freedom Articles, 5 April, 2016. “(https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627)

 Accessed 7 March, 2017.

[4] Tim Anderson, “U.S. ATTEMPTED TO CREATE SUNNI-SHIA RIFT IN THE MIDDLE EAST: TIM ANDERSON.” Interview, Shiafollowers. 25 February, 2018. (https://shiafollowers.com/index.php/2018/02/25/u-s-attempted-create-sunni-shia-rift-middle-east-tim-anderson/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[5] “HOLLYWOOD CAUGHT EXPLOITING EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER OF TERRORIST AT OSCARS 2018 CEREMONY.”

clarityofsignal1. 6 March 2018. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTaAySeZSQfZ/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[6] “Beeley: Bana Alabed’s dad worked for ISIS.” RT UK. 17 October, 2017.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QDXpjoPT4&feature=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[7] Vanessa Beeley, “WHITE HELMETS ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for War in Syria.” 6 March, 2018. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdtfVCAdec&feature=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[8] “Militants shell & shoot at escapees from E. Ghouta, may use them as human shields – Syrian nun to RT.”

RT Question More.  5 Mar, 2018. (https://www.rt.com/news/420506-ghouta-rebels-human-shield/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[9] Rick Sterling, “Amnesty International’s ‘Kangaroo Report’ on Human Rights in Syria.” Global Research. 12 February, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[10] Rick Sterling, “The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations.” Dissident Voice. 3 March, 2016. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations/) Accessed 7 March, 2018

---

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

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

We repost this incisive article from 2018 by Felicity Arbuthnot, in light of Trump’s promise to end wars upon his resumption to office. This important article tells us of the trajectory of Israel’s war on Palestine.

***

It was NBC’s Cal Parry who summed up the obscenity of Donald Trump’s ignorant and igniting decision to move the US Embassy to West Jerusalem, then to celebrate the inauguration on Monday, 14^th May: “Well dressed American and Israeli officials on one side of the screen: desperation, death and fires on the other.”

In 1948, 700,000 Palestinians began their flight from the city and the region trying to escape the massacres by Jewish militias on that date, seventy years ago. Commemorated ever since as the day of “Nakba” – disaster, catastrophe, cataclysm – following them to this day as land is stolen, families expelled and “settlements” encroach, and Palestinian history is bulldozed.

‘ “When the massacre started the (paramilitaries) took a kid and strapped him on an army jeep and drove him around different neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, saying ‘the same will happen to you if you don’t leave,’ ” Abu Kaya said, retelling his grandfather’s story to Middle East Eye.’ (1)

“ … not a single country currently has its embassy in Jerusalem because such a move is widely considered to violate international law.”

Further:

‘Under United Nations Resolution 181, which in 1947 set out the conditions for the partition of Palestine into an “Arab State” and a “Jewish State”, Jerusalem was to be administered by the UN under a “special international regime.”

‘The 1949 armistice agreement that formally ended the first Arab-Israeli war divided the city along the “Green Line” into Israeli-controlled western areas, and Jordanian-held East Jerusalem, which included the Old City.’

“Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is widely recognised as illegal and violates further United Nations resolutions.

“For Palestinians then, sovereignty over the city is not something for leaders of other countries to determine, as US President Donald Trump did when he announced the embassy move in December.”

In the few minutes it took to jot down notes for this piece, the Palestinian death toll of those demonstrating rose from twenty eight dead, shot by Israeli soldiers, to forty three. The injured rose from 1,693 to “near two thousand.”

Fadi Abo Salah, 30, who lost both legs in a bombing by Israeli aircraft, was one who lost his life, in his wheel chair – targeted by an Israeli sniper – in front of his wife and three small children. (Palestine Live group.)

Israel, frequently declaring itself “the only democracy in the Middle East”, carried out a very democratic slaughter and target practice. Young, old, disabled, male, female, all were equally entitled to be shot, sniped at, tear gassed.

Tiny Laila al-Ghandour who died from teargas inhalation was just eight months old. (Guardian, 15^th May 2018.)

Journalist Sharif Kouddos recorded:

“Wails of grief inside family home of Laila al-Ghandour, 8-month old who died of gas inhalation yesterday. Her aunt says the gas came from everywhere, including drones.”

By Monday’s end he Tweeted:

Casualty toll from today in Gaza now stands at 55 dead, including 6 minors. 2,770 wounded, including 225 children. Of the wounded over 1,350 were hit with live ammunition, according to Ministry of Health.

— Sharif Kouddous (@sharifkouddous) May 14, 2018

“It is unbearable to witness such a massive number of unarmed people being shot in such a short time,” stated Médecins Sans Frontières.

As the Embassy partied and visitors “clapped and cheered”, Gaza’s hospitals, already teetering on collapse resulting from restrictions on all coming in to the besieged Strip – including electricity, with water contaminated – had surgeons operating day and night, with the injured being treated in the hospital car parks even, due to the overwhelming influx of those targeted.

In another world, just sixty miles away: ‘Washington’s Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, stood on a stage painted with the US flag and said:

“Today’s historic event is attributed to the vision, courage and moral clarity of one person to whom we owe an enormous and eternal debt of gratitude: President Donald J Trump.”

The crowd cheered and gave a standing ovation.’ (Guardian, 15^th May 2018.)

Deaths had risen to fifty nine.

Of the eighty six Ambassadors to Israel, only thirty two attended the ceremony, with fifty four boycotting and only four EU Member countries attending. (2)

Moreover:

“The Haaretz newspaper reported that most EU member States did not participate in the ceremony because they have a firm policy towards the transfer of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It said that the ambassadors of Russia, Egypt, India, Japan and Mexico also did not attend the celebration.”

Fallout has been swift. French President Emmanuel Macron in a telephone call to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and to Jordan’s King Abdullah condemned the “violence of the Israeli armed forces …” and again criticized the moving of the Embassy.

King Abdullah, of course, has custodianship of all Jerusalem’s Holy Sites and: ‘has the right to exert all legal efforts to safeguard them, especially Al Aqsa Mosque, which is defined as “The Entirety of Al Haram Al Sharif.” ‘ (3) As far as can be ascertained thus far, it seems that this important, indeed unique, historic custodianship was neither discussed with the King or his representatives, nor even a consideration of the Trump Administration as they bulldozed their way through diplomacy, history and all norms in their Jerusalem settlement.

NATO ally President Erdogan of Turkey has recalled his Ambassadors to Israel and the US.

South Africa recalled their Ambassador to Israel, with immediate effect, as the Embassy celebrations were ongoing.

Ireland has summoned Israel’s Ambassador to protest Israeli violence.

Kuwait moved for an emergency meeting of the UN, which was blocked by the US. A ‘draft statement included language expressing “outrage and sorrow at the killing of Palestinian civilians exercising their right to peaceful protest.” ‘

‘It also reaffirmed UN resolutions on the status of Jerusalem, saying that recent events had “no legal effect” under international law. The statement was withdrawn once the US indicate that it would block it, a UN diplomat said.’ (CNN, 15^th May 2018.)

Qatar condemned “a massacre” and “savage killings.”

Germany, somewhat weakly, expressed concern at the massacre saying:

“The right to peaceful protest must also apply in Gaza”, via a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman

In the UK, the Labour Party’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry in an unusually unequivocal statement said:

“We condemn unreservedly the Israeli government for their brutal, lethal and utterly unjustified actions on the Gaza border, and our thoughts are with all those Palestinians in Gaza whose loved ones have been lied or injured as a result.

“These actions are made all the worse because they come not as the result of a disproportionate over-reaction to one day’s protests, but as the culmination of six weeks of an apparently systemic and deliberate policy of killing and maiming unarmed protestors and bystanders who pose no threat to the forces at the Gaza border, many of them shot in the back, many of them shot hundreds of metres from the border, and many of them children.

“Throughout that six-week period, the UN’s Secretary General has been calling for an independent investigation into these incidents, one that should urgently determine whether international law has been broken, and hold the Netanyahu government to account for their actions. The UK should lead calls for the UN Security Council to order such an investigation today.

“These incidents must also be the catalyst for urgent and concerted international pressure on the Netanyahu government to lift the blockade on Gaza, and end Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. No longer can Netanyahu act as a law unto himself, under the protection of the Trump administration, whose decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem today has further inflamed the situation.”

Chile, with the largest population of Palestinians outside the Arab world, raised Palestinian flags outside the main entrance of the Presidential Palace of La Moneda.

Sacha Sergio Llorenty Soliz, Bolivia’s UN Ambassador, read the names of the Gaza massacre victims at the UN session, wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh.

The mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau has demanded an arms embargo on Israel, demanding backing of Amnesty International’s call for a global arms embargo on Israel. Amnesty has condemned:

“ … an abhorrent violation of International Law and human rights. “

Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated:

“Those responsible for outrageous human rights violations must be held to account.”

Writer, broadcaster and academic, Kenan Malik Tweeted:

Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, considers the shooting dead of 58 Palestinians and the wounding of 2700 as 'measured' and 'surgical'. I'd hate to know what is his definition of 'unmeasured' or 'non-surgical'.

— Kenan Malik (@kenanmalik) May 15, 2018

The death toll became sixty.

From the Trumposphere, Donald Trump input:

Big day for Israel. Congratulations!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2018

However, on this day of diplomatic vandalism – which the US State Department flagged as a “historic move” – the five times Draft Dodger in Chief it seems reverted to type. The man to whom limelight is seemingly indispensible, stayed in Washington and addressed the Embassy gathering by video, from a safe 5,897 miles away, dodging any potential conflict, demonstrations, dissent. Trump of course, pulled out of a visit to London in February, to open the new US Embassy, which has also relocated, reportedly for fear of the massive protests planned at his stay.

The man who can menace Iran, threaten North Korea with: “ … fire and fury and frankly the power the likes of which like this world has never seen”, cowers from peaceful protesters with placards. No wonder he had no intention of showing up in Jerusalem, even as guest of honour, surrounded by steel rings of security, in a region destabilized by the US and “allies” for decades, with the unarmed, indigenous population simply demanding some justice sixty miles away.

Donald Trump, it seems, talks the talk but can’t walk the walk. Perhaps someone also told him Armageddon is in Israel (site now named Megiddo.)

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization and Associate Editor of Global Research.

Notes

1. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/our-land-us-embassy-move-riles-palestinian-refugees-west-jerusalem-2027680826

2. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180515-54-ambassadors-boycott-israeli-american-embassy-celebration/

3. https://kingabdullah.jo/en/page/the-hashemites/custodianship-over-holy-sites

Amerikan donanmasının karaya ateşgücü intikali (Tomahawk Blok IV -V), hava savunma (SM2-3-6-ESSM) ve suüstü harbi (ESSM) için sahip olduğu ateş gücünü temsil eden füzelerin büyük bir çoğunluğu  dikey fırlatma rampaları (VLS-Vertical Launching System) ile ateşlenir. 

ABD VLS Kapasitesi    

Bugün ABD Donanmasının sahip olduğu 70 adet DDG51 sınıfı muhribin her birinde 96 VLS yuvası; 3 Zumwalt sınıfı kruvazörün her birinde 80 VLS yuvası; 17 adet CG47 sınıfı kruvazörün her birinde 122 VLS yuvası;12 Virginia sınıfı nükleer saldırı denizaltısının her birinde 12-40 VLS yuvası mevcuttur. Toplamda söz konusu gemilerin yani 102 adet muhrip, kruvazör ve denizaltının hepsinin faal olduğunu ve tüm VLS yuvalarının dolu olduğunu farz ve kabul edersek karşımıza atışa hazır toplam 10,000 füze kapasitesi (gemi başına ortalama 98) ortaya çıkar. 

ABD Müttefiklerinin VLS Kapasitesi

Diğer taraftan ABD’nin ayrılmaz müttefikleri İngiltere’nin toplam VLS yuva kapasitesi 19 gemide, 732 (gemi başına 38) füzeyken, Japonya’nın 16 gemide, 1000 (gemi başına 62), Güney Kore’nin 17 gemide, 700 (gemi başına 41) füze civarındadır. 

Çin ve Rusya VLS Kapasitesi

ABD’nin en büyük rakibi Çin Donanmasını incelersek, 10 adet 55 sınıfı muhribin her birinde 112 VLS yuvası; 30 adet 52D sınıfı muhribin her birinde 64 VLS yuvası; 40 adet 54A sınıfı muhribin her birinde 32 VLS yuvası;3 adet 75 sınıfı Amfibi Hücum gemisinin her birinde 64 VLS yuvası;2 adet 901 sınıfı uçak gemisinin her birinde 48 VLS yuvasına ve toplamda 85 adet gemide 5000 civarında füze kapasitesinin, (gemi başına ortalama 58) ortaya çıktığını görmekteyiz. Bu füze yuvalarından hava savunma maksatlı HQ-10, HQ-16 füzeleri; suüstü harbinde gemiye karşı YJ-12, YJ-83 füzeleri ile karaya güç intikal ettirmek üzere YJ18 füzeleri ateşlenebilmektedir. Çin denizaltılarında VLS sistemi mevcut değildir. Çin’in müttefiki Rusya’nın kapasitesi 32 gemi/denizaltıda 828 (gemi başına 26) füzedir. 

Değişen Füze Yükleri

Görüldüğü üzere ABD ve Rus donanması dışında denizaltılarında dikey lançer sistemi bulunan başka donanma yoktur. Dikey lançer füze yeteneğinde geminin görevine bağlı olarak füze yükleri değişime uğrar. Savaş gemilerinin temel görevi önce kendi bekalarını sağlamak olduğundan dikey lançer yüklerinde denizaltılar hariç çoğunluk yer, hava savunma füzelerine verilir. Gemiye karşı ve karadaki hedeflere karşı kullanılan füzeler geminin bulunduğu harekât alanı ve görev tipine göre önceliklendirilir. Bazı savaş gemilerinde gemiye karşı füzelerin VLS dışında ayrı sistemlerden atıldığını hatırlatalım. Örneğin Amerikan Harpoon füzeleri dörtlü kanisterlerden atılır. 

ABD, VLS Kapasitesinde Açık Ara Öndedir

Kısacası Amerikan savaş gemileri platform sayısı temelinde Çin savaş gemilerinden daha az sayıda olsa da (297’ye karşılık 450) VLS füze yuvası sayısında 10,000’e karşı 5000 füze ile 2 kat büyüklüğe sahiptir. Bu sayıya Japonya’nın 1000, Güney Kore’nin 700 füze kapasitesi eklenirse durumun Çin aleyhinde olduğu görülür. 

Tek Başına VLS Ölçüt Değildir

ABD’nin en büyük rakibinin Çin Donanması olduğunu göz önüne alır ve Pasifik harekât alanındaki bugünün mevcut şartlarında füze kapasiteleri paralelinde Tayvan Adası senaryosu için bir değerlendirme yaparsak, üç alana bakmamız gerekir. Birincisi Amerikan Donanmasının harbe hazırlık durumu paralelinde batı Pasifik harekât alanında bulundurabileceği VLS yetenekli gemi sayısıdır. İkincisi bu silahların tedarik edilme süreçleri ve üçüncüsü Pasifik harekat alanına yönelik lojistik olanaklardır. 

ABD ve Harbe Hazır VLS Gemi Sayısı

ABD’nin kendi yayın organı USNI istatistiklerine göre 4 Kasım 2024 itibarıyla ABD Donanmasının muharebe gücü 235 muharip gemi ve 60 yardımcı gemi olmak üzere toplam 295 gemiydi. Bu gemilerden 98 gemi (69 muharip ve 29 yardımcı gemi) ana üslerinden uzakta görevlendirilmiş gemi (deployed) statüsündeydi. Söz konusu 98 gemi içinde sadece 75 gemi seyir halinde idi. USNI, 75 geminin kaçının donanmanın muharip unsuru kaçının yardımcı gemi olduğunu belirtmiyor. Kaba bir tahminle 55 geminin muharip, 20 geminin yardımcı gemi olduğunu kabul edersek 4 Kasım itibarıyla ABD’nin tüm dünya denizlerinde hareket halinde olan muharip gemi sayısı 55 gemi olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Toplamda 102 muharip gemide VLS sistemi olduğunu ve bunun toplam 235 muharip geminin %43’ünü oluşturduğunu göz önüne alırsak kaba bir hesapla denizde 4 Kasım 2024 günü tüm denizlerde seyir halinde olan 55 geminin 20-25 adedinin VLS yeteneğine sahip olduğu karşımıza çıkar. 

ABD Donanmasının Düşük Harbe Hazırlık Seviyesi

ABD’nin toplamda 295 gemisinden 98 geminin görevlendirilmiş (deployed) olması gerçekte gemilerin harbe hazırlık durumunun da düşük olduğunun bir göstergesidir. Bu istatistiklere göre Amerikan donanmasının harbe hazırlık seviyesi %40 civarındadır. Geri kalan gemilerin harbe hazırlık seviyesini yükseltmenin yıllar alacağı gerçeğinin yanında seferberlikte kullanılacak Amerikan rezerv filolarında tutulan savaş gemilerinin ortalama olarak 40 yaşın üzerinde ve kötü durumda olduklarını hatırlatalım. Limanda ana üslerinde bulunan gemilerin bir kısmının savaş zamanında kısa sürede harbe hazır hale getirileceğini kabul edersek en yüksek iyimserlikle bu seviyenin bugün için %50 civarında olmasını kabul edebiliriz. Çok düşük olan bu değeri, Amerikan Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı Proje 33 adı altında 2027 yılına kadar %80 seviyesine çıkarmayı hedefliyor. Amerikan donanmasının planlı bakım ve onarım faaliyetleri olması gereken takvime göre 7 yıl geriden geliyor. Bu çok ciddi bir zafiyet. 

2027 Senaryosu ve Füze Yükleri

Bu koşullarda ABD’nin en iyi olasılıkla Çin ile olası çatışma senaryosunu dayandırdığı 2027 yılında %80 hazırlık durumunu yakaladığı ve toplamda 188 olacak tüm harbe hazır muharip gemilerini Batı Pasifik’te konuşlandırdığı takdirde VLS yeteneğine sahip toplam gemi sayısı 80 civarında olacaktır. Bu sayı ile toplam VLS füze yuva kapasitesi 8000 olarak değerlendirilebilir. Toplamda 420 muharip gemiye sahip Çin için VLS yetenekli gemi sayısı tüm gemilerinin harbe hazır olması halinde 85 gemiydi. Çin’in harbe hazırlık seviyesinin gerek tersane sayısı ve gerekse nitelikli personel sayısı itibarıyla ABD’ye kıyasla daha yüksek olması nedeni ile %90’lık bir harbe hazırlık seviyesi kabulü uygulanırsa karşımıza 76 VLS yetenekli gemi çıkmaktadır. Yani Batı Pasifik’te 2027’de ABD ve Çin arasında VLS yeteneklerinde kabaca bir eşitlikten bahsedebiliriz. Ancak burada ABD’nin denizaltılarından Tomahawk füzesi fırlatma yeteneğinin büyük avantaj yarattığını hatırlatalım. ABD’nin elindeki 22 adet Virgina sınıfı nükleer saldırı denizaltısında (SSN) 300 adet VLS kapasitesi mevcut. Bu gemilerin %80 hazırlık durumunda 16 adedinin bölgeye sevk edileceğini düşünürsek en azından toplamda 240 füzenin ateşlenmesinin su altından yapılacak olması ABD’ye büyük bir avantaj sunmaktadır. Bu arada Amerikan su üstü gemilerinin VLS füze yüklerinde yoğun hava savunma ihtiyacı nedeni ile %75’lik yükün hava savunmaya geri kalanın gemiye karşı ve karaya saldırı füzeleri olabileceğini varsayabiliriz. Buna karşılık Amerikan savaş gemilerinin Çin’in, birinci ve ikinci adalar zinciri içinde ABD üssü Guam’ı dahi gerek karadan gerekse gemiden atılan füzeler ile tesir altına alabileceği göz önüne alınırsa özellikle Amerikan muharip su üstü gemilerinin savaşın ilk saatlerinden itibaren hayatta kalma şansının ya da hasar almama şansının düşük olduğunu vurgulamak gerekir. Çin’in gerek deniz ve karadan gerekse havadan ateşlenen gemiye karşı füze menzilene giren Amerikan savaş gemileri saatler içinde hava savunma füzelerini harcayacaktır. Amerikan savaş gemilerinin tümünün Çin’in füze menzili dışında kaldığını kabul edersek bu kez de hava savunma füzeleri dışında kullanılan karaya ve gemiye karşı kullanılan füzelerin kısa sürede tükeneceğini düşünebiliriz. 

.

Bir Amerikan güdümlü füze kruvazörü 2003 yılında ABD’nin Irak’ı işgali sırasında bir tomahawk füzesi ateşliyor [Credit: US Navy]

.

ABD’nin Ciddi Sorunu Füze Tedariki

ABD donanması dünyada VLS füze ateşleme kapasitesi en yüksek olan donanmaların başında gelmesine rağmen  bu füzelerin ateşlendikten sonra yerlerine yenilerinin koyulması gerekmektedir. Amerikan ‘’The National Interest’’ Dergisinin 14 Haziran 2024 sayısında Jim Fein tarafından yayınlanan ‘’Cephanesi Tükenmiş ABD Donanmamıza Yeniden İkmal Yapmanın Zamanı Geldi’’ başlıklı makalede ABD’nin 2023’e kadar yıllara sari şekilde  12,000 adet SM-2; 400 adet SM-3 ve 1500 adet SM-6 hava savunma füzesi ile 9000 adet Tomahawk füzesi (TLAM) tedarik ettiğini; Benzer şekilde bu füzelerden aynı zaman diliminde soğuk savaş sonrası yaşanan savaşlarda, tatbikat  ve eğitimlerde en az 2800 Standart ve 2900 Tomahawk füzesinin tüketildiğini yazıyor. Yazar bu durumda kâğıt üzerinde bugün için ABD’nin VLS ile fırlatılmaya hazır SM-Standart hava savunma füzelerinde azami 11.000 füze ve Tomahawklarda 6.000 füzeye sahip olduğunu belirtiyor ve toplamda 17,000 olan bu envanterin 10,000 toplam kapasiteye sahip 102 VLS gemisinin/denizaltının ikinci kez yüklemesine yetmeyeceğini ortaya koyuyor. Makale bu zafiyeti haklı olarak ABD’nin 1990 sonrası terörle savaşa odaklanması ve hava savunma gerektirmeyecek basit rakiplerle (Irak, Afganistan, Libya, Suriye) savaşmasına bağlıyor.  Bu durum, haliyle VLS füzelerine olan ihtiyacı kısmen Tomahawklar haricinde son derece azalttı. Aynı makaleye göre Pentagon 2017’den itibaren her yıl 125 SM-6 satın aldı. Ayrıca 2021,2022 ve 2023′te sırasıyla 122, 70 ve 68 yeni Tomahawk tedarik etti. İlginç şekilde ABD Başkanı 2025 bütçesi için yeni Tomahawk siparişini onaylamamış. 

İsrail Yüzünden Tükenen Füzeler

Diğer yandan ABD’nin elindeki hava savunma füzelerinin sayısının bugün hızla azalma nedenlerinin başında Ortadoğu’daki çatışmalarda İsrail’e İran’dan ve Lübnan Hizbullah’ından gelen füze saldırılarının önlenmesinde ABD’nin VLS yetenekli savaş gemilerinin düzinelerce füze fırlatması olarak gösteriliyor. 17 Nisan 2024 tarihli Amerikan The National Interest Dergisinde Peter Suciu imzalı ’Husi ve İran füzelerini imha etmek ABD’ye 1 milyar dolara mal oldu’’ başlıklı makalede Amerikan Donanma Bakanı Del Toro’nun Kongrede verdiği açıklamalara yer veriyor. Bakan şöyle diyor: “ABD Donanması gemilerine ve ticari gemilere yönelik 130’dan fazla doğrudan saldırıya karşı koyduk” dedi…Geçtiğimiz altı ay boyunca, deniz kuvvetleri, İran’dan ve vekil güçlerinden gelen hava tehditlerine karşı koymak için yaklaşık 1 milyar dolarlık hava savunma füzesi ateşledi.’’ Del Toro, bu durumun donanma stokları üzerinde yarattığı mali baskının altını çizerek, mühimmatı yenilemek için kısa dönemde 2 milyar dolar ve daha sonra 95 milyar dolarlık ek finansmana acil ihtiyaç olduğunu vurguladı. 

ABD Yaşamsal Stoklarını Tüketiyor

Henüz VLS sistemine sahip hiçbir Amerikan savaş gemisi Husi veya İran füzesi ile vurulmadı ancak gelecekte Çin ile yaşanacak büyük mücadele dönemi için ayrılan kaynakları Akdeniz’deki yıpratma savaşı kemiriyor. Örneğin hava savunma füzeleri içinde uzun menzilli balistik füzeleri önlemeye uygun olan ve atmosfer dışında önleme yapabilen SM 3’lerin bir adedinin maliyeti menzile bağlı olarak 9,7 milyon ve 27,9 milyon dolar arasındadır. Donanmanın 14 Nisan 2024 İsrail’in savunması sırasında ‘dört ile yedi’ tanesini ateşlediği açıklandı. 29 Ekim 2024 tarihli Wall Street Journal gazetesine göre İran’ın 1 Ekim’de İsrail’e yaptığı füze ve dron saldırısında İsrail’e destek için Akdeniz’de kullanılan 4 Aegis kruvazörünün VLS ateşlemeleri de dahil edildiğinde son bir yılda Amerikan savaş gemileri gerek Akdeniz gerekse Kızıldeniz’de toplamda 100’e yakın 1,8 milyar dolar değerinde hava savunma füzesi harcadı. Amerikan savaş gemileri hava savunma doktrini gereği imhayı garantilemek için yaklaşan hedefe 2 adet füze ateşliyor, bu da maliyeti artırıyor. Bir Amerikan kongre yetkilisi şöyle diyor: “Bunlar berbat Husi hedeflerini vurmak için gerçekten pahalı mühimmatlar…Her birini değiştirmek aylar sürüyor ve çok yüksek maliyetli.” Diğer yandan ABD savunma sanayi sadece Kızıldeniz’de Husilere karşı yürütülen Prosperity Guardian harekâtında bu füzeleri kullanmıyor. Bir savaş durumunda uçak gemisi darbe gruplarını bu gemiler koruyor. ABD’nin 11 uçak gemisi darbe grubu olduğuna göre bir savaş durumunda en az 44-55 VLS yetenekli gemi sadece bu göreve ayrılmak durumunda kalacaktır. ABD Çin’in 5000 – 8000 km menzilli DF 27 hipersonik gemiye karşı füzelerinden son derece çekiniyor. Mevcut hava savunma kapasitesinin yetmeyeceğini değerlendirerek başka çözümler arıyorlar. Mike Stone imzalı 25 Ekim 2024 Reuters haberinin başlığı şöyle: “Çin’in Pasifik’teki gemileri batırmak için hipersonik silahlar konuşlandırmasından korkan ABD Donanması, bazı gemilerini Patriot önleme füzeleriyle donatacak.’’ Bu haberin detaylarında PAC 3 füzelerinin Aegis sınıfı hava savunma gemilerine entegrasyon çalışmalarının başlatılacağını anlıyoruz. PAC 3’lerin Ukrayna Rusya savaşında hipersonik füzeleri düşürmede başarılı olduğunun haberde altı çiziliyor. 

.

Refah Muhafızı Operasyonu (Kaynak)

.

Silah Sanayi Üretim Temposu Hazır Değil

Temel sorun ABD Donanması ve savunma sanayi hem Avrupa’da hem de Orta Doğu’da büyük ölçekli bir yıpratma savaşı için tasarlanmış üretim alt yapısına sahip değil. Asıl savaşın Pasifik’te yaşanacağı düşünülürse gerek Ukrayna gerekse İsrail cepheleri Amerikan savunma sanayi planlamalarının dışında zafiyetlere neden oluyor. ABD, Çin ile savaşta kullanacağı füzeleri Akdeniz ve Kızıldeniz’de harcıyor. Diğer yandan kısa menzilli füzeler olan SM-2’lerin her biri 2 milyon doların biraz üzerinde ve SM-6’lar da yaklaşık 3,9 milyon dolara mal oluyor. Ancak en önemlisi bir adet SM 3 füzesinin üretimi en hızlı 2, en uzun 3 yıl sürüyor.  Standart füzelerinin Türkiye dahil 13 ülke tarafından kullanıldığını da düşünürsek bu füzeleri üreten RTX firmasının önümüzdeki günlerde büyük baskı altında kalacağını da öngörebiliriz. Kısacası ABD’nin karşısında rakiplerinin ciddi bir hava tehdidi var. Eski günler sona erdi. İran, Rusya ve özellikle Çin’in saldırı yetenekleri ABD Donanmasının hava savunma yeteneklerini sınırlayacak düzeyde. 

Pasifik’te Amerikan Lojistiği

ABD’nin Rusya Ukrayna krizinde gözlemlediği en önemli gerçek, Avrupa ile ABD arasında savaş Atlantik ve Akdeniz’de yaşanmadığı halde deniz köprüsü kurmada karşılaştığı zorluklardır. Zira Amerikan ticaret filosu yetersiz. Kendi bayraklarını taşıyan sadece 200 gemileri var. ABD’nin yardımcı gemiler filosu MSC (Military Sealift Command-Askeri Deniz Lojistik Destek Komutanlığı)nın olanakları da çok kısıtlı. Kendi ihtiyaçlarına yetmiyor. 19 adet açık deniz lojistik destek ve denizde akaryakıt ikmali tankeri; 14 adet cephane nakliye;15 adet askeri malzeme nakliye gemisi: 21 adet denizaşırı üslerde önceden konuşlu yığınaklanma malzeme gemisine sahipler. Çin için bu sayı 5500. Pentagon, Çin’le bir çatışma durumunda lojistik faaliyetlerin yaklaşık %90’ını deniz yoluyla gönderecektir. Bu sayıların Çin ve Rusya ile Atlantik/Avrupa ve Asya/Pasifik cephelerinde iki cepheli bir savaşta son derece yetersiz kalacağı açıktır. Sadece bir mekanize tümenin harp araçları 100 bin tonun üzerindedir.

NATO’nun soğuk savaş planlarına göre Avrupa’daki bir savaşta daha ilk aylarda bütünleme ikmali için ABD’den takviye edilmesi gereken yük miktarı 25 milyon ton civarındaydı. Askerî harekât ihtiyacı petrol ürünleri ise 100 milyon varildi. Şimdi bu tabloya mesafelerin Avrupa cephesine göre 2-3 kat olduğu ve 2000-5000 mil çapında ölçülebilen değerlerde yani çok uzak olduğu Pasifik harekât alanını ekleyelim. Karşımıza korkunç zor bir tablo çıkıyor. 2024 Şubat ayında Temsilciler Meclisi’nin bir komitesi Pentagon’un Ulaştırma Komutanlığı’nın (Transcom) deniz lojsitik kapasitesini “yetersiz” olarak nitelendirmişti.  Pasifik’te Japonya, Avustralya ve Güney Kore gibi en önemli ABD müttefiklerinin petrolü yok. En azından yakıtta ABD himayesine bağımlılar. Bu duruma Avrupa’da Rusya ile, Ortadoğu’da Amerikan korunmasına ihtiyaç duyacak İsrail’in savaşlarını ve ihtiyaçlarını ekleyelim. Pasifik ve Atlantik’te aylarca sürecek deniz ulaştırma köprüsü (sea lift) ve dolayısı ile bu konvoyların üç boyutlu tehdide karşı korunması ihtiyacını saymıyorum bile. Okyanus geçişlerinde 11 adet nükleer uçak gemisi hariç her geminin birkaç defa denizde yakıt ikmali yapma ihtiyacı var. Ancak yeterli gemileri yok. Olsa da bu gemileri savunmaya ayıracak VLS gemilerinin sayısı yeterli değil zira öncelikler farklı. Ancak donanmanın füze ihtiyacının karşılanması en az akaryakıt ihtiyacının karşılanması kadar önemli. Virgina sınıfı denizaltılar ilk salvo Tomahawk füzelerini kullandıktan sonra yeni yüklemeleri nasıl ve nerede yapacaklar?

Su üstü gemileri savaşın ilk günlerinde Standart füze yüklerini tüketecekler, zaten eldeki mevcutlar ikinci kez tam yüklemeye izin vermiyor. Eğer İran İsrail savaşı çıkar ve ABD, İran ile savaşa çekilir ise stokların çok daha hızlı azalacağı ve 2027 yılına kadar değil ikinci yükleme tek yüklemeye bile yetemeyecek duruma geleceğini söyleyebiliriz. Diğer yandan anavatanda imal edilen bu füzelerin donanmaya intikal ettirilip, Çin füze tehdidinin olmadığı alanlarda gemilere yüklenmesi ayrı bir sorun alanıdır. Eğer Çin denizaltıları İkinci Dünya Savaşında Amerikan denizaltılarının uyguladığı saldırgan denizaltı harbini uygularsa bu füzeleri taşıyan ikmal gemileri yolda batırılabilir. Guam adası gibi bölgeye en yakın Amerikan üssünün Çin Hava ve Füze tehdidi altında olması ayrı bir sorundur. Kısacası ABD’nin VLS yetenekleri Çin’in 2 katı olsa da anavatandan çok uzakta icra edilecek Amerikan Çin savaşında bu durumun ciddi bir fark yaratacağını söylemek kolay değil. ABD’nin çözmesi gereken sorunlar 2 kat avantajının çok ama çok üstündedir. Trump döneminin en öncelikli sorunu Amerikan Donanmasının sorunlarını aşmak olacaktır.

(16.Yüzyıldan sonra denizden uzaklaştırılan Türk’ü denizle tekrar buluşturan Büyük Atatürk’ü vefatının 86. Yılında özlemle anıyorum. Vatan kurtaran, devlet kuran ve Kemalizm gibi devrim ve ilerlemenin ideolojisini yaratan büyük önder aynı zamanda Cumhuriyet donanmasının kurucusu, Türk denizcileşmesinin teorisyenidir. Limansız, gemisiz, tersanesiz Türk denizcisini her alanda devrimle ve yatırımlarla tarih sahnesine tekrar çıkardı. Aziz hatırası önünde saygıyla eğiliyorum.)

*

Bu makaleyi arkadaşlarınıza ve meslektaşlarınıza e-posta ile göndermek/iletmek için aşağıdaki paylaş düğmesine tıklayın. Bizi Instagram ve Twitter ‘da takip edin ve Telegram Kanalımıza abone olun. Küresel Araştırma makalelerini yeniden yayınlamaktan ve paylaşmaktan çekinmeyin.

Global Research Online e-Kitaplarını Kaçırmayın!

Emekli Amiral Cem Gürdeniz, Yazar, Jeopolitik Uzmanı, Teorisyen ve Türk Mavi Vatan doktrininin yaratıcısı. Deniz Kuvvetleri Karargâhı’nda Strateji Daire Başkanlığı ve ardından Plan ve Politika Daire Başkanlığı görevlerinde bulunmuştur. Muharip görev olarak 2007-2009 yılları arasında Amfibi Gemiler Grup Komutanlığı ve Mayın Filosu Komutanlığı görevlerinde bulunmuştur. 2012 yılında emekli olmuştur. 2021’de Hamit Naci Mavi Vatan Vakfı’nı kurdu.Jeopolitik, denizcilik stratejisi, denizcilik tarihi ve denizcilik kültürü konularında çok sayıda kitabı yayımlanmıştır. Aynı zamanda ATASAM’ın onursal üyesidir.

Global Research dergisine düzenli olarak katkıda bulunmaktadır.

On November 12, US President-elect Donald Trump announced that he had picked real estate executive Steven Witkoff to be his upcoming administration’s special envoy to the Middle East.

Witkoff is a New Yorker, Jewish, a successful real estate executive, and a personal friend of Trump. 

While the exact details of what Trump wants to accomplish in the Middle East are yet unknown, he has repeatedly said he wants peace. However, to accomplish peace, he would need to partner with a different Prime Minister in Israel than Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is not seen as an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians. However, his two radical ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Ithamar Ben Gvir will never allow any peace plan for Palestinians. They demand all Palestinians remain under brutal military occupation, or be deported, or be killed.

“Steve will be an unrelenting Voice for PEACE, and make us all proud,” said Trump of Witkoff.

“With President Trump, the Middle East experienced historic levels of peace and stability. Strength prevents wars. Iran’s money was cut off which prevented their funding of global terror,” Witkoff wrote on X in late July.

The Witkoff announcement came the day after Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) hosted the Extraordinary Arab and Islamic Summit, which merged the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, on November 11 in Riyadh.

The summit issued a resolution covering the issues facing the Middle East, with the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people a central point.

The leaders in attendance were likely to have wondered about Trump’s Middle East policy once he took office on January 20, 2025.

MBS demanded an immediate stop to Israeli military attacks in Gaza and Lebanon.  He condemned the massacre committed against Palestinian and Lebanese people and called on countries around the world to recognize Palestinian statehood.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit, secretary-general of the Arab League said,

“The actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian people are undermining efforts to achieve lasting peace. It is only with justice that we will be able to establish lasting peace.”

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati told the summit attendees that his country was under an existential threat due to Israel’s war on Hezbollah, which has killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure not connected to Hezbollah.

The 79 members that comprise the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation include a few countries that recognize Israel and others opposed to normalization.

Experts have said the summit is a way to send a message to the upcoming Trump administration about what they want from Washington and what issues are a red line.

Trump has viewed Iran as an enemy and shared the view Netanyahu that Iran is the biggest threat to Israel, and the backbone of the axis of resistance to the occupation of Palestine, which was deemed illegal on July 19, 2024, under international law by the International Court of Justice.

Saudi Arabia normalized their relationship with Iran, following a momentous Chinese brokered deal signed in Beijing in March 2023.  Since then, the relationship has grown stronger and Iran’s President, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, spoke with MBS on November 10 praising the summit to be held, their joint relationship, and ways to further cooperate. Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref attended the summit.

On the same day, the two leaders spoke, General Chief of Staff Fayyad al-Ruwaili of the Saudi Armed Forces met his Iranian counterpart, General Mohammad Bagheri, at the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Headquarters in Tehran.  The continuing improvement in relations between the two political powerhouses in the region demonstrates they have rejected the ‘divide and conquer’ plans from the US State Department, which some dub the ‘Deep State’.  This may dovetail with Trump’s plan to eradicate the ‘Deep State’.

The summit resolution called for a Palestinian state with the borders of June 4, 1967, conforming to UN resolution 194, and reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is part of Palestine.  

The summit resolution called for Israel to be suspended from the UN, and called for a draft resolution to the UN in the 10^th special session of ‘Uniting for Peace’, in which Israel will be labeled a threat to international peace and security after it fails to fulfill its UN membership.

The summit resolution condemned continuing Israeli airstrikes on Syria which have killed civilians and destroyed civilian properties, and called for the end of the Israeli occupation of the occupied Golan Heights of Syria. 

In Trump’s first term in office, he gave the Golan Heights to Israel, in violation of UN resolutions and international law. 

Trump had cut the CIA program which spent billions of dollars on the armed Syrian opposition in 2017. He also tried to withdraw the US troops and contractors in Syria, but the Pentagon somehow refused his order and explained that the US personnel were there to prevent an ISIS come-back.  ISIS has never re-grouped, and the US troops remain just to defend the Communist Kurdish separatists in northeast Syria.

In 2017, MBS cut support of the Syrian armed opposition they had been supplying with weapons and cash since 2012, funneled through the Kingdom of Jordan.  US President Obama and NATO attacked Syria for regime change beginning in March 2011. The Oval Office enlisted their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan to support the Syrian armed opposition, which were not seeking freedom, but were fighting to establish an Islamic State in Syria.  Obama directed the US mainstream liberal media to spin the story that brave, freedom fighters in Syria wearing tennis shoes were battling a brutal dictatorship.  Never mind that the fighters were Al Qaeda and the Islam Army, and were chopping off the heads of Syrian civilians, including children. The US liberal state media, CNN, was chief among the propagandists that kept the American people in the dark about who the US was supporting in Syria.

Military analysts have wondered why Israel is still bombing shelters and hospitals in Gaza since Hamas has been decimated.  It is only because the US allows Israel to act with impunity. Perhaps Trump will change that, but only time will tell.

Political analysts on the Middle East have offered some tantalizing possibilities for what Trump might do. Trump values loyalty above all else. In the 2020 race, Netanyahu publically supported Joe Biden and urged the thousands of US citizens living in Israel to vote for Biden. 

Trump may make demands on Netanyahu for a peace plan for Palestine, which Smotrich and Ben Gvir refuse, which will be followed by the collapse of the Netanyahu coalition.  Netanyahu would then face prison for his corruption conviction, and a new Israeli government would be formed.

A new Israeli government, post-Netanyahu, might be willing to compromise for Israeli peace and security, and a two-state solution would be possible.

In 2022, then Prime Minister Yair Lapid said a two-state solution to the Israeli conflict was the right thing for Israel. Lapid is the current opposition leader from the centrist Yesh Atid party. In September 2024 he said he was for a two-state solution and normalization with Saudi Arabia.

Since November 2023, Lapid has called for the downfall of the Netanyahu government, and there is broad support for a change in leadership in Israel.  Trump might need that change to find a willing partner for peace in Israel and Palestine.

As of November 10, 2024, Israeli deaths are 1,139, Gazan deaths are 43,603, and West Bank deaths are 780. Israel has also killed more than 3,100 people in Lebanon.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse. 

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

Featured image: A cropped still frame from a video showing Steve Witkoff speaking on stage during a White House Opioids Summit held in the East Room on March 1, 2018 (From the Public Domain)

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 Vasco é 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”.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Trump to appoint warmonger senator to lead diplomacy, InfoBrics, 13 de Novembro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

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.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Ukrainian crimes in Ugledar revealed, InfoBrics, 12 de Novembro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

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

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

[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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from the author

The US Navy’s Missile Problem. Combat Readiness. Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz

By Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, November 13, 2024

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.

The Very Definition of Tyranny: A Dictatorship Disguised as Democracy. “Deep State Coup to Stay in Power, and Trump Is the Vehicle”

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, November 13, 2024

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.

Implications of a Second Trump Term for Working Class and Oppressed Peoples

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 13, 2024

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.

Will Trump End or Escalate Biden’s Wars?

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, November 13, 2024

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.

NATO and Vaccines: The Twin Sacred Cows

By John Leake, November 13, 2024

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.

Did Trump Really Call Putin Late Last Week?

By Andrew Korybko, November 13, 2024

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.

Exposing the WHO’s Hidden Influence on National Health Policies

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, November 13, 2024

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.

Two action items within the control of the President—show your support!

• 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from Courageous Discourse

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.

.

Watch here

.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Separation wall between Israel and the West Bank near Jerusalem. Photo by Mazur Travel/Shutterstock.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Dec. 14, 2018: Amazon workers in Shakopee, Minnesota, protesting a variety of working conditions. (Fibonacci Blue, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

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.

Image source

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 already  pledged 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 California  Governor 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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 Times editorial.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

There are reasons to doubt WaPo’s report.

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.

.

Screenshot from WaPo

.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a 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 Hegseth as 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 minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel 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 hawk Brian 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.

.

Read on X

.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

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 for  land 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 that  the 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 combat  in 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 chains  and  even the US base Guam are vulnerable to the Chinese missiles fired from both land, air  and ships, it should be noted that the chance of survival or not being damaged of American combatant surface ships is low especially during  the 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.

.

Operation Prosperity Guardian (Source)

.

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 is  a 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.  

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

“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.

As constitutional scholar Linda Monk explains,

“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.

Yet as law professor William P. Marshall concludes,

“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.

Watch and see.

Remember, it was the Trump Administration that asked Congress to allow it to suspend parts of the Constitution whenever it deemed it necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic and “other” emergencies.

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.

In this way, we have arrived at the dystopian future depicted in the film V for Vendetta, which is no future at all.

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.

Rather, it was a win for the very entrenched, hawkish, establishment power structure that has exhibited no regard for the Constitution or the rights of the citizenry.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from rawpixel.com / Sergeant Matt Hecht

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 here to read the full article.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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)

Author’s Introduction and Update

Sounds absurd. Azerbaijan produces about 33 million tonnes of oil and 35 billion cubic meters of gas (2022 data).

The fake 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:

Video: COP 29. Bezos Earth Fund. “Climate Philanthropy”

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.

“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) 

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)

Click here to watch Greg Reese’s video

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. 

“The Yangtze River delta has never experienced such high temperatures since historical records began, and high temperatures like this are accompanied by drought,”

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)

To Read the full text of the UN Convention, click here

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.”

Study Commissioned by the US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning the Weather in 2025, August 1996

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:

“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.” 

See complete report commissioned by the US Air Force

Source: US Air Force

[Dies ist eine KI-Übersetzung des Originalartikels auf Englisch.]

Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,

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.

Klicken Sie auf den Screenshot unten, um ihn zu vergrößern (Tedros’ einleitende Bemerkungen beim Medienbriefing)

.

„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“.

Es macht seltsame und unerwartete Dinge mit dem Körper (BBC, James Gallagher, 22. Oktober 2020, Hervorhebung hinzugefügt)

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.

„Du hattest Recht, Impfstoffe töten Millionen unserer Lieben“, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Japans ehemaliger Innenminister

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

Ende Januar 2020 bestätigte die WHO, dass:

Sie verfügte nicht über ein Isolat von 2019-nCoV aus einer gereinigten Probe eines infizierten Patienten, was bedeutete, dass sie nicht in der Lage war, die Identität des neuartigen Coronavirus zu bestätigen:

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?

Bestätigt von der WHO und The New England Journal of Medicine, Mai 2003 (NEJM):

„Ein neuartiges Coronavirus, das mit dem Schweren Akuten Respiratorischen Syndrom in Verbindung gebracht wird“

das 2002 in der südchinesischen Provinz Guangdong ausbrach, wurde am 15. Mai 2003 identifiziert und als „neues Virus“ eingestuft. (Vor mehr als 20 Jahren).

Siehe Screenshot des NEJM-Artikels vom 15. Mai 2003 unten:

.

.

(Scrollen Sie nach unten, um Analysen und Details zur Identifizierung und Umbenennung von 2019-nCoV zu sehen)

---

Video: Das nicht existierende „Neue Corona-Virus“?

Michel Chossudovsky, Interview mit Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media

Um einen Kommentar zu hinterlassen oder auf Rumble zuzugreifen, klicken Sie hier oder in der rechten unteren Ecke des Bildschirms

---

„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

.

Drei Wochen später, am 20. Februar 2020, wies der WHO-Generaldirektor Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus auf einer Pressekonferenz darauf hin, 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.“

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).

Am selben Tag legte die WHO die Daten der bestätigten Fälle „nach Ländern, Territorien oder Gebieten außerhalb Chinas“ vor: 15 in den USA, 8 in Kanada, 16 in Deutschland, 12 in Frankreich, 9 im Vereinigten Königreich.

Zum Vergrößern auf den Screenshot unten klicken ( Tedros’ einleitende Worte beim Medienbriefing)

.

„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

Klicken Sie hier, um zur WHO-Seite zu gelangen

WHO RISIKOBEWERTUNG

GLOBALE EBENE

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 2020 3.457 „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 2020 125 „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.

(Für weitere Einzelheiten siehe Michel Chossudovsky, 19. März 2022)

*

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.

Dr. Gao Fu ist ein Oxford-Absolvent mit Verbindungen zu Big Pharma. Er war außerdem mehrere Jahre lang Stipendiat der Wellcome Charitable Foundation, die zu GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, plc) gehört.

Die rätselhafte „Identität des neuen Virus“

Der Name des Virus wurde erstmals identifiziert:

• 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.

Die wesentlichen Merkmale des 2003-SARS-CoV-Virus

Bestätigt von der WHO

„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:

Nachweis des neuartigen Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) mittels RT-PCR in Echtzeit

.

.

In der Studie des Berliner Virologie-Instituts wird ausdrücklich eingeräumt, dass:

[Während] … mehrere virale Genomsequenzen veröffentlicht worden waren, … waren Virusisolate oder Proben [von 2019-nCoV] von infizierten Patienten nicht verfügbar …“

Das Berliner Team empfahl der WHO, in Ermangelung eines Isolats des 2019-nCoV-Virus ein ähnliches SARS-CoV-Virus aus dem Jahr 2003 als „Proxy“ (Bezugspunkt) für das neue Coronavirus 2019 zu verwenden:

„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.

Die Empfehlungen der Drosten-Studie (finanziert mit einem Zuschuss der Gates-Stiftung in Höhe von 249.550 Dollar) wurden dann an die WHO weitergeleitet.

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 neue Coronavirus 2019-nCoV wurde am 11. Februar 2020 vom Internationalen Ausschuss für Taxonomie der Virenin SARS-CoV-2 umbenannt. Das erklärt die Endung 2.

Das neuartige Coronavirus 2019 soll dem 2003-SARS-CoV „ähnlich“ sein, das später 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)

Wir erinnern daran, dass während der Weihnachtsferien 2021 die gefährliche Omicron-Variante als betrügerischer Vorwand für eine erneute Angstkampagne benutzt 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.

Dies berichtet CNN unter Berufung auf Expertenmeinungen:

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

.

Screenshot, die Mail Online, 3. Dezember 2021

.

Einzelheiten finden Sie in einem Artikel über die Omicron-Krise im November-Dezember 2021, die zu betrügerischen Spekulationsgeschäften beitrug.

---

Der RT-PCR-Test von der WHO für ungültig erklärt

Es ist hinreichend dokumentiert, dass der RT-PCR-Test genetische Fragmente zahlreicher Viren nachweist, ohne das Virus identifizieren zu können.

Siehe den nachstehenden Artikel:

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 10, 2023

***

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.

Diese Krise ist noch lange nicht vorbei. Die gesamte Welt ist derzeit in der schwersten Schuldenkrise der Weltgeschichte gefangen. Alle Kategorien der Verschuldung (privat und öffentlich). Die US-Staatsverschuldung übersteigt zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte die Marke von 35 Billionen Dollar, wie der Haushaltsausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses am 29. Juli 2024 mitteilte.

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.

Der vertrauliche Bericht von Pfizer , der im Rahmen der Informationsfreiheit veröffentlicht wurde , bestätigt auf der Grundlage ihrer eigenen Daten, dass der Impfstoff eine toxische Substanz ist. Um den vollständigen Pfizer-Bericht zu lesen, klicken Sie hier

Die Beweise sind überwältigend:

Sehen Sie sich die von Dr. William Makis sorgfältig dokumentierten Auswirkungen des „Impfstoffs“ auf Menschen aus allen Lebensbereichen an: Piloten, medizinisches Personal, Schüler, Studenten, Sportler, schwangere Frauen und Neugeborene (und viele mehr).

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 COVID-19-Impfstoff wurde in mehreren Phasen in England und Wales eingeführt , die am 8. Dezember 2020 begannen und bis März/April 2021 andauerten.

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)

.

Vereinigte Staaten:

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Gemeldete Todesfälle durch Impfstoffe.

Offizielle Zahlen zu Todesfällen durch Impfstoffe. Offizielle Daten (klicken Sie auf das Bild unten, um die VAERS-Website aufzurufen)

.

.

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.

.

.

Siehe Analyse und Kritik des VAERS-Systems

.

Medien-Desinformation, fettgedruckte Lügen

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, der globale Staatsstreich gegen die Menschheit

Kostenlos für ALLE unsere Leser. Klicken Sie hier zum Download

---

Preis: $11.50 KOSTENLOSES EXEMPLAR! Hier klicken (docsend) und herunterladen.

Wir ermutigen Sie, das eBook-Projekt durch eine Spende über die Global Research’s DonorBox „Worldwide Corona Crisis“ Kampagnenseite zu unterstützen.

Das Buch ist das Objekt der Zensur.

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.

Source

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

 

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

---

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

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

[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 here to download the complete report.

*

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

---

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

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

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.

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.).

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.”

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.

Click here to read the PDF e-Book.

.

.

.

---

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.

Click here to read the online e-Book.

---

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.

Click here to read the online e-Book.

.

.

.

---

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. 

Click here to read the online e-Book.

Dear Readers,

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.

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 PNAC initiative was launched by William Kristol and Robert Kagan whose wife Victoria Nuland, played a key role as Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State in engineering the Euro-Maidan coup in Ukraine.

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.

• 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):

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 RussiaGate  is 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.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Ukraine aid program responsible for political crisis in Germany, InfoBrics, 8 de Novembro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

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.

According to him, it can’t realistically restore its pre-2014 borders, nor outlast Russia in the ongoing “war of attrition”.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

UNCTAD, COP29, They Did It Again: Digital Tyranny Beyond the Worst Imaginations of George Orwell’s 1984. Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig, November 12, 2024

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.

“Trump Has His Own Monroe Doctrine”: Latin America Is Under the Spotlight – and This Is Bad News for Latin Americans

By Uriel Araujo, November 12, 2024

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.

The Remembrance Day Amnesia Racket

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 12, 2024

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.

Russia’s Doctrine of “Peaceful Coexistence”. A Solution to Avoiding WWIII?

By Evgeny Chossudovsky, November 11, 2024

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.”

Israeli Hooligans Storm Through Amsterdam Chanting “Fu** You Palestine”. Mike Whitney

By Mike Whitney, November 11, 2024

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.

Looking Straight at the Aftermath of the Puppet Show Election. “Won” or Lost”, The Six Tools of Tyranny

By Emanuel Pastreich, November 11, 2024

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.

Five Reasons Why Trump Should Revive the Draft Russian-Ukrainian Peace Treaty

By Andrew Korybko, November 11, 2024

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.”

.

[Transcript here: Western-Supported Zionist Fascism/ By Abby Martin – Mark Taliano]

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. 

Further links for U.S. support for ISIS in Syria – here, here, here, here , here, here , here, here and here. Local sources here, here, here and here.” (2)

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Research Assistance by Basma Qaddour

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.

Notes

(1)  Felicity Arbuthnot and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, “Video: ‘Wiping Gaza Off the Map’: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves.” Global Research, 11 November, 2024. (Video: “Wiping Gaza Off the Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

(2) Vanessa Beeley, “End the U.S. Alliance Global War Policy or Suffer the Consequences/ My intervention at a Sare for Senate-sponsored conference” Global Research, 21 February, 2024. (End the U.S. Alliance Global War Policy or Suffer the Consequences – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

see also: Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIS-ISIL-Daesh) that the U.S. Government Does Not Want You to Know About – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

(3) Mark Taliano, “US-NATO Holocaust in Iraq: The Depopulation and Destruction of Mosul.” Global Research, 12 July, 2017. (US-NATO Holocaust in Iraq: The Depopulation and Destruction of Mosul – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

(4) Robert Parry, “When Western Media Saw Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis.” Orinoco Tribune, 10 August, 2014. (When Western Media Saw Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis – Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

see also: Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government, and World War Three? – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

(5) Mark Taliano, “Misinformed Westerners and the Demise of Ukraine: The West Supports the Destruction of Ukraine and its People” Global Research. 23 July, 2023. (Misinformed Westerners and the Demise of Ukraine: “The West Supports the Destruction of Ukraine and its People” – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 11 November, 2024.

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

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, its e-Week from 4 to 8 December 2023, in a major revamp of its annual e-Commerce Week series which began in 2016.

UNCTAD’s Secretary-General, Rebecca Grynspan said,

“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.””

See this for full article.

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.

.

Watch here

.

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.

See this for the full UNCTAD Press Release.

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by Global Times via InfoBrics

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Donald Trump has 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. 

.

.

.

Read on X

.

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.

.

Read on X

.

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 hawk Elbridge 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.”

When I saw this, I tweeted the following:

“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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: The official portrait of Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) (From the Public Domain)

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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

For details see 

Iran’s Operation “True Promise 2” against Israel. Remember Dick Cheney: “Let Israel Do the Dirty Work for Us”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 03, 2024

 

Michel Chossudovsky, October 4, 2024

 

Video Interview

 

Video produced in November 2023

 

 

Expanding Middle East War.

Planned US-NATO-Israel Attack on Iran,

The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

November 13, 2023

1. In Solidarity with Palestine 

.

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: 

 

.

.

3. America’s Military Doctrine: Targeting and Killing Civilians

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.

Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

To leave a comment and /or access Rumble click here. Or click the lower right hand corner of the screen

 .

 4. Iran and the Nuclear Issue

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.

Click below to access the complete text of H. RES 559

Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 

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. 

In recent developments, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, “admitted to the world that Israel has nuclear weapons ready to be used against Palestinians”

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.

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. 

It is worth noting that a few days prior to the October 7, 2023 Hamas operation, the Emir of Qatar Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani “laid the foundation stone for the Northern Dome expansion project” in Iran’s Pars South Field (See map above).

“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”

Qatar is both A Partner of Iran as well as a Major Non NATO Ally of the U.S. Reports confirm the development of a close relationship between the commanders of the US Air Force and the Qatari Emiri Air Force. 

Qatar is a “Powder Keg”?

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.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

• Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership
• Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field
• 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

6. Strategic Waterways: The Ben Gurion Canal Project

 .

U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways

The Ben Gurion Canal Project was 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)

.

7. “Greater Israel”. Strategic “Anglo-American Hub”  

 

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. 

 

* * *

Part II

 

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by  

Michel Chossudovsky 

Global Research

May 2005

 

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)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to “set Israel loose” to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

“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)

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas)

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