All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Five decades after then US President Richard Nixon made an ice-breaking visit to China in 1972 that helped start bilateral diplomatic engagement, US business leaders in China voiced hope for continued commercial communication between China and the US and rejected a decoupling between the two economies.

Monday marks the 50th anniversary of Nixon’s historic visit to China, during which the two countries issued a document known as the Shanghai Communiqué, which became the political foundation for the normalization of China-US relations.

“We as a US business chamber still hope that China and the US continue to maintain at least economic and trade interactions amid relatively complex global geopolitics… we don’t want the so-called decoupling,” Eric Zheng, President of AmCham Shanghai, told the Global Times on Monday.

According to him, the changes and challenges emerging in the two countries’ economic relations in the past few years, especially the trade war, had exerted negative impact on the markets and enterprises in both countries, and they didn’t help solve the specific problems.

“We hope that the two sides could figure out a more positive mechanism to resolve their trade and commercial disputes…instead of by increasing tariffs, which actually bring harm to both countries,” he said.

Zheng also noted that the AmCham Shanghai has been communicating with US policymakers, including the US Congress, the administration, and US think tanks, to provide accurate information on US companies’ operations in China.

Although bilateral relations had encountered many uncertainties, with disputes and sanctions, economic interactions seemed to have reached a new pinnacle with the entrance and success of many US companies like Tesla and Disneyland in the Chinese market in recent years.

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: A view of Yantian port in Shenzhen, South China’s Guangdong Province on February 16, 2022. Photo: cnsphoto

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Under pressure from ultra-nationalists and Russophobes, successive governments in Ukraine have failed to address the grievances of the Russian speaking majority in the Donbass region. Ukraine has also not implemented the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2015 to end the conflict in the region

On Monday, February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in a press conference that the country will recognize the independence of the Donetsk and the Luhansk people’s republics. Refuting arguments that the move will harm possibilities for peace and violate provisions of the Minsk agreement, the Russian leader claimed that the decision was aimed at maintaining peace in the region.

According to Valentina Matviyenko, chairperson of the Federation Council, the upper house of Russian parliament, the situation in Donbass is of a “humanitarian disaster and genocide” and Russia’s move will help in easing the situation there. She claimed that Russia was left with no other option to prevent the bloodbath in the region as no one was listening to its calls for diplomatic and political solutions in the last eight years.

Russia’s move is based on certain facts and growing speculation at a time when war hysteria is being whipped up by the US and its NATO allies in the region. According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), which was assigned the role to monitor the ceasefire under the Minsk agreement, the Ukrainian government has violated the ceasefire agreement several times in the last week. Several rounds of talks, revived between the parties of the Minsk agreement in the last couple of weeks, have also failed to address Russian concerns. The situation prompted the leaders of Luhansk and Donetsk to appeal to Putin to take immediate action.

Minsk agreement

The situation in Ukraine today is attributed to the rise of ultra-nationalist and Russophobe groups that compelled the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to resign during the Euromaidan protests in February 2014. Protesters called for Yanukovich to follow policies favorable for integration with the EU and NATO even at the cost of harming Ukraine’s traditional ties with Russia. This same set of ultra nationalist and Russophobe political groups have been hampering the implementation of the Minsk agreement by successive Ukrainian governments.

The Minsk agreement was signed in the context of the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine following the post-Euromaidan government’s move to crush the protests opposing the pro-EU and pro-NATO policies that it had adopted. Ukrainian forces declared a war on the protesters following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The war lasted for months before the 13-point Minsk agreement was signed, and led to the death of over 14,000 people and displaced over 2.5 million, with nearly half of them seeking refuge in Russia.

The Minsk agreement was signed by countries and groups forming the Normandy format including the OSCE, France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in February 2015. The agreement was later endorsed by the UN Security Council (UNSC). According to the provisions of the agreement, apart from establishing an immediate ceasefire in the Donbass region, the government in Ukraine agreed to make provisions for greater autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, the centers of rebellion, by first recognizing the right to self-government and also creating special status for the regions in the parliament. It was a necessary condition for them to remain within Ukraine and for Russia to hand over border control to the Ukrainian government, which it had taken over following the outbreak of the war. The OSCE was assigned the role of observing the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. The agreement also talked about broader constitutional reforms in Ukraine.

Non-implementation of Minsk agreement

According to Russian claims, over 1.2 million residents of the Donbass region have already applied for Russian citizenship out of a total estimated population of six million. Russian speaking people form an overwhelming majority in both the self-declared republics. They fear that if the international community abandons their cause, they will face another war and ethnic cleansing by the Ukrainian state.

Successive governments in Kiev have not paid much attention towards addressing the issue of the Donbass region and have failed to initiate moves to implement the Minsk agreement. One attempt made by newly elected Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 also failed after large-scale ultra nationalist protests broke out in the country opposing the move. The protesters accused Zelensky of “capitulation” to Russian pressure and threatened to force him to resign. The fear of losing popular support made Zelensky adopt a “tougher” rhetoric towards Russia, blaming it for the problems in Donbass instead of addressing the real issue.

Russia has raised the Donbass issue in international forums on several occasions, like in the UNSC meeting called by the US and its allies to discuss the situation in the beginning of February.

During his presentation in the UNSC, Russian representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, asserted that Ukraine should respect the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2014 and 2015. He said that if western powers push Kiev to “sabotage the Minsk agreement”, Ukraine will be on the way to self destruction.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Sputnik News/Alexey Nikolsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

Report from South Front.

What should be understood as that Western Mercenary Forces are Deployed in Eastern Ukraine

***

February 21 marked a historic event that shapes a new system of international relations for the entire world community. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia recognizes the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in the east of Ukraine as sovereign entities.

‘Do you want decommunization? I will show you what REAL decommunization is!’ said Vladimir Putin.

The decrees were signed, stating that the decision was based on the will of the people of the LDPR and Ukraine’s rejection of a peaceful settlement of the conflict in accordance with the Minsk Agreements.

“They are not interested in peaceful solutions – they want to start a Blitzkreig,” Putin stated referring to the policy of the current Kiev regime. The president noted that Ukraine does not even hide aggressive plans and prepares for the conflict with Russia into which it seeks to drag NATO member states.

Putin called to ‘find, put on trial and punish’ the persons responsible for the 2014 Odessa massacre (when neo-Nazi radicals killed and burned dozens of civilians who protested against the Maidan coup). As the massacre was supported on almost all levels of the Ukrainian government, this can refer to almost all representatives of the post-Maidan Ukrainian elites.

The Kremlin issued an ultimatum to the Kiev regime. The Zelensky government must immediately stop fighting in the region and obey the ceasefire. Should this fail to happen, Putin said, it will bear full responsibility for the further development of the situation.

After the ratification of the treaties of friendship and cooperation between the Russian Federation and the LDPR, Russia can legally deploy its troops in the Donbass region, as well as supply the republics with any weapons.

The Russian President signed a Decree instructing the Russian armed forces to provide peacekeeping functions in the DPR and LPR. During the night, units of the 8th Field Army of the Russian Armed Forces have begun to enter the territory of the LDPR.

Moscow’s decision has dramatically changed the situation on the Donbass front lines.

The activity of Ukrainian shelling of residential buildings on the territory of the Republics began to decrease and practically stopped after Ukrainian President Zelensky did not take any decisions following a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.

On February 22, in the first half of the day, the escalation decreased, and the number of attacks on the entire front line sharply reduced.

However, despite the confusion in the ranks of the Ukrainian Army, the activity of Ukrainian sabotage groups continued on LDPR territory as well as in Russia. Earlier, sabotage groups of the UAF carried out terrorist operations on the territory of the DPR and LPR on a regular basis, their activity has increased significantly in recent days.

On February 22, three people were killed in an explosion on the Donetsk-Gorlovka highway, a representative of the People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic claimed.

Earlier, Donetsk reported on the breakthrough of a Ukrainian sabotage group deep into the republic in the Novoazovsky district, during the clash the group was neutralized.

On February 21, Ukrainian saboteurs crossed the border with Russia near the village of Mityakinskaya, in the Rostov region. They were stopped by Russian border guards. As a result of the clash, 5 violators of the border were killed and one saboteur as captured.  Two infantry fighting vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were also destroyed. There were no casualties among the Russian military.

While Russia has moved into action, the West is in no hurry to support the Kiev regime with military forces, but only intimidates Russia with new sanctions.

US President Biden signed a decree aimed at banning investments, trade and financing of the DPR and the LPR. The EU called Moscow’s decision a violation of international law, promised to react firmly and respond with sanctions. The NATO Secretary General condemned the recognition of the LDPR, claiming that it undermines efforts to resolve the situation in Ukraine.

Russia’s decisive actions mark the time of consolidation of the block of counteraction to the global world system beneficial to the Anglo-Saxon elites and imposed by the so-called collective West. It seems to be clear that China is on Russia’s side. However, Beijing’s position and the level of its support are yet to be officially declared.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Nearly a quarter of United States military personnel and 75 percent of Department of Defense contractors are defying President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for all service members, civilian Pentagon workers, and defense contractors, a workforce in excess of 740,000 people.

The revelation was included in a Department of Defense COVID-19 Vaccine Operations Update slide deck. The report was current as of January 10.

Continued Military Defiance of Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

The defiance of Pentagon workers and service members against Biden’s order continues amid a pause in enforcement as a result of a federal court injunction.

Court of Appeals Allows Federal Mandate Injunction to Stand

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a week ago, rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to reinstate the mandate.

In the meantime, faced with widespread refusal to take the vaccines, government to ease enforcement.

A Quarter of U.S. Service Members Partially Vaccinated or Unvaccinated

According to the DoD deck 339,883 of all U.S. service members, or 16 percent of the force, are only partially vaccinated and 179,952, or 8.4 percent of the force, have received no vaccine doses at all.

Table  Description automatically generated

Three-Quarters of DoD Contractors Partially or Not Vaccinated

In addition, more than 75 percent of U.S. defense contractors – more than 3.3 million people –  have defied the vaccination mandate.

According to the slide deck, 79,218 Pentagon contractors, or 4.4 percent of that group, are partially vaccinated, and 1,300,111, or 71.4 percent are not known to have taken any COVID vaccine.

The news of continued defiance to Biden’s vaccine mandates for the military comes amid increased tensions with Russia over Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

We were awakened to the roar of F-16s exercising overhead. The day before, February 10, the Social Democrat government announced yet another escalation in its war-threatening measures alongside its main partner, the United States: the “Defense Cooperation Agreement” (DCA). It entails more military might from the U.S. Perhaps, we were awakened by Danish fighter pilots’ celebrating.

For the first time in Denmark’s history, its politicians will allow U.S. troops and war machinery on Danish mainland soil. There have not been foreign troops welcomed in Denmark since shortly after World War II—other than the tacit acceptance of Nazi Germany—and they were British and Soviets.[1]

The self-described Social Democrat leaders said they would try and forge a similar relationship that the U.S. enjoys with Norway, which has hosted U.S. training exercises and war aircraft and agreed to have the U.S. build three more air and ship bases it will use. And as we go to press, Denmark has called its frigate Esbern Snare away from pirate patrol in Guniea Bay to join NATO ships threatening Russia

The NATO conflict with Russia over Ukraine and Crimea, begun in 2013-14, has been used by U.S.-NATO to broaden its military occupation in several parts of Europe with more aircraft bases and warships in harbors.

Recently, both Sweden and Finland expressed interest in joining NATO, despite majority opinion opposed to this. With more false-flag propaganda, public opinion is turning more to the right and pro-NATO “for security.” [2]

At this stage of the new DCA, there is not to be a U.S. military base and atomic weapons are not to be placed here during “peacetime,” which is still in effect since 1957 (explained in part 1). Nevertheless, the U.S. had secretly placed atomic weapons on its Greenland colony. H.C. Hanssen, another Social Democrat, had secretly granted permission to the U.S. to place atomic bombs
at Thule base on Greenland despite the 1957 nuclear free zone policy. A B-52G Stratrofortress aircraft carrying four thermonuclear bombs crashed due to a human error, which caused a fire. Several hundred Danish and US American clean-up workers died from radiation poisoning causing cancer.

Boeing B-52G in flight 061026-F-1234S-021.jpg

A B-52G, similar to the one that crashed at Thule Air Base. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash – Wikipedia

Although the current Social Democrat  prime minister said no to atomic weapons, she could lie as her predecessor did, or another prime minister could say yes and scratch the nuclear free-zone policy. There were no other conditions for U.S. troops and war materials explained by these leaders. What they did not inform (or remind) the public was that Denmark’s agreement with NATO when it first joined was that foreign troops would not be allowed on Danish soil in times of peace.

The U.S., however, may choose to interpret what “peacetime” means. Furthermore, whether a prime minister here or there says no to the U.S. does not mean the superpower will obey others’ national interests. The Pentagon—as Politiken’s February 11 editorial, “Uncle Sam in Denmark,” pointed out—does not tell others what they can do (nor does the CIA).

Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Vladimir Barbin, replied to Danish media that his country sees the DCA as a definite confrontation against its sovereignty and its people. He also brought in the 1990 agreement—“Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Paris Charter” (OSCE)—signed by 34 heads of state, including the parties concerned with DCA. The ambassador said that this cooperative agreement is ignored by the U.S., NATO, and specifically by what Denmark is proposing.

Joseph Gerson, President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, wrote about this agreement and others in Common Dreams. He stated:

The OSCE “ushered in a new era as states made an unprecedented commitment to domestic individual freedoms, democratic governance, human rights, and transnational cooperation.”

Seven years later, it was followed by the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which enshrined commitments to equal security and to not seek security at the expense of the other’s security. And in OSCE’s 1999 European Security Charter, its member-states committed “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

Some social democrat-oriented members of Denmark’s parliament have expressed concern that, if there were a war between the U.S. and Russia, Denmark’s capitulation to the U.S. would place it among the first targets, especially in a nuclear war. Some wonder why U.S. troops are “necessary” now when they were not during all the time the Soviet Union existed and when there were many proxy wars, such as against Southeast Asia.

“I don’t see how this is in Denmark’s interest,” questioned socialist-oriented parliamentarian Karsten Hoeng.

There are several references about a future U.S. president, like Donald Trump, being so erratic that his/her policies could bring Danes into an unwanted violent situation.

“A strategic bomb in Danish politics,” Politiken led off. The new approach places Denmark “closer to the allies’ inner-circle than ever before.” While this daily, and all others, are glad for that, there are a couple of possible drawbacks.

“The USA will hardly depart from its firm principle of neither confirming nor denying if there are atomic weapons on visiting aircraft and ships. Even if it did, what would Denmark do? Quietly accept atom-weapons on Danish turf?”

As the editors wrote, such was the case in the 1980s when Social Democrats, then more loyal to their principles, raised the issue with a conservative prime minister concerning a visiting U.S. warship suspected of carrying nuclear weapons. PM Paul Schlüter (1982-93) called an election over that single issue and he won again.

Politiken’s lead article kicked off with “Frederiksen’s admiring homage to the United States is close to overtaking Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s view of Denmark’s best friend in the world and its crucial security guarantee.”

Anders Fogh Rasmussen best “kick ass” buddies with George W. Bush. Anders Fogh Rasmussen – Wikimedia Commons

Readers are reminded that right-wing PM Rasmussen was considered by many to be a “lapdog” for all of the U.S.’s policies, especially military and war, while Social Democrats were more independent. That has changed in the past two decades. SD is as tight with the U.S. on everything as the right wing and conservatives have always been. Now, both right and “left” are with the U.S.

Enhedslisten (Red-Green) Social Democrat support party spokesperson Eva Flyvholm brought up a little-heard term in Denmark—“sovereignty”—in her critique.

“The new strategy is a big thing in relation to Danish sovereignty. Americans will have control over the activities and soldiers that come. I mean we should not enter into such an agreement.”

One of Politiken’s sources, Henrik Breitenbauch, leader of Copenhagen’s University Center for Military Studies and a senior fellow at the pro-NATO) Atlantic Council, stated that “sovereignty is always a question of degree bending.” I doubt that any U.S. president would accept such a definition for its sovereignty.

DR and Politiken both interviewed separately Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a key military academic expert. He sees advantages with breaking tradition against foreign troops on its territory. “They come with money to spend,” he said, and “their presence will have a deterrent effect on any foreign power intentions to invade Denmark.”

That opinion can be translated to mean that, with all the demonizing propaganda against President Putin, the “peace-loving” but tougher American militarists will be such a deterrent, even if Russia sees this agreement as a provocation against its interests.

“There is not anything they can do about that. Denmark will also accept that USA itself will have legal jurisdiction over whatever their soldiers commit here,” confided Jakobsen.

DR’s international correspondent, Steffen Gram, opined: “This here is re-establishing NATO, which many were in doubt about what NATO could be used for after the Cold War”—a side-reference to Donald Trump. Gram foresees that the crisis with Russia will “last a very long time.”

Desperate Social Democrat Government Fabricates War Threat Distraction

The government’s unexpected announcement of the new “Defense Cooperation Agreement” must have been prepared to announce when, on January 31, the hard-pressed Social Democrat government held a press conference to announce a “new strategy to steer Danish foreign policy in ‘the most serious security crisis for Europe since the Cold War.’”

This strategy is deemed necessary simply based on unsubstantiated demonizing propaganda that “Putin” is prepared to invade Ukraine. It comes at the time (coincidentally?) when the government is confronted with what the PM calls the “very serious” breach of national security secrets.

“We are seeing a very worrying situation unfolding at the Ukrainian-Russian border…Russia’s aggression…shows us that you can never take peace or freedom for granted,” PM Frederiksen said.

“The new strategy contains five main areas for managing foreign and security policy: values diplomacy, security diplomacy, climate diplomacy, migration diplomacy and economic diplomacy. We want to strengthen our alliances and partnerships with the countries and societies that share our values. This applies not least to the United States…Denmark’s most important ally. NATO and the United States are the guarantors of Denmark’s security.”

Nothing concrete was forthcoming. DR concluded with a six-minute clip on how “aggressive” Russia is. Military experts say Denmark will be even closer to U.S. interests (if that is possible).

Bramsen had just sent four F-16s to the Baltic to “protect” them against the Russians. She gave an interview to the weekly Weekend Avisen in which she stated: “It basically requires that we have a security understanding throughout society: The threats live everywhere, and the whole of society must be aware.”

In other words: no deviation from U.S/NATO domination; Russia, China and Iran must tow the line.

Five days later, Bramsen lost her war post. Within a 24-hour period beginning at 9:00 a.m. on February 4, as the court session against Findsen began, other political, military and juridical events took place in Denmark, bringing the world to the brink of the greatest crisis since the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet there are no protests in this country.

Prime Minister Merete Frederiksen reshuffled three ministries. The most sensational change was the removal of unpopular Defense Minister Trine Bramsen. She was moved to head the new Transport-Equality ministry. There was no explanation for why “equality” issues should be with transport, nor why Bramsen was moved down the ministry ladder.

The Defense Union, however, had accused Bramsen of “destroying the trust that binds defense together.” There have been several conflicts within the military under Bramsen’s watch.

Tax Minister Morten Boedskov was given her former job, rewarded for his “experience and reliability.”

The previous transport minister, Benny Engelbrecht, did not get another ministry post. Enhedslisten had demanded his removal for informing Parliament that the ministry’s new $25 billion infrastructure plan was CO2 neutral when it was not, as the engineer trade newspaper revealed. “And to boot, back when the proposal was revealed, Engelbrecht informed Parliament that figures for CO2 emissions regarding the plan didn’t exist. Except they did, and Engelbrecht has been accused of deliberately keeping them from the other parties.”

The first thing new Defense Minister Morten Boedskov did, within hours of his appointment, was to tell the media that he saw no reason not to send some of Denmark’s remaining “Stinger missiles” to Ukraine, which it bought from the U.S in the 1990s.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Denmark had told the media that the Ukrainian military wanted them because they were so effective in the hands of Afghan rebels. Just three days before Bramsen was replaced, she had stated that Denmark did not have such weapons. Her lack of military knowledge is a key reason for being shifted out.

It was extremist Mujahadin jihadists, including Osama bin Laden, who fired U.S.-donated “Stingers” against Soviet aircraft. They were sent to overthrow the communist-led Afghan government in the 1980s.

Unfortunately for the fresh war minister, Boedskov’s technological military experts found that none of the Stinger missiles were good enough to use. The new war minister sent two F-16s to Bornholm, Denmark’s easternmost island, as a “signal” to Putin that he dare not invade Denmark.

President Joe Biden had just ordered that Germany’s new Chancellor Olaf Scholz disallow the newly completed Nord Stream 2 gas line to function if “Putin steps up his aggression against Ukraine.”

“There will no longer be anything called Nord Stream 2 if the Russians invade Ukraine,” Biden informed the entire world, pointing his finger to a leader of what he believes is a U.S. colony.

While Scholz tried to appease the war-thirsty U.S. president, he would not say what sanctions Germany would engage in. More than half of Germany’s energy comes from Russia, and it needs more.

So, the U.S.’s primary Eye within EU-Europe sent its Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to Germany to tell Scholz what he could do. He could buy more Danish windmills. DR’s piece concerning her visit points out that her Social Democrat chancellor-colleague is characterized by “some critics” as “soft-sweetened” over for Russia.

Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz in conversation with Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s Prime Minister.

Mette Frederiksen and Olaf Scholtz [Source: bundeseregiurung.de]

The Danish government opposes the gas pipeline, which runs along Bornholm, and the Prime Minister stressed after her meeting with Scholz, “The reports from the White House about Nord Stream 2 are very good.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron visited President Putin in Moscow. He did not threaten sanctions; instead he wanted Europe to engage in its own dialogue with Russia and Ukraine, and not be bound to U.S. presidents. Chancellor Scholz plans to visit Putin as well.

Neither France nor Germany has threatened its own sanctions, albeit as members of the EU they are a part of any EU sanctions. When President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the French and German governments opposed the war. However, they came around after much pressure from Washington-Wall Street.

Surprisingly to many readers (and myself at the time), the new Russian president in 2001, Vladimir Putin, extended real military and intelligence assistance to Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and even proposed that Russia join NATO. Bush took his aid but rejected Russia inside NATO.

President Vladimir Putin met with China’s Xi Jinping in Beijing on the Winter Olympics’ opening day, even as the United States and Denmark intensified their non-factual claim that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine. The claim is based simply on the fact that Russia has troops on its own land close to Ukraine—as though that is a war crime and something the U.S. never does. The U.S. has hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops in scores of other countries.

Putin and Xi enhanced their alliance: mutual support regarding the U.S-Ukraine NATO aggression; opposition to U.S.’s inciting Taiwan’s independence from China; and inciting and financing Hong Kong protesters against China’s interests.

China and Russia simply want U.S./NATO to stop provoking their geographic areas. Russia may step up its advanced military technology exports and energy fuels to China, and Russia will buy more consumer goods from China.T

The U.S./EU warn these two nations (the world’s greatest territory and the largest population) with more severe sanctions. They speak of ceasing exports to Russia of vital microchips and other technology; preventing economic transactions in U.S. dollars (perhaps confiscating their funds in U.S.-controlled banks); and freezing the expensive Nord Stream 2 natural gas connection between Russia and Germany.

Conclusion 

When the current geo-political hullabaloo dies down, and Russia has not invaded anybody, the Western aggressors will claim that their bellicosity paid off, having scared the scoundrel Ruskies from an invasion they never planned. It is all about Western capitalist encroachment against Russia’s and China’s capitalist competitors, especially concerning energy. We had been taught that capitalism’s nature is all about competition, but the West has changed the rules.

In my mind, the “Defense Cooperative Agreement” emerges at a time when Denmark is desperate to show Big Daddy that the misfortunate problem with one or more whistleblowers concerning spying on any and all is to be compensated for.

Several media outlets have criticized the intelligence services for assuming that they are beyond “democratic control.” Editorials and juridical experts have criticized leaders of Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service (FE)—the equivalent to CIA—and the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET)—the equivalent of FBI—for allowing increased power to go to their heads ever since they began receiving extra resources following the terror attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. (See part 1 Danish Defense Intelligence Chief Is Jailed by Social Democratic Government—Possibly to Protect U.S. Spy Programs – CovertAction Magazine )

Politiken’s editors urged the government to present to parliament the judges’ investigation report so it could determine if FE has kept policymakers informed. They also proposed that the new Danish Intelligence Oversight Committee (TET) be granted powers to interrogate FE’s employees, and ascertain if they comply with the law, which until now has not been possible. Nothing like that has happened.

There are other ironies in these matters: the betrayal of Denmark’s long-standing friendly association with European countries and their leaders; the fact that it has been Social Democrat women leaders who have been backing illegal spying activities, starting with the first woman who became Prime Minister, Social Democrat Helle Thorning-Schmidt (2011-15).

Following Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations, she embraced her “comrade” Chancellor Angela Merkel, assuring her that Denmark was not and would not be involved in spying on her. All the while she was lying. Since June 2019, it has been the next Social Democrat woman PM, Mette Frederiksen, and her female war minister, Trine Bramsen, who have gone deeper into spying activities for their master state.

Last year, four women led four of the five Scandinavian countries—two of three are Social Democrats and one Red-Green. The only male was the conservative president of Finland, Süulí Väinämö Niinisto. Last October, a male Social Democrat, Jonas Gahr Stoere, took over as Norway’s prime minister. Now he is stuck with the DCA agreement that conservative PM Erna Solberg made with the United States. All five Nordic states are either in NATO or seek to be.

I fear that the generally accepted notion—that, if women become leaders, they would be more inclined toward peaceful diplomacy than more naturally aggressive males—seems to be untrue as well. The same goes for both genders of Social Democrats and Democrats: They are just as power-hungry and enthusiastic for war as right-wingers.

Philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in his 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing,” .

For a long time, it has been normal among the Danish populace that sovereignty is not an issue for the vast majority. It seems that they, the media and academics simply take it for granted that “national security” is best left in the hands of the White House, the Pentagon, and 17 intelligence services across the Atlantic Ocean.

“Everything goes” in the name of “necessary evil,” and “I have nothing to hide.” However, with the DCA issue, sovereignty is at least a word that some people are beginning to articulate; and perhaps a movement of opposition will develop.

  1. Russia attacked German troops sent to occupy Bornholm island after Germany officially capitulated. During two days of bombings and battles, a few Danes were killed and wounded. Russian forces remained there for 11 months.
  2. Are Denmark’s and United States values, according to its Social Democrat prime minister, such as Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks/Julian Assange have revealed to the world: Collateral Murder – Wikileaks – Iraq – YouTubeIt behooves all peace-loving, free speech/free press-loving, human values-loving people to come out with real support for Julian Assange, whom the U.S./U.K. and Denmark want to see dead.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ron Ridenour is a U.S.-born author and journalist, anti-war and civil rights activist since 1961. After joining the U.S. Air Force at 17, he saw the inner workings of U.S. imperialism and resigned. In the 1980s and 1990’s he worked with the Nicaraguan government and with Cuban national media.

He now lives in Denmark and, in addition to writing a dozen books, has served as a special correspondent and freelance investigative journalist for many publications in the U.S. and several Latin American and European countries.

Ron is a member of TCBH and correspondent for Covert Action Magazine.

Featured image: Danish purchased F-16s. Soon to be replaced with 27 F-35s. (Source: TCBH)

How to End Vaccine Mandates — A History Lesson

February 23rd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard

Over 135 years ago, in 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. Many were fined and jailed, but in the end, the government relented and abolished the mandate

The trucker protest in Canada and elsewhere is almost identical to what happened during smallpox vaccination campaigns more than a century ago, when mass protests and peaceful disobedience broke the government’s tyrannical hold

The Leicester Model was proven successful in the wake of that 1885 anti-vaccination protest and has been standard ever since. By quarantining infected patients and improving public hygiene, smallpox was finally eradicated

*

If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard. The parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and its countermeasures that of previous smallpox pandemics are fascinating to behold, and therein we can also find the answer to our current predicament.

Smallpox, a highly infectious and disfiguring illness with a fatality rate around 30%,1 has been with us for many centuries, probably thousands of years. During the last four centuries, forced mass vaccination has been a recurring countermeasure relied on by government during these kinds of outbreaks, often with devastating results, and there have always been large portions of society that opposed it.

In the 1700s, Boston, Massachusetts, was hit by a series of outbreaks, and the introduction of a vaccine led to violent rebellion by those who believed it was dangerous and a violation of God’s will. Local newspapers were rife with disputes for and against the vaccine.2

The hypodermic needle had not yet been invented at this time, so the vaccination consisted of rubbing some cowpox pus into an open wound on the arm. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the inoculation at the urgings of Rev. Cotton Mather, was forced into hiding and was eventually arrested. Mather’s home was firebombed.

In 1862, it was Los Angeles, California’s turn. Compulsory vaccination was again rolled out, and anyone who refused was subject to arrest. Infected people were terrified of being forcibly quarantined in a “pest house,” miles outside the city limits, and for good reason. It was a place where you were dumped to die, with not so much as a bedsheet for comfort.3

The Anti-Vaccination Rebellion of 1885

In the decades to come, smallpox outbreaks were occurring all over the world, and forced inoculation was typically the answer, even though it had its own risks. In 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule.

As reported by the BBC, December 28, 2019, mere weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic:4

“In the late 19th Century, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. There were arrests, fines and people were even sent to jail. Banners were brandished demanding ‘Repeal the Vaccination Acts, the curse of our nation’ and vowing ‘Better a felon’s cell than a poisoned babe.’ Copies of hated laws were burned in the streets and the effigy was lynched of the humble country doctor who was seen as to blame for the smallpox prevention program.”

A Substack user going by the moniker “A Midwestern Doctor”5,6 details this part of history, explaining why it matters to us today. He writes:7

“What is occurring now in Canada and other places is almost identical to what happened with the smallpox vaccination campaigns over a century ago, and I believe it is critical we understand these lessons from the past and it is vital this message gets out to the Truckers.

Briefly, the original smallpox vaccine was an unusually harmful vaccination that was never tested before being adopted. It increased, rather than decreased smallpox outbreaks. As the danger and inefficacy became known, increasing public protest developed towards vaccination. Yet, as smallpox increased, governments around the world instead adopted more draconian mandatory vaccination policies.

Eventually, one of the largest protests of the century occurred in 1885 in Leicester (an English city). Leicester’s government was replaced, mandatory vaccination abolished, and public health measures rejected by the medical community were implemented. These measures were highly successful, and once adopted globally ended the smallpox epidemic, something most erroneously believe arose from vaccination.”

The alternative countermeasure implemented in Leicester involved quarantining infected people and notifying anyone who’d been in close contact with the patient. They also used “ring vaccination” in which hospital workers who took care of infected patients had been inoculated.8

As a result, when smallpox broke out again between 1892 and 1894, Leicester got off lightly, with a case rate of 20.5 cases per 10,000. In all, the town had 370 cases and 21 deaths — far lower than the towns of Warrington and Sheffield, where vaccination rates were high.

On the other hand, there were well-vaccinated areas that had lower case rates and fewer deaths, and areas with low vaccination rates that also fared worse in this regard, so vaccination was probably not the determining factor either way.

In 1898, the U.K. implemented a new law that allowed people to opt out of vaccination for moral reasons. As reported by the BBC, this was “the first time ‘conscientious objection’ was recognized in U.K. law.”9 Now, we have to fight to regain that right yet again, all around the world.

Dissolving Illusions

“A Midwestern Doctor”10 goes on to discuss Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ 2009 book, “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” in which she shatters the notion that vaccines (and certain other medical interventions) have been single-handedly responsible for improved health and increased life spans. As a nephrologist (kidney specialist), Humphries noticed a pattern among her patients.

Many who experienced kidney injury or kidney failure had recently received a flu vaccine. It was a singular common denominator. So, she began to challenge the hospital’s routine practice of vaccinating patients. Humphries was roundly ignored and was ultimately forced to leave. The book grew out of her frustration with people who insisted that vaccines had eliminated scourges like polio and smallpox. Once she delved into the research, what she found was something else entirely.

With regard to smallpox and smallpox vaccination, living conditions during the industrial revolution were horrid. Plagues and infectious outbreaks were commonplace, not because of insufficient vaccination, but because sanitation was near-nonexistent and people, including children, were overworked and underfed. Early progressives believed deadly plagues could be prevented by improving living and working conditions, and they were correct.

We know this because other plagues for which there were no vaccines disappeared right along with smallpox and polio. While the medical industry eventually embraced vaccination, and increasingly over time treated it as something that could not be contested or questioned, Humphries’ book details the opposition.

Smallpox Opposition

As it turns out, many doctors have spoken out against smallpox vaccination and published data demonstrating its dangers. For example:11

The Moving Goal Post

Once it became clear that the smallpox vaccine was incapable of providing long-lasting immunity as initially promised, the medical profession moved the goal post and started justifying vaccination on the basis that it could protect against more severe illness, even if it couldn’t provide lifelong “perfect” immunity the way recovering from the infection could.

This has been a basic mantra ever since, and we’ve gotten a double-dose of it during this COVID pandemic. Within months, the goal post was switched from “two doses are near-100% effective,” to “two doses wear off in six months and leave you more vulnerable to severe illness thereafter.” Some bargain!

Corruption of Vital Statistics Protect Vaccination Narrative

What’s worse, the trend of not reporting vaccine injuries due to “allegiance to the practice,” as noted by Henry May in the Birmingham Medical Review in January 1874, has continued unabated. According to May, vaccinated people who died were typically recorded as having died from some other condition, or were erroneously listed as “unvaccinated.”12 As noted by “A Midwestern Doctor”:13

“This corruption of the vital statistics creates many challenges in assessing the efficacy of immunization, and is also why many authors have noted no metric can be used to assess COVID-19 immunizations except total number of deaths (independent of cause) as this cannot be fudged.

Of note, a different significant overlap exists with the early polio campaigns (also detailed within ‘Dissolving Illusions’), where ‘polio’ diagnostic criteria was repeatedly adjusted to meet the political need for polio cases.

Governments responded to this skepticism by progressively using more and more force to mandate vaccination. Vaccination was made compulsory in England in 1853, with stricter laws passed in 1867. In the United States, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive vaccination laws in 1855 (which created the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts a case that is frequently cited about state enforced vaccination).

Lemuel Shattuck emphasized the need for vaccination and pushed for house-to-house vaccination to be enforced by the authority of the City of Boston in an 1856 report, also noting ‘The City has already provided that no unvaccinated child shall be admitted into the public schools.’

A situation emerged I term the ‘Vaccine positive feedback cycle.’ Keep in mind that most systems in nature are instead negative feedback systems. In these, when something occurs, it self-corrects the system and turns it off rather than accelerating it, as occurs in a positive feedback system. The cycle is as follows:

A concerning disease exists.

Immunization is cited as a potential solution to the problem.

An immunization campaign is conducted and makes the problem worse.

As the problem is now worse, the need for immunizations to address it increases and another campaign is conducted.

This makes the problem worse.

This increases the need for more aggressive measures to increase immunization.

This makes the problem worse and further perpetuates the cycle, before long leading to very questionable governmental policies designed to force unwilling parties to vaccinate.

The underlying drivers of this process seem to be an unquestionable faith in vaccination, a conviction dating back to the days of smallpox, that vaccinating an ever-increasing proportion of the population through vaccination can end epidemics (now termed herd immunity), and the government having limited options to address the issue besides immunizations and governmental force.”

The Effects of Forced Smallpox Vaccinations

“A Midwestern Doctor” continues describing the effects of the government’s insistence of forced smallpox vaccination:14

“In accordance the positive feedback cycle, these results were found everywhere. Within the United States, as smallpox worsened in Boston, in 1855, the government made enacted strict enforcement of vaccination.

It was followed by the epidemics of 1859-1860, 1864-1865, 1867 (these were all similar in size to earlier epidemics), and then infamous 1872-1873 epidemic which dwarfed all previous epidemics (proving fatal to 1040 persons, at a rate of 280 deaths per 100,000 people).

By the end of 1868, more than 95% of the inhabitants of Chicago had been vaccinated. After the Great Fire of 1871 … strict vaccine laws were passed, and vaccination was made a condition of receiving relief supplies. Chicago was then hit with a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1872 where over 2,000 persons contracted smallpox, with over 25% dying, and the fatality rate among children under 5 being the highest ever recorded.

A 1900 medical article discussed vaccination in three European nations. In England, of 9392 small-pox patients in London hospitals, 6,854 had been vaccinated and 17.5% of the 9,392 died.

In Germany ‘official returns show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.’ In France, ‘every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there 23,469 cases of small-pox in that army.’

An 1888 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica describing Prussia’s strict vaccination practices throughout the population (including mandatory re-vaccination for school pupils), noted: ‘Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best revaccinated (boosted) country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871 was higher (59,839) than in any other northern state.’”

Other countries reported the same smallpox trends, including Italy and Japan, where smallpox death rates after successful vaccination campaigns were unprecedented. Vaccine injuries, including deaths, were also common. It is shocking how closely the miserable failures of the smallpox vaccines mirror the COVID jabs.

One of the most common causes of death after smallpox vaccination was erysipelas, a painful bacterial skin disease. An 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica article reported that smallpox vaccination had triggered a disastrous epidemic of erysipelas. Other side effects included jaundice, syphilis, tuberculosis, eczema vaccinatum (a rare and lethal skin condition).

Massive Historic Public Protests Over 135 Years Ago

As skepticism of and opposition against smallpox vaccination grew, enforcement increased. Vaccine refusers were fined, jailed and sometimes vaccinated by force. Parents were even forced to vaccinate their second child even if the first one died from the inoculation. Intermittently, riots would break out. A Midwestern Doctor details what happened next:15

“In 1884, 5,000 court summons had been issued against the unvaccinated, a case load that completely overloaded the court system. Letters in local newspaper at this time revealed widespread disdain for the irrationality of the procedure and the medical profession’s steadfast defense of a dangerous practice that had clearly failed over the last 80 years.

Tensions reached a boiling point and on March 23, 1885, a large protest estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 people erupted. It was composed of citizens of all professions from across England and receive support from citizens across Europe who could not attend it.

The procession was 2 miles long, with displays showing the popular sentiments against vaccination present throughout the crowd. The demonstration was successful, and the local government acceded to and acknowledged their demands for liberty. Many of the description of this protest (and the jubilant mood there) are extremely similar to reports I have read of the Trucker’s protest.

Mr. Councilor Butcher of Leicester addressed the protest and spoke of the growing opinion that the best way to get rid of smallpox and deadly infectious diseases was to use plenty of water, eat good food, live in light and airy houses, while it was the municipality’s duty to keep the streets clean and the sewers in order. He emphasized that if this was not done, it was unlikely any act of Parliament or vaccination could prevent the diseases.

That year, following the protest, the government was replaced, mandates were terminated, and by 1887 vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%. To replace the vaccination model, the Leicester activists proposed a system of immediately quarantining smallpox patients, disinfection of their homes and quarantining of their contacts alongside improving public sanitation.

The medical community vehemently rejected this model, and zealously predicted Leicester’s ‘gigantic experiment’ would soon result in a terrible ‘massacre,’ especially in the unprotected children, who were viewed by government physicians as ‘bags of gunpowder’ that could easily blow up schools (along with much other hateful and hyperbolic rhetoric directed at them).

This smallpox apocalypse would forever serve as a lesson against vaccine refusal the medical profession bet their stake upon. [But] the predicted catastrophe failed to emerge and Leicester had dramatically lower rates of smallpox in subsequent epidemics than other fully vaccinated towns (ranging from 1/2 to 1/32).

Various rationalizations were put forward to explain this, but as the decades went by, a gradual public acceptance of Leicester’s methods emerged, but even 30 years later, a New York Times article still predicted a disaster was right around the corner and it was imperative Leicester change their methods.

Fortunately, the value of Leicester’s novel approach of quarantining and improvement public hygiene was recognized and gradually adopted around the world, leading to the eventual eradication of smallpox.”

Keep in mind that these protests occurred when the population was much lower, so as a percentage of the population it was much higher. In 1885, the U.K. population was only 36,015,500,16 so a protest with 100,000 was just under 0.3% of the entire population. As of February 16, 2022, today’s U.K. population is 68,471,390,17 so to match that protest, percentage-wise, about 205,400 would have to hit the streets.

History Repeats Itself

Those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it, and it seems that’s precisely what we’ve allowed to occur in the past two years. Many doctors predicted and warned that the pandemic would be prolonged and worsened by rolling out non-sterilizing vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission). And that’s precisely what we’ve witnessed.

Predictions of devastating side effects have also come true. And, as resistance to the shots grew, draconian mandates followed. History tells us forced vaccination is not the answer. History also tells us how to get out from underneath a tyrannical government’s insistence on forced vaccination.

The answer is peaceful noncompliance. The answer is standing together, en masse, and saying “No more. Enough.” The truckers in Canada, the U.S., Belgium and elsewhere have the right idea, and the rest of us need to join and support them, in any way we can.

“Like the smallpox vaccination campaigns, the COVID-19 immunization campaign has been so egregious it has inspired a large global protest movement with the large scale current protests being very similar to those that occurred 135 years ago,” A Midwestern Doctor writes.18

“My hope is that this movement can remember the lessons from the past and carry them forward to now so a future generation does not have to repeat our mistakes.”

If you want to learn more about the fraud of all vaccines, I would encourage you to carefully review Suzanne Humphries’ excellent book, “Dissolving Illusions.” In my view it is the best book out there on the subject.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 FDA Smallpox

2 World J Surg 2020; 44(9): 2837-2841

3 LAist Los Angeles Smallpox Outbreak

4, 8, 9 BBC December 28, 2019

5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 A Midwestern Doctor Substack February 13, 2022

6 Steve Kirsch Substack February 13, 2022

16 ONS.gov.uk

17 Worldometer UK population

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson wants to sell the trucks the authorities confiscated during the Freedom Convoy protest.

Watson told the CBC that the city has “the ability to confiscate those vehicles and sell them.”

“And I want to see them sold,” stated Watson. “I don’t the return to these people who’ve been causing such frustration and angst in our community.”

Watson continued:

This is costing us a small fortune for the taxpayers of Ottawa. That’s one of the reasons why under the Emergencies Act I’ve asked our solicitor and our city manager how can we keep the tow trucks and the campers and the vans and everything else that we’ve confiscated and sell those pieces of equipment to help recoup some of the costs that our taxpayers are absorbing. So that’s one of the provisions of the Emergency Act and we have been a beneficiary of the Emergency Act.

As they debated on the hill I asked the Members of Parliament to consider it. It’s helped us a lot things like confiscating vehicles, not having to swear in peace officers through the RCMP and so many other things that have been very helpful over the course of this period including you can’t be under 18 and be in this rally.

We get copycats and people thinking I’m going down to Parliament Hill and parking there for three to four days and having a big roast and everything else under the sun. We have to prevent that and we need a short-term plan and a long-term plan to protect our residents much better than we have in the last four weeks.

Don’t forget that the interim police chief admitted that the department is keeping an eye on those who attended the protest. The police continue to gather intelligence on them, too.

Lovely behavior.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Legal Insurrection

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, Russia officially recognised the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) as independent states, becoming the first UN member state to do so. Russia had formerly already recognised identity documents, diplomas, birth- and marriage-certificates, and vehicle registration plates issued by the DPR since February 2017. Both the DPR and LPR are at the center of the 2021–2022 Russian-Ukrainian crisis.   Ukraine regards both the DPR and the LPR as terrorist organizations. 

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Alexander Markovics to gain insight to this conflict between the US and Russia.  Alexander Markovics is an editor at Deutsche Stimme Magazin in Germany, editor-in-chief of the magazine Agora Europa and translator. He has published numerous articles on geopolitics, philosophy, history of ideas, and interviews with important authors of the new right/neo-Eurasianism.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  Western media reports say there will likely be a war between Russia and the West over Ukraine. In your opinion, will there be a war?

Alexander Markovics (AM):  I don’t think that there will be precisely a war between Russia and the West over Ukraine, but more likely a war between Ukraine and the People’s Republics of Donezk and Lugansk, in which Russia will be forced to intervene in order to prevent a genocide against Russians living in Novorossiya. Since Joe Biden controversially took over the White House, the United States are preparing an escalation in Donbass. Their aim is to drag Russia into a prolonged conflict, where the West will force its Ukrainian colony to spill as much Russian blood as possible in the interest of Washington. It’s the declared goal of Washington, to create an “Afghanistan in Europe” for Moscow.

But Russia is not the US and knows how to decisively win a quick war with modern military equipment. The Russian army already proven in Syria, Belarus and Kazakhstan, that it’s able to act against Western interventions and regime changes. Russia has proven to be very patient with all the Ukrainian provocations in the course of the last years, when the Ukrainian army was shelling civilians in Donbass. Since Ukraine bombarded civilian housing in Donbass yesterday on an unprecedented scale and President Putin promised to protect Russian people living there in case of an attack, I assume that there will be war. Enough is enough. But if God wills, peace talks in the last minute could prevent the situation from escalating into full scale war.

SS:  Russia sent strategic jets and sophisticated weapons to their army base in Latakia, Syria. In your opinion, is this a military and political message to the US, and is it part of the political tension with Washington?

AM:  Since the US is destabilizing and occupying parts of Syria this is a necessary show of force by Russia in order to further deter the Globalist ambitions of Washington, similar to Russian talks with Cuba and Venezuela on stationing more Russian military inside these countries. Unfortunately, the fierce defence of unipolar chaos by the US shows us, that the upcoming states fighting for a multipolar order must show strength in order to secure peace and sovereignty to their region. As long as the West is pushing its globalist and Universalist agenda, the rest of the world has to stay on alert.

SS:  The Western media has launched a hysterical propaganda war on Russia. How will Moscow reply to this provocation?

AM:  I think that Moscow will continue to reply in the typical calm, ready to negotiate and sometimes cynical fashion. Diplomats like Liz Truss, who didn’t know Voronezh and Rostov oblast are a part of Russia, are no match for their Russian counterparts and only good for repeating aggressive propaganda against Russia. In easily refuting Western propaganda, calling out the West’s crimes in the past and drawing red lines Russia skilfully counters the current propaganda campaign. But if the West calls its Ukrainian puppet to full scale war, Moscow will answer accordingly.

SS:  Moscow has demanded from the US and the EU several requests to protect its National Security. In your opinion, which of the requests are most important?

AM:  The most important demand is definitely the withdrawal of all NATO troops from all positions who joined the alliance after 1997. This would de facto mean a reversal of NATO’s eastern enlargement in 1999 and a demilitarization of Eastern Europe. Such a measure would be an important step in the normalization of European-Russian relations, an end of the encirclement of Russia by NATO and therefore the starting point for a new European-Eurasian security architecture. Further this measure can help Europe in liberating itself from NATO and US-American occupation. In the end the fulfillment of this Russian demand would mean peace and sovereignty for Europe.

SS:  Several European countries don’t want a military conflict with Russia and they want to buy the Russian gas through Nord Stream 2. Is the NATO member’s unity absolute, or are there some cracks in the pact?

AM:  NATO countries are definitely divided on this topic. Whereas USA and Great Britain definitely want an end to Nord Stream 2 and would even be ready to risk a war, Germany has a different position. Since Germany is dependent on Russian gas, especially because of its disastrous green “Energiewende”/energy turn and wants of its geopolitical position good relations with Russia, they don’t want Nord Stream 2 to end. But since Germany is an US-puppet since 1945 and especially 1991, they’re not really able to decide this measure. Furthermore, Bulgaria and Croatia already said they will not join a war against Russia. Also Hungary is very critical of the current Anti-Russian propaganda. Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltic states on the other hand are part of the warmonger faction in the EU due to their NATO-Nationalist propaganda and historical trauma. However, since NATO is already divided on the topic, a direct intervention in the conflict seems not plausible, also since the moral of these countries is severely weakened by the current Corona measures and Gender policies. Or in order to paraphrase Otto von Bismarck: The fate of Ukraine isn’t worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier, from a European point of view.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

FDA Executive Officer Chris Cole: “The drug companies, the food companies, the vaccine companies. So, they pay us hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire and keep the reviewers to approve their products.”

Cole on FDA fees: “Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers which will speed up the approval process. So, they [pharmaceutical companies] make more money.”

Cole: “They [FDA] tone down the impact of the user fees on their operations because they know they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the vaccine companies, and these other companies for their agency to operate.”

Cole on blowing the whistle: “There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it.”

Cole on retaliation in government: “You’ll be marked from getting other jobs because another office is not going to want to hire you if you’ve spoken out about something, right or wrong. They don’t look at what you’ve spoken out about.  They’re just not willing to- government’s about rocking the boat and they don’t want to- which is the problem I have with- one of the problems I have with government is, like, they don’t like people rocking the boat, for right or wrong, at all costs. They want to hire a safe person that can do the job, but doesn’t necessarily- is a great hire.”

FDA OFFICIAL STATEMENT: “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA nor does he speak on behalf of the agency. User fees provide instrumental funding for the FDA’s independent review of medical products that make a difference in the lives of all Americans, without compromising the agency’s commitment to scientific integrity, public health and regulatory standards, patient safety, and transparency.”

*

Project Veritas published Part Two of its series on the FDA on Wednesday night which featured FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, speaking about the inner workings of the agency including the FDA’s conflicts of interest, overspending, and why it’s hard for those within the agency to speak out on such abuses.

Click here to watch the video.

In the footage, Cole talks about the impact that pharmaceutical companies have on the agency including the process for approving drugs.

“A long time ago, Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers, which will speed up the approval process, so they make more money,” Cole says in the hidden camera footage.

He then reveals that the FDA tones down the impact that these user fees have on the agency’s operations because, “they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the vaccine companies and these other companies for their agency to operate.”

The incendiary footage, which features Cole talking about how the additional money the FDA brings in “gets banked” to be spent on “whatever you can, whether it’s right or wrong,’’ also features Cole discussing reasons why it’s difficult for anyone in government to speak out about practices he sees as “probably excessive.”

“I don’t think there’s enough people saying they’re, like, ‘Look, that’s fine, but that’s not right.  So, we’re not going to charge that.’ You don’t want to be that person. You’re not going to have a long shelf life in the agency if you’re always that person,” Cole said.

“There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it. The whistleblower, well, it’s high-profile whistleblower statutes and everything, that’s kind of ridiculous,” Cole said before adding “it’s better to just stay quiet and accept.”

Cole’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Executive Officer within the agency’s Countermeasures Initiatives, which plays a critical role in ensuring that drugs, vaccines, and other measures to counter infectious diseases and viruses are safe. He made these revelations on a hidden camera to an undercover Project Veritas reporter.

A spokesperson for FDA issued a statement yesterday saying,

“The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”

This statement appears to contradict a phone call released Wednesday afternoon by Project Veritas wherein Cole reiterated, during the conversation with Project Veritas Founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, that he is “a manager in the office that helps oversee the approval of the COVID vaccines for emergency approval.”

 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Project Veritas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on FDA Executive Officer Exposes Close Ties Between Agency and Pharmaceutical Companies: ‘Almost a Billion Dollars a Year Going into FDA’s Budget from the People we Regulate’
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

On February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as sovereign entities.

An emergency meeting of the National Security and Defence Council was called in Kiev on this occasion. While the politicians were meeting in Kiev, the Ukrainian military equipment was seen moving towards Kharkiv.

Four civilians have been killed so far in Eastern Ukraine.

Since the morning of February 22, the territory of the LDPR has been under heavy artillery fire. Ukraine continued shelling despite the Russia’s decision to support the People’s Republics.

At noon only, the following UAF attacks were recorded in the DPR:

  • 80 mines with 120 mm caliber were fired at the village of Dolomitnoye;
  • 160 mines with 120 mm caliber were fired on the village of Sakhanka;
  • 120 mines with 120 mm caliber were fired on the village of Ozyanovka;
  • 130  mines with 120 mm caliber were fired on the village of Dokuchaevsk.

The Ukrainian armed forces carried out overnight shelling in the direction of the village of Leninskoye in the DPR. Twenty-eight mines of were fired in violation of the ceasefire agreement, the DPR representative to the JCCC reported.

Seven civilian houses in the village of Aleksandrovsk were damaged as a result of the UAF shelling. This was reported by the LPR representative to the JCCC. A local gas pipeline was destroyed as a result of fire by the UAF, according to the press service of the LPR Emergencies Ministry.

The first footage of the aftermath of the shelling of Aleksandrovsk was published.

Day After Recognition: Luhansk And Donetsk Republics Still Under Fire (Photos, Video)

Day After Recognition: Luhansk And Donetsk Republics Still Under Fire (Photos, Video)

Day After Recognition: Luhansk And Donetsk Republics Still Under Fire (Photos, Video)

On the morning of February 22, an explosion took place on the Donetsk-Gorlovka road. Three civilians were killed.

The target of the Ukrainian armed forces’ sabotage group on the Donetsk-Gorlovka highway was a military vehicle in which one of the DPR military commanders was travelling. According to a correspondent of the «DONBASS RESHAET» channel, the military vehicle managed to get through the explosive device. As a result, Ukrainian saboteurs blew up the civilian car that was following.

Special services are working on the scene. The explosive device on the highway had defeat elements and was wired.

Russian Investigations Committee Chairman Aleksandr Bastrykin has ordered an investigation of the incident.

Day After Recognition: Luhansk And Donetsk Republics Still Under Fire (Photos, Video)

On February 22, the Lugansk TPP located in the village of Shchastya, which is under the UAF control, was hit with a shell. A fire broke out. It is not clear yet who was behind the strike. According to local sources, the shelling was carried out by the UAF, who are destroy the infrastructure before retreating.

As a result of the recorded violation of the ceasefire regime by the Ukrainian armed forces in the direction of Sloavyanoserbsk, a civilian was wounded and one house was damaged. This was reported by the Luhansk people’s republic’s mission to the JCCC.

On February 22, the UAF also shelled the villages of Ozeryanivka, Dzerzhynske and Staromykhailivka, using prohibited weapons.

According to the head of the DPR Denys Pushylin, the UAF continue to prepare for an offensive operation in the Donbass region. There is no information that the Kiev regime has abandoned the military option of resolving the crisis.

According to available information, Ukrainian Nazis from the Freikorps paramilitary nationalist organization were outraged by the behavior of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and announced their full mobilization.

In his turn, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky claimed that Kiev will not consider the request of the DPR and the LPR to withdraw Ukrainian troops from the East of the country.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from SF

China-Russia Cooperation and Competition in the Arctic

February 23rd, 2022 by Nicholas Meyers

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The current flare-up in the ongoing political stand-off between Russia and the US/ NATO over Ukraine occupies much of the current public conversation regarding Russia and its geopolitical objectives. The recent unrest in Kazakhstan, and Russia’s involvement in that theatre, came in at a distant second. Given the preeminence of these crises (and Western media’s understandable need to spill ink about them), Russia’s ongoing ambitions in the Arctic are being overlooked. By examining the cooperation – and competition – between Russia and China in the Arctic, NATO members and their allies can learn a great deal about interacting with Russia elsewhere in the world.

Much has been written about Russia’s Arctic interests and ambitions, and for the most part, it appears that Russia is transparent about them. An active participant in the Arctic Council (which consists of the eight Arctic States – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US – as well as thirteen non-Arctic observer states, including China), Russia assumed its two-year Chairmanship in May of 2021.

The public program of the Russian Chairmanship of the Arctic Council involves multilateral cooperation in the following priority areas: People of the Arctic, including Indigenous Peoples; Environmental Protection, including Climate Change; Socio-Economic Development; and, Strengthening of the Arctic Council [1]. Under the leadership of Ambassador at Large for Arctic Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Senior Arctic Official of Russia to the Arctic Council, Nikolay Korchunov, Russia’s Chairmanship team has been putting their best foot forward during their two-year tenure to showcase Russia’s willingness to cooperate with the other Arctic states on various multilateral issues. This is not at all surprising: of all the Arctic Council member states, Russia has (arguably) the most to gain in the region, and the most at stake to defend the interests of its people residing there; with the longest Arctic coastline, as well as the greatest population and the highest levels of development in the North of any other nation, any conflict over Arctic issues would impact Russia (and the well-being of its people residing in the North) the most.

As a result, the figurative Chair of the Arctic Council is currently occupied by what’s been described as a “friendly bear” – but however friendly, it nevertheless remains a “bear in the chair” [2]: Russia is further ahead than any other nation in militarizing its Arctic territories, and it hasn’t hesitated in the past to vociferously defend potential encroachments on its Arctic sovereignty.

Enter China and its self-declared status as a “near-Arctic state”, along with its unveiling of what it calls the “Polar Silk Road” component of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in a 2018 White Paper on the country’s Arctic strategy.

Russia was initially resistant to China receiving permanent observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013, and previously prevented Chinese research vessels from entering its Exclusive Economic Zone and navigating in the Northern Sea Route (NSR). Russia rightly considers the NSR part of its internal waters, similar to Canada’s position on the Northwest Passage, and imposes rules and regulations (to include an escort by Russian icebreakers) on foreign vessels wishing to transit through the NSR.

 

However, as Russia has become increasingly alienated from the West amid escalating sanctions following the events in Ukraine in 2014, and against the backdrop of NATO’s encroachment on the NSR, with some countries taking their vessels to the very limit of the sea route (in what they maintain is international waters, but which Russia is arguably justified in defending), it appears that there has been a rapprochement between Russia and China in relation to Arctic issues.

Strategic agreements and lofty declarations by politicians aside, concrete actions signal that Russia and China are willing to cooperate in the Arctic. The most tangible example is the Yamal liquefied natural gas (LNG) project: Chinese ownership in the project totals nearly 30%, with Chinese investors having provided up to 60% of the total capital, which has allowed China to receive millions of metric tons of LNG a year, transported from the Yamal plant in northwest Siberia through the NSR to Chinese markets [3, 4].

It remains to be seen how much further Russia becomes integrated into China’s “Polar Silk Road”, and whether additional projects of a scale similar to Yamal will concretize. However, what has become clear is that Russia was willing to soften its position when it had to: as sanctions forced Russia to pivot away from Western investors and court Chinese capital for the Yamal LNG project, the NSR was effectively opened up to China, allowing the latter to diversify its energy supply chain (a critical requirement in meeting its seemingly insatiable energy needs). This apparent compromise on Russia’s part may well open the door to Chinese vessels eventually transporting commodities through the NSR (for example, from Chinese ports to European markets).

This is not to say that the relationship does not still have its sticking points. For example, China continues to promote the notion of internationalizing the Arctic, viewing the region as neutral territory similar to Antarctica and arguing that its use should not be the exclusive domain of the littoral states. China promotes this view ostensibly in the name of scientific research, but neither Russia nor the other Arctic States support this argument, primarily due to the obvious economic and sovereignty implications. However, despite inevitable disagreements, the geopolitical factors that unite Russia and China – and how those factors influence their cooperation, and competition, in the Arctic – may be more compelling than those that push them apart. As noted by Dr. Christopher Weidacher Hsiung, senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies (IFS)/Norwegian Defence University College (NDUC) and associate research fellow at the Swedish Institute for International Affairs (UI) [4]:

“Sino-Russian cooperation in the Arctic is, so far, mostly economically focused. On a general level, there is growing interdependence between the two economies with Russia providing commodities that China needs (notably oil and gas) and China contributing capital and increasingly advanced industrial technologies – all components of relevance to the Arctic and its development. More broadly, the impact of intensified global strategic rivalry between China and the US, which also affects the Arctic, coupled with persistent US/NATO- Russia tensions in Europe, are pushing Beijing and Moscow even closer together – which is underpinned further by an apparently close, or at least, mutually respectful personal relationship between China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.”

So what does all of this signal to NATO and the US about dealing with Russia on other issues, such as the situation in Ukraine? Quite simply, Russia’s dealings with China in the Arctic show us that, given the right set of conditions, Russia may be incentivized to give something up in order to get what it wants. While this might be true in any negotiation (after all, it’s been said that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy), it might not always be obvious when dealing with Russia, whose President has shown that he’s willing to use every lever at his disposal to accomplish his goals. What it also shows us is that despite Russia’s various rivalries in the region, it understands that there is room (and a need) to cooperate, with benefits to all partners.

Even if its amassing of troops and equipment on Ukraine’s eastern border is mere posturing, Russia’s actions in Crimea in 2014 demonstrated that Putin is willing to go all in when he believes the gamble will pay off. What remains to be seen is whether NATO and the US will call Russia’s (perceived) bluff, or whether they might instead raise the stakes to keep Russia at the table. What is certain is that, as in its dealings with China over Arctic issues, Russia will play its hand with care and cunning in dealing with NATO and the US over Ukraine. And if the Alliance is not on its game, Russia may well walk away with all the chips.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nicholas Meyers writes with a focus on Russian and Eurasian issues, and draws on his military background to provide a unique perspective on geopolitics. Nicholas can be reached at [email protected]

Notes

1. “Russian Chairmanship 2021-2023”. The Arctic Council, Jan. 2022, https://arctic-council.org/about/russian-chairmanship-2/.

2. George, Jane. “As Arctic Council chair passes to Russia, ‘we could see a very friendly bear,’ expert says”. Nunatsiaq News, 17 May 2021, https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/as-arctic-council-chair-passes-to-russia-we-could-see-a-very-friendly-bear-expert-says/.

3. Guo, Ling and Steven Lloyd Wilson. “China, Russia, and Arctic Geopolitics”. The Diplomat, 29 Mar. 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/china-russia-and-arctic-geopolitics/

4. Weidacher Hsiung, Christopher. “The Emergence of a Sino-Russian Economic Partnership in the Arctic?”. The Arctic Institute, 19 May 2020, https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/emergence-sino-russian-economic-partnership-arctic/.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Putin Deftly Eludes the US-laid War Trap

February 23rd, 2022 by Kim Petersen

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Going to war and using expensive war machinery and missiles can be enticing and perversely exhilarating, but the lethality and devastation of war must not be downplayed as a game. The latest political maneuver by Russian president Vladimir Putin was a game-changing masterstroke to avoid the American war trap. At every step in the build-up of tensions surrounding Ukraine, Russia has foiled US enticements to attack. To understand it all, one needs to start further back in time.

9 February 1990 — US Secretary of State James Baker promised USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would “not [move] one inch eastward” in exchange for allowing German unification.

1999 — Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland join NATO and move several inches nearer the dissolved USSR.

2004 — Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia join NATO.

2009 — Albania and Croatia join NATO.

February 2014 — A US-backed coup in Ukraine results in a Nazi-friendly government coming to power.

March 2014 — Crimeans vote overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia.

September 2014 — The Minsk I Agreement is signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and prisoner exchanges.

February 2015 — The Minsk II Agreement calls again for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of weapons, ceasefire monitoring by the OSCE, and the holding of local elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on their future status in Ukraine. Differing interpretations have led to major disagreements over Minsk II.

2017 — Montenegro joins NATO.

2020 — North Macedonia joins NATO. It is apparent that there is an increasing eastward crawl, and Ukraine is also seeking membership.

18 November 2021 — Russia reiterates its red lines.

17 December 2021 — Russia presents its concerns about security in proposals to the US.cember 2021 — Russia presents its concern about security in proposals to the US.

16 January 2022 — Putin identifies Ukraine’s membership in NATO as a red line in Russia-NATO relations that impinge upon Russian security. US secretary-of-state Antony Blinken dismissed Russian security concerns: “I can’t be more clear — NATO’s door is open, remains open, and that is our commitment.”

26 January 2022 — Russia received a written response from the US to its security proposals. Russia would not be pleased.

16 February 2022 — According to national-security adviser Jake Sullivan, based on credible US intelligence, this was the date that Russia would invade Ukraine. The date came and went without any invasion.

17 February 2022 — Russia responds to US and NATO proposals about Ukraine and European security.

There have been many provocations leading up to the Russian recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Among them are NATO expansion, not taking Russian security concerns seriously, the arming of Ukraine, and demonizing Russia via the western monopoly media. The final nail was the shelling from Ukraine into Donbass causing the evacuation of its civilians into Russia.

It appears to be a foolhardy act by Ukraine. If Ukraine had adhered to the Minsk Agreements, Donetsk and Luhansk would still be a part of Ukraine, autonomous though they may be. Autonomy is not uncommon within countries. Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Tibet, Xinjiang are autonomous provinces in China. Russia also has one autonomous region and 10 autonomous areas. Nonetheless, the lure of war and playing with fire has caused Ukraine to shrink a little bit more.

Russia, for its part, did not take the bait and invade Ukraine. It has instead sent peacekeepers into Donbass. It would seem highly unlikely that Ukraine would attack the powerful state-of-the-art Russian military.

So Joe Biden does not get his Russian invasion. Biden’s planners have been foiled again. Biden made the right call to withdraw the US forces from Afghanistan, but that withdrawal was badly botched, evoking memories of the tail-between-the-legs escape from rooftops in Viet Nam by US troops. Then to compound the fiasco of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden had the shamelessness and heartlessness to steal the poor Afghan peoples’ monies. He follows in the footsteps of his predecessor Donald Trump who openly stole Syrian oil — a theft that continues under Biden.

Meanwhile, the situation in and around Ukraine and the breakaway republics will continue to evolve. It is hoped that saner heads will deescalate the tensions and avoid war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Democracies around the world “don’t seem to be caring” about the “scandal” of the Trudeau government’s treatment of a “peaceful protest,” according to author Douglas Murray.

“I mean, the Prime Minister has used laws which are meant to be used in wartime and he’s used them against a peaceful protest,” Mr Murray said.

“He slandered the truckers; he slandered the supporters of the truckers … And now he’s moved to the next phase, not just sending in the police to very brutally end the protest in Ottawa.

“This is absolutely totalitarian behaviour that has been going on from the Trudeau government.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Trudeau Government Invokes Emergencies Act. Frozen Bank Accounts. Reprisals Against Canadian Citizens

By David Sacks, February 22, 2022

His public safety minister Marco Mendocino stated that such extraordinary measures were necessary due to “intimidation, harassment, and expressions of hate.” Perhaps he doesn’t realize that none of these are listed in the law as valid reasons to invoke it.

Intensive Shelling of Donbass Residential Areas by Ukrainian Armed Forces Prior to Russia’s Recognition Lugansk and Donesk as Independent States

By South Front, February 22, 2022

The Ukrainian Armed Forces started intensive firing on residential buildings in the settlement of Horlivka. Shells hit in the courtyard during February 21. The blast blew out the windows. Residents had been evacuated in case the house collapses.

Fear and Loathing in Washington. “Vital Issues of War and Peace”

By Philip Giraldi, February 22, 2022

One can frequently disagree with government policies without necessarily regarding them with disgust, but the Joe Biden Administration has turned that corner, first with its senseless promotion of a new Cold War that could turn hot with Russia and, more recently, with its actions undertaken to undermine and punish Afghanistan.

Kiev Must Withdraw from Donetsk & Lugansk If It Truly Wants to Avert War

By Andrew Korybko, February 22, 2022

Kiev’s continued shelling of those newly independent republics as part of its ongoing genocide against their indigenous Russian people and its occupation of their territory that the Kremlin officially recognizes as falling within their sovereign borders could very likely provoke Moscow to militarily respond in self-defense.

History of Racist Violence against African Americans: Disarming the Black Masses Secured the Failure of Reconstruction

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 22, 2022

During the period of the enslavement of African people by Britain and the United States, violence was a key instrument in the maintenance of the exploitative and oppressive system. African people between the 17th and 19th centuries prior to the eruption of the Civil War (1861-1865), were largely prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.

Emergencies Act: The Canadian Government Could Confiscate Your Pet

By Martin Armstrong, February 22, 202

In a new low for democracy, the Ottawa By-law enforcement agency made it clear that they are not above confiscating pets to quell to the protests. “Attention animal owners at [the] demonstration: If you are unable to care for your animal as a result of enforcement actions, your animal will [be] placed into protective care for 8 days, at your cost. After 8 days, if arrangements are not made, your animal will be considered relinquished,” the tweet read.

“Totalitarian Democracy”: The Ongoing War in Ukraine and the War Measures Act in Canada

By Stewart Brennan, February 22, 2022

When our so-called western leaders tell you that Russia will invade the Ukraine and that they know exactly what day Russia will invade the Ukraine, without providing any evidence, you know that the western powers are up to something very sinister.

Israeli Convoy and Protest Against COVID Mandates Gets Evicted

By David Heller, February 22, 2022

Participants decorated their cars with slogans in Hebrew and some in English. “Freedom”, “I want my country back”, “Green pass = black stain” and “end the coercion” were some of what was seen plastered along the vehicles in the convoy.

Britain and Australia’s Resource Grab in Afghanistan

By Antony Loewenstein, February 22, 2022

A little-known aspect of the disastrous Western occupation of Afghanistan was that UK and Australian companies sought to access the country’s $3 trillion worth of untapped minerals – with little regard for the welfare of Afghans.

The Federal Reserve: Enemy of American Workers

By Rep. Ron Paul, February 22, 2022

The fact that prices remain at historically high levels shows that inflation is far from “transitory,” as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had described it. The continuing inflation has led the Federal Reserve Board to suggest the Fed will start increasing interest rates earlier than previously announced.

Funeral Home Stocks Surge, Death and Disability Payouts Soar

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, February 22, 2022

Business is booming at funeral homes across the U.S., as death rates creep up, particularly among young, working-age individuals.1 Ex-Blackrock fund manager Ed Dowd has been analyzing data about mortality rates before and after COVID-19 shots became widespread, and found that death rates worsened in 2021 — after the shots became prevalent — compared to 2020.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trudeau Government Invokes Emergencies Act. Frozen Bank Accounts. Reprisals Against Canadian Citizens

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The Ukrainian Armed Forces started intensive firing on residential buildings in the settlement of Horlivka. Shells hit in the courtyard during February 21. The blast blew out the windows. Residents had been evacuated in case the house collapses.

According to the local sources, a shell hit a residential building in the city of Donetsk.

The wreckage blocked a woman from leaving the rubbles. It was confirmed by specialists from the Emergencies’ Ministry, that a gas pipeline had been damaged. Thirty-five houses in the private sector at the outskirts of Donetsk were left without gas supplies.

The videos below were  undertaken by the the residents. They are not professional. Scroll down for text.

Also in Luhansk, a car exploded near the Luhansk representative office of the JCCC. The car belonging to the head of the representation, Mikhail Filiponenko, was damaged. The leader himself is alive. There is no information about the driver’s condition at the moment.

All LNR residents are in shelters. Luhansk is deserted. Reports of bomb attacks on Donetsk were heard on the streets of the city via an alarm system

Right after the news of the recognition of the LPR and DPR by Russia, the information about the deteriorating situation on the southern front received. People’s Militia forces were fighting with AFU units near Horlivka, DPR. There are casualties among recently conscripted DPR citizens.

However, the situation began to change after Russia signed an international treaty “on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic” on the evening of February 21, 2022 (Moscow time), a similar treaty was signed at the same time with the Lugansk People’s Republic.

The treaties include clauses on:

  • joint defense;
  • joint protection of borders;
  • the right of the parties to use military infrastructure and military – bases on each other’s territory;
  • recognition of documents issued by the government agencies of the parties.

Immediately after the signing of these treaties, Russian President Putin signed a Decree instructing the Russian armed forces to provide peacekeeping functions in the DPR and LPR.

Now units of the 8th Field Army of the Russian Armed Forces have begun to enter the territory of the LDPR.

Amid these developments, the activity of Ukrainian shelling of residential buildings on the territory of the Republics began to decrease and practically stopped after Ukrainian President Zelensky did not want to take any decisions following a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.

His previously announced pompous address to the nation did not take place today either.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All images in this article are from SF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Intensive Shelling of Donbass Residential Areas by Ukrainian Armed Forces Prior to Russia’s Recognition Lugansk and Donesk as Independent States
  • Tags: , , , ,

Crisi Ucraina. Stoltenberg: «Bene, più di 270 miliardi di dollari di spese militari degli alleati europei dal 2014». Al via negli Usa la la produzione delle nuove atomiche B61-12: andranno in Europa e in Italia

*

«L’allargamento della Nato negli ultimi decenni è stato un grande successo e ha anche aperto la strada a un ulteriore allargamento della Ue»: lo ha ribadito sabato scorso alla Conferenza di Monaco sulla Sicurezza il segretario della Nato Jens Stoltenberg. Per comprendere appieno le sue parole, occorre ricostruire in termini essenziali questa storia di «grande successo».

ESSA INIZIA NELLO STESSO anno, il 1999, in cui la Nato demolisce con la guerra la Jugoslavia e, al vertice di Washington, annuncia di voler «condurre operazioni di risposta alle crisi, non previste dall’articolo 5, al di fuori del territorio dell’Alleanza». Dimenticando di essersi impegnata con la Russia a «non allargarsi neppure di un pollice a Est», la Nato inizia la sua espansione ad Est. Ingloba i primi tre paesi dell’ex Patto di Varsavia: Polonia, Repubblica Ceca e Ungheria. Quindi, nel 2004, si estende ad altri sette: Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania (già parte dell’Urss); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovacchia (già parte del Patto di Varsavia); Slovenia (già parte della Federazione Jugoslava). Nel 2009, la Nato ingloba l’Albania (un tempo membro del Patto di Varsavia) e la Croazia (già parte della Federazione Jugoslava); nel 2017, il Montenegro (già parte della Jugoslavia); nel 2020 la Macedonia del Nord (già parte della Jugoslavia) In vent’anni, la Nato si estende da 16 a 30 paesi. In tal modo Washington ottiene un triplice risultato. Estende a ridosso della Russia, fin dentro il territorio dell’ex Urss, l’Alleanza militare di cui mantiene le leve di comando: il Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa è, «per tradizione», sempre un generale Usa nominato dal presidente degli Stati Uniti e appartengono agli Usa anche gli altri comandi chiave.

ALLO STESSO TEMPO, Washington lega i paesi dell’Est non tanto all’Alleanza, quanto direttamente agli Usa. Romania e Bulgaria, appena entrate, mettono subito a disposizione degli Stati Uniti le importanti basi militari di Costanza e Burgas sul Mar Nero. Il terzo risultato ottenuto da Washington con l’allargamento della Nato a Est è il rafforzamento della propria influenza in Europa. Sui dieci paesi dell’Europa centro-orientale che entrano nella Nato tra il 1999 e il 2004, sette entrano nell’Unione Europea tra il 2004 e il 2007: alla Ue che si allarga a Est, gli Stati Uniti sovrappongono la Nato che si allarga a Est sull’Europa. Oggi 21 dei 27 paesi dell’Unione Europea appartengono alla Nato sotto comando Usa. Il Consiglio Nord Atlantico, l’organo politico dell’Alleanza, secondo le norme Nato decide non a maggioranza ma sempre «all’unanimità e di comune accordo», ossia d’accordo con quanto deciso a Washington.

LA PARTECIPAZIONE delle maggiori potenze europee a tali decisioni (esclusa l’Italia che finora ubbidisce in genere tacendo) avviene in genere attraverso trattative segrete con Washington sul dare e avere. Ciò comporta un ulteriore indebolimento dei parlamenti europei, in particolare di quello italiano, già oggi privati di reali poteri decisionali su politica estera e militare. In tale quadro, l’Europa si ritrova oggi in una situazione ancora più pericolosa della guerra fredda. Altri tre paesi – Bosnia Erzegovina (già parte della Jugoslavia), Georgia e Ucraina (già parte dell’Urss) – sono candidati a entrare nella Nato. Stoltenberg, portavoce Usa prima che della Nato, dichiara che «teniamo la porta aperta e, se l’obiettivo del Cremlino è quello di avere meno Nato ai confini della Russia, otterrà solo più Nato».

NELLA ESCALATION Usa-Nato, che ci porta sul baratro di una guerra su larga scala nel cuore dell’Europa, entrano in gioco le armi nucleari. Fra tre mesi inizia negli Usa la produzione in serie delle nuove bombe nucleari B61-12, che saranno schierate sotto comando Usa in Italia e altri paesi europei, probabilmente anche dell’Est ancora più a ridosso della Russia. Oltre a queste, gli Usa hanno in Europa due basi terrestri in Romania e Polonia e quattro navi da guerra dotate del sistema missilistico Aegis, in grado di lanciare non solo missili anti-missile ma anche missili Cruise a testata nucleare. Stanno inoltre preparando missili nucleari a raggio intermedio, da schierare in Europa contro la Russia, il nemico inventato che può però rispondere in maniera distruttiva se attaccato.

A TUTTO QUESTO si aggiunge l’impatto economico e sociale della crescente spesa militare. Alla riunione dei ministri della Difesa, Stoltenberg ha annunciato trionfante che «questo è il settimo anno consecutivo di aumento della spesa della Difesa degli Alleati europei, accresciuta di 270 miliardi di dollari dal 2014». Altro denaro pubblico sottratto alle spese sociali e agli investimenti produttivi, mentre i paesi europei devono ancora riprendersi dal lockdown economico del 2020-21. La spesa militare italiana ha superato i 70 milioni di euro al giorno, ma non bastano. Il premier Draghi ha già annunciato «Ci dobbiamo dotare di una difesa più significativa: è chiarissimo che bisognerà spendere molto di più di quanto fatto finora». Chiarissimo: stringiamo la cinghia perché la Nato possa allargarsi.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Che cos’è e perché è pericoloso l’allargamento a Est della Nato

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

One can frequently disagree with government policies without necessarily regarding them with disgust, but the Joe Biden Administration has turned that corner, first with its senseless promotion of a new Cold War that could turn hot with Russia and, more recently, with its actions undertaken to undermine and punish Afghanistan. The fact that the White House wraps itself in the sanctimonious, self-righteous twaddle that is so much the hallmark of the political left is bad enough, but when the government goes out of its way to harm and even kill people around the world in pursuit of an elusive global dominance it is time for the American people to rise up and say “Stop!”

As a former CIA operations officer, I departed government service in 2002 in part due to the impending invasion of Iraq, which I knew was completely unjustified by the web of largely fabricated information that was flowing out of the Pentagon to justify the attack. In the years since I have been appalled by the Obama era attacks on Syria and Libya as well as by the assassinations and cruise missile strikes carried out under Donald Trump. But all of that was a Sunday in the park compared to the hideous nonsense being pursued by Biden and his crew of reprobates.

Trifling with the use of force as part of negotiations intended to go nowhere over Ukraine could well by misstep, false flag or even design escalate into nuclear war ending much of the life on this planet as we know it, and we are now also witnessing the cold, calculated slaughter of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians just because we have the tools at hand and believe that we can get away with it. What we are seeing unfold right in front of us goes beyond appalling and it is time to demand a change of course on the part of a runaway federal government that is drunk on its own self-assumed unbridled right to exercise total executive authority over vital issues of war and peace.

I am most particularly shocked and dismayed over what the Biden Administration did to Afghanistan on February 11th, which is unambiguously a crime against humanity. On that day the President of the United States Joe Biden, still smarting from the botched departure from Afghanistan and low approval ratings, issued an executive order invoking emergency powers stipulating that the $7 billion in Afghan government money being held and frozen in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would be retained by the US and divided in two.

Half of the $7 billion would be placed in a US government administered trust fund. The money would in theory go to fund humanitarian relief in Afghanistan to be carried out by agencies unidentified but presumed to be acting in coordination with the barracudas at the Treasury Department while the other half would go to benefit the victims of 9/11. This money is not just “frozen assets,” it is the entire reserve of the Afghan central bank, and its appropriation by the US will destroy whatever remains of the formal Afghan economy, making Afghanistan entirely reliant on small rations of foreign aid that come through channels unconnected with the Afghan government.

The other half of the story is that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 but instead became a victim of the US lust for revenge. After 9/11, the Taliban government offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States if Washington were able to provide evidence that he was somehow involved in the attacks in New York and Virginia. The George W. Bush Administration was unable to do so, but chose to invade instead.

Afghanistan now has a government that is recognized by the United Nations and many other countries, though not by Washington, which insists that the Taliban are terrorists. Sanctions pressure being exerted by Washington on the new Taliban dominated regime has inter alia brought about a major humanitarian disaster, with various international agencies predicting that many thousands of Afghan civilians will die of starvation because there is no money available to provide relief. The United Nations has reported that three-quarters of Afghanistan’s population has plunged into acute poverty, with 4.7 million people likely to suffer severe or even fatal malnutrition this year.

The money in New York unambiguously belongs to the Afghan government and the country’s central bank. It is not money that came from the United States, which means that what Biden, who is already stealing Syria’s oil, is engaging in yet one more large scale theft, this time from people dying from famine and disease. Furthermore, as the US was de facto an occupying military power in Afghanistan, the responsibility to protect the civilian population is explicitly required under the articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. That Washington will watch many thousands of civilians die because it has used its position as an occupying power to steal money that might alleviate the suffering is unconscionable and amounts to a war crime.

Undoubtedly the half of the money allegedly allocated for humanitarian relief will be directed to organizations that will do Washington’s bidding in terms of how the aid is distributed and who gets it. It is being reported that it will take months to set up the aid network, by which time thousands will die. That is to be expected and may have been intentional. And as for the other half of the money directed towards 9/11 “victims,” just watch how that plays out. There are undoubtedly instances of Americans who lost multiple and even cross generational family members at 9/11 and are still in need of assistance. Fine, that is a given, but why punish the Afghans to deal with that? And as soon as the money is on the table you know exactly what will happen. All the shyster lawyers working on a percentage of the payoffs will come out of the woodwork and the major beneficiaries of all the loot will be people who know how to manipulate and game the system. That is what happened to the billions that came raining down as a consequence of the insurance claims on the World Trade Center and also in the distribution of other monies that followed. You can bank on it.

Washington has become adept at lying to cover up its crimes overseas, but foreigners, who are not likely inclined to read the Washington Post and are directly affected by the deception, frequently have a more facts-based understanding of what exactly is going on. And it is why no one any longer trusts the United States. And, it is interesting to note how inevitably the lying by the US government is both bipartisan and inclined to blame the victim as a fallback position. This was seen in Donald Trump’s assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani over two years ago. Soleimani was in Baghdad for peace talks and was falsely accused by the White House of preparing to attack American soldiers. There is also the more recent assassination of alleged ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi and killing of 13 additional women and children in Syria where accounts of villagers don’t quite square with the Pentagon version of what allegedly took place.

And then there is a long-concealed atrocity also in Syria which took place in the town of Baghuz in March 2019. At least 80 mostly women and children died in an attack by American F-15 fighter bombers, which was only reported in the media in November 2021. Reportedly, a large crowd of women and children were seen by photographic drones seeking shelter huddled against a river bank. Without warning, an American attack jet dropped a 500-pound bomb on the group. When the smoke cleared, another jet tracked the running survivors and dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of them. Military personnel at the Udeid Airbase in Qatar watching the attack by way of the drone camera reportedly reacted in “stunned disbelief” at what they were witnessing. A Pentagon cover-up followed and to this day the official comment on the attack is that it was “justified.”

So, by all means go and listen to lying Jen Psaki and pencil neck Ned Price or to Secretary of State Tony Blinken and possibly to the ultimate nitwit himself, President Honest Joe Biden. Or you can just pick up a New York Times or Washington Postwhere deliberately leaked government lies are backed up by what the newspapers pretend to be editorial integrity. These folks just might drop us into a nuclear war or could possibly continue in their larcenous ways to rob the world. Sooner or later the chickens will be coming home to roost and accountability for America’s war crimes will be demanded. Stay tuned.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

As relations between Syria and its neighbours warm again a decade after the Syrian war first broke out, Damascus has become a popular destination for Arab dignitaries.

Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr al-Busaidi was not only the most recent top official to meet President Bashar al-Assad in January, the visit represented the leading role his country is playing in Arab normalisation with Syria.

Syria’s days of long isolation and regional disfavour are starting to shift – albeit gradually – and much of this reintegration is down to the critical role of Muscat and its gamble on keeping clear lines of communication and ties with Damascus at the worst of times.

In implementing a non-interventionist foreign policy that has enabled Oman to play a prominent role in the Syrian diplomatic scene, the sultanate will likely reap rewards going forward as more Arab states return to Damascus, however long or difficult that process may be.

However, wider regional rapprochement with Assad is a highly complicated process, not least due to US and European warnings. Saudi Arabia’s refusal to commit to engagement under current circumstances makes things even trickier.

Nonetheless, the fact the Syrian government has achieved such significant progress with reintegration after the war made it a pariah in the region and much of the world, is fundamentally down to the efforts of Oman.

And Syria is certainly grateful.

“It is no secret that our bilateral relations with Oman are very good and have always been, this will continue for the foreseeable future,” one Syrian diplomatic source told Middle East Eye.

Muscat leads the way 

Oman has long had a reputation for rarely arguing or taking sides when it comes to diplomatic relations and political disputes, preferring a peacemaker role rather than confrontation.

Much of this Swiss-like neutrality emanates from the core policy principles of Oman’s late leader Sultan Qaboos, who sought to always administer a pragmatic doctrine when dealing with volatile and bickering neighbours in a turbulent region.

Oman refused to enter the Saudi-led group seeking regime change in Syria that emerged in 2011. In fact, it went in the opposite direction, and even sent its foreign minister to Damascus in 2015 at the very height of the military conflict.

Yusuf bin Alawi, then Omani foreign minister, at the time was engineering a return for Syria to the Arab fold, and even seven years ago said he was seeking “ideas proposed at the regional and international levels aiming to help resolve the crisis in Syria”.

Aron Lund, an analyst with the Century Foundation think tank, told MEE that “Oman has a talk-to-everyone attitude to diplomacy, and it is deliberately standing a little bit aloof from its Gulf Cooperation Council neighbours”, adding that they “kept the relationship alive and fished for mediation opportunities”.

Oman has consistently led the way for Arab normalisation.

Sultan Haitham bin Tariq was the first Gulf leader to congratulate Assad on his re-election in 2021. His cable of congratulations expressed best wishes to the president in leading the Syrian people towards further aspirations of stability, progress and prosperity.

The sultanate was also the first Gulf state to reinstate its ambassador in Syria, and it greeted Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad on a three-day trip to Oman back in March, where the Syrians expressed renewed hope for readmission into the Arab League.

In paving the way for other countries such as the UAE, which has recently aggressively sought to normalise relations with Assad, Oman has been a trendsetter.

During Busaidi’s January visit, the Syrian Parliament Speaker Hammoud Sabbagh described Oman as a crucial ally, saying: “The brotherly sultanate has stood by Syria in its war against terrorism.” This type of praise is usually only reserved for Iran or Russia, Assad’s two greatest backers.

Roadmap for the future

From here, Oman seeks ever further cooperation. Busaidi has intimated that mutual visits will step up as ties grow.

While other Arab countries are following Oman’s lead, there are still limitations to overcome.

Much of the Arab world is still wary of Syria’s close ties to Iran, and Damascus doesn’t have much to offer economically, as it is heavily sanctioned. Reintegration with the Arab League would be significant, but it really rests on creating a better relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is yet to be convinced.

However, this hasn’t prevented states such as Egypt from actively trying to facilitate Syria’s return to the regional body. Last month, Egypt’s foreign minister said:

“We hope that conditions will be available for Syria to return to the Arab domain and become an element supporting Arab national security. We will continue to communicate with Arab countries to achieve this purpose.”

It is no coincidence that he said this standing alongside Busaidi in Muscat.

Ultimately, Oman has gambled on the situation in Syria and won. “Although several Arab countries kept their Damascus embassies operational, Oman was ahead of the rest in engaging on high levels with the Syrian government,” Lund explains.

But with Syria devastated economically and yet to be united, what can the war-torn country offer Oman? Lund doesn’t see much current benefit.

“Syria itself seems to have little to offer Oman at the moment. Should Western sanctions be withdrawn or significantly lightened, and if Syria begins to recover economically, it may turn out that Omani investors have a leg up on the competition,” he tells MEE.

“But that’s hypothetical at this point, and I doubt Oman pursued this policy thinking it could score big economically.”

Moreover, Syria’s readmission into the Arab League is not a certainty at this point, and will require some concessions from Damascus, as well as Saudi Arabia’s approval. Also, other countries such as Qatar and Morocco have been vehemently against Syria’s re-entry. Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit said recently that the “necessary procedures” for Syria’s return were not yet fulfilled.

This hasn’t prevented a flurry of activity towards Damascus.

Jordan, for instance, fully reopened its main Nassib border crossing with Syria last September, a move that acts as a boost to both the Jordanian and Syrian economies, not to mention serving as a marker for the reintegration of Damascus into the Arab economy.

Bahrain also followed the trend and appointed its first ambassador to Syria in almost a decade.

Ultimately, the role of Oman in cultivating a positive relationship with Syria was in Muscat’s view vindicated by Assad emerging victorious in the war.

With that cultivated link already in place, Muscat can take much credit for reintegrating Syria back into the Arab fold, and in return it will have an enormous line of thankful credit in Damascus – and not least a prominent role in brokering Syria’s Gulf relations in the future.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Oman Became the Chief Architect of Arab Normalisation with Syria
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Last summer, I warned readers of Common Sense that financial deplatforming would be the next wave of online censorship. Big Tech companies like PayPal were already working with groups like the ADL and SPLC to define lists of individuals and groups who should be denied service. As more and more similarly minded tech companies followed suit (as happened with social media censorship), these deplorables would be deplatformed, debanked, and eventually denied access to the modern economy altogether, as punishment for their unacceptable views. 

That prediction has become reality.

What I could not have anticipated is that it would occur first in our mild-mannered neighbor to the north, with the Canadian government itself directing the reprisals. It remains to be seen whether Canada will be a bellwether for the U.S. But anyone who cares about the future of America as a place where citizens are free to protest their government needs to understand what has just occurred and work to stop it from taking root here.

For the past three weeks, thousands of truckers have gathered in Ottawa and along the Canada-America border in protest of Covid restrictions and mandates. Rather than engage with them or listen to their concerns, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first denounced them as having “unacceptable views.” Then he demonized them as white supremacists, racists, and “swastika wavers.”

On Monday (February 14), the rhetoric turned to action when Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act. This heretofore-unused 1988 law gives the government virtually unlimited power for 30 days to deal with a crisis. Invoking the law under the present circumstance would require the threat or use of “serious violence,” yet the vast majority of protesters have been entirely peaceful—playing “We Are the World” and waving Maple Leaf flags. Indeed, the government has made little attempt to justify the need for emergency powers beyond Trudeau’s frequent bemoaning of the truckers’ alleged “hateful rhetoric.”

His public safety minister Marco Mendocino stated that such extraordinary measures were necessary due to “intimidation, harassment, and expressions of hate.” Perhaps he doesn’t realize that none of these are listed in the law as valid reasons to invoke it.

Trudeau escalated things further on Tuesday night, when he issued a new directive called the Emergency Economic Measures Order. Invoking a War on Terror law called the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, the order requires financial institutions—including banks, credit unions, co-ops, loan companies, trusts, and even cryptocurrency wallets—to stop “providing any financial or related services” to anyone associated with the protests (a “designated person”). This has resulted, according to the CBC, in “frozen accounts, stranded money and canceled credit cards.”

Banks, according to this new order, have a “duty to determine” if one of their customers is a “designated person.” A “designated person” can refer to anyone who “directly or indirectly” participates in the protest, including donors who “provide property to facilitate” the protests through crowdfunding sites. In other words, a designated person can just as easily be a grandmother who donated $25 to support the truckers as one of the organizers of the convoy.

Because the donor data to the crowdfunding site GiveSendGo was hacked—and the leaked data shows that Canadians donated most of the $8 million raised—many thousands of law-abiding Canadians now face the prospect of financial retaliation and ruin merely for supporting an anti-government protest.

Already, a low-level government official in Ontario was fired after her $100 donation came to light. A gelato shop was forced to close when it received threats after its owner was revealed to have donated to the protest. On Wednesday, Justice Minister David Lametti went on Canadian television to say the quiet part aloud, namely that anyone contributing to “a pro-Trump movement” should be “worried” about their bank accounts and other financial assets being frozen.

When these protestors or those that supported them end up in financial hardship because they lose their job, business, or bank account, what will happen to those who try to help them? Will Canadian financial institutions be forced to play Six Degrees of Deplorables? The fear of being ensnared in the dragnet will surely have a chilling effect on the commercial prospects of those suspected of “unacceptable views,” creating a caste of untouchables whom no one will dare to transact with or help.

B.J. Dichter, one of the protest organizers who has had all of his bank accounts and credit cards frozen, expressed the sense of desperation: “It feels like being banished from the medieval village left to die.”

How did things get to this point?

For years, ideologues have used accusations of bigotry to hound people from their jobs, kick them off social media, and rescind their right to participate in the online economy.

However, many observers shrugged off these cases as outliers—fringe examples that could be ignored because they affected unsympathetic individuals. But now we have a wide-ranging group of working-class people and their supporters who are being financially deplatformed for civil disobedience.

The Canadian truckers have been so thoroughly defamed as racists and bigots by the media on both sides of the border that few are thinking about the nightmarish implications for ordinary citizens.

For the most part, the CBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the major newspapers in both countries have cheered and egged Trudeau on as he descends into authoritarianism—even as various Canadian provinces rescind the vaccine mandates that originally inspired the protests.

Perhaps no one has been more enthusiastic than CNN contributor Juliette Kayyem. She took to Twitter to encourage Trudeau’s government to first “slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers” and later to “cancel their insurance, suspend their driver’s licenses, prohibit any future regulatory verification for truckers,” and other ideas that seemed extreme until Trudeau adopted several of them. “Trust me,” declared Kayyem, “I will not run out of ways to make this hurt.” One suspects Trudeau won’t either, even as the coming end of the pandemic renders this entire dispute irrelevant. Funny, it’s almost as if “the cruelty is the point.”

The self-conception of these pundits and politicians could not be more at odds with reality. They pose as defenders of democracy while invoking emergency powers without legislative or public debate, or without an emergency for that matter. They claim that diversity and tolerance are their highest values while insisting that only one political point of view is acceptable and censoring the alternatives. Above all, progressive elites see themselves as the champions of the disadvantaged while demonizing working-class men and women whose economic livelihoods have been devastated by their draconian Covid policies.

These elites will soon move on to the next Twitter outrage, but the people of Canada will be living with the consequences of Trudeau’s actions long after every last truck has been towed and the last of the protesters has been cleared by tear gas, stun grenades, and mounted police on horseback. Indeed, over the weekend, the Ottawa police chief told reporters that they will be pursuing protestors for weeks and months to come: “If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow up with financial sanctions and criminal charges. Absolutely.”

While the emergency order only authorizes the freezing of assets for 30 days, banks and financial institutions will be wary of resuming business relationships with any “designated person”—or anyone they think could be one in the future. Confident that these private businesses will do their dirty work for them, the government will likely back off, but the chilling effect on political dissent will remain. It’s a Western version of China’s social credit system that does not altogether prohibit political dissent but makes it so costly that it becomes impractical to the ordinary citizen.

How do we stop this dystopian policy from taking root here in the United States? Some of my friends in the tech world say that decentralized blockchain and cryptocurrency offer an answer—and that might be true for pseudonymous computer programmers who can do gig work from anywhere in the world. But it won’t help truck drivers who operate in the real world under the supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The real answer lies in politics and the law. Policy makers need to build safeguards into our laws that protect citizens’ financial rights against some future emergency that would be used as the excuse to take them away. Just as University of Chicago professor Richard Epstein proposed that the largest social media companies should be treated as common carriers to prohibit them from restricting speech, we may need to prohibit the largest financial institutions from denying citizens access to the financial system because they dislike their politics. In order to prevent discrimination on the basis of creed, political beliefs may need to become a protected class.

We must also stop the definition creep around “terrorism,” a term whose use has become so elastic that it now even includes angry moms fighting school boards. Just this month, the Department of Homeland Security made a little-noticed change in its definition of domestic terrorism, citing “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19” as a key driver of what it deemed a heightened domestic terror threat environment. As we have seen for over 20 years, “terrorism” is the magic word by which any curtailment of rights and expansion of government power can be justified.

American citizens must never be labeled terrorists simply for exercising their constitutional rights to speak freely, to worship freely, or to assemble peaceably in protest. Of course, an act of violence committed in service to a radical cause is terrorism, whether committed in Baghdad or Brooklyn, but constitutionally protected speech alone is not. Contrary to the safetyism practiced by university administrators and HR departments, speech is not violence. A citizen posting on social media, even if she is questioning vaccines or railing against mask mandates, is not fomenting terrorism.

Those of us in the free world have been asked to suspend many of our freedoms for the sake of our collective health during this pandemic. But asking us to compromise our right to peaceful protest, or to have our finances seized without due process of law in the name of a fake emergency, can never be made normal. In the words of Justice Gorsuch, “Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

David Sacks is Founder who backs founders through Craft Ventures. Previously: Founder/CEO of Yammer and founding COO of PayPal.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

Kiev’s continued shelling of those newly independent republics as part of its ongoing genocide against their indigenous Russian people and its occupation of their territory that the Kremlin officially recognizes as falling within their sovereign borders could very likely provoke Moscow to militarily respond in self-defense.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky predicted on the day after Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) as independent states that “We believe there will be no war against Ukraine, and there will be no broad escalation on the part of the Russian Federation.” This suggests that he’s trying to avert the war that his forces provoked after complying with their American patron’s pressure to initiate a third round of civil war hostilities in Donbass last weekend, which is what directly led to the immediate humanitarian reason behind President Putin’s dramatic decision. If Zelensky truly wants to avert war, however, then Kiev must immediately withdraw from the territories of the DPR and LPR that it’s presently occupying.

Source: OneWorld

That’s because Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that his country recognized the DPR and LPR within the borders in which they initially proclaimed their independence. These encompass the entirety of their eponymous “oblasts” as they’re referred to by Ukraine but are therefore now considered by Moscow to be their sovereignty territory. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that the treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance that were just agreed to between them and Russia saw Moscow “promise to safeguard their security.” This very strongly suggests that Kiev’s continued shelling of those newly independent republics as part of its ongoing genocide against their indigenous Russian people could very likely provoke Moscow to militarily respond in self-defense.

Nevertheless, Kiev – or rather, its American masters –might be reluctant to do that out of fear that such a pragmatic de-escalation that essentially amounts to its tacit recognition of those republics’ independence might trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction of devolution across the rest of rump Ukraine among its similarly indigenous Hungarian, Polish, and other Russian populations. The author explained these strategic dynamics in his recent analysis about whether the end of Lenin’s mini-empire is drawing near. From Kiev’s perspective, the feared scenario that was just described is already a fait accompli in one way or another. It can either peacefully withdraw from the DPR and LPR or potentially be forced to do so in order to stop its genocidal aggression against their people.

Regardless of how it happens, the Donbass dimension of Lenin’s mini-empire will inevitably collapse, after which the only question is whether (or perhaps when?) its other regions that have historically been inhabited by non-Ukrainian indigenous people will eventually follow suit. That could take the form of their own militant separatist struggles against Kiev’s (fascist)-“nationalist” US-backed post-coup authorities inspired by Donbass’ successful example or a genuinely grassroots Color Revolution aimed at ensuring that their human rights as minorities are finally respected in full. Had Kiev simply complied with its international legal obligations under the UNSC-backed Minsk Accords, it could have already peacefully reincorporated Donbass, albeit after granting it a constitutionally enshrined ‘special status”.

Since President Putin and the rest of the Russian government officially regards Ukraine as an American puppet state per his national address yesterday and the statements from members of his Security Council just hours prior, the choice is essentially America’s and not Kiev’s over whether the situation continues to escalate or not. If Zelensky truly wants to avert war and preserve what’s left of his communist zombie construct of a state, though following seemingly inevitable far-reaching administrative-political reforms aimed at finally ensuring the rights of his country’s indigenous minorities, then he must immediately order the withdrawal of his forces from the DPR and LPR lest he risk provoking the “full-blown war” that he earlier claimed to fear even if he has to defy his US patrons.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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 is from OneWorld

Is the US Training the Next African Coup Leader?

February 22nd, 2022 by Kyle Anzalone

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

AFRICOM is ready to begin this year’s annual special operations training for African military leaders, dubbed ‘Flintlock.’ The program is labeled as part of America’s counter-terrorism strategy on the continent, yet its graduates often have goals other than fighting jihadists.

Most recently, two-time Flintlock grad Lt. Col. Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba seized power in Burkina Faso, ousting President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré in January. Reporting on Damiba’s deep ties to the US military establishment, journalist Nick Turse writes,

“In 2010 and 2020, he participated in an annual special operations training program known as the Flintlock exercise. In 2013, Damiba was accepted into an Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance course, which is a State Department-funded peacekeeping training program.  In 2013 and 2014, Damiba attended the U.S.-sponsored Military Intelligence Basic Officer Course-Africa. And in 2018 and 2019, he participated in engagements with a U.S. Defense Department Civil Military Support Element in Burkina Faso.”

Another Flintlock grad and coup plotter is Col. Assimi Goïta, leader of Mali’s military junta government. Using skills gained from his US advisers, the colonel has now led two successful coups. A recent decision to delay elections and accept Russian military assistance has split Goïta from his French and American partners, with French President Emmanuel Macron even declaring an end to its nine-year counter-terror mission in Mali, Operation Barkhane.

Flintlock 2022 will be held in the Ivory Coast and include participation from three other African nations – Cameroon, Ghana, and Niger. Six Western states will also take part, among them the US, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. A total of 400 soldiers will participate, according to AFRICOM.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Will Porter contributed to this article. 

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

Featured image: Tunisian navy personnels aboard USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) on May 23 when the Phoenix Express 2021 was underway. Photo: AFRICOM

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

During the period of the enslavement of African people by Britain and the United States, violence was a key instrument in the maintenance of the exploitative and oppressive system.

African people between the 17th and 19th centuries prior to the eruption of the Civil War (1861-1865), were largely prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.

Of course, there were exceptions during the war of separation from Britain during the 1770s and 1780s, when Africans fought on both sides of the conflict over who would control the 13 colonies located in the eastern region of what would become the U.S. Also, the War of 1812, when the British attempted to retake their colonies in North America, Africans participated again in both the U.S. and English military campaigns.

However, within these contexts, the enslaved and free Africans were objectively fighting on behalf of European colonial regimes and not for their own freedom. Although the British and the Americans told the Africans that their service in the war of independence and 1812 would lead to emancipation, slavery and national oppression continued leading up to the beginning of the Civil War.

Approximately 200,000 African men and women served in the army and navy during the war between the states. There was extreme resistance among the ruling class to the enlistment of African soldiers in the Union army. Nonetheless, the failure of the administration of then President Abraham Lincoln to quell the rebellion during the first year-and-a-half of the war, by late 1862, a decision had been made to arm Blacks to fight the Confederacy.

Image on the right: White supremacist overthrow Reconstruction

Many African enslaved people had already fled from plantations and cities to take refuge among the Union troops. W.E.B. Du Bois in his pioneering book entitled “Black Reconstruction in America: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880), described the movement away from plantations in a chapter entitled “The General Strike.”

However, after the defeat of the Confederacy in April 1865 and the assassination of Lincoln just days after the end of the Civil War, the successor President Andrew Johnson of Tennessee opposed any meaningful Reconstruction as advocated by the Radicals within the Republican Party of the time. Eventually the Reconstruction Act of 1867 provided for the organization of militias which were supportive of the building of a democratic existence in the former antebellum South.

These militias composed of African Americans and some whites were vilified by the Democratic Party press, southern politicians and former slave owners. Eventually, when the federal government withdrew its support for Reconstruction after the elections of 1876, the Black militias were subjected to harsh treatment by the white vigilante groupings such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White Leagues.

In a book published by the white southern-born historian, Otis A. Singletary, in 1957, the hostility towards the armed Black militias empowered to defend the Reconstruction state governments in the South is clearly enunciated. Singletary attributes much of the violence in opposition to Reconstruction to the Radicals and the arming of Black men in militia groups in several southern states including Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, among others.

According to Singletary:

“Governor Brownlow (Tennessee), for instance, expressed his displeasure at both the freedom with which Negro militiamen used their guns and their general attitude toward whites. However, the main deterrent was fear. Haunted by the specter of race war, governors temporized and satisfied themselves with half-measures. In Alabama, numerous applications from ‘colored fellow citizens from Mobile, Selma, and Montgomery’ requesting permission to organize militia companies were turned down by the adjutant general on explicit orders from Governor Lewis. Ames hesitated a long while before finally calling up his Negro troops in Mississippi, and, by his own admission, the delay was prompted by his fear that arming militia would cause that state ‘to drift into a war of races.’”

New Orleans Race Terror: 1874 and 1900

Two examples of the fear and hatred generated by the arming of African Americans in their own self-defense along with solidifying the policies of Reconstruction, were reflected in the outbreaks of violence in New Orleans, Louisiana during 1874 and again at the turn of the century. A dispute over the outcome of the 1872 elections generated protracted disputes which lasted well into 1874.

On September 14, 1874, an estimated 5,000-armed members of the White Leagues, many of whom being former Confederate soldiers, attacked the Capitol with the aim of overthrowing the Reconstruction state government of Republican Governor William Pitt Kellogg. Initially, the White Leagues outnumbered the New Orleans Metropolitan Police and the Black militiamen, inflicting serious casualties including deaths. The reactionaries held out for three days until the then President Ulysses Grant sent in federal troops to restore order in New Orleans.

An account of the attempted coup against the Reconstruction state government said of the incident:

“At 4:00pm, former Confederate general James Longstreet led a force of Metropolitan Police and mostly Black militia to disperse the White Leaguers. The pitched ‘Battle of Liberty Place’ ensued. Many in the League militia were Confederate veterans and they successfully resisted Longstreet’s outnumbered men. While the White League would secure a temporary victory, the arrival of Federal troops in the following days cut short the coup. While the South had experienced riots, race massacres, and terror raids, the Battle of Liberty Place was a sustained mass armed mobilization of a white supremacist militia intent on wresting power away from the bi-racial Republicans. The fighting took the lives of sixteen White Leaguers, thirteen Metropolitan Police officers, and six bystanders.”

Just two years later the federal troops were withdrawn from New Orleans as a by-product of the historic Hayes-Tillman Compromise of 1876. The remaining decades of the 19th century witnessed the forced removal of African Americans from political offices at the local, state and federal levels. There were the repeals of Reconstruction-era laws mandating the enforcement of due process and equal protection under the law. By 1896, a Louisiana African American, Homer Plessy, sought to challenge the Jim Crow laws of the period as it related to public accommodations. Plessy was ruled against before the Supreme Court which upheld legalized segregation lasting well into the 1950s and 1960s.

Yet another outbreak of racial violence against African Americans erupted in New Orleans on July 24, 1900. The disturbance began when several white police officers sought to harass and then arrest two African American men, Leonard Pierce and Robert Charles, who were sitting outside a building talking. Pierce submitted himself for arrest while Charles, being armed, resisted the assault by the police. A gun battle ensued and one of the policemen was gunned down.

Charles then fled for his own survival from the police. News of the shooting of a white policeman by an African American spread prompting a manhunt by law-enforcement and racist mobs. Three days of arbitrary arrests, beating and killings continued until the economic consequences of the violence led the New Orleans mayor to deploy a 1,000 law-enforcement personnel and volunteers to restore order.

After Charles was discovered on July 27, he continued to resist killing seven police officers and other white vigilantes. Once cornered and captured, the white police shot him over one hundred times. In death his character and motivations were maligned by the white press in New Orleans and across the U.S. Altogether it was said that 50 people died in the violence with the majority being African Americans.

According to reports from the period, Robert Charles had been a proponent of civil rights, self-defense and repatriation to West Africa. Ida B. Wells-Barnett, the journalist, women’s rights activist and anti-lynching campaigner, investigated the circumstances surrounding the Louisiana race terror of July 1900. She would publish a pamphlet entitled: “Mob Rule in New Orleans.”

Wells-Barnett said in the pamphlet that:

“Men and women of America, are you proud of this record which the Anglo-Saxon race has made for itself? Your silence seems to say that you are. Your silence encourages a continuance of this sort of horror. Only by earnest, active, united endeavor to arouse public sentiment can we hope to put a stop to these demonstrations of American barbarism.”

Lessons for the 21st Century

In the U.S. today racial and class divisions are becoming more pronounced as the government and wealthy rulers seek to continue their undemocratic and exploitative rule. During the period of the 1950s to the 1970s, numerous tendencies arose in the African American community which upheld the right to self-defense against law-enforcement and vigilante mob violence.

The U.S. government has sought to crush all of these efforts by criminalizing the oppressed and their struggle for liberation. Nevertheless, the potential for a renewed civil war remains as the right-wing neo-fascist movement grows more desperate and emboldened in their stated objectives of maintaining and strengthening white supremacy.

Arming the African American masses in their own defense is a legitimate response to increasing repression. These armed militias should also take on a political character, realizing that the overall system of racism and class exploitation must be eliminated to ensure security for the oppressed and working majority.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

All images in this article are from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In a new low for democracy, the Ottawa By-law enforcement agency made it clear that they are not above confiscating pets to quell to the protests. “Attention animal owners at [the] demonstration: If you are unable to care for your animal as a result of enforcement actions, your animal will [be] placed into protective care for 8 days, at your cost. After 8 days, if arrangements are not made, your animal will be considered relinquished,” the tweet read.

This means that if a Canadian is arrested for exercising their legal right to protest, the government could seize their pet as they await trial behind bars. The internet is ablaze with angry questions demanding to know what “relinquished” entails. Do they plan to kill these innocent pets? First, Fauci tortured beagle puppies, and now Ottawa is ready to confiscate pets. Did Klaus seek out the cruelest people humanity has to offer to push his agenda forward?

Pets become part of the family. Truckers on long-haul commutes often have a dog for companionship, and once the Canadian government is facing a mob of irate truckers whose beloved pets were seized, they’re going to have a much bigger problem on their hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

When our so-called western leaders tell you that Russia will invade the Ukraine and that they know exactly what day Russia will invade the Ukraine, without providing any evidence, you know that the western powers are up to something very sinister.

The latest chapter in the American propaganda show went to a new level of insanity on Feb 3rd 2022 when the U.S. State Department’s Ned Price announced that the US government had evidence that Russia was fabricating a “false flag attack”[01] to make it look like Ukraine will attack the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. However, when Ned Price was confronted on providing that evidence by AP reporter Matt Lee, the conversation became a “Who’s on First” Abbot and Costello monolog of “where’s the evidence”, “I just told you” “No you didn’t”… “Well, where is it then?” “I just delivered it”…

Outside of this comedy show, there hasn’t been much else in the way of questioning the US government, as mainstream media just echo’s whatever the government states.

What our western governments and mainstream media are not telling you is that the Neo-Nazi forces that western NATO countries are supporting in Ukraine have amassed 125,000 soldiers (for over a year), and are preparing to launch a blitzkrieg invasion and genocide in the Donbass region where 4.6 million Russian speaking people live.

Over the past eight years, since 2014, the Ukrainian army has been strengthened, supported and trained by NATO countries including the US, Britain and Canada in using western weapons, which continue to be used on the Russian speaking people, in the towns and villages of the Donbass region [02] (Donetsk & Lugansk).

 

 

For those that are unaware or geographically challenged, Donetsk and Lugansk are independent republics that broke away from Ukraine and share a border with Russia…

 

And for those that are Historically challenged, Russia fought for its very survival, losing 27 million people during World War II against the very same anti-Russian Nazi mind set that NATO supports in Ukraine today.

The reality of Ukraine, as opposed to the propaganda of western governments and media, is that shortly after the Ukraine coup by western supported fascists in 2014, belligerent elements within the fascist coup government in Kiev vowed to remove everything Russian including the language and people from Ukraine, which by their statements, included the Lugansk, Donetsk and the Crimean Peninsula where citizens in fear for their lives, due to violent incidents by fascist elements in places like Odessa, [03] held referendums. Both Lugansk & Donetsk voted overwhelmingly to become independent [04] while Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia [05] by a 96.7% margin.

So, when Western leaders say they know the date that Russia might intervene in Ukraine, it is because western leaders are partners with the fascist regime in Kiev and privy to information through violent elements they support within the Ukrainian regime, where it is more than evident that the Neo-Nazi Ukrainian forces will unleash their belligerence (Azov Brigades) on the communities they’ve sworn to obliterate.

 

Let’s be clear here, the Neo-Nazi power structure that still remains in Ukraine, was put in place by a 2014 coup funded and supported by the USA, Britain, Canada and many European nations. The western political leaders and their blood thirsty shouts of glee when the elected Yanukovich Ukraine government was toppled, was all that the western mainstream media showed to its viewers.

The western mainstream media did not investigate what was really going on in the region nor did they present a historical overview to its viewers, and they certainly did not show that our western governments supported the obliteration and genocidal operation by the elements within the Ukrainian regime on the Russian speaking Ukrainians by the fascists and neo Nazi’s they supported in Ukraine. However, for those who did not see what really happened during that time, I took the liberty of making a Video playlist [06] for historical purposes of all the events that unfolded in Ukraine during that time. For those who would like to learn the truth about recent history, this playlist is for you.

Western Support of Neo-Nazism 

The American, Canadian and European leaders that support these fascists and Neo-Nazi’s in Ukraine, confirm what our western leaders are…I mean, who could support fascism but a fascist.

Even though the political parties or leaders in charge of our western governments have changed since 2014, government positions remain exactly the same as their predecessors. They support the successively violent fascist regime and the genocide of millions of Russian speaking people in the Ukraine.

For a clear picture of western fascism, all one needs to do is to look at what has been going on in Ottawa Ontario Canada from the end of January through February 2022, to see the totalitarian policies of the Canadian Liberal minority government as they unleashed the “War Measures Act” now known as the “Emergencies Act” [07], to destroy, break up and punish peaceful Canadian protesters for daring to defy government mask mandates, mandatory inoculations, and the absolute removal of our Rights and Freedoms.

 

The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the minority Liberal government and all those supporting him, including the N.D.P. under Jagmeet Singh are attacking and labeling Canadians as terrorists. In reality, the protesters are peaceful and exercising their constitutional rights by calling for an end to the two years of totalitarian Covid government measures, restrictions and unnecessary obliteration of our rights and freedoms.

Canadians from across the country, from different political spectrums want an end to the insane mandates but the government answered them by labeling them terrorists and invoking the “War Measures Act”. The government did not even attempt to talk to the protesters, instead they unleashed hell upon them.

The Canadian government is viewed, by peace loving Canadians, as an out-of-control tyranny, but to fascists, this is normal government behavior that didn’t go far enough or act fast enough.

Canada has fallen and outed itself as a “totalitarian democracy”, and there is no mainstream political party that is untouched by this totalitarian mentality, they are all authoritarian that fall in line with foreign economic interests as those in Ukraine do. It’s hard to even call our politicians and mainstream media Canadian anymore because they do not represent Canadian interests or ideals, they represent totalitarian dictatorship.

The same thing can be said about all western governments that support the belligerent elements in Ukraine over the people of the Donbass region. They’ve all ganged up using their NATO fist on the people of the Donbass region and more specifically, Russia, while also supressing their own populations with totalitarian suppression and human rights violations under the guise of health and security mandates.

In the past few weeks, NATO and U.S. government officials have stated that they have intelligence that Russia will invade Ukraine. American president and “leader of the free world…” I mean, the leader of the “Totalitarian World”, Joe Biden, initially gave Feb 16th as the invasion date, but then corrected himself after the day came and went two days later to then give Feb 20th, 2022 as the new date for the imminent Russian invasion.

We all know that Joe Biden is suffering from dementia (most likely Alzheimer’s), so it’s possible he got the date wrong, or simply screwed up on what is clearly being orchestrated by others behind the scenes.

“We have reason to believe that Russian forces are planning to and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week — in the coming days,” – American President Joe Biden said [08].

When pressed about what evidence the White House might have on Moscow’s decision to invade Ukraine, Biden declined to elaborate, saying only that “We have a significant intelligence capability.”

To add fuel to their propaganda fire, the US, UK, NATO and others, evacuated their embassies and offices in Kiev stating that the Russians were planning an attack.

The Unfolding Story on the Ground

On February 19th, the massed Ukraine army started bombing the Lugansk and Donetsk region. See Here [09a] and Here [09b]. In response, the leaders of the breakaway republics issued evacuation orders to their populations [10] and have called upon all men under the age of 55 that are capable of carrying guns, to remain and defend their homes. [11]

Bomb shells launched from the Ukraine also landed in Russia. [12] Which put Russia on high alert and a defensive position running nuclear war drills with Belarus. [13] Tensions rose to the breaking point yet still NATO and the western fascist leaders like Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson stoke the war drums with Russia and a Russian invasion?

At some point, Russia will have no choice but to get involved to protect the 4.6 million Russian speaking people living in the region if the shelling of Lugansk and Donetsk continues to escalate.

So, this is not a Russian invasion, but a dangerous provocation being played out by belligerent elements in the Ukraine which of course are supported by our fascist western politicians.

Dmitry Orlov wrote a very good analysis of the Ukraine / Russia situation last year titled “Putin’s Ukrainian Judo Revisited” [14], and concluded that Russia doesn’t have to invade Ukraine to protect the people of the Donbass, they could simply absorb the population by giving them Russian passports as they’ve already done for half a million people from the region already. He also mentioned, correctly I might add, that Russia also has weapons with sufficient range to launch from within Russian soil if they are needed to help protect the people of the Donbass without crossing the border.

I would add that the Russians also have satellite and drone surveillance while also possessing more superior weapons than the Americans and Europeans.

Final Word

As a Canadian citizen, no matter which western country I look at these days, be it Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Austria or Ukraine, I see a consolidated totalitarian mindset that includes mainstream media who promotes the fascist totalitarian ideology of our governments over their own people, while also stoking the flames of war on citizens of the Donbass.

If anything, the invocation of the “War Measures Act” and violent, dystopian police crackdown on peaceful people in Ottawa has certainly opened the eyes of millions of Canadians but also billions of people around the world who are watching fascism unfold in Canada and their own nations.

The propaganda and buildup of hostilities against Russia and the Donbass region, by the same western nations, is also in plain view right now and so we have reached a crossroads that surely must help change the direction of where we’ve all been heading. These events are a serious wake up call to people around the world and hopefully begins the changes needed to reverse course.

I could talk about the old Russian gas pipelines that run through a belligerent Ukraine, the new Nord Stream II gas pipeline to Germany that the American occupied Germans refuse to certify under pressure from the Americans, and the severe energy crisis the American’s have caused throughout Europe by their hostile economic position on Russia, but that will be a topic for another day.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on World United News.

Stewart Brennan is a Geo-political and economic analyst, activist, blogger and author. He’s worked in the Aviation, Packaging, Transportation and Logistics Industries and is the author of “The Activist Poet”, two books of political activism and poetry. (See Here and Here) He’s also the author of several blogs including World United News and World United Music and a contributor on Global Research.

Notes

[01] US Dept Ned Price and AP Reporter Matt Lee asking for Proof that Russia is Fabricating Attacks by Ukraine

[02] Explosion hits capital of breakaway Ukrainian region (VIDEOS)

[03] 2014 May – Odessa Massacre by Ultra Nationalist Right Sector

[04] 2014 May – Donetsk, Lugansk proclaim independence from Kiev

[05] 2014 March – Crimea votes to join Russia: 96.77% say YES

[06] Complete Video News Archive 2013 – 2014 – Ukraine Coup and Civil War

[07] Emergencies Act a ‘turning point’ to end trucker ‘occupation’ – Ottawa interim police chief

[08] Russia to invade ‘in coming days’ – Biden

[09a] Gas company comments on blast amid escalation in eastern Ukraine

[09b] Ukrainian breakaway republic shelled, RT crew nearby

[10] Breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk republics order evacuation

[11] Mobilization ordered in eastern Ukraine

[12] Explosion reported in southern Russia

[13] Putin launches nuclear war drills

[14] Dmitry Orlov – Putin’s Ukrainian Judo Revisited

All images in this article are from World United News

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Starting in the early hours last Monday morning, convoys departed from over 40 locations across the small country, from as far as the southern vacation city of Eilat, and the northern town of Metula.

Participants decorated their cars with slogans in Hebrew and some in English. “Freedom”, “I want my country back”, “Green pass = black stain” and “end the coercion” were some of what was seen plastered along the vehicles in the convoy.

Their destination was Jerusalem, the holy city from where, according to the bible the court is to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land for all its inhabitants,” and is now the seat of government of the State of Israel.

The demand was a “repeal of all the COVID and anti-democratic legislation enacted over the past two years, according to their press release.

In particular:

  • A total termination of all COVID restrictions and the return to normal life. Including complete cancellation of the Knesset’s “Enabling Act” which facilitates the state of emergency in Israel,
  • Return to a normal routine for all Israel’s children without any further school closures, quarantine periods, medical procedures on school grounds or mandatory mask wearing,
  • Complete opening of the economy and a ban on harassment of employees based on vaccination or testing or masking,
  • Full disclosure of contracts and protocols which to date have been withheld from public review,
    Ending the violation of the individual’s privacy through street cameras or other illegal surveillance,
  • Each individual’s dignity and human rights should be respected unconditionally by the government regardless of vaccination status.

With excitement, the convoy was greeted by a few supporters at the entrance to the city.

There were hundreds of cars and trucks that entered the city and made their way to the Knesset, where police blocked the one access road. With horns blasting catchy tunes, usually reserved for sporting events, the convoy circled around the government district. Some stopped on the side arguing with police to be allowed past the barricades to no avail.

Source: David DW

With the street access to the Knesset closed, many parked and walked up to as close as they could get to the government building. Police took extra precautions after having seen what was happening in Ottawa, where dozens of trucks parked directly in front of the Canadian parliament, refusing to move until the government eliminated all regulations that were put in place ostensibly to fight COVID.

The Canadian experience empowered thousands of people across the world to stand up to their own governments and demand their freedoms be restored. Citizens in New Zealand, Australia, across Europe, and North America, after nearly two years, tolerating massive government encroachment into nearly every aspect of their lives, and after seeing how these policies were not even effective at reducing the spread of COVID, finally had enough.

A crowd of hundreds of people were making their voices heard on the closed street in front of the Knesset. The atmosphere was defiant, friendly, and somewhat festive. Many people were just happy to see and interact with other people who shared their views. Religious, secular, old, young, Jew, and Arab, there were people from every cross-section of Israeli society. Live music was played at times, and passersby handed out fruits and treats to support the group of protesters.

Source: David DW

Frontline News interviewed some of the English-speaking participants, “It is immoral. People have rights and there are things that other people can’t do to them,” said Shmuel Zuckerman, originally from Baltimore.

Shawn Eracner’s parents immigrated from Soviet Russia, where, he explains, “they let the government trample all over them, and many people ended up dying, and here people are letting it happen without even putting up a fight.”

Yael Yarmish, in speaking directly to the Jewish population, reminded them how the events of the Holocaust started – when the population gave up their rights, “we are not going to allow that to happen again. Never again.”

Ber Lazarus, and his daughter Sophia, both originally from Canada spoke with Frontline News saying that while they thought they lived in a free country, through this “non-emergency” they have had even fewer rights than they thought, and that even those rights were being trampled. “The primary right is that we decide what goes into our bodies,” they said.

As the day wore on, more protesters arrived and set up tents along the side of the road, while others called it a day and went home. The protesters maintained a presence on-site in front of the Knesset until Friday when another convoy was planned.

Starting from Latrun, about halfway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a smaller convoy began a slow roll up to the Capital.

Friday afternoon saw a reinvigorated protest, and festival-like atmosphere, with people joining with tents to settle in for the Sabbath starting later that evening.

The songs and prayers that mark the start of the Sabbath were conducted among the tents, reminiscent of the days at overnight camp, for some.

After a restful Sabbath on the surrounding grounds of the Knesset, without incident or violence, all of a sudden, police and municipal contractors arrived unannounced with trucks and significant personnel, to evict the protesters and seize their property. And that’s what happened.

Avi Barak, compiled a video documenting the events:

Valentina Neilin, an attorney for land use law, told Frontline News that according to Israeli law, the government must give at least 30 days’ notice before removing people or property off public lands.

Source: Noam Kampf

Even cabinet Minister Eli Avidar described the protest’s eviction as against the law, “violent and brutal” in a Tweet the following day.

The movement that started in Canada and spread across the world also galvanized thousands in Israel. The same Israel, where the green pass and invasive population monitoring in the name of fighting COVID started, is the same Israel where citizens are standing up and demanding change.

While the police succeeded in removing the protesters, they did not succeed in removing the experience of unity, or the resolve in their hearts to take back the basic human liberties that still remain a distant memory, but also a determined hope for the future.

Video montage to the soundtrack “Jerusalem of Gold”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image:  Boy waves as the convoy enters Jerusalem. The sign on the truck reads “Enough with the restrictions! We’re returning to life” (Source: AFLD)

Britain and Australia’s Resource Grab in Afghanistan

February 22nd, 2022 by Antony Loewenstein

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A little-known aspect of the disastrous Western occupation of Afghanistan was that UK and Australian companies sought to access the country’s $3 trillion worth of untapped minerals – with little regard for the welfare of Afghans.

The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August last year has caused the country to implode. It was already on life support after more than 40 years of war but the swift removal of most foreign aid has led to millions of Afghans being on the brink of starvation.

Women’s rights are highly reduced. The United Nations says that only two percent of the population is getting enough to eat. Tens of millions of people can’t support themselves or their families. The harshest drought in 30 years is worsening an already disastrous winter.

However, the humanitarian crisis is just one of the disturbing elements of this long-running catastrophe.

A Declassified U.K. and Declassified Australia investigation has found that British and Australian resource companies tried to access the war-torn nation’s estimated US$3 trillion of untapped minerals in the years after the US-led invasion in 2001.

One huge mining company, owned by an Australian billionaire, had controversially stood to gain exclusive access to billions of dollars of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, in a deal that seemingly evaporated with the fall of the government last year.

Now with the Taliban back in charge, these resources are still up for grabs and yet Western corporations are mostly not in the race to secure them.

Wealth of minerals

When occupying Afghanistan after its 1979 invasion, the Soviet Union discovered a wealth of copper, iron, lithium, uranium, natural gas and rare earths under the ground but was never able to exploit them.

The post 9/11 occupation saw a new generation of powers aiming to complete what Moscow never could. Washington, London, Canberra, Beijing and private players all vied for influence in the race to discover, mine and export a range of resources.

But insecurity, endemic corruption and political uncertainty in Afghanistan largely caused these plans to fail.

A US surveillance blimp hovers over Kabul 24/7 to monitor the entire population in 2015. (Photo: Antony Loewenstein)

A US surveillance blimp hovers over Kabul 24/7 to monitor the entire population in 2015. (Photo: Antony Loewenstein)

The Afghan ministry of mines was a notoriously corrupt government department. Ironically, the Taliban were one of the very few actors who made money from the mining sector.

I investigated these issues on the ground in Afghanistan in 2012 and 2015 for my book and film, Disaster Capitalism. I found little more than violence and scared civilians in the middle of the Taliban, government forces and militants.

The culpability of the US under successive presidents in promoting the mining sector has been well documented, including the role of Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater private military company.

But what about Britain and Australia, two junior partners in the Afghan war?

Britain’s Afghan goals dashed

The British Geographical Survey (BGS) worked in Afghanistan from at least 2004 to “develop a viable minerals industry”. It said that “as the project progressed, the emphasis of the work moved to promote the potential of Afghanistan’s mineral resources to the outside world.”

A 2007 report, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), tackled “the need to alleviate poverty in Afghanistan by encouraging inward investment, commercial and infrastructure development”.

A part of this was providing “an alternative source of income to poppy cultivation” in the mining sector. It claimed that a successful resources industry could net “at least US$300 million a year”.

But it didn’t state for whom: local Afghans or international mining interests?

BGS proudly wrote that it had helped prepare a new mining law in 2005 that would “enable it to effectively and efficiently manage an emerging mining industry.” There’s no evidence that this law prevented corruption. In fact, details prove the opposite.

BGS explained how it had helped the Afghan government prepare to take tenders to develop the copper deposits at Mes Aynak in Logar province of eastern Afghanistan. Beijing was eventually granted the contract but the project has been beset by violence and corruption.

When I visited the area near the proposed mine in 2015, locals were on the verge of joining the insurgency because they’d received nothing in return for their land being stolen.

Village elders in Logar province near the failed, Chinese-owned Mes Aynak copper mine in 2015. (Photo: Antony Loewenstein)

Village elders in Logar province near the failed, Chinese-owned Mes Aynak copper mine in 2015. (Photo: Antony Loewenstein)

London didn’t give up

Despite a litany of failures, London didn’t give up. British prime minister David Cameron pledged £10 million in 2013 to exploit Afghan minerals, and Downing Street hosted mining interests.

But the wining and dining didn’t get far.

The free-market consultancy Adam Smith International (ASI) had a large presence in Afghanistan, and was one of the UK’s largest foreign aid contractors, but its record in the country was desultory.

ASI helped draft the 2014 Minerals Law which left Afghanistan open to vast corruption.

One person who played an oversized role in the Afghan mining sector is British investment banker Ian Hannan. Perhaps the most notorious was a failed attempt in 2018, through his company Centar, to secure massive contracts for copper in Balkhab, in north-central Afghanistan, and gold in Badakhshan, in the northeast.

Hannan thanked then US President Donald Trump for assisting with his bid. But the plans soon fell apart with serious allegations of corruption surrounding the deal. President Ashraf Ghani eventually cancelled the contracts entirely.

A former senior official in the Ghani government told me that he attended a meeting about these mining contracts at the German embassy in Kabul. Representatives from the US, UK, Canada, World Bank and Germany “all said that they would not help the mining sector unless the government signed these two controversial contracts. They eventually forced Ghani to sign them.”

Although Centar’s plans were dashed in Afghanistan, Hannan’s former role as a captain in the British SAS gave him high-level access to the US government. He’d convinced General David Petraeus, then in charge of US forces in Afghanistan, to exploit Afghan resources supposedly to benefit the people of the country.

Centar’s chief executive fit the bill; The Financial Times reported that the company selected Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Williams of the 22nd SAS regiment. It wrote that Hannam used his establishment contacts to briefly win mining contracts in Afghanistan.

This included hiring the law firm founded by Cherie Blair, Omnia Strategy, which planned to start legal action against the Kabul government, and pressuring Washington to push Kabul to the company’s will.

Australia pushes for influence

Australia’s second richest person, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, made his A$23-billion fortune with iron-ore mining in Australia. His company, Fortescue Metals Group, now claims it’s transitioning to green energy and his ambition is vast.

After visiting countless countries in recent years, Forrest announced in late 2020 that his vision for Fortescue was to become one of the world’s biggest energy providers, one day beating Total and Chevron. He hopes to exploit green hydrogen on a global scale and Afghanistan was part of the picture.

Forrest visited Kabul in 2020 and his company Fortescue signed a secret memorandum of understanding with the Afghan government.

Declassified has obtained a copy of this document, originally published by Afghan news outlet Pajhwok, signed on 10 September 2020, that outlines the terms of the agreement.

The agreement would have given Fortescue mining rights over a range of minerals in 17 provinces for five years. In return during exploration, the company would have had to grant 15 percent of the project budget to the government as a guarantee, an amount totalling billions of dollars.

The deal came as a surprise to many, as over the past 20 years, the Afghan Ministry of Mines had not signed any successful contracts in the mining sector, according to the National Resources Commission.

Fortescue was guaranteed exclusive access to vast swathes of the country to explore “mineral deposits [and] mine sites”. It pledged to establish a “vocational training and employment plan that provides equal opportunities between women and men with an explicit equal employment target”.

There was no discussion of the potentially negative impact on the climate in Afghanistan by harmful extractive practises.

Fortescue deal

Furthermore, nowhere in the document did it explain how the mining areas could be secured in the middle of a war zone.

My own reporting in Afghanistan, including on the proposed mineral exploration plans by Erik Prince, revealed that the only way Fortescue’s plans would ever have materialised would have been to pay for militias and warlords to keep militants at bay and wrestle control of resources from the Taliban and Islamic State.

This wasn’t mentioned by Fortescue or in the Australian media coverage of the deal. It was only Pajhwok that critically assessed the agreement and wondered if it was even legal, since it was signed without a bidding process.

After the Taliban seized power, Forrest told the militants that, “we would meaningfully engage with anybody, including the Taliban, if they guaranteed equal education outcomes for girls and boys”.

Fortescue’s work in the nation is currently “on hold”, a company spokesperson told me. Declassified UK understands that Fortescue had only one employee based in Afghanistan who departed before the Taliban retook Kabul.

The Taliban ignored my request for comment on its mining policies.

Australian safe haven

Australia evacuated around 4,100 people from Kabul in August and now claims to be offering 15,000 places for Afghans under a humanitarian short-term protection visa. But human rights activists and immigration lawyers claim that this number is misleading.

At the time of writing, Australia hasn’t granted one protection visa – but it has granted safe haven to a number of Afghan officials.

One of the Afghan signatories on the agreement signed by Andrew Forrest in Kabul in 2020 was Mohammad Haroon Chakhansuri, former minister of mines under Ghani.

Declassified Australia can reveal that he has been living in Sydney with his family since the fall of Kabul, and is receiving Australian government assistance. When Chakhansuri was approached in Sydney for comment on this article, his brother Humayoon explained he was “not yet ready to discuss anything.”

Another new arrival in Australia is Mohammad Ateeq Zaki, a former Deputy Minister at the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum.

General Murad Ali Murad, a military figure who rose to the position of chief of army staff, is also now in Australia. He was no doubt helped by positive comments he made in Kabul in 2018 to Australian forces in Afghanistan: “Afghanistan will never forget the help Australia has given.”

Diaspora Afghans have expressed disquiet to Declassified Australia about Western nations providing safe haven to former Afghan government officials. There have been many serious allegations of corruption against the Ghani regime. Declassified Australia is not making any allegation about people mentioned in this article.

The New Zealand government is facing a similar crisis over vetting of Afghans it brought into the country after the Taliban takeover.

“The regime collapsed because of the corruption in the government and not because the Taliban were strong”, Afghan mining expert, Javed Noorani, told me.

For the Western media, which was briefly enamoured with Afghans when the Taliban regained control, Afghanistan has largely disappeared from the US news cycle.

The humanitarian crisis currently engulfing the country is mostly framed around how it impacts the Western nations that lost the war rather than on the civilians on the brink of starvation.

US-led sanctions are suffocating and some Afghans are using cryptocurrencies to survive. Drug use is soaring while the Taliban are making money from the ephedra shrub, a key ingredient in the hugely expanding methamphetamine industry.

The only way to credibly address the country’s plight is to engage with and recognise the Taliban with certain conditions around human rights. The fact that there’s no discussion in London, Washington or Canberra about reparations for a failed, 20-year war speaks volumes about how the West views Afghanistan.

A former senior Afghan government official who used to advise President Ghani tells me that following the withdrawal of all Western forces, China and Pakistani army officers are currently leading the charge to secure Afghan minerals with the Taliban auctioning mines for quick financial return.

Talc, coal and cat’s eye nephite are the three resources being prioritised.

The country’s resources are a precious asset that must never again be the plaything of corrupt locals and foreigners.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist, author, film-maker and co-founder of Declassified Australia. His next book, out in 2023, is on how Israel’s occupation has gone global.

Featured image: Archeologists excavating Buddhist relics in 2011 before the Mes Aynak copper mine was due to open (Photo: Jerome Starkey / Creative Commons)

The Federal Reserve: Enemy of American Workers

February 22nd, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

According to numbers released by the US government, consumer prices have increased by 7.5 percent in the past year, the steepest increase since 1982. The actual price increases are even worse than the government numbers suggest, given that the “official” statistics are manipulated to understate the real rate of price increases. According to John Williams of ShadowStats, prices have actually increased by around 15 percent over the past year.

The fact that prices remain at historically high levels shows that inflation is far from “transitory,” as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had described it. The continuing inflation has led the Federal Reserve Board to suggest the Fed will start increasing interest rates earlier than previously announced. The Fed may also break with its practice of only raising rates by 25 basis points at a time and increase rates by increments of up to 50 basis points. However, the increases the Fed is discussing would still leave interest rates at historic lows. Thus, such interest rate increases would do little or nothing to ease the pain rising prices cause for average consumers.

Most policy “experts” and politicians, including President Biden, support interest rate increases to deal with inflation. However, some progressives oppose raising rates. Opponents of rate increases fear that increasing interest rates will slow economic growth, increase unemployment, and depress wages. These progressives believe the old fallacy that workers benefit from easy money. The truth is workers are inflation’s main victims.

Workers may see their nominal pay (pay unadjusted for inflation) increase while the Fed-produced price increases cause real wages to plummet. That is certainly the case today. In contrast, the Federal Reserve’s money creation benefits crony capitalists who receive the new money created by the Fed before the injection of new money causes prices to rise. This increases the elite’s purchasing power, furthering income inequality.

The Federal Reserve’s creation of new money does more than erode the value of the currency. It also artificially lowers interest rates, which are the price of money. This distorts the signals sent to market actors, leading to investment decisions that do not reflect the real condition of the market. The result is a temporary boom, followed by a bust. Workers who find new jobs in the boom lose those jobs in the bust. These workers are then not just unemployed. They are also often saddled with unmanageable debt incurred during the low interest rate, easy money phase of the business cycle.

Progressives could help workers by joining the movement for market-based money. Free-market money will be safe from government manipulation, and thus its value will remain stable. A step toward restoring a free-market monetary system is letting the people know the truth about the Federal Reserve by passing Audit the Fed. Another step is legalizing alternative currencies by repealing legal tender laws and ending all capital gains taxes on precious metals and cryptocurrencies. Congress must also begin to cut spending, starting by making major cuts in our 750 billion dollars military budget and ending all corporate welfare.

Fiat money benefits financial and political elites at the expense of working people whose standard of living is eroded by Federal Reserve actions. As a Texas labor leader once told me, “Gold has always been the working man’s friend.” I would add that fiat money is the worker’s foe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Funeral Home Stocks Surge, Death and Disability Payouts Soar

February 22nd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Business is booming at funeral homes across the U.S. as death rates creep up, particularly among young, working-age individuals

Ex-Blackrock fund manager Ed Dowd has been analyzing data about mortality rates before and after COVID-19 shots became widespread, and found that death rates worsened in 2021 — after the shots became prevalent — compared to 2020

Insurance companies are seeing increases in payouts for death and disability; Lincoln National stated death claims have increased 13.7% year over year and 54% in quarter 4 compared to 2019

Scott Davison, the CEO of insurance company OneAmerica, reported the death rate for 18- to 64-year-olds has risen 40% compared to before the pandemic

A study by Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues suggests people who’ve received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that’s leading to a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

*

Business is booming at funeral homes across the U.S., as death rates creep up, particularly among young, working-age individuals.1 Ex-Blackrock fund manager Ed Dowd has been analyzing data about mortality rates before and after COVID-19 shots became widespread, and found that death rates worsened in 2021 — after the shots became prevalent — compared to 2020.

As reported by Zero Hedge, Dowd pointed out “a spike in mortality among younger, working-age individuals coincided with vaccine mandates. The spike in younger deaths peaked in Q3 2021 when COVID deaths were extremely low (but rising into the end of September).”2

Dowd also reported data from public funeral home company Carriage Services, which announced a 28% increase in September 2021 compared to September 2020, while August had a 13% increase. He tweeted:3,4

“Business has been quite good since the introduction of the vaccines & the stock was up 106% in 2021. Curious no? Guys this is shocking as 89% of Funeral homes are private in US. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg.”

Life Insurance Payouts on the Rise

Insurance companies are also seeing increases in payouts for death and disability. Dowd tweeted February 1, 2022, that financial insurance company Unum reported a 9% increase in their benefit ratio (payouts versus premiums) in their life segment.5 Dowd tweeted:6

“In 2021 they saw a 17.4% increase vs 2020. This is higher than the 13.3% increase vs 2019. So the higher payouts in 21 are occurring with a miracle vaccine & less virulent strains … In 2019 the unit had $266 million profit, last year a profit of $82 million & this year a loss of -$192 million. A swing of $458 million lower over 2 years. Important to remember these are employed working age folks.”

Scott Davison, the CEO of Indiana-based insurance company OneAmerica, also reported disturbing statistics — the death rate for 18- to 64-year-olds has risen 40% compared to before the pandemic.7

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” Davison said, adding, “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.” Further, most of the deaths are not due to COVID-19. He said:8

“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”

Disability Claims and Hospital Death Rates Rise

Disability claims, initially short-term claims and now long-term claims, have also seen an “uptick.” At a news conference where Davison spoke, Brian Tabor, president of the Indiana Hospital Association, confirmed that hospitals are also seeing widespread ill health and rising death rates. Zero Hedge reported:9

“Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients ‘with many different conditions,’ saying ‘unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.’

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized — for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing. ‘What it confirmed for me is it bore out what we’re seeing on the front end …’ he said.”

Other insurance companies citing higher mortality rates include Hartford Insurance Group, which announced mortality increased 32% from 2019 and 20% from 2020 prior to the shots. Lincoln National also stated death claims have increased 13.7% year over year and 54% in quarter 4 compared to 2019.10 Dowd tweeted:11

“Randy Frietag CFO just explained that in 2021 the share of young people dying from covid doubled in the back half of the year & that’s driven the result for Lincoln & its peers. He cited 40% in 3Q and 35% in 4Q were below the age of 65 … Mandates are killing folks … This shouldn’t be happening with miracle vaccines in a working age population period and a mild Omicron.”

As ZeroHedge noted, what we need to know from the insurance companies is what the leading causes of death were for 2020 and 2021, as well as how many received COVID-19 shots among those who died.

It continued, “Reinsurance Group of America, for example, reported a profit in Q4 2020 when the most of the population was unvaccinated and amid a deadlier strain of Covid-19, yet they registered a loss in Q4 2021 with more than 60% of the country fully vaccinated (and around 75% who have received at least one dose).”12

In other words, they paid out more in death and disability benefits in late 2021, after the shots became widespread, then they did at the peak of the pandemic, when no shots (or only a small number) had been issued.

Deaths Keep Rising Despite Mass Injection Campaign

Around the globe, it’s become clear that excess deaths continue to explode, despite the mass injection campaign that was supposed to save us. In the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.

However, COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people.13 Further, since July, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic.

Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, with Financial Times reporting, “The new phase of excess deaths raises the possibility that since the summer more people have been losing their lives as a result of strains on the NHS or lack of early diagnosis of serious illness …”14

On Twitter, Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) similarly revealed that in a 13-week period alone, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate.15 In another example, he used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, census.gov and his own calculations to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.

“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”16

An investigation by The Exposé, using official data from NHS and the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), also found that deaths among teenagers increased 47% since they started getting COVID-19 shots.17 Not only that, but deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group.

COVID-19 Shots Causing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

A study by board-certified internist and cardiologist, and editor of two medical journals, Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues suggests people who’ve received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that’s leading to a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.18

The mRNA COVID-19 shots use genetically modified mRNA encoding spike proteins. This results in mRNA being hidden from cellular defenses, “promote[s] a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke[s] higher overall spike protein production,” the study suggests.19

The researchers state that experimental and observational evidence show that the human immune response to COVID-19 shots is very different than the response induced by exposure to SARS-CoV-2:20

“[T]he genetic modifications introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these differential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.

We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage.”

The study includes evidence from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to support its hypothesis. While health officials refuse to acknowledge that COVID-19 shots have caused deaths, clinically trained reviewers analyzed a sample of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported in VAERS and found that only 14% of them were certainly not due to the vaccine.21

This means that the remaining 86% may have been related to the shots. Further, while it’s often stated that VAERS reports are made by laypeople, and therefore suggested to be unreliable, the review found that at least 67% of the COVID-19 vaccine death reports they analyzed were made by health service employees.22

Overall, McCullough and colleagues warn that COVID-19 shots subvert innate immunity, which could reduce the ability to combat future infections. Further, once damaged by the shots, the immune system may be less able to detect and prevent malignant transformation within cells.

They also suggest that exposure to spike protein-containing exosomes and mRNAs may induce an inflammatory cascade that further leads to disease. In concluding that COVID-19 shots are not positive contributors to public health, the study notes:23

“In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly.

Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.”

Can You Lessen the Potential Damage?

Those considering COVID-19 shots must carefully weigh the evidence of risks before making a decision. But if you’ve already been injected and want to reduce your risk of any potential complications, there are a few basic strategies I recommend:

  • Measure your vitamin D level and take enough vitamin D orally (typically about 8,000 units/day for most adults) and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure your level is 60 to 80 ng/ml (150 to 2000 nmol/l).
  • Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in your diet, which involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you can be sure the chef is cooking only with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings in restaurants, as they are loaded with seed oils. Also avoid chicken and pork, as they are rich in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that nearly everyone consumes far too much of and contributes to oxidative stress.
  • Consider taking around 500 milligrams a day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for your body to produce the important antioxidant glutathione.
  • Consider taking fibrinolytic enzymes, which digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will digest your food and not the fibrin in the blood clot.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1, 2, 3, 5, 12 Zero Hedge February 5, 2022

4, 11 Twitter, Ed Dowd February 2, 2022

6 Twitter February 1, 2022

7, 8, 9, 10 ZeroHedge January 3, 2022

13, 14 Financial Times November 23, 2021

15 Twitter, Ben M. November 28, 2021

16 Twitter, Ben M. November 24, 2021

17 The Exposé September 30, 2021

18, 23 The Exposé January 30, 2022

19, 20 Research Gate January 2022

21, 22 Research Gate June 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

As the United States weighs more involvement in the growing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, some of the largest weapons companies in the world — Raytheon and Lockheed Martin — are openly telling their investors that tensions between the countries are good for business. And General Dynamics, meanwhile, is boasting about the past returns the company has seen as a result of such disputes.

The statements come as the U.S. government escalates arms shipments to Ukraine, among them the Javelin missiles that are a joint venture between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. House Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to quickly push through a bill that would significantly increase U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, and impose new sanctions on Russia.

Anti-war campaigners warn that U.S. escalation, amid renewed tensions between Ukraine and Russia, could bring dire consequences, and spill into a much larger and more protracted war. ​As we are shipping advanced weaponry to the Ukrainian military, the Biden administration has signaled that U.S. military advisors will continue to stay in the country,” Cavan Kharrazian, progressive foreign policy campaigner for the advocacy organization Demand Progress, tells In These Times.Who will most likely set up and teach the Ukrainian army how to use these weapons systems? The U.S. military.”

Among those openly discussing the boon to profits is Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes. During a January 25 appearance on CNBC’s ​Squawk on the Street,” he was asked, ​Do we have anything that would make it so if you inserted 8,000 American soldiers into Ukraine, they can stop 103,000 Russian soldiers?”

In his reply, Hayes touted the role the company could play in arming U.S. allies.

Obviously we have some defensive weapons systems that we could supply which could be helpful, like the patriot missile system.” He went on to add, ​We’ve got the technologies to help in these engagements, whether it’s patriot systems, some of the radar systems.”

Hayes suggested that Raytheon’s arms could offer a deterrent that helps prevent war. ​

So at the end of the day, we have a strong defense as a deterrent to try to prevent things like this from spinning out of control. So the hope is that we don’t end up with a hot war, and if we do, it will be costly on both sides.”

If it sounds like Hayes is using mounting tensions as an advertising opportunity for his company, this may not be far fetched. On a January 25 earnings call (which was noted on Twitter by Nick Cleveland-Stout of the Quincy Institute), Hayes included ​tensions in Eastern Europe” among the factors that Raytheon stands to benefit from. He said: ​

We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE, which have attacked some of their other facilities. And of course, the tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.”

Raytheon isn’t alone in its projections. Among those noting the likely boost to profits is Jim Taiclet, the chairman, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin. In a January 25 earnings call, he told investors,

If you look at the evolving threat level and the approach that some countries are taking, including North Korea, Iran and through some of its proxies in Yemen and elsewhere, and especially Russia today, these days, and China, there’s renewed great power competition that does include national defense and threats to it.”

This ​great power competition,” he suggested to investors, bodes more business for the company. Taiclet says, ​

And the history of the United States is when those environments evolve, that we do not sit by and just watch it happen. So I can’t talk to a number, but I do think, and I’m concerned personally that the threat is advancing, and we need to be able to meet it.”

The statements come from leaders of an industry that exerts tremendous influence in Washington, employing an average of 700 lobbyists per year over the past five years, or more than one lobbyist per member of Congress, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.

Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are also funders of the influential think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies, which has been encouraging the United States to take immediate action, including militarily, in the event of a Russian invasion.

Everyone in D.C. knows that weapons manufacturers are helping skew U.S. policy towards militarism, but they usually try to be less obvious,” Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war organization, told In These Times. ​They are cashing in on tensions over Ukraine as the U.S. pours weapons into the region.”

General Dynamics, meanwhile, has noted that past tensions have increased demand for the company’s products. On a January 26 earnings call, the company was asked,

The Ukraine and everything going on with Russia has been in the headlines. What does that mean for your international Land Systems business, particularly in Eastern Europe?”

CEO Phebe Novakovic replied,

Well, for some time now, the Eastern European demand for combat vehicles has been at elevated level.”

Novakovic declined, at least explicitly, to speculate about future profits: ​

But,” she continued, ​I have to tell you that speculation about the considerable tension in Eastern Europe and any subsequent impact on budgets is just till advised given the high threat environment. So, we are hopeful for a peaceful resolution.”

While Boeing did not directly reference Ukraine and Russia, in a January 26 earnings call, Brian West, executive vice president and chief financial officer, said that support among both Republicans and Democrats for high levels of military spending are helping the company’s profits.

In the defense and space markets, we’re seeing stable demand,” West said. ​We continue to monitor the federal budget process in the U.S. and see strong bipartisan support for national security, including Boeing products and services. While governments around the world remain focused on Covid-19, security spending remains a priority given global threats.”

But Kharrazian warns, ​

While it may not be profitable for arms manufacturers, engagement in good-faith, realistic diplomacy is what will benefit the region as a whole and mitigate unnecessary and potentially catastrophic conflict.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paige Oamek contributed research to this article.

Sarah Lazare is web editor and reporter for In These Times. She tweets at @sarahlazare.

The Neoliberal War on Dissent in the West

February 22nd, 2022 by Glenn Greenwald

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored. Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state.

When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government’s use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging (articles about identical tactics from regimes supported by the West — from Riyadh to Cairo — are much rarer). That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable.

But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited. That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression. Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West’s official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even vaguely treasonous.

The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny. The premise of the U.S. Constitution and others like it is that majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme; the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact (the expression of ideas cannot be criminalized even if majorities want them to be; religious freedom cannot be abolished even if large majorities demand it; life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if nine of out ten citizens favor doing so, etc.). More inconveniently still, many of the foreign leaders we are instructed to view as despots are popular or even every bit as democratically elected as our own beloved freedom-safeguarding officials.

As potent as this mythological framework is, reinforced by large media corporations over so many decades, it cannot withstand the increasingly glaring use of precisely these despotic tactics in the West. Watching Justin Trudeau — the sweet, well-mannered, well-raised good-boy prince of one of the West’s nicest countries featuring such a pretty visage (even on the numerous occasions when marred by blackface) — invoke and then harshly impose dubious emergency, civil-liberties-denying powers is just the latest swing of the hammer causing this Western sculpture to crumble. In sum, you are required by Western propaganda to treat the two images below as fundamentally different; indeed, huge numbers of people in the West vehemently denounce the one on the left while enthusiastically applauding the one on the right. Such brittle mythology can be sustained only for so long:

Reuters, Aug. 8, 2019 (left); BBC, Feb. 15, 2022 (right)

The decade-long repression of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, standing alone, demonstrates how grave neoliberal attacks on dissent have become. Many are aware of key parts of this repression — particularly the decade-long effective detention of Assange — but have forgotten or, due to media malfeasance, never knew several of the most extreme aspects.

While the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder failed to find evidence of criminality after convening a years-long Grand Jury investigation, the then-Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), succeeded in pressuring financial services companies such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America to terminate WikiLeaks’ accounts and thus banish them from the financial system, choking off their ability to receive funds from supporters or pay their bills. Lieberman and his neocon allies also pressured Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from its hosting services, causing the whistleblower group to be temporarily offline. All of that succeeded in crippling WikiLeaks’ ability to operate despite being charged with no crime: indeed, as the DOJ admitted, it could not prove that the group committed any crimes, yet this extra-legal punishment was nonetheless meted out.

Those tactics pioneered against WikiLeaks — excluding dissenters from the financial system and coercing tech companies to deny them internet access without a whiff of due process — have now become standard weapons. Trudeau’s government seizes and freezes bank accounts with no judicial process. The “charity” fundraising site GoFundMe first blocked the millions of dollars raised for the truckers and announced it would redirect those funds to other charities, then refunded the donations when people pointed out, rightly, that their original plan amounted to a form of stealing. When an alternative fundraising site, GiveSendGo, raised millions more for the truckers, Canadian courts blocked its distribution. And it was just over a year ago when Democratic politicians such as Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) successfully pressured tech monopolies Google and Apple to remove Parler from its stores and then pressured Amazon to remove the social media site from its servers, at exactly the time the social media alternative became the single most-downloaded app in America. (This morning we published a new video report on Rumble that traces the emergence of this new anti-dissent tactic first pioneered on WikiLeaks and now widely used against dissent generally: “Banishment from the Financial System: the War on Dissent”).

That the U.S. and UK Governments have kept Assange himself — one of the most effective dissidents in the West in decades — in a cage for years with no end in sight by itself highlights how repressive they are. But the precipitating cause of Assange’s apprehension from the Ecuadorian Embassy has been forgotten by many and it, too, illustrates the same disturbing trend.

In 2017, mass protests erupted in Barcelona as part of a movement in Catalonia for more autonomy from the Madrid-based Spanish government, culminating in a referendum for autonomy on October 1. In 2019, even larger and more intense protests materialized. The methods used to crush the protests shocked many, as such domestic aggression had been rarely seen for years in western Europe. Spain treated the activists not as domestic protesters exercising their civic rights but as terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists. Violence was used to sweep up Catalans in mass arrests, and their leaders were charged with terrorism and sedition and given lengthy prison sentences.

About the crackdown, a protest video proclaimed that Spain had just witnessed “a degree of force never seen before in a European member state.” While a fact-check by the BBC failed to affirm that maximalist claim, it documented multiple grave attacks by the police on protesters in Catalonia. Meanwhile, “Spanish police engaged in excessive force when confronting demonstrators in Catalonia during a disputed referendum, using batons to hit non-threatening protesters and causing multiple injuries,” Human Rights Watched concluded, adding that though the protesters were “largely peaceful,” some “hundreds were left injured, some seriously. Catalonia’s Health Department estimated on October 2 that 893 people had reported injuries to the authorities.”

From the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange, in both 2017 and then again in 2019, used WikiLeaks’ platforms to vocally publicize and denounce the actions of the Spanish government — not to express support for Catalonian independence but to denounce the civil liberties assaults used to crush the protest movement. Assange made multiple media appearances to object to the use of violence by the state police, and WikiLeaks’ Twitter account, virtually on a daily basis, was publicizing videos and other testimonial evidence of the crackdown.

It was Assange’s reporting on and denouncing of violence by the Spanish government against its own citizens that was the final cause of Ecuador’s decision to rescind its asylum. The Spanish government made clear to Ecuador how indignant they were that Assange was publicizing their abuses. It was just several months after the first protest movement that Ecuador announced it was cutting off Assange’s internet access, claiming the WikiLeaks founder had been “interfer[ing] with other states” — meaning speaking out on the civil liberties abuses by Madrid. And it was the following year that Ecuador, pressured by the U.S., UK and Spain, withdrew its asylum protection and allowed the London police to enter its embassy, arrest Assange, and then put him in the high-security Belmarsh prison where he has remained ever since despite being convicted of no crime other than a misdemeanor count of bail-jumping. All of this reflects, and stems from, a clear and growing Western intolerance for dissent.

This last decade of history is crucial to understand the dissent-eliminating framework that has been constructed and implemented in the West. This framework has culminated, thus far, with the stunning multi-pronged attacks on Canadian truckers by the Trudeau government. But it has been a long time in the making, and it is inevitable that it will find still-more extreme expressions.

It is, after all, based in the central recognition that there is mass, widespread anger and even hatred toward the neoliberal ruling class throughout the West. Trump, Brexit and the rise of far-right parties in places where their empowerment was previously unthinkable — including Germany and France — is unmistakable proof of that. Rather than sacrifice some of the benefits of inequality that have generated much of that rage or placate or appease it with symbolic concessions, Western neoliberal elites have instead opted for force, a system that crushes all forms of dissent as soon as they emerge in anything resembling an effective, meaningful or potent form.

So many of the controversies over the last decade, often analyzed in isolation, have been devoted to this goal. The pervasive surveillance systems constructed by the West — revealed during the Snowden reporting but only partially reined in at best since then — are crucial tools, as surveillance powers always are, for monitoring and thus stifling dissent. We have now arrived at the point where the U.S. Government and its security state is officially and explicitly clear that it regards the greatest national security threat not as a foreign power such as China or Russia, and not as non-state actors such as Al Qaeda or ISIS, but rather “domestic extremists.” For years, this has been the unyielding message of the DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ: our primary enemies are not foreign but are our fellow citizens who have embraced ideologies we regard as extremist.

This new escalation of repression depends upon a narrative framework. Those who harbor dissenting ideologies — and particularly those who do not embrace that dissent passively but instead take action to advocate, promote and spread it — are not merely dissenters. The term “dissent,” in Western democracies, connotes legitimacy, so that label must be denied them. They are instead domestic extremists, domestic terrorists, seditionists, traitors, insurrections. Applying terms of criminality renders justifiable any subsequent acts of repression: we are trained to accept that core liberties are forfeited upon the commission of crimes.

What is most notable, though, is that this alleged criminality is not adjudicated through judicial proceedings — with all the accompanying protections of judges, juries, rules of evidence and requirements of due process — but simply by decree. When financial services companies “choked” WikiLeaks back in 2010, they justified it by pointing to the government’s claim that the group was engaged in crimes and therefore in violation of the rules of the platforms (“‘MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,’ spokesman Chris Monteiro said” when explaining its shutting of WikiLeaks’ account). The same was done to 1/6 protesters who have been punished in countless ways prior to conviction. And now Canadian truckers have been magically transformed into criminals without the inconvenience of a trial; “‘we now have evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity,’ GoFundMe said” when explaining why it shut down fund-raising accounts.

Last June, PayPal announced a new partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whereby the liberal activist group would identify individuals and groups whose ideology is, in the eyes of the ADL, “extremist.” This would enable not only PayPal but financial services companies around the world to then terminate their accounts and exclude them from the financial system. Clearly, once the ADL declares a person or group to be “extremist” and PayPal banishes them, no other mainstream corporation will want to be accused of hosting them. As PayPal’s founding Chief Operating Officer David Sacks warned at the time the partnership was announced, the purpose of this program is “shutting down people and organizations that express views that are entirely lawful, even if they are unpopular in Silicon Valley.” Comparing this to the spate of unified Silicon Valley censorship that has erupted over the last several years, Sacks explained why this power is so alarming:

As for the notion of building your own PayPal or Facebook: because of their gigantic network effects and economies of scale, there is no viable alternative when the whole industry works together to deny you access.

Kicking people off social media deprives them of the right to speak in our increasingly online world. Locking them out of the financial economy is worse: It deprives them of the right to make a living. We have seen how cancel culture can obliterate one’s ability to earn an income, but now the cancelled may find themselves without a way to pay for goods and services. Previously, cancelled employees who would never again have the opportunity to work for a Fortune 500 company at least had the option to go into business for themselves. But if they cannot purchase equipment, pay employees, or receive payment from clients and customers, that door closes on them, too.

This is why it is so imperative for the Democratic Party and their media allies to describe the four-hour riot at the Capitol on January 6 as an insurrection and attempted coup. If those are mere protesters or even just rioters, then all the standard protections and legal safeguards apply to them, as liberals demanded be applied to protect BLM and Antifa protesters, even ones who used violence. If, however, they are part of a broader insurrectionary movement — an ongoing attempt to overthrow the U.S. Government — then they are elevated from ordinary political adversaries into a faction of sustained criminality, and anything and everything, from censorship and detention to extra-legal means of banishment such as no-fly lists and exclusion from the financial system, becomes justified, even necessary. (Note that such repressive tactics, cheered by liberals and even many on the left, have often swept up anti-establishment voices on the left, such as when PayPal banned Antifa-linked individuals along with Proud Boys members, and when animal rights activists are targeted for persecution by the FBI along with Oath Keepers, but such is the inevitable outcome of censorship and dissent-repressive schemes).

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Watch the video below. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

West Remains Divided on Sanctions Against Russia

February 22nd, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin officially announced on February 21 Moscow’s recognition of the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). This was to the shock, annoyance and frustration of the Western bloc as the move once again divided their reactions and responses to the Ukraine crisis. For now, though, there has been no self-reflection as to why Putin was left with no other choice but to recognize the LPR and DPR.

Following Putin’s announcement, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel sent out near identical tweets claiming that the recognition of the LPR and DPR “is a blatant violation of international law, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the Minsk agreement.” Both tweets added that “the EU and its partners will react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine.”

However, shortly after these tweets were made, the EU announced that it will not immediately impose sanctions on Russia as it would rather wait and see if there is any invasion. This was in stark contrast to a seething French President Emmanuel Macron, who immediately demanded targeted sanctions as he likely feels embarrassed and frustrated that Moscow’s recognition occurred a day after it was announced he had, in principle at least, secured a meeting between Putin and his American counterpart Joe Biden.

None-the-less, the current impasse regarding Ukraine and the recognition of the Donbas republics is a crisis that the EU never made a serious attempt of resolving. Not wanting a repeat of the Cyprus debacle which remains unresolved nearly half a century after Turkey’s invasion, Moscow was left with no choice but to recognize the republics to ensure security for civilians in the face of an ever-increasing Ukrainian military threat.

In fact, even the disjointed European response to Putin’s action once again demonstrates that the EU is not a serious institution in foreign policy matters. Although Macron was certainly furious, it is noted that he specifically called for “targeted” sanctions, whilst his Italian and German colleagues are already lobbing for potential sanctions to exempt the energy sector. This suggests that the EU will impose sanctions mostly out of “principle” (according to their Western liberal ideology) to show tokenistic support for Kiev, and not because they actually want to. If this is the case, it can be expected that any sanctions will be weak.

Washington, despite its never-ending rhetoric of an imminent Russian invasion, had a Biden administration official meekly say that the presence of Russian troops in Donestsk and Lugansk alone may not lead to the “swift and severe” sanctions that the White House has been warning about for months now. As much as it can be officially denied, US officials know that Ukrainian forces have refused to end their violence and extremism. It is recalled that an ethnic Greek was killed only last week by Ukrainian soldiers for speaking Russian – this is just one example of thousands of non-Ukrainians being persecuted, tortured or killed by Kiev’s racist forces.

The reluctance so far to apply sanctions has also brought forward a new debate in the West. POLITICO quoted a US official saying: “Russian troops moving into Donbas would not itself be a new step. Russia has had forces in the Donbas for the past eight years.” According to the outlet, the British government and foreign policy analysts (i.e. war hawks) view this idea with contempt.

In effect, even the US with all its bombastic and aggressive rhetoric against Russia is hesitant to apply sanctions in the current situation. This is the appropriate course of action since it was the West that failed to push and demand Ukrainian President Volodimyr Zelensky to implement the Minsk agreement to resolve the crisis in Donbas. Rather, the EU as an institution enabled Ukraine’s provocations despite calls from individual member states like Greece to include Russia in the European security architecture (correction to here) and resolve the Donbas crisis on the basis of the Minsk agreement.

Had the Minsk agreement been implemented by Ukraine, Zelensky would not be in a position where Lugansk and Donetsk have been permanently lost from Kiev’s authority. Instead, Zelensky opted to continue with the aggressive Ukrainization of all minority groups in the country (with European silence). This left Putin no choice but to recognize the republics to ensure the security of all Russian-speakers, which are of all ethnic backgrounds. If Putin had not made this step, non-Ukrainian minorities would continue to be targeted by Kiev’s racist military and paramilitary forces without recourse.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from OneWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russia is unwaveringly committed to its humanitarian, political, and security principles, which indicates that it just drew a red line in Donbass that neither the US nor its Ukrainian proxies should dare to cross.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya defended his country’s recognition of Donbass’ breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) as independent states in a speech before the Security Council on Monday. It concisely summarized the reasons that President Putin gave in his nearly hour-long address to the Russian people. In short, he explained that Russia gave post-“Maidan” Ukraine’s US-supported coup authorities the benefit of the doubt that they’d implement the UNSC-backed Minsk Accords, only to be proven wrong after Kiev once again recently initiated another round of civil war hostilities last weekend.

This position wasn’t naïve like some critics claimed at the time but was driven by the principled desire to encourage dialogue between the warring sides in accordance with Russia’s position towards all other conflicts across the world like in Syria, Yemen, etc. Ambassador Nebenzya also drew attention to the fact that the DPR and LPR already declared independence prior to the Minsk Accords so Russia’s recognition thereof doesn’t change the fact that Kiev is still obligated to implement them since Moscow isn’t officially regarded as a party to that conflict. This hints at a grander strategic end game for Ukraine than what Russia had previously envisioned as explained by the author in his latest analysis here.

It’s beyond the scope of the present piece that discuss it so intrepid readers should review it if they’re interested. Moving along, Russia’s top representative to the UN then touched upon the US’ destructive role in sabotaging the Ukrainian peace process. Ambassador Nebenzya blamed it for encouraging Kiev to eschew its international legal obligations to enter into talks with the separatists aimed at eventually granting their regions a constitutionally enshrined “special status” per the Minsk Accords. The influx of foreign arms and instructors emboldened Kiev to dispatch 120,000 troops along the line of contact and ultimately initiate last week’s third round of civil war hostilities that prompted Russia’s recognition.

Nevertheless, Ambassador Nebenzya is still cautiously optimistic that everything can be pulled back from the brink of a wider war so long as the US-led West finally deters Kiev from continuing its aggression against the Donbass Republics whose security is now guaranteed by Russia following the new military pact between them and Moscow. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seems to have already realized the hopelessness of directly attacking Russian forces in his country’s former territories after telling the nation on Tuesday that he considers a “full-blown war” between the neighboring countries to be unlikely.

Should he actually be sincere, which remains to be seen, then that would strongly suggest that his American patrons ordered their proxies to stand down, at least for the time being. In his final remarks, Ambassador Nebenzya reaffirmed the immediate humanitarian motivations behind Russia’s decision to recognize the Donbass Republics, defiantly telling the US-led West that Moscow’s “desire to save those lives…is more important than all threats of yours.” This confirms that Russia is unwaveringly committed to its humanitarian, political, and security principles, which indicates that it just drew a red line in Donbass that neither the US nor its Ukrainian proxies should dare to cross.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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 is from OneWorld

Russia Recognizes Two Donbass Republics to Stop Ukraine’s Violence

February 22nd, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new federal decree this Monday, February 22, recognizing the independence of the People’s Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, which since 2014 have been fighting against the ethnic persecution promoted by the Ukrainian armed forces in the region of Donbass. With this attitude, the Russian Federation changes its way of seeing the conflict, no longer analyzing it as a civil war, but as a confrontation between different national states.

“I give it necessary to make a decision that should have been made long ago – to immediately recognize the sovereignty and independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic”. These were the words of Vladimir Putin when he signed the decree recognizing Lugansk and Donetsk as sovereign states. The move was applauded by the population in the Donbass region, which for eight years have been waiting for international recognition of their freedom. As expected, the measure was immediately supported and followed by other non-aligned countries, such as Cuba, Serbia, Venezuela, among others, which significantly expands the possibilities of insertion of the sovereign republics of the Donbass in the international scenario, both from a political and diplomatic perspective as well as from a commercial one.

During his speech, Putin emphasized that Ukraine is part of Russian history and that the formation of the Ukrainian state was due to a political initiative by Moscow during Soviet times, which makes it unjustifiable for Ukraine to promote any kind of persecution against Russians in its territory, making legitimate the revolt of the Russian-speaking population, for which political separation from the post-Maidan genocidal government became the only possible option. These were some of his words in this regard:

“Ukraine is not just a neighbor to us, but an inherent part of our history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades…our family, people we have blood and family ties with (…) Modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia, more precisely by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process was started immediately after the 1917 Revolution (…) As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine’. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed in archival documents, including hard Leninist directives on the Donbass, which was literally squeezed into Ukraine”.

In addition, the president also commented on the rumors that Ukraine would be resuming a military nuclear program and reaffirmed Moscow’s official position that an integration of Kiev to the western military alliance (NATO) means a frontal threat to the Russian state, which cannot be accepted without reaction. In this sense, it is possible to understand that there is a central political reason for the late recognition of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics: the initial plan was to keep them integrated into Ukraine, but the situation became intolerable, and the recognition of independence became inevitable, being a  reaction to the endless maneuvers of Ukrainian forces.

It is a major change in strategy on the part of Russia, but which still preserves the country’s initial focus, that is to avoid any military incursion into Ukrainian territory. Until now, Russia had dealt with the war in Donbass as a civil conflict, supporting popular militias only through diplomatic means. This was due to a view of Lugansk and Donetsk as parts of the Ukrainian territory, which needed to be integrated into Kiev under basic rules of coexistence and guarantee of humanitarian protection.

As the situation escalated, Russian aid to the republics became an unavoidable necessity, but sending troops to the region would promote an “invasion” of Ukrainian sovereign space. So, Moscow acted strategically to maintain the legality of its actions and benefit the population of Donbass: it recognized both republics, which also allowed the deployment of peacekeeping troops with the consent of local governments. In other words, Russia found a way to intervene in the conflict without promoting an invasion of Ukraine. The local militias, who until now had few resources to face the violence of the Ukrainian state, will have the support of the Russian armed forces to prevent further attacks and protect the civilian population.

Russia has not committed any illegal act under international law. The United Nations permits the use of military force for the self-defense of others. With the recognition of the new states, Moscow has the right to protect them from any aggression.

In fact, Ukraine, influenced by NATO and the US, believed that it would provoke an invasion of its territory with its aggressions in the Donbass, starting a war with Russia in which it hoped to receive Western support. But this did not happen, as Russia found a way to help the republics legally and without territorial invasion. And, of course, NATO will not intervene to prevent this mission from taking place. So once again Ukraine has been deluded and will now deal alone with its own mistakes.

On Russia’s part, despite the apparent change in plans, the central focus of Russian strategy for the Donbass remains the same: to neutralize the conflict without incursions against Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Is NATO a Threat to Russia? Chronology of US-NATO Led Wars

February 22nd, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The western media is bombarding us with threats of imminent war, even giving out deadlines for when the invasion of Ukraine is to begin. NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg appears mild-mannered and quietly wonders out loud why Russian President Putin would think that NATO could be a threat to Russia.

NATO has been in numerous wars in Europe, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. They were not protecting member states from attack, but on the offense and instigating conflicts far from Europe and the North Atlantic.

The first NATO attack was on Bosnia in 1995 involving 400 aircraft and 5,000 personnel from 15 nations.  1,026 bombs were dropped during the operation, 708 of which were precision-guided. On 19 occasions, depleted uranium munitions were used against targets around Sarajevo. The uninterrupted bombing of Yugoslavia lasted 78 days and involved 38,400 sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties. By the end, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević had capitulated.  The NATO bombing was illegal, as it was done without the authorization of the UN Security Council.

The next NATO attack was on the former Yugoslavia in 1999.   NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defense against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case. The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.

The official story: A group of Saudi Arabian men, with an Egyptian master, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen living in Afghanistan, attacked the World Trade Center in 2001 in New York City.  This was the only time in NATO history that Article 5 was invoked.

This states an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.  Instead of attacking Saudi Arabia, the chief exporter of Radical Islam globally, NATO attacked Afghanistan and made innocent civilians there pay the price of the Saudi killers. The War in Afghanistan was a conflict that took place from 2001 to 2021. It began when the US and NATO invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban-ruled Islamic Emirate. The war ended with the Taliban regaining power after 19 years and 10 months-long insurgency against allied NATO and Afghan Armed Forces.

The reestablishment of Taliban rule was confirmed by the US and on 30 August 2021, the last American military plane departed Afghanistan, ending almost 20 years of western military presence in the country. According to the Costs of War Project, the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan; 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military, and police.

Next, we have the NATO attack on Iraq for regime change. The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.

From 2004 to 2011, NATO conducted an important support operation in Iraq. Even though Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and had never harbored or supported Radical Islam in Iraq, NATO didn’t like Hussein because he was anti-Israel.  US President George Bush fabricated intelligence reports and sold the idea of a US-NATO attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq.  The result is that regime change at the barrel of a gun left the country permanently destroyed, with a sectarian government the US imposed on Iraq reminiscent of Lebanon and still lacks electricity, water, and medical care. The Iraq Body Count project figure of documented civilian deaths from violence is 183,535 – 206,107 through April 2019.

NATO next turned its sights on Libya.  After Gaddafi gave a speech identifying the Al Qaeda terrorists being used to create regime change, NATO intervened with a bombing campaign to ‘save humanity’. After 11 years, Libya is still trying to fight off the Radical Islamic terrorists who were initially supported by the west. Before NATO’s intervention, Libya produced some 1.6 million barrels a day and boasted Africa’s largest proven crude oil reserve. The country is destroyed and may never recover, such as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Amid the NATO attack on Libya for regime change, came the directive to begin another regime change project in Syria.  Hillary Clinton orchestrated the use of weapons confiscated from the Gaddafi government, shipped to Turkey, and then trucked across the border at Idlib and supplied to the terrorists.  The same Radical Islamic terrorists used in Libya were used by the US-NATO war machine in Syria.  Even Libyan-Irish Mehdi al Harati commanded in Idlib.  Syria was saved from destruction by the entrance in 2015 by the Russian military who were asked by the Syrian government to prevent turning Syria into an Al Qaeda haven.  The US and NATO member Turkey have both invaded and occupied Syria as they prop up the terrorists, who they dub ‘rebels’, against the Syrian and Russian military.

Russia has every reason to distrust and is wary of the intentions of NATO.  Russia is being pushed into a corner with missiles right on its border aimed at Moscow.  NATO is not only a military group, but by its definition, it is a political group.  NATO promotes liberal western-style democracy.  Russian politics don’t conform to the NATO-approved style.  When will NATO begin a destabilization program against Moscow?  The time-honored US-NATO war machine manipulations can begin at any time, and the western media will portray peaceful protesters asking for freedom as the victims of a Russian police crackdown.  The dialog has already been written in Washington and London long before the first shots would be fired.

Russia’s western border is NATO’s eastern flank. American and British military advisors serve in Ukraine, and US missile defense systems sit in Poland and Romania, while NATO troops conduct exercises in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  Russia is asking for a binding promise that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO, plus the removal of all NATO troops and weapons from 14 Eastern European countries that have joined the alliance since 1997.

Yeltsin had prophetically warned that NATO’s enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would ‘not shift one inch eastward from its present position’ once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany; however, those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed document but remembered in Moscow.  Due to unrelenting US pressure, NATO’s borders have advanced until they are next door to Russia and Ukraine.  President Putin has every right to be demanding assurances to guard his country’s national security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is NATO a Threat to Russia? Chronology of US-NATO Led Wars
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In retrospect, Hitler’s worst strategic debacle that ultimately cost the Nazi Germany the Second World War was invading Russia before crushing the British peril following the precipitous rout of the French military in June 1940. The only reason the megalomaniac Fuhrer didn’t initially commit enough military resources into crossing the English Channel and dismantling the Anglo-American Empire once and for all was that ruling elites of the two nations were tied together by blood relations.

Kaiser Wilhelm, the last deposed emperor of the House of Hohenzollern that ruled Germany until the end of the First World War, was the eldest grandchild of British Queen Victoria. Wilhelm’s first cousins included King George V of the United Kingdom and many princesses who, along with Wilhelm’s sister Sophia, became European consorts. Similarly, the German social elites of the Second and Third Reich regarded the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy of the United Kingdoms as kinsmen not to be harmed.

In the Second World War, the Nazi air force did mount Luftwaffe attacks on a limited scale targeting Britain’s industrial infrastructure, but the tiny island boasting imperial legacy was simply not a match for the Third Reich’s military strength without the assistance of its trans-Atlantic ally, the United States, with vast natural resources, territorial possessions spanning the whole of the North American continent besides Canada, technologically innovative manpower and logistical difficulty of mounting an invasion. Thankfully, Britain was spared the pulverizing force of the Nazi Blitzkrieg experienced by France and Eastern Europe.

According to a 1978 essay by German historian Andreas Hillgruber, the Russia invasion plans drawn up by the German military elite were colored by hubris stemming from the rapid defeat of France at the hands of the invincible Wehrmacht and by traditional German stereotypes of Russia as a primitive, backward Asiatic country, having Turco-Mongol ancestry, a fallacious superiority complex predicated on the Nazi social Darwinism and the cherished myth of the German and Anglo-Saxon racial superiority.

Had Hitler skimmed through the European history as a major in high school and been aware of the Napoleonic army’s harrowing fate in its botched Russia campaign in 1812, he would never have committed the blunder of invading Russia to create so-called Lebensraum or “living space” for the German race.

Russia defeated the forces of Napoleon and Hitler through “strategic depth” of its vast territorial possessions spanning almost the entire northern landmass of Eurasia, by letting them advance into Russian territory, extending their supply lines, burdening logistics and mounting ferocious guerrilla warfare campaign that decimated the morale and military capabilities of the most invincible armies of their eras.

Russian fatalities during the Second World War ranged from 20 to 27 million, according to various estimates, including over 8 million military fatalities. In comparison, the United States lost 400,000 soldiers during the war. Clearly, Russia paid the most sacrifices and defeated Nazism while the United States misappropriated the credit for salvaging the world from the menace of fascism in the imagination of the subjects of the Anglo-American Empire.

Before the end of the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and send a clear message to the leaders of the former Soviet Union, which had not developed its nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

The Pentagon publicly confessed to over 30 Broken Arrows [1], serious nuclear accidents, including accidentally dropping atom bombs on populated areas in the US and Europe that thankfully didn’t explode, though the real number of such nuclear accidents is calculated to be in thousands, particularly at the height of the Cold War during the sixties when such apocalyptic “accidents” were everyday occurrence.

Thus, the United States came close to making the planet uninhabitable for the rest of humanity due to its unfettered nuclear arms race and the global domination agenda that subtly continues to this day, as is obvious from the escalation of hostilities against Russia and China and the current stand-off in Ukraine.

As for Ukraine’s aspirations for joining NATO and the alliance’s eastward expansion along Russia’s western borders, the ostensible cause of the escalation, it’s pertinent to mention that the trans-Atlantic military alliance NATO and its auxiliary economic alliance European Union were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of the former Soviet Union which was geographically adjacent to Europe.

Historically, the NATO military alliance, at least ostensibly, was conceived as a defensive alliance in 1949 during the Cold War in order to offset conventional warfare superiority of the former Soviet Union. The US forged collective defense pact with the Western European nations after the Soviet Union reached the threshold to build its first atomic bomb in 1949 and achieved nuclear parity with the US.

But the trans-Atlantic military alliance has outlived its purpose following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now being used as an aggressive and expansionist military alliance meant to browbeat and coerce the former Soviet allies, the Central and Eastern European states, to join NATO and its corollary economic alliance, the European Union, or risk international economic isolation.

Regarding the mainstream media’s contention that Russia has amassed 100,000 troops along Ukraine’s borders, thus portending imminent invasion, the United States, too, has permanently deployed over 100,000 forces, not to mention strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons, in Europe since the end of the Second World War, including 50,000 troops at sprawling Ramstein Air Base [2] and several other military bases in Germany.

Does that mean the United States has invaded and occupied Europe? Of course, it has in the garb of establishing Pax Americana across the world. If the United States has purported “strategic interests” across the Atlantic Ocean in Europe, then is it too hard to imagine that Russia could also have vital security interests along its western borders in Ukraine?

In Europe, 400,000 US forces were deployed during the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European powers developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.

During the last year, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe, deploying strategic armaments aimed at Russia and provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and the South China Sea, veritable “territorial waters” of Russia and China, respectively.

Wouldn’t it be a cause of immense consternation for the US military strategists and policy-makers if Russia or China deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable strategic bombers and provocatively exercised “freedom of navigation” right by deploying nuclear submarines in the Gulf of Mexico straddling the US borders?

Ukraine is Russia’s backyard whereas the distance between New York and Kiev is over 7,500 kilometers. What’s the purpose of deploying thousands of US troops equipped with strategic armaments in the Eastern Europe if not to intimidate and insult Russia? Despite the obvious contradiction between tangible reality on the ground and parallel universe of media narratives, the corporate media would project Russia as an aggressor and the United States as a peace-maker.

Not only the disenfranchised masses of Ukraine but underprivileged proletariats of all the former Soviet constituent republics in Eastern Europe share historical, political and cultural bonds with Russia. The collective security of Eurasian nations is Russia’s responsibility as a successor to the former Soviet Union.

The imperialist stooge, Volodymyr Zelensky, elected president through sham electoral process in bourgeois democracy called Ukraine, represents nobody but the avaricious and exploitative entrepreneurial oligarchs wanting to expand family businesses and attract foreign investments by pandering to corporate interests of Western Europe and North America.

He is a figurehead beholden to the deep state, the top brass of the military trained and educated at premier Western military academies, the West Point and Sandhurst, and conducting joint military and naval exercises alongside NATO forces deployed in the Eastern Europe.

Centralized governments across the world are run by behemoth state bureaucracies. Politicians are merely show pieces meant to lend legitimacy to supposedly “elected governments” and to cater to interests of business elites which they really represent.

Disenfranchised masses are least bothered whether government is being run by autocrats or by “elected representatives” of the bourgeoisie, though the political and business elites often get restless and mobilize their support base to demand a share in the power pie.

The national security and defense policies of modern nation states are formulated by civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed as the deep state. Whereas trade and economic policies are determined by corporate interests and business cartels within the framework of neocolonial economic order imposed on the post-colonial world by corporate America following the signing of the Bretton Woods Accords at the end of the Second World War in 1945.

Purportedly democratic governments, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process, are reduced to performing ceremonial gimmicks and are meant only to serve as showpieces to legitimize militarist and capitalist exploitation.

Excluding the self-styled global hegemon, the imperial United States, the rest of the Western powers might have been colonial powers before the Second World War but they are no longer “powers” in global politics.

In fact, they can more aptly be described as Western regimes that serve no other purpose than act as Washington’s client states via the framework of transatlantic NATO military alliance to maintain the charade of multilateralism. With the second largest army in NATO after United States, Turkey has more military power and political sovereignty than the servile lackeys of Washington: the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

After the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

The European colonial powers were so utterly devastated following the Second World War that let alone keeping their Asian and African colonies, they was finding it hard to keep European countries united and economies running.

Thus, the age of colonialism didn’t end due to colonial powers voluntarily relinquishing control over colonial possessions, as peddled by Orientalist historians, rather they didn’t have the military and economic capacity to forcibly suppress liberation movements kicking off all over the colonial world.

In the medieval era, although monarchs were chosen by hereditary title, their throne rested on unequivocal support of military aristocracy. As kings didn’t have standing armies of their own beyond several legions of praetorian guards. Feudal barons provided the bulk of forces from private militias in times of wars and insurrections.

Thus, the deep state and its monopoly over politics, specifically in the domain of national security and defense policy, was in-built in the Western governance system since the time of the imperial rule, and insidiously continues in the neocolonial era.

Ironically, the first military dictator to establish a standing army of 50,000 men in Europe was none other than infamous Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England with an iron fist for a brief period of time from 1653 to ’58, albeit with far-reaching consequences. As his model of military autocracy was subsequently widely adopted across Europe and the United States, albeit in a barely disguised veneer of hereditary monarchy, military aristocracy and, at times, dubious parliamentary democracy.

In conclusion, military aristocracy held real power in the medieval times, as it provided foot soldiers and cavalry units to monarchs in times of war. With the advent of standing armies in 17thcentury, the power transferred to generals, who were typically princes or belonged to the nobility.

The United States of America is credited with building the first plebian army, as it couldn’t trace a royal lineage so settler colonists, having the blood of indigenous Red Indians on their hands, were raised to higher ranks, who first wreaked havoc across Latin America in the 19th century by invoking the Monroe Doctrine, and then unleashed a reign of terror in the wider world in the 20th century by invoking the Truman Doctrine that enunciated raison d’etre of the American-led neocolonial world order as containment of the Soviet-led communism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Notes

[1] When the US Air Force accidentally dropped an atomic bomb on South Carolina

[2] What the US Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad?

Featured image: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 6, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has now cleared Muhammad Aziz and Khalil Islam who were wrongfully convicted of Malcolm’s 1965 murder.

Vance and other government authorities, however, refused to investigate the FBI, NYPD, CIA, and other government agencies for their role in his killing.

In recent months, the corporate media have made much of the exoneration of two members of the Nation of Islam (NOI) previously convicted of assassinating Malcolm X. After spending many years in jail, Muhammad A. Aziz (Norman Butler) and Khalil Islam (Thomas Johnson-now deceased) were cleared of the previous conviction upon the intervention of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., at the behest of lawyers from the Innocence Project.

Recent scholarship has identified others for the murder, although none of these suspects is still alive. The judge vacated the convictions after DA Vance acknowledged that authorities had not revealed to the defense exculpatory material in the hands of the FBI and the police.[1]

Vance concluded in his comments to the court that the bulk of these materials cannot now be found and no longer exist. Government officials and the corporate media have made no concerted effort to find out whether the records are merely lost but discoverable. Have they in fact been destroyed?

Is this merely bureaucratic inertia or were specific orders given to prevent the material from ever becoming exposed? We are left with the undisputed fact that members of the NOI killed Malcolm X after an extended period of growing alienation and antagonism between Malcolm and the higher-ups in the NOI.

But we also know that Malcolm X was the target of a government campaign to discredit and destroy him and that the FBI and NYPD had infiltrated the NOI as part of a strategy of exploiting divisions within it and to fulfill their goal of destroying the radical Black movement by having its “Black Messiah” killed.

This is something that Malcolm himself understood—but which government authorities today are still unwilling to acknowledge, even as they exonerate those wrongfully convicted for Malcolm’s death.

Was Malcolm X More Than a Civil Rights Leader?

Malcolm X was one of the most important Black leaders of the 20th century. It was primarily through Malcolm X that the radical tradition of Pan-African internationalism returned to the mainstream of the struggle for Black Liberation in the 1960s. Malcolm X was a thinker and a theoretician of Black liberation. A skillful organizer and propagandist, Malcolm X sought the answers to important questions which remain to be answered if the struggle for Black liberation is to be rebuilt in the opening decades of the 21st century.

What were some of the political questions that confronted Malcolm X in the last months of his life? First, who exactly were the enemies of Black liberation?

Malcolm’s answer: a racist, Euro-American imperialism operating internationally under the aegis of NATO. How was that enemy to be defeated?

Malcolm’s answer: by the construction of a grand alliance of the world’s dispossessed people of color to which African-Americans would affiliate through the Organization of Afro-American Unity, conceived as a regional affiliate of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

To do this, Malcolm X asserted that the Black freedom struggle was a human rights movement, not a civil rights movement, a national liberation struggle entitled to international recognition and protection under international law.

Malcolm X was particularly sensitive to the question of Zionism because 1959 was the year of his first trip to the Arab World and East Jerusalem. He established direct and lasting contacts with Muslim leadership there.

He received Arab activists and Muslim scholars from the East at New York’s Mosque Number 7 for the remainder of his sojourn in the NOI. In 1964 Malcolm returned to the Arab World, not only making Hajj but travelling to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Gaza and publicly taking up the cause of Palestinian liberation and anti-Israeli imperialist expansion.

Malcolm X in Mecca and His Conversion to True Islam

Malcolm X in Mecca in 1964. [Source: thoughtco.com]

On that same trip, he spent time with African revolutionaries in Tanzania, Ghana, and Egypt where he received a deeper briefing on the relationship between Zionism and Western imperialist interests.

Malcolm X was a staunch opponent of Zionism. He famously polemicized against it in “Zionist Logic,” an article published in The Egyptian Gazette in 1964.[2] In the document, Malcolm X noted the parallels between the subjugation of Palestinians and Africans.

He pointed out the strategic value of Israel to world imperialism, “The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.”

Black Zionism, Reparations, and the "Palestine Problem" | AAIHS

Source: aaihs.org

Malcolm X Was a Pan-African Internationalist Human Rights Leader

Malcolm X helped shift the focus of Black struggle away from Civil Rights assimilation toward Black Liberation.

He strove to give the African-American an international personality as a legitimate liberation movement. To do this he had to forge solid links with the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces in the international arena. He received his strongest support from leadership based in the “Casablanca” axis which itself was firmly based on Afro-Arab solidarity.

Through their efforts, he was accorded diplomatic status at the OAU Heads of State Summit Conference in Cairo in July 1964 and was able to present a memorandum to that body which presented a clear alternative assessment of the condition of African-Americans compared to the United States government’s position.

He was also able to garner support for his idea of going to the United Nations and the World Court to indict the United States Government for violations of international law in its treatment of African-Americans. Although many countries which privately supported Malcolm were fearful of publicly following up on their commitments to help him in the face of the unquestioned power of the United States, his activities in Africa were a game changer.

The most useful aspect of Malcolm X’s two trips to Africa in 1964 was that the leadership and masses of that continent were notified that there were other opinions and analysis of the U.S. racial situation than those spread by the United States Information Agency (USIA). Malcolm X was successful in establishing his analysis as that against which subsequent spokespersons and USIA releases were judged in Africa.

As the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the left wing of the civil rights movement, would also do later, Malcolm shifted the Black conceptual framework in ways favorable to Palestinian self-determination and opposition to the Zionist Project. The Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) concept on the domestic front emphasized Black collective self-defense against racist violence and independent Black politics outside of the framework of the two-party duopoly. The OAAU was an organization founded by Malcolm whose purpose was to to fight for African-American human rights and promote solidarity with African anticolonial movements.

Why Was Malcolm X an Enemy of the State?

The emergence and growth of the American security state paralleled the development of the Black Freedom struggle in the 20th century.

As the excesses of late capitalism fueled the development of industrial unionism, labor radicalism, and truly revolutionary activity, the nascent security state increasingly saw Black militancy as part and parcel of an alien presence which must be extirpated from the American body politic.

Led for decades by J. Edgar Hoover, the activities of the FBI grew in scope and sophistication in direct proportion to the maturation of the Black Freedom struggle into a mass movement which could potentially threaten the perpetuation of the capitalist order.

In the 20th century, whenever Black radicals of whatever stripe made important gains in the organization of the mass of Black people around a freedom agenda, the FBI under Hoover moved to monitor, infiltrate and repress the Black movement. Using “dirty tricks,” Hoover would sow discord and internecine conflict leading to the discrediting and death of Black leadership.

Les Payne, in his seminal work on Malcolm X, summed up this process as it played out in its initial manifestation against Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois:

With fixed intentions of exploiting existing divisions within the Black community and stimulating others, J. Edgar Hoover drew up a plan that, on the one hand sought to destabilize Du Bois’s group efforts against segregation and, on the other, aimed to thwart all attempts by Garvey’s UNIA to empower Negroes by other means.[3]

Payne goes on to note the parallels and the central role of the FBI in stoking conflict between the NAACP and Garvey. This tactic brought Garvey down, goaded the post-World War II mainstream Negro leadership to alienate and attack Du Bois and Robeson and, lastly, was the catalyst which brought the rivalry between the NOI and Malcolm to a murderous conclusion.

Garvey and Du Bois were ultimately taken down by a direct and ostensibly legal prosecution by the State. Such might also have been the fate of Malcolm X save the assassin’s bullet obviated the necessity of a legal smokescreen.[4]

Was There a Program Initiated by the Security State to Discredit Malcolm X and Destroy the OAAU?

J. Edgar Hoover initiated the FBI program of destruction of the OAAU in a memo to the New York and Philadelphia field offices dated July 2, 1964. In it, he said in part:

There is indication that Little [Malcolm X] has aligned himself with subversive groups and this matter must be immediately investigated and, if feasible, a counterintelligence program will be initiated to publicly discredit Little. [5]

The antagonistic scrutiny of Malcolm X and the OAAU by local and federal security branches of government was an extension of monitoring first directed at the NOI during World War II. It was part of an even earlier trend to ferret out popular Black leadership and movements which had the potential for a mass-based movement of Black nationalism or more generally of Black equality.

A young J. Edgar Hoover moved successfully to destroy the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and discredit the leadership of Marcus Garvey. During World War II, Hoover kept a file on Black organizations which he monitored with reference to communism and German, Italian and Japanese fifth columnists.[6]

The Justice Department in 1942 charged Elijah Muhammad with sedition because of his alleged identification with the “pan colored” propaganda of the Japanese and his contact with an agent of that government sent to secure allies in the Black community.[7]

Elijah Muhammad spent several years in jail as a result of his refusal to be drafted into the wartime armed forces. As an important functionary of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X had been the subject of FBI surveillance since 1952.

With other members of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X‘s name had been added to the FBI’s security index. The FBI opened its surveillance file on Malcolm X because of statements attributed to him in prison in 1952 in which he allegedly stated that he was a communist.

Was the Takedown of Malcolm X a Trial Run for COINTELPRO?

Prior to the COINTELPRO program, the FBI had a major rationalization for investigation and disruption of movements like Malcolm X’s. The FBI carried out extensive surveillance of the Civil Rights Movement and its offshoots through its Communist Infiltration Program, COMINFIL.

In March 1956 Hoover reported to an Eisenhower cabinet meeting that the Black Muslims was one of the “organizations presently advancing integration [sic]” and “figuring in the rising racial tensions.”[8] The NOI was described as a group which used “violently anti-white rhetoric” and expressed support for the Mau Mau in Kenya and the Vietminh of North Vietnam.[9]

Kenneth O’Reilly reported that the FBI tried to have the NOI put on the attorney general’s list of subversive organizations and jail its leaders for Smith Act and Selective Service violations. However, Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., refused. Nevertheless, he approved wiretaps which became the basis of widespread monitoring of Muslims.[10]

Later during the OAAU period, the FBI investigated Malcolm X because of his association with individuals who had alleged Communist Party links or had been previously put on the FBI’s Security Index.

Thus, the OAAU came in for immediate scrutiny because of Malcolm X’s association on his first trip to Ghana with Julian Mayfield, who was already on the FBI’s Security Index.

The initial interest and support of the Socialist Workers Party, the extensive coverage he received in that party’s newspaper, The Militant, and the frequent reports of Socialist Workers Party leadership’s attendance at the OAAU rallies created a certainty within the FBI that Malcolm X was engaged in a subversive enterprise.

Source: themilitant.com

Other supporters of Malcolm X had significant leftist backgrounds which triggered the paranoia of the FBI. Prominent among the guests at the initial rally of the OAAU were people like William Epton, former Harlem branch member of the Communist Party and at that time a member of the Progressive Labor Party, Conrad Lynn, a lawyer with a reputation for defending leftist causes, and intellectuals like John Oliver Killens.

They were suspected because of association with, or previous memberships in, organizations designated as communist fronts. In fact, not long before the assassination, the FBI anticipated that a real possibility existed that they might be able to indict Malcolm X for his “subversive activities.”[11]

Ironically, the FBI also had solid information that the Communist Party was in no way aligned with or encouraging Malcolm X. In an FBI report based on its surveillance of the Communist Party, an informant reported on the New York District meeting of the CPUSA at the Hotel Woodstock on March 16, 1964. In commenting on Malcolm’s break with Elijah Muhammad and his new organizational efforts, several speakers worried about Malcom X’s ideas concerning violence and expressed the opinion that he was hurting the integrationist program.

The Security State Even in Malcolm’s Time Was Bigger and Broader Than Hoover and the FBI

“Dirty tricks” had been initiated against Malcolm X and the Muslim Mosque, Inc., by the FBI.

As indicated in the outline of a plan contained in a memo from the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) in Detroit to Hoover, dated April 10, 1964, a phony letter was drafted over Malcolm’s signature and sent to Muhammad’s followers in Detroit to cause “disruption and deeper disputes between Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm Little of Muslim Mosque, Inc. (MMI).”

The FBI’s Chicago field office also reported creating a rift between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad.[12] The MMI and the OAAU were well infiltrated by agents and informants of the FBI and other government intelligence organizations, including Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, and the New York City Police Department’s Bureau of Special Services (BOSS).

Gene Roberts, a bodyguard of Malcolm X in the OAAU, later surfaced as a New York City police officer assigned by BOSS to surveillance of the OAAU. Roberts was later at the center of the New York Panther 21 trial, turning state’s evidence as an undercover agent who had penetrated that organization.

Ironically, Roberts had reported to his superiors one week before Malcolm’s assassination what he and several OAAU members thought was a dry run of the assassination. At the OAAU rally immediately preceding the one in which Malcolm X was assassinated, a disturbance was created by two men as one cried “Get your hand out of my pocket!”

Roberts’s superiors informed him that they would “get on” this information. In fact, there is no information to suggest that the police did anything positive to follow up on this lead.[13]

McKinley Welch, another BOSS agent, had infiltrated Mosque No. 7 in New York, and when Malcolm X left the NOI, Welch’s superiors ordered him to infiltrate the OAAU.[14]

The Big Red News article cited states that the head of BOSS in 1965, Anthony Ulasewicz, later bragged about BOSS’s counterintelligence campaign against Malcolm X. Ulasewicz was later convicted as a “bag man” in the Watergate scandal.[15]

Family members of Malcolm X have revealed a letter written by a New York police officer that they say shows the NYPD and the FBI were behind the 1965 assassination of the famed Black leader.[16]

Domestic surveillance agencies are not the only ones which have been implicated in government measures to remove Malcolm X’s influence from the Civil Rights Movement. The State Department viewed Malcolm X’s activities in Africa and his strategy of citing the United States for infractions of African-Americans’ human rights in international forums as a threat to national security. Declassified government documents indicate that the State Department asked the CIA division that was later implicated in the overthrow and assassination of several Third World leaders to “take covert action against Malcolm X.”[17]

These documents further indicate that on August 11, 1964, Benjamin H. Read, executive secretary for Secretary of State Dean Rusk, contacted Richard Helms, CIA Deputy Director for Plans, who was in charge of both the Domestic Operations Division and the African Operations Division, urging Helms to use the Clandestine Services Division to investigate Malcolm X.

Read identified Malcolm X to Helms as a popular African-American revolutionary who, according to information received by Read, had been fomenting domestic riots in July 1964 (no doubt a reference to the Harlem riots of that period). Read was also concerned that Malcolm’s plan to go to the United Nations and charge America with genocide might seriously damage the reputation of the United States as a cultural and racial “melting pot.” The only other nation to be so charged, besides Nazi Germany, was apartheid South Africa.[18]

By late 1964 the State Department was alarmed at the progress Malcolm X was making with his petition strategy. He had made friends among Third World diplomats and United Nations representatives, especially among the more radical members of that organization and those of the radical Casablanca Group of African countries.

Malcolm X’s friendship with Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah was about to pay dividends in Malcolm’s UN petition strategy. As surveillance documents indicated, he had also cultivated a friendship with Alex Quaison-Sackey, Ghana’s Ambassador to the UN, who was about to be elected president of the General Assembly. FBI surveillance also indicated that Malcolm’s petition campaign had been supported by such members of the Security Index as author James Baldwin, believed by the FBI at that time to have helped Malcolm draft the petition itself.

Revolutionary Algeria was implicated in Malcolm’s plans, as the FBI believed that Mahmoud Boutiba, a propagandist for the government of Ahmed Ben Bella, was a personal adviser to Malcolm X of long standing.[19]

CIA documents indicate that the State Department took up the matter of Malcolm X’s UN petition idea with President Lyndon Johnson, who in turn asked J. Edgar Hoover to secure further information. Hoover in turn contacted Burke Marshall of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, who initiated inquiries with Malcolm X’s biographer, Alex Haley, and other civil rights leaders about Malcolm X’s foreign ties and financial resources.

When Hoover’s investigation failed to turn up any legal improprieties on Malcolm’s part, Read again approached Helms, asking him to use the Clandestine Services Division to penetrate Malcolm X’s foreign connections before the UN petition became a crisis for the Johnson administration. There is no record of the CIA acting on Read’s request.[20]

However, FBI documents indicate that the FBI’s Newark field office reported to Hoover its attempts to develop new contacts in the Newark NOI Temple in the months immediately preceding Malcolm X’s assassination. Malcolm’s alleged assassins came out of that Temple.[21]

By his second trip to Africa, Malcolm X had developed the belief that the U.S. government was prepared to destroy his movement. While still in Africa, Malcolm X noted the actions of the United States government to isolate Africans from him and to convince them that he was not concerned about Africa.

It raised his ire that the United State Information Agency (USIA) was publicizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Africa as a refutation of his positions. He was quite angry that U.S. diplomats and some Black civil rights leaders were travelling in Africa misrepresenting the opinions of African-Americans regarding Africa.

With the record of FBI concern and surveillance available, Malcolm’s concerns were not without substantial foundation. Certainly, the increased level of government surveillance of Malcolm X and the accelerated U.S. State Department activity in Africa to counter his inroads there buttressed his fears, as did his belief that U.S. agents in Cairo had poisoned him.[22]

From Malcolm X to COINTELPRO and Beyond

The program instituted by the FBI known as COINTELPRO was not initiated until several years after Malcolm X’s assassination. But from its August 1967 description of its program to disrupt and “neutralize” so-called “Black Nationalist hate groups,” it appears that the FBI program of discrediting Malcolm X was one of its earliest trial runs.

In the August 1967 document, the goals of COINTELPRO in relationship to Black nationalism are described as:

  1. Prevent a coalition of militant Black Nationalist groups.
  2. Prevent the rise of a “Messiah” who could unify, and electrify, the militant Black Nationalist Movement.
  3. Prevent violence on the part of Black Nationalist groups…Through counterintelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence.
  4. Prevent militant Black Nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability…
  5. A final goal should be to prevent the long-range growth of militant Black Nationalist organizations, especially among the youth. (Stanford 1986, p. 182) [Emphases added.]

Why Was Malcolm Perceived As a Threat to National Security?

The FBI’s COINTELPRO was a pre-emptive strike at the legacy of Malcolm X to prevent the transformation of the Civil Rights Movement into a viable movement of national liberation.

COINTELPRO formally came into existence in August 1967 with goals directly addressed to nullifying the legacy of Malcolm X. By the end of the 1970s, SNCC, Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), a black nationalist group,, the Black Panther Party, and the American Indian Movement (AIM) were either repressed into non-existence or rendered impotent with large numbers of their cadre incarcerated as political prisoners or at least disillusioned and no longer active.

By 1980, those who had avoided the dragnet were deep underground in a small ad hoc grouping of fugitives known as the Black Liberation Army.

Black Liberation Army | Colorlines

Black Panther Party members march in formation. [Source: colorlines.com]

Because of state repression, the generation of Black youth who came of age in the 1980s initially had no knowledge of Malcolm X, and his legacy was in danger of being lost. However, Malcolm X’s legacy survived the nadir of the early 1980s as he was rediscovered by a new generation of youth.

Malcolm’s life itself was a political statement in so many ways. His formative experiences reflected those of the first generation of Black folks to experience the urban industrial order and his imprisonment reflected the predicament of Black youth in the post-industrial age.

His political mentoring was a collective process, rooted in the Garveyism of his family, the religious nationalism of the Nation of Islam, the radical Pan-African internationalism of the Harlem intelligentsia, and the revolutionary praxis of the Afro-Asian liberation movements which hosted him on his trips to Africa. Sunni Islam facilitated Malcolm’s understanding of the fundamental unity of humankind and helped him to recognize the proper relationship between spirituality and activism.

Malcolm scared the security state because he was a harbinger of the maturation of a new social force born in the post-industrial ghetto which had the potential to make revolution real in the United States. Anyone with that potential is marked as a subversive—an enemy of the state—who must be targeted for destruction. Malcolm X was not the first so targeted nor will he be the last.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

William W. Sales, Jr. is Associate Professor and past Chairperson of the Department of African American Studies and Director of the Center for African American Studies at Seton Hall University. A recognized expert on Malcolm X, Dr. Sales is the author of two books, From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (South End Press 1994) and Southern Africa/Black America: Same Struggle, Same Fight (Black Liberation Press, 1977). William can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. New York Times, November 18, 2021, p. A1. 
  2. “Zionist Logic,” The Egyptian Gazette, September 17, 1964. 
  3. Les Payne and Tamara Payne, The Dead Are Arising: The Life of Malcolm X (New York: Liveright, 2020), p. 51. 
  4. Garvey, Du Bois, Robeson, and others had in common with Malcolm the commitment to see the plight of African-Americans in internationalist and anti-imperialists context. Du Bois sought commitments from the Allies at Versailles after World War I to promote the welfare of colonized Black Africans. Garvey demanded from the League of Nations the diplomatic recognition that the UNIA represented the welfare of Africans everywhere. In 1941 with Du Bois and others, Robeson founded the Council on African Affairs. Later in the 1940s he joined Du Bois to petition the United Nations to investigate human rights violations against the African-American people. In 1951 Du Bois and Robeson supported William Paterson’s Civil Rights Congress petition to the United Nations entitled We Charge Genocide. In each of the cases just cited, state-sponsored repression was swift and effective against the leaders and organizations promoting expanding the arena of the Black Freedom struggle to international organizations. 
  5. FBI, Memo from Director, FBI to SAC New York, Philadelphia, “Organization of Afro-American Unity,” OAAU Surveillance File (Internal Security, Miscellaneous100-442235-July 2, 1964 p. 2). Earlier “dirty tricks” had been initiated against Malcolm X and Muslim Mosque, Inc., by the FBI, as indicated in the outline of a plan contained in a memo from the SAC Detroit to Hoover dated April 10, 1964, in which a phony letter was drafted over Malcolm’s signature and sent to Muhammad’s followers in Detroit so as to cause “Disruption and deeper disputes between Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm Little of Muslim Mosque, Inc.” 
  6. Kenneth O’Reilly, “Racial Matters”: The FBI’s Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972(New York: Free Press, 1989), p. 18. 
  7. Ibid. 
  8. Ibid., p. 42. 
  9. Ibid. 
  10. Ibid. 
  11. FBI Surveillance File, July 2, 1964. 
  12. Big Red News, July 28, 1990, p. 2. 
  13. Elaine Rivera, “The Man Who Spied on Malcolm X,” New York Newsday, July 23-24, 1989. 
  14. Interview with Muhammad Ahmad (Max Stanford), New York, NY, December 28, 1987. 
  15. Big Red News, July 28, 1990, p. 2. 
  16. The Washington Post, February 22, 2021,.The 2011 letter by now-deceased officer Raymond A. Wood stated that Wood had been compelled by his supervisors at the New York Police Department to coax two members of Malcolm X’s security team into committing crimes, leading to their arrests just a few days before the assassination. They were then unable to secure the entry to New York’s Audubon Ballroom, where Malcolm X was speaking when he was killed.Wood maintained that the arrests were part of a conspiracy by the NYPD and the FBI to murder Malcolm. 
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid. 
  20. Ibid. 
  21. FBI, “Memo From SAC, Chicago, to Director,” Muslim Mosque, Inc. Surveillance File (April 10, 1964). 
  22. One is left to wonder regarding Army surveillance of Malcolm, given the experience of Dr. King in the period immediately before his assassination. Memphis Commercial Appeal, March 21, 1993, excerpt from March 21, 1993, edition. The intelligence branch of the United States Army spied on the family of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for three generations. Top secret, often illegal, intrusions into the lives of Black Americans began more than 75 years ago and often focused on Black churches in the South and their ministers. The spying was born of a conviction by top Army intelligence officers that Black Americans were ripe for subversion—first by agents of the German Kaiser, then by Communists, later by the Japanese and eventually by those opposed to the Vietnam War. At first, the Army used a reporting network of private citizens that included church members, Black businessmen such as Memphis’s Robert R. Church, Jr., and Black educators like the Hampton Institute’s Roscoe C. Simmons. It later employed cadres of infiltrators, wiretaps, and aerial photography by U2 spy planes. As the Civil Rights Movement merged with anti-war protests in the late 1960s, some Army units began supplying sniper rifles and other weapons of war to civilian police departments. Army Intelligence began planning for what some officers believed would soon be armed rebellion. 
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Malcolm’s Growing Socialist, Anti-imperialist, Anti-Zionist and Pan-African Outlook Made Him Target of the “Deep State”—Like So Many Others Under COINTELPRO
  • Tags: , ,

NATO Expansionism in Europe

February 22nd, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“NATO’s enlargement in the last decades has been a great success and has also paved the way for a further enlargement of the EU”: this was reiterated last Saturday at the Munich Security Conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In order to fully understand his words, it is necessary to reconstruct this “great success” story in its essential terms.

It begins in the same year – 1999 – in which NATO demolishes Yugoslavia with war and, at the Washington summit, announces that it wants to “conduct crisis response operations, not provided for in Article 5, outside Alliance territory”. Forgetting that it had committed itself to Russia “not to expand even one inch to the East”, NATO began its expansion to the East. It includes the first three countries of the former Warsaw Pact: Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. Then, in 2004, it extends to seven more: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (formerly part of the USSR); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia (formerly part of the Warsaw Pact); Slovenia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation). In 2009, NATO incorporates Albania (formerly a member of the Warsaw Pact) and Croatia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation); in 2017, Montenegro (formerly part of Yugoslavia); in 2020, North Macedonia (formerly part of Yugoslavia) In twenty years, NATO expands from 16 to 30 countries.

In this way, Washington achieves a triple result. It extends the military alliance close to Russia, even inside the territory of the former USSR, and maintains the levers of command: the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is, “by tradition”, always a US general appointed by the US president and the other key commands also belong to the US. At the same time, Washington ties the Eastern countries not so much to the Alliance, but directly to the US. Romania and Bulgaria, as soon as they entered, immediately made available to the United States the important military bases of Constanta and Burgas on the Black Sea. The third result obtained by Washington with the enlargement of NATO to the East is the strengthening of its influence in Europe. Out of the ten Central-Eastern European countries that joined NATO between 1999 and 2004, seven joined the European Union between 2004 and 2007: the United States superimposed NATO on the EU, which expanded to the East, over Europe.

Today 21 of the 27 countries of the European Union belong to NATO under US command. The North Atlantic Council, the Alliance’s political body, according to NATO rules decides not by majority but always “unanimously and by common accord”, i.e. in agreement with what is decided in Washington. The participation of the major European powers in these decisions (excluding Italy, which obeys by keeping silent) generally takes place through secret negotiations with Washington on give and take. This involves a further weakening of European parliaments, in particular the Italian one, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

In this framework, Europe finds itself today in an even more dangerous situation than during the Cold War. Three other countries – Bosnia Herzegovina (formerly part of Yugoslavia), Georgia and Ukraine (formerly part of the USSR) – are candidates to join NATO. Stoltenberg, spokesman for the US before NATO, declares that “we keep the door open and if the Kremlin’s goal is to have less NATO on Russia’s borders, it will only get more NATO.”

In the US-NATO escalation, clearly directed to explode a large-scale war in the heart of Europe, nuclear weapons come into play. In three months, the U.S. begins mass production of the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, which will be deployed under U.S. command in Italy and other European countries, probably also in the East even closer to Russia. In addition to these, the U.S. has in Europe two land bases in Romania and Poland and four warships equipped with the Aegis missile system, capable of launching not only anti-missile missiles but also cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. They are also preparing intermediate-range nuclear missiles to be deployed in Europe against Russia, the invented enemy that can, however, respond destructively if attacked.

To all this is added the economic and social impact of growing military spending. At the meeting of defense ministers, Stoltenberg triumphantly announced that “this is the seventh consecutive year of increased defense spending by European Allies, increased by $270 billion since 2014.” More public money diverted from social spending and productive investment, while European countries have yet to recover from the 2020-21 economic lockdown. Italian military spending has exceeded 70 million euros per day, but it’s not enough. Prime Minister Draghi has already announced “We must provide ourselves with a more significant defense: it is very clear that we will have to spend much more than we have done so far”. Very clear: let’s tighten our belts so that NATO can expand.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Niemand wird die Fortschritte der zivilisatorischen Entwicklung bestreiten; doch das Problem der Gewalttätigkeit ist von der Menschheit nicht gelöst worden. Hinsichtlich der Bändigung der Gewalt scheinen wir uns noch ganz am Anfang der Humanisierung zu befinden. Die maßlose und die gemäßigte Brutalität – historische Faktoren ersten Ranges – prägen unserem Zeitalter nach wie vor ihren Stempel auf. Eine Epidemie der Machtgier und Brutalität in Politik und Wirtschaft führt immer wieder zu Katastrophen wie Krieg und Terror, die Millionen von Menschen dahinraffen wie die Pest des Mittelalters. Nicht nur die Ereignisse der vergangenen 120 Jahre mit zwei Weltkriegen und unzähligen weiteren Kriegen, sondern auch die Vorkommnisse der beiden letzten Jahre im Zusammenhang mit der von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO ausgerufenen Corona-Pandemie haben uns einen gründlichen Anschauungsunterricht über die geschichtliche Bedeutung der Macht und der Gewalttätigkeit gegeben. Ein neueres warnendes Beispiel ist der gesellschaftliche Umbruch, der sich vor unser aller Augen in Kanada unter Premier Trudeau ereignet: aus einer Demokratie oder „stillen Diktatur“ wird in kürzester Zeit die Herrschaftsform einer „offenen Diktatur“. Und das deshalb, weil die Bürger oder Untertanen der Regierung nicht mehr blind gehorchen, ihre Freiheit einfordern und ihr individuelles und kollektives Recht auf Widerstand gegen die Tyrannei wahrnehmen.

Keinem die Macht übergeben! 

Seit wir Kenntnisse über den Menschen haben, wissen wir, dass der Mensch stets nach einem besseren Leben strebt, nach Frieden und Freiheit. Im Vordergrund steht der Friede: kein Krieg, keine Gewalt. Und so lange der Bürger schweigt, sich von der Obrigkeit alles gefallen lässt, die Steuern zahlt und zur richtigen Zeit ins Militär einrückt, haben wir die so genannte Demokratie – in gewisser Weise die stille Diktatur.

Sobald der Bürger aber seine Ängstlichkeit abwirft und den Kadavergehorsam aufgibt, das heißt, den Regierenden nicht mehr blindlings gehorcht, sondern den Mut aufbringt, sich seines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen und auf seinen gesunden Menschenverstand zu vertrauen und dann auch noch seine Freiheitsrechte einfordert und gegen jegliche Unterwerfung und Tyrannei aufbegehrt, wird aus der stillen Diktatur oder Demokratie ohne jede Hemmung ganz schnell eine offene Diktatur oder Tyrannei – wie das Beispiel Kanada zeigt.

Wer bisher Probleme damit hatte, dass Leo N. Tolstoj bereits vor über 100 Jahren die regierenden Politiker unter anderem als „die grausamsten“ Menschen bezeichnete, die häufig herrschen, den wird das Beispiel Trudeau oder auch der Umgang der australischen Regierung mit dem Tennisstar Novak Djokovic eines Besseren belehren. Auch stellt sich die Frage, wo der weltweite Aufschrei der regierenden Politiker anderer Demokratien und ihre Distanzierung vom brutalen Vorgehen der kanadischen Regierung gegen ihre Bürger bleibt? Oder will man es sich mit dem Kollegen Justin Trudeau – wie viele andere westliche Politiker ein Zögling von Klaus Schwabs Davoser Kaderschmiede – nicht verderben?

Das Problem beginnt damit, dass freie Bürger anderen Menschen die Macht über ihr Leben geben. So werden in der westlichen Welt alle vier bis fünf Jahre korrupte Politiker in hohe Regierungsämter gewählt und die Bürger schauen zu ihnen auf wie Kinder zu respektablen Autoritäten. Doch die Politiker verbinden mit dieser Zuschreibung umgehend Herrschaftsansprüche, schaffen ein Verhältnis der Über- und Unterordnung und setzen gegenüber den Bürgern ihren Willen durch – präziser gesagt: den Willen oder die Anweisungen ihrer Auftraggeber, einer finsteren globalen Finanz-„Elite“.

Hoffnungsschimmer nach Friedrich Schiller: „Nein, eine Grenze hat Tyrannenmacht!“

Der freie Mensch, der sich gemäß Naturrecht seiner Menschennatur bewusst ist und sich von keinem anderen Wesen unterjochen lässt, wird sein Recht auf Widerstand gegen die Tyrannei wahrnehmen. Das Naturrecht, das dem Menschen allein schon deshalb zusteht, weil er Mensch ist, sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit sowie körperliche Unversehrtheit und Unantastbarkeit der menschlichen Würde müssen unveräußerliche Grundlage einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaftsordnung sein. Alle Bürger sind dazu aufgerufen, den „alten Urstand der Natur“ wiederherzustellen! (Friedrich Schiller in der Rütli-Szene seines letzten Dramas „Wilhelm Tell“)

Der Mensch, der aufsteht, hat nichts gegen den Machthaber. Der Mensch in der Revolte hat sich der Umgestaltung, der Änderung verschrieben. Er kämpft nur um eine gerechtere Ordnung, ein gerechteres Zusammenleben unter den Menschen. Er hat nichts gegen den Machthaber, er tut ihm nichts. Er kämpft nur um sein Recht, während die andere Seite – in der ganzen Geschichte – immer brutal ist, gemein. Nimmt er dieses individuelle und kollektive Recht auf Widerstand nicht in Anspruch, könnte das warnende Beispiel Kanadas in der westlichen Welt Schule machen.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor a. D., Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Das warnende Beispiel der kanadischen Regierung unter Premier Trudeau: Von der „stillen“ zur „offenen Diktatur“

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

No one will deny the progress of civilisational development; but the problem of violence has not been solved by mankind. With regard to the taming of violence, we seem to be still at the very beginning of humanisation. Immoderate and moderate brutality – historical factors of the first order – continue to leave their mark on our age. An epidemic of greed for power and brutality in politics and economics leads again and again to catastrophes such as war and terror, which sweep away millions of people like the plague of the Middle Ages.

Not only the events of the past 120 years with two world wars and countless other wars, but also the events of the last two years in connection with the Corona pandemic declared by the World Health Organisation (WHO) have given us a thorough visual lesson in the historical significance of power and violence.

A more recent warning example is the social upheaval taking place before our very eyes in Canada under Prime Minister Trudeau: a democracy or “silent dictatorship” is rapidly turning into an “open dictatorship”. And this is because the citizens or subjects no longer blindly obey the government, demand their freedom and exercise their individual and collective right to resist tyranny.

Handing over power to no one!

Since we have knowledge of man, we know that man always strives for a better life, for peace and freedom. Peace is in the foreground: no war, no violence. And as long as the citizen remains silent, puts up with everything from the authorities, pays the taxes and joins the military at the right time, we have the so-called democracy – in a way, the silent dictatorship.

But as soon as the citizen throws off his timidity and abandons cadaver obedience, that is, no longer blindly obeys those in power, but has the courage to use his own intellect and trust in his common sense, and then also demands his rights of freedom and rebels against any subjugation and tyranny, the silent dictatorship or democracy without any inhibition very quickly becomes an open dictatorship or tyranny – as the example of Canada shows.

Anyone who had problems with the fact that Leo N. Tolstoy, more than 100 years ago, described ruling politicians as, among other things, “the cruellest” people who often rule, will be disabused of this notion by the example of Trudeau or the Australian government’s treatment of tennis star Novak Djokovic. The question also arises as to where the worldwide outcry of the governing politicians of other democracies and their distancing from the brutal actions of the Canadian government against its citizens is? Or do they not want to spoil things with their colleague Justin Trudeau – like many other Western politicians a pupil of Klaus Schwab’s Davos cadre?

The problem starts with free citizens giving other people power over their lives. Thus, in the Western world, corrupt politicians are elected to high government offices every four to five years and citizens look up to them like children to respectable authorities. But politicians immediately associate this ascription with claims to power, create a relationship of superiority and subordination and impose their will on citizens – more precisely, the will or instructions of their patrons, a sinister global financial “elite”.

Glimmer of hope according to Friedrich Schiller: “No, a limit has tyrant power!”

The free human being who, according to natural law, is aware of his human nature and does not allow himself to be subjugated by any other being, will exercise his right to resist tyranny. Natural law, to which man is entitled simply because he is human, says that there is something that is right by nature. Liberty, equality and fraternity, as well as physical integrity and the inviolability of human dignity, must be the inalienable basis of a liberal social order. All citizens are called upon to restore the “ancient primordial state of nature”! (Friedrich Schiller in the Rütli scene of his last drama “Wilhelm Tell”)

The man who stands up has nothing against the man in power.

The man in revolt is dedicated to transformation, to change. He fights only for a more just order, a more just coexistence among people. He has nothing against the ruler, he does nothing to him.

He only fights for his right, while the other side – throughout history – is always brutal, mean.

If he does not make use of this individual and collective right to resist, Canada’s cautionary example could set a precedent in the Western world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr Rudolf Hänsel is a retired headmaster, educationalist and graduate psychologist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Innate Warmongering: Seeing Conflict in Ukraine as Inevitable

February 22nd, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

US President Theodore Roosevelt never had much time for peace, seeing its returns as distinctly less than those of war.  Despite his love of military conflict and its touted benefits, he was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering peace in the Russo-Japanese War.  But for old Teddy peaceniks were sissies, degenerates, and probably sexually dubious.

The intoxicant that is war tends to besot its promoters, however balanced they might claim to be.  On February 21, the Australian public broadcaster, the ABC, seemed to embrace a subliminal message in its programming, notably on the issue of war.  The standard reference?  The outbreak of the Second World War.  September 1939.  Poor Poland, and benighted UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

The blind, the daft and the reality television viewer may have missed the programming point, but others could not have.  Russian forces are posed on the borders of Ukraine.  In the presses of Australasia, Europe and the United States, there is more talk of war than that of diplomacy.  There is the prospect of much death and many body bags.  Instead of running documentaries, statements or messages on how war might be averted, thereby yielding the floor to diplomacy, the message of conflict has become inexorably clear.

This is perhaps the most visibly sickening feature of the enterprise.  It is a reminder that war has a seductiveness, acts as a paralytic agent, dulling sensibility whilst arousing other senses.  The opposite is never as inspiring because it is always constructively dull: negotiations, peace, averting death and the cracking of skulls.  Best encourage powers to shred a few people, slaughter the residents of a village or two, and crow about the evils of the enemy.  Add some political garnish: they died in the name of democracy; they were killed because they needed to be enlightened by the rules-based order.

The message of war was promoted with unbending consistency when it came to the certifiably criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by US-led forces.  It was very much in keeping with the rules-based order according to President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Australia’s own yappy John Howard.  War would take place, whatever the evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities.

Having decided that invading Iraq would be good copy, the Murdoch Press Empire went to work softening minds and adding Viagra to war adventurism.  Of the stable of papers run by Rupert Murdoch, only one of the 175 – the Hobart Mercury – did not support the war.  The project certainly bore rewards in terms of moving opinion.  A Gallup International survey’s findingsreleased on February 4, 2003 revealed that 68 percent of Australians backed military action against Iraq.  Of those Australians surveyed, 89 percent expected war to be imminent.  This was, pure and simple, an incitement to conflict, a hardening of the resolve.

While it is not NATO, or the United States, that is contemplating an invasion of Ukraine, a country meshed with Russian history and influence, the language of predictability, the undeviating lingo of war, has come to heavily shade the workings of diplomacy.  In London, Washington and Canberra, we are already seeing the position that war will take place.

Speaking to CBS, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was as good as convinced that “provocations created by the Russian or separatist forces over the weekend, false flag operations” suggested a state of advanced preparedness for invasion.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in his address to the Munich Security Conference, conceded to not fully knowing “what President [Vladimir] Putin intends but the omens are grim and that is why we must stand strong together.”  Should Russia invade, Johnson promised, Russian individuals would be sanctioned, along with “companies of strategic importance to the Russian state”.  Raising capital on London capital markets would be made all but impossible “and we will open up the matryoshka dolls of Russian-owned companies and Russian-owned entities to find the ultimate beneficiaries within.”

Western press outlets are also aiding in this, using, for the most part, images and material of moving tanks and personnel supplied by the Russian Ministry of Defence.  Even mocking opinions expressed by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the “invasion date” have been spun as tangible proofs of coming war.

As New Lines Magazine points out, “the West is doing such an eloquent job of broadcasting the reality of Russian military might” for the Putin regime.  In a conversation with one of the magazine’s authors, the editor of a British “mid-market tabloid” thought that “this invasion stuff is probably all nonsense.”  But no matter.  “Boris needs this to run and run.”

The headlines and titles of various papers are all too drearily reminiscent of 2003.  “We may be just hours away from war in Europe,” shrieked Mark Almond on February 15 in the Daily Mail.  Some hours have passed since then, but there is no sign of the journalist being held accountable for this nakedly hysterical effusion.

The Scottish Sun was even more blood thirstily confident, with its February 13 issue trumpeting that there was “48 hours to war.”  Moscow’s “bombing blitz may be early as Tuesday after Prez talks deadlock.”  That same day, The Sunday Telegraph insisted that Russia was plotting an imminent “‘false flag attack to provoke war.”

The script for invasion, in other words, has already been written, and not necessarily or entirely from the pen of the Russian leader.  The pieces are all in place: the assumption of invasion, the promised implementation of sanctions and limits on raising finance, and strong condemnation.  A fever has taken old, and it promises to carry away much life and sensibility.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from epthinktank.eu

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Innate Warmongering: Seeing Conflict in Ukraine as Inevitable
  • Tags: , ,

Video: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

By His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, February 22, 2022

Carlo Maria Viganò is an archbishop of the Catholic Church who served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 19 October 2011 to 12 April 2016. Archbishop Viganò has spoken out against The Great Reset and the Globalist Agenda 2030 publicly many times. He now gives his full support to the Canadian truckers and the worldwide Freedom movement.

Ukrainian Minister: Inappropriate to Say “Russian Invasion” Is About to Happen

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 22, 2022

An interesting event occurred during this third weekend of February. The Ukrainian defense minister said that it is not appropriate to talk about an immediate Russian invasion, contrary to much of the hegemonic discourse in the Western media.

Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’

By Flat White, February 21, 2022

The Canberra Freedom Convoy is an awful lot bigger than the mainstream press would like you to believe. Although they have been in Canberra for nearly two weeks, today’s rally grew to an extraordinary size with the lawn outside Parliament House filling to hold tens of thousands.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison Commits $804 Million Over a Decade for the Antarctic

By Prof. Michelle Grattan, February 21, 2022

The funding, including for drones, helicopters and vehicles, will enable Australia’s to penetrate inland areas of its claimed territory of East Antartica previously unreachable. In strategic terms, Australia has had a watchful eye on China’s increasing involvement in recent years in the Antarctic and in Antarctic politics.

UK Covering Up Thousands of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

By Arsenio Toledo and John O’Looney, February 21, 2022

An investigation by the Daily Expose has found that thousands of deaths caused by the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine have been covered up in the United Kingdom by many government and public health agencies.

Justin Trudeau is a “Groomed Politician” Controlled by Klaus Schwab on Behalf of “Big Money”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 21, 2022

Klaus Schwab made the following statement in January 2016 at the Davos annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, less than three months after Justin Trudeau’s accession to the position of Prime Minister of Canada following the November 2015 elections.

The Right to Protest in the Stolen Indigenous Territory Called Canada

By Kim Petersen, February 21, 2022

What does the sacred obligation of a nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples look like for Trudeau? On 7 February 2020, the Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade reported a RCMP raid with helicopters, snipers, police dogs, and tactical teams.

Dr. Ryan Cole: COVID Vaccines Cause Catastrophic Damage to Organs

By Ramon Tomey, February 21, 2022

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America’s Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs.

As U.S. Threatens War with Russia, Biden Administration Unveils Imperial Strategy for Indo-Pacific That Could Lead to War with China

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, February 21, 2022

The new strategy starts by repeating familiar clichés about America’s supposed humanitarian intentions in Southeast Asia and role in providing the security that “allowed regional democracies to flourish,” while ritualistically condemning Chinese aggression “spanning the entire globe.”

The Political Persecution of Julian Assange: Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

By Saturday Morning, February 21, 2022

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being made an example of by the US government to deter investigative journalists from exposing state abuses, the current UN Special Rapporteur on torture says.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

Video: Archbishop Vigano’s Important Message to Canadian Truckers

February 22nd, 2022 by His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Carlo Maria Viganò is an archbishop of the Catholic Church who served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 19 October 2011 to 12 April 2016.

Archbishop Viganò has spoken out against The Great Reset and the Globalist Agenda 2030 publicly many times.

He now gives his full support to the Canadian truckers and the worldwide Freedom movement.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An interesting event occurred during this third weekend of February. The Ukrainian defense minister said that it is not appropriate to talk about an immediate Russian invasion, contrary to much of the hegemonic discourse in the Western media. In fact, as time goes on, it becomes more difficult to endorse the anti-Russian narrative that Moscow is preparing to start a war at any moment, which leads officials to look for other arguments in order to justify their measures.

During a speech, Defense Minister of Ukraine, Oleksiy Reznikov, commented on Sunday, February 20, that he does not consider it appropriate to say that a Russian invasion is about to happen these days, as Washington has been saying in recent weeks. These were some of his words:

“Today, as of this hour, Russia has not formed yet a strike force in any city where it surrounded Ukraine. Therefore, it is inappropriate, in my opinion, to talk about the attack tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. But this does not mean that the risks are low, and it does not mean that there is no threat. I want to remind our partners that the threat has existed since 2013”.

On the same occasion, Reznikov stated that his country is “ready” to face any kind of confrontation with Russian troops, which is undoubtedly just a way to alleviate the collective fear in public opinion, considering the huge difference in military power between both countries. In the midst of the recent increase in Ukrainian tensions, the possibility of a new war has given rise to fear, mistrust, and polarization, which has become a real problem within the Ukrainian society itself. In this sense, the minister’s words can be interpreted as an attempt to appease society, both affirming that the risks of invasion are lower than they “seemed” so far, and affirming that Kiev is prepared for this type of confrontation.

It is interesting to note how the words of the Ukrainian defense minister do not in any way represent a break with Western discourse – there is only an attempt to make it more believable, despite apparent contradictions. Recent pronouncements by NATO and US government officials about the “imminence” of a Russian invasion have undoubtedly compelled international society and especially the Ukrainian people into an atmosphere of fear, but this effect is temporary.

With the absence of any invasion, it was expected that in the medium term the fear would end, and public opinion would begin to see inconsistencies in the Western discourse, which could generate a wave of opposition to the anti-Russian measures. In this sense, Reznikov tried to reach a rhetorical middle ground: the invasion plan exists, but it is not for now. In a way, his words contradict the speech of the main western leaders, but at the same time, make the narrative about the invasion plan more “feasible”.

On the same day, the Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, stated during an interview with US media that there is no threat of war. The diplomat emphasized that Russian troops are stationed within Russia’s own sovereign territory, keeping their distance from the autonomous republics, despite recent incursions by Kiev. Antonov explained that Moscow does not claim sovereignty over the Donbass, so there is no possibility of military intervention in the region: “We are not trying to seize any territory of another country. I would like to confirm that Donetsk and Lugansk are part of Ukraine”.

The recent attacks on Donetsk and Lugansk bring even more tensions to the Ukrainian situation as a whole. Kiev is trying to provoke a Russian reaction in Donbass, but Moscow, despite being concerned about the humanitarian situation of the Russian-speaking population, refuses to act in an invasive way, as it recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty over the autonomous republics. The Russian government continues to maintain its strategy of peaceful and legal resolution, calling for Kiev to comply with international agreements and to be punished for the crimes against human rights that are being committed, without, however, considering any form of military intervention.

In the end, the Russian diplomat’s words seem more credible than the Ukrainian minister’s: this is not a long-term invasion plan – simply, there is no such a plan. Once again, public opinion will be maneuvered and a new fallacious discourse will be spread, but this does not change the fact that there is no future for this narrative. At some point, it will no longer be possible to use the argument of the “invasion” that never occurs.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from rt.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Watch the video below.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” I believe millions of Canadians feel as though they have been sucker punched by their government again, and again, and again over the last two years.

On January 15, 2022, the Trudeau Liberals went one step too far, and we are now seeing the ramifications of a government thinking it could get away with its insanity indefinitely.

When the Prime Minister decided to bring greater restrictions by forcing vaccine mandates on essential workers as a requisite for crossing the border, he unleashed his personal hell in the form of a freedom movement driven by hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country.

As most other jurisdictions in the country and around the world were loosening restrictions, Justin Trudeau was mandating more. Whoops!

What has emerged out of the increasingly oppressive state control has been glorious. The effects of which may not be fully visible for weeks or even months to come. There has been a transformation in the spirit of the people where hope and joy has replaced fear and sorrow.

As the largest convoy in history rolled across the country, the Canadian people were filled with hope for tomorrow. Men, women and children cried tears of joy and relief waiving their hands and our flag as the convoy drove past them responding with loud, resounding and assuring blasts of their horns.

As photos, videos, art and music of the Freedom Convoy filled our social media pages, an uncontrollable sense of expectation and anticipation began to mount for its eventual arrival in our nation’s capital.

I live in downtown Ottawa. From the very first moment the trucks arrived, I went outside almost every single day to walk around, speak to the demonstrators and to capture footage of what I was witnessing.

I have been so moved and impacted by these heroes. These men and women have ignited a spirit of unity, hope and peace with their love for our country, its and people and freedom.

As I would walk through the streets lined with massive semis covered in signs declaring freedom, I could not wipe the smile from my face.

What took place over these last three weeks in Ottawa was a celebration by the people and for the people. The Freedom Convoy was a symbol of the nation’s unwillingness to let the government continue to infringe on Charter rights and freedoms unjustifiably.

One night, I walked up to the Wellington St. to the intersection right in front of the Peace Tower. The trucks were blowing their horns continuously for about ten minutes. Many of the people around me were crying, some were pacing and waving the Canadian flag as the horns continued to blow. It was emotional. It felt as though the truck horns were sending off a cry and interceding for the millions of Canadians who have felt voiceless, ignored and abused by their government over the last two years. I will never forget that experience.

When I walked around during the day, I could actually see full smiling faces. It was beautiful. There were more Canadian flags on the streets and on Parliament Hill in the last three weeks than I have seen during any Canada Day celebration.

The truckers would walk around at night picking up garbage, they shovelled snow off of the sidewalks, they stood guard around the National War Memorial to ensure no one disrespected it with foolish actions. I have never before witnessed such honour and respect for this city from a mass demonstration.

At night, it was a party. A party for freedom. Music would play, people would dance and there was a tangible sense of joy in the air.

Over the weeks, the demonstration grew, multiplying in size on the weekends as Canadians traveled to Ottawa to witness and take part in this epic stand for freedom.

I believe the Prime Minister and his advisors felt things shifting. As more and more Canadians began to vocalize their opposition to the government’s unjustified prolonging of pandemic mandates, Justin Trudeau got scared. He knew that in order to save face, he had to shut down the surging display of dissent.

He vigorously attempted to shut the protest down with the help of state sponsored broadcasters by maligning and name-calling the protestors very early on, characterizing them as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.” After coming out of hiding, he and his party tried to paint a picture of the entire group as racists and white supremacists who were terrorizing the city and holding its residents hostage. Nothing could have been further from the truth. And because the truth does prevail, his attempts to quell the demonstration verbally, failed.

I do believe the Prime Minister was strategically and intentionally trying to get a visceral reaction. He wanted to provoke and build upon the division he had already fostered in the country, but thankfully, the truckers never took the bait. They responded continuously with peace, love and resolve.

So, what else could the Prime Minister do to quash this movement? Declare a state of emergency in order to bring down the hammer.

As of right now, most of the trucks have moved out of the downtown core. People continue to gather to peacefully protest in opposition to the incredible amount of state force, which has descended upon the city.

By invoking the Emergencies Act, Trudeau isn’t stopping a crisis, he’s creating one.

Hundreds of heavily armed police officers are lined up in streets ready to use force on any protestor who pushes it too far. Images of masked up and helmeted police standing face to face with freedom protestors are making their way around the world, and the responses have largely been of shock, horror and ridicule.

It never had to get to this point. All they wanted was to be heard and to have the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of Canadians restored. But, the Prime Minister had his mind made up about these freedom loving Canadians before they even arrived. These truckers are literally the backbone of our economy and he wouldn’t even give them the time of day. Instead, he ridiculed, demonized, slandered and targeted them with vile words of hate and derision.

To my fellow Canadians, the trucks may be gone from the streets of Ottawa, but the . It is up to us, the people, to pick up the baton and run with it. This is our country. It does not belong to a few politicians. We have the right to express ourselves, to speak, assemble and protest peacefully.

Though it may look like Justin Trudeau is getting away with authoritarian actions right now, he will not. Truth and justice will prevail; it is only a matter of time. He turned against his own people in order to protect his image and seat of power. But something has changed in this country. The people have stepped out of isolation and have stood together as a force to be reckoned with.

I am so filled with hope and optimism about the future of this nation in the hands of a freedom loving people.

Good days are ahead. Keep pushing and keep standing together. You are being seen and heard, not only in Canada, but around the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Uncancelled

Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’

February 21st, 2022 by Flat White

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canberra Freedom Convoy Demands, ‘Sack Them All!’
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison Commits $804 Million Over a Decade for the Antarctic

UK Covering Up Thousands of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

February 21st, 2022 by Arsenio Toledo

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An investigation by the Daily Expose has found that thousands of deaths caused by the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine have been covered up in the United Kingdom by many government and public health agencies.

“Health authorities around the world are manipulating figures in an attempt to hide from the general public that the COVID-19 injections are causing the fully vaccinated to develop Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS),”the Daily Expose reported.

According to the Daily ExposePublic Health England (PHE), Public Health Scotland (PHS) and the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) have all been actively attempting to hide the actual number of deaths caused by the COVID-19 vaccine from members of the press who actually want to report the truth regarding this matter. (Related: COVID cover-up: UK media refuses to report that 4 of 5 coronavirus deaths over the past month occurred in the vaccinated.)

One Freedom of Information Act request released earlier this month has found that the British government has only admitted to 15 deaths in England and Wales caused by COVID-19 vaccinations. As the Daily Expose‘s investigation shows, this is wildly inaccurate.

Data from the PHE covering June 14 to 21, 2021 show that, of the 35 deaths due to COVID-19 reported that week, four were unvaccinated, seven were partially vaccinated and 24 were fully vaccinated.

Journalists from the outlet tried to contact various PHE branches as well as Members of Parliament and Health Secretary Sajid Javid for some kind of clarification regarding this data, but they did not receive a reply. PHE also refused to publish its data on COVID-related deaths for the following week, instead changing the frequency of reporting to biweekly rather than weekly.

PHS, PHE’s equivalent in Scotland, has also tried to hide data showing that the vast majority of people who tested positive for COVID-19 are fully vaccinated and boosted. According to PHS data on “PCR-confirmed COVID-19” cases by vaccine status, 11,192 unvaccinated, 3,245 partially vaccinated, 24,987 fully vaccinated and 46,951 fully vaccinated and boosted individuals tested positive for the coronavirus in the four weeks from Jan. 8 to Feb. 4.

Fully vaccinated Brits succumbing to VAIDS

The UKHSA is the main government agency responsible for “public health protection and infectious disease capability.” The agency was created in April 2021 to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

The agency’s data shows that the immune systems of fully vaccinated individuals are declining rapidly. According to the Daily Expose’s analysis of UKHSA data, all fully vaccinated individuals over the age of 30 will have, on average, lost nearly 100 percent of their immune system’s ability to fight off COVID-19 within 13 weeks of being fully vaccinated.

The immune systems of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are a lot stronger, but data shows they’re still experiencing total immune system failure within 27 weeks after being fully vaccinated.

“It remains the case that the surveillance report includes rates per 100,000, which can be used to argue that vaccines are not effective,” said Office of Statistics Regulation Director-General Ed Humpherson in a tacit admission that the vaccines do not provide protection.

Humpherson insists that the UKHSA’s data does not prove that the immune systems of the fully vaccinated are deteriorating, claiming that “I know that this is not the intention of the surveillance report, but the potential for misuse remains.”

But if the COVID-19 vaccines were functioning as intended, none of the data released by the UKHSA or any other British government agency should even be able to remotely support an argument that the vaccines are ineffective.

Humpherson said that the use of UKHSA data to prove the vaccines are ineffective is “a misuse of government data.” This is an admission that all government data must be used exclusively to prove that the vaccines are effective, and any data that departs from this narrative shall be “readjusted” by his office.

“Nobody who is vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna is fully vaccinated at all. If they were fully vaccinated, then they would not get infected with COVID, would they?” wrote the Daily Expose.

“If they were fully vaccinated, then they would not need a booster and another booster, would they? Fully vaccinated people are fully duped, fully conned and are on the way to having their genes fully corrupted and their immune systems fully compromised. The one thing they are not is fully vaccinated.”

Watch this interview with John O’Looney, a funeral director in the U.K., as he talks about the surge in deaths caused by the COVID-19 vaccines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At 10 pm last night Saturday evening after two days of crackdown from the police onto freedom convoy protesters and this unfolding scene at the corner of Queen Street and Bank Street in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, police secured a safety perimeter using high metal fences before one protester broke it open at one of the ends.

When police noticed the breach, this person quickly fled away southbound on Bank while other protesters took on the task of putting the fence back in place and securing the perimeter.

The gesture quickly de-escalated the tension and police officers dismissed the incident before going back into position.

The freedom convoy truckers protest that has lasted since the last weekend of January was dismantled this weekend, three weeks into the demonstration against Covid-19 vaccine rules.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

“COVID Social Murder”

February 21st, 2022 by Konrad Rękas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

It is too early to fully sum up the period of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic.  However, we already know today that the optimists who believed that the pandemic crisis would undermine capitalist legitimacy and restore class solidarity and national states power – were wrong. 

On the contrary, global neoliberalism is even stronger thanks to the pandemic and has increased its profits.  It has obtained it not only through exploitation, but directly through the social murder of the working class and especially older, retired people.

The issue of the reproductive role of activities previously excluded from the analysis of the work-capital relationship – gains additional importance in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

Critics agree that it exposed many of the weaknesses of the capitalist system and the free market and the ineffectiveness of states objectified by the Capital.  How be it, the conclusions and forecasts based on the 2020-2022 experience differ significantly.  Only few authors, instead of foretelling the end of capitalism misunderstanding perhaps the last great attempt intended to secure its survival – looked more closely and deeply at the course of the so-called pandemic.

Although it has benne noticed (or more precisely – overestimated) the breakdown of the capitalist supply chain, exposing the weaknesses of the care system, subjected to financialisation.  However, the detailed analysis shows that the effects of the pandemic in the socio-economic sense are distributed following the inequalities in the labour-capital relations, including the racial and gender factors.

Hidden sacrifices

People of colour are among the most vulnerable frontline workers who have been unable to benefit from homeworking protection or abstention wages.

Global inequality has also strengthened.

Temporary suspension of part of the labour activity of Northern societies – is compensated by the hard work of exploited workers of the South to maintain the supply of goods.

Especially in the US, the few shields against COVID-19 have not covered majority of Black people, Latinx and Indigenous, especially women, additionally burdened with increased household chores, virtual learning, etc. In the UK, under the name of “key workers” simply concealed the sacrifice of the lives of the low waged ones, the modern proletariat: care home workers, sales assistants in supermarkets, cleaners, drivers, couriers and many others. They are often retirees, people with disabilities, and immigrants.

With no proper access to the public healthcare they were just sacrificed to make the COVID myth credible.

In the UK, procedures are in place to deal with people over 80 who are in care homes. In the case of positively tested COVID, nurses were not allowed to give the elderly even a glass of water, let alone medication. It was a planned and organized genocide, only to improve the health of the British pension system.

These deaths add up to the accumulation of the time of the pandemic.  And these groups have been pushed even lower than previously.

Meanwhile, the fortunes of the top 1% continue to grow.

The workload of housework has increased dramatically, especially for women.  And the periodic slowdown or even suspension of growth cannot be perceived as a permanent breakthrough, especially considering attempts to restore production and keep consumption unchanged.  The so-called pandemic reminded that the policy of capital never hesitates from the Social Murders in Engels’ terms.

The gigantic profits achieved by the Amazon or the Tönnies and others are obtained not only by increasing exploitation but also directly risking the lives of workers.

Exploitation home delivered

In turn the situation of many transferred to homeworking should be considered as another example of extending the capital-labour relationship to activities previously unproductive.

Work from home imperceptibly exceeds the time frame of office hours. The value of labour is consistently transferred towards capital, and the burden on the worker increases at the expense of other aspects of his life.  The so- called pandemic only accelerated and strengthened the tendency to housewifization of women.

Social reproduction is financialised and marketised, but value of labour put in – is consequently excluded from the standard wage system.  In fact, a person chained to Facebook or Netflix (which was and is the intensified everyday life of the pandemic) – unknowingly becomes an exploited worker of great capital.

In fact, we live and function in times when our pleasures have become imperceptibly addictive, and with it – become our work.  And what is even worse – the exploited one.

Becoming aware of this is the first step to getting organised, and organisation is the basis of resistance.

This unfortunately, will be more and more difficult, as Giorgio Agamben rightly supposes that the alleged weakness of the state is in fact a screen for a paradigm shift, but in the opposite direction to that assumed by the wishful thinkers.

Present “state of exception” would henceforth be a permanent formula, increasing inequalities.

And since the neoliberal state appears only an agent of capital – any potential strengthening of the Government would not take place at expense of the capital, but for its benefit.  If something lasts two years, it has long been no longer an “emergency” or a “transition period” – but a new normality.  The new normality of old liberal capitalism, always with workers’ blood on its hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There is absolutely no way that the longest-serving and most philo-Semitic leader in modern history would ever countenance treading in Hitler’s genocidal footsteps by carrying out a second Holocaust. It’s arguably anti-Semitic to even insinuate as much since this suggests that the Jewish people and their Israeli representatives can’t recognize the ‘new Hitler’ when they see him, instead being inexplicably duped by President Putin into even going as far to praise him as their ‘very close and true friend’ while non-Jews were supposedly able to see through his alleged tricks right away.

The Washington Post first reported that U.S. representative to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva Bathsheba Nell Crocker sent a letter to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet alleging that “credible information” suggests that Russia is planning to round up many categories of Ukrainians into what amounts to concentration camps. The letter supposedly claims that Russia would “likely target those who oppose Russian actions, including Russian and Belarusian dissidents in exile in Ukraine, journalists and anti-corruption activists, and vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons.” The US also predicts that “Russian forces will likely use lethal measures to disperse peaceful protests or otherwise counter peaceful exercises of perceived resistance from civilian populations.”

The US’ Report About Planned Russian Concentration Camps In Ukraine Is Fake News

Source: OneWorld

In other words, US intelligence agencies are all but saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a modern-day Adolf Hitler whose country is about to follow in the genocidal footsteps of Nazi Germany. The reference to his speculative plot to detain and potentially even kill countless members of “vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons” strongly alludes to a modern-day Holocaust in the making considering Ukraine’s historical Jewish population. All of this implies that the Russian leader is a Slavic supremacist who must be stopped no matter the cost. The problem with this portrayal is that it’s completely false, thus discrediting the basis upon which the US just reportedly made its dramatic predictions. Their targeted audience isn’t aware of this though which is why many people might ultimately be misled by this information warfare campaign.

The first thing to remember is that President Putin isn’t who he’s misportrayed as being. Far from being a Slavic supremacist, he’s consistently supported his country’s growing Muslim minority as documented by the author in a detailed Twitter thread from earlier this month citing numerous examples from the official Kremlin website across the Russian leader’s 22 years in office. While he feels very strongly about “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians” like he elaborated upon in an extensive article last summer, he nevertheless insists that Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has no desire whatsoever to incorporate Donbass into the Russian Federation. The second-mention policy was recently reaffirmed by Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov in his latest interview with CBS News where he reminded everyone that “I would like to confirm that Donbas and Lugansk is a part of Ukraine.”

This brings the analysis around to debunking the cause of the current crisis, which isn’t a Russian-Ukrainian territorial one like the US-led Western Mainstream Media has misportrayed it as but is actually a RussianUS missile crisis. In short, NATO’s eastward expansion; the US’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and Open Skies Treaty; and deployment of strike weapons closer to Russia’s borders risks neutralizing Moscow’s nuclear second-strike capabilities, thus placing the Eurasian Great Power in a position of nuclear blackmail vis-à-vis the US. Russian intelligence also warned that the US might be planning to deploy more strike weapons – including hypersonic ones and perhaps to Ukraine too – to the region under the pretext of defending Ukraine if Kiev or mercenaries initiate a third round of civil war hostilities in Donbass.

This explains why Russia so urgently shared its security guarantee requests in late December, which include legally binding commitments not to further expand NATO; not to deploy strike weapons near Russia’s borders; and to return to the continental military status quo enshrined in the now-defunct 1997 Russian-NATO Founding Act. With these national security red lines in mind, one can then better understand why a so-called “Russian invasion of Ukraine” wouldn’t ensure Moscow’s relevant interests. If the Eurasian Great Power is provoked into militarily responding to regional provocations out of self-defense, including to protect its citizens in Eastern Ukraine, then it could simply employ air, artillery, and/or missile assets to neutralize imminent and/or hot threats from that neighboring nation without having to resort to a very costly full-fledged so-called “invasion”.

The world’s geographically largest country that’s already rich in natural resources has no interest in obtaining any more territory, let alone occupying potentially tens of millions of people from Europe’s poorest country, many of whom have been misled through the influence of “negative nationalism” into largely hating it. The economic and security consequences of fulfilling the US-led West’s dark political fantasy are simply much too high to make such a military adventure worthwhile, which is why it isn’t being seriously considered. This speculative “vanity project” would actually end up being President Putin’s ultimate folly, which he and his strategists know very well. These reasonable observations discredit the claim that Russia’s planning to “invade and occupy Ukraine”, which in turn removes the basis upon which the US reportedly predicted that it’ll practically carry out a second Holocaust.

About that, Russia and Israel are actually de facto allies as confirmed by the plethora of factual information cited by the author in the text of one of his latest analyses that can be read here. The self-proclaimed Jewish State’s Foreign Minister also basically proclaimed neutrality in the New Cold War by refusing to take anyone’s side: not Russia’s, Ukraine’s, nor the US’. Additionally, Axios exclusively reported earlier this month that Israel requested Russia’s assistance with evacuating its citizens in the event that Moscow clashes with Kiev. Ukraine is so upset by all of this that its Deputy Foreign Minister just publicly lamented Israel’s “lack of political support”. If there are people who would certainly recognize the “new Hitler”, it’s Israelis, Jews, Holocaust survivors, and their descendants, yet Tel Aviv hasn’t jumped on the US-led West’s Putin-bashing bandwagon by comparing him to that Nazi monster.

That very powerfully discredits the US’ latest accusations much more than anything else possibly can. Bearing in mind the “politically correct” dogma that pervades Western society nowadays, one might even wonder whether those who claim to know who the “new Hitler” is better than Israelis, Jews, Holocaust survivors, and their descendants are “anti-Semitic” in a way even if they’re not conscious of it since it’s condescending to imply that President Putin fits this bill when even those who were most cruelly victimized by that Nazi monster don’t agree. To the contrary, their political representatives continue cultivating ever-closer strategic relations with his country, which President Putin enthusiastically reciprocates as the proud philo-Semite that he is by standing in solidarity with Israel’s global campaign against anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and other forms of historical revisionism.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that Russia felt that it had to stage a so-called “minor incursion” into Ukraine throughout the course of neutralizing imminent and/or hot threats from there that endanger the country’s national security red lines, it’s ridiculous to imagine that it’ll round up countless people into concentration camps where they might then be murdered. While it’s true that militaries across the world always prepare for contingency operations, including scenarios in which they might be compelled to deal with unconventional threats to their mission posed by various individuals and movements, the very idea that President Putin – who was praised by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett as “a very close and true friend of the State of Israel” for all that he’s done throughout his career in support of the Jewish people – would authorize concentration camps is absurd.

There is absolutely no way that the longest-serving and most philo-Semitic leader in modern history would ever countenance treading in Hitler’s genocidal footsteps by carrying out a second Holocaust. It’s arguably anti-Semitic to even insinuate as much since this suggests that the Jewish people and their Israeli representatives can’t recognize the “new Hitler” when they see him, instead being inexplicably duped by President Putin into even going as far to praise him as their “very close and true friend” while non-Jews were supposedly able to see through his alleged tricks right away. That disgustingly implies that the Jewish people have a lower level of intelligence than others, so much so that they don’t even realize that they’re purportedly being led by Russia like sheep to the slaughter in Ukraine, which is itself a form of anti-Semitism. All of this proves that the US’ latest report about Russia’s plans is fake news.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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 is from OneWorld

Baiting the Bear Is Becoming a Dangerous Game

February 21st, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

What the so-called Russian experts and politicians all forget is that the US does not have troops scattered about in Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and other Eastern European late comers to NATO because Washington cares about these countries and feels morally obliged to protect them from Russia, which does not want them. In truth, Washington doesn’t care a hoot about Ukraine, Poland, Romania and neither do Americans. 

The reasons for Washington’s presence in Eastern Europe are entirely different.  One reason is that Washington wants the countries as locations for missile bases such as Washington has placed in Poland and Romania.  These bases are on Russia’s borders leaving no response time to nuclear missiles launched from them.  The bases give Washington the advantage in a confrontation to back down Russia.

Another reason is that the NATO countries provide customers for the US armaments industry. Washington keeps pressure on NATO members to “do their part” and spend more on their own defense. So much of the analysis and commentary about the current situation in Ukraine presents Washington and NATO as rescuers on white horses riding to the defense of states threatened by Russia. If Russia really were a threat, Washington and NATO would not be so aggressive.

The Soviet Union had Eastern Europe as a buffer.  Most Russian experts at the time concluded that the Warsaw Pact was a net drain on Soviet resources.  Responsibility for these countries today is the last thing Russia wants.

All Russia wants is for the US to get military bases off her doorstep.  This is a reasonable demand, and compliance with it would relieve the tensions that otherwise could break out in war.  Washington’s aggressive policy seems designed for one reason only: to cause a war.

Few people understand that the US sanctions against Russia are based entirely on lies and are in effect acts of war.  That Russia has tolerated them is interpreted by Washington as Russian weakness.  The reason Russia gets so much abuse is that she doesn’t do anything about it.

The narrative is that Russia invaded Ukraine by accepting the vote in Crimea to be reunited with Russia. Until 1991, Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783.  The vast majority of the people who live there are Russian.  Between 1991 and 2014 when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in a coup, Crimea was occupied by Russia as Russia’s Black Sea naval base is there.  The Russian forces were already there, because Russia had a long term lease on the area.

It was the US that invaded Ukraine while the Kremlin was preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics.  The US plan was for the puppet government it installed to revoke the lease and kick the Russians out of their naval base.  It was an audacious plan that had no chance of success.  To prevent Americans from understanding the situation, the narrative was started that Russia invaded Crimea.

There are Americans who pose as Russian experts who maintain that Putin has territorial ambitions to restore the Soviet empire.  These people are not experts. They are liars.  If Putin has territorial ambitions, why did he not reincorporate Georgia into Russia?  Why has he refused for 8 years to honor the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia?  The Donbass area, like Crimea, is historically part of Russia. Both were transferred to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by the Soviet government, but Russians, not Ukrainians live there.

In US universities and think tanks, researchers’ analyses come to conclusions consistent with the views of those who fund their research. This is why there are no more Stephen Cohens who give an independent objective analysis of the real situation.  Indeed, in the US today an objective analysis is considered to be pro-Russian and the author is said to be a Russian agent.

As a result, we get a one-sided story.  The problem with one-sided stories is that the implication is the other side is entirely to blame and hasn’t a leg to stand on.  This is the position that Russia finds herself in, and it is the reason that the West doesn’t listen to a word she says.  It is very dangerous to ignore Russia when she says she finds the situation intolerable.  Russia seems at times to be masochistic, but sooner or later she will bite back.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world and we are pleased to see moves to deescalation and dialogue.— Justin Trudeau

So said Canada’s prime minister Trudeau about the farmer protests in India. One assumes that “anywhere” includes Canada. Nonetheless, Trudeau has rejected dialogue with the peaceful trucker convoy, and instead of deescalation he turned to his “final option,” the Emergencies Act that seemingly permits police violence against Canadians.

It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples, one that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation.— Justin Trudeau

What does the sacred obligation of a nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples look like for Trudeau? On 7 February 2020, the Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade reported a RCMP raid with helicopters, snipers, police dogs, and tactical teams.The invasion was carried out by heavily armed RCMP despite the Wet’suwet’en having made it clear that they are unarmed and peaceful. The Wet’suwet’en had also made it clear through the unanimity of the hereditary chiefs that they do not want a pipeline going through their unceded territory.

Carleton University criminology professor Jeffrey Monaghan questioned police legitimacy and police violence against legitimate dissent by the Wet’suwet’en. The professor considers the RCMP unreformable and called for its dismantling.Police violence is Canada’s method of settling differences. This is now being witnessed against truckers and their supporters.This is how peaceful protest is handled by Trudeau’s government:

And the tweet below says it all for police (at this point shouldn’t police be called for what their actions reveal them to be?: goons) tactics as they barge on horseback through crowds of people and end up trampling a woman with a walker.

The peaceful protest was turned violent by police on Trudeau’s order.

The below image is sure to immortalize Trudeau’s push for power.

The trampled upon woman, identified as Roberta Paulsen, is one of the growing list of victims of Trudeau’s Emergencies Act. Rebel News reporter Alexa Lavoie was hit three times with a club by a cop who then shot a tear gas canister at her leg from point-blank range.This is Trudeau’s legacy: the lengths one man, backed by his party, will go to force people to surrender autonomy over their bodies, and in the case of Indigenous peoples, their land.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The clip as cued begins with a representative of the International Crisis Group speaking of stern if not draconian measures taken by countries with an “authoritarian drift,” then shifts to Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly who proceeds without the faintest indication she’d heard the words immediately preceding her own.

She not only used language that will be repeated in her nation’s parliament to justify and perhaps extend the enforcement of the Emergencies Act but that could, with a resumption and intensification of national protests, even be used to request a NATO Article 5 intervention (as of course she didn’t fail to repeat the government claim that arms had been found on one occasion), which begins with these words:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….

Video: Munich Security Conference 2022

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website.

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

Featured image: Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly meeting with Canadian combat troops in Latvia last November. Photo: CBC.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America’s Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs.

Cole elaborated on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used as the main component in the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We’re giving a gene sequence into the bodies of human beings, and that sequence goes into our deltoid where we’re informed that it has a little anchoring protein. Once that is translated and makes a little protein, it’s on the surface of your cell [and] it stays there,” he said. “Well, guess what – it doesn’t. This spike protein doesn’t just stay in the deltoid. [It] circulates in your blood [and] lands in multiple organs in the body.”

He cited studies performed on lab animals that involved the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone being injected into their bodies. The animals injected developed the same diseases present in the respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems of those with COVID-19.

The pathologist shared three examples of organs being damaged by the spike protein. Lung cells affected by the spike protein turned purple and blue due to the excess inflammation – which was caused by the spike protein binding to the ACE-2 receptors in the lungs. “[That’s the] inflammatory response, [your] immune system attacking your own body,” Cole said. (Related: Dr. Ryan Cole explains how the COVID vaccines compromise the immune system.)

He added that aside from the lungs, the spike protein also crosses the blood-brain barrier to disrupt and inflame blood vessels in the brain.

“The brain fog you hear about from COVID-19 patients? Guess what, you [also] hear about it in the post-vaccinated, damaged individuals as well.”

Furthermore, Cole pointed out how the spike protein negatively impacts the heart – which has led to an increase in cardiac inflammation in younger Americans injected with the shot.

“The pericardium [is] the sac that surrounds your heart. That’s inflammation that doesn’t belong there. Once you have heart damage, the heart does not heal itself. Once a heart cell is damaged, it’s damaged forever. It doesn’t replace itself with another heart cell, it replaces itself with a scar.”

“You want to give [children] a [COVID-19 vaccine] shot and we see about 200 times increase in myocarditis in our society right now? Let’s give a kid a toxin and ruin [their] heart for life? Insanity. We need to stop the insanity immediately,” he said.

Vaccines compromise the immune system

The CEO and medical director of Cole Diagnostics in Idaho later echoed his criticism of the spike protein used in the COVID-19 vaccines. He told Veronika Kyrylenko of the New American during a January interview that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the shots is responsible for compromising the immune system.

“It’s a spike protein that’s toxic to the human body, causes the same disease as the virus and is predisposing people to auto-immune attacks and potentially short-term cancer risks,” Cole said.

According to the pathologist, human cells possess toll-like receptors (TLRs) that classify whether a foreign object in the body is harmful or not. Vaccines turn off some of these TLRs, compromising the immune system’s alert mechanism as a result. Some of the receptors that get deactivated by vaccines include TLR7 and TLR8 in charge of viruses, and TLR3 and TLR4 which keep cancer in check.

“When the shots go into the body, they turn some of these TLRs off. Normally they have to be on,” said Cole.

Cole also mentioned how the vaccines inhibit tumor-suppressing genes. According to the pathologist, the spike protein binds to the P53 gene that suppresses tumors. The spike protein’s S1 subunit also binds to the TMPRSS-2 gene linked to prostate cancer in men and the BRCA genes linked to breast cancer.

“We’re giving a shot that makes a spike protein. That’s a toxin that [latches] to cancer genes in bad ways and turns off other pattern receptors. We don’t know how long the immune system is suppressed after these shots and how long these receptors are shut off.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Already threatening war with Russia, the White House this month has unveiled a new imperial grand strategy for the Indo-Pacific that raises the prospects of war with China.

The new strategy starts by repeating familiar clichés about America’s supposed humanitarian intentions in Southeast Asia and role in providing the security that “allowed regional democracies to flourish,” while ritualistically condemning Chinese aggression “spanning the entire globe.”

According to the report,

…from the economic coercion of Australia to the conflict along the Lines of Actual control with India to the growing pressure on Taiwan and bullying of neighbors in the East and South China Seas, our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) harmful behavior. In the process, the PRC is also undermining human rights and international law, including freedom of navigation, as well as other principles that have brought stability and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific.

The U.S. mission over the next decade, as outlined in the report, is to stymie the PRC’s efforts to “transform the rules and norms that have benefitted the Indo-Pacific and the world.” The way to achieve this goal is to a) support a strong India—considered an engine of regional development—as a “partner in a positivist regional vision;” b) fortify the anti-China Quad alliance between the U.S., India, Japan and Australia—which the U.S. has promised to deliver nuclear powered submarines to; c) increase support for Taiwan’s self-defense and d) push for North Korea’s denuclearization while extending coordination with South Korea and Japan to respond to North Korea’s alleged provocations.

The U.S. also plans to a) promote democracy in Burma; b) expand U.S. embassies including in the Pacific Islands; c) enforce a rules-based approach in the maritime domain and promote a free press; d) deepen relationships with allies such as South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam, and e) encourage Japan and South Korea to strengthen their ties with one another.

Pacific Deterrence Initiative

At the heart of the Biden administration’s strategy is a vow that the U.S. will “increase the scope of its military exercises and operations” in the Indo-Pacific, build greater maritime capacity, “deploy more advanced warfighting capabilities,” bolster cyber warfare, artificial intelligence and regional undersea capabilities, and work with Congress to fund the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI).

A picture containing outdoor, water, transport, aircraft Description automatically generated

An MQ-9 Sea Guardian drone flies over the U.S. Navy’s littoral combat ship Coronado during a drill in the Pacific Ocean. [Source: defensenews.com]

Signed by President Biden in December, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provisioned a whopping $7.1 billion for the PDI, whose aim is to ensure that U.S. military forces “have everything they need to compete, fight, and win in the Indo-Pacific,” according to Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and James Inhofe (R-OK)[1], top ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who first promoted the PDI in Congress.

Everything they need includes a new Aegis missile facility on Guam that would assist in naval operations. The PDI also calls for stationing offensive missiles, previously banned by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, along a string of densely populated islands that includes Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines.

Source: pncguam.com

In addition, the PDI aims to: a) develop and launch space-based radars linked to the Aegis missile system in Guam and another system on the island of Palau, b) develop “discreet intelligence surveillance” capacities, and c) improve training ranges and joint exercises with Allies in the Pacific.

Map Description automatically generated

Missile defense assets the U.S. currently has deployed in the Western Pacific. [Source: thedrive.com]

The drive.com reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been employing contractor-owned and operated aircraft in recent years to conduct overwater surveillance missions in the Pacific, which the PDI will further enable an expansion of.

Reductio ad Absurdium

The absurdity of the White House’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is evident in the fact that the U.S. already outspends China on the military by at least three times.

China is considered an aggressor—on a global scale—when it has only one international military base—which it acquired in 2017 in Djibouti in response to a major U.S. military facility there—and has not invaded another country since 1979 when it invaded Vietnam.

Source: chappatte.com

The U.S. has at least 750 overseas military bases, including 23 in Japan alone—and has invaded at least a dozen countries since 1979, killing countless civilians in that time.

In Southeast Asia, the U.S. waged aggressive wars in Korea and Vietnam that killed millions of civilians during the Cold War, and fought covert dirty wars in Laos, Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia that killed many more.

The condemnation of China’s “bullying behavior” in the South China Seas ignores the fact that China’s efforts to reclaim the Spratley and Paracel and Diaoyu Islands (Senkakus to Japanese)—which the U.S. claimed the right to defend under the U.S.-Japan treaty of Mutual Cooperation—are legitimate.

The islands were effectively stolen from China as booty of Japan’s victory in the 1895 Sino-Japanese War.[2] Japan has further spurned two Chinese offers—in 1990 and 2006—to jointly develop the resources of the islands which potentially include oil and gas.[3]

Map Description automatically generated

Source: apjjf.org

China in the report is blamed for economic coercion directed against Australia for levying tariffs—which the U.S. has done to China. China’s grievances against Australia were very real—interference in China’s internal affairs in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan and its spearheading a crusade against China in international forum.

China is also blamed for border skirmishes with India, though China does not recognize the boundary between the two countries that was drawn up by a British colonial official Henry McMahon after signing a treaty with Tibet in 1915 that China had rejected.

India is presented in the report as a great partner for the U.S. and progressive nation compared to China, when the New York Times has reported on the incitement of Hindu violence by Prime Minister Narendra Modi towards Muslims and erosion of human rights under his rule.

The silence on India’s human rights abuses—extending to its mistreatment of Muslims in occupied Kashmir—and playing up of China’s abuses towards Muslims in Xinjiang points to a clear double standard that undermines any moral imperative behind U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

The Tragedy of U.S. China policy

The greatest tragedy of U.S. policy is that China has never been antagonistic to the U.S.

Premier Xi Jinping in 2015 proposed a win-wing strategy in which both the U.S. and China accommodate one another’s interests and pursue common development along with their own interests as nation-states.

US Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping

Then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping display shirts with a message given to them by students at the International Studies Learning School in Southgate, outside of Los Angeles, on 17 February, 2012. [Source: iseas.edu.sg]

Charles Freeman Jr, a thirty-year veteran of the diplomatic corps who served as an interpreter for Richard Nixon’s historical visit to China in 1972, told me several years ago that the U.S. policy of a military buildup, or Asia Pivot policy, first enacted by Barack Obama, was misdirected because it “provided a military response to an economic problem.”

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was focused more on internal security, the defense of the Chinese homeland against neighbors with a history of invading, and on countering the powerful U.S. naval and air forces constantly mapping and probing its coastal defenses.

“A better response to China’s economic rise,” Freeman said, “would have been to try and leverage China’s prosperity to our own,” and “build better supply chains,” which he said, “corporate America was already attempting to do.”

The Obama administration could have also “worked to settle competing claims to islands on the South China seas and negotiated on a united basis with China.” Instead, it undertook “provocative measures,” including “mock attack runs on Chinese installations,” which were “not much appreciated by the Chinese,” and led to Chinese counter-measures that included sending ships off the coast of Hawaii and Guam.”[4]

Little has changed in the Biden era, except that the scale of U.S. provocations has now increased, along with the dangers of World War III breaking out.

The domestic political climate has become even more Sinophobic—with the media having used the Beijing Olympics as another opportunity to rail against China and its supposed evil.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Not surprisingly, both Inhofe and Reed have been lavishly funded by aerospace and defense industries, along with oil and gas in Inhofe’s case. Reed has been a strong champion of drones, having received generous financial backing from leading drone-maker, General Atomics
  2. Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019), 200; Han Yi-Shaw, “The Inconvenient Truth Behind the the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,” The New York Times,September 19, 2012, https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
  3. Ivy Lee and Fang Ming, “Deconstructing Japan’s Claims of Sovereignty Over the Diaoyu Islands,” The Asia Pacific Journal, December 30, 2012, https://apjjf.org/2012/10/53/Ivy-Lee/3877/article.html 
  4. Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars, 201, 202. 

Featured image: President Biden at a virtual summit with China’s President Xi Jinping. [Source: axios.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As U.S. Threatens War with Russia, Biden Administration Unveils Imperial Strategy for Indo-Pacific That Could Lead to War with China
  • Tags: , ,

America’s War?

February 21st, 2022 by Eric Margolis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

World War III? Or a bad, expensive joke?

Russia has declared a nuclear test alert. The Ukraine crisis is beginning to become very scary.

When the old Soviet Union broke up, I and other moderates called for the former Moscow-dominated states of East Europe to become neutral. Otherwise, East-West conflict would, I warned, be inevitable (see my book ‘War at the Top of the World’).

Instead, the rabidly anti-Russian US war party drove NATO east to the former Soviet borders, making a major confrontation near certain.

We are there today, playing Russian roulette with nuclear weapons.

Washington is beating the war drums and sounds borderline hysterical, warning ‘the Russians are coming.’ Moscow scoffs at the whole business, saying President Joe Biden is trying to divert attention from the big economic and political mess in the US.

Nothing like a jolly little war to distract public opinion at a time when rightwing forces are fast gaining ground in the US and now, of all places, in placid Canada.

The trucker’s blockade that shut down the Canada-US border cost Ottawa billions in lost trade, seriously damaged the image of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and showed that less than 100 ZZ Top look-alike truckers could hold Canada to ransom.

It was also a vivid rehearsal for what the hard right may have in store for November elections. The mob assault on the Capitol on 6 January was only a trial run.

Meanwhile, back in darkest Ukraine, pro- and anti-government factions are trading occasional shells while the US government in Washington claims war is imminent.

The facts on the ground do not support such alarmism. Russia may have up to 150,000 troops positioned around Ukraine (similar to the same strategic advantage that Germany enjoyed over Poland in 1939) but all these units are so far positioned inside Russia. Most of the NATO troops rushed to the east are from outside their home territory.

Crimea and Ukraine were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and then Crimean Tatars, until annexed by Russia’s Catherine the Great in 1783. They remained an integral part of the Russian Empire until the 1920’s, and, after a brief bout of independence after WWI, until the Communist era.

But one must remember that in the 1930’s, Josef Stalin and his ‘Jewish Himmler,’ Lazar Kaganovitch, murdered some six million Ukrainians by starvation or shootings in an effort to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism and independent farming. This was likely the worst atrocity in Europe until 1944 – done by the key US/British wartime ally. Small wonder the invading Germans in WWII were initially greeted as liberators.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, an ally of billionaire George Soros, now claims that Moscow will stage a false flag operation to justify invading Ukraine. It’s true, Russia just about invented such ploys in the 1919-1920 period when Moscow’s secret police rounded up and crushed the anti-communist opposition. KGB has always loved such deft operations.

But who is Blinken to make such allegations? British media revealed that George W. Bush and UK PM Tony Blair discussed painting US aircraft in UN colors, then buzzing Iraqi anti-aircraft units to provoke a false flag attack on the UN, justifying a US-British attack against Iraq. In fact, the entire Iraq invasion was based on a farrago of lies, double-dealing and torture.

Right on cue, former US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (born Nudelman), remerges to press for war against Russia. She spent US$5 billion engineering the overthrow of Ukraine’s former elected government which leaned towards Moscow.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: NATO soldiers during a parade to mark Independence Day in Kiev © Sputnik / Mykhailo Markiv


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Truths and Lies About Pledges Made to Russia

February 21st, 2022 by Guy Mettan

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The information war surrounding tensions between NATO and Russia over Ukraine often leads to distortions of historical reality.

In particular, it is necessary to correct numerous articles that claimed that the pledge made by the United States to Gorbachev in 1991, according to which NATO “would not move an inch in the East” in exchange for German reunification and the withdrawal of Red Army troops from Eastern Europe, was a “myth” forged by the Kremlin in order to neutralise or even invade Ukraine.

This thesis is based on an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2014, at the time of the Ukrainian crisis, and reaffirmed in a book published last November. Its author, Mary E. Sarote, is a member of the most influential think tank in US imperial politics, the Council on Foreign Relations, whose opinions are more propaganda than impartial study.

For this so-called “myth” could not be truer. It is essential to be aware of it if we want to both understand what is happening and find a negotiated solution to the conflict.

On February 9, 1990, James Baker, then U.S. Secretary of State, said exactly this:

“we consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should provide a guarantee that German reunification will not lead to an expansion of the NATO military organisation to the east.”

The next day, Chancellor Helmut Kohl echoed,

“We consider that NATO should not expand its sphere of activity.”

In December 2017, the National Security Archive at George Washington University published memos, minutes and telegrams from that time, from which it emerges that Western assurances appear in numerous documents recorded or written during chancellery exchanges in 1990 and 1991. All the details can be found on the university’s dedicated website, under the heading “NATO Expansion: what Gorbachev Heard. Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner. Slavic Studies Panel Addresses ‘Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?’”

Former American ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, also confirmed these facts in his various publications. Guarantees have therefore been given, even if they are not contained in a treaty signed in due form.

But you have to be willing to take note and recognise that a word is a word.

It was only later, with the rise of the neoconservatives, that President Bill Clinton decided to ignore them and succeeded, in 1997, in expanding NATO eastwards by admitting new members in exchange for a $4 billion “bribe” to his friend Boris Yeltsin, as Yeltsin later called this gift.

At that time, the most resolute anti-Russian in the American administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the famous book “The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives”, in which he explains why the United States should definitely grab Ukraine, foresaw what would happen today:

“If Russia is dismissed or rejected, it will be filled with resentment and its vision of itself will become more anti-European and anti-Western.” And he urged Clinton to hurry: “The longer we wait, the louder Moscow’s objections will be,” he predicted in the mid-1990s, while warning against an overly abrupt expansion.

This danger was not overlooked by the father of the Soviet Union’s containment, George Kennan. In a 1997 New York Times article, he prophesized the current situation by writing that, following the breach of the given word to Gorbachev, the admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO would be “the biggest mistake of post-Cold War American politics and would only serve to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in the Russian public.”

Since then, NATO has only made things worse, admitting seven new states in 2004 and promising membership to Ukraine and Georgia in April 2008, before encouraging the latter to attack South Ossetia in August of the same year. This was barely ten months after Putin’s speech at the Munich conference, in which he had expressed the wish that NATO should stop expanding. In 25 years, NATO has doubled the number of its members, all in the East.

At the same time, it accumulated aggressions by brazenly lying and twisting international law: the Gulf War in 1991 (with the fabricated affair of the babies thrown out of Kuwaiti incubators); the dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1992, the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999 and secession of Kosovo (justified by the pseudo-massacre of Raçak and the so-called Operation Horseshoe imputed to Serbia); the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001; the Iraq war in 2003 (started thanks to Colin Powell’s lies to the UN); the destruction of Libya and the assassination of Gaddafi (falsely accused of slaughtering his own population) in 2011; the attempted destruction of Syria and the overthrow of its president between 2011 and 2019; the war in Yemen since 2015, carried out under Saudi flag and considered by the UN to be the most important humanitarian catastrophe of our time.

It is therefore very difficult to regard the American-led NATO as an innocent and harmless bridge club.

It should therefore come as no surprise that, after the US-organised coup in February 2014 to overthrow democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whose mistake was to wish for Ukraine to seek a balance between Russia and Europe, Russia regained control of Crimea while the Donbass provinces rebelled against this forfeiture.

The United States and NATO are of course free to renege on their word and continue their aggressive course at the risk of starting a war. But at least the public has the right to know why and how it has come to this without being misled about who is really responsible for what would be a real mess for Europe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

At around 5 a.m. on February 20, units of the Ukrainian Army 79th airborne assault brigade crossed the Seversky Donets River and attacked the positions of the LPR People’s Militia near the village of Pionerskoe. With massive artillery support, Ukrainian soldiers attempted to assault one of the observation posts.

Fierce clashes broke out. The Ukrainian Army suffered losses and was forced to retreat.

As a result of the aggression of the Ukrainian Army, five residential buildings were destroyed and civilian casualties were reported.

According to the official information two residents of the village were killed (In the video, journalists point to the remnants of a torn and burned resident of the house, – “Here are the ribs, here are the intestines…”).

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

Fighting on the outskirts of Donetsk intensified during the day of February 20.

The Ukrainian Army shelled the Trudovskih area, in the outskirts of Donetsk. A large fire was reported in Alexandrovka. Donetsk airport and the city are also under fire.

As a result of the shelling, the pumping station was damaged. Several villages were left with no water supply.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

The Ukrainian Army has intensively shelled the strongholds of the 7th separate motor rifle brigade on the Svetlodarsk front line at the junction of the defense areas of the 1st and 2nd corps of the LDPR People’s Militias.

At the moment, the military escalation in the Donbass region calmed down late in the evening of February 20 and the night of February 21. The decline in the UAF activity began from about 8-9 p.m. on February 20.

On the night of February 20, a terrorist sabotage group of the Ukrainian Army was revealed in Donetsk. They planned to blow up electrical substations, gas pipelines and filtration stations on the territory of the DPR.

During their detention, the saboteurs opened fire. As a result of the fire exchange, two soldiers of the Ukrainian Army Special Forces were severely wounded.

According to local reports, the Ukrainian Army attempted to make passages in the mine-explosive barriers of the LDNR on the Svetlodarsk front lines.

Some experts note that the Ukrainian Army is operating according to the military manuals of the U.S. and U.K. armies. According to such documents published in the 80s, in a conflict similar to the current situation in Eastern Ukraine, civilian facilities, including kindergartens and schools, should be destroyed at the first time. This, according to the Anglo-Saxon military scholars, should create an irresistible moral impact on enemy soldiers who will be destructed from the defense of their positions, ad will be busy thinking on how to save and evacuate their loved ones. Such a strategy is specific to the armies of Great Britain, the United States, Israel, and now Ukraine. The armed forces of other states with warring military contingents, for example, Turkey, France, Russia, Iran, Portugal, Italy do not have such manuals.

Amid the ongoing military escalation on the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine, all the major power in Europe and overseas are preparing to the war.

The Guardian reported that the Western allies are conducting secret negotiations on the volume of weapons supplies to the Ukrainian guerilla warriors, who will begin to fight against Russian troops after the “invasion, occupation and change of government in Kiev.”

On February 19, more units of the US Armed Forces and military equipment were delivered at Rzeszow-Yasenki Airport. Among other equipment, the transfer included M1097 Avenger, based on HMMWV, two containers with 8 FIM-92 Stinger missiles.

Russia does not stay still.

On February 20, in the afternoon in the Crimea, dozens of T-72B3M tanks equipped with additional protection against ATGM moved from the places of permanent deployment in Bakhchisarai towards Perekop, to the border with Ukraine.

The Russian Defense Ministry closed most of the airspace over the Sea of Azov from February 21 to the end of February 26.

The most advanced weapon systems of the Russian army, including the innovative “Terminator” tank support fighting vehicles, are flocking to the Ukrainian border.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

On February 20, warships of the Russian Navy entered the Sea of Azov. They include large amphibious warships of Project 775 Novocherkassk, Caesar Kunikov and Project 1171 Saratov.

The Russian Army is deploying mobile field hospitals in Shebekino, Belgorod region.

As the tensions grow, the U.S. loses no chance for provocations against Russia, including on the diplomatic field.

The US Embassy in Moscow has issued a warning to Americans about possible terrorist attacks in Russia, in shopping malls and the subway for example.

20.02.2022 Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War

The Russian Foreign Ministry was extremely surprised by such information, which for some reason was not received by the diplomatic and special services of the Russian Federation, as required by signed international agreements. The sides have to transmit any information about the upcoming terrorist attacks on the other side’s territory. Moscow has always been committed to this obligation. For example, information about the Boston terrorists was transmitted to the United States from 2011 to 2013.

Spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova: “We have a question to the US Embassy in Moscow: did you transmit the relevant data to your Russian colleagues through partner channels? If no, what is one to make of this?”

The U.S. claims are a sign that, within their decision to attack directly on the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom and their satellites are preparing terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia.

The Ukrainian Army activity in the last 3 days, on February 17-20, that had followed the withdrawal of Russian troops on February 15-16, suggests that Kiev received an order to instigate the military conflict. However, by February 20, the Russian Federation had concentrated a significant military force, which apparently frightened not only Kiev, but also Washington and Brussels. Liz Truss’s hysterical statements that the Russian Federation plans to occupy not only the whole of Ukraine, but the Baltic States as well, they are a signal of awareness of the real power of the Russian army.

The DPR/LPR and the Russian Federation have already suffered multimillion losses from the aggression of Ukraine and NATO. According to preliminary data, the cost of evacuation measures alone, initial accommodation and provision of financial assistance to refugees from the DPR/LPR in Russia amounted to at least 200 million US dollars. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All images in this article are from SF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine War Overview. Kiev Escalating Situation Amid Donbass Bracing for Homeland War
  • Tags: ,