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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Great reformers are not normally found in theocratic monarchies. Despite assertions to the contrary, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains archaic in the way it deals with its opponents. In its penal system, executions remain standard fare. With liberal democratic countries fixated with the Ukraine conflict and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, it was prudent for Saudi authorities to capitalise.
On March 12, the Saudi Ministry of the Interior announced the execution of 81 Saudi and non-Saudi nationals, bringing the total of those put to death by Riyadh in 2022 to 92. The last grand bout of killing was in 2019, when 37 people, including 33 Shi’a men, were put to death after being convicted by customarily dubious trials.
Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, claimed that this orgy of state killing was “all the more chilling in light of Saudi Arabia’s deeply flawed justice system, which metes out death sentences following trials that are grossly and blatantly unfair, including basing verdicts on ‘confessions’ extracted under torture or other ill-treatment.”
Another sordid feature of the system described by Maalouf is the tendency of authorities to underreport the number of trials that result in death sentences being meted out. Death row, in other words, is a burgeoning feature of the Kingdom’s repertoire.
The executed victims were convicted of a whole miscellany of charges. According to Human Rights Watch, 41 of the men, as has become a standard practice, were of the Shi’a group. The crimes ranged from murder, links to foreign terrorist groups and the vaguely worded offence of “monitoring and targeting officials and expatriates”. Other offences included planting landmines, the attempted killing of police officers, the targeting of “vital economic sites” and weapons smuggling “to destabilize security, sow discord and unrest, and cause riots and chaos”.
Mohammad al-Shakhouri, sentenced to death on February 21 last year, was accused of violent acts while participating in anti-government protests. Through the course of detention and interrogation, he lacked legal representation. His family were not permitted to see him till eight months after his arrest.
The judge of the Specialised Criminal Court (SCC) overseeing his trial took only qualified interest in the evidence submitted by the accused that he had been tortured. He had also lost most of his teeth due to the handiwork of security officers. Al-Shakouri’s withdrawal of the worthless confession extracted under such pressure meant that he was given a discretionary death sentence.
In addition to al-Shakouri, Human Rights Watch also noted that in four other cases – Aqeel al-Faraj, Morada al-Musa, Yasin al-Brahim and Asad al-Shibr – due process violations were rife. All spoke of torture and ill-treatment under interrogations; all claimed that their confessions had been extracted under duress.
These state killing sprees are not out of the ordinary in Saudi Arabia. On January 2, 2016, 47 people were executed, the largest since 1980. A prominent figure in the death list was Shi’a cleric Nimr al-Nimr, a critic of the House of Saud. He died along with other members of the Shiite community and captives accused of terrorist related charges after, in the words of the Interior Ministry, much “reason, moderation and dialogue”.
The governing formula for Saudi Arabia’s rulers has been to maintain an iron hand over protest and dissent while fashioning Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a visionary reformer. In 2020, the same petulant figure behind the brutal murder of the journalist and Saudi national Jamal Khashoggi, gave signals that a generous resort to the death penalty would be stopped. Islamic scripture would guide the future use of capital punishment.
This was hardly reassuring. The legal reforms announced on February 8, 2021, which include the first written penal code for discretionary crimes – those under Islamic law not defined in writing and not carrying pre-determined penalties – are being undertaken without civil society involvement. This promises to be a very top-down affair.
The calendar events of state inflicted death may well cause outrage, but governments and companies continue to deal with the Kingdom with business-minded confidence. Unlike the treatment now handed out to Russia, there has never been a mass cancellation of its officials from public appearances for its butcheries, be they legally sanctioned at home, or in such theatres in Yemen. Anger and disapproval, if expressed, are only done so in moderation. Debates about the death penalty remain confined to such theatres as the UN General Assembly.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with typically bad timing, also showed why Riyadh has nothing to be worried about when it comes to its treatment of dissidents and convicts. The UK continues to find the Saudis appreciative of made-in-Britain weapons, which are used readily in the war against the Houthis in Yemen.
The priority now is less reforming barbaric legal measures than finding alternative energy suppliers. Johnson hopes to weanBritain and Western countries off their “addiction” to Russia’s hydrocarbons. “We need to talk to other producers around the world about how we can move away from that dependency.”
This entailed a visit to the Kingdom, which Johnson gave no indication of calling off. Mark Almond, director of the Crisis Research Institute, is very much in support of this morally bankrupt calculus. “The realpolitik of this situation is that to free ourselves from our dependence on Russian fossil fuels, we will have to turn a blind eye to other evils in other regimes.”
The trip proved fruitless. The Prime Minister failed to secure an agreement to increase oil production, a point brushed aside in Downing Street by a spokesman’s platitudes. “Both the Crown Prince of the UAE and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia agreed to work closely with us to maintain stability in the energy market and continue the transition to renewable and clean technology.”
So cocky has Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince become, he even refused to take the call of US President Joe Biden on opening negotiations on the rising oil prices. And he can point out that allied countries such as the United States still maintain capital punishment in their chest of judicial weapons against the errant and deviant. Things have never looked better for the murderous schemer.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
This was originally published on February 19, 2019. It is of utmost relevance to Ukraine Crisis
Addressing parliament on February 19, Poroshenko said he saw securing Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the EU as his “strategic mission.”
Ukraine should “submit a request for EU membership and receive a NATO membership action plan no later than 2023,” the president told the Verkhovna Rada.
However, he acknowledged that his country needs to come a “long way” to meet the criteria of joining both institutions.
European Council President Donald Tusk attended the signing of the constitutional amendment in the parliament building.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko addresses the country’s parliament on February 19. (Source: president.gov.ua)
Comments Off on Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in February 2019 Signed Constitutional Amendment Committing the country to becoming a Member of NATO and the European Union
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
A seismic shift is sending shock waves through the global economy.
The well-established capitalist disorder, dominated by U.S. imperialism and in place since World War II, is on shaky ground. Extreme economic sanctions imposed on Russia are dragging the whole world into a war that started long before the Russian intervention in Ukraine on Feb. 24.
A big calculation is which countries will be forced to accept the onerous economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. Countries representing a majority of the world’s population are not willing to tie their sovereignty to total Wall Street control. To the shock of U.S. war strategists, almost all of Latin America, the Caribbean, many countries in Africa, and most of Asia have rejected the sanctions on Russia.
The open defiance by so many countries and major trading blocs is a stunning confirmation of the weakening hold of U.S. economic power.
U.S. dominance challenged
It is well recognized that U.S. economic dominance in Europe, and globally, has been challenged by increased European Union trade with Russia and China. The growing integration of the Eurasian bloc of countries, stretching from China and South Asia through Central Asia and Russia to Europe, gives a huge economic advantage to the countries involved.
The growing integration of EU trade and investment with Russia and China threatens both the domination of U.S. corporate power in Europe and U.S. global hegemony. It is in the interest of corporate power in the U.S. to cynically provoke a conflict where it is the least affected, but doing so in a region where its capitalist rivals in the EU will carry the heaviest burden.
U.S. threatens nuclear war to get sanctions
The U.S. has instigated a crisis by encircling Russia with NATO bases, organizing constant military operations and supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine to fire on Russia’s borders.
The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. It incinerated two entire cities — Hiroshima and Nagasaki — in 1945. It is the only country that refuses to agree to a “No First Use” nuclear policy.
By placing nuclear weapons in Europe and setting up nuclear-capable weaponry on Russia’s borders, it has been openly provoking Russia to strike in self-defense. The U.S. used the nuclear threat not only on Russia but to impel the European Union to impose harsh sanctions on Russia, even though it was against EU interests to cut economic ties with Moscow.
With the EU, and especially Germany, unwilling to impose sanctions that would break all relations with Russia, the U.S. played hardball. President Joe Biden threatened the EU on Feb. 26, two days after Russia began its military operation in Ukraine, that the only alternative to going along with the U.S. sanctions “would be the Third World War.”
“You have two options. Start a Third World War, go to war with Russia, physically. Or, two, make sure that the country that acts so contrary to international law ends up paying a price for having done it. . . . I know these sanctions are the broadest sanctions in history, and economic sanctions and political sanctions.”
In an interview with blogger Brian Tyler Cohen, Biden said his “goal from the very beginning” was to keep NATO and the European Union “on the same page.” (See this)
The EU, a bloc of capitalist economies dominated by Germany, is unable and unwilling to directly challenge U.S. hegemony, especially when they are threatened with nuclear war in Europe if they don’t comply. The EU imposed all the sanctions demanded by the U.S. Their sanctions mirror those imposed by Washington. However, they are still able to purchase some gas from Russia, based on an agreement with the U.S.
Sanctions were imposed on Russia in 2014 after the majority Russian population in Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. This followed a U.S.-supported fascist coup in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev. At that time, two regions in East Ukraine — Donetsk and the Lugansk People’s Republics — broke away from the fascist gangs in Kiev.
Since the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and despite constant warnings of danger even from its own political strategists, the policy of the U.S. government has been to keep absorbing more East European countries into NATO, building NATO bases around Russia, recruiting and training soldiers and mercenaries, creating provocations on the Russian border and using Ukraine as a pawn to destabilize the entire region.
These years of constant economic and military attacks on Russia are hidden from the public in the U.S. and the EU.
What is behind U.S. war policy?
Why is EU/Russian trade and integration so threatening to U.S. imperialism?
The EU is the biggest investor in Russia. A new and larger double pipeline, called Nord Stream 2, was built to carry cheap natural gas from Russia through the Baltic Sea and into Europe. It was supposed to provide fuel for EU industries and heat for millions of homes, while avoiding a reliance on high-polluting coal and oil. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspended the project Feb. 22.
Energy comes to 62% of the EU imports from Russia. It costs much less than gas from the U.S., which is the largest exporter of fracked LNG gas. This is a challenge to opening new markets. With war and sanctions, U.S. gas and oil corporations will immediately profit from skyrocketing prices for fuel and guarantee their future control of the European market.
The clash is larger than just a gas pipeline. The U.S. economy is focused on military production. It is the largest exporter of weapons systems. But U.S. imperialism is unable to match China’s Belt and Road development plans. More than 138 countries have signed on for new ports, railroads, industrial hubs and low-interest loans.
China’s Belt and Road development loans are far more attractive than U.S. weapons systems and the harsh austerity plans that are attached to IMF and World Bank loans.
U.S. finance capital is alarmed that two-thirds of the member countries of the European Union have signed on as formal members of China’s Belt and Road Development projects. Port cities in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Hungary are being rebuilt. New energy projects are underway. Europe’s trade with China now exceeds its trade with the United States. (See this)
In the struggle to maintain its dominant position, U.S. imperialism has only one tool against these rapidly developing and sharply competing economic relations: war. Both military war and the economic war of sanctions.
Sanctions are war
Sanctions are not a deterrent to war or a substitute for war. They are in fact an escalation of the war.
Using the dominant role of the dollar in the world economy, Washington has imposed over 5,500 sanctions on Russia and is forcing other countries to reconfigure their economies to abide by these extreme economic penalties. The sanctions on Russia are the world’s most extreme economic war measures. (See this)
Sanctions create hyperinflation, artificial famines, social upheavals and health crises that punish civilian populations. As deadly as bombs, sanctions are an act of war. They are correctly labeled a Crime Against Humanity.
Will sanctions succeed in restoring the position of U.S. imperialism? That is clearly the calculation.
International Monetary Fund senior deputy managing director Gita Gopinath gave an authoritative view of this expectation that financial sanctions will drive Russia into “deep recession,” and “shift global economic order. . . . It has implications for the global economic order as we know it.” (See this) Other news articles predict that the Russian economy is “going down the ice chute,” will “tumble,” “go into free fall,” etc.
Several economists warn that it will impact the global economy. To the bankers and financiers, the pain of millions, even within the U.S., is of no concern, as long as they can pick up the pieces afterwards.
Speculators predict “defense” industries and energy companies will prosper. All financial predictions in the U.S. and Europe are that this will hit the European economy much harder.
Third of world sanctioned
Today more than 40 countries, encompassing one-third of the world’s population, already suffer under economic measures imposed by Washington. The U.S. has sanctioned Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan and others. Countries that trade with targets of U.S. sanctions face heavy fines. This deadly form of economic warfare impacts all the surrounding countries and destroys regional development.
Many of these countries, however, are finding ways to survive through complex barter and exchange programs that are developing as the number of sanctioned countries grows.
Almost all of the countries hit by these harsh U.S. destabilizing measures and asset confiscations sanctions have signed up with China’s Belt and Road Initiative development programs. Many of the sanctioned countries, including Venezuela, Cuba and Syria receive reliable shipments of needed fuel and grain from Russia. These new forms of exchange, developed through necessity, are beginning to weaken the intended economic strangulation. Russia still has a strong market for its exports beyond the reach of U.S. sanctions.
Russia is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This is an economic and security alliance that is the world’s largest regional organization, covering approximately 60% of the area of Eurasia, 40% of the world’s population and more than 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP). Of the 14 members of this trading bloc, six are already under U.S. sanctions but continue normal economic relations.
Countries refuse to comply
To the shock of Washington’s war strategists, many countries not currently under U.S. sanctions are refusing to comply with the U.S. and EU sanctions imposed on Russia. To date India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, and other countries with smaller economies have refused to comply with U.S. measures that damage their own trade relations.
These are nations with growing economies and large populations. Several countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union and are now part of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) — Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan — are not likely to comply.
Several countries, not willing to openly confront U.S. economic wrath, have vaguely stated they would only comply with sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, where a Russian or Chinese veto would make such a vote unlikely.
U.S. economic and political pressure on all these countries to comply will intensify in the coming period.
Threatening China
China’s top banking regulator, Guo Shuqing, says: “We will not participate in such sanctions, and we continue to maintain normal economic and trade and financial exchanges with relevant parties.” (New York Times, March 11) After Mastercard and Visa stopped their operations, Russian banks turned to China’s UnionPay, which offers payment options in 180 countries.
China has not yet given economic or military assistance to Russia. It has simply refused to cut off its normal economic relations. This is infuriating the Biden administration.
The U.S. publicly threatened China for helping Russia evade sanctions. China was reminded that two of its biggest trading partners are the U.S. and European Union. China needs access to those markets.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan threatened China directly, stating:
“We are communicating directly and privately to Beijing that there absolutely will be consequences” if China helps Russia “backfill” its losses from the sanctions. “We will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to Russia from these economic sanctions from any country anywhere in the world.”
Sullivan said China and all countries are on notice that they cannot “basically bail Russia out . . . give Russia a work-around to the sanctions,” with impunity. (See this)
If such brazen and insulting threats are being openly made to China, then harsher threats are being raised to other countries.
New forms of trade and exchange do challenge the hegemony power of the U.S. dollar. But extreme measures imposed on Russia will create intense economic pain of spiraling inflation and unemployment on a global scale.
The U.S. ruling class, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. corporate media are at this time unanimously in support of an economic war and even a military confrontation, regardless of how destructive they would be to human life, as long as they would break open new markets and destroy their rivals.
The Democrats quickly dropped Build Back Better promises and a COVID-19 health package in order to saturate Ukraine with weapons. Working people in both the U.S. and Europe will pay the price.
The growing danger is that a U.S. imperialist war on this scale, combined with the demand that the whole world participate, could dangerously escalate.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Workers World.
Sara Flounders is Co-Director of the International Action Center. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: People line up to withdraw U.S. dollars and euros from an ATM in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Feb. 25. (Source: Workers World)
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Germans learned more from defeat in the First World War than the Allies had learned from victory. During the interwar years (1918–1939), German militarists paid much greater attention to the potential of the tank (panzer) and tactics of infiltration than did either the British or French.
In Berlin, it was decided by 1938 that at the head of the invading spearheads would not be placed infantry, moving at 3 miles per hour, but rather panzers advancing at 30 miles per hour.
The German colonel Heinz Guderian’s views, expounded in his 1937 book ‘Achtung Panzer’, held significant weight in shaping Wehrmacht thinking; through which Guderian outlined in detail the vast possibilities of mechanised armour in warfare. “Strike hard and quickly and don’t disperse your forces”, Guderian wrote in summarising Blitzkrieg methods. Not every senior German officer agreed without reservation in such opinions. What proved critical in the Wehrmacht adopting the Blitzkrieg was, it must be said, the Nazi Party and its far-right autocrat Adolf Hitler.
Military analyst Donald J. Goodspeed wrote,
“Had it not been for Hitler and for the whole climate of opinion brought in by the Nazi Party, the Wehrmacht might have proved little more enlightened about the possibilities of armored warfare than the British and French. The Nazis, however, as befitting men who considered themselves revolutionaries, were all for what was new, bold and modern, and the idea of great tank forces caught their imagination. Armored and mechanised warfare had an immense attraction for them. The Blitzkrieg fitted Nazi policies as a glove fits a hand”.
The Nazi cause had been aided by the opposition’s inferior quality – an outmoded, under-equipped Polish military, and a French Army plagued by obsolescent First World War doctrines and an attitude centred on defence. They had forgotten one of Napoleon’s favourite mottos, “The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten”.
The French armed forces had not recovered from the mutinies, which had spread through its ranks during the spring and summer of 1917. By 9 June 1917, mutinies had broken out in an eye-watering 54 French divisions. Even in those units where no mutinies occurred, more than half of French soldiers returning from leave reported back drunk. Rather than the problems being brought out into the open, discussed and possibly cured, the mutinies were covered up. Poor morale remained widespread in the French Army, by the time the Germans invaded on 10 May 1940. The French had decided, by 1917, that the cost of war was not worth the price paid in blood.
The Blitzkrieg promised results which the Germans most needed: Short and conclusive victories, which would not put an undue strain on their limited manpower and mineral resources. The Nazis added their own touches to the Blitzkrieg envisaged by Guderian. Under fascist influence the Blitzkrieg was designed to disorganise and overwhelm the enemy, cities would be bombed, refugees would be targeted by aircraft along roads, fifth columns would divide and undermine the opposition, propaganda was used while terror followed in the wake of occupation.
Regardless, the Blitzkrieg still had more of a psychological effect rather than a physical one. German air raids inflicted minor damage by comparison to Anglo-American aerial bombing, which was increasingly executed with huge four-engined aircraft. The German blitz of Britain, lasting for 8 months until May 1941, resulted in between 40,000 to 43,000 deaths. In little more than a week during the late summer of 1943, the British and American bombing of Hamburg (Operation Gomorrah) killed almost the same number of people, between 34,000 to 43,000 deaths. Among other buildings destroyed in Hamburg, 24 hospitals and 277 schools were levelled by the Anglo-Americans in Operation Gomorrah.
The Blitzkrieg led to great victories against the unwary and demoralised. This was at least part of the reason why Operation Barbarossa had been so successful, in its opening days and weeks. Russian specialist Evan Mawdsley realised,
“in the short-term, in 1941, the collective mentality of the rank and file of the Red Army was a source of weakness. Many Soviet soldiers fought badly or surrendered without a fight in 1941, demoralized troops in a demoralized society… The Wehrmacht did not fight with these handicaps. German soldiers and airmen were better organized, better trained, and more experienced. This goes a long way towards explaining why Hitler’s forces were able to achieve so much without decisive numerical superiority”.
It is conventionally believed, for an invasion to succeed decisively, the attackers should outnumber the defenders by 3 to 1. Almost from the beginning of the Nazi-Soviet War, the Germans were outnumbered in manpower, tanks, planes and artillery.
The German-led armies invaded the USSR on 22 June 1941 with 3,767,000 men, while in the USSR at that time the Soviet military consisted of 5,373,000 personnel. As the attack started, 11,000 Soviet tanks were immediately in opposition to 4,000 German-Axis tanks; there were 9,100 Soviet combat aircraft in the western USSR against 4,400 German-Axis combat aircraft, and 19,800 Soviet artillery pieces as opposed to 7,200 German-Axis artillery pieces.
In the whole of the USSR, the Red Army had an astounding 23,100 tanks in June 1941, along with 20,000 aircraft. Mawdsley has provided the figures. By the end of September 1941, the German-Axis forces had destroyed 14,900 Soviet tanks and 7,000 aircraft.
Considerable numbers of Soviet soldiers were indeed demoralised in 1941. This was, in the main, because of the devastating effects of Joseph Stalin’s purges of the Red Army high command (1937-41), which had resulted in the liquidation of many thousands of talented Soviet military officers. Moreover, there was questionable loyalty to Soviet Russia in the Baltic states, which had only been absorbed into the Soviet Union the year before in June 1940. In Estonia, the English author Chris Bellamy recalled how, “Immediately after the German attack, Estonian soldiers began to desert from Soviet bases in large numbers”.
A similar scenario unfolded in neighbouring Latvia, during the days after Barbarossa was unleashed. Bellamy, in his study of the Nazi-Soviet War continued, “Only about 3,000 Latvian soldiers retreated with the Red Army: the rest, either as individuals or as whole units led by their commanders, deserted, and then started to attack Red Army and NKVD units”.
Hitler was intent on treating the Baltic and eastern European populations as second class citizens, subject to their German colonial masters. The cold brutality of Nazi rule would prove a secondary factor in the eventual Wehrmacht defeat.
The Blitzkrieg looked at first to be running smoothly in the Baltics. General Erich von Manstein’s 56th Panzer Corps advanced 155 miles in 4 days, to reach Daugavpils in south-eastern Latvia on 25 June 1941. Yet the Blitzkrieg’s innate military imbalance became apparent in the Soviet Union’s gigantic terrain. Manstein’s panzers had to wait for 6 days at Daugavpils, before German infantry from the 16th Army could catch up with them. This issue would surface time and again.
Goodspeed observed of the Blitzkrieg “there was always something a little gimcrack and fraudulent about it, something militarily unsound, which could succeed only by bluff and braggadocio”.
Stalin was caught off guard as the German attack commenced. When awakened and informed of large-scale German artillery attacks Stalin “muttered that the outbreak of hostilities must have originated in a conspiracy within the Wehrmacht”, historian and Stalin biographer Robert Service wrote. Hitler had been seriously planning out his invasion for almost a year, from the second half of July 1940. Hitler pondered attacking the USSR in the autumn of 1940; but he was convinced not to by the 58-year-old Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who knew more about war than the Führer. Keitel implored that logistics would not be ready in time.
A story has persisted for many years, on learning the Germans had invaded, that Stalin suffered a mental collapse and went into hiding. This is far from the truth. When told of the German bombardment, Stalin unrealistically hoped that Hitler was not aware of it and would cancel the invasion. This feeling was dispelled within hours of the German attack, when the Third Reich’s Ambassador to the USSR, Friedrich von Schulenburg, relayed the German declaration of war to Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister.
On hearing this Stalin was distraught, unable to focus his mind on essential matters. Out of shock and embarrassment, Stalin could not bring himself to inform the Russian public of the German attack. It was instead Molotov who announced to the people by radio, at noon on 22 June 1941, that their country had been invaded, and rumours then spread as to where Stalin was. The records show, such as in Stalin’s visitors’ book, that he did not disappear but continued to work for long hours, consulting with a range of military and political personnel. For example from 3.20 am on 23 June, Stalin worked for 15 hours without a break.
Then about a week after the invasion began, the full weight of the disaster began to hit home. On 27 June, Stalin had learned on a visit to the Ministry of Defence that the Germans had already reached Minsk, the capital of Soviet Belarus. The invaders had blown away the Red Army divisions located closest to the Nazi border, forces which Stalin thought could hold the Germans up. It seems at this time that Stalin feared a Soviet defeat was an inevitability. In such a frame of mind his morale plummeted, and he retired to his dacha early on 29 June. It was not a nervous breakdown but a natural reaction of despondency to a catastrophe. Service wrote “the greatest military disaster of the twentieth century” was unfolding.
The Soviet leader had only snapped out of his depression, when Molotov led the way in visiting him at his residence and soothingly encouraged him to return to work. Molotov later acknowledged of his leader, “It can’t be said he fell apart; certainly he was suffering but he did not show it. Stalin definitely had his difficulties. It would be stupid to claim he didn’t suffer”.
As the German invasion elapsed into weeks, the morale of Stalin ebbed and flowed, and it was probably never as low again as it had been in late June 1941. One of the biggest blows thereafter was the fall of Kiev, on 19 September 1941. It is interesting to note that it took the Wehrmacht, the world’s strongest military power, 4 weeks to capture Kiev – from the time that Hitler had ordered a southward move into the Ukraine on 21 August, through southern Belarus and western Russia. The fighting did not die down in the Kiev region until 26 September, so one could stretch the battle out to 5 weeks.
Of the present day Ukrainian crisis many in the Western mainstream, military analysts and media commentators, have ludicrously claimed in recent weeks that Russian forces should have successfully entered Kiev in 2 or 3 days. They would do well to consult the history books. Kiev is furthermore a far larger city today than it was in 1941, and it would obviously take longer to encircle and subdue.
A parallel should, however, not at all be drawn between the circumstances of 1941 and the current Ukraine crisis. The Nazi war against the Soviet Union was unprovoked, genocidal and imperialist to the core. The author is not suggesting that he supports the Russian military intervention in the Ukraine, but it may be worth understanding the scenario from the Kremlin’s perspective.
Diplomatic options were open to Moscow in February 2022. Who knows how it could have developed had talks been pursued, and they still can be. Yet it would seem unlikely that the Kremlin could have made headway diplomatically with the West. The Russians have repeatedly been frustrated by Western duplicity, led overwhelmingly by an aggressive and expansionist United States, which continues to dominate much of the world, often through gunboat diplomacy.
The experienced Pakistani lieutenant-general, Tariq Khan, who could hardly be described as pro-Russian, wrote early this month “the West goaded Russia into a corner where it probably had no other alternative other than an invasion of Ukraine. This was done by the gradual creep forward policy of NATO which, in 1990, had 16 members and now has expanded to 30 members and that too after the Cold War… This was unacceptable to Russia, but the West was unmoved and continued to implement alignments and agreements that were a direct threat to Russia”.
The Russian offensive in the Ukraine came as a reaction to long-held, plausible security concerns in Moscow: relating, as Lt. Gen. Khan has highlighted, to relentless US–NATO enlargement to Russia’s very borders – along with ongoing, increased Western militarisation and politicisation of the Ukraine itself; despite it being a territory with centuries-long historical and cultural ties to Russia, and not the West.
The Ukraine is of utmost geostrategic importance to the Russian state. A century ago the Polish-born revolutionary socialist, Rosa Luxemburg, especially criticised what she called “silly Ukrainian nationalism”. Luxemburg stated that Ukrainian nationalism was very different from Czech, Polish or Finnish nationalism; because Ukrainian nationalism was “nothing more than extravagance, the vain pride of a dozen petty-bourgeois intelligentsia with no roots whatsoever in the economic, political, or spiritual situation of the land and no historical tradition”; since the Ukraine had “never constituted a nation or a state and was devoid of a national culture”.
Luxemburg noted that “nationalism in the Russian Ukraine hadn’t represented anything until the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. It was a soap bubble, the vanity of a dozen professors and lawyers, the majority of whom couldn’t even read Ukrainian”. Herein lie the roots of Ukrainian nationalism.
Luxemburg believed that the Bolshevik Party leader, Vladimir Lenin, should have retained the territorial integrity of the Russian Empire, under the patronage of the socialist revolution. As Luxemburg predicted, the prospect of self-determination split the Ukraine up into pretentious little spheres; and she forecast that the Ukraine would perform a “fatal role” in the fate of the Russian revolution.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)
Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 3 April 1985)
Greig Watson, “Operation Gomorrah: Firestorm created ‘Germany’s Nagasaki’”, BBC News, 2 August 2018
Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009)
C.J. Polychroniou, “Noam Chomsky: A No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Could Unleash Untold Violence”, Truthout, 8 March 2022
Lt. Gen. Tariq Khan, “An Unequal World – The West Cries For A Civilised Ukraine”, Reporter’s Diary, 2 March 2022
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed. 2019 edition, 4 Feb. 2019)
Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 April 2010)
David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin, Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn, Chapter 7 Hitler’s Decision to Invade the USSR, 2014, Publisher: Rand Corporation, p. 4 of 12, Jstor
Despite the newsworthiness of a U.S.-backed government dispatching Nazi storm troopers to attack Ukrainian cities, the major U.S. news outlets have gone to extraordinary lengths to excuse this behavior, with the Washington Post publishing a rationalization that Azov’s use of the Swastika was merely “romantic.”
The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent:it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time.
Everything is interrelated: war, terrorism, the police state, the global economy, economic austerity, financial fraud, corrupt governments, poverty and social inequality, police violence, Al Qaeda, ISIS, media disinformation, racism, war propaganda weapons of mass destruction, the derogation of international law, the criminalization of politics, the CIA, the FBI, climate change, nuclear war, Fukushima, nuclear radiation, crimes against humanity, The China-Russia alliance, Syria Ukraine, NATO, false flags, 9/11 Truth …
Last December, I wrote an investigative report for TrialSite News reviewing Pfizer’s cumulative analysis of vaccine adverse events, a shocking 38-page document, which was part of the first wave of released records. The document revealed over 1228 deaths occurring after the administration of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine with 42,086 individuals (cases) reporting 158,893 vaccine adverse events, many of which were serious, within a 3-month period.
The Kyiv Independent reported on Monday, 14 March, that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy had proposed meeting President Putin in Jerusalem. This is what Mr. Zelenskyy told foreign journalists on March 12. He had suggested to Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, to act as intermediary. See this.
Just a couple of months after the two leaders declared their “no limits” partnership, it is clear that there are, in fact, boundaries to how much support Beijing will offer Moscow. Xi has no interest in being entangled in foreign wars and the precariousness of the Chinese economy has his full attention.
Former senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense Col. Doug Macgregor joins Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate for a candid, live discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war and his time in the Trump administration when an Afghan withdrawal was sabotaged and conflict with Iran and Syria continued.
The conflict in Ukraine has divided the world into those who support the US, and those who do not support a superpower in charge of the world. The Ukraine conflict is pitting the US and their western allies, against other nations who seek a new world order, free of US domination.
“Shock and awe” was George Bush senior’s name for his “Desert Storm” attack on Iraq in 1990 – 91. A United Nations report described the effect on Iraq as “near apocalyptic,” sending Iraq back to the “pre-industrial age.” But it wasn’t enough.
If this war does not end soon – next winter, Europe will run out of 109 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and the individual consumers will be forced to reduce their consumption by at least 14%.
It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.
“Não detenhas um exército que recua à casa; o inimigo lutará até a morte.
Ao adversário cercado deve-se deixar uma saída…
Não pressiones demasiado um inimigo em desespero”
(Sun Tzu, “A Arte da Guerra”)
Breve decálogo sobre as guerras, em tempo de acirramento bélico e pacifismo raso – se não demagogo. Uma reflexão sobre a categoria marxista da totalidade, que é bem mais de que a soma das partes (pois que em movimento). E algumas sugestões para palavras de ordem menos etéreas.
Preâmbulo sobre o bélico presente
Não há como se compreender um conflito armado tomado pela emotividade, pelo sentimento de tristeza que causam as desgraças sempre presentes em cada uma de suas batalhas; sem que se observe em detalhes os interesses e principais forças ocultas por detrás dos tantos fantoches.
Tempos bem esquisitos estes em que, ao invés de se ouvir socialistas, humanistas, dizerem em uníssono “pelo fim da ofensiva da OTAN, para que parem os bombardeios (dos acuados) russos”, ou ainda “pela derrubada do golpismo ucraniano ‘laranja’ (e de suástica à vista)”, ouve-se desvairados purismos, tal qual esse descuido que vem ressonando em ambientes assépticos: “pelo fim dos bombardeios russos e (assim que der) da OTAN”.
Nesta exigente palavra de ordem – ou quem sabe seja antes uma comanda divina – só faltaria incluir algo como “pelo fim imediato do capitalismo, dos dedos nos olhos globais, e ainda pela extinção de todas as maldades e iniquidades do universo – e tem que ser hoje!”.
Como demonstrou Karl Marx, após a observação isolada dos diversos aspectos de problemas sociais, por demais complexos, há sempre que se reportar à realidade maior, à totalidade concreta que relaciona tais problemas. E este cuidado deveria ser tão mais considerado à medida que o debate envolva temas de urgência humanitária, seja o da fome, das epidemias, da destruição do metabolismo planetário, seja o do poder bélico e controle despótico do mundo.
Notas sobre as guerras
1- Ninguém em seu são juízo gosta ou aprecia uma guerra – o afã por competitividade é um dos aspectos patológicos do sistema capitalista;
2- Nem sempre aquele que dá o primeiro tapa é o que agrediu primeiro – ou o vilão; detrás da guerra deflagrada (em ato), há os conflitos latentes (em potência), mais abrangentes;
3- Ainda que seja extremamente complexa em suas causas, motivações imediatas, possibilidades de desfecho ou consequências futuras, diante de uma guerra aberta, já deflagrada entre duas frentes, cabem somente dois caminhos – um ou outro lado [*E ao contrário do que diz o Estadão, no presente não há assim uma “escolha tão difícil”];
4- Bradar pelo empate, pela paz dos deuses, exigir imediatamente a imediata humanização do ser humano milenarmente desumanizado é – na melhor das hipóteses – sussurrar aos pássaros que voam;
5- Optar pela neutralidade, pela suposta paz (completamente fora da possibilidade de paz), abster-se de escolhas em um conflito exposto, mesmo tendo consciência histórica dos interesses que o compõem – inclusive de terceiros indiretamente envolvidos em alguma das frentes–, significa sempre e unicamente (como bem lembra Sartre): apoiar o mais forte;
6- Fomentar desde fora a resistência de um exército frágil, sem oferecer-lhe reais condições de vitória, sem se assumir uma posição manifesta no confronto deflagrado, serve apenas para prolongar escaramuças, para aprofundar ao final as perdas de ambos os opositores, vitoriosos e derrotados (inclusive causando mais danos aos civis entre fogos) – situação que só interessa a terceiros, a outros inimigos não diretamente envolvidos no presente conflito, mas desejosos do próximo;
7- Quanto maior for o equilíbrio prévio de forças opostas em tempos de paz – da paz instável e armada a que se vem chamando guerra fria –, menoresserão as audácias, os arroubos bélicos;
8- Armas mortíferas, que ameaçam a espécie como um todo, são prova maior da derrota humana que é a razão instrumental moderno-burguesa – melhor não existissem nunca; mas em existindo, e sobretudo, estando em posse de inimigos, que oxalá as tenham também alguns inimigos desses inimigos; ou por assim dizer: bombas, melhor não tê-las, mas se as têm, melhor aos pares;
9- Mais perigoso de que o monopólio das ideias, da imprensa, da economia, das almas, do discurso sobre o que é ou não cultura e civilização, é o monopólio do poder geopolítico (pois garante boa parte dos demais);
10- Para as periferias do mundo, mais vale dois patrões – ou potências – estremecidas, que brindando alegremente.
Dito isto, faça-se coro ao coração dos pacifistas! Mas sem permanecermos tão no raso…
Pelo fim da guerra – das guerras –, das epidemias e desastres induzidos pela ganância! Pelo fim da fome, do uso vil da miséria como arma de guerra!
Pelo cessar das atrocidades cotidianas – pela Palestina independente, integral, sem a ignomínia de um apartheid neofascista adornado com lantejoulas democráticas! Pelo Afeganistão e o Iraque livres, pela Líbia reconstruída… e a Sérvia-Iugoslávia!
Pelo fim também das sanções econômicas, estes fuzis indiretos – mas tão diretos – que violentam economias não alinhadas em busca por autonomia: pelo direito de Cuba, Venezuela, Irã seguirem seus caminhos!
E outrossim – já que tudo se pode sonhar, gritar e, por que não, pôr no papel: por um Brasil livre desse maldito golpe cujo atraso nos martiriza há quase 6 décadas, e quase sem ininterrupções.
Mas claro, para que as divagações etéreo-socialistas mantenham suas asas de cera longe do sol, voltemos ao tema do fogo aberto, pois também na Terra a chapa anda quente… Então: pelo fim dos bombardeios gerais, em especial, não esquecer, dos massacres perpetrados – neste mesmo momento em que estas linhas são escritas – pela OTAN e Israel ontem na Síria, em Gaza, hoje no Iêmem, na Somália! Aliás, tratam-se de atrocidades mais sangrentas de que a que ora estoura na Europa em queda-livre, subalterna e fascistizada. Mas certa esquerda menos sensível às civilizações “bárbaras” (que se diz-que-existe, até mesmo para além do Mediterrâneo) não teve tempo na agenda para observar, enquanto discursava inflamada acerca da necessária paz entre pretensos arianos, no intervalo de um ou outro copo de vinho Bordeaux.
*
Os socialistas de todos os campos, de anarquistas a social-reformistas – incluindo os ditos esquerdistas, anticapitalistas, humanistas ou mesmo os adeptos de outros adjetivos mais puros –, ganhariam em qualidade interpretativa da realidade se apreendessem ao menos uma ideia básica com o comunismo marxista, com o pensamento da práxis: a noção de totalidade, de imbricamento entre o todo e as suas partes. Partes estas cuja análise minuciosa, ainda que de suma importância, não pode bastar-se em si mesma, mas tem de ser referida novamente ao todo, incluída no entendimento do todo, para assim ajudar a recompor, a partir de novas percepções dos diversos aspectos do real, a concepção da totalidade concreta – e em movimento conflituoso –, na qual estamos inseridos.
*
Em suma e finalmente: por tudo de ético e belo e bom e harmônico que as imaginações crítico-críticas, senhoras dos mais perfeitos julgamentos e valores, puderem sonhar!
Mas também: por tudo de mais urgente, de mais chão, de mais objetivamente terreno que as mentes prático-idealistas menos indolentes puderem realizar, ainda que não tão bem-feito, ainda que menos nobre.
E que um dia, tomara, possamos fazer melhor o necessário, o básico, o inadiável – e de modo mais bem-feito. Teorias, efetivamente, comprovam-se apenas na prática – já dizia Marx, em sua famosa e breve frase que sintetiza a filosofia da práxis e funda o pensamento contemporâneo.
*
Pelo fim da modernidade, do cientificismo mecânico, do progresso tecnicista, competitivo, que à revelia do humano se calcula no lucro!
Yuri Martins-Fontes
Foto :
Esta foto é de 21 de outubro de 1967 de um protesto em frente ao Pentágono contra a Guerra do Vietnã. Marc Ribaud nasceu em Lyon, França, em 24 de junho de 1923 e foi fotógrafo freelance.
Carefully documented article by the late Robert Parry, first posted on GR in June 2015.
***
Read carefully. Of relevance to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
“Rather than fully inform its readers about a crisis that has the potential of becoming a nuclear showdown between the United States and Russia, the [NY] Times has chosen to simply be a fount of State Department propaganda, often terming any reference to Kiev’s Nazi storm troopers to be “Russian propaganda.”
Now, however, a unanimous U.S. House of Representatives — of all things — has acknowledged the unpleasant truth.” (Robert Parry, June 2015, emphasis added)
***
Last February [2014], when ethnic Russian rebels were closing in on the Ukrainian port of Mariupol, the New York Times rhapsodically described the heroes defending the city and indeed Western civilization – the courageous Azov battalion facing down barbarians at the gate. What the Times didn’t tell its readers was that these “heroes” were Nazis, some of them even wearing Swastikas and SS symbols.
The long Times article by Rick Lyman fit with the sorry performance of America’s “paper of record” as it has descended into outright propaganda – hiding the dark side of the post-coup regime in Kiev. But what makes Lyman’s sadly typical story noteworthy today is that the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has just voted unanimously to bar U.S. assistance going to the Azov battalion because of its Nazi ties.
When even the hawkish House of Representatives can’t stomach these Nazi storm troopers who have served as Kiev’s tip of the spear against the ethnic Russian population of eastern Ukraine, what does that say about the honesty and integrity of the New York Times when it finds these same Nazis so admirable?
And it wasn’t like the Times didn’t have space to mention the Nazi taint. The article provided much color and detail – quoting an Azov leader prominently – but just couldn’t find room to mention the inconvenient truth about how these Nazis had played a key role in the ongoing civil war on the U.S. side. The Times simply referred to Azov as a “volunteer unit.”
Yet, on June 10, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act – from Reps. John Conyers Jr., D-Michigan, and Ted Yoho, R-Florida – that would block U.S. training of the Azov battalion and would prevent transfer of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to fighters in Iraq and Ukraine.
“I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions,” said Conyers on Thursday.
He described Ukraine’s Azov Battalion as a 1,000-man volunteer militia of the Ukrainian National Guard that Foreign Policy Magazine has characterized as “openly neo-Nazi” and “fascist.” And Azov is not some obscure force. Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who oversees Ukraine’s armed militias, announced that Azov troops would be among the first units to be trained by the 300 U.S. military advisers who have been dispatched to Ukraine in a training mission codenamed “Fearless Guardian.”
White Supremacy
On Friday, a Bloomberg News article by Leonid Bershidsky noted that “it’s easy to see why” Conyers “would have a problem with the military unit commanded by Ukrainian legislator Andriy Biletsky: Conyers is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Biletsky is a white supremacist. …
“Biletsky had run Patriot of Ukraine [the precursor of the Azov battalion] since 2005. In a 2010 interview he described the organization as nationalist ‘storm troops’ … The group’s ideology was ‘social nationalism’ — a term Biletsky, a historian, knew would deceive no one. …
“In 2007, Biletsky railed against a government decision to introduce fines for racist remarks: ‘So why the “Negro-love” on a legislative level? They want to break everyone who has risen to defend themselves, their family, their right to be masters of their own land! They want to destroy the Nation’s biological resistance to everything alien and do to us what happened to Old Europe, where the immigrant hordes are a nightmare for the French, Germans and Belgians, where cities are “blackening” fast and crime and the drug trade are invading even the remotest corners.’”
The Bloomberg article continued, “Biletsky landed in prison in 2011, after his organization took part in a series of shootouts and fights. Following Ukraine’s so-called revolution of dignity last year, he was freed as a political prisoner; right-wing organizations, with their paramilitary training, played an important part in the violent phase of the uprising against former President Viktor Yanukovych. The new authorities — which included the ultra-nationalist party Svoboda — wanted to show their gratitude.
“The war in the east gave Biletsky’s storm troopers a chance at a higher status than they could ever have hoped to achieve. They fought fiercely, and last fall, the 400-strong Azov Battalion became part of the National Guard, receiving permission to expand to 2,000 fighters and gaining access to heavy weaponry. So what if some of its members had Nazi symbols tattooed on their bodies and the unit’s banner bore the Wolfsangel, used widely by the Nazis during World War II?
“In an interview with Ukraine’s Focus magazine last September, Avakov, responsible for the National Guard, was protective of his heroes. He said of the Wolfsangel: ‘In many European cities it is part of the city emblem. Yes, most of the guys who assembled in Azov have a particular worldview. But who told you you could judge them? Don’t forget what the Azov Battalion did for the country. Remember the liberation of Mariupol, the fighting at Ilovaysk, the latest attacks near the Sea of Azov. May God allow anyone who criticizes them to do 10 percent of what they’ve done. And anyone who’s going to tell me that these guys preach Nazi views, wear the swastika and so on, are bare-faced liars and fools.’”
Though the House vote on June 10 may have shined a spotlight into this dark corner of the U.S.-embraced Kiev regime, the reality has been well-known for many months – though played down in most of the Western news media, often dismissed as “Russian propaganda.”
Even the Times has included at least one brief reference to this reality, though buried deep inside an article. On Aug. 10, 2014, a Times’ article mentioned the Nazi taint of the Azov battalion in the last three paragraphs of a lengthy story on another topic.
“The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat,” the Times reported.
“Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Discovers Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis at War.”]
A Shiver Down the Spine
The conservative London Telegraph offered more details about the Azov battalion in an article by correspondent Tom Parfitt, who wrote: “Kiev’s use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics’… should send a shiver down Europe’s spine.
“Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.”
Based on interviews with militia members, the Telegraph reported that some of the fighters doubted the reality of the Holocaust, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and acknowledged that they are indeed Nazis.
Biletsky, the Azov commander, “is also head of an extremist Ukrainian group called the Social National Assembly,” according to the Telegraph article which quoted a commentary by Biletsky as declaring: “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
In other words, for the first time since World War II, a government had dispatched Nazi storm troopers to attack a European population – and officials in Kiev knew what they were doing. The Telegraph questioned Ukrainian authorities in Kiev who acknowledged that they were aware of the extremist ideologies of some militias but insisted that the higher priority was having troops who were strongly motivated to fight. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ignoring Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers.”]
But a rebel counteroffensive led by ethnic Russians last August reversed many of Kiev’s gains and drove the Azov and other government forces back to the port city of Mariupol, where Foreign Policy’s reporter Alec Luhn also encountered the Nazis. He wrote:
“Blue and yellow Ukrainian flags fly over Mariupol’s burned-out city administration building and at military checkpoints around the city, but at a sport school near a huge metallurgical plant, another symbol is just as prominent: the wolfsangel(‘wolf trap’) symbol that was widely used in the Third Reich and has been adopted by neo-Nazi groups. …
“Pro-Russian forces have said they are fighting against Ukrainian nationalists and ‘fascists’ in the conflict, and in the case of Azov and other battalions, these claims are essentially true.”
SS Helmets
More evidence continued to emerge about the presence of Nazis in the ranks of Ukrainian government fighters. Germans were shocked to see video of Azov militia soldiers decorating their gear with the Swastika and the “SS rune.” NBC News reported: “Germans were confronted with images of their country’s dark past … when German public broadcaster ZDF showed video of Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi symbols on their helmets in its evening newscast.
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
“The video was shot … in Ukraine by a camera team from Norwegian broadcaster TV2. ‘We were filming a report about Ukraine’s AZOV battalion in the eastern city of Urzuf, when we came across these soldiers,’ Oysten Bogen, a correspondent for the private television station, told NBC News. “Minutes before the images were taped, Bogen said he had asked a spokesperson whether the battalion had fascist tendencies. ‘The reply was: absolutely not, we are just Ukrainian nationalists,’ Bogen said.”
Despite the newsworthiness of a U.S.-backed government dispatching Nazi storm troopers to attack Ukrainian cities, the major U.S. news outlets have gone to extraordinary lengths to excuse this behavior, with the Washington Post publishing a rationalization that Azov’s use of the Swastika was merely “romantic.”
This curious description of the symbol most associated with the depravity of the Holocaust and the devastation of World War II can be found in the last three paragraphs of a Post lead storypublished in September 2014. Post correspondent Anthony Faiola portrayed the Azov fighters as “battle-scarred patriots” nobly resisting “Russian aggression” and willing to resort to “guerrilla war” if necessary.
The article found nothing objectionable about Azov’s plans for “sabotage, targeted assassinations and other insurgent tactics” against Russians, although such actions in other contexts are regarded as terrorism. The extremists even extended their threats to the government of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko if he agrees to a peace deal with the ethnic Russian east that is not to the militia’s liking.
“If Kiev reaches a deal with rebels that they don’t support, paramilitary fighters say they could potentially strike pro-Russian targets on their own — or even turn on the government itself,” the article stated.
The Post article – like almost all of its coverage of Ukraine – was laudatory about the Kiev forces fighting ethnic Russians in the east, but the newspaper did have to do some quick thinking to explain a photograph of a Swastika gracing an Azov brigade barracks. So, in the last three paragraphs of the story, Faiola reported: “One platoon leader, who called himself Kirt, conceded that the group’s far right views had attracted about two dozen foreign fighters from around Europe.
“In one room, a recruit had emblazoned a swastika above his bed. But Kirt … dismissed questions of ideology, saying that the volunteers — many of them still teenagers — embrace symbols and espouse extremist notions as part of some kind of ‘romantic’ idea.”
Despite these well-documented facts, the New York Times excised this reality from its article about the Azov battalion’s defense of Mariupol last February. But isn’t the role of Nazis newsworthy? In other contexts, the Times is quick to note and condemn any sign of a Nazi resurgence in Europe. However, in Ukraine, where neo-Nazis, such as Andriy Parubiy served as the coup regime’s first national security chief and Nazi militias are at the center of regime’s military operations, the Times goes silent on the subject.
Rather than fully inform its readers about a crisis that has the potential of becoming a nuclear showdown between the United States and Russia, the Times has chosen to simply be a fount of State Department propaganda, often terming any reference to Kiev’s Nazi storm troopers to be “Russian propaganda.” Now, however, a unanimous U.S. House of Representatives — of all things — has acknowledged the unpleasant truth.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includesAmerica’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
This important article by Manlio Dinucci first published on February 13, 2019 is a Bombshell.
Bilateral Russia-Ukraine negotiations regarding Ukraine’s relationship to NATO will require an Amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution
“The initiative for having introduced into the Ukrainian Constitution the commitment to enter officially into NATO goes to Ukraine’s Parliamentary President Andriy Parubiy. Co-founder in 1991 of the Ukrainian National-Socialist Party, on the model of Adolf Hitler’s National-Socialist Party”.
***
The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent: it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time.
On 7 February, on a proposition by President Petro Poroshenko – the oligarch who made himself rich by plundering public properties, and who is once again a candidate for the presidency – the Kiev parliament, by 34 votes to 35 with 16 abstentions, approved these amendments to the Constitution.
The Introduction pronounces “the irreversible movement of Ukraine towards Euro-Atlantic integration”; articles 85 and 116 state that it is a fundamental duty of the parliament and the government to “obtain Ukraine’s full membership of NATO and the EU”; article 102 stipulates that “the President of Ukraine is the guarantor of the strategic decisions of the State aimed at obtaining full membership of NATO and the EU”.
The inclusion in the Ukrainian Constitution of the engagement to enter officially into NATO bears with it some very serious consequences.
On the interior, it alienates the future of Ukraine from this choice, by excluding any alternative, and outlaws de facto any party or person who might oppose the “strategic decisions of the state”. Already, the Central Electoral Commission has forbidden Petro Simonenko, director of the Ukrainian Communist Party, to participate in the Presidential elections to be held in March.
The merit for having introduced into the Ukrainian Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO goes in particular to Parliamentary President Andriy Parubiy. Co-founder in 1991 of the Ukrainian National-Socialist Party, on the model of Adolf Hitler’s National-Socialist Party; head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations which were used in 2014 during the putsch of Place Maïdan under US/NATO command, and in the massacre of Odessa; head of the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council, which, with the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi units, attacked Ukrainian civilians of Russian nationality in the Eastern part of the country and used his squadrons for acts of ferocious abuse, the plunder of political headquarters and other auto-da-fés in a truly Nazi style.
On the international level, we should keep in mind that Ukraine is already linked to NATO, of which it is a partner: for example, the Azov Battalion, whose Nazi character is represented by the emblem copied from that of the SS unit Das Reich, has been transformed into a special operations regiment, equipped with armoured vehicles and trained by US instructors from the 173rd Airborne Division, transferred to Ukraine from Vicence, and seconded by other NATO members.
Since Russia has been accused by NATO of having illegally annexed Crimea, and of launching military operations against Kiev, should Ukraine officially join NATO, the 30 other members of the Alliance, on the basis of article 5, would be obliged to “assist the party or parties under attack by adopting immediately, individually and in agreement with the other parties, any action that it should deem necessary, including the use of armed force”.
In other words, they would have to go to war with Russia.
These dangerous implications of the modification of the Ukrainian Constitution – behind which are most certainly strategies by the USA and NATO – have been met with political and media silence. Including that of the Italian parliament, which, in 2017 established an agreement with the Ukrainian parliament, supported by Laura Boldrini and Andriy Parubiy.
Thus cooperation has been reinforced between the Italian Republic, born of resistance against fascism and Nazism, and a régime which has created in Ukraine a situation similar to that which brought about the arrival of fascism in the 1920’s and Nazism in the 1930’s.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Evidence has come to light strongly indicating that the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines are not really “vaccines” in the medical and legal sense of the word, but rather “experimental gene therapies.” If proven true, the significance and legal ramifications of this allegation are profound.
This article summarizes a presentation by Dr. David Martin, a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, a developer of linguistic genomics, and molecular biologist Dr. Judy Mikovits.
In the presentation, Dr. Martin states,
“You cannot have a vaccine that doesn’t claim to result in either immunity or blocking transmission.” He goes on to say, “By their own patents and reference material, neither Pfizer nor Moderna claims this. Rather, they only classify their products as ‘gene therapy.'”
Dr. Martin states the Moderna and Pfizer products
“do not prevent you from getting the COVID-19 infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They are really experimental gene therapies — unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the Moderna and Pfizer injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.”
If indeed Moderna and Pfizer corporations are misrepresenting their experimental gene therapies as bona fide vaccines, Dr. Martin states that
“the legal ramifications of this deception are immense — from a legal view, both Moderna and Pfizer qualify as using illegal deceptive practices by making medical claims without clinic trial proof of immunity and transmission blocking. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S. Code, Section 41, outlaws such deceptive practices.”
During the presentation, various entities and individuals were identified as supporters of the above alleged deception, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of North Carolina, and other individuals.
Why call an experimental gene therapy product a “vaccine”? Dr. Martin believes that there are two basic reasons: 1) to circumvent liability for damages, and 2) if the products were called gene therapy or a similar label, most people would wisely refuse to use them.
Regarding avoiding liability for damages, as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. As long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these “vaccines” are not financially liable for any damages that comes from their use. However, Dr Martin states that “there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.” In fact, if the documentation Pfizer and Moderna provided the Federal Drug Administration for emergency use authorization can be proven fraudulent, then there is no legal protection.
Given the above, a multitude of multi-million-dollar lawsuits are possible, if not probable, against the two pharmaceutical companies by parties who have been “injured” in one way or another by Moderna and Pfizer inoculations. Depending on the evidence produced, criminal indictments may also be a possibility.
What needs to happen next? Dr. Martin urges citizens to contact their state attorney, governor, representatives, and anyone else who might be in a position to take action to address and correct what he calls a tremendous fraud on the American people. He hopes his presentation will be viewed and acted upon by officials with the authority to thoroughly investigate his findings.
He states,
“Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being ‘vaccines’ without clinical proof, and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices.”
The need for accountability extends to anyone who promoted the use of the Moderna and Pfizer products while having full knowledge that they were not bona fide vaccines as described herein.
Dr. Martin states,
“World governments and global and national health organizations are all complicit in this illegal deception and must be held accountable.”
In conclusion, Dr. Martin makes a most sobering comment:
“These injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune, and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding.”
Given the above, perhaps it is time for several state attorneys general to band together and thoroughly investigate the activities of Moderna, Pfizer, and various individuals in this matter. This could develop into a similar cooperative multi-state effort reminiscent of the 1998 Big Tobacco lawsuit. In this action, 52 state and territory attorneys general ultimately signed a Master Settlement Agreement with the four largest tobacco companies in the U.S. to settle dozens of state lawsuits brought to recover billions of dollars in health care costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul S. Gardiner is a retired Army officer, Vietnam veteran, and lover of America. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, University of Alabama, and the United States Army War College. He is hopeful that the truth will eventually emerge about the Moderna and Pfizer inoculation products as well as truth about statements made by various high-ranking officials promoting their use.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
On March 1, the eagerly awaited new installment of Pfizer’s documents was made publicly available thanks to the recent judicial ruling. 10,000 pages out of a cache of over 450,000 of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine-related data, which the FDA relied upon to grant Emergency Use Authorization, can now be reviewed.
The first wave of documents was released last November, following a FOIA request from the plaintiff group, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), made up of over 30 scientists, medical professionals and academics, led by Dr. Peter McCullough and represented by Aaron Siri, of Siri & Glimstad LLP.
Last December, I wrote an investigative report for TrialSite News reviewing Pfizer’s cumulative analysis of vaccine adverse events, a shocking 38-page document, which was part of the first wave of released records. The document revealed over 1228 deaths occurring after the administration of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine with 42,086 individuals (cases) reporting 158,893 vaccine adverse events, many of which were serious, within a 3-month period.
Up until January, the FDA has been fighting a legal battle not to release the data, in breach of FOIA law. The agency ‘dragged their feet’ and was willing to only produce 500 pages a month- meaning the public would have to wait 75 years to see all the documents. On 6 January, district judge, Justice Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to publicly release all the Pfizer documents within 8 months at a rate of 55,000 pages a month.
The following is a summary of my findings after an initial review of the plethora of papers in a limited space of time.
The Case Report Forms (CRFs)
A Case Report Form (CRF) is a printed or electronic document used in clinical trial research to capture standardised clinical data from each patient including adverse events. It’s a critical part of the clinical trial process and plays an important role in pharmacovigilance.
The majority of CRFs released originated from various trial sites run by Ventavia, one of the clinical research groups contracted by Pfizer to conduct the Covid-19 vaccine trials. The company is currently facing a law suit brought by Brook Jackson, the former Ventavia regional director, turned whistle-blower, who provided The BMJ with a preponderance of internal company documents and photos which revealed the Pfizer contractor’s poor laboratory management; their compromising of data integrity and patient safety. Ms Jackson will be talking exclusively with TrialSite News in an upcoming interview about this matter. Readers may remember that Facebook literally fact checkedThe BMJ for reporting on this incident. They had no reason to censor the medical journal’s article indicating the possibility of programmatic algorithmic bias.
The errors and anomalies
Subject # 11281009 was part of Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trials in the healthy population. This cohort were deemed eligible by the clinical judgement of the investigator in meeting the criteria of ‘healthy.’
One can see evidence below that this participant was far from healthy, when reviewing their general medical history. The participant was a type 2 diabetic; suffered from angina and had a cardiac stent placement following a myocardial infarction (heart attack).
It’s puzzling how a trial investigator from Ventavia would identify this participant as healthy and include them in the trial. There were other participants who I came across, who were included in these phases of the trials (on the healthy population) who had an extensive list of conditions as part of the general medical history. How much pressure was exerted by the sponsor (Pfizer) on the contract research organization and participating trial sites enrolling vaccine trial participants?
Another CRF for this participant reveals an adverse event of myocardial infarction (heart attack) requiring hospitalization, noted as serious; however, the serious adverse event (SAE) number was left blank (see screenshot below). Later, a SAE number was entered but it’s surprising that the clinical research associates would make such significant data reporting errors such as this. Were SAE numbers left blank a common occurrence at Ventavia trial sites? Again, what type of pressure were the CROs, and sites exposed to?
Another note-worthy point are the start and end dates of these SAEs. The myocardial infarction start date is recorded on 27October with the end date on very next day, which happens to be the start date of pneumonia (see screenshot below).
Interestingly, the myocardial infarction outcome is recorded as ‘recovered/resolved’ (see screenshot below) with the entered end date recorded only one day after the start date. This is unusual as a CRF reveals that the participant was hospitalized because of the event (see earlier screenshot).This anomaly raises doubt as to the accuracy of these recorded dates, potentially violating ALOCA-C clinical site documentation guidelines for clinical trials. That is the data must be:
Attributable
Legible
Contemporaneous
Original
Accurate
Complete
For the SAE of pneumonia, we can again see below that trial investigator, Salim Boguermouth entered ‘potential COVID-19 related pneumonia should have triggered a Covid illness visit.’ The fact this was an open query evidence that the protocol was not consistently followed.
Another investigator opens the same query, declaring that the AE term of pneumonia should be updated to Covid Pneumonia. The response back is interesting as it simply states ‘site has not been made aware that it was Covid pneumonia. Per PI (principal investigator) pneumonia is related to an infection, therefore the term cannot be updated as such.’ This response seems to satisfy the query and it’s closed. No other questions were asked; no investigations appear to be made. (See screenshot below)
Within Pfizer’s protocol (section 8.2.4), enhanced COVID-19 (antibody dependent enhancement potentially caused by the vaccine) was on their watchlist, which indicates that they had some concern about this condition. It’s important to note that unblinded teams were reviewing cases for severe COVID-19 and reviewing AEs for additional potential cases.
‘In Phase 2/3, the unblinded team supporting the DMC, including an unblinded medical monitor, will review cases of severe COVID-19 as they are received and will review AEs at least weekly for additional potential cases of severe COVID-19. At any point, the unblinded team may discuss with the DMC chair whether the DMC should review cases for an adverse imbalance of cases of COVID-19 and/or severe COVID-19 between the vaccine and placebo groups.’
Inadvertently, this could have led to bias, as the unblinded teams would have been aware which participants were assigned the placebo and those who received the vaccine. They might have been under pressure by the sponsor for the trial to go a certain way and for events like ‘Covid Pneumonia’ to be classified simply as pneumonia.
Given the FDA’s non-binding guidance to manufacturers of covid-19 vaccines urging them to devise a method to allow volunteers in their studies’ placebo arms to receive the vaccine, in October 2020- Pfizer’s trial participants assigned to the placebo were later offered the vaccine.
This would have triggered the unblinding of the participant and everyone else involved. Given close to half of the participants would have received the placebo in phase 1/2/3 of the trials, it’s fair to say that a significant portion of those would have been assessed as eligible for the actual vaccine. The data collected on those participants would have been completely unblinded. This raises an important issue where unblinded studies (observational) as opposed to double-blinded (where both the participant and those administering the treatment are blinded) are subject to substantial biases which can significantly affect data integrity.
A systematic review study was conducted and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, in its conclusions, it stated: ‘This study provides empirical evidence of pronounced bias due to lack of patient blinding in complementary/alternative randomized clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes.’
However, according to Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol, its trials (which are still in progress) are not double blinded but ‘observer-blinded’ where sponsor staff, study managers, clinical research associates and those who are involved with ‘ensuring protocol requirements’ are unblinded.
By Pfizer essentially unblinding the vaccine trials for what at least some experts refer to as a novel gene therapy product, did they establish a new precedent? In an interview with the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University said “by allowing unblinding it will set as de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come and that is dangerous.”
Perhaps one of the most significant errors and anomalies found on the CRFs for subject #11281009 is the one below, which astonishingly reveals the participant’s death being recorded before a ‘Covid ill’ visit. Of course, it’s impossible for a study subject to die and then visit and participate in the clinical trial.
The clinical investigator makes note of this by writing ‘There cannot be a date later than date of death. Please remove data from the COVID illness visit and add cough and shortness of breath as AEs (adverse events).’ What kind of pressure was being exerted here?
Subject # 11281014
This participant was enrolled at the same Ventavia site (1085). The participant was administered the first dose of the blinded treatment on July 31 and the second dose was administered on August 27 (outside the 3-week window protocol).
The screenshot above shows when the second dose was given. At this point this author would like to raise an area of concern given that close to every CRF reviewed at the standard entry for line 10 includes the term: ‘The protocol specified observation period’ has been entered, with some CRFs stating ‘30 minutes.’ This is in reference to the timeframe period which the subject is observed by trial staff after being administered the treatment. It’s worth noting that 30 minutes is the minimum amount of time that the subject should be observed after treatment. For the majority of the CRFs to simply state what appears an automatic entry for line 10 is cause for concern, raising the question that perhaps participants were not observed for adequate amounts of time, thus putting their safety at risk. This backs up what Brook Jackson, the Ventavia/Pfizer whistle-blower has stated in numerous interviews.
What’s unusual about the CRFs for this subject is that they reveal that this participant had a serious fall, the following day on August 28 after the second dose was given, resulting in them being hospitalized. (See screenshot below)
The fall caused facial lacerations, which was recorded as a separate AE but were not reported as serious, even though the toxicity grade level assigned was 2 and the participant was hospitalized for 26 days, see below.
Screenshot below shows AE report for facial lacerations.
Line 9 includes an unusual anomaly stating the event is ‘NOT RELATED’ to the study treatment but ‘Hypotension’ but in the AE report form for the ‘Fall’ (see screenshot below) it’s due to ‘fall.’
Screenshot below shows missing SAE number for ‘Facial lacerations.’
This was flagged by a trial investigator, see below
For these two SAEs the Ventavia staff share both events were due to ‘other reasons’ and not related to the study treatment. However, doubts can be raised over the credibility of this information given the fall and facial lacerations were intrinsically related. So, if facial lacerations were due to ‘hypotension’ then the fall should be due to that too.
It’s note-worthy that the fall happened the day after the second treatment dose was given, which at least raises the question of causality.
It’s also concerning that the screenshot below shows how AER #2020337848 (this number referenced in line 15 of the AE report above for the fall) ‘the causality was recorded as RELATED in SAE form however, reported as NOT RELATED on AE CRF’
Subject #11281103
The general medical history for this female participant shows no evidence of impaired kidney function (such as hypokalaemia and kidney stones).
She was administered dose 1 of the blinded treatment on August 12 and the second dose on September 1. A month later she is reported to have kidney stones, hypokalaemia, and a urinary tract infection on October 3.
All recorded start dates match and so do the recorded end dates.
The AE report for the kidney stones is below.
The line 9 entry shows ‘this event is due to other…renal calculus’ and for the AE of severe hypokalaemia (see below) the event is attributed to ‘hypokalaemia.’ Both events are ‘NOT RELATED’ to the study treatment as reported by trial staff.
Given this participant had no previous history of impaired renal function before taking part in the trial and the fact that kidney stones along with renal function impairment have been reported as side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine- it’s highly questionable why these AEs were not investigated further in relation to them being related to the study treatment, especially when they arose just one month after the second treatment dose.
The missing Serious Adverse Event (SAE) numbers
When looking through the CRFs for participant, subject # 10851246, an AE report is logged with ‘Exposure during pregnancy’ entered for the adverse event. This term is given when ‘a female participant is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.’
A query is made about the SAE number being left blank for this participant at another Ventavia site (1085).
For Subject #10851216, a serious adverse event number is left blank regarding a ‘left leg fracture’ after a fall.
At Ventavia site #1085 there seems to be a pattern of leaving SAE numbers left blank.
The missing barcodes
In the process of writing this report, this author not only reviewed thousands of CRFs, but also encountered lots of entries of missing barcodes for samples collected from participants, such as the one below. This suggests a serious possibility that sufficient evidence reveals a pattern of questionable Ventavia trial site data at best, perhaps compromised in more worse case scenarios.
All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistle-blower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials. The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?
It’s worth pointing out that the FDA conducted inspections of only 1% of the clinical trial sites.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Comments Off on Bombshell: New Release of Pfizer Confidential Documents. “10,000 pages out of a cache of over 450,000 of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine-related data”
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“Embassy alley” in Beijing, in reality a patchwork of tree-lined streets with two story houses, mostly built in the 1960s in a style reminiscent of the 1930s, seems far from the madding crowds. Heavily guarded and monitored, it does not attract, let alone welcome, casual strollers. Which is why few people in the city have noticed that most Western embassies are displaying Ukrainian solidarity signs near their entrances. Indeed, a rupture has taken place that many are unaware of.
“Friendship between the two states has no limits” Chinese president Xi Jinping said after he signed a joint statement with Russian president Vladimir Putin less than a month before the Ukraine invasion. For this reason Xi will not, yet, try to persuade his friend to curtail the attack. But those limits have, in fact, been reached. China’s relationship with Russia has always been more complicated, less solid, than it appears. Just a couple of months after the two leaders declared their “no limits” partnership, it is clear that there are, in fact, boundaries to how much support Beijing will offer Moscow. Xi has no interest in being entangled in foreign wars and the precariousness of the Chinese economy has his full attention.
Nor can China, for all its economic clout, step in and ease the pain of Western economic sanctions. Russia is China’s third-largest supplier of gas, behind Australia and Turkmenistan. About one-third of Russian exports of crude oil went to China in 2020. But China imported only 10bn cubic meters of natural gas from Russia in 2021 via the only pipeline from Siberia that links the two countries. This pales in comparison to the 175bn cubic meters imported by Europe. The pipeline infrastructure for fossil-fuel exports between China and Russia is woefully inadequate.
The West wants China to use its influence over Russia. But intervening too early risks, in Beijing’s view, weakening the Russian president. Better wait, to see if he can take Kiev, before stepping in. But the obvious consequence of this approach is that Xi will be tarnished as a cynical opportunist who lacks the leadership qualities needed by a leader on the world stage.
War is raging in Europe and China hopes this will help it to achieve a long-cherished strategic goal. Like imperial powers of 140 years ago, Beiijng wants the world carved up. China to dominate Asia and Africa, Russia to get a veto over European security and America to retreat back to the Monroe Doctrine and South America.
Russia’s war in Ukraine could accelerate this global scenario, some in Beijing think. They are wrong. China wants the US to accept its decline.
But China too is declining. It’s not the power it was, even just a few years ago.
Covid and corruption are playing havoc with its construction-scandal weakened economy. It remains powerful but growth is uneven and stalling. Russia, as an ally, is diminished. China’s wait-and-see-inaction seems sclerotic. Chinese officials have sent out confusing and frankly incoherent statements. They stress, parrot like, the importance of territorial integrity but blame the US for the crisis.
China is not having a good war and the US and its allies, after the fiasco of the Afghanistan withdrawal, are again united. NATO, which declared China a security risk in 2021, is rejuvenated. Germany is rearming, a prospect that needs to be examined far more comprehensively than it is. European governments now look at defense spending as a priority. The Chinese leadership gives an impression of being caught wrong-footed by a world that is changing rapidly.
To China, Ukraine is not a far away country. As recently as January, Xi and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky exchanged congratulatory messages on 30 years of ties and vowed to strengthen their “fruitful” cooperation. Ukraine is a key part of the Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s signature infrastructure and foreign policy project. That too seems a casualty of war.
But Beijing will not ditch Moscow, condemn the invasion, and emerge as a peacemaker. Russia is still a useful ally to Beijing in what it sees as its real struggle, with the US.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Geopolitical analyst Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Democrats, Republicans, and independents, all need this person in the U.S. White House. We are the American people; and he represents, more articulately than anybody else does, on the most urgent and important issue confronting the world, what all Americans — and all of the people in the world — need. That’s a fact. That need is a fact. How can it become implemented?
This need has become desperate.
On March 13th, Fox News headlined “US senators dismiss ‘World War III’ worries, say US would dominate Russian troops”. Almost none of the 5,000+ reader-comments there cared much about the fact that WW III would destroy all life on this planet, and most of the readers were concerned only about whether ‘we’ would ‘win’ that war — a war that would utterly destroy the entire world.
The American public no longer consider a war between the world’s nuclear superpowers (U.S. and Russia) to be fundamentally different from, and enormously more unacceptable than, any prior war.
The massive fear of nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis is gone, though nuclear war would be hundreds of times more destructive in 2022 than it would have been in 1962.
The rabidly neoconservative American press has whipped up the international hatreds and blocked out the crucial facts in its international news-reporting, so as to produce America’s present misinformed and zombie-like public. This is idiocy on a massive scale, in our own nation, right now; and, so, America will have no public opinion restraining its leaders from destroying the entire planet in order to ‘save’ Ukraine — a previously unimaginable lunacy, but the reality today.
Only leadership such as Douglas Macgregor would offer the type of leadership that might overcome this ugly present reality and transform America into a decent nation again — one that takes deadly seriously the deadliest of dangers, not only dangers to Americans, but dangers to the entire planet. America’s existing leadership is atrocious beyond anything in all of human history.
We’ve not had the type of leadership that Macgregor can supply ever since at least the time of JFK, but the post-9/11 period has been especially nonchalant about the unacceptability of any WW III. For warfare, the atomic age brought with it a change of type, not ONLY a change of ITEM, but that basic fact has now been effectively forgotten in America, and this poses the greatest threat to the world in all of the world’s history — and this reality of Americans’ stunning ignorance and nonchalance about what a WW III would mean must change, and fast.
Before nuclear weapons, there could have been any number of World Wars (superpower-conflicts); but, after the 1945 advent of nuclear weapons, there can be only one more World War, and it would begin the process that would soon end all life on this planet.
Our nation’s leaders now are no longer restrained by the public about bringing it on. Shall we accept that?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Featured image is a screenshot from a Grayzone 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Kyiv Independent reported on Monday, 14 March, that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy had proposed meeting President Putin in Jerusalem. This is what Mr. Zelenskyy told foreign journalists on March 12. He had suggested to Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, to act as intermediary. See this.
Latest reports from Russia – 16 March 2022 – indicate that since Biden called Putin a “war criminal” – there will very likely be no Putin-Zelenskyy meeting.
On 13 March 2022, RT reports Moscow and Kiev seem to be moving closer to an agreement, according toLeonid Slutsky, a member of the Russian negotiation team. He believes there has been “significant progress” in talks between Kiev and Moscow. It may soon lead the two sides in the conflict to sign an agreement.
Speaking to RT Arabic on Sunday, Slutsky – who also chairs the State Duma’s Committee on International Affairs – said, “If we compare the positions of both delegations at the talks, at the very beginning and today, we see significant progress.”
Confirming this statement, the chief Ukrainian negotiator said “Russia was seeing the situation “much more adequately” than before. See this.
Despite blaming Russian shelling for preventing the safe passage of people – an accusation Russia vehemently denies – Ukraine has nonetheless apparently witnessed some progress in the negotiations, too.
Ukrainian presidential aide, Mikhail Podolyak, said in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant that the two sides were approaching a compromise. He believes that the Russian side was “already seeing things much more adequately,” but noted that it would likely be some time before it “fully, 100%, understands the situation it has got into.”
Although these are the first positive signs of a possible de-escalation of the war in Ukraine and that a peaceful solution may be in reachable sight, early optimism, while more than welcome, ought to be dealt with cautiously.
Ukraine is unfortunately not alone in this conflict – and in the decision-making process. It is like a proxy war between the United States and Russia carried out on the grounds of Ukraine.
Today, 16 March, TeleSur reports that during today’s negotiations, Ukraine rejected a Russian security condition, that Ukraine become a “neutral” state, like Sweden, or Austria.
Mikhail Podolyak said that “Ukraine is in a conflict with Russia. Therefore, the model for a future Ukraine can only be an Ukrainian solution, and only with a solid base of security from Russia. See this.
As the world is watching, the western US-led empire is gradually becoming weaker and showing increasing signs of an imminent collapse. May the hope of a peaceful solution come through.
However, a falling empire may act like a dying beast, lashing out and around itself to bring down as many victims as possible – i.e. countries and societies in its reach. It may therefore be too soon to predict a peaceful outcome.
Yet, a nuclear conflict is unlikely. Simply because with today’s nuclear technologies, an outcome is unpredictable. For example, since 28 of the 30 NATO bases are in Europe, it is very likely that the first Russian targets would be in Europe, potentially knocking out Europe for the third time in something over 100 years, by three World Wars that were not initiated in Europe – but frankly, for which Europe did not have the guts to say NO.
Backtracking in recent history, for the last almost eight years since the Minsk accord of 5 September 2014, Ukraine failed to implement the terms of the agreement; and eventually leading to Russian recognition of the Donbas republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocol had been designed to regularize the status of those regions within the Ukrainian state.
Russia has now demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc.
Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and, against all evidence to the contrary, has denied claims it was planning to retake the two Donbas republics by force. The 13,000 civilian deaths in Donbas during the last 8 years, caused by the Kiev army and Kiev-paid terror groups, speak for itself.
Ukrainian presidential advisor, Mr. Podolyak, sees any agreement between Kiev and Moscow as a “multi-component” accord. It should include provisions on the termination of the war, the terms and time schedule of the withdrawal of the Russian forces, the guaranteed terms of the peace agreement, and a detailed description of compensation mechanisms, he stressed, as recovery efforts would likely amount to “billions of dollars.”
Even if such an agreement were to be reached to the satisfaction of both parties, Ukraine currently not being a sovereign country, but rather a nation under strict control of the US / EU and the NATO war-machine, an agreement reached between Russia and Ukraine may simply not be endorsed by Washington.
Let’s not forget, Washington’s overall goal, since long, is to conquer Russia and her resources. Russia’s landmass of 17.13 million km², by far the largest country in the world, is also rich in natural resources, the west covets. In addition of being the world’s second largest producer and exporter of petrol and natural gas, Russia is also a major producer of cobalt, chrome, copper, gold, lead, manganese, nickel, platinum, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc – all materials the west primarily needs for its electronics – and war–industries.
Will the United States give up on Russia, under a Russia-Ukraine agreement which would most certainly contain the following:
(i) No NATO ever in Ukraine,
(ii) Ukraine to become a neutral country, and
(iii) a denazification of Russia, and
(iv) very possibly a request for NATO withdrawal to the geographic lines before 1997.
Besides, the US war-machine needs to be fed, as it feeds the US economy, contributing significantly to the US GDP – close to 60%, counting all war-related production and services industries.
Therefore, while at the outset a nuclear WWIII Scenario may look unlikely, caution is in order.
The western socioeconomic decline is perceived also in Europe – especially by the people – most of whom do not agree with the current US-led EU aggression vis-à-vis the East, Russia and China.
They know, they are part of the contiguous Super-Continent Eurasia – 55 million km2, 70% of the world’s population and close to two thirds of the world’s GDP. Therefore, the sooner they associate with the Continent where they belong to, the better.
Will the declining American empire peacefully accept – and opt for a multi-polar world instead of a Third World War.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles
Former senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense Col. Doug Macgregor joins Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate for a candid, live discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war and his time in the Trump administration when an Afghan withdrawal was sabotaged and conflict with Iran and Syria continued.
“Well at this point we have to conclude that there is a universal opposition to any peace arrangement that involves a recognition of any Russian success,” Macgregor said. “In fact if anything, it looks more and more, as though Ukrainians are almost incidental to the operation in the sense that they are there to impale themselves on the Russian army. And die in great numbers, because the real goal of this entire thing is the destruction of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin.”
“No one is prepared to stop anything as long as there is the slightest hope that something terrible will happen to Russia and Putin,” Macgregor said. “Of course, I don’t see much evidence that that is going to be the case. But it doesn’t really matter here, everyone has universally signed on to the hatred for Russia campaign. That seems to go on regardless what is reported, and frankly the absence of much truth in reporting and a lot wishful thinking in its place is hard to overestimate or exaggerate, it’s terrible.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
The conflict in Ukraine has divided the world into those who support the US, and those who do not support a superpower in charge of the world. The Ukraine conflict is pitting the US and their western allies, against other nations who seek a new world order, free of US domination.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Ararat Kostanian in an effort to understand the back-story of the events in Ukraine, and the emergence of a new multi-polar world order.
Ararat Kostanian is an expert on Middle Eastern studies and International Relations. He currently works as a Junior Fellow and a PhD candidate at the Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Science of Armenia, and has published essays and articles on Political Islam, Turkey, the Syrian War, and the emergence of multipolar world and on Armenian foreign policy.
*
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Turkey, Israel, and Azerbaijan seem to be taking a position against Russia, and in support of Ukraine in the current conflict. In your opinion, what might be the Russian response?
Ararat Kostanian (AK): If we look at the conflicts in Middle East and South Caucasus that preceded the current conflict in Ukraine, it is evident that Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan are allies both in the imposed war on Syria and against the Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh.
Similarly, amid the conflict in Ukraine the above-mentioned countries are supporting Ukraine both officially and publicly, but at the same time showing willingness of mediating between Russia and Ukraine; not to offend Russia and to gain credentials in return both in Middle East and South Caucasus.
Historically, Turkey has ambitions for advanced role in the Black Sea and considers Crimea a Turkish land based on the Tatar Turkic population.
Thus, that agenda at front, Turkey is willing to reach to Central Asia through Azerbaijan and a bigger role in Crimea would enhance Turkey a foothold in Europe on its way of creating the pan-Turkish empire. Likewise, for Israel, the Jewish community of Ukraine and especially in Odessa has great importance linking the Black Sea with the Mediterranean. Which means it links the Eastern Europe with the Middle East.
On the other hand, Russia for more than a decade, has started an advanced diplomacy with different countries such as Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, India etc. We should admit that Russia has achieved positive outcomes in its relations with Saudi Arabia and India in terms of gaining the neutrality of both against the harsh policy of the United States against Russia and its allies. Conversely, it is evident now that the containment policy with Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan wasn’t successful when Israel is continuing its illegal air attacks in Syria, Turkey joined the war against Nagorno Karabakh that is against the principles of international law. Thus, must form a new policy towards the above-mentioned country and empower its allies against Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan, instead of containing them through diplomatic maneuvers.
SS: What is Armenia’s position on the conflict in Ukraine, and their relationship with Russia in the past?
AK: Armenia is a key ally of Russia in the region and has strong political, economic, historical, and cultural ties with Russia. Currently, we have a big and influential community in Russia. Moreover, the Russian base is situated in the city of Gyumri and the Russian peacekeepers are in Nagorno Karabakh safeguarding the Armenians from further attacks by Azerbaijan. Moreover, we have historical relations and Armenian community in Ukraine as well, but politically Armenia supports Russia as an ally and on the other hand Ukraine supported Azerbaijan in the second war in Nagorno Karabakh last year. I should admit that we have also a small number of people that support Ukraine backed by few political figures who see the future of Armenia must be linked with the western camp, but they represent very small portion of the population.
SS: Information has surfaced that the chaos in Kazakhstan was supported by the US and the Muslim Brotherhood. In your opinion, can there be made a comparison between Kazakhstan and Ukraine?
AK: The comparison is not very accurate, but also it is linked together. The United States intentionally has created hot spots in different parts of the world to pressure Russia, China and Iran.
In other words, the emerging superpowers that are willing to form the bi-polar and multipolar world. After the failure of the United States in Afghanistan and the diplomatic success of Russia and China with the Taliban, Kazakhstan being a key country in Central Asia, the Western camp has tried to engage in color revolution with the help of Turkey to destabilize the region and force Russia and China to enter in war. Russia and CSTO has reacted in time and stopped the ambitions of the United States and Turkey in turning Kazakhstan into another Syria or Iraq. The West went silent, because of Russia’s quick move and shifted its direction this time to Europe to create tension in Ukraine the closest to Russian borders. Of course, the tension has been there since 2014 after the coup in Ukraine and the installment of a regime that is anti-Russian and openly announced the desire to join the NATO.
SS: The EU and the US have banned Russia’s Sputnik and RT from accessing the western media market. The ban has even involved reporters from Russian media. In your opinion, should journalism be free and open, or should the West be allowed to censor the content of information their citizens have access to?
AK: The freedom of speech must be accepted as a universal value and should not be monopolized in the hands of the western media and government. Unfortunately, not only Russian owned televisions are being closed in the West, but also many YouTube channels are being shut down, many pages are being suspended in social media, we are seeing hatred towards Russians in European cities, international brands and shops are being closed in Russia and I believe these incidents are taking place with orders by the United States. These actions prove that democracy and human rights do not exist in the minds of the western politicians and when a crisis arise, their only tool is spreading hatred and racism. In fact, this situation will have negative impact on the image of the United States itself and it will lose trust among the countries that are in good relations with.
SS: Many analysts have said that President Putin may have been too late in taking action against Ukraine because of Russian national security concern. In your opinion, should Russia have acted sooner?
AK: As I have mentioned above, Russia for more than a decade had decided to solve the problems in civilized diplomatic methods; to not ignite other wars in Europe, South Caucasus, or Asia. Unfortunately, the United States not sympathetic with the reality of the emergence of the multipolar world, is pushing its allies and puppet governments for escalating wars and delaying peace processes in different parts of the world to keep the decades ago situation of a unipolar world and its method is not negotiation and cooperation, but resistance to keep the hegemony by igniting color revolutions and wars. In this sense, Russia acted very accurate in the Middle East previously with an official request from the Syrian government and in Kazakhstan as well, and in Ukraine supported the population of Donetsk and Lugansk more than 8 years from the harsh treatments of the Ukrainian racist armed groups.
The crisis has started due to the provocative Ukrainian announcements of joining NATO, establishing an arena for nuclear weapons and enhanced Russophobia in Ukraine against the Russian population. Moreover, Russian officials in the negotiations with their counterparts of the United States several times noted the redlines that shouldn’t be crossed and they will never accept any form of NATO powers in their neighboring country.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had the willingness to solve all the questions in diplomatic manners and had been given guarantees from the United States that NATO would not expand to the East. As we have seen, the United States did not keep the promise.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Through a vast network of authors, scholars, journalists and activists, the objective of Global Research is to contribute to peace and justice. Our commitment for more than 20 years has been to deliver to our readers the unreported, misreported and underreported truths.
We have been reporting on the Ukraine-Russia conflict for several years while closely monitoring the developments surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic since its outbreak in January 2020.
To maintain our complete independence, we do not accept government or corporate funding. Therefore, we ask you, our readers, to show some support by making a donation and/or starting a membership (which includes a free book offer) and ensuring that the message reaches as many people as possible:
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Wars disturb and delude. The Ukraine conflict is no exception. Misinformation is cantering through press accounts and media dispatches with feverish spread. Fear that a nuclear option might be deployed makes teeth chatter. And the Russian President Vladimir Putin is being treated as a Botox Hitler-incarnate, a figure worthy of assassination.
The idea of forcing Putin into the grave certainly tickled South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Liberated by more generous rules regarding hate speech (freedom in Silicon Valley is fickle), Graham took to Twitter to ask whether Russia had its own calculating Brutus willing to take the murderous initiative. Moving forward almost two millennia for a historical reference, the Senator pinched an example from the Second World War (when else?). “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” The only way to conclude the conflict was “for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”
Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?
The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.
You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.
In support of the proposition came Fox News host Sean Hannity, using long discredited logic in dealing with the leaders of a country. “You cut off the head of the snake and you kill the snake. Right now, the snake is Vladimir Putin.”
Armchair psychologist types tend to suggest that homicidal fantasies are fairly common. Julia Shaw of University College London told those attending the Cheltenham Science Festival in 2019 that this was to be expected from humans, enabling them to think through “the consequences” of their actions, obey a moral code and “develop our empathy.”
Shaw might have missed a beat on this one, especially regarding the harm wished upon the Russian leader from a certain number in self-declared Freedom’s Land. Empathy has been in short supply, and the moral code, if it can be called that, has gone begging.
Graham’s homicidal call did bring out its critics, but the outrage was far from unconditional. To have shown balance would have betrayed the cause and revealed solidarity for wickedness. There were the mild, spanking rebukes from Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota. “As the world pays attention to how the US and its leaders are responding, Lindsey’s remarks and remarks made by some House members aren’t helpful.”
Republican Senator Ted Cruzthought it “an exceptionally bad idea”, preferring “massive economic sanctions”, boycotts of Russian oil and gas, and the provision of military aid to Ukraine. Democratic Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, wondered if a certain number of people had lost their minds. “I have seen at least a half a dozen insane tweets tonight. Please everyone keep your wits about you.”
This is an exceptionally bad idea.
Use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; and provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.
But we should not be calling for the assassination of heads of state. https://t.co/crPGHw9xyJ
Billionaire financier Bill Browder, the inspiration behind the Magnitsky Act of 2012, preferred to diminish Putin as “a very little man. He’s very scared of everybody, and he’s very vindictive. And so he’s constantly looking around for betrayal.” Hardly worth assassinating, it would seem.
One should give Graham some leeway here, despite the flat assertion by White House press secretary Jen Psaki that assassination was “not the policy of the United States.” Given that the US has not been averse to assassinating leaders or prominent figures, why be squeamish now? President Abraham Lincoln thought it morally appropriate to condone the assassination of leaders who had caused suffering for an extended period of time, and could not be ousted by peaceful or legal means. With Cleo’s irony, he would himself be assassinated along the lines of such logic by thespian John Wilkes Booth.
For decades, Washington wished to do away with Cuba’s obstinately resilient Fidel Castro, bumbling along and eventually failing. (Such oafish, nursery incompetence surely demands a Netflix production.)
With the People’s Republic of China starting to make its mark in the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower thought it appropriate that a blow be struck by singling out one of the Communist state’s brighter lights, Premier Zhou Enlai. The Central Intelligence Agency’s murderous effort involved blowing up an Air India flight for Bandung in 1955, killing 16 passengers. Zhou never boarded the flight. A second effort at attempted poisoning was aborted.
The CIA did not always fail, even if it gave an excellent impression of doing so. There was more success in operations against Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo.
During the absurdly named “Global War On Terror”, drones became the weapon of choice to target high profile figures, a murderous policy given a bubble wrapping of weasel words. As recently as January 2020, President Donald Trump went so far as to order the killing of one of Iran’s most popular figures, the legendary leader of the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani.
At stages, US officials have shown remarkable candour on the policy of targeting heads of state, despite the existence of Executive Order 12333 which states that, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
In 1990, Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Dugan promised that, in the event of war between the two countries, US planes would make a special point of targeting Saddam Hussein, his family and his mistress. It must have then come as a surprise to him that a certain Secretary of Defense, the usually amoral Dick Cheney, would sack him for making comments possibly in violation of the assassination ban. Dugan should have stuck to generalities, such as targeting the country’s leadership. It’s all in the presentation.
What of the point of assassination, that most severe form of censorship? Stephen Kinzer is solid in pointing out that liquidating that man in the Kremlin will hardly guarantee a more accommodating replacement. “No one who hopes to secure power in Moscow […] could ever accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO or the presence of hostile troops on Ukrainian soil.” But Kinzer is even more on the mark for pointing out that US efforts tend to be hallmarks of stunning failure.
All this chat about purported tyrannicide should not detract from the pattern of US history, which has affirmed that the imperium will dispose of leaders and prominent figures it does not like, even if it fails along the way. Little wonder that Graham and his ilk are urging Russians to fulfil their blood-soaked fantasies.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from Notes from the Twilight Zone
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, two British-Iranian nationals held in Iran since 2016 and 2017, respectively, were unexpectedly set free and were permitted immediately to travel[1] to the United Kingdom today. In return, the British government, in what gave the impression of a ransom payment, triumphantly announced it had settled a £400m debt owed to Iran from the seventies.
The thaw in the frosty relations between the Western powers and Iran signals that a tentative understanding on reviving the Iran nuclear deal has also been reached behind the scenes, particularly in the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis and the Western efforts to internationally isolate Russia. After sanctioning Russia’s 10 million barrels daily crude oil output, the industrialized world is desperately in need of Iran’s 4 million barrels oil production to keep the already inflated oil price from causing further pain to consumers.
Last week, Venezuela similarly released [2] two incarcerated US citizens in an apparent goodwill gesture toward the Biden administration following a visit to Caracas by a high-level US delegation, despite the fact that Washington still officially recognizes Nicolas Maduro’s detractor Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s “legitimate president.” Nonetheless, Venezuela is one of Latin America’s largest oil producers and opening the international market to its heavy crude might provide a welcome relief in the time of global oil crunch.
Niftily forestalling the likelihood of strengthening of mutually beneficial bonds between China and Russia when the latter is badly in need of economic relief, the United States pre-emptively accused China of pledging to sell military hardware to Russia, when the latter, itself one of the world’s leading arms exporters, arguably didn’t even make any such request to China.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan held an intense seven-hour meeting in Rome with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi yesterday, March 15, and warned China of “grave consequences” of evading Western sanctions on Russia. Besides wielding the stick of economic sanctions, he must also have dangled the carrot of ending trade war against China initiated by the Trump administration.
The Wall Street Journal reported [3] last week the White House unsuccessfully tried to arrange calls between President Biden and the de facto leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as the US was working to build international support for Ukraine and contain a surge in oil prices.
“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the U.A.E.’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan both declined U.S. requests to speak to Mr. Biden in recent weeks, the officials said, as Saudi and Emirati officials have become more vocal in recent weeks in their criticism of American policy in the Gulf.
“‘There was some expectation of a phone call, but it didn’t happen,’ said a U.S. official of the planned discussion between the Saudi Prince Mohammed and Mr. Biden. ‘It was part of turning on the spigot [of Saudi oil].’
“But the Saudis and Emiratis have declined to pump more oil, saying they are sticking to a production plan approved by OPEC. Both Prince Mohammed and Sheikh Mohammed took phone calls from Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, after declining to speak with Mr. Biden.”
To add insult to the injury, Saudi Arabia has reportedly invited [4] Chinese President Xi Jinping for an official visit to the kingdom that could happen as soon as May, and is also considering pegging its vast oil reserves in yuan, a move that could spell end to the petrodollar hegemony.
Trump aptly observed: “Now Biden is crawling around the globe on his knees begging and pleading for mercy from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.” It appears quite plausible in its relentless efforts to internationally isolate Russia, the Biden administration is likely to unravel the whole neocolonial economic order imposed on the world after the signing of the Bretton Woods Accord following the Second World War in 1945.
The Intercept reported [5] March 11 that despite staging a massive military buildup along Russia’s border with Ukraine for nearly a year, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack in February, according to senior current and former US intelligence officials. It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the US intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added.
“Last April, US intelligence first detected that the Russian military was beginning to move large numbers of troops and equipment to the Ukrainian border. Most of the Russian soldiers deployed to the border at that time were later moved back to their bases, but US intelligence determined that some of the troops and materiel remained near the border.
“In June 2021, against the backdrop of rising tensions over Ukraine, Biden and Putin met at a summit in Geneva. The summer troop withdrawal brought a brief period of calm, but the crisis began to build again in October and November, when US intelligence watched as Russia once again moved large numbers of troops back to its border with Ukraine.”
Extending the hand of friendship, Russia significantly drawdown its forces along the western border before the summit last June. Instead of returning the favor, however, the conceited leadership of supposedly world’s sole surviving super power turned down the hand of friendship and haughtily refused to concede reasonable security guarantees demanded by Russia at the summit that would certainly have averted the likelihood of the war.
In the 2001 census, a third of Ukraine’s over 40 million population registered Russian as their first language. In fact, Russian speakers constitute a majority in urban areas of industrialized eastern Ukraine and socio-culturally identify with Russia. Ukrainian speakers are mainly found in sparsely populated western Ukraine and in rural areas of east Ukraine.
Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian together belong to East Slavic family of languages and share a degree of mutual intelligibility. Thus, Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians are one nation and one country whose shared history and culture goes all the way back to the golden period of 10th century Kyivan Rus’.
In addition, Russians and Ukrainians share Byzantine heritage and together belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, one of the oldest Christian denominations whose history goes all the way back to the Christ and his apostles. Protestantism and Catholicism are products of the second millennium after a Roman bishop of the Byzantine Empire declared himself pope following the 1054 schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
In comparison, what do Ukrainians have in common with NATO powers, their newfound patrons, besides the fact that humanitarian imperialists are attempting to douse fire by pouring gasoline on Ukraine’s proxy war by providing caches of lethal weapons to militant forces holding disenfranchised Ukrainian masses hostage.
“US & NATO allies are sending several surface-to-air missiles systems to Ukraine. A senior US official tells me these systems include Soviet-era SA-8, SA-10, SA-12 and SA-14 mobile air defense systems, w/range higher than Stingers, giving capability to hit cruise missiles.”
Only in the last year, which was incidentally the maiden year of the purportedly “pacifist and noninterventionist” albeit manifestly Russophobic Biden presidency, the US has reportedly provided [7] over 600 Stinger surface-to-air missiles and approximately 2,600 Javelin anti-armor systems to Ukraine, along with an assortment of radar systems, helicopters, grenade launchers, guns and ammunition, and $650 million worth military equipment.
One of Europe’s supposedly “most progressive nations” since the fall of the Third Reich albeit still a US client, Germany alone has proudly bragged [8] of dispatching 500 US-made surface-to-air Stinger missiles and 2,700 Soviet-era, shoulder-fired Strela missiles to Ukraine’s conscript military and allied irregular militias.
Although the mainstream media has publicly acknowledged NATO member states have provided a total of 2,000 surface-to-air missiles, including Stingers, and 17,000 anti-armor munitions, including Javelins and NLAWs, to Ukraine’s security forces, the actual number of weapons sent to Ukraine is many times the number that has officially been admitted.
In an interview with CBC News [9] on March 8, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned that a Russian attack on the supply lines of allied nations supporting Ukraine with arms and munitions would be a dangerous escalation of the war raging in Eastern Europe. “Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is defending itself. If there is any attack against any NATO country, NATO territory, that will trigger Article 5.”
Reminiscent of the Three Musketeers’ motto “all for one and one for all,” Article 5 is the self-defense clause in NATO’s founding treaty which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all 30 member nations.
“I’m absolutely convinced President Putin knows this and we are removing any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding about our commitment to defend every inch of NATO territory,” Stoltenberg said.
NATO chief said there’s a clear distinction between supply lines within Ukraine and those operating outside its borders.
“There is a war going on in Ukraine and, of course, supply lines inside Ukraine can be attacked,” he said. “An attack on NATO territory, on NATO forces, NATO capabilities, that would be an attack on NATO.”
Besides deploying 15,000 additional troops in Eastern Europe last month, total number of US troops in Europe is now expected to reach 100,000. “We have 130 jets at high alert. Over 200 ships from the high north to the Mediterranean, and thousands of additional troops in the region,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN [10].
The Russian military had not targeted weapons shipments once they entered Ukraine, a US official told CNN, but there was some concern Russia could begin targeting the deliveries as its assault advances.
On Sunday, March 13, Russian forces launched a missile attack [11] at Yavoriv Combat Training Center in the western part of the country. The military facility, less than 25 km from the Polish border, is one of Ukraine’s biggest and the largest in the western part of the country. Since 2015, US Green Berets and National Guard troops had been training Ukrainian forces at the Yavoriv center before they were evacuated alongside diplomatic staff in mid-February.
The training center was hit by a barrage of roughly 30 cruise missiles launched from Russian strategic bombers, killing at least 35 people, though Russia’s defense ministry claimed up to 180 foreign mercenaries [12] and a large number of foreign weapons were destroyed at the training center. The Ukraine conflict is clearly spiraling out of control and has the potential of dragging NATO powers into direct confrontation with Russia, which could then lead to a catastrophic Third World War.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“Shock and awe” was George Bush senior’s name for his “Desert Storm” attack on Iraq in 1990 – 91. A United Nations report described the effect on Iraq as “near apocalyptic,” sending Iraq back to the “pre-industrial age.” But it wasn’t enough. After a decade of sanctions against Iraq, which further decimated the country and its people, George Bush junior launched a new invasion in 2003. Together with a parallel war in Afghanistan, the world has seen two decades of wholesale death and destruction at the hands of the U.S. military, at a cost of trillions and countless deaths estimated between one and two million.
When the savagery of the U.S. war was exposed by Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, the official U.S. reaction was to demonize the whistle blowers, as if they were terrorists. Commenting on official U.S. hysterical condemnations of Russia and U.S. coverups of its own aggression elsewhere, Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Reportwrites that “it is the white supremacist underpinnings of U.S./NATO foreign policy which has created all of Ukraine’s suffering. The narrative that only white people deserve peace and security is all the more shameful because the global south suffers from war and privation as a direct result of U.S./NATO actions. It is NATO that destroyed the nation of Libya, NATO which attempted to do the same in Syria, NATO that occupied Afghanistan, NATO which wages war across African countries with U.S., French and British troops deployed across the continent.”
Kimberley adds that
“Ukraine has been pushed to the forefront of American thought in order to defend the imperialist foreign policy which led to the current conflict with Russia. If the blue eyed nation is suffering it is because of U.S. and NATO arrogance and aggression. Ukraine’s current situation is a direct result of the 2014 coup engineered by the U.S. and its EU partners. An elected president was dispatched and a civil war began that has killed some 14,000 people. Ukraine is a U.S. colony with a puppet government now under military attack.”
John Mearsheimer, a leading proponent of the “realist school” of international relations, echoes Kimberley on the cause of the current crisis. In 2014, after the coup that brought far-right Ukrainians to power, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.” He told the New Yorker
“all the trouble in this case really started in April 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand.”
The war toll in Ukraine is lower than all the earlier NATO interventions. Despite intense war hysteria and propaganda, the BBC admitted on February 28 that many of the viral claims about “Russian atrocities” are false. The UN Human Rights office said March 8 it had verified 1,335 civilian casualties in Ukraine–474 killed and 861 injured–since February 24. (This does not include more in recent days.)
In the Donbass, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found that more than 14,000 people had been killed between 2014 and early 2022, with another 50,000 non-fatal casualties. About two million Ukrainian refugees have escaped to Poland and other European countries. Another million eastern Ukrainians have been evacuated to Russia, which is seldom reported in western mainstream media.
Official U.S. government claims—echoed by the mainstream media—of global condemnation of Russia are not validated by reality. Much of the global south, led by China, India, Pakistan, middle eastern and African countries, and a substantial number of Latin American ones, have “abstained” from the avalanche of condemnations of Russia by the U.S. and its European allies.
The U.S. is waging a new “shock and awe” campaign, shipping countless tons of war material, mobilizing neo-fascist “volunteers” to join an “insurgency” against Russia, and urging NATO ally Poland to lend Soviet era bombers to Ukraine. President Zelensky of Ukraine is demanding a “no fly zone,” with strong support from many U.S. members of Congress. That would mean U.S. fighter jets shooting down Russian aircraft–“it means starting World War III,” according to Senator Marco Rubio.
Sanctions threaten global economy
Sweeping sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and western Europe threaten the global economy. The Biden administration has imposed an embargo on Russian oil, frozen Moscow’s central bank assets and attempted to cut off most Russian banks from the SWIFT bank transfer system, not including the banks European countries use to pay for Russian gas they urgently need. All civilian air traffic between Europe and Russia has ended, and shipments of virtually all commerce to and from Russia have been frozen. U.S. and European companies have pulled out of Russia, with uncertain consequences.
Who gets hurt by this shock and awe campaign? It may be too early to tell. Starvation looms in north Africa, which depends on wheat from Russia and Ukraine. The COVID19 pandemic paralyzed the economies of many countries. As they struggle now to recover, this new hit could be a knockout blow. Gasoline prices and general inflation are skyrocketing everywhere.
European countries may not continue going along with the sanctions. Economist Michael Hudson argues the U.S. war on Russia is actually a U.S. war on Europe, to keep the EU subordinated to U.S. capital. Now European industry is shutting down as energy prices soar due to sanctions. Hudson says U.S. sanctions aim to “prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China,” to keep them “firmly within America’s own economic orbit.”
To offset the loss of Russian oil on the global market, the U.S. is rushing to reopen negotiations with Iran and Venezuela. This is a sign of over-extension: one set of U.S. sanctions complicates or even cancels others.
Russia offers ceasefire and peace talks
On March 7, Reuters reported that Russia offered to immediately cease hostilities–to end its military actions “in a moment”–if Ukraine and the West would do four things:
Cease military action as part of a wider ceasefire;
Change Ukraine’s constitution to enshrine neutrality, and pledge to stay out of NATO;
Acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory;
Recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.
A New York Times report on March 10 said “talks fail to stop the fighting.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia remained open to talks, suggesting a meeting between the presidents. Lavrov highlighted Ukrainian President Zelensky’s recent comments that he was prepared to make concessions over Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO to stop the war.
“We are ready to discuss security guarantees for the Ukrainian state along with security guarantees for European countries and, of course, for the security of Russia,” Mr. Lavrov said. “And the fact that now, judging by the public statements of President Zelensky, an understanding of just such an approach is beginning to take shape, inspires a certain optimism.” The Times reported that the White House press secretary said “the United States also speaks to Mr. Putin’s interlocutors before and after all these conversations.”
Medea Benjamin and Nicholas Davies report that after President Zelensky’s election in 2019, Ukraine’s extreme right threatened him with removal from office, or even death, if he negotiated with separatist leaders from Donbas and followed through on the Minsk Protocol, which would grant autonomy to the Donbas region. Zelensky had run for election as a “peace candidate,” but under threat from the right, he refused to even talk to Donbas leaders, whom he dismissed as terrorists.
Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky shakes hands with neo-Nazi militia commander. [Source: thegrayzone.com]
John Mearsheimer said he thinks “the Russians would be willing to live with a neutral Ukraine, and that it won’t be necessary for Moscow to have any meaningful control over the government in Kyiv… They just want a regime that is neutral and not pro-American.”
A role for China?
U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has called Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi numerous times during this crisis, pressing China to use its leverage on Russia. Each time the Chinese have emphasized “rock-solid” friendship with Russia. Wang told Global Times March 10, “we would like to see an early ceasefire and cessation of fighting, which is also the common aspiration of the international community.”
The Global Times report said “the major consensus reached by Chinese, French and German leaders during a virtual summit” was “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries must be respected, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter must be fully observed, the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be taken seriously, and all efforts that are conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be supported.”
Concerning the three rounds of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Wang said that although there remain obvious differences between the two sides, the differences will be reduced each time the two speak, the hope for peace will increase, and the goal of a ceasefire and cessation of fighting will be further advanced. “China has put forward a six-point proposal to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine,” Wang said, “and is ready to step up communication with France and push the UN Security Council to reach a relevant consensus.” There was no comment on a possible mediator role for China.
A united anti-war movement?
The Ukraine crisis has taken its toll, at least for the moment, on the still modest forces of the U.S. and international antiwar movements, according to Jeffrey Mackler, a founder and leader of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC). He said two poles are emerging with counterposed strategic conceptions. “In the U.S., a growing minority, perhaps a majority, feels compelled to denounce with equal fervor both sides, Russia on the one, and U.S./NATO on the other.” In sharp contrast, he said, “organizations representing the major antiwar coalitions demand: ‘No to U.S./NATO War in Ukraine! No wars with Russia! No sanctions! No to NATO and NATO expansion’—a central cause of the present crisis—and, ‘Fund human needs, education, housing, the environment and healthcare, not war!’”
That group includes UNAC, Black Alliance for Peace, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and Eliminate Racism), CodePink, International Action Center, Popular Resistance, U.S. Peace Council, Black Agenda Report, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Veterans For Peace, World Without War, and Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.
These groups agree that “the U.S. imperialist government, with 1,100 military bases around the world in 110 countries is by far the world’s greatest purveyor of force and violence. This all-encompassing violence includes an Orwellian-like U.S. and worldwide surveillance system, cyber wars aimed at disrupting or disabling vital communication and power generating systems, drone wars, sanction wars against 40 nations, embargo-blockade wars, CIA Special Operation wars, death squad assassination wars and open military interventions aimed at ‘regime change’ and conquest.
It also includes wars of multi-lateral UN-sponsored ‘humanitarian’ interventions in the name of “democracy” as is the case of the present US/UN occupation of Haiti.”
The Biden administration, in a required report to the U.S. Congress a few months ago, listed 158 countries where U.S. military operations are underway. And the US AFRICOM (African Command) conducts military operations in 53 African countries, where there have been five coups d’etat just in the past year.
In contrast China maintains a single military base outside its borders—in Djibouti, at the Horn of Africa—while Russia maintains six military bases, mostly in the former Soviet Republics and one in Syria.
The U.S. spends more on its military, at least $1 trillion annually, including the CIA budget, than most of the rest of the world combined. Russia’s military budget is $60 billion. China’s is about $232 billion. China and Russia are near-totally surrounded by U.S. military bases.
Who are the imperialists?
Mackler says defining China and Russia as imperialist countries along with the U.S., and concluding that they must be equally condemned, is wrong. “U.S. imperialism planned and orchestrated a fascist-led coup aimed at obliterating the minority Russian-speaking people, 30 percent of the population, and the same U.S. government seeks to orchestrate Ukraine’s affiliation to NATO, replete with nuclear weapons on Russia’s doorstep.”
Ukraine’s oppressed Russian-speaking population has asked for Russian aid in this crucial matter, Mackler says. “We support this right of all poor and oppressed nations to be free from imperialist war and conquest. This includes their right to seek aid from other nations… to help defend their sovereignty, if not their very existence.”
Oil wars are the U.S. stock-in-trade, Mackler says, from the outright theft of Iraq’s oil via the U.S. war against Iraq, to the sanctions, coup attempts and hot wars against Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran, all aimed at keeping their competitive oil off the world market, or transferring it outright to U.S. corporations.
Michael Hudson adds that “the aim of U.S. sanctions is to keep the world oil trade firmly under U.S. control, because oil is energy and energy is the key to productivity and real GDP.”
“U.S. imperialism lit the fuse that ignited and sustains the present war in Ukraine,” Mackler concludes. “The U.S. antiwar movement’s simple demand ‘U.S./NATO Out Now!’ remains central to its future success.” He calls for a united front, democratic and mass action antiwar movement capable of defeating the U.S. warfare state’s endless atrocities. “U.S. working people, allied with the nation’s oppressed and exploited have a key role to play in the coming struggles.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Critics of the European Union’s energy policy were rubbing their hands too early, believing that the Ukrainian crisis would lead to a change of priorities and introduce an element of rationalisation to the limits, fees and regulations imposed on member states. On the contrary, the war only allowed to freely justify further speculation on the market of gas and refined fuels options.
Europe’s energy transformation is to take place even faster, with an increase in resources dependence on the United States and the assumption that costs will be passed on to households.
If this war does not end soon – next winter, Europe will run out of 109 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and the individual consumers will be forced to reduce their consumption by at least 14%.
Climate Target, Ukraine – or taking control and maximising profits?
Treated a bit like a shameful admission of guilt, the theory of securitisation in international relations notes that any issue becomes a “security threat” only when the government and the media focus public opinion on that. For if something has real effects – it is real, at least in the audience’s minds.
That is where the image of the endangered good is constructed – e.g. the standard of living, personal safety, individual consumption, etc. At the same time, this chosen value is securitised by triggering approval to take emergency actions.
In the case of the Ukrainian crisis, we can talk about one more element. By taking radical steps to change the European energy mix – the European Commission successfully hid the real object of securitisation.
Of course the vision of a rapid departure from Russian natural gas is explained, among others, by protecting the market from disruptions, striving to reduce energy prices, etc. Bu it is obvious that as the concern about the holy Climate Target has suddenly stopped – now the protection of the interests of energy oligarchs and foreign investors operating in Ukraine has become crucial. And of course combines with even stronger control over our lives using energy instruments.
Who is raising energy prices?
A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in the perspective of several months, it is not so much a failure of European energy policy – but rather a star from the sky for those seeking its further radicalisation.
Only in 2021 EU gas imports from Russia amounted to around 140 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and another 15 bmc of Russian LNG. In total, it represents 45% of whole EU imports and 40% of gas consumption in the European market. Fortunately for the Winter that is just about to end – Russian gas pipelines, both the Baltic Nord Stream1 and the Brotherhood lines running through Ukraine, are working smoothly despite the ongoing fights, and supply follows the schedule.
Therefore, any further increases in the retail prices of gas or electricity cannot be explained by the actions of the Russian side, which is fulfilling its own obligations despite the economic war announced in the West. It is in the West where true reasons of the increases should be looked for.
The stock speculation on options is to be blamed and similar situation is with fuel prices increase. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the current price of a barrel of crude oil that has the greatest impact on it – but again, speculation on refined fuel options and increasing of refining surcharges. It is not Putin who raises prices at stations – but Shell, BP and others. These are their profits, their game and… their war. And we remain its soldiers.
Tightening the belt – or a garrotte?
And we will be mobilised without even leaving our homes. There is a lot to fight for – the EU has just estimated the value of its own energy market at approx. EUR 200 billion, and the spending of the member states on adapting to the new strategy – at another EUR 55 billion. The main assumptions of The 10-Point Plan are:
increase LNG imports “from other sources” (i.e. from the USA and Qatar),
maximum usage of reserve capacity and rising storage levels,
delay nuclear retirements,
and invariably further transformation towards renewable sources.
And all this with draconian austerity forced by tough pricing policies, loosening of social covers and forcing ordinary citizens to use less energy. And we will need more money for their next purchases as well, for example to replace even new gas stoves with heat pumps. You know, these huge roaring boxes for which you have to dig the entire garden and then they switch itself to electric heaters anyway. And what if someone doesn’t have a garden? Well, then better buy a blanket while you can still afford it…
Who destroyed coal mining?
It is not any better with the rest of the EU assumptions. As analysed by the leading analytical think-tank Aurora Energy Research, associated with the University of Oxford, all these visions more or less stick together only if the Ukrainian conflict and its consequences last no longer than 2 years.
That means if Russian natural gas continues to flow through Ukraine and the NS2 delay will be no longer than until 2025. Indeed, some of the EU’s concepts do not make sense – they ignore the inability to automatically increase imports from Algeria and Libya, concerning all difficulties in meeting domestic demand there. Also, interconnectors between Spain and France would not be able to transmit the increased capacity.
Neither Norway nor the United Kingdom (which is still robbing Scotland of natural gas and oil) cannot increase production so fast and to assumed level. Postponing of the Dutch Groningen Gas Field closure, planned for this year – is not possible without a significant increase in expenditure, etc. It is not advised to fulfil spare storage in 90% before the next winter because of safety reasons and even if so, it would cost another EUR 100 billion.
Not to mention the fact that the nuclear power plant is not an amusement park and cannot be assembled and disassembled just like that. Especially when for those intended for closure – no fuel was ordered. The same applies to coal-fired power plants, which the European Commission suddenly looked kindly at (forgetting about the expected increase in the average emission to 22MtCO2). Simply put – the only one country which would be able to deliver Uranium and coal quickly and at reasonable prices is… Russia. And let’s hope that all those who had closed coal mines and ignored the energy competitiveness of Russian and Donbas pea-coal – appreciate the charming black humour of the current situation.
It will be more expensive – even by a third
But the rest, that is all consumers, will not be amused. While cuts for industry are assumed for this year at the level of 5-10% – individual customers are expected to reduce their demand by approx. 14% and should be prepared to 30-35% increase of current prices.
And no, the cavalry on a fracking horse will not come, although there are some suggestions of adopting in Europe this environmentally murderous, beloved by Americans method of extraction. Even maximising of LNG import from the USA and Qatar could cover only 70% of gap created by the elimination of Russian gas. And yet most Western countries would have to first incur further expenditures to use such amounts within own energy systems.
So, for today, the energy message, stripped of ornaments, theory and propaganda – sounds like this: it will be more expensive, darker, colder. And no one will help us, while profits will be gained by the usual suspects.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
With Julian still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”
This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep Julian in jail for at least another year.
The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.
By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.
In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.
It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.
My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.
So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.
Assuming Patel does authorise extradition, the matter returns to the original magistrate’s court and to Judge Baraitser for execution. That is where this process takes a remarkable twist.
The appeals process that has just concluded was the appeal initiated by the United States government, against Baraitser’s original ruling that the combination of Julian’s health and the conditions he would face in US jails, meant that he could not be extradited. The United States government succeeded in this appeal at the High Court. Julian then tried to appeal against that High Court verdict to the Supreme Court, and was refused permission.
But Julian himself has not yet appealed to the High Court, and he can do so, once the matter has been sent back to Baraitser by Patel. His appeal will be against those grounds on which Baraitser initially found in favour of the United States. These are principally:
the misuse of the extradition treaty which specifically prohibits political extradition;
the breach of the UNCHR Article 10 right of freedom of speech;
the misuse of the US Espionage Act;
the use of tainted, paid evidence from a convicted fraudster who has since publicly admitted his evidence was false;
the lack of foundation to the hacking charge.
None of these points have yet been considered by the High Court. It seems a remarkably strange procedure that having been through the appeals process once, the whole thing starts again after Priti Patel has made her decision, but that is the crazy game of snake and ladders the law puts us through. It is fine for the political establishment, of course, because it enables them to keep Julian locked up under maximum security in Belmarsh.
The defence had asked the High Court to consider what are called the “cross-appeal” points at the same time as hearing the US appeal, but the High Court refused.
So the ray of light that was Baraitser’s ruling on health and prison conditions is now definitively snuffed out. That means that rather than the possibility of release by the Supreme Court this summer, Julian faces at least another year in Belmarsh, which must be a huge blow to him just before his wedding.
On the brighter side, it means that finally, in a senior court, the arguments that will really matter will be heard. I have always felt ambivalent about arguments based on Julian’s health, when there is so much more at stake, and I have never personally reported the health issues out of respect for his privacy. But now the High Court will have to consider whether it really wishes to extradite a journalist for publishing evidence of systematic war crimes by the state requesting his extradition.
Now that will be worth reporting.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
March 17 is St. Patrick’s Day, when people of all national origins raise a glass and declare, “Today we’re all a bit Irish!” This may be truer than we know. The Irish were driven to America by debt, and they are leading the Western world in household debt today. The London Daily Telegraph reported on March 13, 2008 that household debt in Ireland has reached 190 percent of disposable income, the highest in the developed world; and that the Irish banking system is suffering such acute strains from the downturn in the housing market that it may have to nationalize its banks.1 The same may soon be happening in the United States, and for much the same reasons.
Debt Drives the Irish to America
A short review of the history of the Irish in North America reveals that few were here before 1845, when a disease struck the potato crops of Ireland, wiping out the chief or only source of food for many poor farmers. Famine continued for the next five years, killing over 2.5 million people.
“God put the blight on the potatoes,” complained the Irish farmers, “but England put the hunger upon Ireland.”
Farmers who were heavily in debt were shipped to England to pay the rent owed to their landlords. Impoverished Irish immigrants saved what little money they could to send family members across the Atlantic, traveling on overcrowded ships on which many died of disease or hunger on the way. When they arrived, the Irish men had to fight – often physically – to get labor jobs involving long hours and low pay; while the women worked mainly as servants (called “Brigets”) to upper-class families. Despite their very low wages, they managed to send a bit of money back to their families, until other family members had enough to buy the ship tickets to America. In the American South (mainly New Orleans), the Irish lived in swamp land infested with disease. Here, Irish men were looked upon as actually lower than slaves. As one historian put it, if a plantation owner lost a slave, he lost an investment; if he lost a laborer, he could always get another. Because the Irish workers were plentiful and expendable, they were often sent in to do dangerous jobs for which the slave-owners were reluctant to send their valuable slaves.2
“Debt Slavery” Replaces Physical Slavery
This form of “debt slavery” or “debt peonage” was not just an accidental development of history. It was a deliberately-planned alternative to the slave arrangement in which owners were responsible for the feeding and care of a dependent population, and it is still with us today. Although European financiers were in favor of an American Civil War that would return the United States to its colonial status, they admitted privately that they were not necessarily interested in preserving slavery. They preferred “the European plan”: capital could exploit labor by controlling the money supply, while letting the laborers feed themselves. In July 1862, this ploy was revealed in a notorious document called the Hazard Circular, which was circulated by British banking interests among their American banking counterparts. It said:
Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are glad of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this, the bonds [government debt to the bankers] must be used as a banking basis. . . . It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.3
A system of “debt peonage” is inextricably linked to a banking system in which money is issued privately by bankers and lent to the government rather than being issued as “greenbacks” by the government itself Today the “European plan” has evolved into the private central banking system, and it has come to dominate the economies of the world. A private central bank creates money simply by printing it or entering it as an accounting entry, then lends it to the federal government in exchange for government bonds or debt. Private commercial banks create many more dollars in the same way, advancing money created as accounting-entry loans without even incurring the cost of a printing press. Except for coins, the entire U.S. money supply is now created as a debt to private bankers.4
Banks create the principal but not the interest necessary to pay back their loans, so more money is always owed back than was put into the money supply in the first place. More loans must therefore continually be taken out to cover the interest, spiraling the economy into increasing levels of debt and inflation, in a futile attempt to repay principal and interest on a debt that is actually impossible to repay. The result is “debt peonage,” and it has systematically reduced the people to working for the company store, bound to their corporate masters for the food, shelter and health care formerly provided by slave owners under the old physical-slave system.
The Colonial Alternative: The Pennsylvania System of Benjamin Franklin’s Day
This is not the only way to run an economy. Until 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the European system of debt peonage competed with what was called “the American system” – debt-free government-issued dollars generated by provincial governments to pay their expenses. This “greenback” system was not actually used in the United States after the American colonies became a nation, except during the Civil War; but the “American system” flourished for decades in colonial America. Paper money was issued by local provincial governments not only to pay their own expenses but as commercial loans. The most effective and efficient of these government-issued money systems was in Pennsylvania, where a publicly-owned bank issued paper notes and lent them to farmers. Since this money returned to the government, it did not inflate the money supply; and since the government issued and spent an additional sum of money on public works, enough money was kept in the system to pay the interest on the loans and prevent the debt spiral afflicting the private banking system. The Pennsylvania system worked so well that it completely funded the provincial government without taxes or inflation.
Benjamin Franklin and others maintained that the chief reason for the American Revolution was that Parliament forbade the colonies from issuing their own money. Paper money issued by the Revolutionary government got the colonists through the Revolutionary War, but the British heavily counterfeited this money as a deliberate war tactic, and by the end of the war it had been inflated so much that it was nearly worthless. Fear of inflation led the Continental Congress to completely omit paper money from the Constitution, which does not say who can issue paper money or under what circumstances. The private banks filled the breach, and by 1913 the United States had the same private central banking system that England had.
Today, the pyramid scheme of lending 10 dollars and requiring 11 back has resulted in the very inflationary spiral the Founding Fathers feared. The money supply is inflated with more and more debt, shrinking the value of the dollars paid to workers and propelling larger and larger portions of the population into debt peonage. If the government were to issue its own money rather than borrowing from banks that issued it, and if this money were used to pay for real goods and services (roads and bridges, sustainable energy development, health services, and the like), demand and supply would remain in balance and inflation would not result. A government with a properly designed and monitored system of publicly-issued money could fund itself without taxes, inflation or debt.
Publicly-owned banks are also called “national” banks or “nationalized” banks – the very thing that threatens the private banking system in Ireland today. We have come full circle: a system of national banks is what used to be called “the American system.” This may be what we actually need – a public banking system operating for the benefit of the public. The private European system of debt peonage has failed. On this 2008 St. Patrick’s Day, we the modern-day Irish of all persuasions can raise a glass to the possibility of being freed from the debt peonage that has kept us wage-slaves for most of our national history.
Notes
1. “Irish Banks May Need Life-support as Property Prices Crash,” www.telegraph.co.uk (March 13, 2008).
3.”Hazard Circular,” 1862, quoted in Charles Lindburgh, Banking and Currency and the Money Trust (Washington D.C.: National Capital Press, 1913), page 102.
4.See Ellen Brown, “Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money,” www.webofdebt.com (July 3, 2007).
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an Attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
According to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution1is to change what it means to be human by merging man and machine. In short, while the term “transhumanism” is not being used, that’s exactly where the global cabal intends to take us, willing or not.
For the sanctions to have deleterious effects on Russia requires bad decisions by Russia, such as the Russian central bank is making. The West has nothing that Russia needs, but Western countries are extremely dependent on Russian energy and minerals. Russia could reply to sanctions with counter-sanctions, such as turning off the oil, natural gas, and minerals.
The Eurasian system is bound to become a serious alternative to the US dollar, as the EAEU may attract not only nations that have joined BRI (Kazakhstan, for instance, is a member of both) but also the leading players in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as ASEAN. West Asian actors – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon – will be inevitably interested.
Instead of pouring in weapons and piling on sanctions, we should call on President Biden to begin good faith negotiations with all concerned parties, respecting each of their security concerns.
A vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota said he developed tinnitus after his second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Gregory Poland’s symptoms began 90 minutes after receiving the vaccine. He described the condition as “fairly severe” and “extraordinarily bothersome, interfering with sleep and the ability to concentrate.”
Amidst the unstable relations between Saudi Arabia and the US, which since last year have oscillated between a total boycott and a moderate cooperation, Riyadh now shows interest in contributing to advance the process of de-dollarization of the world economy. According to recent reports, the Saudi government is willing to trade oil in Chinese Yuan. The measure would be a major blow against the American financial power, which has the Petrodollar as its base of monetary security.
The volunteers are a mix of neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, naïve liberals, pan-Turkists and a variety of Russophobes. Although Western media are lionising the foreign fighters, the accounts they give of their time in Ukraine are truly horrifying – from being tortured by Ukrainian soldiers, to being used as cannon fodder, and facing devastating missile strikes from Russian forces.
The years of U.S. funding of fascist forces in Ukraine and the recognition of a government in Kiev that overthrew the elected government, seized power and appointed extreme right-wing groups to head the police, army and national guard in order to pull Ukraine into NATO membership makes the U.S. complicit in the complete denial of the rights of the Ukrainian people. It is also a provocation against the entire region.
Ukraine is the world’s largest exporter of sunflower oil, the fourth largest exporter of corn and the fifth largest exporter of wheat. Together, Russia and Ukraine produce more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and 30% of the world’s wheat. Some 45 African and least-developed countries import at least a third of their wheat from Ukraine or Russia with 18 of them importing at least 50%.
On Monday 14th of March the British Supreme Court denied Julian Assange the right to appeal his extradition to the United States. This judgement continues the British judiciary’s subservience to the interests of American imperialism as it perpetuates the grave miscarriages of justice inflicted on the WikiLeaks publisher over the last 10 years.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
On Monday 14th of March the British Supreme Court denied Julian Assange the right to appeal his extradition to the United States. This judgement continues the British judiciary’s subservience to the interests of American imperialism as it perpetuates the grave miscarriages of justice inflicted on the WikiLeaks publisher over the last 10 years. An esteemed panel of three judges refused Julian’s permission to appeal on the basis that “the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”
Stella Morris, the partner and mother of Assange’s young children, has lambasted the decision of the Supreme Court and explained why the US continues its persecution of a journalist:
“Whether Julian is extradited or not, which is the same as saying whether he lives or dies, is being decided through a process of legal avoidance. Avoiding to hear arguments that challenge the UK courts’ deference to unenforceable and caveated claims regarding his treatment made by the United States, the country that plotted to murder him. The country whose atrocities he brought into the public domain. Julian is the key witness, the principle indicter, and the cause of enormous embarrassment to successive US governments.’’
The High Court in January and now the Supreme Court in March have both refused to consider the deeply troubling circumstances in which a requesting state (in this case the United States) can give assurances regarding the treatment of a person after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. We should recall that In January 2020 judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked Assange’s extradition to the US on the grounds that he would be a high risk for suicide due to the appalling conditions in the American penal system.
In the words of Assange’s partner Stella Morris, “A system that allows this is a system that has lost its way.’’
Julian Assange’s case will now go back to the Westminster court, which will then refer the decision for extradition to that beacon of enlightened tolerance: the British Home Secretary Piri Patel. Julian’s Legal team will have the right to submit evidence to the Home Secretary, arguing the case against Julian’s extradition to the United States where he will face charges that carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.
“It will be recollected that Mr Assange succeeded in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the issue subsequently appealed by the US to the High Court. No appeal to the High Court has yet been filed by him in respect of the other important issues he raised previously in Westminster Magistrates’ Court. That separate process of appeal, of course, has yet to be initiated.’’
The Biden regime is continuing with the extradition process that was initiated by the apparently lawless Trump, which is in flagrant violation of the First Amendment of the US constitution.
Stella Morris has observed that the United States is persecuting a journalist for doing his job, which in this case was to inform the public about grave violations of international law:
“Julian was just doing his job, which was to publish the truth about wrongdoing. His loyalty is the same as that which all journalists should have: to the public. Not to the spy agencies of a foreign power. He published evidence that the country that is trying to extradite him committed war crimes and covered them up; that it committed gross violations that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children; that it tortured and rendered; that it bombed children, had death squads, and murdered Reuters journalists in cold blood; that it bribed foreign officials and bullied less powerful countries into harming their own citizens, and that it also corrupted allied nations’ judicial inquiries into US wrongdoing. For this, that country wants him in prison for 175 years.’’
Sadly, the Western media appears to be completely uninterested in this travesty of justice. It screams and rants about the human rights abuses committed by the geopolitical opponents of the American Empire while maintaining a grave silence over the psychological torture of an Australian journalist.
Even worse, in many respects has been the object failure of the British Labour Party leadership to speak out in defence of Julian Assange. This shameful silence reveals the moral bankruptcy of the Labour Party leader Keir Starmer.
The British labour movement has a long and distinguished history of defending the victims of state-sponsored political persecution. It should follow the example of the National Union of journalists, which has unequivocally condemned the imprisonment of Julian Assange and called onall trade unions to join the campaign against his extradition.
The Life of Julian Assange is literally on the line. He has suffered a stroke in prison while his mental health has been greatly impacted by the psychological torture that he has suffered. Time is not on the side of Julian Assange. The clock sticking what are you going to do?
You can make a donation to the legal defence fund of Julian Assange here and sign a petition here which calls on the US Attorney General to drop the extradition case.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Leon Tressell is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s partner, addressing his supporters outside the High Court in 2021 during the U.S. appeal hearing in London. (Don’t Extradite Assange Campaign)
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
On Monday, 14 March, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system” in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine.
Guterres said:
“Food, fuel and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing. Supply chains are being disrupted. And the costs and delays of transportation of imported goods – when available – are at record levels.”
He added that this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe.
Poorer countries had already been struggling to recover from the lockdowns and the closing down of much of the global economy. There is now rising inflation and interest rates and increased debt burdens.
Ukraine is the world’s largest exporter of sunflower oil, the fourth largest exporter of corn and the fifth largest exporter of wheat. Together, Russia and Ukraine produce more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and 30% of the world’s wheat. Some 45 African and least-developed countries import at least a third of their wheat from Ukraine or Russia with 18 of them importing at least 50%.
Prior to the current crisis, prices for fuel and fertilizer had been rising. It was clear before COVID and the war in Ukraine that long global supply chains and dependency on (imported) inputs and fossil fuels made the prevailing food system vulnerable to regional and global shocks.
The coronavirus lockdowns disrupted transport and production activities, exposing the weaknesses of the system. Now, due to a combination of supply disruption, sanctions and Russia restricting exports of inorganic fertilisers, the global food regime is again facing potential turmoil, resulting in food price increases and possible shortages.
Aside from it being a major producer and exporter of natural gas (required for manufacturing certain fertilizers), Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer and the world’s largest exporter of crude.
The fragility of an oil-dependent globalised food system is acutely apparent at this particular time, when Russian fossil-fuel energy supplies are threatened.
“Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads.”
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has also affected global fertilizer supply chains, with both countries moving to suspend their fertilizer exports. The major markets for Russian fertilizers include Brazil and the EU and US. In 2021, Russia was the largest exporter of urea, NPKs, ammonia, urea/ammonium nitrate solution and ammonium nitrate and the third-largest potash exporter. Fertilizer prices for farmers have spiked and could lead to an increase in food costs.
It all indicates that regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) food supply chains that can cope with future shocks are required. How we cultivate food also needs to change.
A recent article on the Agricultural and Rural Convention website (ACR2020) states:
“What we urgently need now to invest in is a new local and territorial infrastructure for food production and processing which transforms the agro-industrial food system into a resilient decentralized food supply system. The war in Ukraine reveals the extreme vulnerability of food supply, far from the food security of actual food sovereignty.”
The agri-food and global trade system is heavily reliant on synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels. However, agroecological and regionally resilient approaches would result in less dependency on such commodities.
The 2017 report Towards a Food Revolution: Food Hubs and Cooperatives in the US and Italy offers some pointers for creating sustainable support systems for small food producers and food distribution. These systems would be based on short supply chains and community-supported agriculture. This involves a policy paradigm shift that prioritises the local over the global: small farms, local markets, renewable on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping and food sovereignty.
An approach based on local and regional food self-sufficiency rather than dependency on costly faraway imported supplies and off-farm (proprietary) inputs.
The 2020 paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle says an organic-based, agri-food system could be implemented in Europe that would reinforce the continent’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050 and allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption.
The question is how can this be achieved, especially when influential agribusiness and retail conglomerates regard such an approach as a threat to their business models.
The 2021 report A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045 offers useful insights. Authored by ETC Group and the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES), the document says grassroots organisations, international NGOs, farmers’ and fishers’ groups, cooperatives and unions need to collaborate more closely to transform financial flows, governance structures and food systems from the ground up.
During times of war, sanctions or environmental disaster, systems of production and consumption often undergo radical transformation. If the past two years have told us anything, it is that transforming food systems is required now more than ever.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
Wimbledon organisers are having conversations with the British government about whether Russian tennis players — such as Medvedev — should be allowed to compete at the tournament this year if they don’t distance themselves from President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking this morning to legislators in London about Wimbledon, British Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston said:
“Absolutely nobody flying the flag for Russia should be allowed. Many of us would be willing and able to (allow them to) compete as non-aligned, non-flag-bearing entities. But I think it needs to go beyond that.
“We need some potential assurances that they are not supporters of Vladimir Putin and we are considering what requirements we may need to try and get some assurances along those lines.”
Asked by a member of parliament about any back-and-forth with the All England Club, which runs the grass-court Grand Slam tournament, Huddleston replied: “We are in discussions.”
The All England Club confirmed that discussions were ongoing with both U.K. government and tennis governing bodies.
The seven groups that run the sport around the world have condemned the war; cancelled events in Russia and Belarus, which helped with the invasion; kicked those two nations out of the Billie Jean King Cup and Davis Cup team competitions; and announced on March 1 that players from those countries will be allowed to compete in WTA, ATP and Grand Slam tournaments but not under the name or flag of Russia or Belarus.
Russia is the reigning champion in both the Billie Jean King Cup and Davis Cup, but the International Tennis Federation has announced that the country would be replaced in the 2022 Finals of each by the highest-ranked losing semi-finalist in 2021. For the Billie Jean King Cup, that is Australia; for the Davis Cup, it’s Serbia.
Wimbledon’s deadline for player entries is May 16.
The tournament is scheduled to begin main-draw play on June 27.
Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, which happened to be the day Medvedev was assured of moving atop the ATP rankings for the first time while competing at the Mexico Open.
“Watching the news from home, waking up here in Mexico, was not easy,” Medvedev said then. “By being a tennis player, I want to promote peace all over the world. We play in so many different countries; I’ve been in so many countries as a junior and as a pro. It’s just not easy to hear all this news. … I’m all for peace.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Daniil Medvedev’s ‘world peace’ post on Instagram. (Instagram)
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
A Ukrainian neo-Nazi group in the besieged city of Kharkiv is said to have received anti-tank missiles made in Belfast.
Images of the controversial Azov regiment with the Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) were tweeted on Tuesday by Nexta TV, a Belarusian opposition media outlet.
“The Azov regiment was the first to learn about [the] new weaponry,” Nexta claimed.
Britain’s defence ministry has so far delivered 3,615 NLAWs to Ukraine at an estimated cost of around £72 million.
It is highly likely the NLAWs pictured with Azov members were supplied by the UK. The only other donor of the equipment to Ukraine is believed to be Luxembourg, which recently sent 100.
Parliament has been told the British weapons are not destined for the Azov regiment, which is formally incorporated in Ukraine’s National Guard and part of its Interior Ministry.
However, the new images show members of the group, wearing their notorious Wolfsangel uniform patch, learning how to use the powerful equipment.
The Azov regiment’s founder has said that Ukraine should “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].”
The US Congress passed a bill in 2018 that banned spending public money on arming the Azov regiment.
Another controversial Ukrainian ultra-nationalist group, the Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), has also published a photo appearing to show its members posing with UK-made anti-tank weapons.
The group denies being right-wing extremists, but continues to praise Stepan Bandera – an ultra-nationalist Ukrainian militant who collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two.
Based on present-day borders, one in four of the Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide was murdered in Ukraine.
Nato and the ‘Black Sun’
In another embarrassing development this week, Nato deleted a tweet celebrating International Women’s Day, after complaints it featured a Ukrainian soldier wearing a ‘Black Sun’ Nazi symbol on her uniform.
A Nato official told Declassified: “As part of an International Women Day collage for social media, we posted an image from stock footage of an international agency. The post was removed when we realised it contained a symbol that we could not verify as official.”
Ukraine elected a Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and neo-Nazi parties have failed at the ballot box. But the far-right plays a disproportionate role in the country’s security forces and its members are regarded as some of Ukraine’s most effective fighters.
Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin seized on the presence of such groups in an attempt to justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Yet ultra-nationalist and extreme right-wing groups are also present in the Russian military and society-at-large.
Putin’s troops have committed war crimes by repeatedly shelling civilian targets. Russian jets bombed a children’s hospital yesterday during a supposed ceasefire.
Authorities in Mariupol, a city in south east Ukraine, said the shelling of a maternity ward killed three people and injured 17 others, including a woman in labour.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created more than two million refugees and caused at least 1,424 civilian casualties, according to UN bodies.
Arms control fears
NLAWs are designed by Saab in Sweden and made by French arms manufacturer Thales in Northern Ireland.
Britain’s decision to supply Ukraine with these rocket launchers before the invasion has been widely praised. There are reports the weapons were used to eliminate Putin’s tanks at the start of the war.
Defence secretary Ben Wallace announced yesterday he is also considering supplying Ukraine with portable anti-aircraft missiles.
But with expectations now rising of a negotiated Russian withdrawal, some analysts are asking what will happen to these weapons after the war. The Global Organized Crime Index already describes Ukraine as “one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe.”
Western powers have previously pursued high risk strategies of arming extremist elements in Afghanistan, Syria and Libya to achieve short-term policy goals. Such schemes carry a high risk of ‘blowback’ in the medium to long-term.
While extreme Islamist or fascist groups may contain the most motivated and fearless warriors, they can seek to exert their own political ideology over territory they control, or even conduct terrorist attacks abroad.
A spokesperson for the UK Ministry of Defence said:
“The UK Government has gifted military aid only to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. We have robust procedures in place that allow us to vet all aspects of our exports and supply chains which are kept under constant review.”
Saab told us it is not providing comments on products related to the war in Ukraine. Thales was also approached for comment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt
Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.
Featured image: Ukraine far-right groups with UK-made rocket launchers (Design: DCUK)
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Some two years into COVID Mania, it appears that the forces for COVID tyranny have abandoned their failed war on a virus, at least for now. But they still can’t give up on the reality that it was all for nothing. They can’t acknowledge that the people in charge of society got everything they wanted, and ended up destroying hundreds of millions of lives, with nothing beneficial (at least for decent people) to show for it.
There have now been dozens and dozens of high profile detractors from the COVID narrative who have recently been deplatformed from the conversation. Yours truly, as a frequent narrative offender, is almost definitely existing there on borrowed time.
Big Tech is engaged in a giant mop up operation to protect the COVID narrative. Powerful governments and the corporate press, as their most loyal allies, is happy to churn out the material to accommodate them. These forces are creating an echo chamber that insists upon complete uniformity. So to protect the narrative, dissidents must be banished from the public square.
According to the narrative, we just discovered that these “tools” may not really work. But that can’t be the fault of the people who employed these tools. In the echo chamber, there was no dissent to this two year campaign of draconian terror. Exposing the longevity of the outsider narrative will cause a problem for the people in charge, so it’s best to instead remove evidence that this outsider narrative existed in the first place.
You can’t have reporters showcasing evidence that all of these “the tools” to stop COVID never worked. They must proclaim that this is a new discovery, and not something these rogue independent journalists have been articulating for two years.
Glad that @DLeonhardt is at long last informing our suburbanite and UWS fellow citizens of what Red-Staters have known for the past couple of years
Vaccines, Masks, Staying At Home Did Not Make A Major Difference In COVID Case Rates, NYT Writer Says https://t.co/yTl4qnChSu
His infraction? Restating the reality that the past two years have been a catastrophe of pseudoscience, and that all of the suffering imposed upon the masses have only created additional problems on top of the virus problem.
Twitter has permanently suspended Michael Senger for the tweet below. This is shocking and tragic, and follows on the heels of Daniel Kotzin's (thankfully temporary) suspension. They are trying to silence us, and I assume the same fate will befall me soon. pic.twitter.com/dorYaIeMJL
Friday morning, they added radio host Shannon Joy to the list for highlighting the tens of thousands of VAERS side effect reports in COVID vaccines given to children.
There had to be a reason for it all, because you don’t want people to get the impression that the whole Public Health industry is a giant ideological scam.
You don’t want to give people the idea that Big Pharma has transformed into a cartel of money and power hungry snake oil scammers and outright scam artists.
You don’t want the plebeians to start thinking that the CDC, FDA, NIH and every other Government Health departments couldn’t care less about their health, and are merely a tool of state interests.
So instead of coming clean about these aforementioned realities, the Big Tech mop up crew has turned its attention to protecting the countless lies concocted by the ruling class, so that these actors can retain good standing in the eyes of their constituency.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Anyone saluting the courage of Russian media worker Marina Ovsyannikova, who has been arrested following her on-air anti-war protest, should join the campaign to stop the extradition of Julian Assange.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal bid is grim news for the journalist whose Wikileaks organisation has done more to expose war crimes than any other media outlet this century.
Our government lies to us about war just as relentlessly as the Kremlin does to its citizens, while our major media outlets seldom challenge official narratives, especially on foreign policy.
How else can broadcasters report with a straight face that Boris Johnson has pledged to use a trip to Riyadh to put pressure on Saudi Arabia — not over its own brutal war on Yemen (in which Britain is, after all, deeply complicit) but to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Ovsyannikova could face jail time for her protest. Her act merits global respect, as does the open letter by thousands of alumni of Moscow State University who have condemned the war on Ukraine, as do the hundreds of protests large, small and individual by Russians standing up for peace — a woman who held up the Biblical commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill outside Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour; a man led away by police in Novosibirsk simply for holding up a blank piece of paper in a reference to censorship.
But any British politician condemning Russia’s crackdown should be asked what they have done to help free Assange, who could be imprisoned in the US for 175 years.
Assange is not a US citizen, let alone an employee of the US military. He is not accused of having leaked classified information. He is accused of having published classified information that was passed to him.
The airwaves are now full of the horror being inflicted on Ukrainians by Russian bombers and artillery. So we should think back to the content of the Afghan and Iraq war logs published by Wikileaks.
The horrendous civilian death toll from US bombings in Afghanistan. Cockpit camera footage showing US helicopter pilots laughing as they machine-gunned unarmed civilians in Iraq.
The victims of US war crimes are no less worthy of the world’s attention than Russia’s. Those who have helped expose those crimes are as deserving of protection.
Yet the British state has engaged in a sustained campaign to break Julian Assange.
It has held him in conditions amounting to torture. It imprisoned him for skipping bail though the charges he had originally faced had long since been dropped.
Now it plans to hand him over for exemplary punishment intended as a message for journalists everywhere, of whatever nationality: expose our war crimes and the long arm of the United States will find you and make you pay.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes as freedom to dissent is under extraordinary attack. Media platforms like Facebook and Google are calmly removing swathes of content critical of the Western narrative on Russia’s war. Parliament is pushing through legislation that will subject peaceful protesters in Britain to the same risk of arrest that we condemn in Russia.
And we learn from a member of Labour’s national executive that the supposed mass party of the left is wading through members’ personal correspondence looking for “unacceptable views” it can use to get them “suspended — or worse.” This is not some internal matter, of interest only to Labour members. It will have a poisonous effect across the public realm.
There has rarely been a greater need to stand up for free speech, the right to challenge authority and to express unpopular opinions. To question the huge power of privately owned comms platforms to censor and silence.
And for Assange, time may be running out. Britain’s courts will not defend his rights. His extradition must be stopped on the streets, through protest and direct action.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Facebook’s parent company, Meta, has been fined €17 million (~$18.6 million) by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) over a string of historical data breaches.
The security lapses in question, which appear to have affected up to 30 million Facebook users, date back several years — and had been disclosed by Facebook to the Irish regulator in 2018.
The DPC, which is Meta/Facebook’s lead privacy regulator in the European Union, opened this security-related inquiry in late 2018 after it received no less than 12 data breach notifications from the tech giant in the six-month period between June 7, 2018 and December 4, 2018.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — which came into application in May 2018 — puts a legal requirement on data controllers to swiftly disclose breaches of personal data to a supervisory authority if the leak of information is likely to pose a risk to individuals. (The most serious breaches should be notified within 72 hours.)
“The inquiry examined the extent to which Meta Platforms complied with the requirements of GDPR Articles 5(1)(f), 5(2), 24(1) and 32(1) in relation to the processing of personal data relevant to the twelve breach notifications,” the DPC wrote in a press release announcing a final decision on its Facebook inquiry.
“As a result of its inquiry, the DPC found that Meta Platforms infringed Articles 5(2) and 24(1) GDPR. The DPC found that Meta Platforms failed to have in place appropriate technical and organisational measures which would enable it to readily demonstrate the security measures that it implemented in practice to protect EU users’ data, in the context of the twelve personal data breaches.”
In a statement responding to the DPC’s penalty, a Meta spokesperson sought to play down the episode as merely a case of historically lax record-keeping — writing:
This fine is about record keeping practices from 2018 that we have since updated, not a failure to protect people’s information. We take our obligations under the GDPR seriously, and will carefully consider this decision as our processes continue to evolve.
The penalty announced by the DPC is the first final decision from Ireland on a GDPR investigation against Facebook itself since the regulation begun being applied nearly four years ago — although the regulator did issue a separate (larger) sanction against Facebook-owned WhatsApp last year for violations of transparency rules.
The DPC confirmed that its draft decision on this Facebook inquiry had faced some objections from other EU data protection authorities — something that also occurred in an earlier probe of a Twitter security breach, as well as over the transparency decision on WhatsApp. (And in both those cases the GDPR’s dispute resolution mechanism led to higher penalties being issued than Ireland had proposed.)
The DPC said two other authorities raised objections to its draft decision on this Facebook inquiry. But Ireland does not specify whether the fine was increased as a result of the objections, nor which authorities objected (or why).
It’s notable that the penalty is relatively small — certainly it’s a far cry from the theoretical maximum of 4% of Meta’s global annual turnover (which would be well over a billion dollars).
However the DPC handed an even smaller fine (~$550,000) to Twitter at the end of 2020, also over administrative failings around a security breach notification.
While there are likely variations in what went wrong in each case, it’s pretty clear that security breaches that are assessed by EU authorities as unintentional are likely to attract lower penalties than systemic or flagrant rule violations.
It also follows that a whole string of lapses has netted Facebook a larger penalty than Twitter, which had only been reporting a single breach (not a full dozen).
Major token hack
The details of all 12 security lapses Facebook ‘fessed up to over the six-month period of 2018 are not listed by the DPC in its announcement of the sanction — but in September 2018 the tech giant publicly disclosed a major hack, which it suggested affected at least 50 million accounts after hackers exploited a security vulnerability on the site.
The bug, which dated back to July 2017, had allowed hackers to obtain account access tokens which are used to keep users logged in when they enter their username and password — meaning that stolen tokens can allow hackers to break into accounts.
That major token hack wasn’t the only security lapse for the tech giant in 2018, though.
In June, Facebook notified users of a bug which had created a vulnerability for several days the month before, which it said had accidentally changed the suggested privacy setting for status updates to public from whatever users had set it to last — potentially causing up to 14 million users to over-share sensitive friends-only content with strangers.
Another bug we reported on, in November 2018, had allowed any website to pull information from a Facebook user’s profile — including their “likes” and interests — without the person’s knowledge.
And later that same year, in December, Facebook publicly disclosed a Photo API bug that it said had given app developers too much access to the photos of up to 5.6 million users.
This string of security lapses followed hard on the heels of the Cambridge Analytica story breaking into a global scandal — in March 2018 — when revelations of Facebook user data being sucked out of its platform to be repurposed for targeted advertising by the Trump campaign, which was seeking to opaquely influence the U.S. elections, wiped billions of dollars off its share price.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal also led lawmakers and regulators around the world to dial up their scrutiny of Facebook’s handling of people’s information — and has, ultimately, contributed to accelerating moves to overhaul and beef up regulation of digital platforms (such as the U.K.’s incoming Online Safety legislationor the EU’s Digital Services Act).
But since the Cambridge Analytica scandal predated the GDPR coming into force, Facebook largely escaped direct regulatory sanction in Europe over that particular episode. Had the timing been a little different it might now be on the hook for a rather larger penalty.
The U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office did fine Facebook £500,000 over Cambridge Analytica, the maximum possible under its pre-GDPR data protection regime. Although Facebook challenged the regulator’s decision — before going on to agree to drop its appeal and pay the fine to settle with the ICO without admitting liability. It later emerged that the ICO had agreed to be gagged over the terms of that settlement.
The final results of full platform app audit Facebook claimed it would undertake in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in a bid to reassure users it was purging bad actors and locking down user data, meanwhile, never saw the light of day.
Since then the GDPR has brought in tougher legal regime against data abuse — at least across the EU (the U.K. is no longer a member state) — however long delays between data scandals and enforcement continue to impede smooth working of the regulation.
It’s thus likely no accident that — also today — the regulator elected to publish a report on its handling of cross-border GDPR cases.
Among the stats it chooses to spotlight are the following claims (covering the period May 25, 2018 to December 31, 2021):
1,150 valid cross-border complaints have been received by the DPC; 969 (84%) as lead supervisory authority (LSA) and 181 (16%) as a concerned supervisory authority (CSA).
588 (61%) cross-border complaints handled by the DPC as the LSA were originally lodged with another supervisory authority and transferred to the DPC.
65% of all cross-border complaints handled by the DPC as the LSA since May 2018 have been concluded, with 82% of those received in 2018 and 75% in 2019 now concluded.
Of the 634 concluded cross-border complaints handled by the DPC as the LSA, 544 (86%) were resolved through amicable resolution in the interests of the complainant.
72 (22%) open cross-border complaints are linked to an inquiry and will be concluded on the finalisation of the inquiry. A large number of the remaining open complaints from 2018 and 2019 are linked to an inquiry.
86% of all cross-border complaints handled by the DPC as the LSA relate to just 10 data controllers.
38% of complaints transferred by the DPC to other EU/EEA LSAs (excluding the UK) have been concluded.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
CNN reported March 6 [1] Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley visited a week before an undisclosed airfield near the Ukraine border that has become a hub for shipping weapons. The airport’s location remains a secret to protect the shipments of weapons, including anti-armor missiles, into Ukraine. Although the report didn’t name the location, the air strip was likely in Poland along Ukraine’s border.
The Russian military had not targeted these shipments once they entered Ukraine, a U.S. official told CNN, but there was some concern Russia could begin targeting the deliveries as its assault advances.
Today, for the first time since its military offensive began two weeks ago, Russia hit military targets[2] in western Ukraine. The airstrikes at Lutsk and Ivano-Frankivsk targeted two military airports used for carrying weapons shipment to Kyiv and eastern Ukraine, leaving two Ukrainian servicemen dead and six people wounded at Lutsk.
In an interview with CBC News [3] on March 8, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned that a Russian attack on the supply lines of allied nations supporting Ukraine with arms and munitions would be a dangerous escalation of the war raging in Eastern Europe. “Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is defending itself. If there is any attack against any NATO country, NATO territory, that will trigger Article 5.”
Article 5 is the self-defense clause in NATO’s founding treaty which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all 30 member nations. “I’m absolutely convinced President Putin knows this and we are removing any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding about our commitment to defend every inch of NATO territory,” Stoltenberg said.
NATO chief said there’s a clear distinction between supply lines within Ukraine and those operating outside its borders.
“There is a war going on in Ukraine and, of course, supply lines inside Ukraine can be attacked,” he said. “An attack on NATO territory, on NATO forces, NATO capabilities, that would be an attack on NATO.”
Besides deploying 15,000 additional troops in Eastern Europe last month, total number of US troops in Europe is now expected to reach 100,000.
“We have 130 jets at high alert. Over 200 ships from the high north to the Mediterranean, and thousands of additional troops in the region,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN [4].
A spokesman for US European Command told CNN the United States was sending two Patriot missile batteries to Poland, and was also considering deploying THAAD air defense system, a more advanced system equivalent in capabilities to Russia’s S-400 air defense system.
Besides providing 2,000 surface-to-air missiles and 17,000 anti-armor munitions, including Javelins and NLAW, to Ukraine’s security forces and allied militias, British Defense Minister Ben Wallace said [5] that the UK was considering sending the laser-guided Starstreak shoulder-fired anti-aircraft system, a significant upgrade from the Stinger missiles sent by the US, Germany and other allies. The weapon has a range of over four miles and can take down fighter planes more effectively than the Stinger.
The United States and its allies have reportedly infused [6] over $3 billion in arms into Ukraine since the 2014 Euromaidan coup, and committed to send over $850 million more in military aid late last month. The Biden administration has already delivered about $240 million of its promised $350 million in additional military equipment to Ukraine, with the rest expected to arrive in the coming days or weeks at the latest.
In addition, the European Union promised to commit nearly 500 million euros for its own military aid package. During his first year in office, the Biden administration provided $650 million [7] military aid to Ukraine.
The Politico reported [8] on March 9 that the Congress’ proposed $1.5 trillion package to fund the federal government through September would boost national defense coffers to $782 billion, about a 6 percent increase. On top of the hefty budget increase, the package was set to deliver nearly $14 billion in emergency funding to help Ukraine, nearly twice the assistance package initially proposed, including $3 billion for US forces and $3.5 billion for military equipment to Ukraine, plus more than $4 billion for US humanitarian efforts.
In an explosive scoop, the Sunday Times reported [9] on March 4 that defense contractors were recruiting former military veterans for covert operations in Ukraine for a whopping $2,000 a day: “The job is not without risk but, at almost $60,000 a month, the pay is good. Applicants must have at least five years of military experience in eastern Europe, be skilled in reconnaissance, be able to conduct rescue operations with little to no support and know their way around Soviet-era weaponry.”
Russian media alleged [10] last week that the United States security agencies had launched a large-scale recruitment program to send private military contractors to Ukraine, including professional mercenaries of Academi, formerly Blackwater, Cubic, and Dyn Corporation.
Russia’s Defense Ministry’s spokesman Igor Konashenkov warned that foreign mercenaries in Ukraine would not be considered prisoners of war if detained in line with international humanitarian law, rather they could expect criminal prosecution at best.
In fact, private military contractors in close co-ordination and consultation with covert operators from CIA and Western intelligence agencies are not only training Ukraine’s conscript forces in the use of caches of MANPADS and anti-armor munitions provided by the US, Germany and rest of European nations as a military assistance to Ukraine but are also directing the whole defense strategy of Ukraine by taking active part in combat operations in some of the most hard fought battles against Russia’s security forces north of Kyiv and at Kharkiv and Donbas.
In order to create an “international legion” comprising foreign mercenaries, Kyiv lifted visa requirements for anyone willing to fight. “Every friend of Ukraine who wants to join Ukraine in defending the country, please come over,” Ukrainian President Zelensky pleaded at a recent press conference, adding “We will give you weapons.”
Ukraine has already declared martial law and a general mobilization of its populace. Those policies include conscription for men aged 18-60 and the confiscation of civilian vehicles and structures, while Ukrainian convicts with military experience are being released from prison to back up the war effort.
In a show of solidarity with Ukraine, several European nations recently announced they would not only not criminalize but rather expedite citizens joining the NATO’s war effort in Ukraine.
United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said she supported individuals from the UK who might want to go to Ukraine to join an international force to fight. She told the BBC [11] it was up to people to make their own decisions, but argued it was a battle for democracy. She said Ukrainians were fighting for freedom, “not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.”
Favoring providing lethal weapons only instead of British mercenaries to Ukraine’s proxy war, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Ukraine would instead be supported to “fight every street with every piece of equipment we can get to them.”
Buzzfeed News revealed [12] on Feb. 27 thousands of foreign fighters had flocked to Ukraine since Russia’s war against the country began in 2014. While most of them had been Russians and citizens of other former Soviet republics, hundreds had come from the European Union.
“This is the beginning of a war against Europe, against European structures, against democracy, against basic human rights, against a global order of law, rules, and peaceful coexistence,” Ukrainian President Zelensky said in a statement announcing a decree on the creation of a foreign legion. “Anyone who wants to join the defense of Ukraine, Europe, and the world can come and fight side by side with the Ukrainians against the Russian war criminals.”
The news of an official foreign unit was met with excitement by members of the Georgia National Legion, an English-speaking force of volunteers with Western military experience who train Ukrainian troops and sometimes deploy to the front line with the country’s marines. “This is what we have waited for. It’s very good,” Levan Pipia, a legion soldier and Georgian army veteran of the 2008 war with Russia, told BuzzFeed New.
In an exclusive report [13] on March 8, Reuters noted although the US and UK governments had nominally discouraged citizens from travelling to Ukraine to combat Russian forces, others, such as Canada or Germany, had cleared the way for citizens to get involved.
Despite formal directive by the UK government urging citizens against traveling to Ukraine, Reuters spilled the beans that among those who had arrived to fight for Ukraine were dozens of former soldiers from the British Army’s elite Parachute Regiment, according to an ex-soldier from the regiment. Hundreds more would soon follow, he said.
Often referred to as the Paras, the regiment has in recent years served in Afghanistan and Iraq. “They’re all highly trained, and have seen active service on numerous occasions,” the ex-soldier from the regiment said. The Ukraine crisis will give them purpose, camaraderie and “a chance to do what they’re good at: fight.”
With a vast mobilization of Ukrainian men underway, the country has plenty of volunteer fighters. But there is a shortage of specialists who know how to use Javelin and NLAW anti-tank missiles, which professional soldiers train for months to use properly.
Anthony Capone, a wealthy healthcare entrepreneur in New York City, said he was providing funding for hundreds of ex-soldiers and paramedics who wanted to go to Ukraine. Capone added he was only funding ex-soldiers whose military credentials he could verify, or paramedics who currently worked in an emergency trauma setting. About 60% of those who had been in touch were American and 30% European.
Despite the recruitment of mercenaries and flushing the country with lethal weapons, regular warfare in Ukraine is already over even before it began when the mouthpiece of NATO’s imperial interventions abroad, the corporate media, is publicly acknowledging that the impending fall of Kyiv in the face of Russian blitz is a forgone conclusion and that Volodymyr Zelensky would soon form a government-in-exile, which would lead guerrilla warfare from safe havens in Poland.
“The possible Russian takeover of Kyiv has prompted a flurry of planning at the State Department, Pentagon and other U.S. agencies in the event that the Zelensky government has to flee the capital or the country itself.
“‘We’re doing contingency planning now for every possibility,’ including a scenario in which Zelensky establishes a government-in-exile in Poland, said a U.S. administration official.
“Zelensky, who has called himself Russia’s target No. 1, remains in Kyiv and has assured his citizens he’s not leaving. He has had discussions with U.S. officials about whether he should move west to a safer position in the city of Lviv, closer to the Polish border. Zelensky’s security detail has plans ready to swiftly relocate him and members of his cabinet, a senior Ukrainian official said. ‘So far, he has refused to go.’
“During an official visit, a Ukrainian special operations commander told Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and other lawmakers that they were shifting training and planning to focus on maintaining an armed opposition, relying on insurgent-like tactics.
“As the Russian military struggles with logistical challenges — including fuel and food shortages — Waltz anticipates that the Ukrainians will repeatedly strike Russian supply lines. To do that, they need a steady supply of weapons and the ability to set improvised explosive devices, he said. ‘Those supply lines are going to be very, very vulnerable, and that’s where you really literally starve the Russian army.’”
Clearly, planning and preparations are well underway to lure Russia into NATO’s “bear trap project,” a term borrowed from the Soviet-Afghan War of the eighties when Western powers used Pakistan’s security forces and generous funding from the oil-rich Gulf States for providing guerrilla warfare training and lethal weaponry to Afghan jihadists to mount a war of attrition and “bleed the security forces” of former Soviet Union in the protracted irregular warfare.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Supreme Court declared last week that Americans have no right to learn the grisly details of CIA torture because the CIA has never formally confessed its crimes. The verdict symbolizes how the rule of law has become little more than a form of legal mumbo-jumbo to shroud official crimes. Why should anyone expect justice from a Supreme Court that covers up torture?
In 2002, the CIA captured Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian radical, in Pakistan, mistakenly believing he was a kingpin with al-Qaeda. The CIA tortured him for years in Thailand and Poland. As dissenting Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, the CIA “waterboarded Zubaydah at least 80 times, simulated live burials in coffins for hundreds of hours,” and brutalized him to keep him awake for six days in a row. The CIA has admitted some of the details and Zubaydah’s name was mentioned more than a thousand times in a 683-page Senate report on the CIA torture regime released in 2014.
This case turned on the invocation of a holy bureaucratic relic of dubious origin—state secrets. As the court’s 6–3 ruling, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted, “To assert the [state secrets] privilege, the Government must submit to the court a ‘formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter.’” After a government agency claims the privilege, the court “should exercise its traditional “reluctance to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs,” Breyer wrote. And the most important role for the Supreme Court nowadays is apparently to sanctify the privileges it has awarded federal agencies that committed crime sprees.
Image on the right: Abu Zubaydah is a citizen of the Palestinian territories held in Guantanamo Bay. (Licensed under the Public Domain)
The court upheld a “state secrets” claim to block Zubaydah’s lawyers from serving subpoenas on the psychologist masterminds of the CIA torture program to learn the details of his interrogation in Poland. The court’s ruling also blocks Polish investigators seeking information about the crimes committed at a CIA torture site in their nation.
This case illustrated the fantasy world that permeates official Washington controversies. Federal judge Richard Paezrejected the CIA’s argument in 2019 because “in order to be a ‘state secret,’ a fact must first be a ‘secret.’” Even the president of Poland admitted that crimes were committed at that CIA torture site.
But the Supreme Court took an Alice in Wonderland approach, ruling that “sometimes information that has entered the public domain may nonetheless fall within the scope of the state secrets privilege.” According to the Supreme Court, “truth” depends solely on what federal officials have publicly confessed. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Dror Ladingroused, “U.S. courts are the only place in the world where everyone must pretend not to know basic facts about the CIA’s torture program.”
It gets worse. Then CIA chief Mike Pompeo asserted that exposing details about torture in Poland could hinder foreign spy agencies’ partnerships with the CIA. The court upheld the “state secrets privilege” to assist the CIA in “maintaining the trust upon which those relationships [between spy agencies] are based.” The court warned, “To confirm publicly the existence of a CIA [torture] site in Country A, can diminish the extent to which the intelligence services of Countries A, B, C, D, etc., will prove willing to cooperate with our own.”
The court acted as if it were merely smoothing the path for a Girl Scout troop to sell cookies at a shopping center instead of shrouding a “crime against humanity” (the United Nations’ verdict on torture). Pompeo bluntly described the CIA modus operandi: “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s like we had entire training courses.” The CIA’s long record of lawless assassinations did nothing to weaken the deference they received from the court. Instead, the “mutual trust” between conniving spy agencies is more important than Americans having a reason to trust their own government.
In his decision, Justice Breyer stressed, “Obviously, the Court condones neither terrorism nor torture, but in this case we are required to decide only a narrow evidentiary dispute.” But the Supreme Court condones any crime it helps cover up. The court’s sweeping rulings on state secrets and sovereign immunity have provided a get-out-of-jail-free card for Bush-era torturers and the makers of torture. No victim of Bush-era torture has received justice in federal courts. The Bush administration even invoked “state secrets” to prohibit torture victims from disclosing to their defense attorneys the specific interrogation methods they suffered.
State secrets claims multiplied after the start of the war on terror. The Bush administration routinely invoked “state secrets” to seek “blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs,” according to a study by the Constitution Project. In 2007, federal judge Harry Pregerson groused that the “bottom line … is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it. The king can do no wrong.” In 2009, a federal appeals court slammed the Obama administration’s use of state secrets: “According to the government’s theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and the limits of the law.”
Gorsuch noted that the Supreme Court created the doctrine in a 1953 case in which the Pentagon claimed “state secrets” to cover up the details of an Air Force crash. Half a century later, the government declassified the official report, which contained no national security secrets but proved that gross negligence caused the crash (which killed three people). State secrets is akin to a fraudulent religious miracle that was not exposed until after it became canonized.
Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor (the most liberal member of the court) in dissent, warned that granting “utmost deference” to the CIA would “invite more claims of secrecy in more doubtful circumstances—and facilitate the loss of liberty and due process history shows very often follows.” Law professor Steve Vladeck said the “ruling will make it much harder, going forward, for victims of government misconduct that occurs in secret to obtain evidence helping to prove that the conduct was unlawful.” A confidential report last month revealed that the CIA is vacuuming up masses of personal information from American citizens, probably in violation of federal law. But don’t expect to learn the tawdry details or the names of the victims because “state secrets.” Gorsuch noted that the Supreme Court decision was granting the same type of “crown prerogatives” to federal agencies that the Declaration of Independence described as evil.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should replace the “Equal Justice under the Law” slogan atop its entrance with a new motto: “Better for People Not to Know.” For five hundred years, the classic image of “Lady Justice” included a blindfold to assure impartiality. But justice nowadays supposedly requires blindfolding Americans to keep them from learning of official crimes committed in their name.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
James Bovard is the author of ten books, including 2012’s Public Policy Hooligan, and 2006’s Attention Deficit Democracy. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, and many other publications.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
On February 27, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a plea for foreigners to fight against the Russian military. In a statement, Zelensky said, among other things, that
“This is not just Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is the beginning of a war against Europe, against European structures, against democracy, against basic human rights, against a global order of law, rules and peaceful coexistence.” He added: “Anyone who wants to join the defense of Ukraine, Europe and the world can come and fight side by side with the Ukrainians against the Russian war criminals.”
In this way, Zelensky portrayed the conflict as one between a Ukraine that defends Western values, human rights and its political system against “Russian war criminals.” This narrative was disseminated to great lengths by Western media, who at the same time scoffed at the idea of a “de-Nazification” of Ukraine.
Omitted from Western media is the fact that openly neo-Nazi groups like the Mariupol-based Azov Battalion are official units of the Republican Guard, which is under the direct command of Ukraine’s Interior Ministry. It also omits that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator in World War II who encouraged Ukrainians to “destroy” Jews and Poles, leading to tens of thousands of deaths, is being rehabilitated in Ukraine and even had a major avenue in Kiev renamed after him. This is just two examples of the “Nazification” of Ukraine that is being purposefully ignored by the West.
None-the-less, by portraying the war in Ukraine as a struggle of liberalism against authoritarianism, Western liberals are whitewashing the Far Right and other foreign fighters from a myriad of illiberal ideologies as they descend on Ukraine to fight the Russians. According to Kiev, by March 6 at least 20,000 foreign fighters from 55 countries had entered Ukraine to fight against Russians.
The volunteers are a mix of neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, naïve liberals, pan-Turkists and a variety of Russophobes. Although Western media are lionising the foreign fighters, the accounts they give of their time in Ukraine are truly horrifying – from being tortured by Ukrainian soldiers, to being used as cannon fodder, and facing devastating missile strikes from Russian forces.
One American volunteer, who said he was with the Georgian National Legion of the 122nd Territorial Defense Brigade (Odessa), said on social media that “our base got f***ed up. The base right next to us got f***ed up.” He also said that Americans and “tons of British” were dead.
American volunteer in Ukraine describes how foreigners who flocked over to the country to fight Russia are being used as cannon fodder and are threatened by Ukrainian forces with murder if they refuse to deploy on suicide missions pic.twitter.com/D4KnyxtyVr
He explained that foreign volunteers are being sent to the front lines without sufficient weapons or armor. He continues to explain that when they refused to go and fight near Kiev under such conditions, Ukrainian soldiers threatened to shoot them, forcing the American volunteer and others to escape the country. However, he also explained that Ukrainian soldiers were cutting up the passports of foreign fighters and forcing them to the front. He chillingly warned:
“People need to stop coming here, it’s a trap, and they’re not letting you f***ing leave.”
One British fighter, an ex-Army medic named Jason Haigh, told The Sun newspaper on March 9 that he was detained by Ukrainian authorities that were carrying cable ties. He said that Ukrainian authorities slammed his head and hit him several times, resulting in a bad concussion and heavy bleeding. Eventually, he and his group were released and joined hundreds of thousands on trains to Lviv, before fleeing to the Polish border and getting a train to Warsaw.
It is also recalled that a Brazilian foreign fighter uploaded to his social media a harrowing account of the Russian strike against the International Peacekeeping and Security Center (IPSC) near Lviv and the Polish border on March 13, saying:
“I don’t even know what to say… there were special forces soldiers from all over the world [US, France, South Korea, Chile]. The information we have is that everyone died, they [Russians] managed to destroy everything… you guys don’t understand what it means when a jet drops a missile on you. Thank God I got out earlier.”
In this way, despite the lionising of foreign fighters in Ukraine by the Western media, it certainly appears that their experience has been nothing short of terrifying. It also appears that many of the foreign fighters are naïve to the fact that there are clear links between the Foreign Legion and Ukraine’s neo-Nazis.
In addition, the Australian government warned on March 15 that volunteers could end up being “cannon fodder” for Ukraine. This matches up with Matthew Robinson, a British volunteer who stressed that foreigners “can be railroaded into a legion and sent to the front line very quickly. Even though you’ve got the best of intentions to help people, you could basically be cannon fodder.”
It can be suggested that Ukraine is intentionally trying to drive up the body count of foreigners fighting against Russia to create international outrage in the hope of forcing a foreign intervention. However, due to volunteers fighting on an unofficial capacity, there is no correlation between the death of foreigners and activating NATO’s mutual defense policy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Today, U.S. Senator and physician Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced an amendment to eliminate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s position as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and replace it with three separate national research institutes.
“We’ve learned a lot over the past two years, but one lesson in particular is that no one person should be deemed “dictator-in-chief.” No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” said Dr. Paul. “To ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again, I’ve introduced this amendment to eliminate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s position as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and divide his power into three separate new institutes. This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer funded position that has largely abused its power, and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Background
As recently as 2012, Congress passed a law that eliminated the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) and reassigned some of its programs to a new National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and assigned other NCRR functions to other institutes within NIH.
Dr. Paul’s amendment would keep with this precedent of reorganization, and would immediately eliminate Dr. Fauci’s position and replace it with three new directors of the following new institutes:
National Institute of Allergic Diseases
National Institute of Infectious Diseases
National Institute of Immunologic Diseases
Each of these three institutes will be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a 5-year term.
This amendment also aligns with NIAID’s existing mission statement, which begins by saying: “NIAID conducts and supports basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Amidst the unstable relations between Saudi Arabia and the US, which since last year have oscillated between a total boycott and a moderate cooperation, Riyadh now shows interest in contributing to advance the process of de-dollarization of the world economy. According to recent reports, the Saudi government is willing to trade oil in Chinese Yuan. The measure would be a major blow against the American financial power, which has the Petrodollar as its base of monetary security.
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), in an article published on Tuesday, March 15, Riyadh is considering starting to price and trade its oil sales in Chinese Yuan, abandoning the dollar standard. The piece also informs that such a pricing plan has been in development for six years, having been accelerated recently as a reaction to the strong pressure exerted by the Biden government against Saudi Arabia. In the words of one of the WSJ’s Saudi informants:
“The dynamics have dramatically changed. The US relationship with the Saudis has changed, China is the world’s biggest crude importer and they are offering many lucrative incentives to the kingdom (…) China has been offering everything you could possibly imagine to the kingdom”.
As expected, the impact of the news on the financial market was immediate. The value of the offshore Yuan has risen considerably compared to the dollar across the Asian market, generating many expectations of investments in the Chinese currency. The impact is expected to be even greater in the coming days or weeks, considering that, amidst the current context of tensions and conflicts, Riyadh has the ideal scenario to make public and advance its financial measures of de-dollarization without waiting for large-scale international sanctions on the part of the West – which has other priorities at the moment.
In fact, the Saudi maneuver seems interesting and of high strategic value at the moment. China buys more than a quarter of Riyadh’s massive oil exports and since 2018 has offered a series of contracts priced in renminbi. Furthermore, cooperation appears to be increasing in both directions. For example, state-owned Saudi Aramco announced last week that it would help build a new oil refinery in northeast China with the capacity to produce 300,000 barrels a day. Apparently, Beijing sees Riyadh as a key energy ally for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project, and, on the other hand, Riyadh sees the BRI as a great opportunity for profitable short-term investments. In this sense, pricing in Yuan would be an even greater engagement in cooperation, which would benefit both sides and help to reduce global dependence on the dollar standard.
Obviously, despite the clear direct economic interests, it is not possible to ignore the deep geopolitical aspect of the issue. The current US administration has maintained the most anti-Saudi stance ever seen in the White House. Last year, Biden even stopped US support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen – although he was “restricted” in many ways by the US arms industry. Biden maintains a strong humanitarian and liberal ideological stance, which does not allow him to agree with an undemocratic regime and with a campaign as violent as the war against the Houthis. In addition, he is “compelled” to renounce his democratic principles on several other points – such as the Ukrainian dictatorial regime, for example -, so he needs to choose some targets of lesser strategic importance to maintain his image as a global defender of democracy, and, apparently, he chose Saudi Arabia.
The very conflict on Ukrainian soil also favors this type of measure, as there is a global trend towards multipolarization on several levels, including the economic and financial ones. China stands against the boycotts on Russia and elevates its partnership with Moscow in every way possible, which means that the West may soon also implement coercive measures against Beijing. So, Saudi Arabia takes advantage of the moment in order to enter a possible new market route, with prices in Yuan, serving the interests of China, its partner nations – including the entire BRI – and the BRICS. In this sense, de-dollarization seems just a natural consequence of the process of formation of a polycentric world, as it is being designed with the events in Eastern Europe.
With this global scenario, the West will have a single choice: to understand that a multipolar global order presupposes multiple monetary standards, with no more room in for dependence on the American Dollar. It is inevitable that the dollar will become just another possible currency in international transactions, competing not only with the Yuan, but also with other currencies and digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies. Obviously, it is possible that Washington will re-establish good ties with Riyadh in the future, but stopping de-dollarization no longer seems an attainable goal.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
Introduction
Sanctions on Russia including bans on investments in the Russian energy sector are damaging the EU economy.
EU finance ministers warn sanctions being imposed on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine will severely damage the EU’s economy for an unknown period of time.
Fuel and food prices are set to rise even more sharply than they already have.
As the cost of living in the EU goes through the roof, union members held a demonstration outside a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels on Tuesday. They want the bloc’s leaders to provide more support for EU citizens who are being hit hard by the financial ramifications resulting from the conflict in Ukraine.
Finance ministers have signed off on the 4th package of sanctions against Russia. 600 individuals have been targeted and Russian exports too. However, there is a very negative boomerang effect for the EU itself.
Russia, which is now the most sanctioned country in the world, has been removed from the so-called Most-Favored-Nation clause relating to the World Trade Organization.
Finance ministers say €200bn worth of loans are available to EU nations most impacted by the Ukrainian refugee crisis.
Critics say if Western leaders had shown more skill and compromise, when listening to Russia’s security concerns, the misery now being piled on Ukrainian citizens and the financial hardship being placed on EU citizens could have been avoided.
*
PressTV: What are the effects of the Russian oil industries sanctions on the inflation rate and energy price in EU?
Peter Koenig: Horrendous! Germany depends for about 50% of its hydrocarbon energy on Russia. They have to find other sources – and that will not be immediate.
First, the US will want to sell their fracked gas to Germany at roughly 50% higher prices than currently sold by Russia.
Then, they will have to look for other sources, probably in the Middle East.
Mind you, Saudi Arabia has already declared that they would rather sell their oil and gas to China in Yuan, than to the US and the west — they feel more secure with the Chinese currency than with a faltering – and possibly soon collapsing US dollar and Euro.
What will be the inflation? Difficult to predict – could be anything between 30% and 50%, as energy affects everything, the entire food production cycle, industry, transportation, heating and much more. Severe energy shortages will also drive small and medium size enterprises into bankruptcies, create unemployment social misery and famine.
This may be at least an extreme hardship phenomenon until new energy sources are found.
PressTV: Why does Germany go along with these EU – actually US imposed — sanctions?
Germany is totally in the hands and under control of Washington – has been since the end of WWII – as Mme. Merkel clearly demonstrated, during the past 16 years. And so did her predecessors.
One of the reasons might be that Germany does still not have a Peace Agreement – yes, they don’t. Since the end of WWII, German “Peace” is administered through an armistice agreement which is controlled and framed by the so-called Allied Forces, in other words the United States, acting as the empire on behalf of the other allies.
Several pre-Merkel chancellors have tried to circumvent the strict conditions of obedience to the Washington masters. They were unmistakenly told “NO” under no circumstances… or else.
This also explains the most important NATO base in Ramstein, in Southwestern Germany, with untold nuclear warheads, despite the fact that Germany is part of the non-nuclear treaty.
PressTV: What are the prospects for the future of Russia-Ukraine negotiations?
PK: That’s a good question.
There have recently been signs that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin may meet in Jerusalem, in a summit mediated by Israeli PM Naftali Bennett.
But neither side has confirmed it, and no dates have been set.
Earlier Mr. Zelenskyy indicated that he may be willing to make certain “concessions”.
Today, March 15, RT quotes Zelenskyy as saying “NATO allies don’t want to see Ukraine among their ranks and Kiev realizes that. Now Kiev seeks protection from individual member states.”
Let’s however not kid ourselves, Zelenskyy is a US pawn totally under Washington’s control. He cannot make sovereign decisions, especially not as far as US interests are concerned.
Ukraine is not at war – it’s the US which is carrying out a proxy war against Russia on Ukraine’s territory.
The US motive is the same as it was already during WWII – if not much earlier – and then during the Cold War, controlling the huge territory of resources-rich Russia.
And as a byline, so to speak, move closer to China’s borders – which on the East Pacific side is already encircled by many US military bases or bases that host US armament and personnel.
In addition to all the natural resources – on and under Russia’s territory – Russia and Ukraine are also Europe’s breadbasket. A war, initiated and fueled by the west, will most certainly shut that food supply line to Europe down. It may bring shortages and famine to Europe and beyond.
The empire is collapsing ever faster, and the dollar and its little sister the Euro, are also faltering at an accelerating speed.
Mind you all western leaders, including Australia and New Zealand, were chosen not by the people, but by those elite and financial corporations who manipulate the current ascent of an unseen tyranny in history as we know it.
What is in the making is a health tyranny – WHO gaining full control over all health systems of its 194 member countries, actually overriding national constitutions.
If the plan holds, it should become legal in 2024. Most people around the world don’t know it, as the media are paid to keep silent about it. All that is happening in the shadows of the war in Ukraine.
We can just hope that there will be a general waking up and the plan will fail.
Many of these so-called western leaders went to Klaus Schwab’s (CEO and founder of the WEF) “academy” for Young Global Leaders”, where they learned the tactics of dictatorship, leading to tyranny, if they encounter rebellion by the citizens.
A case in point may be Canada. These “leaders” (sic) are bought by the WEF and the WEF’s handlers, and have no interest in the people of their countries. They don’t care if their nations’ citizens live or die.
This is a long answer to a brief question about the prospects for the future of Russia-Ukraine negotiations.
Personally, I do not think that there will be a nuclear war. There is too much at stake for the elite. NATO and all its members know Russia’s military and nuclear capacity. So, they may refrain from an all-out war, and instead make believe that Russia will be collapsing under the punishment of sanctions.
Biden has just announced that his administration will allocate a billion dollars to “support” the media – in other words, corrupting them so they continue lying and propagating the false government narrative.
Russia will every day be less affected by western slandering and sanctions as the Russia-China-SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) alliance is self-sufficient on all vital goods and services.
The trend is towards a multipolar world. It is well possible that the conclusion of the Ukraine war will lead into this direction – hopefully a new peaceful world paradigm.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota said he developed tinnitus after his second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
Dr. Gregory Poland’s symptoms began 90 minutes after receiving the vaccine. He described the condition as “fairly severe” and “extraordinarily bothersome, interfering with sleep and the ability to concentrate.”
Tinnitus is defined as hearing sounds when no actual, external sounds are present. Some people report:
Ringing in the ears.
Buzzing, hissing, whistling, swooshing and clicking.
Thumping.
Hearing music when none is being played.
According to data released March 4 by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 19,630 people have reported developing tinnitus after a COVID vaccine. There are no VAERS data on whether or not this condition resolved or is ongoing.
A Dec. 14, 2021 Johnson & Johnson (J&J) “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” lists tinnitus as a side effect of the Janssen COVID vaccine, marketed by J&J.
Pfizer and Moderna do not note any causal connection between the vaccine and hearing issues, according to ABC News, and neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor U.S. Food and Drug Administration list the condition as a side effect.
Tinnitus is also a symptom of COVID, especially among “long-haulers.” Texas Roadhouse CEO Kent Taylor last year committed suicide after experiencing severe post-COVID symptoms, including tinnitus.
Spike protein in virus, vaccine may cause trigger tinnitus
Poland last month hosted a video discussion with two leading tinnitus researchers, Konstantina Stankovic, M.D., Ph.D., and Shaowen Bao, Ph.D., during which they examined the mechanisms of tinnitus.
Stankovic, a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, has been studying tinnitus in COVID patients since the beginning of the pandemic.
Of the 10 patients she studied who had COVID and tinnitus, all of them had “either reduced or non-existent hair function.”
She found the virus entered the inner ear cells and “preferentially affected hair cells,” referring to the hair cells of the cochlea, an integral part of the inner ear and the organ responsible for the conversion of sound into an electrical signal the brain then interprets.
“The virus causing COVID-19 can directly infect the human inner ear cells, and this could explain what we are seeing,” Stankovic said.
Researchers estimate nearly 15% of people who recovered from COVID developed tinnitus, and this condition is now associated with long COVID.
Poland, who got a booster shot despite developing tinnitus after his second COVID shot, raised the question of whether or not that was the right thing to do.
Bao, an associate professor at the University of Arizona, said his research on vaccine-induced tinnitus, which is awaiting peer review, indicates the spike protein — present in the virus and in the vaccine — is a likely contributor to tinnitus.
Although Bao did not identify a molecular mechanism for spike protein-induced tinnitus, results from his own survey indicate the incidence of tinnitus following the first shot is 10% higher than that following the second shot, a small but statistically significant percentage.
This indicates a spike protein-mediated effect and not an immune response effect because the immune response is known to be greater after the second dose, Bao said.
From his survey of 400 people who developed post-vaccination tinnitus, 100 chose to receive a second dose of the vaccine despite having unresolved tinnitus from the first injection, Bao said. Of those 100 people, 38% reported worsening symptoms after the second dose, a much higher risk than the 70 per million cases reported in VAERS.
Bao concluded that, for unknown reasons, some people are more predisposed than others to this adverse event.
Poland decided to get the booster shot. His tinnitus went away for about 24 hours only to return at a higher pitch, he said.
Poland did not return calls from The Defender about whether his condition has improved and if he reported it to VAERS.
More research needed, experts say
“These experts’ observations highlight the challenge we have in identifying the real cause of the conditions endured by people during the pandemic,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor for The Defender.
Setty added:
“The spike protein has been implicated as the cause of many ailments following both vaccination and COVID-19, from myocarditis to clotting disorders. We cannot know which is more dangerous, the virus or the vaccine, if we do not have a large number of unvaccinated people to observe.”
The American Tinnitus Association (ATA) encourages people who develop tinnitus after a COVID vaccine to report it to VAERS.
The association states that manufacturers of COVID vaccines currently don’t list tinnitus as an expected adverse reaction (although, as reported, J&J does list it).
The ATA states:
“At present, none of the available coronavirus vaccines include information on tinnitus as a side effect. It is only through the reporting of side effects that adjustments are made in the list of common or rare side effects, so please report any adverse events that occur after vaccination.”
Poland, Stankovic and Bao concluded tinnitus should not deter people from getting their booster shots, and said more research on tinnitus is desperately needed due to its “tremendous ill effect on people’s health and well-being and healthcare costs.”
“Millions of Americans experience tinnitus, often to a debilitating degree, making it one of the most common health conditions in the country. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that nearly 15% of the general public — over 50 million Americans — experience some form of tinnitus. Roughly 20 million people struggle with burdensome chronic tinnitus, while 2 million have extreme and debilitating cases.”
Scientists and doctors are still getting a better understanding of this condition and ways to treat it, Bao and Stankovic said. A variety of causes have been identified, and some people experience it as an acute, temporary condition, while for others it is chronic and ongoing. It can also lead to hearing loss.
There are no available evidence-based therapeutics for treating tinnitus. Some people have seen positive results with white noise therapy. Targeting inflammation might yield the best therapeutic strategies, Bao said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Nolan E. Bowman is a freelance science reporter for The Defender.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
Instead of pouring in weapons and piling on sanctions, we should call on President Biden to begin good faith negotiations with all concerned parties, respecting each of their security concerns.
“The first casualty of war is truth.” This simple yet profound statement is attributed to many, including Hiram Johnson in a speech in the U.S. Senate in 1918, during the “war to end all wars.” Hiram Johnson was a progressive Republican who had been elected to the Senate from California that very year. He remained in the Senate until he died of old age on August 6, 1945, the day the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the civilian population of Hiroshima, Japan.
The Baltimore Sun quoted Senator Johnson more fully in 1929, during a Senate debate on an international agreement called the “General Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy” (also known as the Kellogg-Briand Treaty):
“The first casualty when war comes is truth, and whenever there is a war, and whenever an individual nation seeks to coerce by force of arms another, it always acts and always insists that it acts under self-defense.”
As the war rages in Ukraine in 2022, actual combat is eclipsed by well-practiced information warfare. It was not surprising when the White House and State Department began shouting that the Russians were about to launch a “false flag” event to justify their pending invasion of Ukraine. After all, isn’t that the way it is always done? Isn’t that the way the US did it with the Tonkin Gulf Incident in Vietnam, babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait, and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Of course, the US has a bigger challenge claiming self-defense as it invades smaller, weaker countries halfway around the globe.
Twenty-four hour news coverage is keeping Americans hyped up and dumbed down
Once the fighting commences, deception is also an important ploy on the battlefield. The ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus wrote, “God is not adverse to deceit in a just cause.” Aside from keeping the enemy guessing about when and where the next attack will be launched, it is critically important to maintain popular support for a questionable enterprise that requires the sacrifice of blood and treasure.
Twenty-four hour cable news coverage of the ugly war in Ukraine is keeping Americans hyped up and dumbed down. The very real horror of war is on the screen for all to see. The bombed-out buildings, the mounting civilian casualties and the frightened refugees speak their own truth. Unfortunately, we rarely see the victims, the grieving families and the terrified refugees when the invader is the US. The “shock and awe” US terror bombing campaign on Baghdad was described by one network TV anchor as a “beautiful thing to see.”
Totally absent from nonstop coverage of the war and condemnations of Russian president Putin is any reporting on the role of the United States and NATO in creating the crisis over Ukraine. No reports about the relentless NATO expansion up to the very borders of Russia. No mention of US missile emplacements in Romania and Poland. Nothing about the unilateral US exit from vital nuclear treaties—the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (George W. Bush, 2002), and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (Donald Trump, 2018).
Such reporting would be unpatriotic in a time of war, would it not? We don’t want to justify Russian aggression. We don’t even want to hear their side of the story. A simplistic, one-sided narrative tells us that Vladimir Putin—who is both evil and mad—has initiated a war in order to rebuild the former Russian empire. Who knows where he might stop? There is absolutely no evidence to support this implausible narrative. But the truth be damned. This is war.
A “No Fly Zone” Means World War III
President Biden is demonstrating at least a bit of prudence. The president has to make life-and-death decisions that are somewhat based in reality. He is resisting the growing calls for a No Fly Zone in Ukraine. He and the generals at the Pentagon know what that means. Even the usually pugnacious Senator Marco Rubio stated “it means World War III.” Yet pressure is growing for a No Fly Zone—maybe a “limited” one—as both Republican and Democratic leaders take their turn on top of the war wagon.
Joe Biden is also worried about nuclear war, a serious concern for all modern presidents. Vladimir Putin is brandishing his large nuclear arsenal as a disincentive for direct US/NATO engagement in the Ukraine war. The US canceled a planned ICBM test launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California to its usual target in the much-bombed Marshall Islands. Apparently, the US did not want to risk spooking Putin, about whose mental state many people are speculating. Could it be that Putin is employing Richard Nixon’s famous “madman theory,” keeping his enemies at bay with unpredictability?
Of course, Russia has its own propaganda apparatus, but we will not be much exposed to it here in the US. Russia Today (RT) has been removed from most cable TV services as well as from YouTube. Well actually, almost everything Russian is currently being canceled, in a furious frenzy of the Russia-hating that has been central to US culture ever since World War II. The Russians are never given credit for their outsized role in defeating the Nazis, nor sympathy for the 27 million lives lost in that war.
The US routinely violates the UN Charter—and now Russia has done so
The Russian invasion is a terrible violation of the UN Charter, but hardly unprecedented. International law in no way restrained US war-making in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia or Yemen. Russia’s invasion was not in self-defense—except in a preemptive sense—they were not under immediate military attack.
Some say that the ongoing Ukrainian war against two breakaway Russia-aligned provinces in eastern Ukraine provided Just Cause for Russia’s invasion. Fourteen thousand people have died in the violence there since 2014, when a US-backed coup overthrew a Russia-friendly president and replaced him with someone handpicked by the US.
Another annoying factoid is the well-documented role of Nazi militias in the 2014 coup and in the current government and military. These inconvenient truths in no way can justify the blatant Russian aggression, however, which is killing hundreds of innocent civilians and has created a dangerous crisis for humanity.
The Information War Presents the Peace Movement with a Dilemma
The nonstop barrage of information, misinformation, disinformation and rallying around the flag has presented the peace movement with a dilemma. How do peace-loving people righteously condemn the Russian invasion—the destruction of cities, the killing of hundreds of civilians, the displacement of millions? How do we express our outrage and our strong disapproval of this aggression and violence without appearing to join in the war fervor that is sweeping the US?
Conversely, how do we explain the role of the US and NATO in creating this crisis without appearing to justify this horrible violence? How do we demand that President Biden stop pouring fuel on the fire by sending more weapons into Ukraine? How do we tell people that sanctions are not an alternative to war, but rather an escalation of war?
Escalation is the very last thing we want. The Ukraine war presents the entire world with an existential threat. It is not alarmist to say this is the greatest imminent threat of nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The one where the US was reacting to Russian nuclear missiles being positioned in Cuba, way too close for comfort. Does that ring a bell?
The Danger of Nuclear War Should Focus Our Attention
The very real danger of nuclear war should focus all our attention. With both US and Russian nukes on “hair-trigger alert,” what could go wrong? And then there are the 15 or so nuclear power plants in Ukraine, several of them reportedly compromised by the war. Is that a real threat or is it war propaganda? Perhaps both. It is in EVERYBODY’s interest to end this very dangerous war as soon as possible.
Joe Biden is not new to this conflict. Biden and—famously—his son Hunter, have been involved in the Ukraine mess at least since the 2014 coup, after which a Ukrainian oil company paid Hunter Biden $50,000 a month to sit on its Board. No conflict of interest there, all the Democrats insisted. Even without family enrichment, Joe Biden has long been dedicated to the Cold War project of putting the Soviet Union—and now Russia—in its place, which is no place, and with no respect.
The United States leads NATO—the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is always a U.S. general. President Biden probably could have headed off the Russian invasion by simply saying publicly that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. But he refused to do that. He called Putin’s bluff, and Putin showed him it was no bluff.
President Biden Must Act Now to De-Escalate this Dangerous War
Whatever disagreements there are about how the Ukraine war came about, reasonable people should be able to agree on this: This war is very dangerous. It threatens to become a wider war in Europe. It could even lead to a civilization-ending nuclear war. It therefore must be brought to an end as soon as possible.
President Biden is in a position to make a bold diplomatic move that could bring this war to a screeching halt. Instead of pouring in weapons and piling on sanctions, we should call on President Biden to begin good faith negotiations with all concerned parties, respecting each of their security concerns.
Once the world has—hopefully—pulled back from the brink, we should begin a serious international discussion about how to abolish nuclear weapons and war once and for all. How will we avoid getting into the same kind of war with China over Taiwan? How can the United States adjust to a multi-polar world where it is no longer The Sheriff?
Veterans For Peace is offering its own Nuclear Posture Review, with sections on Russia and Europe and all the nuclear powers. It makes well-researched recommendations, such as implementing No First Use policies and taking nuclear missiles off “hair-trigger alert.” It calls on the US to rejoin the ABM and INF treaties, and to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It calls on the U.S. to initiate negotiations “to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons,” as the five permanent UN Security Council members—the original nuclear powers—agreed when they signed the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If the United States and other nuclear powers had kept their promise to eliminate nuclear weapons, we would probably not be at war today in Ukraine, or worrying about Armageddon.
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
According to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution is to change what it means to be human by merging man and machine.
Humans are now “hackable,” in that technology now exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and that can be very dangerous if misused.
Professor Yuval Noah Harari predicts that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that have historically been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even who you will marry.
Harari warns that if we allow the establishment of a digital dictatorship, where the system, be it a corporation or a government, knows the most intimate details about each and every person, it will be impossible to dismantle it. Its control will be total and irreversible.
If you believe that your thoughts and behavior are and always will remain under your own control, think again. We already have the technology to directly alter thoughts, emotions and behavior.
*
According to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution1 is to change what it means to be human by merging man and machine. In short, while the term “transhumanism” is not being used, that’s exactly where the global cabal intends to take us, willing or not.
In a November 2019 interview with CNN,2 history professor and bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari, a Klaus Schwab disciple, warned that “humans are now hackable animals,” meaning, the technology now exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and that can be very dangerous if misused.
He predicted that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that historically have been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even who you will marry.
Profound Dangers Ahead
There’s also an ever-increasing risk of being manipulated by these outside forces that you’re not even fully aware of. Looking back over the last two years, it’s rather easy to confirm that mass manipulation is taking place at a staggering scale, and that it’s phenomenally effective.
As noted by Harari in 2019,3 the available capabilities already go far beyond Orwell’s “1984” authoritarian vision, and it’s only going to become more powerful from here. He’s certain that in short order, there will be the ability to monitor your emotional state through something as simple as a wearable wristband.
You may dutifully smile and clap when listening to a speech by a government official, but they’ll know you’re angry or don’t agree with what’s being said, and could therefore take action against you based on your most personal, internal emotions rather than what you outwardly express.
Importantly, Harari warned that if we allow the establishment of this kind of digital dictatorship, where the system, be it a corporation or a government, knows the most intimate details about each and every person, it will be impossible to dismantle it. Its control will be total and irreversible. And, Harari believes we may have only a decade, at most two, to prevent this digital dictatorship from taking over.
Reengineering Life Itself
Harari also discussed the coming transhumanism at the WEF’s 2020 annual meeting in Davos (above), and in this speech, he went even further. Not only does the global elite have the technological capability to create a global digital dictatorship, but “elites may gain the power to reengineer the future of life itself.”
“For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life,” he said. “All of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change.
Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, not the intelligent design of some god in the clouds, [but] OUR intelligent design, and the design of our ‘clouds,’ the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”
It’s hard to determine whether Harari is for or against transhumanism. He speaks of it as an inevitability, and something that can be used for tremendous good. But he also recognizes its profound dangers, and seems to believe we need to discuss how these technological capabilities can be used, and whether they should.
In the featured Davos speech, it sounds as though he’s a proponent of this human intelligent design venture, but in his 2019 interview with CNN, he also stated that “we must never underestimate the stupidity of humans.” The fact that we have the technology to design new life forms, including new kinds of humans, does not necessarily mean that we’re smart enough to design something better than what natural evolution has come up with thus far.
In his Davos speech, Harari also pointed out that science is now enabling us to create life not only in the organic realm but in the inorganic realm as well. We’re talking about “living” robots and the like. He also raises the question as to who “owns” your DNA, if it can be charted and hacked. Does it belong to you, a corporation, or the government?
‘The Days of Free Will Are Over’
Whatever Harari’s true feelings about transhumanism, he emphatically states that the idea that we have a soul and free will, those days “are over.” In other clips that have been inserted into the featured video, Harari predicts that in the future, people will be able to look back and see that the COVID pandemic was the turning point where biological surveillance took over and became norm.
The explanation for how that was able to occur is given by Schwab, who has publicly admitted (see featured video) that participants in the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program have “penetrated the cabinets” of many world governments.
In Canada, for example, about half the politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have taken Schwab’s training. Schwab is all about ushering in transhumanism and changing what it means to be human, and his minions of global leaders are sure doing everything they can to make those dreams a reality. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.
Changing What It Means To Be Human
Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers.
If you believe that your thoughts and behavior are and always will remain under your own control, think again. We already have the technology to directly alter thoughts, emotions and behavior. Some of these capabilities are described in a 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning.
The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”4 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars:5
“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.”
Key words I’d like to draw your attention to are the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” If you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.
Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.
Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.
Project Immortality
Historically, the striving for immortality has been a faith-based venture, based in the idea that the soul is immortal while the body perishes, which is a concept I am in complete alignment with. Transhumanists more or less reverse this idea. They discard the notion of soul altogether and aim for the preservation of the perceived personality, first through radical life extension of the physical body, and later through the transfer of brain data into a replacement form.
According to Dmitry Itskov, the Russian founder of the Immortality 2045 project,6 only 2% of people are ready to accept death — a statistic that he uses to justify the search for immortality through things like artificial organs, artificial body constructs, the simulation of mental processes and, ultimately, the transferring of one’s mind into an artificial carrier.
The goals of this project include not only the creation of the cybernetic technologies needed to achieve an immortal body, but also the creation of “a new philosophical paradigm for humanity.” Schwab has talked about the same thing, using the term “social contract” rather than “philosophical paradigm.”
The Immortality 2045’s vision, published in 2011, starts with the creation of the first robotic copy of a human body that can be remotely controlled by 2020. By 2025, they want an avatar into which the human brain can be transplanted at the end of life. By 2035, they want an avatar with a synthetic brain, into which the human personality can be transferred and, by 2045, they imagine a holographic-like avatar. Itskov says:7
“The aim of the first project, known as ‘Avatar,’ is the creation of a robot copy of a human being controllable through a ‘brain-computer’ interface. When I’m asked to give the gist of this project, I tell people to recall the film ‘Surrogates,’ which depicts a world in which every person has an artificial body that he controls remotely.
The makers of that blockbuster put an accent on the negative side of such a scenario. Nonetheless, the film’s highly graphic demonstration of the idea allows one to get an immediate sense of what it is.”
Does living through an avatar sound like a life devoid of spirituality to you? Not so, Itskov says, because by ending our dependency on our physical bodies, “many things will open up spiritually.” I have my doubts about that, as most spiritual adepts will tell you that being hooked on technology tends to hinder rather than elevate spiritual pursuits, which are most easily achieved by living simply, in close contact with the natural world.
I just don’t foresee being able to elevate spiritually when any number of outside parties can access your brain and dictate what you think, feel and believe. Transhumanists like Itskov tend to focus only on the perceived benefits of synthetic life. For example, he promises that his avatars will be affordable for everyone who wants them, regardless of income bracket.
Yet the WEF has clearly announced that by 2030, nobody will own anything, and while not clearly stated, that will likely even include your own body. So, to think that your avatar would be “yours” is probably unrealistic.
Looked at through the lens of the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, it seems the plan is for the elite to literally own all of humanity, which will be refashioned to their own liking. And, if people can be hacked and controlled remotely, then we can be sure they will be. That’s particularly true for synthetic or mechanical avatars that can’t “live” or remain “conscious” without a cloud connection.
Resource to Understand the Transhuman Agenda — Blockchained
Corey Lynn is a top-notch investigative journalist who covers topics the mainstream won’t touch, including the transhumanist agenda. On her website, Corey’s Digs,8 you can find select chapters from her book, “Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports.”
Chapter 4 in the book is titled “Blockchained,” which explains what digital identity is all about. Digital ID is not just a piece of identification, with which you can prove who you are. It will collect and monitor ALL of your data, from your personal finances, education, work history, GPS location 24/7, everything you’ve ever typed on your computer, your search history, social media presence, emotional status and physical biometrics, down to your DNA.
I will only cover a minor part of that chapter here, the part on human augmentation and artificial intelligence (AI), so for more, be sure to browse through her website or, better yet, read her book, which can be purchased on her site. The digital PDF is only $9.95 and a print copy is $19.95.
Big Data, Data Sharing and AI
Make no mistake, transhumanism is the ultimate goal of the technocratic elite, and both “big data” and AI are integral components of that. Without one or both of those, the transhumanist dream is dead in the water. The goal of transhumanism is undoubtedly why there’s been so much focus on those two areas in the first place.
So, remember, data gathering, data sharing and AI are not about making your life more convenient. They’re to make you obsolete. The intention is to replace you with a synthetic copy of you that can be remotely controlled.
In 2021, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization that consists of 38 countries that work with various working groups and policy makers, issued a report on the “State of Implementation of the OECD AI principles.” So far, 46 countries have adopted these AI principles.
The strategy is to develop centralized repositories of public datasets in each country, and then enable public-private data sharing to build a vast network where each dataset is connected with all the others.
Biosecurity Will Be Used to Justify Surveillance Tyranny
Another report, by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), founded “to advance the development of artificial intelligence” and “comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States,” highlights the need to combat digital disinformation and prioritizing biosecurity.
To help with that, a U.S. government-funded supercomputer is being set up at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the direction of the Department of Energy. This AI supercomputer can do more than 1 quintillion calculations per second.
Some of this data sharing is already taking place. As noted by Corey, NATO launched an in-house biometrics system for data sharing between nations in November 2020, and in May 2021, the U.S. military merged its biometrics-enabled watch list with the Department of Defense’s automated biometric identification system (ABIS).
“They are working on multi-modal fusion matching and improving biometric face-matching capability through AI and machine learning, and have already improved their long-range infrared cameras,” Corey writes. “Looking toward the near future, they are also focused on palm print biometrics, faces in crowds, integration to identify threats online, and non-traditional latent DNA collection.”
We Need Biometric Privacy Laws NOW
While surveillance science is moving at lightning speed, regulations and privacy laws are trailing at a snail’s pace. A federal biometric privacy bill, the National Biometric Information Privacy Act, was introduced in 2020 but didn’t go anywhere. As noted by Corey, it could be resurrected if enough people speak up.
In the U.S., a handful of states do have biometric privacy laws, Illinois’ being one of the strictest, but the vast majority have no such protections in place. As reported by Corey:
“The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to inform people in writing that their information is being collected and stored, what the purpose is, and term for collection and storage, and must secure a written release from the person.
Those same private entities are not allowed to sell, lease, trade, or profit from a person’s biometric information. A person may file suit at $1,000 for each negligent violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Actual harm is not required to establish standing.”
Clearly, we need these kinds of protections everywhere, in all states and all countries, because as it stands, the global cabal of transhumanist technocrats are building a data-sharing system that is intended to become global. The lack of legal protections against data collection, analysis and sharing is what allows this reckless expansion of surveillance. As noted by Corey:
“If it’s not crystal clear by now, globalists and eugenicists (sometimes one in the same) are running the show, and they are working very hard at achieving their ultimate desires of a controlled human race, evolution of transhumanism with a strong artificial intelligence taking the place of many humans, while they fly to Mars during their years of immortality, and observe humanity through endless surveillance systems. But their dream only becomes a reality if people allow it to.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The escalation ladder is a concept to describe how the severity of a military conflict can increase.
At the very top of the escalation ladder is all-out nuclear war.
While there are numerous countries with nuclear weapons, Russia and China are the only ones with sophisticated enough arsenals to go toe-to-toe with the US up to the top of the escalation ladder.
In other words, the US can’t obtain escalation dominance against Russia or China because they can match each escalation up to all-out nuclear war—the very top of the ladder.
For this reason, these countries are deterred from getting into a kinetic conflict with one another.
It’s also why the US military doesn’t hesitate to bomb countries like Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. It has little to fear because it knows these countries can’t climb very high in the escalation ladder.
This concept is well-understood in military conflicts.
However, the same dynamic exists in an economic war, and it’s far less understood by governments (and investors).
That’s why neither the US nor Russia are not deterred and are climbing up the economic escalation ladder and hurdling towards an increasingly imminent catastrophe.
The Economic War Escalates
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US government and EU have launched an unprecedented economic war… with seeming little thought on how it all ends.
Russia is not a tiny, feeble country that can’t punch back.
Even though many people don’t realize it, Russia can escalate to the top of the economic escalation ladder. Here’s why…
Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, lumber, wheat, fertilizer, and palladium (a crucial component in cars).
It is the second-largest exporter of oil and aluminum and the third-largest exporter of nickel and coal.
Russia is a major producer and processor of uranium for nuclear power plants. Enriched uranium from Russia and its allies provides electricity to 20% of the homes in the US.
Aside from China, Russia produces more gold than any other country, accounting for more than 10% of global production.
These are just a handful of examples. There are many strategic commodities that Russia dominates.
In short, Russia is not just an oil and gas powerhouse but a commodity powerhouse.
Europe cannot survive without Russian commodities.
Taking Russian commodities off of global markets would cause an across-the-board price shock that would decimate financial markets, banks, and practically every industry. Moreover, Russia also has an economic nuclear option that could blow up the Western financial system overnight.
In short, Russia has powerful cards to play.
Just like in a kinetic war, Russia can match US moves to escalate an economic war to the top of the escalation ladder.
But unlike a kinetic war, neither side is deterred. On the contrary, it seems all but inevitable that things will escalate from here, which makes the situation incredibly dangerous.
Where Are We Now?
The US has sanctioned the Russian central bank, making it illegal for any American to engage with it, the finance ministry, or the national wealth fund.
The US and European governments froze the US dollar and euro reserves of Russia—the accumulated savings of the nation—worth around $300 billion.
Certain Russian banks have been kicked out of SWIFT, the system to send international wire transfers.
A stampede of Western companies have left Russia and are banning average Russian citizens from using their platforms.
Visa, MasterCard, and American Express have cut off Russia from their networks.
The US government banned all imports of Russian oil.
In return, Russia has matched these moves with defensive maneuvers and escalations of its own.
Moscow has banned the export of rocket engines to the US, with an official saying, “In a situation like this we can’t supply the United States with our world’s best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks.”
Russia and China have live alternatives to SWIFT to facilitate international financial transactions, which limits the effect of being kicked out of SWIFT.
Russian banks started issuing credit and debit cards linked to China’s global payment processing network UnionPay.
Russia has announced, or already is, doing business with China, India, Iran, Turkey, and other countries in local currencies instead of the US dollar, neutralizing much of the effect of sanctions.
In perhaps the most significant escalatory move, the Russian government has allowed all external debt obtained from unfriendly countries—estimated to be over $400 billion— to be redenominated in rubles.
As a result, instead of paying back creditors in the US and Europe in dollars and euros at Western banks, Russian companies can now repay their external debts by depositing rubles on their creditor’s behalf in Russian banks, which are inaccessible to them because of sanctions.
This move forces the US and EU to either ease sanctions so that the estimated $400 billion in external debt can be repaid or give massive losses to Western banks and other creditors.
So, that’s where things stand now.
It’s worth noting that Europe is still paying for Russian energy, and Moscow is still delivering it.
Nonetheless, Russia and the US are climbing the economic escalation ladder, with neither side showing any sign of slowing down. However, we are still several destructive steps away from the top.
What Comes Next
Putin recently announced a forthcoming ban on exports of certain commodities to certain unfriendly countries, with details coming soon. Given Russia’s dominance in the commodity markets, such a move will be significant.
A logical next step Russia could take if the US and EU increase their sanctions would be to force Europe to pay for its energy imports in rubles.
European buyers would have to first buy rubles with their euros and use them to pay for Russian gas, oil, and other exports. Such a move would neutralize the entire sanctions regime because it would force Europeans to deal with the sanctioned Russian central bank or get cut off from crucial commodities.
The Europeans have no alternative to Russian energy and would have no choice but to comply.
Moscow could implement its economic nuclear option if the US really pushes Russia to the point where it has nothing left to lose. That would be demanding payment for oil and other commodities in gold. Since Russia is such a dominant player in the commodity markets, it could dictate this.
Such a move would send gold skyrocketing and blow up the entire Western financial system overnight. Moreover, the dollar and euro would likely suffer an enormous loss in purchasing power as commodities would be repriced in gold.
That’s Russia’s financial nuclear option, and if the US continues up the escalation ladder, this is where it will ultimately lead.
With neither side backing down, escalation appears inevitable.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In a Globalised World, when we see images of the conflict that is currently occurring in Ukraine on our News Feeds, Whatsapp Groups, Telegram Twitter and Instagram; as well as of course on our TeleVision sets; we tend to lose sight of the human element and how close it could have been us instead. We sit far away and analyse it, show our support for the Corporation side by posting stickers and flags on our social media profiles and we feel good; as if we have done something worthwhile with our day. As if we have somehow “helped”.
But what are we actually achieving? I wonder. I am 58 years old and I have been in Kolkata for these past 3 chaotic covid driven lockdown years due to my 86 year old mother not being well and I, feeling that I need to fulfill my obligations; almost my duty, as it were, to be with her. Not that I do much, it is just the reassurance that I am near her that helps her be a little less nervous as her age related dementia slowly takes over her life. This is the longest time I have ever spent at a stretch in the Indian Republic and it is an ongoing unique experience.
These past 3 years has allowed me to see the world and its complex intertwined machinations of media propaganda, lies and deceit from the perspective of, as if almost, of someone who has perhaps never ventured outside the Republic but is trying to make sense of it all from within a nation that is itself deeply complex and almost impossible to categorise into nice “keywords” or even “key phrases”.
This is a vast country of 1,400 million people, 350 million of whom speak English as a first language fluently, and, who are in turn deeply influenced by “Western Values” and “Corporate Media”. There are parts of this gigantic nation that are rooted firmly in the traditions and living standards of the year 1800, and, yet; turn the next corner, and you walk into parts where the value of land and apartments exceed those of New York City and the ultra-posh parts of Central London, and are awash in technology and innovation that will leave you in awe.
Yet, the Indian Republic is; regardless of the constraints that bind it like a vice, still a very important country in the overall grand scheme of things. However when you sit in London and consume the information broadcasts of the British Government owned BBC, (for which every household, by the way, needs to pay for via a tax called the TV Licence Fee of approximately 160 pounds per year), you feel that India hardly even exists; except for when there is a requirement to present a “balanced output” by showing poor Indians eating with their hands, sitting on the floor, their dark faces smiling but oh so happy; which allows the message to be conveyed that — oh, look how spiritual they are and how nicely these Wogs behave themselves even after all the humiliation we put them through, both internationally and within their own country via sanctions and immoral IMF and World Bank loans which are now beginning to generate hyper-inflation and an internal currency crisis.
Look at them, they don’t fight back, nor, complain. They just take it “where the sun don’t shine” and get on with their lives of coolie servitude, (just like when we ruled over them; back in the good ole days). Wish these uppity Arabian sand niggas and Russian steppe niggas would do the same and not be so “Bolshy” about “denazification” and things like “demilitarization”. I mean after all, you know how it is yeah; if those Russkie boys start pulling on that denazification string than how long before it unwinds all over us in the United Kingdom and our deep complicity in fomenting and nurturing this Slavic bloodbath of death and destruction. Why can’t they be just like these “house niggas’ in India and all just sort of, you know, get along and all that.
It’s all fine and it is all good.
But living here within Kolkata and in turn, within the Indian Republic, I realise, now; how this same media machine can alter the very perception of reality for a nation where the median age is 25. A nation where the media is privately owned by huge Corporations that are all at the end of the day, funded generously from the “Home of the Brave” and “The Home of Imperial Empire”. Where a critical analysis of events that are about to radically alter their own futures is given no prominence.
Why is it that when I went downstairs to see how my mother was and to talk to her about the day, (with the TV being in her room), I saw that RT is blocked here in India with just a screen displaying the coloured test bars.
I hardly watch TeleVision and didn’t ever really take much notice before. I also noticed that the rest of the English language Indian channels are just mimicking the “West”, (by recycling selective media clips in endless loops) without any real commentary whatsoever. It is extremely surprising that India would block RT, as there has been no official Government Order to do so, until you realise that what has happened is that the private cable operators have just taken the decision upon themselves to act as guardians of good faith for their Colonial pay masters.
YouTube and FaceBook, I can understand. They are Imperialist outlets but why the cable operators in India. India is officially neutral in this conflict but the Indian Government is clearly supporting the Russian Federation, and are fully aware themselves that the Indian Republic is now in the direct firing line for secondary sanctions from the US of A and from all the Instruments and Institutions owned by the “Exceptional Nation” and her servants and slaves; from the various UN Organisations and Agencies down to SWIFT.
There is a contradiction here. That contradiction is that the private media here in India is being exposed as totally owned by “foreign money” from the “West”; as are the cable operators, so much so that they feel they can do as their wish with regard to taking a decision to block RT without a Government Order.
This is about to lay the foundation for a problem later, as when these same foreign media sources can, and will, turn on the Government, (for not having voted against the Federation), when ordered to do so from outside the territory of the Republic to then put pressure on the Government by creating Social Chaos and Disturbant Upheaval in India in the form of a Colour Revolution, by magnifying the already difficult situation of rising petrol prices, youth unemployment, enhanced further by inbound food scarcity and a grain price elevation crisis; that have not been caused by this conflict in Ukraine but have been building up, (actually since President Trump took office), within the Financial Derivatives Market in London, Frankfurt and New York as rising inflation was first seen in ETFs such as the RJA and WheatUsd about 3 years ago
This inflation was not caused by India, nor China, nor Russia nor by the “Global South” but rather by the Hedge Funds that forced unlimited Dollar printing of the World’s Reserve Currency in order to offset the losses from the Great Financial Crisis of 2006/2008 initiated by the Credit Default Swaps of the SubPrime Mortgage Scam. Now, with rising petrol and natural gas prices in the United Kingdom and the US of A, two economies which have both stalled and are facing stagnation and inbound “StagFlation” – a dangerously lethal combination of Stagnation coupled with Rampant Inflation, there is every incentive to destabilise India and gain total access to her vast internal market of 350 million “high end” consumers of junk, her vast resources and her fairly advanced network of technical, agricultural and scientific assets.
Now, at the moment, the Government and the Private Media are on the same page as the current Government uses them blatantly to project a larger than life image of the current Prime Minister and his fine achievements of grand oratory. Each get along nicely as they further each other’s interests. The Private Media get a vice-like grip on the consumption masses and the Government is delighted with the free publicity and lack of friction when it comes to getting them to broadcast delightful illusions to cloud over the current state of affairs, by masking the true conditions of the working classes from these very same workers. But what happens when this Private Media starts to diverge and act like private pirates and mercenaries against the Government of India. And believe me they will as they brook no allegiance except to their bosses in Wall Street, the Military-Financial-Industrial Complexes in the erstwhile, “West”.
The current Government has used this Western Financed Media like a weapon for their own gain and this very same Media knows his weaknesses and how easy it is to make him look like a fool to his own people. This Media has been, unfortunately, allowed to deeply and dangerously embed itself within the infrastructure of the entire Indian Government apparatus.
The Goose that laid the golden egg off which you fed yourself so sumptuously may be about to devour you itself.
When the order is given to punish India for not reading from the same hymn sheet as dictated by the Globalist Corporations, this very same Media will totally destabilise the Indian Republic on a grand scale.
So, it is what it is.
This is from a friend of mine in one of the Five Eyes Nations and I would like to conclude with the exact words as expressed by himself – “RT is suffering from DDOS attack. Here in Canada, you are prompted to DDOS guard when you go their site. So the guardian of democracy and free speech is now funding hackers and blocking news sites”.
You have a site like SouthFront which has its DNS completely taken off the internet as if they never existed. These are not Denial of Service attacks where you flood them with spam much like someone shouting over you as you speak so your voice remains unheard and drowned in the noise. DNS is more akin to erasing your house and your very existence off the web, as if, you never existed to begin with.
SouthFront has been brilliantly able to overcome their difficulties under extreme pressure but the fact remains that why are you so persistent and hell bent on silencing them if you are totally on the right side of history in all this and they are but a fringe nuisance. A dog on your leg barking like a maniac. If so, then why go to such extreme methods? The more you do this the more it leaves an impression that you have something to hide. Something you don’t want SouthFront to show and talk about. After all, is this not all about Debating and Constructive Arguments that you yourself so proudly encourage within the Education System. An Education system that demeans Asians and Africans as all just barbarians that need to be civilised and Russians – ah, well; they are all — just beyond the pale. Nothing good can ever came from those steppe niggas and Slavs in the Ukraine.
I would also like to come back with another short essay of the story with which I opened. The story of a young Indian guy and how he escaped from Kiev with his one year old daughter and young Ukrainian wife and the pictures and details of the total chaos and confusion. It exposes the complicated relationship that exists between racism, politics, being non-combatants, war, lies, propaganda and the selfless urge to survive for the sake of your child and your wife in a situation that has nothing to do with your place in it. All this is – just beyond the pale and exposes deep contradictions which are now all coming home to roost.
I hope to write that next. That is if you liked this one.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
US media circulated false reports over the weekend alleging that Russia requested military aid from China to support its ongoingspecialoperation in Ukraine. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the US was quoted by CNN on Sunday as saying that “I’ve never heard of that” while another one for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the day after that these reports were “disinformation”. This fake news scandal erupted a day before US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi on Monday in Rome to discuss Ukraine and other issues of relevance.
Prior to this information warfare provocation, similarly false reports were propagated alleging that China either knew in advance of Russia’s plans to launch its special military operation in Ukraine and told Moscow to delay its commencement until after the Beijing Winter Olympics or that Beijing could have stopped the operation outright.
What all of this fake news has in common is that it’s a doomed attempt to draw China into the conflict and misportray it as taking sides instead of being neutral like it truly is. The US is obviously disturbed by China’s very pragmatic stance towards the latest events.
That’s why American officials have recently threatened Chinese companies with so-called “secondary sanctions” if they defy the US’ unilateral and illegally imposed primary ones. The zero-sum choice that Washington is attempting to force the People’s Republic to decide upon is whether Beijing sides with Moscow or against it. This, of course, is a false choice since a third option remains the most viable, which is for China to continue with its pragmatically neutral stance of calling on all sides to prioritize a political solution as soon as possible. It’s also sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine to help the people.
From a broader perspective, the grand strategic dynamics at play are becoming clearer by the day. The US unexpectedly decided to prioritize the “containment” of Russia over China despite prior indications strongly suggesting that it would continue attempting to “contain” the latter instead. The so-called “maximum pressure” campaign being waged against Russia includes unprecedentedly intense sanctions that are targeting literally every aspect of life, especially in the energy, financial, and technological spheres. These are intended to cripple Russia’s macroeconomic growth prospects and incite unrest.
Nevertheless, the US knows very well that Russia will not collapse as a result of this latest multidimensional hybrid war campaign against it. This is especially the case because it can depend on China for support as required, which is assured as a result of their reaffirmed strategic partnership pact from early last month that was agreed to during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s trip to China to attend the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics. That document specifically concerns “International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development”.
America’s attempts to divide and rule Russia and China through fake news reports and illegal “secondary sanctions” pressure are doomed to fail, but it’s still important to draw attention to how these efforts risk manipulating the perceptions of the global public.
The average news consumer who isn’t keenly aware of the facts undergirding the rock-solid Chinese-Russian Strategic Partnership might be misled by those false claims that were cited in this piece into thinking that Beijing either conspired with Moscow ahead of the latter’s special military operation in Ukraine or is about to backstab it at the US’ behest. Both impressions are flat-out false, but misleading folks into thinking one or the other is true is the US’ goal.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) declares its support for garment workers in Haiti and stands with the Haitian people who, migrating from the country for economic or political reasons, have faced racism, hostility, and terror abroad. We also condemn the neo-colonial political economic policies of the U.S. government, its international allies, and the multinational corporations who have created Haiti’s imperial crisis by continuing to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Haitian people.
Early in the year, garment workers launched protests at the Caracol Industrial Park in Haiti’s northeast region. These protests have since spread to Port-au-Prince. The workers—mostly women—have demanded wage increases and decried the dehumanizing and demeaning sweatshops in which they are employed. Their demands have been blocked by the U.S. government and by those foreign corporations, including Hanes, New Balance, Champion, Gilden Activewear, Gap, and Walmart, which have profited from a decades-long history of Haitian labor exploitation and wage suppression. With wages at a criminally-low figure of under $5 per day, the workers are demanding an increase to $15 per day.
At the same time, thousands of Haitian people continue to abandon their homes and flee their country for economic and political reasons.
Their journeys abroad are uncertain and perilous and their encounters with foreign governments have been punitive and hostile. Only last week, a boat carrying more than 300 Haitians capsized off the coast of Florida. In Mexico, Haitian migrants confront daily the racism of immigration agents and the National Guard and thousands of Haitians have been illegally incarcerated in Tapachula in what some have described as concentration camps. The Dominican Republic, with help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is militarizing its border with Haiti, beginning construction on a planned 164-kilometer long wall with 70 watchtowers and 41 access points. Dominican President Luis Abinader has called it an “intelligent fence”: It will use radars, drones, movement sensors, cameras and, of course, well-armed border patrol agents to prevent Haitian migration.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration deports Haitian asylum seekers at a record pace. Biden has continued the use of Trump-era policies including “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” to deny asylum seekers the right to due process and safety. More than 20,000 Haitians have been deported within Biden’s first year in office, a number greater than the record of the previous three presidents combined.
It goes without saying that the treatment of Haitian people provides a stark, racial contrast with that of Ukrainian refugees. While Biden has told Haitians, “Don’t come over,” he has welcomed Ukrainians “with open arms.”
For the Black Alliance for Peace, imperialism is the root cause of both the protests of Haiti’s garment workers and the experiences of Haitian migrants. While multinational corporations have undermined Haiti’s workers, the U.S. government, alongside U.S.-led bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the CORE Group, have decapitated the Haitian state. As Haitain wages have been suppressed, Haitian democracy has been throttled. And as Haitian immigrants are abused in and deported from foreign countries, it is foreign meddling that has created the conditions forcing Haitians to migrate.
Thus, as Jemima Pierre, BAP’s Haiti/Americas Committee Coordinator, reminds us, “Haiti’s domestic crises are crises of imperialism, generated by the policies of the United States and its allies.”
The Black Alliance for Peace reaffirms its solidarity with the Haitian people in their unremitting struggles for peace, independence, and self-determination against U.S./UN imperialism. We salute our sisters and brothers fighting for higher wages and better working conditions at home, and in their quest for a better life abroad.
The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on all organized labor to organize boycotts of Hanes, Levis, Fruit of the Loom and H&M in solidarity with Haitian workers.
BAP demands that the Biden regime stop its racist hypocrisy and end deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
BAP demands that Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and elsewhere be treated with dignity and be afforded their legal rights under international law.
BAP calls on all organizations in the Caribbean and Latin America to issue denunciations of the OAS and United States and organize regular pickets outside of their headquarters and embassies.
BAP calls on all human rights organizations and members of the Black liberation movements to organize long term strategic solidarity campaigns to support self-determination for the Haitian people.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
It was a long time coming, but finally some key lineaments of the multipolar world’s new foundations are being revealed.
On Friday, after a videoconference meeting, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and China agreed to design the mechanism for an independent international monetary and financial system. The EAEU consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is establishing free trade deals with other Eurasian nations, and is progressively interconnecting with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
For all practical purposes, the idea comes from Sergei Glazyev, Russia’s foremost independent economist, a former adviser to President Vladimir Putin and the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Commission, the regulatory body of the EAEU.
Glazyev’s central role in devising the new Russian and Eurasian economic/financial strategy has been examined here. He saw the western financial squeeze on Moscow coming light-years before others.
Quite diplomatically, Glazyev attributed the fruition of the idea to “the common challenges and risks associated with the global economic slowdown and restrictive measures against the EAEU states and China.”
Translation: as China is as much a Eurasian power as Russia, and they need to coordinate their strategies to bypass the US unipolar system.
The Eurasian system will be based on “a new international currency,” most probably with the yuan as reference, calculated as an index of the national currencies of the participating countries, as well as commodity prices. The first draft will be already discussed by the end of the month.
The Eurasian system is bound to become a serious alternative to the US dollar, as the EAEU may attract not only nations that have joined BRI (Kazakhstan, for instance, is a member of both) but also the leading players in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as ASEAN. West Asian actors – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon – will be inevitably interested.
In the medium to long term, the spread of the new system will translate into the weakening of the Bretton Woods system, which even serious US market players/strategists admit is rotten from the inside. The US dollar and imperial hegemony are facing stormy seas.
Show me that frozen gold
Meanwhile, Russia has a serious problem to tackle. This past weekend, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov confirmed that half of Russia’s gold and foreign reserves have been frozen by unilateral sanctions. It boggles the mind that Russian financial experts have placed a great deal of the nation’s wealth where it can be easily accessed – and even confiscated – by the ‘Empire of Lies’ (copyright Putin).
At first, it was not exactly clear what Siluanov had meant. How could the Central Bank’s Elvira Nabiulina and her team let half of foreign reserves and even gold be stored in Western banks and/or vaults? Or is this some sneaky diversionist tactic by Siluanov?
“When I first heard the word ‘frozen,’ I thought that this meant that Russia was not going to expend its precious gold reserves on supporting the ruble, trying to fight against a Soros-style raid from the west. But now the word ‘frozen’ seems to have meant that Russia had sent it abroad, outside of its control.”
“It looks like at least as of last June, all Russian gold was kept in Russia itself. At the same time, it would have been natural to have kept securities and bank deposits in the United States and Britain, because that is where most intervention in world foreign exchange markets occurs,” Hudson added.
Essentially, it’s all still up in the air:
“My first reading assumed that Russia must be doing something smart. If it was smart to move gold abroad, perhaps it was doing what other central banks do: ‘lend” it to speculators, for an interest payment or fee. Until Russia tells the world where its gold was put, and why, we can’t fathom it. Was it in the Bank of England – even after England confiscated Venezuela’s gold? Was it in the New York Fed – even after the Fed confiscated Afghanistan’s reserves?”
So far, there has been no extra clarification either from Siluanov or Nabiulina. Scenarios swirl about a string of deportations to northern Siberia for national treason. Hudson adds important elements to the puzzle:
“If [the reserves] are frozen, why is Russia paying interest on its foreign debt falling due? It can direct the “freezer’ to pay, to shift the blame for default. It can talk about Chase Manhattan’s freezing of Iran’s bank account from which Iran sought to pay interest on its dollar-denominated debt. It can insist that any payments by NATO countries be settled in advance by physical gold. Or it can land paratroopers on the Bank of England, and recover gold – sort of like Goldfinger at Fort Knox. What is important is for Russia to explain what happened and how it was attacked, as a warning to other countries.”
As a clincher, Hudson could not but wink at Glazyev:
“Maybe Russia should appoint a non-pro-westerner at the Central Bank.”
The petrodollar game-changer
It’s tempting to read into Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s words at the diplomatic summit in Antalya last Thursday as a veiled admission that Moscow may not have been totally prepared for the heavy financial artillery deployed by the Americans:
“We will solve the problem – and the solution will be to no longer depend on our western partners, be it governments or companies that are acting as tools of western political aggression against Russia instead of pursuing the interests of their businesses. We will make sure that we never again find ourselves in a similar situation and that neither some Uncle Sam nor anybody else can make decisions aimed at destroying our economy. We will find a way to eliminate this dependence. We should have done it long ago.”
So, ‘long ago’ starts now. And one of its planks will be the Eurasian financial system. Meanwhile, ‘the market’ (as in, the American speculative casino) has ‘judged’ (according to its self-made oracles) that Russian gold reserves – the ones that stayed in Russia – cannot support the ruble.
That’s not the issue – on several levels. The self-made oracles, brainwashed for decades, believe that the Hegemon dictates what ‘the market’ does. That’s mere propaganda. The crucial fact is that in the new, emerging paradigm, NATO nations amount to at best 15 percent of the world’s population. Russia won’t be forced to practice autarky because it does not need to: most of the world – as we’ve seen represented in the hefty non-sanctioning nation list – is ready to do business with Moscow.
Iran has shown how to do it. Persian Gulf traders confirmed to The Cradle that Iran is selling no less than 3 million barrels of oil a day even now, with no signed JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement, currently under negotiation in Vienna). Oil is re-labeled, smuggled, and transferred from tankers in the dead of night.
Another example: the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), a huge refiner, just bought 3 million barrels of Russian Urals from trader Vitol for delivery in May. There are no sanctions on Russian oil – at least not yet.
Washington’s reductionist, Mackinderesque plan is to manipulate Ukraine as a disposable pawn to go scorched-earth on Russia, and then hit China. Essentially, divide-and-rule to smash not only one but two peer competitors in Eurasia who are advancing in lockstep as comprehensive strategic partners.
As Hudson sees it:
“China is in the cross-hairs, and what happened to Russia is a dress rehearsal for what can happen to China. Best to break sooner than later under these conditions. Because the leverage is highest now.”
All the blather about “crashing Russian markets,” ending foreign investment, destroying the ruble, a “full trade embargo,” expelling Russia from “the community of nations,” and so forth – that’s for the zombified galleries. Iran has been dealing with the same thing for four decades, and survived.
Historical poetic justice, as Lavrov intimated, now happens to rule that Russia and Iran are about to sign a very important agreement, which may likely be an equivalent of the Iran-China strategic partnership. The three main nodes of Eurasia integration are perfecting their interaction on the go, and sooner rather than later, may be utilizing a new, independent monetary and financial system.
But there’s more poetic justice on the way, revolving around the ultimate game-changer. And it came much sooner than we all thought.
Saudi Arabia is considering accepting Chinese yuan – and not US dollars – for selling oil to China. Translation: Beijing told Riyadh this is the new groove. The end of the petrodollar is at hand – and that is the certified nail in the coffin of the indispensable Hegemon.
Meanwhile, there’s a mystery to be solved: where is that frozen Russian gold?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Cradle.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“We could completely offset the negative consequences of financial sanctions if the Bank of Russia fulfilled its constitutional duty to ensure a stable ruble exchange rate, and not the recommendations of Washington financial organizations…. It was the connivance of the Central Bank which led to the fact that Russia and its industry were drained of blood and unable to develop.” Sergey Glazyev, Russian economist and author
“A person has to wonder why Russia has taken none of these steps that would bring instant agonizing cries from the stupid West and an immediate end to all sanctions and Russophobic propaganda. Russia can dictate the terms. Why does she forgo this power?” Paul Craig Roberts
Mike Whitney: Do you agree that the motive behind Washington’s sanctions on Russia is to bring the country to its knees, remove it as a competitive rival to the US in Central Asia, and force Putin from office?
Paul Craig Roberts: Possibly. Washington is sufficiently stupid to think this. For the sanctions to have deleterious effects on Russia requires bad decisions by Russia, such as the Russian central bank is making. The West has nothing that Russia needs, but Western countries are extremely dependent on Russian energy and minerals. Russia could reply to sanctions with counter-sanctions, such as turning off the oil, natural gas, and minerals. The West would soon be begging for mercy and agree to whatever Russia specified.
Russia is unable to use the vast power she has over the West, because Russian economists and the central bank have been brainwashed by American neoliberal economists that Russia needs foreign exchange to develop. This is amazing rubbish, as I demonstrated in my recent column—
Indeed, Michael Hudson and I have explained it to the Russians a number of times. If you think your fate depends on foreign exchange, you continue keeping your enemy alive by selling your strategic assets to him.
What I think Washington is actually doing is taking advantage of the Kremlin’s go-slow war so as to minimize civilian casualties. This gives Washington time to conduct a psyops campaign that hardens hatred of Russia throughout the Western world and any other part of the world susceptible to Western media. Basically, it is an effort to protect Washington’s control over Europe from European negotiation with Russia. Washington with the aid of the presstitutes is putting Russia beyond the pale, making Russia off limit for European interaction.
This is actually in Russia’s interest as it defeats the internal Russian Fifth Column, the Atlanticist Integrationists who are willing to sacrifice Russian sovereignty to globalism and being a part of the West.
Once Russia is banned from foreign capital, the Russian central bank will have to do its job and finance Russia’s internal development. Foreign investment in Russia only serves to impoverish the country as the earnings are repatriated abroad and taken out of the country. Indeed, the sanctions and seizures of deposits of Russian banks is a great reason for Russia to regain ownership of its own resources by nationalizing all foreign investment in Russia. It is unclear whether the Kremlin is sufficiently sophisticated to understand this.
MW: Do you agree that the Russian Central Bank is doing precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time by raising rates (20%), allowing the ruble to be traded on the foreign exchange and by failing to fund domestic businesses through the printing of money?
PCR: Yes, I agree. The brainwashed Russian central bank is serving, without understanding it, the West and the success of the West’s sanctions. Russia should be billing for its energy and minerals in rubles, thus supporting its own currency instead of the currencies of its enemies, and should establish exchange controls to prevent currency speculators from short-selling the ruble.
More on the Russian Central Bank from an earlier article by Paul Craig Roberts:
“The Russian central bank even thinks that it cannot create rubles to finance investment projects unless the rubles are backed up by foreign exchange. This has caused the central bank to borrow money it doesn’t need on which it pays interest. In other words, the Russian central bank’s policy is nonsensical and serves Western interests at Russia’s expense.
The Russians could close down Western industry if Russia ceased exporting energy and minerals, but is afraid to do so because of the foreign exchange loss….
Russia has no need for foreign exchange. She does not need to import energy and minerals. Russia is full of engineering and science and can make whatever she needs. The central bank can finance all internal projects. But as the Americans succeeded in brainwashing Russian economists, the Russians can’t use the powerful weapon they have at hand to bring the West to its knees begging for mercy. Moreover, the Russian economists don’t have enough sense to demand payment in rubles for their energy and minerals. This would strengthen their own currency rather than the currencies of their enemies. Why does the Russian central bank forgo the opportunity to use Russia’s exports to stabilize the Russian currency?
The conclusion is that in the sanctions game the Russians hold all the cards but do not know how to play them.
The West has nothing that Russia needs, but the West cannot survive without Russian energy and minerals.” (“Washington and Moscow vie for the Stupid Prize“, Paul Craig Roberts Web Site)
MW: From your perspective, is the Central Bank chief, Elvira Nabiullina, acting as a hostile foreign agent by implementing policies that clearly undermine Russia’s financial position and greatly intensify the impact of the sanctions?
PCR: I don’t think she understands that she is doing that, but, yes, that is what she is doing. Russia is still selling strategic resources to the West and accepting payment in dollars and euros, which strengthens the currencies of Russia’s enemies and weakens the ruble. To be precise, the Russian central bank is subsidizing the success of the Western sanctions. It is mindless.
More on the Russian Central Bank from an earlier article by Paul Craig Roberts:
“Russia has the opportunity created for her by the sanctions to correct her tragic strategic blunder of allowing foreigners to buy up her productive assets. Russia can nationalize the assets owned by companies of the sanctioning countries. The sanctioning countries are stealing Russian bank deposits so Russia should retaliate by stealing their real assets.
A person has to wonder why Russia has taken none of these steps that would bring instant agonizing cries from the stupid West and an immediate end to all sanctions and Russophobic propaganda. Russia can dictate the terms. Why does she forgo this power?…..
If Russia disempowers herself by refusing to play her winning hand, she will be brought down by her own stupidity, not by Western sanctions.” (“Washington and Moscow vie for the Stupid Prize”, Paul Craig Roberts Web Site)
MW: Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world. These sanctions have been imposed arbitrarily and without review by the WTO, without approval by the United Nations Security Council, and without any regard for due process. Russia has had no opportunity to defend itself in a court of law or make its case before an internationally-approved tribunal. How do explain the fact that the majority Americans enthusiastically applaud this anti-democratic abuse of power that is clearly designed to inflict maximum pain on the Russian people?
PCR: Americans, like Canadians and Europeans, lack an independent media that reports honestly. Instead, the West gets a narrative handed down from the ruling elite and delivered into people’s heads by the presstitutes who through repetition turn lies into truth, fiction into fact.
There are no tribunals or international laws that can be enforced against the West. Russia’s mistake is that she responds to the accusations. She should ignore them and go about her business. What she should make clear is not the facts, as facts do not matter in the Western world. She should make clear her red lines and make clear that she means them by instantly destroying whoever crosses them. That is the only way Russia will have an end to Western provocations and the world will have peace.
MW: The death of George Floyd touched off a wave of anti-racism protests across the country. The Democrat party embraced these demonstrations and disparaged anyone who hesitated to offer their unquestioning support. Now these same faux liberals are openly expressing their unbridled hatred for all-things Russian. How do you explain this wave of ethnic hatred that has overtaken the American people particularly those people who never fail to remind us how anti-racist and virtuous they are?
PCR: Liberals or conservatives, they are the same. The average person hasn’t the time, energy, interest, or know-how to find out what is happening. They are programmed by the presstitutes who repeat with one voice the elite’s narrative, whether it is Covid, Saddam Hussein, Russia, 9/11, it doesn’t matter. There is only the official narrative.
It is easy to make Americans hate Russia because they are accustomed to it by the 20th century Cold War. Americans are accustomed to Russians being the enemy. The Russian side of the story is blocked from being presented in the West. So, the only information people in the West have is the official narrative.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Mike Whitney,renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
Just your regular reminder that the US empire
(A) had solid intelligence that this war was coming,
(B) knew they could prevent it by making very reasonable, low-cost concessions like promising not to add a nation to NATO that they didn’t want to add anyway, and (C) chose not to.
*
It’s 2022 and people still believe the US is pouring weapons into a foreign country to protect freedom and democracy. That’s like being 57 and still believing in the Tooth Fairy.
*
The US empire has had a standing policy of preventing the rise of any rival superpowers since the USSR collapsed, by which I mean that policy was explicitly laid out in writing within months of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Both Moscow and Beijing have refused to kiss the imperial ring, and crippling Russia is an essential part of hamstringing China’s rise. This was all planned years ago.
Gilbert Doctorow described back in 2017 how Moscow and Beijing have formed a mutually beneficial “tandem” based on their respective strengths; Russia as a major military force who is willing to confront the US empire, and China as a rising economic superpower. Empire managers had previously expected that Moscow would be forced to pivot to Washington and become a member state of the empire. The fact that it chose Beijing instead to retain its sovereignty is what set all this in motion.
This was all planned years in advance. It’s no coincidence that we were hammered with narratives originating from US intelligence agencies which inflamed hysteria about Russia in the years leading up to this, most of which had nothing to do with Ukraine. I mean for Christ’s sake, even the one narrative that did involve Ukraine occurred because a CIA officer (ridiculously labeled a “whistleblower” by the mass media) just so happened to be in the right place at the right time to get it rolling.
So we’re all going to suffer financially and live under the risk of total obliteration via nuclear war in a long-planned confrontation geared toward obtaining total planetary domination, just because a few manipulators in the US government decided that would be a good thing.
It doesn’t need to be this way. Never did. There’s no good reason why nations can’t just get along and work together for the common good of all. The only reason that’s not happening is because of this insane desire to dominate and control instead of collaborate and thrive.
*
Again: pouring weapons into Ukraine is not how you save lives. You save lives by accepting Russia’s conditions. Pouring weapons into Ukraine is how you try to draw Moscow into a long, bloody insurgency like the US did in Afghanistan and Syria which will cost thousands more lives.
These demands will be met whether Kyiv agrees to them or not:
The Kremlin has announced its demands for ending the war in Ukraine: -Ukraine must change its constitution to guarantee it won't join any "blocs", i.e. NATO + EU. -Must recognise Crimea as part of Russia. -Must recognise the eastern separatist regions as independent.
The only difference is agreeing to them now saves thousands of lives. Kyiv cannot stop Russia. Whether Russia is dumb enough to be drawn into waging a gruelling counter-insurgency against empire-backed proxy forces is another matter.
Western governments are making no real secret that they know this is an unwinnable war for Kyiv. They had more faith in the Afghan regime’s ability to hold up against the Taliban than they do in Ukraine. And rightly so. This is just wasting human lives.
This is a proxy war to advance US unipolarist objectives. Nothing more, nothing less. If you still support it because you like the US empire then just say that; don’t pretend it’s about saving lives, and don’t pretend you give a shit about Ukrainians.
*
It was correct to oppose the dangerous agendas that were rolled out by the US empire in the jingoistic hysteria after 9/11. Doing so didn’t make you an Osama lover, and it didn’t mean you supported the killing of Americans. And anyone who claimed otherwise was being an asshole.
It is correct to oppose the dangerous agendas being rolled out by the US empire in the jingoistic hysteria of the Ukraine war. Doing so doesn’t make you a Putin lover, and it doesn’t mean you support the killing of Ukrainians. And anyone who claims otherwise is being an asshole.
*
I’m old enough to remember when disagreeing with someone’s opinion didn’t mean they’re a secret agent conducting psyops for a foreign government.
It says so much about where we’re at as a civilization that one of the most outrageous, controversial and incendiary things you can do on social media today is criticize the most powerful government in the world for its role in starting a war.
It’s laughably absurd to demand that only Putin be criticized for this when already so few are criticizing the western actions that led us here. It’s infantile and insulting to the intellect. It deserves not the slightest shred of respect. It deserves only disdain and rejection.
You don’t get to saturate the western world with a single homogeneous and plot hole-riddled pro-NATO narrative, ban media outlets who dispute that narrative, and then still scream at people for criticizing NATO actions that led to a war. That’s not a thing. Shut your dopey mouth.
*
Nuclear war is the single greatest and most immediate threat to our species today and avoiding it should be our absolute foremost priority. Whatever your other concerns, agendas, desires or ideological preferences, none of them will matter if nobody is left on earth. For anything else you fear or desire to be at all relevant in the future, war between nuclear superpowers must first be averted. This is self-evident.
*
Western powers initiating de-escalation and detente is the only sane option on the table, and those who are calling for it are being shouted down, censored and marginalized while hawkish escalations and brinkmanship are being advocated by the entire political/media class.
*
Putin is responsible for Putin’s decisions, the western empire is responsible for the western empire’s decisions. Putin is responsible for choosing to invade, the western empire is responsible for choosing the actions which led to that decision. Not complicated.
It’s the Russian people’s job to hold their leaders to account, and it’s our job to hold our leaders to account. The western empire could end this anytime and pursue de-escalation and detente. It’s choosing not to. That choice is costing lives and leading us toward nuclear war.
You have power. If you choose to impotently masturbate your emotions about Putin rather than choosing to exercise that power by calling on your own leaders to turn away from this destructive path, then the consequences of that decision are, to some extent, on you.
You asked for a robust anti-war movement in America, you got demonstrations calling for World War 3. https://t.co/Gjk3TuUcen
74 percent of Americans say they support a US/NATO no-fly zone in Ukraine because the press and the pollsters aren’t doing their fucking job and telling people what those words mean.
I repeat that it would really help if we switched from calling it a “no-fly zone” to calling it a “directly attack the Russian military zone”.
When people tell me a no-fly zone or other military attack on Russia wouldn’t lead to nuclear war I like to ask them “Are you willing to bet every life on earth that you’re right about that?” Really press them on this one. Make them answer, and make them justify their answer.
*
It’s very revealing how in the minds of empire apologists the conflict under debate is always comparable to World War 2, the one war that the US can justify having entered into eighty years ago, instead of all its many other wars since that it can’t justify at all.
*
All the talk about World War 2 lately reminds me of how the Soviets beat Hitler while the US needlessly nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and burned 100,000 civilians alive in Tokyo and then used its global narrative control to take credit for winning the entire war.
*
When you refuse to fully examine your western privilege, defense will look like an attack.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you can talk about your trauma all the damn day long while inflicting vast amounts of trauma on families in the name of “not giving in” to Putin.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you can claim a country on the other side of the world that you didn’t know the name of last week is something you’re willing to blow the world up for in order not to “give up”, like it was ever “yours” in the first place.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you can comfortably buy the lie that you’re perpetually up-punching in every conflict, always the little Marvel hero coming to save the world from the big bad evil villain.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you refuse to examine why everything in the world is “ours” to “defend” and why no things are ever “none of our damn business.”
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you perceive someone taking a privilege away as someone taking something that was “yours” that was never yours in the first place.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you indulge in a kind of political Munchausen syndrome where you are a perpetual victim that is always being bullied.
When you refuse to examine your western privilege, you can read one (1) New York Times think piece about a situation you knew literally nothing about five minutes ago and assume that your new-found opinion is the only opinion that exists and every other opinion needs censoring.
*
We don’t make a big enough deal about how MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for not supporting the Iraq war. Couldn’t ask for more damning evidence that mass media institutions care about conducting propaganda and not truth or facts or holding the powerful to account.
Corporate media have every incentive to beat the drums of war as loud as possible 24/7, from ratings, to maintaining access to government officials, to defending the status quo their plutocratic owners have built their kingdoms upon. Anyone who wants to make money in news media now knows that in order to do that you’ve got to consistently demonstrate that you will always promote the interests of the oligarchic empire at every opportunity. Donahue didn’t play the game.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The former US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Sunday posted a video on Twitter reiterating claims about US-funded Biolabs in Ukraine. Expressing concerns over the “inadvertent or intentional” breach of these dangerous pathogens, Gabbard called for an immediate ceasefire around these US-funded laboratories in Ukraine.
In Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey, who was in office at the time of the murder of Floyd and the subsequent rebellions in the city and around the country, has now issued a proposal to ban “No-Knock Warrants”.
Millennials actually saw the highest increase in excess deaths of any other age group, due to the mandates imposed upon them, in order to keep their jobs, 7 times higher than the Silent Generation (those aged 85+).
The study from an institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., tracked social media accounts of the far-right group Centuria, documenting its Ukrainian military members giving Nazi salutes, promoting white nationalism and praising members of Nazi SS units.
In a bid to pressure the Thai government over Ukraine and Russia, the same Western-backed opposition groups and media platforms attempting to overthrow the current Thai government for years, is now being mobilized to poison the Thai public against Russia and the Thai government for not taking a firm stance alongside (or perhaps at the feet of) the West.
If we consider that Russia’s borders will inevitably be redrawn following the military intervention, and sections of what are currently modern-day Ukraine will reside within those new borders, it would perhaps seem more realistic to expect that Putin does not intend to “occupy” all of Ukraine.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo wrote in a declaration that although the enhanced interrogation techniques are no longer classified, the location of the CIA black site in question remains a state secret. Pompeo maintained that soliciting information about the involvement of Polish nationals in Zubaydah’s treatment could compromise national security.
Because of your underlying assumption that ONLY WRITTEN agreements count, I just now did some research on whether America’s now having unilaterally cancelled Russia’s membership in the WTO (World Trade Organization) so as to be able to tariff at sky-high rates Russian imports into the U.S. is legal. America is a signed member of WTO, and so is Russia.
he U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was updated this past Friday, March 11, 2022, and it is now reporting that there have been 1,168,894 cases of injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccines since December of 2020, when the FDA issued emergency use authorizations for the COVID-19 vaccines.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Sunday said the vaccine maker plans to submit data on a fourth dose of its COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because protection after three doses is “not that good against infections” and “doesn’t last very long” when faced with a variant like Omicron.
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 and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Amir Locke, a 22-year-old African American youth, was shot to death on February 2 in his bed by a Minneapolis SWAT team which entered his apartment without a warrant.
Locke was not a suspect in any crime and was armed with a licensed weapon he was holding while asleep.
This is the same municipality where George Floyd was brutally murdered in broad daylight on May 25, 2020, sparking an international movement which further exposed the racist and oppressive character of the police in the U.S. The police killers of Floyd have been convicted in state and federal courts, yet the widespread terrorizing of African Americans and other people of color communities continue at a feverish pace.
In Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey, who was in office at the time of the murder of Floyd and the subsequent rebellions in the city and around the country, has now issued a proposal to ban “No-Knock Warrants”. However, the problems of police misconduct and brutality are not new to Minneapolis and the recent initiative by the City of Minneapolis does provide loopholes that would allow the type of law-enforcement intrusions into people’s homes that result in many unjustified deaths.
“The purpose here is to give people who are trying to comply, people who are trying to do the right thing, giving them the ability to again, get their wherewithal, answer the call if possible, and to make sure that officers are then entering into a situation where an individual is well-informed about who is entering the place.” Nonetheless, there are no prohibitions on the use of lethal force when the police believe that a “exigent” circumstance exists in the minds of law-enforcement personnel.
Such language by Frey continues to place the onus of responsibility in encounters with the police upon the African American and other oppressed peoples. The assumption is that law-enforcement agencies are composed of people with good intentions devoid of racist and class bias.
Figures which have been gathered in recent years indicate that these false assumptions have no basis in reality. The number of people harassed, stalked, brutalized and killed by police as well as racist vigilantes has increased over the last decade.
A website which monitors the number of people dying at the hands of law-enforcement officers reveals that the problem is worsening. The mass demonstrations and rebellions which have arisen over the previous two years are in direct response to the hostility and aggressiveness of police agencies in the U.S. Among the masses of African American working class people, and their counterparts within other oppressed and marginalized population groups, there is no indication that attitudes towards the police have improved.
When the issues of security are discussed outside the ruling interests of the U.S. and its allies, there is a disconnect between proponents of increased support for the criminal justice system and those who are the victims of police brutality. Even the increase in domestic violence and street crime cannot be attributed to the lack of funding for law-enforcement. The overall social crisis in the U.S. due to economic distress aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020, is never considered by the corporate media as a major triggering factor in interpersonal conflict.
“Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 138 civilians having been shot, nine of whom were Black, as of March 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,021 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 38 fatal shootings per million of the population as of March 2022.”
Biden Repudiates the Main Slogan of Black Lives Matter
A State of the Union (SOTU) address delivered by President Joe Biden on March 1 drew particular attention from the corporate media when the current administration went out of its way to denounce the slogan “Defund the Police.” This slogan did not arise within a vacuum. The calls for the defunding and dismantling of law-enforcement in its present forms is rooted in the centuries-long legacy of policing which has reinforced systems of enslavement, legalized segregation, economic exploitation and national oppression.
Whether or not grassroots activists heard the resounding rejection of the BLM and the antiracist movement as a whole, the pronouncements by Biden did not go unnoticed by the corporate and government-controlled news agencies. Several articles were published the following day which emphasized this portion of the speech.
“’Let’s not abandon our streets. Or choose between safety and equal justice,’ Biden said. ‘We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them with resources and training they need to protect our communities.’ Biden also noted that the American Rescue Plan provided $350 billion for local governments to hire more police and invest in ‘proven strategies like community violence interruption.’ His statement comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the slogan ‘has no place’ and is not the Democrats’ position.”
American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds allocated during 2021 have not been proven sufficient to counter the burgeoning economic downturn in the U.S. Inflation is at the highest level in over 40 years and will undoubtedly rise even faster in order to finance the current NATO war in Eastern Europe. There was much discussion during the SOTU speech on the purported threat posed by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin. However, the major threat in many African American and working class communities are the unbridled racist police and vigilantes, compounding the failure of the Biden administration and Congress to pass legislation to assist the people in their struggle to secure housing, quality education, voting rights, environmental justice, an increase in minimum wages and gender rights.
Priorities Must Be Shifted to a People’s Agenda
2022 is a midterm election year and the present administration in Washington has consistently declined in its approval ratings among the electorate. African Americans are a key voting constituency for the Democratic Party of which Biden is the leader.
Image on the right: Ma’Khia Bryant
Two examples of the inability of the administration to satisfactorily handle the rise in police violence against the oppressed, are the recent exonerations of law-enforcement officers in the killing of Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio in April 2021 and Breonna Taylor during March 2020 in Louisville, Kentucky. Bryant, a 16-year-old in foster care, was gunned down by a police officer called to the scene of a fight between two teenagers.
“Ma’Khia was killed in April 2021 by officer Nicholas Reardon as she swung a knife at a young woman, seconds after pushing another woman to the ground. Bryant was Black. Reardon is white…. Ma’Khia was shot four times. The coroner listed the cause of death as a homicide – a medical determination used in cases where someone has died at someone else’s hand but not a legal finding. It does not imply criminal intent…. Ma’Khia’s family expressed disappointment and said: ‘There should have been other non-deadly options available to deal with this situation.’ The family also called for ‘full-scale changes’ to Ohio’s foster-care system. ‘Ohio’s foster-care system is failing our children and we cannot stand by and allow this to continue,’ they said. ‘As the one-year anniversary of Ma’Khia’s death approaches, her family is resolute in their fight for justice on her behalf.’”
In the case of Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old emergency medical technician was sleeping in her bed at home when police raided the apartment without notice. Breonna’s friend in the apartment with her fired shots in self-defense, while the police killed Taylor.
No one has ever been indicted in the death of Taylor. One dismissed officer was charged with reckless discharge of a firearm where bullets landed in another apartment. The former officer, Brett Hankison, was recently acquitted by a jury in Louisville.
The family of Taylor is demanding that the U.S. Justice Department prosecute the police officers involved in Breonna’s death for federal civil rights violations. The Biden administration has been reluctant to utilize its prosecutorial powers by going after police officers who kill civilians without cause. See this.
This consistent defense of deadly police officers by the courts and the political system is an important priority for African Americans and other opponents of state-sponsored violence and repression in the U.S. If the Biden administration continues to antagonize the workers and oppressed, they will be faced with renewed mass demonstrations and other forms of resistance which could negatively impact their presence and status within the White House and Congress.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Breonna Taylor and Amir Locke; All images in this article are from Abayomi Azikiwe
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.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published in February 2017
***
That pretty printed paper in your wallet, that stuff called money, where does it come from? What gives it value, and why can you buy things with it? The question is not an idle one, nor is it a cynical one, but rather ultimately practical. And yet, this essential question is never asked by the authorities who lecture us on economics, nor the politicians who grace us with their precious opinions from their gilt offices.
That is to say that even though the media brainwashes us into believing that money is the most important thing in the world, money itself can never be a topic for discussion.
The problem of money is an old one. The current crisis of money is a crisis of value, a crisis in which our money is cut down, eviscerated, and slaughtered before our very eyes by an invisible butcher called inflation, in a secret ritual whereby money is printed up by the Federal Reserve, using black magic, and then doled out to the rich and to the banks for free.
As we enter final horrific stage of this travesty, we will be forced to switch to digital currencies that are controlled by unaccountable powers at the Federal Reserve, powers who will turn off the money in our wallets, or freeze our accounts, or seize our money for taxes, or for fines, at their whim.
When banks print up money to buy stocks, or pay off the debts of the rich, the money in your pocket, in your savings account, decreases in value proportionally. In short, the rich are stealing your money by diluting it while you sleep. They call this theft “inflation,” implying that money becomes worth less following some natural principle. Inflation is, according to them, a natural disaster, like an earthquake or a typhoon, like a flood or a drought.
This fiction about money and value is backed up by the authoritative musings of the pay-to-play experts. But they all know that the money in your bank did not become less valuable because of an act of God. It was crushed when the banks cranked out trillions of dollars to buy worthless stock, to purchase useless weapons, to buy up farmland so that you will pay more for food, to buy up housing so that you will pay more for rent.
We cannot understand the current money crisis unless we consider the process by which we got here over the past hundred years.
Specifically, it was the establishment of the Federal Reserve on December 23, 1913 that started this downhill path. Although we needed a national bank accountable to the Congress and to the people, one in which money was created and regulated by the government in a transparent manner in accord with the Constitution, we ended up with a system wherein private banks have the final say over fiscal policy.
Sadly, the crafty and devious banker J. P. Morgan, and not visionaries like our founding fathers, put together the system that regulates money, that serves as the heart of the nation’s economy.
Although the system worked, the poison slowly spread through the body politic over the next century as the private banks used their control of money to bribe (that is to say, “to lobby”) congressmen, presidents, professors, journalists, and all other authority figures to endorse this system, thereby leading the cow to the slaughterhouse.
Ultimately, the fiscal policies of the United States, the creation, distribution, and the determination of the value of money, are determined by private bankers, or by government officials at the Department of the Treasury were raised by the banks, and are loyal to them, not to the people.
There was a period, from the 1930s to the 1970s, when the Federal Reserve was relatively well administered. Government officials were aware of the dangers of unregulated global finance and they benchmarked efforts to control capital in Europe, and even in the socialist block. But the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of this false national bank never really changed: it sought to toss off the flimsy chains put on it during the New Deal, and it reared its ugly head again in the 1990s.
When the banks discovered that their secret takeover met almost no opposition in a decadent passive society, they decided to seize control of not only the economy, but of politics, of education, of medicine, and of culture in 2020.
Men and women of conscience abandoned the federal government like rats from a sinking ship.
But let us go back to the value of money. Money was backed by gold in 1879. That meant that in theory you could redeem your dollar bill for gold, and on occasion people did so. But when the entire edifice of government and the economy collapsed in the great depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on June 5, 1933, ended the gold standard and placed in its stead the authority of the federal government.
Although this move made sense in light of the horrific economic crisis, and the fact that the rich controlled all the gold, the result was that the dollar was no longer tied to anything but the impression that the government had authority. That is to say that the nature of money became ideological.
Yes, a tentative relationship between the dollar and gold was established again after the Federal Reserve had amassed a significant amount of gold, but that relationship was tangential. The citizen could not simply demand that his or her dollars be redeemed in gold, and even that tie was severed permanently by President Richard Nixon in 1971.
The move away from gold, from any concrete object that gave value to the slips of paper in your wallet, created a fiat currency, as it is called, and such an untethered money had a malign impact on American society, granted that the changes were so slow as to be imperceptible.
During the 1930s, the depression, the federal government printed up money to help pay those who had been impoverished by the collapse of the speculative economy.
Economic recovery for the working men and women was successful, but in a limited sense. The new role of the Federal government, the projects for electrification and road building, had a mixed impact on our society.
On the one hand, life became easier, and more convenient, and for some it was healthier. The poor were, for the first time, treated as citizens when programs like social security and welfare offered them real protection against the terrible poverty that has haunted the working man since time immemorial.
This approach to economics, to money, was deeply influenced by the experiments carried out in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and it had real merits.
But there was a price to be paid for this solution.
The resulting New Deal was a compromise that brought change, but that demanded citizens give up economic, organizational, and intellectual independence. Our citizens came to rely on large organizations like federal government, and then later on multinational corporations—which essentially function as governments.
The small farmer in 1930 was largely independent in terms of money, energy, food, and the other necessities of life. They were many who met their needs without much interaction with banks or with government. The nation had been founded by leaders who felt that such independent self-sufficient farmers were the key to long-term democracy—a vision we should have held to.
Our citizens grew vegetables and animals for food, and could preserve that food for the winter. They produced energy from windmills, water mills, horses, and good old fashioned manual labor without depending on utility corporations, or multinational oil companies. They despised companies like Standard Oil that tried to make Americans dependent on petroleum.
Our citizens knew how to gather medicinal herbs and to treat health conditions without hospitals. They made their own furniture, bought iron tools from neighbors who forged it, or borrowed items from each other when required. Money was not critical to that economy, nor was consumption; chairs were made to last for a 100 years, dresses woven to last for 40 years. Frugality was a virtue.
The New Deal helped those devastated by the banks, but it demanded integration into a money economy run by the government, and specifically by the Federal Reserve, which remained under the control of the private banks who were just itching to toss off their reigns.
When the economy improved after the Second World War, and especially when Americans became dependent on government and corporations in the 1970s, the private banks starting making up the rules for money again, and buying off the supposed regulators.
Politicians will never suggest that we form cooperatives and establish our own local currencies, that we build a local economy that has no need for multinational banks or factory farms, no dependence on monopolistic logistics and distribution systems, no ties to marketing and sales gimmicks, nothing to do with the tools by which corporations mean to bleed us dry.
Almost all transactions today are carried out in the money controlled by the Federal Reserve, that is to say, money controlled by multinational corporations and banks, and the super-rich who hide behind them.
Moreover, as impressive as it may be that the dollar is the global currency, that means that any number of global banks and shifty billionaires around the world are interested in the dollar, not because they care about Americans, but because they wish to squeeze even more profit out of it.
You may be able to vote for a politician, and maybe your vote will be counted. But when it comes to the value of money, or to access to money, the United States is a dictatorship. The Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the congressional committees overseeing monetary policy are tightly controlled by multinational private banks. No one who is not bought and paid for by them will be allowed to come near the process by which money is created and its value is determined.
And then there is the pseudoscience of economics, a field of study far less reputable than astrology and bloodletting, that tells us that interest rates, rather than the grand theft of money by multinational banks, is the cause of inflation; that tells us we must consume and waste in order to have a healthy economy; that suggests to us that importing food and other necessities from abroad through the parasitic logistics and distribution systems controlled by the banks, is a sign of growth, and that this scam is more modern and efficient than growing your own food and running your own local economy.
That fairy tale is a massive fraud. If you produce most necessities in your community and buy and sell, or barter, with each other, and if you run local banks as cooperatives, then the money, and the value, will remain in your community, and will not be siphoned off to vampire private equity firms in New York or Singapore, in London or Geneva.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
In light of Big Tech’s efforts to suppress independent media, Global Research articles are no longer picked up by external search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc.
As a workaround, we are excited to announce that we have just rolled out a new internal search functionality that enables you to access an extensive list of articles from our archive.
To use this feature, kindly refer to the instructions below.
Type keyword in the “Search” field at the top banner of our website.
As results come out, you can choose specific authors by clicking their names at the right navigation bar.
Scroll through the bottom to proceed to the next page of search results (if available).
We encourage you to utilize this functionality to aid further reading and to circumvent the massive censorship directed against us.
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.
Fresh off a 7-day suspension from Twitter, BlackRock Whistleblower, Ed Dowd is back, with a horrifying report on Steve Bannon’s War Room.
Ed enlisted the help of an insurance industry expert to parse out the CDC Excess Deaths data. He says, “We were looking for other things but what we found was pretty shocking…He broke it down by age and he created a baselines for each age group to come up with excess mortality.
“And the money chart is really Chart 4, which shows that the Millennial age group, 25 to 44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality into the fall. It’s the worst-ever excess mortality, I think, in history.
Millennials actually saw the highest increase in excess deaths of any other age group, due to the mandates imposed upon them, in order to keep their jobs, 7 times higher than the Silent Generation, (those aged 85+).
“Just to give you an idea, when you look at Chart 4, you see when mandates and boosters hit, the acceleration into the fall and then it re-accelerated into the end of the year. The drop-off in that data we see there’s reporting issues. It takes time for Millennial-aged deaths to be reported, because they’re usually not hospital deaths, so that data’s going to be updated and it’s probably gonna show that continued disturbing trend.
“So, just to put some numbers on this, starting in the summer into the fall, with the mandates and the boosters, there were 61,000 excess Millennial deaths.
“Basically, Millennials experienced a Vietnam War in the second half of 2021. 58,000 people died in the Vietnam War, US troops [over the course of 10 years], so this generation just experienced a Vietnam War [in 6 months].
“I think this is the smoking gun: that the vaccines are causing excess mortality in all age groups and it’s no coincidence that Rochelle Walensky refuses to answer Senator Ron Johnson’s letters. They’re hiding. Fauci’s gone. She’s gone. They’re hiding.
“So, I’m going to put a word out there. It’s an old word but it should be re-introduced into the conversation. It’s called democide: Death by government. So the government, through the mandates has killed people.”
Ed says that his insurance expert collaborator will not be doing any press conferences but he is taking this report to a financial group that’s on the wrong side of this fraud and that through them, his identity will be made public.
Ed also says that a very senior chief risk officer/actuary just reached out to him, wanting to compare notes, so he thinks this is only the beginning of the response from the financial community.
“If you’re on Wall Street and you still think Pfizer and Moderna are good buys, I’ve got news for you: there’s some catalysts coming that are probably not going to be good for holding those stocks.
Dowd does not see the liability protections afforded by the US Government to vaccine manufacturers protecting them, this time.
He says, “I’ve done a lot of work into the clinical data with [Ventavia whistleblower] Brook Jackson on the prima facie evidence that the FDA wanted to hide the data for 75 years, which points to clinical fraud.”
On his GETTR account, Dowd is posting the tables for the other age groups. The excess mortality rate for the GenX cohort, aged 45 to 64 also shows a clear early-fall mortality spike, consistent with that of the Millennials, with 101,000 excess deaths since August 2021.
The over-65 Baby Boomers saw 306,000 excess deaths, which he describes as a “World War II” event, saying, “291,000 people died in World War II from the US.”
In another interview Ed did yesterday with Infowars, he told Alex Jones, “It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my life…
“We’ve had 1.1 million excess deaths since the pandemic began, many of which occurred in the second half of [2021], which is, again all you need to know.
“1.1 million excess deaths equates to 4,000 World Trade Center events.
“The media wants to talk about Ukraine and we just literally had a war, here on our own soil. We’re at war with someone and it’s occurring.”
When Alex asked him what could possibly have been the motive for this “democide”, Ed responded, “This is speculation on my part but since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the system writ large – not any one individual – but the system viewed the human being as a center of profit.
“If we think about the debt bubble that I’ve talked about, the sovereign debt bubble and all of the liabilities associated with both unfunded and funded medicare, pensions, what have you, what if the system, writ large viewed killing a human being as more profitable than extracting profit?”
Being that he’s a high-level market analyst, both interviewers asked him about his predictions for the economy, with yesterday’s announcement of a 7.9% rise in inflation in February, which of course, the Democrats are chalking up to “corporate greed”.
Ed predicts a recession in the Third Quarter or definitely before the end of this year.
He reminded Alex Jones that Joe Biden’s first act in office was to cancel the Keystone Pipeline and, “There was a plan to shut down energy production in this country and the high oil prices we saw before the war were due to that and also monetary inflation and also supply chain issues from these stupid mandates…We’re going to see food riots in the fall. It’s going to be like the Arab Spring but across the globe…Once food becomes 50% of your disposable income, food riots ensue.”
He told Steve Bannon, “We’re at a very critical point in history, where a lot of the inflation over the last ten years went into assets and now, we’re going to see inflation in things we need and deflation in those assets. So, it’s a one-two punch – and that’s coming.
“We also have what I see as supply shocks that are different from monetary influences. This is the first spike in commodity prices since ’83 that we’ve seen without a corresponding rise in interest rates. So, this is supply shock-driven, so it’s gonna be a disaster over the next 12 months, in my humble opinion…
“The more we wake up and convince that they were literally just poisoned, the more of a chance that we have for these guys to go down literally without a fight, because they need their useful idiots to believe their lies.
“The American Revolution really only started with about 5% of the population that were active. If we can get to 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, it’s over. We win.
“My plea is this: ‘The people who you supposedly work for poisoned you, through mandates, through whatever. It’s time for you to figure out where you stand on the side of the fight and do your part, within these institutions to get the word out to the rest of the people.’”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
A visibly anxious and panicked Biden tweeted [1] yesterday, March 11:
“I want to be clear: We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full might of a united and galvanized NATO. But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. And something we must strive to prevent.”
The string of rambling tweets betrayed the apprehensive mental state of a raving executive who was under tremendous pressure from certain quarters to significantly escalate the conflict with the arch-foe and wanted to console himself and the listeners that by not committing American ground and air forces to Ukraine, specifically for enforcing the no-fly zone, he was making the right decision.
Despite Russia’s massive nuclear arsenal, several Pentagon officials, full of hubris and evidently suffering from misplaced superiority complex, have recently made their misconceived institutional logic public that they no longer regard Russia as an equal military power, instead they contemptuously dubbed it “a second-rate regional power,” and if given an opportunity, they wouldn’t hesitate to take Russia head-on, even if the risk is as perilous as the conflict spiraling into a catastrophic nuclear war.
It’s noteworthy the national security and defense policies of the United States are formulated by the all-powerful civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed the deep state, whereas the president, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process with disproportionate influence of corporate interests, political lobbyists and billionaire donors, is only a figurehead meant to legitimize militarist stranglehold of the deep state, not only over the domestic politics of the United States but also over the neocolonial world order dictated by the self-styled global hegemon.
All the militaries of the NATO member states operate under the integrated military command led by the Pentagon. Before being elected president, General Dwight Eisenhower was the first commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).
The commander of Allied Command Operations has been given the title Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and is always a US four-star general officer or flag officer who also serves as the Commander US European Command, and is answerable to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.
CNN reported March 6 [2] Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley visited a week before an undisclosed airfield near the Ukraine border that has become a hub for shipping weapons. The airport’s location remains a secret to protect the shipments of weapons, including anti-armor missiles, into Ukraine. Although the report didn’t name the location, the airfield was likely in Poland along Ukraine’s border.
“US European Command (EUCOM) is at the heart of the massive shipment operation, using its liaison network with allies and partners to coordinate ‘in real time’ to send materials into Ukraine, a second Defense official said. EUCOM is also coordinating with other countries, including the United Kingdom, in terms of the delivery process ‘to ensure that we are using our resources to maximum efficiency to support the Ukrainians in an organized way,’ the official added.”
In Europe, 400,000 US forces were deployed at the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down [3] to almost 100,000 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 by deploying thousands of additional NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons aimed at Russia, and NATO forces alongside regional clients have been provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.
The Biden administration approved on Feb. 24 an additional 7,000 US troops [4] to be deployed to Germany, bringing the total number of American forces sent to Europe to 15,000 this month, including troops previously deployed to Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. In Poland alone, the US military footprint now exceeds 10,000 troops as the majority of 15,000 troops sent to Europe last month went to Poland to join the 4,000 US troops already stationed there.
“We have 130 jets at high alert. Over 200 ships from the high north to the Mediterranean, and thousands of additional troops in the region,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN[5].
A spokesman for US European Command told CNN the United States was sending two Patriot missile batteries to Poland, and was also considering deploying THAAD air defense system, a more advanced system equivalent in capabilities to Russia’s S-400 air defense system.
Besides providing 2,000 surface-to-air missiles and 17,000 anti-armor munitions, including Javelins and NLAWs, to Ukraine’s security forces and allied militias, British Defense Minister Ben Wallace said [6] that the UK was considering sending the laser-guided Starstreak shoulder-fired anti-aircraft system, a significant upgrade from the Stinger missiles sent by the US, Germany and other allies. The weapon has a range of over four miles and can take down fighter planes more effectively than the Stinger.
Although NATO powers did provide Stingers to their jihadist proxies that helped turning the tide in the Soviet-Afghan war in the eighties, since then, despite providing anti-tank munitions and rest of weapons to militant groups in the proxy wars in Libya and Syria, Western powers have consistently avoided providing MANPADS to proxy forces, because such deadly anti-aircraft munitions could become a long-term threat not only to military aircraft but also to civilian airlines.
In the sheer desperation to inflict maximum material damage on Russia’s security forces, however, NATO appears to have breached its own long-standing convention of curbing the proliferation of anti-aircraft munitions. Following Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, Germany alone has proudly bragged [7] of dispatching caches of 500 US-made surface-to-air Stinger missiles and 2,700 Soviet-era, shoulder-fired Strela missiles to Ukraine’s conscript military.
Who would be responsible for the myopic and vindictive policy of providing anti-aircraft munitions to Ukraine’s irregular militias once Kyiv falls and those MANPADS are found in black markets posing grave risk to civilian airlines across the globe? In fact, Russia’s seasoned Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov alluded to the grave risk posed by the proliferation of anti-aircraft munitions in the peace talks with the Ukrainian counterpart in Turkey.
Russia’s reluctant and delayed military intervention in Ukraine is fundamentally a war of power projection, a shot across the bow to perfidious former allies, the East European states, who’ve been joining the EU and NATO in droves since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, that the collective security of Eurasian nations is a shared responsibility, and NATO’s eastward expansion along Russia’s western flank not only imperils the security of resurgent Russia but also compromises the balance of power in the multipolar world.
It’s worth recalling that before the Biden-Putin summit at Geneva last June, Russia had a similar troop build-up along Ukraine’s borders. Extending the hand of friendship, Russia significantly drawdown its forces along the western border before the summit last year. Instead of returning the favor, however, the conceited leadership of supposedly world’s sole surviving super power turned down the hand of friendship and even snubbed Putin.
Despite losing the empire in the nineties, as far as military power is concerned, Russia with its enormous arsenal of conventional as well as nuclear weapons still more or less equals the military power of the United States, as is obvious from the unfolding Ukraine war where all the NATO could do is watch it from distance, and not even attempting to enforce a no-fly zone lest the conflict spirals into a mutually destructive nuclear war.
But it’s the much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare for which Russia has no antidote, as the global neocolonial order is being led by the United States and its Western European clients since the signing of the Bretton Woods Accord in 1945 following the Second World War. Because any state, particularly those pursuing socialist policies, that dares to challenge the Western monopoly over global trade and economic policies is internationally isolated and its national economy goes bankrupt over a period of time.
Despite having immense firepower at its disposal that could readily turn the tide in conflicts as protracted as Syria’s proxy war, the Russian advance in Ukraine has been slower than expected according to most estimates because Russia is only targeting military infrastructure and doing all it can to minimize collateral damage, particularly needless civilian losses in the former Soviet republic whose majority population is sympathetic to Russia.
Rather than mitigating suffering of Ukraine’s disenfranchised masses held hostage by the Zelensky regime, the self-styled champions of human rights are doing all they can to lure Russia into their “bear trap project,” a term borrowed from the Soviet-Afghan War of the eighties when Western powers used Pakistan’s security forces and generous funding from the oil-rich Gulf States for providing guerrilla warfare training and lethal weaponry to Afghan jihadists to “bleed the security forces” of former Soviet Union in the protracted irregular warfare.
The Congress’ recently announced [8] $1.5 trillion package to fund the federal government through September would boost national defense coffers to $782 billion, about a 6 percent increase. On top of the hefty budget increase, the package is set to deliver $13.6 billion in emergency funding to help Ukraine, nearly twice the assistance package initially proposed, including $3 billion for US forces and $3.5 billion for military equipment to Ukraine, plus more than $4 billion for US humanitarian efforts.
Of the $13.6 billion humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine announced by the Biden administration, the top brass of the Pentagon is reportedly making preparations for disbursing $3.5 billion for providing military training and arms to millions of refugees who have fled Ukraine following the war.
The Machiavellian plan of NATO’s military strategists is to establish refugee settlements with the “humanitarian assistance” in the border regions of Ukraine’s neighboring countries Poland and Romania, and then provide guerrilla warfare training and lethal arms to all able-bodied men of military age in order to mount a war of attrition against Russia’s security forces.
Although NATO’s military strategists are drawing parallels with the Soviet-Afghan War of the eighties and the two-decade occupation of Afghanistan by the US forces from Oct. 2001 to August 2021 when the ragtag Afghan insurgents defeated two super powers of the era, and are betting on the success of Ukraine’s potential insurgency against Russian forces from border regions of Poland and Romania, those were two very different wars.
The former Soviet Union and the US never lacked resources to subdue insurgency in Afghanistan. What they lacked was the will to pour infinite military and economic resources into a meaningless war lacking clear strategic objectives over an indefinite period of time.
By contrast, the Vladimir Putin government is fully committed and Russia’s national security establishment regards Ukraine as an integral part of Russia, eastern Ukraine with its large Russian-speaking population in particular, and would go to any extent to integrate Ukraine into Russia’s sphere of influence and forestall NATO’s further eastward expansion along Russia’s vulnerable western flank.
If we take a cursory look at the insurgency in Afghanistan, the Bush administration toppled the Taliban regime with the help of the Northern Alliance in October 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack. Since the beginning, however, Afghanistan was an area of lesser priority for the Bush administration.
The number of US troops deployed in Afghanistan did not exceed beyond 30,000 during George Bush’s tenure as the American president, and soon after occupying Afghanistan, Washington invaded Iraq in March 2003 to expropriate its 140 billion barrels proven oil reserves, and American resources and focus shifted to Iraq.
It was the ostensibly “pacifist and noninterventionist” Obama administration that made the Afghanistan conflict the bedrock of its foreign policy in 2009 along with fulfilling then-President Obama’s electoral pledge of withdrawing American forces from Iraq in December 2011, only to be redeployed a couple of years later when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in early 2014.
At the height of the surge of the US troops in Afghanistan in 2010, the American troops numbered around 100,000, with an additional 40,000 troops deployed by the rest of the NATO members, but they still could not manage to have a lasting impact on the relentless Taliban insurgency.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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.
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.
The globalist cabal is planning to monopolize health systems worldwide through the creation of an international pandemic treaty that makes the World Health Organization the sole decision maker on pandemic matters
The WHO may also be planning to seize power over health systems more broadly. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage
In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalist cabal has justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.
Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation. The idea is to implement universal health care organized by the WHO as part of the Great Reset
If this treaty goes through, the WHO would have the power to call for mandatory vaccinations and health passports, and its decision would supersede national and state laws. Considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,” removing the requirement of high morbidity, just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion, including obesity
The SMART Health Cards system is used by more than a dozen countries, 25 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.; the Australian Parliament is pushing a “Trusted Digital Identity Bill”; U.S. Congress is pushing the “Improving Digital Identity Act,” and the WHO has signed a deal with a Deutsche Telekom subsidiary to build the first global digital vaccine passport. All of these have one thing in common: the end goal, which is to expand them into a souped-up, global social credit system
*
The globalist cabal is planning to monopolize health systems worldwide, and that plan is already underway. In June 2021, Dr. Julie Gerberding wrote a Time article1 laying out the framework for an international pandemic-surveillance network, which would include threat prediction and preemption as well.
Gerberding served as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2002 until 2009.2 After leaving the CDC, she became the executive vice president of vaccines and then switched, years later, to strategic communications at Merck. This is particularly egregious as she was head of government’s regulatory agency for vaccines and immediately took a job with one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. Unethical in spades, but perfectly legal.
Gerberding’s next spin through the revolving door was being named CEO of the Foundation of the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), March 1, 2022.3 Yesterday, I discussed the massive conflicts of interest at the FNIH, as its board is loaded with Big Pharma executives and even a representative of BlackRock, one of the top three largest investment firms in the world.
While Gerberding did not name the World Health Organization in her article, we now know that’s the organization designated as the top-down ruler of all things related to pandemics. However, some of the statements that have been made suggest that, in time, the WHO may also seize power over health systems more broadly.
The Globalists’ Next Move
In a February 18, 2022, article, Dr. Peter Breggin, author of “COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey,”4 warned that the next move in the globalists’ war on humanity is to seize control over the health care systems of the entire world:5
“We have discovered the next move of the global predators — already in progress — in their escalating assaults against individual and political freedom. The next big assault on human freedom involves a legalized takeover of national healthcare systems by the World Health Organization (WHO).
This stealth attack — with its initial plans already backed by many nations — will begin full implementation in 2024 if it is not quickly recognized and fought! … The Chinese Communist influence over WHO has been solid for more than a decade, and the party was able to install Tedros without any competition.
He became the first and only Director-General who is not a physician and instead is a communist politician. Now the Director-General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus — known simply as Tedros — has unveiled plans to take charge of all global health.
While addressing the WHO Executive Committee on January 24, 2022, Director-General Tedros spelled out his global health plan, including his final priority for his enormous scheme: ‘The fifth priority is to urgently strengthen WHO as the leading and directing authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture.’
Tedros’s closing words to his report to the executive committee are chilling in their grandiosity and echo Marxist exhortations to cheering mobs by a Stalin, Mao, or Xi Jinping: ‘We are one world, we have one health, we are one WHO.’ Tedros seeks to become super-Fauci for the world, and, like Fauci, he will do it on behalf of the global predators.”
The Rise of Health Fascism
As explained by Breggin, the global health care takeover really began with Gates’ Decade of Vaccines, announced in 2010 at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) annual meeting in Davos. At that time, Gates installed Fauci on his vaccine advisory board, thereby guaranteeing his plans would receive support from the NIAID. Breggin continues:6
“A theme for the Decade of Vaccines was ‘Public-Private Partnerships Drive Progress in Vaccine Development, Delivery’ — essentially the precursor to the Great Reset establishing a world governance of public and private health united in the spirit of fascism.
By 2012, Gates achieved official UN approval for his scheme, establishing a broad network of global predators aimed at exploiting and dominating humanity through public health.
Communist China would play a prominent role through its control over the UN and WHO and through its close relationships with global predators like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Mike Bloomberg, Big Tech executives, and many other billionaires and world leaders.
A decade and more later, during COVID-19, WHO has proven its usefulness to the predators in orchestrating science, medicine, and public health in the suppression of human freedom and the generation of wealth and power for the globalists.”
Under the guise of a global pandemic, the WHO, the WEF and all of its installed leaders in government and private business, were able to roll out a plan that has been decades in the making. The pandemic was a perfect cover. In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.
Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation. “The idea is ‘the principle of health for all’ — universal health care organized by WHO as part of the Great Reset,” Breggin explains.
May 24, 2021, the European Council announced it supported the establishment of an international Pandemic Treaty, under which the WHO would have the power to replace the constitutions of individual nations with its own constitution under the banner of “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”7
March 3, 2022, the Council authorized the opening of negotiations for an international agreement. The infographic below, sourced from the European Council’s website,8 summarizes the process.
The WHO’s World Health Assembly has also established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) for this purpose.9 March 1, 2022, the INB held its first meeting to draft and negotiate an international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response under the authority of the WHO.10
If this treaty goes through, the WHO would have the power to, for example, call for mandatory vaccinations and health passports, and its decision would supersede national and state laws.
But considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”11 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,12,13 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion, including obesity, which was designated as a disease in 201314 and occurs globally. Tedros has also gone on record stating that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.15
“The world has already seen how any pandemic emergency, real or concocted, now or in the future, could then justify WHO taking over the entirety of government operations of sovereign nations, robbing all individuals of their freedoms, and fully crushing the democratic republics of the world,” Breggin warns.16
“The spirit of Communism can be felt throughout the document. We are told that the ‘purpose’ of the new strategy will be ‘guided by a spirit of solidarity, anchored in the principles of fairness, inclusion, and transparency.’ Notice, as in all pronouncements by global predators; there is no mention of individual rights, political liberty, or national sovereignty.
The great engine of human progress, human freedom, will be replaced by the great destroyer of humanity, collectivism, under the rule of the elite. Tucked into the report were the real goals … Here are three main purposes or goals of the proposed treaty:
1. response to any future pandemics, in particular by ensuring universal and equitable access to medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines, and diagnostics
2. a stronger international health framework with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters
3. the ‘One Health’ approach, connecting the health of humans, animals, and our planet
The report adds, ‘More specifically, such an instrument can enhance international cooperation in a number of priority areas, such as surveillance, alerts, and response, but also in general trust in the international health system.’ Clearly, they were building support for Tedros’s January 24, 2022 announcement that WHO would take over the international health care system.”
WHO Moves Ahead With Global Vaccine Passport Program
While countries around the world are now scrubbing their COVID measures, and many have announced they won’t be pursuing vaccine passports after all, the vaccine passport program is still alive and well — under the direction of the WHO. As reported by Off-Guardian, March 1, 2022:17
“This week, while the eyes of the world are fixed on Ukraine and the next wave of propaganda, the World Health Organization is launching an initiative to create a ‘trust network’ on vaccination and international travel.
According to a report in Politico published last week, ‘WHO making moves on international vaccine ‘passport.’
The article quotes Brian Anderson, co-founder of the Vaccination Credential Initiative, which describes itself as ‘a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.’
They are, to take the PR agency sheen off this phrase, a corporate/government joint project researching and promoting digital medical identification papers. In short, vaccine passports.”
Members of the VCI, which was founded in January 2021, include Google, Amazon, insurance companies, hospitals, biosecurity firms and most of the major universities in the U.S. Its steering committee consists of representatives from Apple, Microsoft, the Mayo Clinic and the MITRE Corporation, a government-funded research organization.
As noted by Off-Guardian, the International Pandemic Treaty will undoubtedly include provisions on international vaccine certification. And why wouldn’t it, seeing how a WHO-backed global health passport is already underway? While Off-Guardian predicted VCI’s SMART Health Cards system might be chosen, the WHO has now signed a deal with a Deutsche Telekom subsidiary called T-Systems to build the first global digital vaccine passport.18 As reported by the Western Standard:19
“The WHO fully intends to provide support to its 194 member states to facilitate the implementation of the digital verification technology for countries’ national and regional verification of vaccine status.
‘COVID-19 affects everyone. Countries will therefore only emerge from the pandemic together. Vaccination certificates that are tamper-proof and digitally verifiable build trust. WHO is therefore supporting member states in building national and regional trust networks and verification technology.
The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems. It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records,’ said Garrett Mehl, unit head of the WHO’s Department of Digital Health and Innovation, on Deutsche Telekom’s website.”
SMART Health Cards and Digital Identity Are Tools of Tyranny
Already, the SMART Health Cards system is used by more than a dozen countries,20 25 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and D.C.21 The Australian Parliament is also paving the way to tyranny with its “Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021,”22 and the U.S. Congress has its “Improving Digital Identity Act of 2021.”23
All of these have one thing in common: the end goal, which is to expand them into a souped-up, global social credit system — one in which everything you do and say is monitored, recorded and assessed for threat value, and if you misbehave or engage in wrong-think, they have 101 ways to punish you and force you into compliance, from restricting your ability to travel to seizing your bank accounts.
Don’t think for one second that government won’t have access to or use your data against you for political purposes. As explained by Off-Guardian:24
“SMART Health Cards are run by VCI, which was created by the MITRE Corporation, which is funded by the United States government. If you give SMART access to your medical records, you’d better believe the U.S. government and its agencies will get their hands on them.
They might not have their own database, but they would have access to MITRE’s database when and if they needed or wanted it. And so would Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft. That’s how private-public partnerships work. Symbiosis.
Corporate giants serve as fronts for government programs and, in return, they get a big cut of the profits, bailouts if they’re needed, and regulatory ‘reforms’ that cripple their smaller competitors …
This allows the federal government ‘truthfully’ claim to not be implementing a federal passport system, or keeping a vaccination database, all the while they are sub-contracting tech giants to do it for them. This system of backdoor government surveillance via corporate veneer is already spreading across the U.S., and it looks like it will play some part in any future ‘pandemic treaty’ too.”
Surgeon General Demands Hit List From Big Tech
U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy also appears to be building a narrative to justify an international health authority. March 3, 2022, Murthy formally requested that all major tech platforms submit data on the scale of COVID-19 misinformation. This includes social networks, search engines, crowdsource platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems. Thankfully, his request is not legally enforceable. As reported by The New York Times:25
“A request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded that tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.26
The notice asks the companies to submit ‘exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation,’ as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation.
The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments … The request for information is part of President Biden’s COVID National Preparedness Plan27,28 …
In addition to demanding misinformation data from the tech platforms, the surgeon general called on health care providers and the public to submit information about how COVID-19 misinformation has negatively influenced patients and communities.”
As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass,29 “This is truly frightening. Misinformation (to be controlled via tech companies) is being treated as a crime, though never defined.” Nass also highlights a new bill,30introduced by two Democrat senators March 2, 2022, that would give tech companies “cover to censor and turn over private data to government.” “In other words, Congress may ‘legalize’ censorship and criminalize First Amendment rights to freedom of speech,” Nass says.
CDC Has Created Loads of Misinformation
The irony here is that the most of the CDC’s answers to “COVID myths”31 are themselves misinformation. For example, the CDC claims it’s a myth that natural immunity is better than the immunity you get from the COVID shot.
Yet you’d be hard-pressed to find scientific backing for that statement. They basically just made that up. It’s a long-standing scientific fact that natural immunity is more robust and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.
The CDC also claims it’s a myth that mRNA shots are not vaccines. They say mRNA injections are vaccines because they trigger an immune response. What they don’t admit is that they changed the definition of “vaccine” in the middle of the pandemic.32
Before the pandemic, a “vaccine” was “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.” In the latter half of 2021, as the mRNA shots were nearing distribution, the CDC changed that definition to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” effectively removing the need for a vaccine to produce immunity — the key thing a vaccine is supposed to do.
Incidentally, the CDC’s answer to this “myth” basically refutes its answer to the “myth” that vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity, since the COVID shots don’t provide immunity at all. They only stimulate an immune response, which by the way, can be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on how your immune system is stimulated.
The CDC also still insists that the COVID jabs cannot change or interact with your DNA in any way, yet published research shows otherwise. Swedish research actually shows the Pfizer shot’s mRNA incorporates into human DNA in as little as six hours.33
Murthy’s unconstitutional request for data from tech companies on users who share information that violates the CDC narrative seems to be an effort to continue building justification for an international health authority with power to dictate truth around the world.
If there’s only one narrative, across every country, disseminated from a single entity, then the truth will be whatever they say it is. Eventually, research won’t even be published unless it conforms to the chosen narrative.
The WHO Is Totally Corrupt
There are many reasons to reject the WHO as the sole arbiter of health facts. It’s corrupt to the core, and has been for years.34
In the aftermath of the swine flu pandemic of 2009, the vaccine for which left many thousands injured, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) concluded that “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.'”35
Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making.
A joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) also uncovered serious conflicts of interest between the WHO — which promoted the global vaccination agenda — and the drug companies that created those vaccines.36
The WHO has also been accused of massive money mismanagement, spending more on travel expenses each year — some $200 million in 2017 — than it does on some of the biggest public health problems, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.37
By now, most people also know that the WHO has been bought and paid for by Bill Gates. He contributes more to the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget than every member-state government. The U.S. has historically been the top funder, but the combined contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO as of 2018.
In the documentary “TrustWHO”38 (above), Lilian Franck reveals this and other clandestine influences that control the WHO, to the peril of public health. For example, we’ve seen that the WHO has strong allegiance to China, and shares China’s ruthless suppression of counternarratives.
The WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origin was a fake from start to finish, and even before the COVID pandemic, the WHO had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies.” Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated.
The Plan for a Never-Ending Pandemic
While the White House has issued a plan to transition out of the pandemic,39,40 it seems more like a plan for a never-ending pandemic. As reported by STAT News:41
“The report plots a course to what its authors call the ‘next normal’ — living with the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a continuing threat that needs to be managed. Doing so will require improvements on a number of fronts, from better surveillance for COVID and other pathogens to keeping tabs on how taxed hospitals are; and from efforts to address the air quality in buildings to continued investment in antiviral drugs and better vaccines.
The authors also call for offering people sick with respiratory symptoms easy access to testing and, if they are positive for COVID or influenza, a quick prescription for the relevant antiviral drug …
The report suggests the U.S. response to Covid-19 should transition from one directed solely at this single disease to one where prevention, mitigation, and treatment efforts are focused on COVID as one of a number of respiratory viruses, including influenza.”
Part of the plan is to create a new post: deputy Assistant to the president for biosecurity within the National Security Council.42 The deputy assistant for biosecurity would be responsible for “monitoring, addressing, and coordinating responses to and communications about any biosecurity and pandemic threats.”
Importantly, this post would also be responsible for coordinating “efforts to counter foreign and domestic sources of anti-science misinformation on vaccines and drugs.” The COVID Roadmap also details strategies to improve documentation, monitoring and accountability for communication goals.
This includes monitoring “health iniquities” to “increase public accountability and support values that promote social well-being and health equity in infectious diseases.” It sounds to me like a plan to promote propaganda that shames people who don’t want to sacrifice their own health for “the greater good.”
It also includes the establishment of “standards for streamlined clearance of health messages without political interference.” Will the WHO be responsible for such standards? Probably.
The roadmap also specifies that tech platforms and legacy media are to be urged to “design mechanisms to detect, deflect and deny the posting of harmful and false advice that hurts public health.” In other words, across the board censorship. If the WHO is given complete authority over health, censorship will be a given and science as we know it will basically cease to exist.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
A top Russian diplomat said Saturday that Moscow has informed U.S. officials that it views Western arms shipments to Ukraine as “legitimate targets” for military attacks, heightening fears of a direct confrontation between the nuclear-armed powers.
“We warned the United States that the orchestrated pumping of weapons from a number of countries is not just a dangerous move, it is a move that turns these convoys into legitimate targets,” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, told a state television outlet Saturday morning.
Ryabkov added that Moscow emphasized to Washington “the consequences of the thoughtless transfer to Ukraine of weapons like man-portable air defense systems, anti-tank missile systems, and so on.”
While U.S. President Joe Biden has vowed not to involve American troops directly in any conflict with Russia, the administration has been pouring arms and advanced weaponry into Ukraine for months, shipments that ramped up after Russia launched its full-scale invasion on February 24.
On March 4, as the New York Timesreported, “some 14 wide-bodied aircraft transported a bristling array of Javelin antitank missiles, rocket launchers, guns, and ammunition to an airfield near Ukraine’s border.”
“The top U.S. military adviser to President Biden inspected the weapons transfer operation in an unannounced trip, meeting with troops and personnel from 22 countries who were working around the clock to unload the armaments for transport by land to the Ukrainian forces,” the Times continued. “The American weaponry, which included the Javelins as well as small arms and munitions, was part of a $350 million package that Mr. Biden authorized.”
“Within two days, one official said, the deliveries were landing at an airfield near the border that can process 17 airplanes a day,” the Times added. “What began as a trickle—with only two or three planes arriving a day—is now a steady flow, the official said, with 14 loads from one airfield alone.”
The Washington Postreported Friday that the Biden administration is currently “working with European allies to expedite more sophisticated air-defense systems and other armaments into the war zone.”
Ryabkov’s remarks Saturday came after NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenbergwarned that a Russian attack on supply lines of countries providing weapons to Ukraine—which is not a NATO member—would constitute a dangerous escalation.
“The allies are helping Ukraine uphold their right for self-defense, which is enshrined in the U.N. Charter,” Stoltenberg said in an interview with CBC News.
“Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is defending itself. If there is any attack against any NATO country, NATO territory, that will trigger Article 5,” Stoltenberg added, referring to the self-defense clause of NATO’s founding treaty.
The Intercept‘s Jeremy Scahill argued in a column on Thursday that the rapid acceleration of arms shipments into Ukraine represents “a significant escalation of Western involvement” in the deadly conflict.
“It is understandable and reasonable that people across the U.S. and Europe are demanding their governments send more weapons to support Ukraine in resisting the Russian invasion,” Scahill wrote. “Without the Western-supplied weapons Ukraine already possessed, it is very likely Russia would be in control of much larger swaths of the country.”
“It is also vital,” Scahill added, “that people advocating such a policy consider whether a sizable increase in U.S. and NATO weapons transfers will prolong the conflict and result in even more civilian death and destruction.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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.
The attempt to “cancel” the existence of Russia has been promoted not only by Western liberal governments, but also by big companies, mainly multinationals in the technology sector. The so-called “Big Tech companies” have been a major point of boycott against Russia, acting on the cyber front and in information warfare. Russian profiles on social media have been deleted, pages of Russian newspapers are banned and people who express pro-Russian views are permanently blocked without any notification from the platforms. Definitely, social networks have become a battlefield on which the West seeks to banish Russian existence.
The current conflict on Ukrainian soil is generating as a side effect a real division of the world internet. Unwilling to use its physical forces to face Russian troops, the West has bet on a series of sanctions aimed at disconnecting Moscow from the rest of the world. And such measures have also been adopted autonomously by private companies, which leave their ideological principles increasingly exposed, giving up the broad Russian consumer market just to defend pro-Western political agendas. In the technology and internet sector, this situation has become more serious day by day.
Corporate giants like Meta, Google, Twitter, TikTok, and Apple are now showing their political identity, removing all or many of their products out of Russia in response to the Special Operation Ukraine. During the last two weeks, profiles of Russian citizens have been automatically removed from these platforms – and so have non-Russian users who share news’ links from Russian websites or simply write publications with positive opinions about the Russian government. Official Russian state media and even private Russian newspapers have been banned, keeping any and all information produced in Russian territory under the label of “fake news” and “disinformation campaign”, without any prior content analysis.
Undoubtedly, the most shocking actions were the ones implemented by the Meta group – the American conglomerate that controls Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and all the other companies owned by the billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. Meta’s actions went far beyond the limits of information warfare, reaching the status of incitement to physical violence and anti-Russian racism. In some countries, Facebook and Instagram have implemented exceptional measures approving hate speech against Russians on topics related to Ukraine.
In the words of Meta’s official statement to moderators, it is possible to read: “We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (…) We are doing this because we have observed that in this specific context, ‘Russian soldiers’ is being used as a proxy for the Russian military”.
In practice, the new rules mean even allowing death threats, as almost all matters involving Russia can be automatically linked to the Ukrainian issue by the platforms’ artificial intelligence. Now, for example, posts like “death to the Russians” or “death to Putin” are allowed, which reveals the bellicose and aggressive nature of the attitude taken by Meta.
Obviously, in response, the Russian government has also adopted sanctions on foreign media, being forced to react in the face of a true virtual aggression promoted by the global coalition of Big Tech companies. Russian social media networks have been favored with this scenario, starting to receive a surprising number of users in recent days. VKontakte (VK), for example, which had a stagnant number of users in recent years, is now dealing with a crowding of profiles and account creation requests, which has even obstructed the functioning of the platform at some times. The same has been happening with Telegram, which becomes a viable alternative for Russian users and pro-Russian foreign citizens as other chat media like WhatsApp increasingly sanction Moscow.
Specifically regarding Meta’s attitudes, Russian prosecutors have started a court case pointing to Meta as a terrorist organization that threatens the lives of Russian citizens. An investigative committee was formed in order to investigate the case. This could be the end of American social media on Russian territory in case they are deemed terrorists due to their new racist anti-Russian norms.
What all this means, in practice, is that once again anti-Russian sanctions can drive a process of multipolarization. For decades, social media has been controlled by Western Big Tech, which concentrate power and money in the hands of a multibillionaire elite, whose influence becomes capable of interfering in the political directions of governments around the world. With these companies leaving Russia, millions of users may lose their accounts on the networks, but this, at the same time, will favor Russian social networks and boost an alternative market – also abroad, considering the boycott against citizens from other countries who share pro-Russian ideas. In the end, Western companies will lose market and Russian companies will gain a huge consumer audience, which will make the technology sector more diverse, polycentric and competitive.
What must be fought and even condemned by the international organizations, however, is the blatant racist and terrorist-like hate speech of these platforms, which use the excuse of a conflict to advance retrograde anti-Russian ideas. Indeed, there is no “humanitarian concern” for the Ukrainians on the part of Meta and other companies – there is only an ultra-liberal ideological agenda that considers Russia an obstacle to a globalist world order, making use of anti-Russian animosity to promote a political campaign against Moscow.
In fact, Western governments already know this, as there is constant friction between liberal democracies and Big Tech companies. In Washington, Republicans and Democrats agree to impose several sanctions on the high-tech sector because they consider the influence of these groups to be a strong social threat. Obviously, Western governments will ignore the current attitude because there is a common interest between them in defeating Russia.
Big Tech is making it clear that they are willing to do anything guarantee their interests. Before, these companies were limited to “canceling” their enemies, as they did with Donald Trump. Now they are even inciting the murder of citizens of countries considered enemies. The undeniable truth, however, is that Russia is just the current enemy, and the next one could be any western government, as the ideological agenda of these companies does not respect classical democratic values, but defends a global order without National States, where companies have decision-making power at the United Nations.
The West is once again repeating the mistake of giving these companies too much power and will surely pay the price soon.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
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.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
Far-right extremists in Ukraine’s military have bragged they received training from the Canadian Forces and other NATO nations, a new study from an American university has uncovered.
The study from an institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., tracked social media accounts of the far-right group Centuria, documenting its Ukrainian military members giving Nazi salutes, promoting white nationalism and praising members of Nazi SS units.
The far-right group has been active since 2018 at the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy or NAA, according to the report from George Washington’s Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies.
The NAA is Ukraine’s premier military education institution and a major hub for western military assistance to the country, including from Canada.
Centuria members acknowledged on social media they have received training from the Canadian military and have participated in military exercises with Canada. In May, Centuria organizers boasted to their followers that its members currently served as officers in Ukraine’s military and “have succeeded in establishing cooperation with foreign colleagues from such countries as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, the USA, German and Poland,” according to the institute’s report.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.
Featured image: Photo posted by “Centuria’ on Telegram, Photo posted by Roman Rusnyk on Instagram, Photo posted by Vladyslav Vintergoller on Instagram, Photo posted by Vitaliy Rosolovskiy on Instagram, Photo capture of Tweet posted by the Embassy of Ukraine to the United Kingdom.
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.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
The former US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Sunday posted a video on Twitter reiterating claims about US-funded Biolabs in Ukraine. Expressing concerns over the “inadvertent or intentional” breach of these dangerous pathogens, Gabbard called for an immediate ceasefire around these US-funded laboratories in Ukraine.
In a two-minute video, Gabbard said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine and called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens.
There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured & pathogens destroyed pic.twitter.com/dhDTH5smIG
“Here are the undeniable fact”, said Gabbard, backing Russia’s claims that there are 25-30 US-funded Biolabs in Ukraine. She further warned that “According to the US government, these Biolabs and conducting research on dangerous pathogens. Ukraine is an active war zone with widespread bombing, artillery and shelling and these facilities, even in the best of circumstances, could easily be compromised and release these deadly pathogens.”
She added that
“like Covid these pathogens know no borders. If they are inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised they will quickly spread all throughout Europe, The United States, and the rest of the world causing untold suffering and death. So in order to protect the American people, the people of Europe, the people around the world, these labs need to be stud down immediately and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed.”
Gabbard also urged the Biden administration in the United States not to cover up, but rather to take concrete steps to immediately stop US military from operating “dangerous” Biolabs in Ukraine.
“Instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden-Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO and UN to implement immediate ceasefire for all military actions in the vicinity of the labs and until it is secured and these pathogens are destroyed,” said the former US Congresswoman.
Gabbard reiterated China’s recent accusation of the United States. She claimed that the United States has 300 or so dangerous research labs around the world similar to the lab in Wuhan, China, where COVID-19 may have originated from.
“Now after realising how dangerous and vulnerable these labs are, they should have been shut down two years ago, but they haven’t,” she further said, adding that this is not a politically partisan issue.
“The US administration and Congress needs to act now for the health and well being of every American and every person on the planet,” Gabbard said as she concluded her video monologue.
Notably, Tulsi Gabbard’s video caused quite a stir, with Utah Senator Mitt Romney harshly criticising her and implying that her remarks about the existence of so-called “US Biolabs” in Ukraine would result in people being killed.
The Republican senator accused his ex-House counterpart of spreading “treasonous lies” that amounted to “Russian propaganda”.
“Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives”, Tweeted Mitt Romney in response to Tulsi Gabbard’s video post.
Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.
Russia and China accuse US of having Biolabs in Ukraine
It may be recalled that prior to this, both Russia and China had accused the US military of operating “dangerous” Biolabs in Ukraine. On March 9, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian Tweeted a snippet from a press conference where he asked the US to release “relevant details as soon as possible” regarding alleged US biological laboratories in Ukraine.
On Sunday, March 6, the Russian Defense Ministry had claimed that there were “evidence of a US-financed military biological program developed in Ukraine.”
US admits there are biological research facilities in Ukraine
Interestingly, on Tuesday, the US State Department official Victoria Nuland in a way had admitted that US-funded Biolabs are working on developing bioweapons on Ukrainian soil. Nuland testified before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine in Washington, DC, and said that the United States was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material. The State Department also stated that it was concerned that Russian forces are trying to gain control of biological research facilities within Ukraine.
By stating that Russia will be held responsible for any ‘biological or chemical weapon attack,’ Nuland had effectively admitted what the Russian government has been saying all along: that US-funded Biolabs are developing bioweapons on Ukrainian soil.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.
Featured image: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speaking with attendees at the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at the George R. Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, California. Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr)
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.
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The history of this war must be understood.
The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.
A bilateral Peace Agreement is required.
At Monday’s routine news conference of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the spokesperson for the ministry rebutted the US’ inconsistent and flawed responses regarding its biological laboratories in Ukraine, urging a full clarification of its bio-military activities within and outside its borders.
When a BBC reporter asked that the US claims seem to suggest that its secret research involving viruses in Ukraine has nothing to do with the military, Zhao Lijian, the ministry’s spokesperson, directly pointed out that the US’ response to the issue so far has been contradictory and confusing.
Under a 2005 agreement between the US and Ukraine, US Department of Defense representatives are authorized to participate in all activities related to Ukrainian facilities, and Ukraine is prohibited from releasing information that the US determines to be “sensitive.”
According to the US submission to the 2021 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Meeting of States Parties, the US has 26 laboratories and other cooperative facilities in Ukraine.
“We can’t help but ask: Did the US send teams to Ukraine or not? What exactly is the scope of their activities? How many collaborative facilities are there? What sensitive information in the field of public health is not allowed to be disclosed? Does Ukraine know what the US is doing in Ukraine?” Zhao asked.
Public information shows that tens of biological laboratories in Ukraine were operated on the orders of the US Department of Defense, that the US has invested more than $200 million in these laboratory activities, and that US research was aimed at establishing mechanisms for the covert spread of deadly viral pathogens.
Screengrab of Russian Defence Ministry briefing showing US-sponsored biolabs on Ukraininan territory. Photo: Russian Ministry of Defence
Russian officials said that Russia found more than 30 biological laboratories affiliated with the US on the territory of Ukraine and that the relevant items were urgently destroyed, but traces of plague, anthrax and other pathogens were found.
While the US initially slammed information about its bio warfare labs in Ukraine as “fake,” on March 8, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland admitted the existence of US-funded “biological research facilities” in the country.
“If the information released by the US itself is inconsistent and full of loopholes, how can the international community believe that the US is fulfilling its BWC obligations?” Zhao asked.
The US is the only country that opposes the establishment of a verification mechanism for the BWC. At the same time, for decades the US has been accusing other countries of not complying with the treaty, and even sanctioning and using force against these countries.
“When it happens to the US, it evades inspection, which is a typical US double standard,” Zhao said.
The spokesman urged the US to make a full clarification of its bio-military activities within and outside its borders in a responsible manner and to stop opposing the establishment of a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention, which would help restore the international community’s confidence in the US compliance with its international obligations and would also help raise the level of global biosecurity.
The World Health Organization has “strongly recommended” to the Ministry of Health in Ukraine to safely destroy “high-threat pathogens” that might be housed within the country’s public health labs in order to prevent “any potential spills.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
