All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel will go down in history as one of the greatest victories of this century.

I’ve been writing about Iran for more than two decades. In 2005, I made a trip to Iran to ascertain the “ground truth” about that nation, a truth which I then incorporated into a book, Target Iran, laying out the US-Israeli collaboration to craft a justification for a military attack on Iran designed to bring down its theocratic government. I followed this book up with another, Dealbreaker, in 2018, which brought this US-Israeli effort up to date.

Back in November 2006, in an address to Columbia University’s School of International Relations, I underscored that the United States would never abandon my “good friend” Israel until, of course, we did. What could precipitate such an action, I asked? I noted that Israel was a nation drunk of hubris and power, and unless the United States could find a way to remove the keys from the ignition of the bus Israel was navigating toward the abyss, we would not join Israel in its lemming-like suicidal journey.

The next year, in 2007, during an address to the American Jewish Committee, I pointed out that my criticism of Israel (which many in the audience took strong umbrage against) came from a place of concern for Israel’s future. I underscored the reality that I had spent the better part of a decade trying to protect Israel from Iraqi missiles, both during my service in Desert Storm, where I played a role in the counter-SCUD missile campaign, and as a United Nations weapons inspector, where I worked with Israeli intelligence to make sure Iraq’s SCUD missiles were eliminated.

“The last thing I want to see,” I told the crowd, “is a scenario where Iranian missiles were impacting on the soil of Israel. But unless Israel changes course, this is the inevitable outcome of a policy driven more by arrogance than common sense.”

On the night of 13-14 April 2024, my concerns were played out live before an international audience—Iranian missiles rained down on Israel, and there was nothing Israel could do to stop them. As had been the case a little more than 33 years prior, when Iraqi SCUD missiles overcame US and Israeli Patriot missile defenses to strike Israel dozens of times over the course of a month and a half, Iranian missiles, integrated into a plan of attack which was designed to overwhelm Israeli missile defense systems, struck designated targets inside Israel with impunity.

Despite having employed an extensive integrated anti-missile defense system comprised of the so-called “Iron Dome” system, US-made Patriot missile batteries, and the Arrow and David’s Sling missile interceptors, along with US, British, and Israeli aircraft, and US and French shipborne anti-missile defenses, well over a dozen Iranian missiles struck heavily-protected Israeli airfields and air defense installations.

Image is from The Unz Review

The Iranian missile attack on Israel did not come out of the blue, so to speak, but rather was retaliation for an April 1 Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building, in Damascus, Syria, that killed several senior Iranian military commanders. While Israel has carried out attacks against Iranian personnel inside Syria in the past, the April 1 strike differed by not only killing very senior Iranian personnel, but by striking what was legally speaking sovereign Iranian territory—the Iranian consulate.

From an Iranian perspective, the attack on the consulate was a redline which, if not retaliated against, would erase any notion of deterrence, opening the door for even more brazen Israeli military action, up to and including direct attacks on Iran. Weighing against retaliation, however, were a complex web of interwoven policy objectives which would probably be mooted by the kind of large-scale conflict between Israel and Iran that could be precipitated by any meaningful Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel.

First and foremost, Iran has been engaged in a strategic policy premised on a pivot away from Europe and the United States, and toward Russia, China, and the Eurasian landmass. This shift has been driven by Iran’s frustration over the US-driven policy of economic sanctions, and the inability and/or unwillingness on the part of the collective West to find a path forward that would see these sanctions lifted. The failure of the Iranian nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) to produce the kind of economic opportunities that had been promised at its signing has been a major driver behind this Iranian eastward pivot. In its stead, Iran has joined both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the BRICS forum and has directed its diplomatic energies into seeing Iran thoroughly and productively integrated into both groups.

A general war with Israel would play havoc on these efforts.

Secondly, but no less important in the overall geopolitical equation for Iran, is the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This is a game-changing event, where Israel is facing strategic defeat at the hands of Hamas and its regional allies, including the Iranian-led axis of resistance. For the first time ever, the issue of Palestinian statehood has been taken up by a global audience. This cause is further facilitated by the fact that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, formed from a political coalition which is vehemently opposed to any notion of Palestinian statehood, finds itself in danger of collapse as a direct result of the consequences accrued from the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent failure of Israel to defeat Hamas militarily or politically. Israel is likewise hampered by the actions of Hezbollah, which has held Israel in check along its northern border with Lebanon, and non-state actors such as the pro-Iranian Iraqi militias and the Houthi of Yemen which have attacked Israel directly and, in the case of the Houthi, indirectly, shutting down critical sea lines of communication which have the result of strangling the Israeli economy.

But it is Israel that has done the most damage to itself, carrying out a genocidal policy of retribution against the civilian population of Gaza. The Israeli actions in Gaza are the living manifestation of the very hubris and power-driven policies I warned about back in 2006-2007. Then, I said that the US would not be willing to be a passenger in a policy bus driven by Israel that would take us off the cliff of an unwinnable war with Iran.

Through its criminal behavior toward the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Israel has lost the support of much of the world, putting the United States in a position where it will see its already-tarnished reputation irreparably damaged, at a time when the world is transitioning from a period of American-dominated singularity to a BRICS-driven multipolarity, and the US needs to retain as much clout in the so-called “global south” as possible.

The US has tried—unsuccessfully—to take the keys out of the ignition of Netanyahu’s suicide bus ride. Faced with extreme reticence on the part of the Israeli government when it comes to altering its policy on Hamas and Gaza, the administration of President Joe Biden has begun to distance itself from the policies of Netanyahu and has put Israel on notice that there would be consequences for its refusal to alter its actions in Gaza to take US concerns into account.  

Any Iranian retaliation against Israel would need to navigate these extremely complicated policy waters, enabling Iran to impose a viable deterrence posture designed to prevent future Israeli attacks while making sure that neither its policy objectives regarding a geopolitical pivot to the east, nor the elevation of the cause of Palestinian statehood on the global stage, were sidetracked.

The Iranian attack on Israel appears to have successfully maneuvered through these rocky policy shoals. It did so first and foremost by keeping the United States out of the fight. Yes, the United States participated in the defense of Israel, helping shoot down scores of Iranian drones and missiles. This engagement was to the benefit of Iran, since it only reinforced the fact that there was no combination of missile defense capability that could, in the end, prevent Iranian missiles from hitting their designated targets.

The targets Iran struck—two air bases in the Negev desert from which aircraft used in the April 1 attack on the Iranian consulate had been launched, along with several Israeli air defense sites—were directly related to the points Iran was trying to make in establishing the scope and scale of its deterrence policy. First, that the Iranian actions were justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter—Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran, and second, that Israeli air defense sites were vulnerable to Iranian attack. The combined impact of these two factors is that all of Israel was vulnerable to being struck by Iran at any time, and that there was nothing Israel or its allies could do to stop such an attack.

This message resonated not only in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, but also in Washington, DC, where US policy makers were confronted with the uncomfortable truth that if the US were to act in concert with Israel to either participate in or facilitate an Israeli retaliation, then US military facilities throughout the Middle East would be subjected to Iranian attacks that the US would be powerless to stop.

This is why the Iranians placed so much emphasis on keeping the US out of the conflict, and why the Biden administration was so anxious to make sure that both Iran and Israel understood that the US would not participate in any Israeli retaliatory strike against Iran.

The “Missiles of April” represent a sea-change moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics—the establishment of Iranian deterrence that impacts both Israel and the United States. While emotions in Tel Aviv, especially among the more radical conservatives of the Israeli government, run high, and the threat of an Israeli retaliation against Iran cannot be completely discounted, the fact is the underlying policy objective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the course of the past 30-plus years, namely to drag the US into a war with Iran, has been put into checkmate by Iran.

Moreover, Iran has been able to accomplish this without either disrupting its strategic pivot to the east or undermining the cause of Palestinian statehood. “Operation True Promise,” as Iran named its retaliatory attack on Israel, will go down in history as one of the most important military victories in the history of modern Iran, keeping in mind that war is but an extension of politics by other means. The fact that Iran has established a credible deterrence posture without disrupting major policy goals and objectives is the very definition of victory.

*

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

Featured image: An Iranian missile is launched. Scores of these missiles were used to attack Israel. (Source: Scott Ritter Extra)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The late Malcolm X commenting in one of his speeches on the state of Black leadership at the time said: “These negroes do not want to build any nation; they want to crawl back on the plantation.”

On March 11, 2024, the Jamaican government hosted a CARICOM meeting, reportedly to discuss and find some resolution to the social disruption in Haiti.

The meeting was a farce from conception and was nothing more than a ploy, by the United States especially, to give some legitimacy to the unelected government of Haiti, and to use the Jamaican and other Caribbean political stooges to create a semblance of concern for the issues in Haiti.

The analytical and historical bankruptcy of the Jamaican government is openly demonstrated by the invitees to the meeting.

The three primary culprits of the Core Group—the United States, France and Canada—were invited to participate in the meeting.

These are the countries primarily responsible for the destabilization and social upheaval taking place in Haiti. Such idiocy is tantamount to putting the proverbial fox to watch the hen house.

The Jamaican parliamentary opposition, People’s National Party (PNP), needs to take a principled and enlightened position on this issue.

For much too long Jamaica’s performance at international forums and its foreign policy positions in general have degenerated into the abyss of total disappointment; it has traveled from the elementary and simplistic to backward and reactionary, respectively.

In the interest of national self-determination and respect, someone needs to rescue and restore some semblance of national pride, not just in sports but in the critical area of politics as well. If the PNP continues to sit on the sideline, then for those so inclined, Dante’s suggestion that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality,” is applicable.

Kenya and Jamaica are in no moral, legal, or political position to send any troops to Haiti, to supposedly bring law, order and stability. Apart from the Geneva Convention regarding the “noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries,” there also do not exist any agreements between Haiti and any of the subject countries, for providing military assistance to Haiti.

On the social level, they both have serious socio-economic problems, including high inflation, skyrocketing prices on basic consumer goods, a large unemployment burden, and crime rates that rival any large, developed country.

Jamaica cannot even control the reported 600 gangs running amuck in the country: shootouts in broad daylight in crowded squares; armed robberies of grocery stores or supermarkets; attacks on churches as well as the holdup of public transportation vehicles.

The Jamaican government is incapable of finding a sustainable and effective solution to the problem of crime. The “knee-jerk” approach with the Zones of Special Operations (ZoSo) have outlived their usefulness, and are a diversionary tactic for the government’s political impotence.

The convening of the meeting was not only ridiculous in the first place but, moreover, lacked legitimacy. CARICOM had no legal authority to convene such a “meeting” when one was not requested by a popularly elected government of Haiti.

The absurdity lies in the fact that the meeting was supposed to be discussing and resolving the social issues in Haiti; however, no legitimate social organization representing the Haitian working class or even from academia were represented. How stupid can that be?

Unless one is a willing participant in the imperialists’ plan to re-occupy Haiti. It is obvious that CARICOM leaders, like the OAS, are nothing but ideological misfits and imperialist “agents” in black face, and are a disgrace to the working class of their respective countries. The best reward for them is hastily voting them out of office and dumping them on the scrapheap of history.

It is disappointing that the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, took such a reactionary and opportunistic position by supporting foreign intervention in the domestic affairs of Haiti. Her position, by default, also gives credence to the erroneous idea that Haitians in particular, and African people in general, cannot govern themselves and need outside support—and white support at that—to bring law and order to the country.

One of the stipulations for the formation of the “interim” government is that none of the participants should be opposed to foreign intervention. This is the same line carried by the United States. Of course, Mia Mottley gladly “parrots” this position. It is rumored that she has ambitions of being Secretary General of the United Nations (UN); she is currently securing votes from the influential countries, if and when she is up for election.

Haiti’s “Unpardonable Sin”

The Republic of Haiti, founded in 1804, was the first African-populated country in the Western Hemisphere to victoriously fight for and secure its independence from the colonizers, France.

Napoleon Bonaparte, with his advanced army of personnel and arms, were routed by the Haitians and sent back to France. Having beaten the French and securing their independence was not enough; France demanded financial compensation from Haiti for its so-called material and financial “loss.”

To add insult to the socio-economic injury, the United States invaded and occupied Haiti from 1915 until 1934; the  imperial powers have never “forgiven” Haiti for the triumph of its revolution.

U.S. Marine invaders in Haiti: hunting Caco rebels. [Source: laprensagrafica.com]

During the period of United States occupation, the authorities rewrote the Haitian Constitution and installed a titular president, Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam. Sam made all kinds of agreements with the colonizer, including giving control of Haiti’s finances to the United States.

Over the following decades, the United States and its allies have worked tirelessly to undermine the stability of Haitian society: support of the murderous dictatorship of Francois Duvalier (“Papa Doc”) and, later, his son Jean-Claude Duvalier (“Baby Doc”); direct destabilization; and two coups finally resulting in the physical removal from the country of the first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Imperialism’s Colonization Plan for Haiti

Ever since the reversal of the democratic gains achieved by the Aristide era, Haiti has consistently descended into social chaos to the point that it is now: the complete breakdown of the social structure and lawlessness.

Contrary to the imperialists’ narrative reported in their apologist press, there is no takeover of Haiti by gangs. The lawlessness and violence carried out in Haiti are by armed paramilitary groups supported militarily, and funded by sections of the CORE group, mainly the United States, France and Canada.

It should be noted that, in 2004, Brazil under President Lula, led the military intervention in Haiti, which overthrew Aristide. Some of these paramilitary groups include ex-security forces and current police members. And some of these paramilitary groups are known and supported by the local Haitian oligarchy, both financially and materially.

The purpose is to create havoc, social unrest, economic collapse, and political instability, which will give the imperialists a pretext to once again occupy the country through military intervention and pave the way for a puppet government, which will be favorable to capital. 

The U.S. plan for reintroducing colonization and furthering Haiti’s dependency is brilliantly outlined in an essay by Haitian scholar Jemima Pierre titled “Haiti as Empire’s Laboratory.” From the signing into law by then-President Donald Trump of the Global Fragility Act (GFA), it was made clear that the United States was intent on imposing its waning world hegemony through any means necessary. This would include continued covert action in countries it saw as “threats to U.S. security.” Jemima Pierre writes: “Among the five trial countries for GFA implementation, Haiti is the first target.”

Imperialism has always changed its tactics of intervention depending on conditions: At times they use invasion, like in the cases of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan; at other times they create unrest using local reactionary forces which have the appearance of being locally initiated and of local origin.

History is loaded with examples of developing countries struggling for national liberation and self-determination, only to have the process thwarted by imperialist intervention both from outside and within. Intervention protects and expand the oligarchy, thereby oppressing the masses. Military intervention is the political tool for reinforcing and maintaining the dominance of capital over the lives of the working class. 

We Must Stand with Haiti – Resist All Intervention!

The democratic and nation-building process that began with the election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and directly destroyed by the United States and its allies, must be resumed and continued by the democratic forces within Haiti. This calls for the full mobilization and participation of the working class of Haiti.

A U.S. Marine convoy makes its way through Port-au-Prince on April 5, 2004. [Source: nacla.org]

According to Mildred Aristide: “The struggle for freedom, dignity, security and peace has been a constant throughout Haiti’s history.”

In order for Haiti to begin the long and arduous road to recovery, the following needs to be done:

• The United States and its allies—especially Canada, France and Britain—must immediately stop interfering in the internal affairs of Haiti.
• There must be NO military intervention, United Nations (UN) or otherwise.
• There must be NO support for foreign intervention in Haiti, disguised as “assistance,” by organizations such as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organization of American States (OAS), or the African Union (AU).
• United States imperialism and its allies must be rejected and defeated by actively supporting the Zone of Peace Campaign initiated by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2014.
• The United States and its allies must stop supporting a repressive, corrupt and illegitimate regime.
• Progressive forces internationally, and within the African diaspora especially, must demonstrate solidarity with the people of Haiti by engaging their respective elected officials, and participatory social action to thwart any impending military action and allow the people of Haiti to solve their own problems in their own ways.

*

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

Richard Dunn is a retired construction professional, trained in Architecture and Energy Management. He’s been a social justice activist since 1968 and was particularly active with the Walter Rodney defense demonstrations. Richard is an author, a contributing columnist to newspapers, an editor for a music industry magazine and operates a social justice website. Richard can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Jamaican gangs are out of control. [Source: dreadeditions.com]

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945 : Father Kleinsorge, a German missionary, heard pathetic voices of people asking for water. When he managed to reach the place from where the voice had come, he saw nearly 20 persons, all of them in similar condition – their faces were wholly burned, their eye sockets were hollow, the fluid from their melted eyes had run down their checks.

Temperature at the hypocentre of the explosion reaching the double of what it takes to melt iron, the face of a schoolgirl sitting almost a kilometre away from this hypocentre being burnt beyond recognition, skin sloughing off scalded bodies, badly injured starving people unable to swallow anything because of the stench of dead bodies – this was the devastation caused by a 12.5 Kiloton bomb in Hiroshima which killed and wounded as many people as a mass raid of 279 aircrafts, laden to capacity with bombs, striking at a city ten times as populous.

Nearly one hundred thousand people were killed within a few minutes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after being hit by nuclear weapons in 1945, but if we count the longer-term deaths, those caused by internal bleeding, leukaemia, various other forms of cancer, then the death toll is likely to be as high as 3,50,000. In addition the next generation continued to pay for this cruelty in the form of children born with mental retardation, physical deformities and other serious health problems.

So cruel was the devastation that all of us must necessarily ask – we certainly do not want Hiroshima to happen to our friends, but do we want it to happen even to our worst enemies?

Despite this, the incredibly dangerous and cruel fact remains that humankind now possesses nuclear weapons which are many times more powerful than the ones used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and efforts are constantly on to increase the destructiveness of these weapons.

Some of the most eminent medical journals (including The Lancet, BMJ and JAMA) recently took an almost unprecedented initiative to together publish a joint editorial on August 1, 2023 asking for the elimination of nuclear weapons in view of their unacceptably high risks. What should be particularly welcomed is that they have taken the stand of elimination of nuclear weapons and not just of de-escalation or reduction, for as long as there are nuclear weapons there will be at least some possibility of their actual use as well.

This editorial has pointed out, on the basis of studies,  that a large-scale nuclear war between the USA and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term and potentially cause a global ‘nuclear winter’ that could kill 5 to 6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.

This editorial also stated that once a nuclear weapon is detonated, escalation to all-out nuclear war could occur rapidly. This is particularly important to consider at the present juncture when the risk of actual use of nuclear weapons has increased compared to any other period in the past three decades or so.

This risk has been frequently discussed and serious fears over it expressed by several eminent experts in the context of the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Here four nuclear weapon countries can be involved—Russia, USA, Britain and France. Of course USA nuclear weapons are also deployed in several other European countries as well and to that extent these also get involved but the weapons are under the control of the USA. 

USA, France and UK are unlikely to knowingly start an attack on Russia and similarly Russia is unlikely to knowingly attack USA, France or UK because of the huge risks and likelihood of equally destructive retaliation. However the risk of tensions, suspicions and brinkmanship extended over a long time leading to start of unintentional nuclear war, based on misunderstanding of each other’s intentions and some accidental event on top of it is possible. As pointed out earlier once this starts this can very quickly lead to a bigger exchange of nuclear weapons. The situation is not like the one in 1945 where there was to be no retaliation and it was well known by the aggressor also that there will be nothing beyond the use of two nuclear weapons as far as the attack on Japan was concerned. Now the present situation is a very different one as we do not know where it will stop when it starts. Also the speed which the nuclear weapon now travels towards its target also gives very little time to correct very costly mistakes.

The second possibility that has been discussed is whether Russia will at some stage use tactical or relatively smaller nuclear weapons against Ukraine. This is very unlikely today. Russia’s security doctrine is that it will use nuclear weapons only if there is serious risk to its freedom, sovereignty and survival. Hence risks of nuclear weapon by Russia arises only if NATO escalates risks for Russia beyond a certain red line. However views can differ on how the red line is perceived or identified, and this is why the risk of nuclear war also remains present in this conflict zone. 

In the middle of all the irrational Russophobia in the West and in particular among the ruling elites here, if the ultimate result of all the efforts to corner and surround Russia proves increasingly successful ( which appears highly unlikely just now), the final impact will be only to compel Russia to exercise the nuclear weapon option. Then if this results in the USA or NATO also using nuclear weapons against Russia, and Russia retaliates, again we do not know where this will end. This brings out also the sheer absurdity, and of course the extreme danger, of the western/NATO strategy of encircling and bleeding as big a nuclear weapon power as Russia as much as possible, instead of using diplomacy to sort out all differences.  

The second highest possibility of use of nuclear weapons will be when the USA shifts more of its aggression towards China at some point in future, as has been widely discussed. If the Korean region is to become a flashpoint of such a confrontation, then apart from China one more nuclear weapon power will be involved here in the form of N. Korea.

While this is for the future, the threat perception in just the Ukraine conflict by itself is so serious as to prompt warnings from several senior experts time and again. When the possibility of destruction likely to be caused is so huge, even a 5 to 10% increase in the possibility of use of nuclear weapons should be taken very seriously, and what has happened recently is a somewhat bigger increase in this possibility. As world leadership does not appear to be fulfilling the trust reposed in it for protecting us all from the worst possible destruction on earth, it is time for the people worldwide to come forward to make the peace and disarmament movement so strong that the leadership also comes under increasing pressure from people to move towards a path of a safer present and future. In the vision of the peace movement, one of the topmost priorities should be for the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Save the Earth Now Campaign. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

Сви чланци Глобалног истраживања могу се читати на 51 језику тако што ћете активирати дугме Преведи веб локацију испод имена аутора (доступно само у верзији за десктоп).

Да бисте добили дневни билтен Глобал Ресеарцх-а (изабрани чланци), кликните овде.

Кликните на дугме за дељење изнад да бисте е-поштом/проследили овај чланак својим пријатељима и колегама. Пратите нас на Инстаграму и Твиттеру и претплатите се на наш Телеграм канал. Слободно поново постављајте и делите чланке Глобалног истраживања.

Глобални истраживачки позив: Наши читаоци су наша линија спаса

***

Пише: Слободан РЕЉИЋ

ПОВОДОМ 25-годишњице НАТО-бомбардовања Срба, на скупу који је огранизовао Београдски форум за свет равноправних, дошло је и тридесет слободномислећих Немаца.

Посланик у Бундестагу Рајнер Ротфус је отишао до споменика Милице Ракић на Ташмајдану положио цвеће и – клекнуо.

„Оно у шта верујемо јесу правда, истина и пријатељство међу народима. То је симболизовано на дуксерици коју сам поклонио Вучићу. На левој страни симбола срца налазе се боје Немачке, а на десној је српска застава. Испред срца је бели голуб као симбол мира. Ми чезнемо за помирењем са Србијом, за постизањем мира у Европи, укључујући и Русију“, реако је Ротфус, функционер Алтернативе за Немачку (АфД), сада већ друге партије у Немачкој.

Партије у успону.

Рајнер Ротфус је још 2019. био у Београду на скупу „на којем су изнете чињенице о срамоти бомбардовања, као и о употреби оружја са осиромашеним уранијумом које је бесмислено убило хиљаде невиних људи… Када је бивши министар спољних послова Живадин Јовановић говорио о цивилним жртвама, схватио сам колико је рат био ужасан за обичан народ. Како је НАТО могао да погоди 60 одсто цивилних циљева а да људи у његовим државама чланицама и даље верују да је то била ‘хуманитарна акција’.“

Живорад Јовановић је ових дана констатовао:

„НАТО агресија на Југославију 1999. године била је почетак глобализације војног интервенционизма НАТО-а предвођеног САД. После тога, видели смо многе интервенције и агресије засноване на преседану НАТО-а из 1999. године против Југославије. Немачки политичар Вили Вимер рекао је 2022. да су прве бомбе на Украјину пале 1999. године. НАТО предвођен САД, по мом мишљењу је војна, нуклеарна песница експанзионистичке стратегије, глобалне доминације у оквиру униполарности.“

Ова оцена се, иначе, појављује у Глобал тајмсу, пекиншком листу који излази на кинеском и енглеском, чији је издавач Комунистичка партија Кине – најутицајнија партијска организација на светска кретања, како економска тако све више и политичка. Лист је, иначе, поводом „4. априла 2024. кад се навршава се 75 година од оснивања НАТО-а… разговарао са бројним стручњацима и научницима да би открио како САД искоришћавају НАТО да служи америчким геополитичким циљевима и како НАТО дестабилизује свет, погоршава нуклеарне претње и доноси конфронтацију у Азији“.

Почетну тезу да је „као производ хладног рата, НАТО требало да буде распуштен, али је током година послужио као ратна машина и омогућио хегемонију САД“- уредништво је искористило да „у првом интервјуу ове серије, репортер Глобал тајмса Ванг Венвен разговара са Живадином Јовановићем, председником Београдског форума за свет равноправних, који је био министар спољних послова СР Југославије од 1998. до 2000.“

Да, те 1999. НАТО је славио 50-годишњицу (23-25. април, Вашингтон, 2500 гостију ) и – распојасан „уз ратне покличе“ вршио агресију без одобрења Савета безбедности УН (да би избегли вето Русије и Кине) на једну суверену земљу – Савезну Републику Југославију. Тиме је показао однос према свету који би свакако био и праведнији и бољи без те сатаре преостале из Хладног рата.

И ми ћемо тој очигледности сада додати једно сведочење поменутог Вилија Вимера:

„Америчка страна је спремна да у глобалном оквиру, због остваривања својих циљева, поткопа у укине међународни правни поредак… Сила има да стоји изнад права. Тамо где међународно право стоји на путу, треба га уклонити“, писао је Вимер свом канцелару Шредеру маја 2000, после учешћа на конфренцији затвореног типа у Братислави а коју су заједнички организовали америчко министарство иностраних дела и American Enterprise Institut (Спољнополитички институт Републиканске странке). „Конференцији су присуствовали веома високи политички представници, на што указује присуство великог броја председника влада, као и министара иностраних послова и министара одбране из тог региона“, а „главне теме скупа биле су Балкан и проширење НАТО“.

Ето, зашто Кинези почињу серијал разговором са Живорадом Јовановићем.

У агресији на СРЈ су прегажене Уједињене нације, а „када је сличну судбину доживело Друштво народа, Други светски рат није више био далеко. Начин размишљања, који води рачуна само о сопственим интересима, може да се назове само тоталитарним.“ (Вимер)

Ароганција коју су Американци показивали на том скупу је застрашујућа. Иако су усвојили Резолуцију 1244 СБ УН, ту су инститрали да се Косово што пре призна као суверена држава, а за Савезну Републику Југославију, која им се нашла на путу, инсистирали су да се „налази ван сваког правног поретка“ (после су је разбили), да је НАТО-бомбардовање било исправљање „погрешна одлука генерала Ајзенхауера из Другог светског рата“ и да ће НАТО сада држати „територије између Балтичког мора и Анадолије, како је било у време Римског царства“; даље, „да Пољска мора да буде окружена са севера и југа демократским државама, а Румунија и Бугарска да обезбеде копнену везу са Турском“ и да Србија (вероватно због обезбеђивања несметаног војног присуства САД) трајно мора да буде искључена из европског развоја“; да „северно од Пољске треба да се оствари потпуна контрола над прилазима Санкт Петербургу у Балтичком мору“; и – да се сецесије свуда и увек требају подржавати кроз право народа на самоопредељење и томе „треба дати предност над свим другим одредбама или правилима међународног права“; врхунац ароганције је бестидност да „тврдња да је НАТО приликом напада на Савезну Републику Југославију прекршио сва међународна правила, а нарочито све одговарајуће одредбе међународног права – није оспоравана“. Баш их брига!

Мало је људи тада, пре четврт века, разумевало од коликог је значаја за будуће међународне односе – рат НАТО против Срба. Али, то није промакло Хенрију Кисинџеру.

Напротив, он је у „Њузвику“ последњег дана маја 1999. (усред бомбардовања) објавио текст насловљен New World Disorder. У поднаслову је стајало: погрешно промишљен рат на Косову је подрио односе с Кином и Русијом и изложио НАТО опасности.

Кисинџер се чудио како се у Вашингтону пре бесловесног закључка да ће рат потрајати неколико дана нико није запитао: „Али шта ако Србија, земља која се тукла с Турском и Аустријском империјом и пркосила Хитлеру и Стаљину на врхунцима њихових моћи, не попусти? Колико смо ми спремни далеко да идемо? Без копнене интервенције, што је објављено на самом почетку, наводили смо Милошевића да тестира издржљивост непрестаног бомбардовања.“

И, тако се и дешавало.

Није било велике дилеме како ће НАТО бомбардовање бити схваћено у Русији. Солжењицин ће после у интервјуу „Шпиглу“ рећи да је Русију из осонова променило „сурово бомбардовање Србије. То је обележило црном, непоправљивом цртом одонос према Западу – и истине ради, треба рећи у свим слојевима руског друштва“.

А док се још дизао дим из бомбардоване кинеске амбасаде у Београду (за коју више нико и не помиње ону лаж да је погођана грешком) Кисинџер је знао да су „блиске везе САД и Кине доведенe у питање“. И да то „за Америку, сигурно значи метеж у целој Азији, који кинеске суседе гура у нужду да бирају између најмногољудније земље у свету, којој њена историја од 5.000 година даје посебно место у Азији, и Америке, једине светске суперсиле“.

А НАТО?

„Упркос привидном јединству на НАТО самиту, Косово ће расправу о будућности Алијансе учинити неизбежном“, написао је Хенри Кисинџер маја 1999.

Кисинџер није био усамљен, али су ти гласови игнорисани без обзира на логичност. Сила логику не воли. Тако је угледни конгресмен из Тенесија Џими Данкан тада говрио „да је председник Клинтон довео земљу у немогућу ситуацију у којој нема доброг одговора.“ И сам је био у Београду 1997. и сад разуме да су “наша бомбардовања у суштини створила избегличку ситуацију”.

Избегличка криза на коју су играли САД и НАТО била је крајње неубедљива. Данкан је подсетио да је ТВ станица МСНБЦ поставила питање да ли су је иузбегличку кризу створиле НАТО бомбе или српске трупе и: “Шездесет пет одсто од много хиљада оних које су позвали, рекло је да је углавном криво бомбардовање НАТО.”

Извикане „огромне симпатије према избеглицама“ показао је лажним. „Али неколико стотина хиљада Срба је недавно протерано из Хрватске. Они су тада били жртве етничког чишћења, а ми ништа нисмо урадили по том питању. И као што су многи људи истакли, тренутно се воде мали ратови или борбе на 30 или 40 различитих места широм света. Неколико од тих ситуација је било много горе него на Косову пре него што смо започели бомбардовање.“

О „великој забави“ коју је НАТО припремио у Вашингтону поводом пола века постојања Данкан рече: „НАТО се спрема да овде, овог викенда, одржи једну од највећих забава које је овај град икада видео. Верујем да су НАТО и наш председник мислили да ће Милошевић поклекнути после само неколико дана бомбардовања и да би онда могли да наздраве једни другима на великој прослави победе за 50. годишњицу НАТО овог викенда. Каква погрешна процена! То је свакако била једна од највећих погрешних процена у америчкој историји.“

Данкан је закључио да оно што је заиста учињено „јесте претварање српских пријатељa у непријатеље уз велику цену за ову земљу и упадање у једну од највећих невоља, тако да Америка мора да преговара и да се извуче из овог нереда ‘што је пре могуће’“.

Америка ни после четврт века није стигла до те једноставне истине. Напротив, њихово малтретирање Срба „пријатеља“ се наставља све грубље, а сукоб са светом их је довео до – очигледног опадања утицаја и значаја.

Десет година касније (2009) Сергеј Караганов, кључни човек руског Савета за спољну и одбрамбену политику, (2005. од америчког и британског часописа проглашен за једног од 100 најутицајнијих интелектуалаца у свету, једини из Русије) „напоменуће да се свет више не мења у интервалима као раније, већ да је ушао у раздобље ‘перманентне геополитичке и геоекономске револуције’. Њен досадашњи ток донео је низ америчких војних интервенција које су се завршиле ‘серијом крупних пораза’, како констатује Караганов, истичући да је преломни моменат био напад НАТО под вођством САД на СРЈ 1999. године.“

Јесте та агресија „изазвала још само таласање“, али довољно да „већи део руске елите схвати како са Западом, на жалост, није могућа интеграција“ (Караганов). Рус је тврдио како је „наставак америчког интервенционизма потврдио ту констатацију и у све већем делу света сукцесивно изазивао све храбрије супротстављање не само америчкој хегемонији, већ и цивилизацијском моделу Запада“.

Пре пет година (2019), а поводом 20-годишњице НАТО-бомбардовања Форин полиси је констатовао:

„Косовски рат је био кратак (само три месеца), али није био мали рат. У фундаменталном учинку, био је покретач нове међународне политике.“

Требало им је две деценије.

После четврт века (2024) помињани немачки парламенатарац Рајнер Ротфус каже нам:

„Ваша земља је, с правом, изабрала да се не приклони политици НАТО, већ да остане мост између Запада с једне стране и Русије и Кине са друге стране. Пошто то није у њиховим геополитичким интересима, западне земље ће наставити да говоре о сецесији Косова као о ‘праву народа на самоопредељење’.“ А ако странке у ЕУ, у изборима који предстоје а које мисле као и његов АфД удвоструче број места у Европском парламенту „то ће ставити тачку на имеријалистички однос Брисела према Мађарској, Србији и другим нацијама које се буде“.

На крају, три-четири реченице из почетног прилога оног серијала Глобал тајмса: „Главна препрека новом светском поретку, заснованом на принципу суверене равноправности и немешања у унутрашње ствари, јесте политика експанзије и глобалне доминације мањине западних земаља коју предводе САД. Чини се да они не разумеју глобалне промене и трендове мултиполаризације и склони су веровању да могу да зауставе те историјске трендове, чак и да их преокрену, силом, укључујући нуклеарну. Ове доктрине представљају главни извор озбиљних претњи глобалном миру и развоју. Ово је претња човечанству. (Живорад Јовановић)

Јесте, важно је да разумемо – због свега што се дешава – шта је догађај чију смо 25-годишњицу обележили. И зашто се према нама понашају као и пред Први и пред Други светски рат. И да има пријатеља Срба у тим земљама, али да они нису на власти. И да амбасадори „квинте“ не говоре у њихово име.

*

Напомена за читаоце: Кликните на дугме за дељење изнад. Пратите нас на Инстаграму и Твиттеру и претплатите се на наш Телеграм канал. Слободно поново постављајте и делите чланке Глобалног истраживања.

Све слике у овом чланку су од аутора

Сви чланци Глобалног истраживања могу се читати на 51 језику тако што ћете активирати дугме Преведи веб локацију испод имена аутора (доступно само у верзији за десктоп).

Да бисте добили дневни билтен Глобал Ресеарцх-а (изабрани чланци), кликните овде.

Кликните на дугме за дељење изнад да бисте е-поштом/проследили овај чланак својим пријатељима и колегама. Пратите нас на Инстаграму и Твиттеру и претплатите се на наш Телеграм канал. Слободно поново постављајте и делите чланке Глобалног истраживања.

Глобални истраживачки позив: Наши читаоци су наша линија спаса

***

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The salience of the phone call from the US President Joe Biden to Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday is their consensus that during the period since their summit meeting in Woodside, California, in November 2023, the US-China relationship “is beginning to stabilise”. 

Both sides agreed that their discussion was “candid and constructive.” The Chinese analysts estimate that there is a common will in Beijing and Washington “to prevent negative factors from influencing the general stability of bilateral ties.” 

Xi proposed three “overarching principles” to navigate 2024 — “peace must be valued”; “stability must be prioritised”; and, commitments should be followed up with action. 

In general, the phone call can be viewed in positive terms. Both Xi and Biden expressed the wish for stabilising bilateral relations, managing differences, expanding cooperation, and concurred that a stable and predictable China-US relationship is in their  interests. 

Washington announced after the phone call that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will be travelling to China on an extended visit through April 3-9. The US Treasury Department stated that she “will build on the intensive diplomacy she has engaged in to responsibly manage the bilateral economic relationship and advance American interests.” 

Earlier, during a press call at the White House, a senior administration official stressed that the Biden Administration has not changed its approach to China, “which remains one focused on the framework of invest, align, and compete. Intense competition requires intense diplomacy to manage tensions, address misperceptions, and prevent unintended conflict. And this call is one way to do that.”     

That said, she also listed areas of cooperation in important areas “where our interests align” — counternarcotics, AI, military-to-military communication channels and climate issues. She anticipated that “depending what happens in the coming year, there would be — we would hope there would be a chance for another in-person (summit) meeting, but don’t have anything even to speculate on when that might be. But certainly, value in that in-person meeting and the calls in the interim.” 

Yellen’s six-day visit will be followed by a trip to Beijing by Secretary of State Antony Blinken “in the coming weeks.” A call between the defence ministers is also expected “soon.” Indeed, a steady build-up is under way.

Biden initiated the call. Conceivably, Washington, faced with multiple problems at home and abroad, needs China more than the other way around. Bogged down in the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, it can ill afford a confrontation in the Taiwan Straits. Again, the US needs China’s cooperation in important areas such as fentanyl control, climate change, Artificial Intelligence, green-energy transition, etc. — and, most important, financial stability. 

Financial stability is a core issue. Yellen’s itinerary is anchored on her extended meetings with Vice Premier He Lifeng spread over two days. He Lifeng was appointed last November as head of office of the Central Financial Commission and has become the helmsman of the core financial and economic staff of the Chinese communist party. 

Yellen is due to meet Finance Minister Lan Fo’an, Premier Li Qiang, Beijing Mayor Yin Yong, People’s Bank of China Governor Pan Gongsheng, and leading Chinese economists. Clearly, Yellen’s focus will be on financial stability, a crucial template of the US-China relationship.  

The US monetary policy is at an inflection point. Financial risks have risen and there is rising uncertainty in the global market. The anxiety shared by investors is evident in the surge in gold’s appeal as a safe haven asset. 

The global financial system is buffeted by multiple factors, such as unsustainable levels of debt, geopolitical confrontation, and a new era of low growth, low global investment and de-globalisation. But a major factor affecting the resilience of the global financial system is the current speculation regarding a US interest rate cut, which would have a ripple effect on the world economy. 

Historically, US monetary easing has been the harbinger of global financial crises. As the world’s first and second economies, the US and China will be in the cockpit to navigate any global financial crisis, of which the run on gold as safe haven asset by investors is an early  warning signal. 

The rise of gold prices reflects as much a panic toward the risks surrounding the global financial system as a lack of confidence in US dollar-denominated assets. The point is, the US’ irresponsible monetary policy has greatly affected the international demand for dollars and dollar-denominated assets. 

The enormity of the crisis in the US economy cannot be shoved under the carpet much longer. The US national debt today, estimated at $34 trillion, is almost equal to the combined value of the economies of China, Germany, Japan, India and the UK.

Enter China. China’s steady monetary policy has created policy space and tools in reserve for Beijing to cope with any new challenges lying ahead in the global financial system, while its foreign exchange market has become more resilient.                   

Thus, while a rate cut by the Fed raises fears of continued capital outflows from the US (as lower interest rates mean a lower return rate on investment in US dollar-denominated assets), there is every likelihood that it would make China the preferred destination for international capital inflows. 

Belying Western media hype that China is losing attractiveness to foreign investors, top US firms began flocking to China last month, pledging commitment to the Chinese market, announcing new investment deals and setting up new shop or factory floors. 

China can become a safe haven for international capital. Its economy is on an upward trend and given the tools at its disposal to ensure financial stability, China’s foreign exchange market is expected to maintain a relatively stable performance at a time of  increasing uncertainty in the global financial market. 

Why is this a big deal? The heart of the matter is that as the global price of gold soars, a rate cut cycle begins and financial risks deepen, China gets more options in the management of its assets portfolios and this could affect Beijing’s holding of US Treasury bonds. 

Beijing’s huge stimulus program helped the West to recover from the 2008 financial crisis. As the rest of the world teeters on the brink of recession, the last thing Western policymakers want is to ruffle China, the biggest driver of global economic growth. Their expectation is that China would help offset an expected slowdown in other parts of the world. 

But geopolitical issues come into play. The Taiwan question and Beijing’s friendly ties with Moscow top the list of contentious issues. Biden raised with Xi concerns over China’s “support for Russia’s defence industrial base and its impact on European and transatlantic security.” 

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin promptly pushed back that “Other countries should not smear and attack normal relations between China and Russia, should not undermine the legitimate rights of China and Chinese companies, and should not shift blame to China wantonly and provoke camp confrontation.” 

Beijing wouldn’t have forgotten that the Obama administration showed its “gratitude” within a couple of years after the 2008 financial crisis by unveiling the “pivot to Asia” strategy to clip China’s wings and contain its rise — a mindset that still defines  Biden administration’s flight path. 

Xi was upfront warning Biden that “China is not going to sit on its hands” faced with external encouragement and support for Taiwan’s independence. Nor, he said, is China “going to sit back and watch” if the US remains “adamant on containing China’s hi-tech development and depriving China of its legitimate right to development.” 

Biden’s response was that “It is in the interest of the world for China to succeed.”     

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Israel’s Damascus strike on April 1 will go down in the corpus of literature on war and diplomacy as an act of high-intensity deception. Iran wouldn’t have expected a cowardly attack using stealth fighters on its diplomatic compound. 

Israel’s a priori national deception practices provided no clues. But the asymmetry in the aura of secrecy makes the Iranian retaliation rather challenging. Speculations are rife. 

Israel seems confident about its counter-deception system. The Israeli Defence Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi stressed on Sunday that Israel knows “how to handle Iran.” He said,

“We are prepared for this; we have good defensive systems and know how to act forcefully against Iran in both near and distant places. We are operating in cooperation with the USA and strategic partners in the region.” [Emphasis added.]

The bit about the USA is disconcerting because the bazaar gossip is that Americans quietly assured the Iranians that they had no clue about Israel’s Damascus attack, leave alone a role in it. But the deployment of F-35 jets for such a mission wasn’t a coincidence, after all. 

The Biden Administration routinely gives assurances to Russians whenever Ukrainians strike deep inside Russian territory with Americans or Brits providing satellite intelligence, logistics, weaponry — and increasingly with NATO countries’ military personnel controlling the operations. 

Russia’s dilemma is similar to what Iran faces. The big question, prima  facie, would have four parts:

1. To what extent were Americans in the loop?

2. Going forward, will the US go the whole hog in an election year to kickstart another Middle Eastern war?

3. Is this any longer an exclusive affair between Iran and the Axis of Resistance on one side and Israel on the other side? 

4. What are the US motivations if it indeed conveyed any assurance to Tehran?

In the commentariat, there is a delusional opinion that in the action-reaction syndrome involving Israel and Iran, President Biden will keep the US out of any direct intervention because the American public opinion militates against another war after Iraq and Afghanistan. But in reality, that is rarely the case.  

Since the storm clouds on the horizon presage a world war, an analogy from the 1940s would be appropriate. President Franklin Roosevelt took on his own the audacious decision to participate in World War II by developing an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the US in the European conflict.

Now, the “Globalists” who dominate the US establishment, including Biden himself, also know that World War II eventually restored (“fixed”) the American economy. During World War II, 17 million new civilian jobs were created, industrial productivity increased by 96 percent, and corporate profits after taxes doubled. 

The government expenditures helped bring about the business recovery in the US economy that had eluded FDR’s New Deal. That analogy also holds good today. Indeed, American politicians of all stripes harken back to those halcyon days to make a case for their agendas even today. And they include Biden himself, who is fond of comparing himself in broad historical strokes with FDR. 

Equally, there is a common belief today, which is not without basis,  that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has contrived to draw the US into the conflict situation in the Middle East. But didn’t Winston Churchill do exactly the same, calculating that the US’ entry in the continental war with Germany would decisively tilt the balance of forces? 

Churchill apparently said — rather, he claimed so in his not-so-honest history of the war — that for the first time in a long time he slept easy, secure in the knowledge that with the US in the war, victory was inevitable. 

Suffice to say, the probability cannot be ruled out that we are overplaying the chill in Biden’s equations with Netanyahu.  On the other hand, all this would imply at the very least that Iran has a massive challenge in crafting a proportionate response to the Israeli aggression. The retaliation has to be symbolic and substantive, cogent and convincing and above all, reasonable and rational. Most important, it should not trigger a world war — Iran most certainly does not want a war.

But every cloud has a silver lining, too. The mitigating factor in the grim situation is that on Sunday, Israel withdrew its ground forces from Khan Younis marking the end of so-called high-intensity conflict. At one stroke, the matrix has changed.

The Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant unilaterally announced victory claiming that Hamas has “stopped functioning as a military organisation throughout the Gaza Strip.” Which, of course, flies in the face of reality, as at least six Hamas battalions are reportedly hiding, still functional, including its leaders who are surrounded by  about 130 hostages.

Call it what you will, but this is a significant climbdown by Israel with much unfinished business remaining still, as it were: release of all the hostages; return of residents back home in the south and north; a set-up to administer Gaza Strip where Hamas remains the de facto  leadership enjoying massive popular backing.

Gen. Halevi put a brave face on it, asserting this does not signal the end of war but only, “we’re fighting this war differently … Senior Hamas officials are still in hiding. We will get to them sooner or later… We have plans and we will act when we decide.”

This unceremonious end to Israel’s Gaza war after six months is almost certainly linked to the reported progress in the negotiations in Cairo over the release of hostages. Well, Israel’s score card is not entirely empty! Besides, the Damascus strike can be deemed a parting kick at the Quds Force of Iran’s elite IRGC at the operational level in both Iraq and Syria.

But then, Tehran has a noble tradition of eyeing martyrdom as the ultimate victory for its generals. Indeed, Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi didn’t attain martyrdom in vain. This needs explaining.

No matter what Gen. Halevi says about living to fight another day, there is the bigger picture, in which a truce-hostage deal is finally taking shape, which creates an entirely new dynamic all around — most significantly, in Israeli domestic politics that would give impetus to new thinking.

Israel is traditionally quick to adapt to alien circumstances. For the second time, Israel is retrenching from Gaza and this time around, with its reputation as the Middle East’s cat whiskers severely damaged. What emerges is also that Israel can no longer take for granted seamless American support.

The prominent Israeli commentator David Horowitz wrote with biting sarcasm, “Is this how the war ends? Not with a bang, or even a whimper…” But if an inconclusive war can still produce peace as its outcome, it must be welcomed — and Iran will have no doubts on that score. Quintessentially, Hamas’ victory is Iran’s sweet revenge, too. It makes a direct Iranian retaliation against Israel seem lacking in elan, somewhat old-fashioned and redundant.

That said, at the end of the day, as hours are ticking away, nothing is certain until a truce and hostage release deal is through. The pendulum keeps swinging from one end to the other by the hour.

If peace doves get released tied to the purse strings of wealthy Arab states, the biggest winner might yet be Biden. Unlike Barack Obama, he worked hard to earn it. All the guile in his tool kit as politician has been in display. It is no small feat to try to manipulate Netanyahu. An election victory in November, possibly holding a Nobel as his trophy, isn’t a far-fetched thought.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Axios reports that

Biden told Netanyahu he won’t support retaliation against Iran.

Washington is reportedly worried about a major escalation fraught with “catastrophic consequences”

For many years Israel has been pushing Washington to attack Iran, and neoconservatives and Congress have been chomping at the bit to do so. If this report on Axios is correct, it suggests that the power of neoconservatives over US Middle East Policy has been broken. I cannot help to be a bit suspicious of the report as it attributes more sense to Biden and his regime than we have previously seen any sign of.

And there are what seem to be conflicting reports. For example: “US sends reinforcements to ‘defend Israel’” and “Biden has been clear: The United States will stand with the people of Israel and support their defense against these threats from Iran,” US National Security Council spokeswoman stated.

There are also differing reports as to the success of the Iranian attack. As I have previously written the attack and the risks of it could have been prevented by the announcement of a Russian-Chinese-Iranian mutual defense treaty, but the political vision was absent.

The attack could also have been prevented if Syria had been permitted to use Russian air defense systems in Syria to prevent the Israeli attack on Damascus that provoked the Iranian retaliatory response.

If the Axios report is correct, the downside is that it is likely to convince Putin and Xi that Washington has finally come to its senses, and they will put their guard down and be tricked into more deceiving agreements like the Minsk Agreement resulting in even more distrust.

It has taken a long time for Zionist Israel to discredit itself. It did so with Israel’s declared policy of genocide of the Palestinians. As it was our bombs, missiles, and money that Israel used, America was also discredited.

The self-inflicted diminution of American prestige and its isolation as the supporter of Israel’s attempted genocide of Palestine has altered the balance of power and influence in the world. With the impoverished Houthis standing up to mighty America and Israel, and with Iran finally standing up to Israel, it is possible that the American-Israeli aggression leading to nuclear war has been tempered. The recent firing of Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland is another possible indication.

Haaretz, the only objective Israeli newspaper, says Netanyahu should accept that the Iranian response was a limited attack provoked by Israel’s attack that murdered Iranian officials in Damascus and refrain from further military action. US bases throughout the Middle East and Israel’s Dimona nuclear arsenal are easy targets for a heavy Iranian attack. If Israel pushes further, a major war will erupt.

Perhaps it will dawn on Putin and Xi to stabilize the Middle East with announcement of a Russian-Chinese-Iranian mutual defense treaty. It is the absence of countervailing power in the Middle East that has made the region a tinderbox.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: President Joe Biden participates in a restricted bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Hotel Kempinski in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, October 18, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Iran has carried out its long-promised retaliation for Israel’s attack on its consulate building in Damascus, launching a massive barrage of drones and missiles which it claims hit and destroyed Israeli military targets, while Israel says they dealt only superficial damage with a few injuries. The US and its allies reportedly helped shoot down a number of the Iranian projectiles. 

Just as we discussed in the lead-up to the strike, the western political-media class are acting as though this was a completely unprovoked attack launched against the innocent, Bambi-eyed victim Israel. Comments from western officials and pundits and headlines from the mass media are omitting the fact that Israel instigated these hostilities with its extreme act of aggression in Syria as much as possible. Here in Australia the Sydney Morning Herald write-up about the strike didn’t get around to informing its readers about the attack on the Iranian consulate until the tenth paragraph of the article, and said only that Iran had “accused” Israel of launching the attack because Israel has never officially confirmed it.

UPDATED: Iran Launches Major Drone and Missile Attack on Israel
Tel Aviv condemned the move as a “dangerous escalation” and claimed to have repelled most incoming projectiles
by Will Porter@TheWillPorter #Iran #Israel #IRGC #drones https://t.co/GOjbAm3OqU pic.twitter.com/Q2PtxbMAjy

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) April 14, 2024

In any case, Iran says the attack is now over. Given that we’re not seeing any signs of massive damage, Iran’s reported claim that its retaliation would be calibrated to avoid escalation into a full-scale regional war seems to have been accurate, as does Washington’s reported claim that it didn’t expect the strike to be large enough to draw the US into war.

A new report from Axios says Biden has personally told Netanyahu that the US will not be supporting any Israeli military response to the Iranian strike. An anonymous senior White House official told Axios that Biden said to Netanyahu, “You got a win. Take the win,” in reference to the number of Iranian weapons that were taken out of the sky by the international coalition in Israel’s defense. Apparently helping to mitigate the damage from the Iranian attack is all the military commitment the White House is willing to make against Iran at this time.

And thank all that is holy for that. A war between the US alliance and Iran and its allies would be the stuff of nightmares, making the horrors we’ve been seeing in Gaza these last six months look like an episode of Peppa Pig.

But Washington merely declining to get involved is nowhere near enough. As the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi quipped on Twitter, “Biden needs to PREVENT further escalation, not just declare his desire to stay out of it.”

Not significant enough.

Biden needs to PREVENT further escalation, not just declare his desire to stay out of it. https://t.co/KQ0paadDtY

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) April 14, 2024

Indeed, Israel has already made it clear that it is going to be moving forward with an escalation against Iran. Israel’s Channel 12 cites an unnamed senior official saying the Iranian counter strike is going to receive an “unprecedented response”.

“Israel has already informed the Americans and governments in the region that its response is inevitable,” The Economist reports. “Its military options include launching drones at Iran, and long-range airstrikes on Iran, possibly on military bases or nuclear installations.”

It’s unclear at this time how much the latest message from the Biden administration will affect the calculations of this position, but the mass media are reporting that White House officials are worried Israel is getting ready to do something extremely reckless that could draw the US into a war it would rather avoid. 

NBC News reports the following:

“Some top U.S. officials are concerned Israel could do something quickly in response to Iran’s attacks without thinking through potential fallout afterward, according to a senior administration official and a senior defense official.

“Those concerns stem in part from the administration’s views of the approach Israel has taken to its war against Hamas, as well as the attack in Damascus.

“President Joe Biden has privately expressed concern that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. more deeply into a broader conflict, according to three people familiar with his comments.”

Read this piece on why Bibi chose to radically escalate with his April 1 strike on Iran's diplomatic compound. It's by Paul Pillar, who knows the territory–he was once in charge of analysis of the Middle East for CIA & all other US intelligence agencies. https://t.co/w4dZjkdy3w

— Robert Wright (@robertwrighter) April 13, 2024

People have been raising this concern for some time now. Earlier this month Responsible Statecraft’s Paul Pillar wrote up a solid argument that Netanyahu stands a lot to gain personally from drawing the US into a war with Iran to help him with his legal and political troubles and take the focus off of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Whether that’s the case or not it’s pretty absurd for the Biden administration to just sit around passively hoping this doesn’t happen as though it wouldn’t have a say in the matter, and as though there’s nothing it can do to prevent such an occurrence right now. Biden has had the ability to end this insane cycle of escalation in the middle east since it started six months ago by demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and demanding that Israel rein in its murder machine, just as US presidents have done successfully in the past.

Biden could end all this with one phone call. The fact that he doesn’t means he’s a monster, and no amount of mass media reports about how “concerned” and “frustrated” he is regarding Israel’s actions will ever change that.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden engaged in a significant phone conversation on 02 April 2024 (Tuesday) at President Biden’s request, delving into various aspects of China-U.S. relations and mutual concerns.

President Xi highlighted the forward-looking vision established during his meeting with President Biden in San Francisco last November, emphasizing the subsequent earnest actions taken by both sides to materialize their understandings. While acknowledging the initial stabilization of China-U.S. relations, President Xi also noted the emergence of negative elements, warranting careful attention from both nations.

Emphasizing the paramount importance of strategic perception in bilateral relations, President Xi likened it to the first button on a shirt that must be properly secured. He stressed against severing ties or resorting to conflict, urging mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and mutually beneficial cooperation to maintain stable, constructive relations.

President Xi outlined three fundamental principles for guiding China-U.S. relations in 2024: valuing peace, prioritizing stability, and upholding credibility. He underscored the significance of respecting commitments, managing differences prudently, and enhancing cooperation while addressing global challenges responsibly.

Regarding sensitive issues such as Taiwan, President Xi reiterated China’s stance, highlighting the red line of “Taiwan independence” and urging concrete actions from the U.S. to align with President Biden’s commitment. He cautioned against actions that hinder China’s development or provoke conflict.

President Biden acknowledged the critical nature of the China-U.S. relationship, commending progress since the San Francisco meeting and emphasizing cooperation alongside managing differences responsibly. He reiterated the U.S.’s commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes, non-interference in China’s internal affairs, and adherence to the one-China policy.

President Biden raised concerns about various issues, including Taiwan, the South China Sea, and trade practices. He emphasized the importance of fair trade and preventing technology misuse while maintaining open channels of communication and diplomatic engagement.

Both leaders agreed on the importance of continued dialogue and cooperation across various domains, including diplomacy, economy, and climate response. They tasked their respective teams to advance the San Francisco vision, enhance bilateral exchanges, and address regional and global challenges collaboratively.

The conversation between President Xi and President Biden reflected a commitment to constructive engagement, highlighting the significance of managing differences while pursuing mutual interests for the stability and prosperity of both nations and the broader international community.

The relationship between China and the US holds immense significance on the global stage, and it’s imperative to diffuse tensions and bridge differences to foster harmony and understanding, thus promoting global stability and peace. Communication and dialogue play pivotal roles in achieving these goals, and recent interactions between the two nations are welcomed as positive steps in the right direction.

However, considering the political landscape in the US, one may speculate that these communications were politically motivated, particularly as President Biden faces considerable pressure amid declining popularity leading up to the upcoming Presidential Elections. Criticism of his nearly four-year tenure, particularly regarding policies on issues such as Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, the South China Sea, North Korea, and Iran, has led to a sharp decline in his popularity.

It appears that President Biden’s conversation with President Xi may hold political significance for him, potentially aimed at demonstrating a strong stance on China and perhaps even competing with his predecessor, President Trump. Moreover, with only a few months left in office, the feasibility of implementing any commitments made during these communications may be limited, as voters will ultimately assess his performance over the entirety of his term, rather than focusing solely on recent dialogue.

In contrast, President Xi approached the conversation with seriousness, seizing the opportunity to express his firm stance on issues such as Taiwan and the ongoing technological competition and sanctions. As both the Secretary-General of the CPC and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission of China, President Xi commands significant authority and is known for his resolute statements, reflecting a genuine commitment to his positions.

Ultimately, it is in the best interest of both the US and China to normalize relations and redirect their energies towards global development, economic prosperity, and maintaining global peace and security. By working together harmoniously, they can contribute to creating a better world for current and future generations.

*

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

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Consultant, Advisor, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: [email protected]).

Featured image: President Joe Biden greets President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, Wednesday, November 15, 2023, at the Filoli Estate in Woodside, California.(Official White House Photo by Carlos Fyfe)

A guerra da NATO contra a Rússia na Ucrânia leva ao aumento das despesas militares. De acordo com dados oficiais, as despesas militares italianas aumentaram de 21 mil milhões de euros em 2019 para mais de 30 mil milhões em 2023, o que equivale a uma média anual de mais de 80 milhões de euros por dia em dinheiro público desviado das despesas sociais. De acordo com o compromisso da NATO, a Itália terá de aumentar esta despesa para cerca de 100 milhões de euros por dia. Desde 2014, as despesas militares da Europa filiada na NATO dispararam, ultrapassando o nível da última fase da Guerra Fria.

O Secretário-Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg, salienta que:

“Os aliados estão a fornecer à Ucrânia uma ajuda militar e financeira sem precedentes. A França vai enviar em breve mais obuses Caesar e vários aliados juntaram-se à iniciativa da República Checa para adquirir 800.000 cartuchos de artilharia adicionais”.

A Itália, que já forneceu a Kiev peças de artilharia pesada, também participa na compra destes 800.000 projécteis adicionais. Mais uma despesa adicional de dinheiro público pago pelos nossos cidadãos.

Um outro agravante deriva do facto de a Itália contribuir para os custos das bases dos EUA-NATO que, a partir do território italiano, desempenham papéis fundamentais no apoio a operações de guerra, da Ucrânia ao Médio Oriente. De particular importância é o papel de Camp Darby, o maior arsenal americano fora do território dos Estados Unidos. Atualmente, chegam dos Estados Unidos a esta base, situada entre Pisa e Livorno, novos e mais potentes veículos blindados que, a partir de Camp Darby, através do porto de Livorno, serão enviados para a Ucrânia.

As bases americanas de Camp Darby, Sigonella e outras em território italiano apoiam também as operações de guerra no Médio Oriente. Aqui, os EUA continuam a armar Israel ao abrigo de um acordo assinado pelo Presidente Obama e pelo seu adjunto Biden. Este acordo fornece a Israel armas no valor de 38 mil milhões de dólares, incluindo as bombas com que Israel está a exterminar os palestinianos em Gaza.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Il Costo della Guerra

byoblu.com

Traduçao : Mondialisation.ca com DeepL

VIDEO :

A ajuda dos EUA à Ucrânia com drones está a revelar-se insuficiente no campo de batalha. Recentemente, a mídia ocidental admitiu que os veículos aéreos não tripulados (UAVs) americanos na Ucrânia são ineficazes no combate à Rússia. O caso mostra claramente as fraquezas da tecnologia militar ocidental, que se revelou inútil quando testada no campo de batalha.

De acordo com o Wall Street Journal (WSJ), os pequenos drones americanos enviados para a Ucrânia não são capazes de escapar aos mecanismos eficientes de guerra eletrônica russos. Os UAV fabricados nos EUA são utilizados massivamente para operações de reconhecimento e ataques com granadas, mas os seus resultados são insatisfatórios e não trazem benefícios reais para as tropas ucranianas nas linhas da frente.

Segundo o jornal, a reputação da indústria militar americana de drones está seriamente ameaçada pelo fraco desempenho dos UAVs na zona de combate. Anteriormente, este equipamento era considerado adequado pelo Pentágono até mesmo para soldados americanos, mas a incapacidade de lidar com a realidade militar ucraniana mostrou que a tecnologia das forças armadas dos EUA está ultrapassada e necessita urgentemente de mudanças para enfrentar os novos desafios da guerra contemporânea.

“A reputação geral de todas as classes de drones dos EUA na Ucrânia é que eles não funcionam tão bem como outros sistemas (…) [os drones americanos] não são uma plataforma muito bem-sucedida nas linhas de frente”, disse um especialista ao WSJ. .

A matéria menciona uma lista de armas com problemas operacionais, incluindo drones fabricados pela Cyberlux e, principalmente, pela Skydio, empresa do Vale do Silício que enviou milhões de equipamentos militares para a Ucrânia. As startups de defesa dos EUA, que até então eram elogiadas como grandes centros de inovação na indústria militar, estão agora a ser testadas e a demonstrar verdadeira incompetência em lidar com as realidades da guerra.

“A empresa do Vale do Silício, Skydio, enviou centenas de seus melhores drones para a Ucrânia para ajudar a combater os russos. As coisas não correram bem. Os drones da Skydio saíram do curso e se perderam, sendo vítimas da guerra eletrônica da Rússia. Desde então, a empresa voltou à prancheta para construir uma nova frota. A maioria dos pequenos drones de startups dos EUA não conseguiram ser efetivos em combate, frustrando as esperanças das empresas de que um diferencial de ter sido testado em batalha traria vendas e atenção às startups. Também é uma má notícia para o Pentágono, que precisa de um fornecimento confiável de milhares de aeronaves pequenas e não tripuladas. Na primeira guerra com pequenos drones tendo destaque, as empresas americanas ainda não têm presença significativa. Os drones fabricados na América tendem a ser caros, com falhas e difíceis de reparar, disseram os executivos de empresas, ucranianos na linha de frente, funcionários do governo ucraniano e ex-funcionários da defesa dos EUA”, diz o artigo.

Na verdade, esta notícia deve ser entendida como mais uma prova de que a indústria militar americana está gravemente afetada por um processo de “desprofissionalização”. Startups de investidores que não possuem nenhum conhecimento militar estão empreendendo projetos muitas vezes elogiados e incorporados pelo Pentágono em meio à busca por “inovação” no setor de defesa. O resultado é que a ausência de conhecimento técnico militar e de experiência de combate torna impossível aos fabricantes produzir equipamentos suficientemente eficazes para lidar com as realidades de uma guerra real. Nesse sentido, os drones americanos, que eram considerados produtos “inovadores” e de alta qualidade tecnológica, passam a ser vistos como armas caras e facilmente neutralizáveis.

Os EUA passaram décadas a investir em projetos de inovação tecnológica no setor militar que, no final, se revelaram inúteis. A maior parte destas “inovações” centraram-se na satisfação dos interesses dos investidores no setor tecnológico, mas não tiveram em conta os conhecimentos técnicos militares. O Estado americano confiou na entrada de novas startups tecnológicas dentro do aparato do complexo militar-industrial e agora o resultado se mostra catastrófico. Entretanto, na Rússia, o setor da defesa continua extremamente controlado por profissionais militares experientes, sendo todas as inovações tecnológicas rigorosamente avaliadas por especialistas militares e testadas no campo de batalha.

Um ponto que também precisa ser enfatizado é o desenvolvimento do setor russo de guerra eletrônica – também chamado de “guerra de espectro”. Este setor consiste basicamente na utilização do campo eletromagnético para fins militares. As armas atuais, dada a sua alta tecnologia, criam um campo de ondas electromagnéticas em torno da zona de conflito. O lado mais hábil na utilização destes dados eletromagnéticos em operações de inteligência, reconhecimento e sabotagem torna-se capaz de neutralizar a maioria dos ataques inimigos.

A eficiência russa na guerra eletrônica já é reconhecida até pelos analistas militares como a principal razão para o fracasso dos esforços dos drones da Ucrânia. A maioria dos drones ocidentais lançados por Kiev são desviados por mecanismos de guerra eletrônica. O resultado é um cenário em que os americanos gastam milhões para produzir UAV inúteis que são facilmente sabotados por ferramentas baratas.

No final, o conflito na Ucrânia está a mostrar como a indústria militar americana se tornou num verdadeiro tigre de papel, controlada por investidores sem conhecimentos especializados e fortemente dependente de investimentos dispendiosos para obter maus resultados.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês :

US Drones Useless in Ukraine. Russia’s Electromagnetic Waves Technology Used to Neutralize Enemy Attacks

https://infobrics.org/post/40941

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

First published on April 6, 2024

***

Philosophy Reaching Insight into the Nature of Reality

One crucial and relevant aspect of Philosophy as an academic inquiry is the fact that Philosophy engages our ordinary experience as an entry point venue, as a stepping-stone, and as a vehicle towards reaching insight into the nature of Reality.

Philosophy engages even the most ordinary, the most down-to-earth, the most mundane, and simplest experience of life as a diving board to reach what Plato called the logos (the essential principle) of Reality and what Aristotle termed the telos (ultimate end or absolute purpose) of Life and Existence.

Right image: Aristotle

It is in this thought that Philosophy is referred to as a transcendental subject in and of itself.

Philosophy looks at the wholeness of things instead of partiality or particularity.

Philosophy seeks a unitive and holistic understanding of things instead of looking at things from the point of view of separateness and divisiveness. 

There are many intellectual fields or subjects of academic endeavors that elucidate their respective discipline by making categories, particularizations, and distinctions in order to explain what for them constitutes Reality (be it social reality, political reality, constructed reality, or even metaphysical reality itself); however, Philosophy as a synthesizing discipline sees Reality as unitive, as a seamless whole, as a complete and comprehensive totality—hence

Philosophy by its very nature looks at the world exhaustively and holistically.

The Ultimate Reality from the positionality and perspective of Philosophy is first and foremost through-and-through unitive before it is divided into particularities, distinctiveness, or separateness.

Philosophy Looks at Absolute Truth 

Philosophy looks at Absolute Truth as undivided whole and essentially unitive:

hence Philosophy cannot help but be holistic and synthetic (approaching the view of synthesis) in its view of things and events—and philosophers are also expected to look at the world, things, events, and indeed our total ecosystem from a tolerant perspective of an all-embracing synthesis and comprehensive wholeness.

Philosophy and Consumerism 

There is a growing trend and a latent tendency in our contemporary educational system to see education as merely positivistic, scientistic, hyper-empiricistic, utilitarian, extractive, and instrumentalist.

The present profit-oriented, consumeristic, and capitalistic rising trend of our present educational system is to glorify what the ancient Sophists call teknike (the “how to” of things) rather than the ethike which is the discourse of ideal philosophical and ethical principles.

The Contemporary Academic System: Utilitarian and Instrumentalist  

The contemporary academic system is geared towards a utilitarian, instrumentalist, pragmatic approach to education that caters only to the utility of our present capitalist and consumerist economic setup. The purpose of contemporary education in our day and age is simply to supply workers to First World markets and laborers in the capitalistic corporatocratic cog.

Many educational systems in the Third World are right now mainly focusing in their academic syllabi and emphasizing in their curriculum the utility and marketability of their graduates to supply the intellectual, technical, and labor force to the capitalist corporations and consumerist economic outfits of First World countries.

If capitalistic productivity and consumeristic profiteering are to be the present focus and emphasis of our contemporary educational system, then Philosophy is simply counterproductive, passe, and totally irrelevant for an extractive capitalistic and corporatocratic educational system: since there is no utilitarian need of philosophers in the world of “get” and in the culture of accumulation: and no need for philosophical critique, rigorous reflection, and intellectual reflexivity in a commodified world whose emphasis is frenzied profitable action and unthinking compliance to the greedy demands of capitalistic corporatocracies.

Philosophy and Humanistic Education  

And yet, Philosophy is very crucial and relevant discipline if we are to establish a humanistic education since it is Philosophy that puts the “mind, heart, and soul” as well as humanness, humane-ness, and proper humanity to the human person.

It is Philosophy that informs the human person of his or her unrepeatable, irreducible, irreplaceable, and unique worth in the midst of the commodifying and objectifying hold of a profiteering capitalism, consumerism, and avaricious corporatocracy on humans and on human relationships.

It is Philosophy that guides the human person who is in search of ethical and spiritual authenticity in the midst of this glittering world of money and this oppressive world of power-mongering and influence-peddling. It is Philosophy that allows humans to be in awe at Life with the view of knowing himself or herself in relation to others and the world. 

By emphasizing on the consumeristic, positivistic, instrumentalist, utilitarian, extractive, and pragmatic demands of capitalist-oriented education, the relevance of Philosophy may diminish in the eyes of present academic curriculum makers, and it may vanish in the General Education courses and syllabi of profit-oriented capitalistic universities and other same-minded academic institutions—and God forbid, Philosophy as a subject or course may not be offered anymore in the academic prospectus of many educational institution in our day and age. But who will be at a loss? It will be the students themselves: and eventually, our present societies will intellectually be at a loss; since the ultimate goal of Philosophy is to be the venue for the authentic humanization of students so that they will become persons of wholeness for the sake of themselves, for others, for the world, and for the ecosystem.

Philosophy is Life Itself 

It may be that Philosophy will not anymore be offered as an academic subject or course in the universities in the near future—and yet it will not be the death of Philosophy for Philosophy is, properly speaking, NOT just an academic discipline.

Philosophy is LIFE itself: and for as long as there are people who longs for authenticity in their very own existence and who continually wonder, question, and search for the raison d’ être of their life and being in the Greater Scheme of Things, for as long as there are still people who are not jaded to Life, but are continually amazed at the beauty of what Life has to offer, for as long as there are persons who want to be living sacrifice to the Altar of True Wisdom so they can expend and offer their lives for the good of humanity and for service to the world, then assuredly, Philosophy is here to stay, and will definitely be always here to stay.

Our capitalistic, monetarily extractive, and profit-driven contemporary educational system can never extinguish the ever-illuminating Torch of Wisdom, which is Philosophy itself.

Philosophy is Life and it is more expansive, more comprehensive, and more exhaustive than mere theorizing learned by rote, or plain memorizing, or by the relentless conditioning wrought by this consumer-crazed capitalistic education of today.

Philosophy Is Life and a Way of Life

As sure as the sun rises in the East, it can be certainly vouched—Philosophy as Life and as a way of Life is sure to stay for as long as there are authentic humans who are in earnest search for Life’s significance, who are in awe of Life’s bittersweet reality, and who longs for wholeness and genuineness in the midst of this modern world of extractive utilitarianism, instrumentalism, objectification, and commodification of humans, of both abiotic and biotic components of our ecosystem by the profit-driven capitalism and consumerism in our present corporatocratic educational system.

*

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

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-7 of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City, Philippines.

He was Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014, and Program Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu from 2015-2016 and from 2018-2019.

His research interests include Theoretical and Applied Ethics, Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence (Sunni Fiqh), Islamic feminist discourses, Islam in interfaith dialogue initiatives, Islamic environmentalism, Classical Sunni Islamic pedagogy, the writings of Al-Ghazali on pluralism and tolerance, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, Turkish Sufism, Ataturk Studies, Ottoman Studies, Genghis Khan Studies, Marxian Political Thought, Muslim-Christian Dialogue, Middle Eastern Affairs, Peace Studies, Public Theology, and Postmodernism in Philosophy.

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

**

Rick Rozoff is a renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website. 

In the following interview, recorded on March 26, 2024, Mr. Rozoff talks about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which he has opposed for decades, and where it is headed.

Global Research: It’s been said that the real reason an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not really to end the war. The allied Soviet Union had said they were preparing an invasion in early-August 1945, so the US figured it would drop the bombs first and thereby send the message that they had won the war by forcing Japan’s surrender. But they were also warning the Soviet Union about their awesome arsenal that could be targeting them. I bring this up, because I suspect the role of NATO to defend the world from the Soviet threat maybe – may not be accurate either. There is another story behind building up NATO. What in your view is the real reason NATO came into existence?

Rick Rozoff: It was a shift in World War II where the Western powers, US, Britain, French Resistance and Free French and such like continued the War, but shifted from waging war against the Axis powers, Germany, Italy, Romania, and so forth, towards the Soviet Union. I mean, it’s quite simply that. And Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was, you know, the top commander of allied forces in Europe during World War II became the first supreme allied commander of NATO when NATO was set up in 1949. So, it was a very smooth transition, down to the very same, you know, top commander.

World War II did not, in that sense, end so much as it was reconfigured and directed eastward, that’s my read on it. And of course, it was 75 years ago next month that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established, initially with 12 members. All 12 of which, with the exception of Italy, could lay claim to being on the North Atlantic Ocean, by the way. Italy, if you really wanted to stretch the point also, you know, through being in the Mediterranean which is an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, now you’re looking – well, I don’t want to jump too far ahead – but you’re looking at NATO which has grown appreciably where the majority of its members are nowhere near the North Atlantic Ocean.

GR: So, basically you’re saying that – I mean, like the alliance, you know, to fight off Hitler, I mean I guess they felt they had a good thing coming, so… But, I guess there’s somehow that solidarity or whatever. Let’s just hold onto this and just direct it towards the Big Red Bear. Is that essentially what you’re saying?

RR: That’s exactly what happened. And they pivoted, to use the popular expression, on a dime. It didn’t take very long. Almost immediately after V-E Day and certainly after V-J Day, you know, Victory in Europe, Victory Over Japan that you alluded to, then the Soviet Union became the replacement for the Third Reich and Mussolini.

And so, the military apparatus that the United States had established during the years from 1943-45 in Italy and in Germany and France and then the Low Countries, Benelux Countries, then became the foundation for NATO which remained and remains to this day, by the way, where the supreme allied commander of NATO has always been an American general or admiral. So, that much has not changed from 1949, or for that matter from 1945, until the current day.

GR: So, during the Cold War, I mean, was there anything, you know, about NATO – because, I mean, you started criticizing NATO before the fall of the Berlin Wall as I understand it. So, what were you finding objectionable back in the Cold War era that set you off?

RR: I wouldn’t want to put too fine a point on this because I think, you know, it’s going to distract from talking about post-Cold War NATO. And there are people out there who may want to defend NATO up until 1989 or up until 1991, and my argument is really not with them so much anymore, because as interesting as that is, I think we have more pressing concerns to be honest, Michael. And I personally feel that it was meant as a display of American military might in Europe, not only against the Soviet Union, its allies, and Eastern Europe, but also against political parties in countries like France, Belgium, Italy, Communist Party in the first instance, that may have wanted to reach some rapprochement with the Soviet Union and the permanent deployment of US – and the US, you know, Sixth Fleet is still based in Italy. And the US still has nuclear weapons in five European countries and suchlike. But this is all the result of using NATO to position the US Military for a permanent presence in Europe, first of all against the Soviet Union, then again the Soviet successor state: Russia.

Yet also, you know, you mention nuclear weapons. I believe it was as early as 1951, which is to say, only two years after the founding of NATO that the US moved nuclear weapons into Europe, into Britain initially, under NATO auspices and why NATO continues to maintain tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, in The Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey under what NATO calls “burden sharing,” or “nuclear sharing” arrangements.

GR: Well, NATO underwent a transformation after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism, because it otherwise would no longer have a reason to continue, but it did. What do you know about what the thinkers at the top were thinking? I mean, how and when did they come to the conclusion that NATO would now be an aggressive force behind human rights. I mean, subsequently attacking people in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya?

RR: The 1989 speech by President H.W. Bush in Mainz, Germany whence the expression – it’s actually sometimes published with – the expression I’m going to mention in a second – as it’s titled, “A Europe Whole and Free,” sometimes “Europe Whole, Free, and at Peace.” And this is after the, you know, the dismantling of the Wall in Berlin and the beginning of the reunification of Germany. So, the point is clear coming from Washington, coming from the White House, that Europe was to be “united,” — the exact word – there was to be a continental system, you know, if I’m not going too far astray, comparable to those of Napoleon Bonaparte, or for that matter, Hitler, that would unite the entire European continent under one military command.

That has been NATO’s objective since 1989. Certainly since 1991 with the formal dissolution of the Warsaw Pact which itself, by the way, was founded six years after NATO and in reaction to not only NATO being founded, but Germany, West Germany, the Southern Republic of Germany, being brought into NATO the preceding year. Contrary to the Potsdam, you know, Accords reached by Britain, United States, and the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.

So, what NATO has accomplished in the interim and is now going to celebrate in all its splendour in July in the United States in Washington at its 75^th anniversary summit, is that indeed, the entire European continent, with the exception of Russia and Belarus, have now been brought under NATO command.

GR: But NATO is not just a military force. It seems to me it’s a parasite. There are components of NATO that involve industry and jobs and a whole economic and financial infrastructure has grown around NATO. So, there would be massive losses of jobs and a shrinking of a tax base meaning, you know, social programs as well would be compromised. Can you address these sorts of concerns about some who would resist ending NATO or getting out of NATO?

RR: I mean, you’re correct about the fact that the NATO countries – I mean, let’s look at some arithmetic: the annual collective military spending – this is official, right, through defence ministries and the Defense Department in the United States. It excludes, you know, a good deal other military-related spending. But the official numbers, with the US leading the way by a long shot to the tune of something like 68 percent, but nevertheless, NATO countries account for $1.3 trillion in military spending per annum. This is as compared to, for example, Russia maybe $60 billion, you know, a small fraction of that. The population combined or collective population, NATO countries, now with Sweden joining, is 1 billion. You know, Russia is 150 million, if I remember right. So, to place these matters in perspective.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned – and this is the NATO summit in Washington in the Summer – will be the second time a NATO summit has been held in the capital of the United States. That symbolism is not to be missed. There was only one other summit in the United States and it was here in Chicago in 2012. But the first summit in Washington, the first in the United States, was in 1999 to mark the 50^th anniversary of the creation of NATO. This one will mark the 75^th anniversary.

Fifty years ago – I’m sorry, not 50 years ago but 25 years ago in 1999, when NATO met in Washington Nato had 16 members. When it finishes its summit this July in Washington, it will have 32 members, which is to say twice as many as it had in 1999 when it launched its first full fledged war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the interim also, starting in the 1990s – you read an excerpt which I assumed was mine, it sounded very much like mine at the beginning of the programme – NATO has, in addition to those 32 full members, partners in the neighbourhood of probably 40 officially. And if you want to include the fact that NATO considers the African Union to be a collective partner, it has a liaison office next to that of the African Union in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. But officially, they have 40 members who, together with the – not 40 members, 40 partners – who, together with the 32 members, some of these are countries, are on all six inhabited continents, bar none. And as there are military personnel in Antarctica from NATO countries, you can throw that one in for good measure and all the continents in the world even have NATO presence.

That is something that is so historically unprecedented in scale and scope and ambition and nature, that it really puzzles me and I have to admit it makes me despondent sometimes that for 25 years I’ve been trying to alert people to this, to the scale of it. And I feel that people are either indifferent to it, they downplay it, they mock it. Global Research is not immune itself from running articles that suggest that, you know, NATO is a paper tiger, paper pussycat in one person’s parlance, and so forth. I’ll state my claim, and I hope I’m not wrong, that NATO is a deadly serious business and a real threat to world peace. And if it is, and it has been for the past 25 years, then I think the peace movement and other forces in the world have been grossly negligent in taking this one on.

GR: Going forward then, what would you assume NATO’s next targets would be if there’s no resistance? And you know, what kinds of – how do you expect their development to evolve over the next two or three years?

RR: You know, they’re very open about these matters. There’s nothing esoteric about them. Go to the NATO website. They have two features today and one is at the Moldova [SIC] solidifying its relationship with NATO. It’s going to join. But you know, as a precondition for joining, it cannot have foreign troops on its territory, nor can it have unresolved territorial disputes. And Transnistria, you know, fills, you know, both those – checks both of those boxes off. So, it would be necessary. And Transnistria is surrounded by Moldova in the West, Ukraine on the East, it would be necessary to expel the Russian peacekeeping force of the couple thousand troops, and then reincorporate Transnistria into Moldova in order for it to join NATO. But you know, those movements – that movement is well under way.

The general secretary of NATO, as you may know, has just recently made a trip to the three South Caucasus nations of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Armenia has suspended its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, I would argue justifiably, you know, given Russia’s unwillingness to defend it against attacks from Azerbaijan. And so, what are they doing? They’re wrapping up – they’re doing a mopping up operation. They are absorbing what’s left of the former Soviet Union, except for, at least the moment, Belarus and Russia itself. They’ve already incorporated, of course, some 15 years ago they incorporated – more than that, 17 years ago – they – 20 years ago they incorporated three former Soviet Union republics, you know, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanian. They, you know, ensconced themselves deeply in the three countries I’ve just mentioned in the South Caucasus. Ukraine I don’t have to tell you about. And Moldova, that’s the former Soviet Union.

So, they have not only – there was a statement by George W. Bush during the round of massive NATO expansions in the early part of the century where, at one NATO summit, seven countries joined at one time. Again, that’s totally unprecedented. Two of those former Yugoslav federal republics and three of them former Soviet republics. There was a statement attributed to George W. Bush saying, “The Warsaw Pact has now become NATO, in fact.”

GR: Rick Rozoff, thank you very much for your intelligent and eloquent analysis.

RR: Yeah, I wish I had better news to bring you, my friend. You know, we sit back and we allow military monoliths of this scale to spread over the last, you know, 33 years and we effectively do nothing about it. You know, they’re not going to be held in check unless we hold them in check. And we have to sound the alarm that the existence of a military bloc of 70-some odd countries on all continents is something that really should ring some bells and really should raise some alarms and people should really commit themselves to looking into it and doing what they can to reign this thing in until it can be dismantled.

 

 

La guerra della NATO contro la Russia in Ucraina comporta una crescente spesa militare. Secondo i dati ufficiali, la spesa militare italiana è aumentata da 21 miliardi di euro nel 2019 a oltre 30 miliardi nel 2023, equivalenti a una media giornaliera annua di oltre 80 milioni di euro, in denaro pubblico sottratto alle spese sociali. Secondo l’impegno assunto nella NATO, l’Italia dovrà portare tale spesa a circa 100 milioni di euro al giorno. Dal 2014 la spesa militare dell’Europa appartenente alla NATO è vertiginosamente cresciuta, superando il livello dell’ultima fase della Guerra Fredda.

Il segretario generale della NATO Stoltenberg sottolinea:

“Gli Alleati stanno fornendo all’Ucraina aiuti militari e finanziari senza precedenti. La Francia invierà presto altri obici Caesar e diversi Alleati hanno aderito all’iniziativa della Repubblica Ceca di procurare 800.000 proiettili d’artiglieria supplementari”.

L’Italia, che ha già fornito a Kiev anche pezzi di artiglieria pesante, partecipa all’acquisto di questi altri 800.000 proiettili. Più un ulteriore esborso di denaro pubblico pagato da noi cittadini.

Le basi USA-NATO

Un ulteriore aggravio deriva dal fatto che l’Italia compartecipa alle spese delle basi USA-NATO che, dal territorio italiano, svolgono fondamentali ruoli di supporto delle operazioni belliche, dall’Ucraina al Medioriente. Di particolare importanza il ruolo di Camp Darby, il più grande arsenale USA fuori dal territorio statunitense. In questi giorni stanno arrivando dagli Stati Uniti in questa base, situata tra Pisa e Livorno, nuovi e più potenti mezzi corazzati che da Camp Darby, tramite il porto di Livorno, saranno inviati in Ucraina.

Le basi USA di Camp Darby, Sigonella e altre sul territorio italiano supportano anche le operazioni belliche in Medioriente. Qui gli Stati Uniti continuano ad armare Israele nell’ambito di un accordo, stipulato dal Presidente Obama e dal suo vice Biden. Questo prevede di fornire a Israele armi per il valore di 38 miliardi di dollari, comprese le bombe con cui Israele sta sterminando i Palestinesi a Gaza.

Manlio Dinucci

 

VIDEO :

The text below is Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled:  The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015.  To order the book directly from Global Research click here

This chapter provides a historical perspective of US war plans directed against Iran, including the use of a preemptive nuclear attack, using low yield, “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons.

This analysis is of particular relevance to the Biden administration’s ongoing threats to attack Iran.

***

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.”

The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S. in liaison with NATO and Israel.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.1

“Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT)

Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:

The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.

… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.3

Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated:

The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S. Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).4

In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than four hundred fifty major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing –that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack– but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.5

The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”

The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration, U.S. Central Command (U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective:

The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. U.S.CENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.6

The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries:

[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I)

The Role of Israel

There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.

Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.

Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington.

An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”8

According to Cheney:

One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,9

Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.10

What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led coalition.

An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the U.S. and NATO.11

Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S. technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12

What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system:

This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.13

The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran:

The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14

In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.

In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran.

Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.

Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (US.STRATCOM)

In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I).

Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led nuclear attack against a fictional country.16

Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era

President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18

Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “War on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.19

The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.

The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.20

While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.

Radioactive Fallout

The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the surrounding civilian population.”

“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran

Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to U.S. military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.

The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the following instructions:

“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).23

The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than twenty feet base to nose”.24

These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair.

State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”

The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S. military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I)

This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new technologies”. 25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.

Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26

The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.

Electromagnetic Weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of weather modification technologies:

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.28

Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”30

Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles

Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.

In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an impression.”33

The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war on Iran.

Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.

Iran’s Ground Forces

While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).”

According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq.

U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran

For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.

It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S. and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field.

Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.

An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.

Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.

In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central Asian region.

In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future of humanity.

Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out.

The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran.

Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly weakened.

The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli attack.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated.

2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006.

3. Ibid.

4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007.

5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005.

6. U.S.CENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9.

7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I.

8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005.

9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005.

10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

11. Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11, 2009.

12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009.

13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009.

14. Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010.

15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006.

16. David Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005.

17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010.

18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007.

19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004.

20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5,

2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris.

21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009.

22. Ibid.

23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here.

24. See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21, 2009.

25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf.

26. Ibid, emphasis added.

27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004.

28. Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1.

29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004.

30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60.

31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006.

32. Debka, November 5, 2006.

33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006.

34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia.

35. Ibid.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

**

“Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it….But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause.”

– Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, 2004 [1] (emphasis added.)

“I think that the initial story, the story that everyone believes – 800,000 Tutsis massacred by Hutus led by the Hutu government – that’s a false story.”

– Ann Garrison (from this week’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia resource, run and written by volunteers, and, according to The Economist, “the biggest and most-read reference work ever” had the following to say about the 1994 Rwanda genocide:

During this period of around 100 days, members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group, as well as some moderate Hutu and Twa, were killed by armed Hutu militias… The RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) quickly resumed the civil war once the genocide started and captured all government territory, ending the genocide and forcing the government and génocidaires into Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). [2]

Leading and respected researchers, and journalists, from Phil Taylor and Judi Rever to Justin Podhur, Peter Erlinder, and Pierre-Claver Ndacyayisenga have contradicted this story. Official documents such as the 1994 [UN] Gersony Report question it, and place much more blame on the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Even the revered figure Edward S. Herman together with David Peterson in the book Politics of Genocide (2010) and its follow-up, Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later (2014) argued that the Hutus, not the Tutsis, made up the majority of the victims. They were consequently accused of “genocide denial.” [3]

Today the “genocide of the Tutsis” is taken as a sad chapter in history. The day we could all learn from to prevent such violence from ever happening again. Anyone who questions it should be hung to dry, or criticized as has done been done by Africa “specialist” Gerald Caplan and Adam Jones, Canadian author of Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction.

But questioning official narratives is a fundamental staple in the Global Research News Hour den of goodies, and we need to get to the bottom of this disaster if we are to avoid a response that does not play into the pockets of misleading U.S. military, intelligence and corporate personnel.

In our first half hour, journalist Ann Garrison joins us to spell out the brutal truth of the affair, the imperial moves by the U.S., and the threats to the people, particularly the dissidents, in Rwanda today. In our second half hour, writer, translator and publisher Robin Philpot expands on his 2013 book, entitled Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, outlining the role of Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the role of Canadians like L Gen Roméo Dallaire and Prosecutor Louise Arbour, and the grand contest between the United States and France over African resources.

Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. You can help support her work on Patreon. 

Robin Philpot is a graduate of the university of Toronto and founder of Baraka Books in Montreal. He is author of A People’s History of Quebec, with Jacques Lacoursière (Baraka Books, 2009); and Rwanda and the New Scramble For Africa: From Tragedy to Useful Imperial Fiction (Baraka Books, 2013), among other works. Robin can be reached at [email protected].

(Global Research News Hour Episode 427)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Robin Philpot, April 8, 2024

Global Research: Mr. Philpot, thank you so much for making yourself available on the Global Research News Hour.

Robin Philpot: Okay, thank you, Michael, for inviting me. It’s a privilege, it’s a privilege.

GR : We appreciate it. So, Mr. Philpot, when and why exactly did you start your research into the Rwandan genocide?

RP: I started doing it during the crisis in Rwanda in 1994. It’s as simple as that. I had lived in Africa, I studied African history. Even before the plane was shot down on the 6^th of April, I was following very closely what was going on, because the major error people make is that they start everything on a date, the 7^th of April as we saw, we’re marking the 30 years since that tragedy. That is the number one mistake and it is the number one reason – and yes, we can go back and say, “Why is that being done?” — that people are not understanding what really happened.

So, I started working on it then and I published many articles starting in 1994 basically questioning what we were being told at the time. I had a lot of Rwandan friends who were here studying and we – you know, that’s what we started looking at, you know, like – you starting realizing that there’s something more going on than an internal fight in an African – independent African country. There was more to it.

And so – so, like – because – so, you know, it went on. The book came out originally in French in 2003. And then, with time, I ended up publishing it in English, updated in 2014. Yeah, it was 2014.

So, it is important that – when you look at that crisis, that’s tragedy – that you realize – people realize that it – what happened in 1994 was the result of what had been going on since 1990, when the Rwandan Patriotic Front invaded Rwanda.

GR: Yeah, you mentioned that in great detail in the first part of the book, you know, that since 1990 there were nearly, you know, three years in advance of what we call the genocide. People in the North were displaced from their homes. I mean, can you explain how this set up the circumstance for the —

RP: Oh, yeah. I think you have to go back a bit historically. Say that – to realize, in fact, what 1994 was, it was the reconquest of power by a minority who had run a feudal state under Belgian colonialism until 1959. What happened in 1959 was there was independence. And following 1959, and what was known as the Social Revolution in Rwanda where – and with the minority Tutsis who – and I – once again it’s partly the Tutsis, but they controlled everything and the Hutus were in a feudal situation in Rwanda. There was a social revolution with independence and certain parts of the population, the Tutsi elite, left and went to Uganda, Zaire, which was The Congo, and some to Burundi as well.

And so, that – what happened – it was for – finally the 85 percent of the population started having equality, that was the aim of that social revolution and independence. And as some people point out, Rwanda is the only place in what we used to call “Black Africa” where, except for maybe Zanzibar, where there was a revolution with independence, you know?

And so, what happened in 1990: a group of Rwandan exiles living in Uganda who had helped neighbouring President Museveni take power. And they were armed, they were part of the army, the head of the military intelligence in Uganda. They formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front in Washington, that’s where it was founded. The invasion was the 1^st of October, 1990.

And it was very, very violent, and it was not – it wasn’t a civil war. This army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, was armed and supported continually for three years by the Ugandans – by Uganda. Right from 1990 until 1994. So, that is the background. And it was quite obvious for many that the Rwandan Patriotic Front just wanted to take power.

So, there was a lot of a – there were huge numbers, up to 1.5 million people who were displaced South towards Kigali during that period of war. And if the big powers decided, ‘Okay, well you have to negotiate a peace agreement and a power-sharing agreement.’ Which is what happened in 1993, there was the Arusha Peace Accords, under which in Canada – not Canada. They created UNIMAR, the United Nations mission in Rwanda. The person in charge of the military part of it was Roméo Dallaire. It wasn’t Canada who put him in there. The United States needed a French-speaking head who was not from France.

In 1993, you got to remember, the Soviet Bloc had fallen and the Americans were triumphant. They wanted to take over from France in many places in  Africa. France had its own, you know, its own area which was Le Gaul Francafrique. The Americans wanted to take over from Rwanda – from France. And so, that’s how Dallaire was appointed to run the military, he didn’t even know where Rwanda was on the map.

GR: Yeah. Could you just talk a little bit about Paul Kagame for a second, his background? Because I’m thinking he’s kind of like, you know, the predecessor of Juan Guaido in a way, because I mean – what was his background and what explains the West’s interest in his leadership?

RP: Well, he was the head of the military intelligence in Uganda. He was sent by Uganda to – for a training session in Fort Leavenworth under the American army. He was number two in the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The first one was a man by the name of Fred Rwigyema. But he was killed in that invasion in 1990. It was three or four days after the invasion. And then, Paul Kagame became – he was major at the time – he was head of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

They called it the Rwandan Patriotic Army which was more accurate. So, he was the guy who led the war right through to 1990 and he is in power since.

GR: Mm-hmm.

RP: He does tolerate opposition, as we know. Like, we can get into that, but… So, he was a – and he is a person who you could say is responsible for many extra-territorial assassinations. Responsible for the destruction of the Eastern Congo. Invasion with a proxy army that’s going on right now that we can hear about occasionally in the media. He is the man who took power.

So, he is a real dictator. Unlike Guaido, he is a – Guaido is like a figurehead, kind of a, you know, puppet. Kagame is a – is more along the lines of Netanyahu if you want to – Netanyahu. Who, by the way, after he took power, about the first place he went in 1996, in October 1996, was to Israel.

And there is a famous photo of him meeting the prime minister of Israel who was Benjamin Netanyahu. In other words, you want to find somebody who is more like an ultra violent killer. It’s as simple as that. That is the description, the best description, of Paul Kagame. His best supporters were and are Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and the successive American presidents, right from – it was obvious that the Americans were behind the RPF from the beginning, you know?

One of the starting points for my book, and not from my work on this thing, was when I found – I read – I was reading a book by Boutros-Ghali. Boutros- Ghali was the Secretary General of the UN at the time. And he had a quote there and he said, “The Rwandan Genocide was 100 percent American responsibility.” That was – he was removed from the UN about a year after – or so after that, basically by the Americans. Because they were having a total unipolar war – world at that time. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was the American – the American century lasted about 10 or 20 years, but that was a period where the Americans ruled the roost totally. They did not like people saying, ‘Hang on,’ — you know, ‘–you have to give – you have to respect rules’ and all that.

But Boutros-Ghali had said that. And the reason he said it – I interviewed him twice, by the way for the book. And he said – and I said, ‘Well, why is it that you can say that?’ and he said, ‘Americans, with the help of the British, did everything they could to prevent the UN from creating – from establishing peace in Rwanda.’ And it was because the Americans wanted a decisive, unequivocal victory of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. It did not want to apply – the Americans did not want to apply the Arusha Accord, which was a power-sharing agreement which was the under – which was what Dallaire was sent there to apply, which he of course didn’t apply. That’s another issue.

So, I mean, that is one of the things that – one of my departure points on this book was Boutros-Ghali saying that, but why? And so, how did that not work? And that’s the conclusion I came to.

Now the use of the word “genocide,” people can use it. I actually think it doesn’t help understand. It doesn’t mean that all these killings happened – they did happen. And not only the way people say it. In other words, not only the so-called Hutu militias, but the RPF, the Rwandan Patriotic Front did a lot of massacring as some books, some recent books – and I can talk about them later – have gotten into great detail about that.

What is important is that using the word “genocide” is that, for instance, Rwanda and the Western world, mark the anniversary of that tragedy on the 7^th of April.

GR: Yeah.

RP: Yeah, okay.

GR: If you just joined us, you’re listening to the Global Research News Hour. My name is Michael Welch and I’m in a conversation with the writer, translator, and publisher Robin Philpot on his book “Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa: From Tragedy to Useful Imperial Fiction.” Just to go back, I mean you were talking about Roméo Dallaire earlier —

RP: Mm-hmm.

GR: — the force commander of UNAMIR. And basically, I mean he’s not the only  Canadian that’s involved in this. There is also Louise Arbour, the Canadian prosecutor. There is the Canadian General Maurice Baril. A Canadian ambassador, Raymond Chrétien. I think they have more involvement in this – in, you know, settling affairs one way or the other than, I don’t know, anything that I can recall since.

RP: Mm-hmm.

GR: Could you explain, you know, a little bit more about how I guess the United States is using Canada in this situation? Because I suspect it’s more than just, you know, the close kinship between Chrétien and Bill Clinton.

RP: Yeah. No, it’s an important point. I will get back to this question about the Peace Accords.

The United States, as I said, were – they were triumphant with the fall of the Soviet Union. One of their secretaries of state, I think it was Warren Christopher, was going around to all the countries where France – basically it was France’s area, France’s – the place that France that considered theirs, it had special relationships with African countries and said, ‘We don’t have any history of colonialism. And we will no longer put up with dictatorships and colonialism.’ They were basically aimed on taking control of what was considered French – where French – areas of of French influence. The British also were agreed with that [SIC], remember that’s West Africa, that’s The Congo, Cameroon, where large parts of West Africa that are French-speaking and had these long-standing relationship, sort of neo-colonial but it was France. And the Americans wanted in. They made it very clear.

And so, when this UNAMIR was set up, the United States did not want to have somebody from France or even perhaps from Belgium. They wanted a French-speaking general who was against France. From within Canada, that can be found in Ottawa. It’s as simple as that. You can find that in the military, in the judiciary, and in the diplomacy circles in the Canadian government.

So, that explains why Roméo Dallaire got appointed, because he didn’t arrive with a lot of skills in the area. He didn’t know where Africa was – where Rwanda was. He admits it in his book. And I think he was a total failure. You know, he said, ‘Well, I tried,’ but no, that’s not how it happened.

Louise Arbour, she got appointed by Madeleine Albright, who then got in touch then with the Canadian government was – they got in touch with the Canadian government. In other words, she got vetted by Madeleine Albright who was Secretary of State in the United States before – they didn’t do it along diplomatic circles, they didn’t get in touch with Canada and said, ‘Have you got a judge you can –’ or ‘– a prosecutor you can propose,’ it was the other way around. They started identifying – they wanted to have a French-speaking judge or person who was not necessarily in France.

Then Maurice Baril was working in the Peacekeeping Association and it – this is one thing that I also got from Boutros-Ghali, that he was – they were operating basically according to the Pentagon – what the Pentagon wanted. Maurice Baril was the one who was giving – communicating with Roméo Dallaire.

Raymond Chrétien got appointed when there was the invasion of – he was the man brought in to try and find a solution after – there was huge refugee camps in Eastern Congo. And the Rwandan government, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the government, was bombing the camps. And the refugees were being massacred and they had to flee. So, he was brought in to try and find a solution between the Congo – at the time it was called Zaire – and Rwanda. And he was a – it was a failure.

I interviewed the man and he and Baril were sort – Baril, they managed to set up an intervention force. It was going to be led by Maurice Baril. Maurice Baril flew over the area. He said the refugees were safe. And this forced invention the UN was setting up was stillborn. This was the Fall of 1996. Anybody who you spoke to, who lived there, said that sacrifice, hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who had to flee to the West of Congo and their stories of people, how they walked around the Congo. We published a book, in fact, by one man whose family walked across the Congo on foot. They were being chased by the Rwandan army. That is going on up to now with – at the – with actions by the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

If you’ll allow me to just go back on one thing about the – when the 6^th of April, this the date, the most important date, not the 7^th, the 6^th of April, the President of Rwanda flew back from peace discussions, peace talks in Dar es Salaam with the President of Burundi. Their plane was shot down on the evening of April 6^th. In the plane there were – there was Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army and other top military leaders. The Rwandan state was decapitated with that. And that meant the end of the peace agreement.

Now to this day, although everybody knows it was the RPF, and it was ordered by Kagame, his close associates who have fled in the past were there when they planned his assassination. But to this day, there has never been an independent inquiry into it. And people got – they keep a kind of artistic vagueness about it all, you know —

GR: Well, you talked – you talked in the third part of it, you talked about the basically use of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as, you know, basically a kangaroo court, you know, because it was very not even-handed and so on. I mean, could you elaborate on the use of the international criminal justice as what you call “a battering ram”?

RP: Yeah. I wasn’t the one calling it a battering ram, by the way. But no, they created this court, which – as an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda and they created one for Yugoslavia as well. They gave all the power to the prosecutor. It was – it actually – there is a term, but it’s used as a battering ram, as that was one of their US ambassadors for human rights and international tribunals who said – who described how he managed to organize the tribunal so that it would be a battering ram in the advancement of US and NATO interests. He said that. David Scheffer was his name and he was one of the American appointees, ambassador-at-large for it.

That’s what it was. And the best example is that they gave themselves a one-year period when the crimes had to be committed that they were going to examine. But they only indicted one side of the – they did not, nobody in the RPF was indicted, nobody. And you know, nobody was – when they actually started discovering who shot down the plane, and it was Kagame and his others – his henchmen, the people with him, they started discovering that Louise Arbour put an end to that investigation.

In other words, she was in ‘97 if I’m not mistaken. She was the one in charge. And they started finding out this crime was committed on the 6^th of April. And yet, it was excluded from the perview of the – by Louise Arbour herself. And so, she is – so, the tribunal – and, you know, the interesting thing – well, I mean, her successor was Carla Del Ponte. And she said, if it’s true that the RPF shot down the plane on the 6^th of April, then the history of the Rwandan genocide has to be rewritten. But of course, she got moved out, she got removed from that, so…

GR: Okay. We’ve only got a couple of minutes left. But I just wanted to say, first of all, in the middle chapter —

RP: Yeah.

GR: — you highlighted four books, one from the United States, one from Canada, another novel from Quebec, and another report from Belgium and they all seem to have that same tendency to highlight the remnants of literary thinking going back to Joseph Conrad and his article – his novel. But also, you – basically you say that when you look at this monstrous deception and what it led to, you find that the RPF in Rwanda is in the glove of the US and it’s propelling towards Congo. So, basically they’ve turned it into kind of like another Israel and Middle East, as you said, or post-coup Ukraine against Russia all while pushing back against France. So, in the last two minutes or so, is there any highlights that you want to focus on – you know, conclude with to, you know, anything you haven’t gotten into in enough detail.

RP: Well, yeah, yeah. What I would say is that by reduce – by not looking at why this happened – and those four books help you show that it  started with racist colonial mentality, of people who comment on these events on – and write about it, that they will reduce it to a question of Africans fighting among themselves and how brutal and bloodthirsty they are. That is what you read.

And if you don’t go and say, now why did this happen? How can a — not a rag-tag – a fist of the army be developed and armed and financed and invade a country, and then the powers that be come along and say, ‘Okay, you have to negotiate.’ Force the Rwandan government into a corner where they can’t stand up. Create a conditions where you also know that there is a history of conflict among – in the population of Rwanda. And basically you add fuel to the fire. You fuel that conflict because of your own interests and that is what was going on.

So, we’ve been through in the last week or so an outpouring of propaganda about what happened there. But none of it, as far as I can see, actually tries to understand what really happened and why and who was involved.

Right now, we want – we do not want, you know, what’s going on in Gaza right now. Everybody sees it now, that if the Americans were backing Israel who are killing and killing and killing. You don’t want that in 20 years, 30 years to say, well, this was just violent Arabs and jihadists who were fighting against the vulnerable Israeli population who have been through a holocaust. You know, like that’s basically what’s happened here. But you know, if people want to understand what happened, you’ve got to start looking. And that is not what our media has done in the last week or two.

---

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

1. Liuetenant- General (Ret) Roméo Dallaire (2003), p 515, ‘Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda’, Vintage Canada
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
3. George Monbiot (June 13, 2011), ‘Left and libertarian right cohabit in the weird world of the genocide belittlers’, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/13/left-and-libertarian-right

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to unfold, the foreign funding and backing for the current destabilization becomes more apparent.

Now geopolitical analysts across the board analyze the roots of the situation, and whether this conflict is sowing the seeds of the next major war.

That major war was part of our analysis eight years ago in the immediate wake of the Euromaidan.

First published by Global Research on March 4, 2014

 

***

This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.

In late 2004, protests erupted after Viktor Yanukovych won the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential election, with protestors claiming that the vote had been rigged. The protests forced a revote, in which Yanukovych’s rival, Viktor Yuschenko, was elected president. This movement, dubbed the Orange Revolution for the orange ribbons and clothing sported by its members, was one of a series of so-called colour revolutions which swept the former Soviet Republics in the last decade.

The two events are not unrelated. As The Guardian noted at the time of the protests:

“[…]the campaign [Orange Revolution] is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.[…]The Democratic parrty’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s open society institute.”

So it is not without reason that seasoned political observers looked for outside connections to the recent protests in Ukraine that has, in an almost exact repeat of the 2004 protests, sought to overthrow the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych in order to install Viktor Yuschenko’s political allies. Those connections have not been difficult to find.

Audio of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland apparently dictating who the US wanted “in” and “out” of the supposedly grassroots-supported interim government only came as a surprise to those who did not believe Washington or its allies in the Washington Consensus were actively involved with the ongoing protests in the country. As did the revelation of her admission last December that the US had already pumped $5 billion into the funding of the Ukrainian opposition.

As did the appearance of confirmed terrorist supporter John McCain at a rally with the leader of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda party leader. As did the appointment of a central banker as the interim Prime Minister and his immediate announcement that the country was in talks with the US, EU, and IMF for emergency loans. As did the appearance of a slick new viral propaganda video in English promoting the supposedly grassroots uprising which was immediately exposed as finding its “inspiration” in Council on Foreign Relations member Larry Diamond, who has worked closely with the same N.E.D. and USAID that were linked to the 2004 Orange Revolution.

In the latest startling revelation, Pando.com has published documents implicating the Omidyar Network in the funding of the current Ukrainian protest movement. The Omidyar Network is the NGO of billionaire Ebay co-founder Pierre Omidyar, who recently set up “First Look” as an outlet for (among others) Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras to selectively publish some of the Snowden document archive, 99% of which continues to be withheld from the public.

As geopolitical analysts from across the board explain, the Ukrainian coup has been deliberately provoked by outside agents to promote a combination of US, EU, NATO and IMF interests.

Perhaps more worrying than the interference itself are its potential implications. As Russia’s every move is now being scrutinized for a possible military response to the ongoing crisis, the specter of a larger military operation now hangs over Eastern Europe. Part of the decade-long encirclement of Russia by NATO and deliberate provocations on Russia’s doorstep, this process of brinksmanship now threatens to plunge the region into a war the consequences of which cannot be foreseen, let alone contained.

As supposedly “progressive” outlets once again scramble to throw their support behind the billionaire oligarchs and NGOs that have helped to destabilize the country, and as neocons unite with neoliberals in their agenda to carve up Ukraine for western interests, it remains to be seen what genuine alternative outlets will stand up against this blatant interference and stand up for the principle that it is up to the Ukrainian people, and no one else, to decide what happens in their country.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

**

Yves Engler is an author, activist and Canadian Foreign Policy critic. He recently wrote with co-author Owen Schalk the book Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy. His book tour can be found at this website:

Book Tour: Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy – Yves Engler

The following is an interview we recorded with him on the afternoon of April 3, 2024  regarding the role of Canada within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO,) and the result of pulling out as opposed to remaining in as the “voice of reason” at the table.

Global Research: We start the program by considering Canada’s role in it. On this question we talked to Yves Engler the activist, author and Canadian Foreign Policy critic. I asked him why forming a defensive military alliance was any worse than joining it in the field as in World War 2.

Yves Engler: Well, concretely, if you go back to the founding of NATO, NATO led Canada into sending troops to Europe to help block indigenous communism and socialism. So, to basically blunt the Left in Western Europe which was very strong at the end of World War II. Communists would have won in Italy the first election if the Americans hadn’t intervened. They had 30 percent of the vote in France and a bunch of the ministers in the government. Kind of similar dynamic in Greece. And so, what NATO was initially conceived as, was as a tool to blunt the Left. It was a perception that communism was the way of the future. And Lester Pearson, who was then Canada’s Foreign Minister around the creation of NATO, he was open about this, even in the House of Commons. I’ve quoted his speech many times where he actually says – he said that the communists were taking over all elements of society including the kindergartens, and we needed NATO to blunt that. So, that was an element. And we stationed thousands of troops in Western Europe and obviously many tens of thousands of US troops were stationed in Western Europe partly as part of that process.

The other part of the process was it was about bringing the decolonizing – the colonial powers were weakened during World War II. And the US was in ascendance and it was about bringing the geopolitical order under a US-led umbrella and to sort of have a – let’s call it a fake decolonization where the decolonization, to the extent that it happened would, you know, be with US dominance.

But concretely, we began providing all kinds of weapons to the colonial powers in the 1950s as they were suppressing independence movements in, you know, the Kikuyu in Kenya, in The Congo, obviously the French in Algeria, that was the most egregious example when it was the 400,000 French troops in Algeria, Canada was giving – giving, not selling – giving bullets and the like to the French, knowing full well where the French were using those weapons.

So, that formal alliance that Canada was – three countries, Canada, the US, and Britain – were the three countries that initiated the initial secret talks to form NATO. Some people say NATO was a Canadian idea. That basically brought Canada into a deepening alliance around colonialism, protecting the elite structure within Western Europe. And that’s the history of it. And then you, you know, fast forward into today and NATO is a tool that has been used to justify Canada bombing Yugoslavia, you know, in the late 1990s, bombing Libya in 2011. Stationing troops on Russia’s border. It is used to justify expanding military spending. It’s not the only tool or alliance, but it is a central one in justifying a more militaristic, Washington-centred Canadian foreign policy.

GR: Does this membership in NATO then curtail Canadian sovereignty in any way?

YE: I mean, it doesn’t formally. But it does, it’s a – I would see it more as a tool in the hands of the pro-imperialist, pro-militarist elements of Canadian society. And it regularly gets brought up as that, you know, we’re part of this alliance, we have to support the alliance, we have to send troops to Russia’s border. We’re part of the alliance, the alliance is getting ready to bomb Libya, we have to participate. That’s kind of how it’s used.

Most instances – because you know, they frame it as a defensive alliance and it’s not, of course – they – and you know, if there is a NATO member that is attacked, we are technically responsible to defend that member. Now how you defend that member is up for discussion. Do you send one troop? Do you send 10,000 troops? There’s all kinds of ways in which you could parse that out. But in the practical world where NATO is not a defensive alliance, where it’s a belligerent alliance in the real world, the contributions – you know, Canada didn’t need to lead the bombing of Libya in 2011. Some NATO members didn’t participate in the bombing of – and the war, not just bombing, we had special forces and naval vessels that were part of that war. They didn’t even participate.

So, it doesn’t – you know, in a sense, I wouldn’t emphasize this idea that it impinges on Canadian sovereignty. In fact, I would say that NORAD in many ways is a more clear-cut impingement on sovereignty than NATO is. But in practical reality, NATO becomes, I would say undercuts the popular ethos that is somewhat ambivalent toward military spending and ambivalent towards joining US-led wars which I think the Canadian public is somewhat ambivalent towards both of those things. And NATO basically strengthens the hands of those who, you know, want more participation. So, to call it undercut – undermining sovereignty, I don’t know if I would use that language exactly. But certainly, it undercuts a ambiguousness or – sorry, ambivalenceness towards militarism and US imperialism.

GR: You mentioned earlier that this NATO was basically put down the Left as it started to emerge following 1945. But the NDP, has it been consistently supportive of this NATO? How do you – you know, because that’s a party of the Left in Canada. So, how —

YE: Yeah.

GR: — do you kind of string those two things together?

YE: The CCF was, before – immediately, the CCF leadership backed NATO. Now the CCF was the predecessor to the NDP. And it took a pro-NATO position. It actually subverted internal democracy in – there was a convention coming up in 1950 and they – the leadership came out in favour before allowing members to have that discussion. And for years, more than a decade, two decades almost, NATO was the most contentious issue at CCF and then later NDP conventions. Where the sort of activist base, peace-minded base of the party, increasingly pushed the Canada-out-of-NATO position. And then, they finally won that in the 1966 – I believe it was – convention. The party had a Canada-out-of-NATO position for about 20 years. And then, when Ed Broadbent in 1987 looked like he had a real shot at becoming prime minister, the media started really kind of raising this Canada-out-of-NATO policy of the NDP and sort of made like an issue of the matter. And Broadbent basically, without ever passing it at a convention, just kind of like was able to toss out this policy and re-wrote the policy to say that basically the party didn’t have a Canada-NATO position. It was never formally withdrawn and there was never a vote. So, you know, the NDP voted for the bombing of Libya in 2011, same thing with Yugoslavia. Even Svend Robinson, who is certainly the most left-wing foreign affairs critic in NDP history, he even went on – he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia for the first part. He changed his course I think like 40 or 50 days into the bombing campaign, but he initially endorses it. So, the NDP has been pro-NATO.

Now the, you know, big factions of the sort of social democratic world within Western Europe have also been pro-NATO. And so, it was, you know, sort of anti-communist, you know, in the sense of the French Communist Party or the Italian Communist Party in the 1940s and 1950s. But yeah, so, you know, I don’t think that that’s – there’s no necessary contradiction between the NDP/CCF being supportive of NATO, and NATO having this element of its history. It’s no longer important to the alliance today, but an element of its history of having been a tool of weakening the Western European Left or more specifically the Western European communist movement.

GR: Okay. Like, let’s suppose you’re the Prime Minister for a second and, you know, you have the opportunity to take us out of NATO, but you got to consider that a lot of the people who might support that like want NATO completely gone, not just, ‘We’re out of it.’ Because, if we’re out of it, then you know, NATO is still going to carry on doing what they’re doing, except how much influence will we have as an independent nation. At least in NATO, within NATO we can sit at the table and say, ‘Well, okay, let’s break up NATO. But in the meantime, you know, I’m going to stay there.’ You know what I’m saying? It’s like, having an influence at the table, is that, you know basically – like even to the – you might be able to moderate or eliminate the use of nuclear weapons within the house, so to speak. So, how —

YE: Yeah, it —

GR: — how do you respond to that?

YE: Well, it was the other way around, in fact. On the nuclear weapons question is a good one on that front, because the reason why the Canadian government has been so opposed to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which – I forget the exact number now – but I think it’s like a 130 countries have signed or more than 130 countries have endorsed it and it came into operation after 50 countries formally endorsed it and that was about two years ago. I’m not sure what the number is up to now, it’s probably – I think it’s like 60 or 60-something. It’s an effort to abolish nuclear weapons. A general assembly votes, it’s more than two thirds of countries in the world support these votes. And the Canadian government, which we of course don’t have nuclear weapons. And I think, you know, even Canada outside of NATO may still not take up the nuclear question like I would like to see it.

But the major obstacle – and the Canadian officials have even stated this – that we can’t endorse the bid to abolish nuclear weapons because we are a part of an alliance where nuclear weapons are part of the military strategy. NATO has a working group on nuclear weapons that, you know, incorporates the use of nuclear weapons as part of their military strategies. If the Canadian government withdrew from NATO, its margin for maneuver on taking, you know, clear anti-nuclear policies which they claim to support, right? The Trudeau government claims to support abolishing nuclear weapons. But yet, they won’t actually sign onto an international treaty that’s trying to do that. So, NATO becomes an obstacle to that kind of thing.

Now the more general question – I mean, you know, who do we send into NATO? You know, it’s Canadian generals and Canadian military figures, right? These are not, you know, peace activists who are going in and making the case for demilitarization. These are military officials and some of them are, you know, global affairs diplomats.

A large part is, you know, military officials. And it’s a body for them to organize themselves collectively, internationally. It’s a body for them to, you know, ramp themselves up really, in terms of taking ever more militaristic positions. No, I don’t think that there is any sort of sensible position that is like, ‘Let’s keep, you know, continue to have a seat at the table to make the case against militarism. If Canada was to withdraw from NATO, that would have massive reverberations on the alliance. I mean, thinking you know, if in a short-term perspective, if Canada tried to do that, you had some sort of left-wing government try to do that, the Americans would try to overthrow the Canadian government. I mean, it would be – the implications would be so significant with that.

Now if it was done as part of a process of building and rebuilding and to work for us – that would not just be within Canada, that would be, you know, within all the NATO countries. For the most part, those anti-war movements have been fairly weak. I mean, the recent response to the destruction of Gaza has rekindled some anti-war organization and mobilization. But if you go back six months, we were in a very weak point. If we build this anti-NATO position, I know, you know, there’s a big NATO summit in Washington D.C. in July and a big protest planned in the US against that. And so, you know, if we build – put on the political agenda Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Poland, wherever that, you know, out-of-NATO kind of position. You know, if Canada, you know, let’s say ten years down the road, five years down the road, whereas you know, the movement is building and Canada withdraws and that can help spur the forces within Poland and Germany and France calling for withdrawal.

That, to me, is the kind of realistic scenario which Canada-out-of-NATO would play out and it could have quite a, you know, beneficial effect on unravelling the whole alliance, even though of course it only just be one country withdrawn.

GR: Before you go, is there anything you want to say to tell listeners about your recent book, co-written with Owen Schalk called “Canada’s Fight Against Democracy”?

YE: No, it’s just – it’s a – details 20-plus coups that Canada has been involved with. You know, half of those are sort of passively supportive, like against Mosaddegh in Iran or Arbenz in Guatemala. And then, other examples are more active. The most clear-cut example, of course, is against the Aristide in the Haitian government in 2004, but also against Allende in Chile and Lumumba and Kwame Nkrumah and the like. And it’s a book that I think, you know, it’s some history that is important history, but it also tells us a lot about this whole business about foreign interference that we’re – there’s a huge storm about foreign interference. And we don’t really talk about Canada’s interference abroad and that book, I think, may question some of this whole concern about foreign interference. And then, it also, it I think helps to understand whether these – you know, we’re at conflict with China and Russia and Iran and they say it’s because those are authoritarian countries and we believe in democracy. And you say, ‘Well, we’ve been involved with trying to overthrow 20 different governments. Are we really concerned about democracy?’ So, it makes you – I think helps understand that these conflicts with China and Russia and Iran maybe are about something else besides just the question of democracy versus authoritarianism. So, I think the book, you know, helps people make sense of some of the current foreign policy, but it’s also, I think, just an important history.

I just did a few events in Southern Ontario. There’s a couple upcoming events in Kingston, in Saskatoon. And then, I’m going to be doing events out in Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and then throughout the prairies in early and mid-June. So, anyone listening you can check out my website for upcoming information on the events.

GR: Okay. Always a pleasure having you on. Thank you very much for appearing on the show, Yves.

YE: Thank you.

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

[This interview was conducted in 2010.]

***

Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization joins us to discuss Argentina’s status in the economic new world order and how that country has served as a testing ground for the neoliberal economic policies that have ravaged countries around the globe and which are being readied for the collapsing economies of the industrialized first world.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The political West and its favorite puppet regime in Kiev keep faking “diplomatic efforts” to supposedly “end the war”.

If you just landed on this planet for the first time, you might actually believe such reverie.

In reality, it was Russia that spent (or better said, wasted) well over 30 years trying to build better relations with the political West. However, leaked data unequivocally confirmed that the United States and NATO planned to escalate the situation in Europe to what we’re seeing now. Russia’s red lines were not to be respected in any way.

On the contrary, the goalposts kept moving eastward, intentionally making it impossible for Moscow to resolve anything through talks anymore.

This is precisely why the Eurasian giant was forced to use its massive military power to stop further NATO aggression in Europe.

And what did the belligerent alliance do “in response”? Well, it nearly caused WW3 with its (c)overt involvement in Ukraine, stopping for a short while only due to the simple fact that Russia would easily obliterate any major NATO task force foolish enough to enter Ukraine.

And while the situation on the frontlines keeps deteriorating for the Neo-Nazi junta, the political West needs something to justify its “sudden change of heart” regarding potential negotiations. And that something is yet another Swiss-hosted “peace summit”.

The details are still being worked on with Bern, but the Swiss government already confirmed the “peace summit” will take place. However, as per usual, there’s a “tiny, barely important” caveat – once again, the supposed “negotiations” will not include any Russian representatives.

“Switzerland’s government said Wednesday it will host a high-level international conference in June to help chart a path toward peace in Ukraine after more than two years of war, in hopes that Russia might join in the peace process one day,” the Associated Press reported about the announcement.

The (geo)political reality show (because it’s extremely difficult to describe it in any other way) is planned to take place on June 15-16 at the lakeside Bu‌rgenstock resort near Lucern. To give the event more publicity and fake more “legitimacy”, the Swiss government is expected to invite delegations from more than 100 countries. All this is in line with the joint plan proposed by the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky and Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis. The framework has been worked on for months and the best they could do is to invite half of the countries on the planet, or in other words, everyone except the one (and perhaps the only) country that actually matters – Russia. Even US President Joe Biden might be there, as he’s expected to attend the G7 summit in Italy on June 13-15.

“At its meeting today, the Federal Council took note of the results to date and discussed the next steps. There is currently sufficient international support for a high-level conference to launch the peace process,” the Swiss government confirmed on April 10.

Interestingly, even Bern admitted that “there remain some unknowns ahead of the conference” and that “in view of Switzerland’s long-standing diplomatic tradition and the encouraging feedback received during the exploratory phase, it considers it its responsibility to contribute to the peace process in Ukraine”. This would surely be commendable – if Switzerland was a truly neutral country, which is simply not the case (and hasn’t been for quite some time).

Bern’s actual foreign policy is firmly in line with that of the political West, which is why it joined the illegal (albeit futile and even self-defeating) sanctions warfare against Moscow. To say nothing of the futility of having a supposed “peace summit” without the participation of the other side in this NATO-orchestrated proxy conflict.

What all this will almost certainly boil down to is giving Zelensky yet another platform to present the fantasies from his much-touted “10-point peace plan” that effectively amounts to Russia’s unconditional capitulation, as it includes the “return of Crimea”.

Thus, the chances of having Moscow accept this are equal to the Neo-Nazi junta’s prospects of conquering Vladivostok.

And even in the (impossible) case that Russia might decide to talk about this ludicrous plan, it would still need to be present at the “peace summit” it was never invited to.

For all of human history, when two sides are in a conflict and one wants to initiate peace talks (basic logic and common sense imply it’s usually the one that’s not exactly winning the war), the actual negotiations require both warring sides to be present.

However, the era of the so-called post-truth also seems to be a time of “post-logic”, as the Kiev regime keeps insisting on “peace summits” without Russia.

On the other hand, Moscow recently presented its own view that is much more in line with the situation on the ground. Namely, the Kremlin’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya recently said that

“very soon, the only topic of all international meetings on Ukraine will be their unconditional surrender”.

It may not sound very diplomatic, but who could possibly blame Russia, especially given the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta is openly resorting to terrorist attacks targeting hundreds of Russian civilians. In addition, Nebenzya’s statement is far more realistic, as all battlefield data clearly shows that the Kiev regime forces are losing.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

In December 2019 when the Space Force was formed in the USA, President Trump called this a big moment and added that there are “going to be a lot of things happening in space. Because space is the world’s newest war-fighting domain.”

Mark Esper, US Secretary of Defense, added,

“Maintaining American dominance in that domain is now the mission of the United States Space Force.”

These statements have been regarded as official confirmation that the militarization of space has started.

It is now generally agreed that billions of dollars are being spent on this annually with the USA leading, China and Russia following in the next two places and several other countries too joining the dangerous race.

Hence the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is being increasingly violated, taking advantage of its vagueness on some points.

As there are several meeting points in research for civilian and military uses, this is also used to avoid making steps towards militarization of space less obvious.

Some of the recent discussion points from the USA include reports of a classified contract being awarded to Elon Musk’s space company Space X to build an extensive network of spy satellites. This company already operates over half the active satellites orbiting earth, and its reach is getting bigger still.

A number of other US companies, established ones as well as ambitious start-ups, are also in the race to obtain lucrative contracts related to space militarization.

Hence these contracts can also become a driving force for space militarization, a new and expanding part of the military-industrial-political complex.

These include orders for space-based weapons, surveillance weapons, space vehicles and supersonic rockets. A big deal that has been talked about is called PWSA—Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture—a constellation of hundreds of satellites. There is also talk of Starlink, made up of several satellite constellations.

Karl Grossman, A US Professor who has been warning for long against this very serious, fast increasing danger, has stated, “The US is seeking to control space and from space dominate the earth below.”       

The growing extension of superpower rivalry for dominance of outer space can relate to economic, technological and military aspects.

Ultimately this may lead not only to new kinds of space pollution but in addition also to very big disasters.

The extent to which private corporations are being given a big role in the space race, particularly by the USA, makes a mockery of the great sense of responsibility and careful regulations needed in all developments relating to human activity in outer space.

Private corporations may act in entirely profit motivated narrow ways and in the process the wider responsibilities and concerns may see serious violations. 

Although direct space warfare has not taken place so far, militarization of space has been increasing at several levels to such an extent that the possibility of space warfare becoming a reality is now quite high.

Space warfare can take place in several forms. One object placed in space can attack, destroy, damage or disable another object placed in space by another country. A missile from earth can destroy a satellite of another country in space. Or a weapon from space can destroy a target on earth. One such hostile act is likely to lead to one or more hostile acts by the affected party (if the capacity for retaliation exists) and from here on the situation can escalate with unknown implications and results too frightening to comprehend.

These possibilities of warfare will increase as rival powers try to catch up with the present day dominance of space presence and technology by the USA. A review of space warfare possibilities published in the Scientific American by Lee Billings said,

“As China and Russia aggressively seek to challenge US superiority in space with ambitious military space programs of their own, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on earth.”

The biggest danger will no doubt come if nuclear weapons are also taken to space or used in space.

This is of course strongly prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty but still the risk exists.

 Over 90 per cent of countries of the world favor a strong demilitarization of space and this has already been reflected in several resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. But the veto power at the Security Council comes in the way of strong directions needed for this which are acceptable to big powers.

Dr. Michio Kaku, world renowned physicist has written,

“The weaponisation of space represents a real threat to the security of everyone on earth. …It will greatly accelerate a new arms race in space…”

In addition there is the increasingly serious problem of pollution of space and more prominently the earth’s orbit. 

The first aspect relates to space debris or space junk.

This can be in the form of dysfunctional satellites or the various junk contributed by them or in the process of launching them.

This junk has been increasing rapidly.

The number of debris reported to be under observation is around 18000 but the number of smaller debris is much higher.

The number of debris longer than 10 cm. is estimated to be around 34000, the debris of the length of 1-10 cm. is 900000 ( 0.9 million) while the number of debris smaller than 1 cm. is estimated to be around 128 million.

As even very small objects can result in serious collisions in space, the presence of the smaller debris cannot be ignored.

This number of space debris is set now to increase as never before as the number of satellites in earth’s orbit is entering a pace of unprecedented escalation. This will pose many problems for constructive use of satellites for development purposes by late entering developing countries, apart from increasing the danger of collisions.

The second aspect of space pollution is related to light pollution. This did not become a very serious issue till recently as long as the pace of sending satellites in space was within manageable limits but with the very rapid pace seen recently the situation is changing and the number of satellites in space particularly the lower orbit of earth are likely to multiply by several times within a decade, according to present projections. 

Some senior astronomers have said that astronomy as practiced so far will be jeopardized badly as it will become difficult to study the space and images as they have done so far due to this excessive light pollution. 

Clearly there is a very urgent need to check militarization of space and pollution of space but the unfortunate reality is that these problems appear to be getting worse in recent times.

On the positive side, networks for drawing attention to this increasing and very serious danger are also coming up. Karl Grossman (quoted above) teamed up with the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice as well as Citizens for Peace in Space to set up the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. This has 170 affiliates now. Such efforts will be increasingly needed as the dangers of space militarization increase.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Save the Earth NOW Campaign. His recent books include Man over Machine, Earth Without Borders, A Day in 2071, Protecting Earth for Children and Planet in Peril. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Journalists of wars prolonging U.S. and NATO nations media are providing cover for a monstrous genocidal crime against humanity by portraying the Israeli U.S. provisioned devastating bombing and air strikes on Israel’s military occupied Gaza Strip as ‘defensive war.’

“Israel can’t claim a right to defend itself from the people it oppresses and whose land it colonises,” UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, April 8, 2023.[1]

The successful Hamas guerrilla attack of October 7 was part of an ongoing many decades long Palestinian fight for freedom, and was so described by United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addressing the UN General Assembly on October 24  pointed out a second time that:

“The October 7 Hamas attack didn’t happen in a vacuum, The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”[2]

By international law, Israel is legally responsible for the well being of its captive, confined and illegally militarily occupied Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, illegally militarily occupied and entrapped since 1967 in what amounts to an outdoor prison. Western journalists, dutifully serving as accessories to genocide, never mention this as Israel’s American warplanes go on (‘like shooting ducks in a pond.’) destroying the homes and murdering tens of thousands of Gaza’s residents, of whom most are women and children. 

Under International Humanitarian Law, the occupying power must ensure the humane treatment of the population and provide for their basic needs, including food and medical care. Oct 30, 2023 GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949, Article 60 II. Responsibilities of the Occupying Power. page 189

Since October 7, Israel has blocked, food, water, electricity and fuel from entering Gaza, with the unholy desired effect of the present famine with children now dying of malnutrition.[3] This has been very rarely even mentioned in pro-Israel journalism.

Newscast time is almost entirely devoted to the hostages.

Hegemonic journalists are responsible for prolonging the genocide of their fellow human beings – almost half of them children — by delaying the world from putting an end to Israel’s American provisioned and supported slaughter of Palestinians through air strikes and famine.

How many more children will soon die because journalists working for the giant entertainment/news corporation conglomerates of the U.S.A.-led hegemonic colonialist West have for six months been underreporting this inhumane blockage of life sustaining aid, focusing its audiences attention instead on Israeli propaganda of mostly lies of horrendous atrocities*[4] during the Palestinian freedom fighters guerrilla attack on October 7, 2023, which Western journalists never fail to label a terrorist attack by Hamas repeating ‘which the U.S. and other nations have cited as a terrorist organisation.’ 

---

*U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on  CSpan, YouTube, 12:19 PM · Oct 31, 2023, 3.4M  Views

---

On family attacked by Hamas:

“The father’s eye gouged out, the mother’s breast cut off, the girl’s foot amputated, the boy’s fingers cut off before they were executed, and then their executioners sat down and had a meal. That is what this society is dealing with.” 

One Chris Christie tweeted in parody, “Is this before or after they beheaded 40 babies?”[Viewed in ‘Comments’ on Blinken’s…] 

If the world had peace-seeking journalists working for honest media – they could remind Israelis that Hebrew terrorist organisations like the Irgun headed by Menachem Begin used terror to conquer Palestinian lands in 1948. 

Excerpt of a Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews.

“Attack on Arab Village [5]

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ” 240 men, women, and children ” and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicised it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.” 

Most importantly, todays robot-like  journalists (many of who must be aware of their perfidious role in working for permanent war investor controlled Western media conglomerates), avoid all mention that Hamas and other Palestinian guerrilla groups are fighting against Israel’s generations long oppressive, often murderous, illegal military occupation of Palestinian land and illegal 600,000 settler colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Western ‘news’ media coverage audiences over these last six months have been subjected to listening, reading and watching Israeli government leaders and the families of hostages interviewed with the obvious intention of seeking to justify the horrific and massive genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinian population of Gaza by Israel and America, which has reportedly taken the lives of 33,360 (as of April 9) fellow human beings of these journalists, journalists, who in their work are cooperating with the perpetrators of genocide. It can be assumed that many of these corporate journalists realise this, but need to keep their job. And their ‘job’ is to keep the focus on hostages, and away from the annihilation ongoing in Gaza. 

Worldwide reaching colonialist media journalism will not report the truth that Israel admits Apache helicopters fired on their own civilians running from the Supernova music festival – even when Tel Aviv Ynet reports it to Israelis.[6]

Western media features a readiness to re-examine 7 October long after those events took place.

Each and every time Western media conglomerates consider it necessary to report the number of thousands killed in Gaza, its journalists repeat words to the effect that this is “a response to October 7 terror attack by Hamas — considered a terrorist group by the United States and European Union.”

However, during public hearings at the International Court of Justice on Palestinian representatives’ accusation that Israel is creating a permanent and illegal occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, China argued that Palestinians have the right to engage in “armed struggle” against Israel “in pursuit of the right to self-determination.”  [The Times of Israel, Feb. 22, 2024]

A single publication of something ‘uncomfortable to U.S.’

NATO member Turkey’s President Erdogan backs Hamas, calls Netanyahu’s Israel government ‘today’s Nazis’ [New York Post, March 9, 2024]

Turkey’s Erdogan says Hamas is not terrorist organisation, … [Reuters, October 25, 2023]

January 1, tens of thousands of Turks poured on to the streets of Istanbul, chanting “Murderer Israel, get out of Palestine”. [BBC]

Simply not reporting reality is the most major crime in Western entertainment/news conglomerate journalism in hiding up to 90% of reality. Reporting, for example, as infrequently as possible, the reality of the immense and intense suffering of the Palestinians, which is the motive for the very existence of the Hamas militant group.

For more than half a century, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip has resulted in systematic human rights violations against Palestinians living there. Israel maintains an illegal air, sea and land blockade on Gaza and maintains a so-called “access-restricted area” or buffer zone within Gaza. These have cut off more than 2 million Palestinians from other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the outside world. [Amnesty International on its website reported back in 2017] [7] 

Under Reporting Israeli Killing of Palestinians 

This writer found noticeable that during much of December and January, many news hours began simply covering other world and local events to the exclusion of any or little mention of the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza. Not reporting the bombing, the air strikes, the continuing day by day devastation, the dying and the dead, the agony, the constant burials, the amputations, pain and despair. Instead, diverting public attention to other places in the world, except for an occasional reference to the hostages, Has this type of non-reporting of what is obviously genocide not greatly lengthened the time it is taking for world outrage to reach a point of some kind of intervention to halt the American provisioned maniacal genocide reflecting years of Israeli hate?

Not Defending From Hamas – “Complete Siege” of Gaza’s Palestinians From the Beginning

Right away, on October 9, Israel’s defence minister announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, describing the Palestinian fighters who attacked Israel over the weekend as “human animals.” “We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza,” Gallant said. “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.” [Oct. 9, 2023 HuffPost]

Once Reported – Thereafter Made to be Forgotten

‘Erase Gaza’: War Unleashes Incendiary Rhetoric in Israel

WEBNov 15, 2023 · “Erase Gaza. Don’t leave a single person there,” Yair Golan an Israeli politician and senior military officer, said in an interview with Channel 14 on Oct. 15. New York Times Nov. 15, 2023

Shall one attribute the massive indifference and some good deal of enthusiasm of the Israeli citizenry shown toward the genocidally insane bombing of thousands of Palestinian children to death in their homes and the maiming even more thousands, 

in part to word for word belief in their sacred Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. (which also forms the beginning of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).  Seems agood amount of enthusiasm must be based on genocidal commands in the Bible, which have gone uncommented upon or even covered by our Western obligated journalists even though mass killing has been called for by a number of rabbis.

Genesis 15:18

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”

Deuteronomy 2:16 

“However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite” 

Joshua 6:21

“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”[8]

Once Reported – Thereafter Made to be Forgotten?

Netanyahu’s references to violent biblical passages raise alarm among critics [Published November 7, 2023, NPR]

The passage from 1 Samuel 1 15:3 referenced,“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

World Remains Ignorant of What Israelis Well Know of the Indescribable Horror It’s Military is Creating

APRIL 8, 2024, Times of Israel, “Radical Israeli rabbis come under fire amid settler violence” [9]

The King’s Torah, a 2009 book by firebrand rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, is perhaps one of the most provocative texts.

It quotes religious sages as permitting, under certain conditions, the killing of non-Jews, including babies, “if there is a good chance they will grow up to be like their evil parents.” The book says “thou shalt not murder” does not necessarily apply to non-Jewish victims.

Its authors have said it is meant to be seen as religious theory and not a guidebook. The book has been endorsed by other rabbis, among them Rabbi Dov Lior, a longtime symbol of religious and nationalist extremism, and US-born Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, who heads a yeshiva in the hard-line West Bank settlement of Yitzhar.

Critics blame Ginsburgh’s writings — including a pamphlet that praises Baruch Goldstein, a settler who killed 29 Muslim worshippers at a West Bank shrine in 1994 — for fuelling the attacks by extremist Jews against Palestinian property, mosques and churches.

Rabbi Dov Lior, a national- religious leader and the chief rabbi of Kiryat Arba and Hebron, published a letter saying that Jewish law permits destroying the entire Gaza Strip[Jerusalem Post, July 23, 2014]

Media Falsified ‘Search for Peace in the Holy Land 

For seventy-five years, the powerful media of the ‘Colonial Powers renamed ‘Free World’ and finally ‘the International Community of Nations’ have kept up  a murderously deceitful pretence of trying to bring peace to Palestine and the oil rich Middle East.  A quick glance at the provisions of the 1946 proposed UN partition that were fully expected and obviously intended to incite violence and create deadly conflict, permanent hostilities, destabilisation and facilitate Western imperialist penetration, exposes this pretending to search for a peace which that financial element that rules the United States and Wall St. has never wanted.

75 years of pro-Israel journalism for the same U.S. war investing business elite that once heavily invested in Hitler, was itself anti-Semitic in outlook, coldly indifferent and even complicit during the Holocaust its investments had made possible. 

Colonialist Media Silence on Horrible Injustice Perpetrated in 1948 with Anglo-American Backing

Palestinians were forced off their lands or fled en masse from deadly Jewish attacks during the civil war ignited intentionally by the announcement of a never meant to be implemented Partition Plan forced through a yet tiny United Nations by the United States that would eventually result in a Jewish population of 630,000 militarily occupying 77% of what had been British misgoverned Palestine, containing an Arab population of 1,970,000. This injustice of making refugees of so many Arab Palestinians whose homes and orchards were seized by Jews, is the basis for 75 years of massive bloodshed. 

Genocide Enablers’: Gaza And The Corporate Media MediaLens, 5th April 2024

‘We have had genocides captured by video feed day by day.

‘We have IDF forces standing with their thumbs up as they blow up universities, mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings—it’s unbelievable. We have members of the Israeli cabinet preaching hate.

‘We’ve seen these religious nationalist extremist rabbis talk about killing all the people in Gaza. “And do you mean the children?” the Rabbi is asked. “Yes, the children. They can grow up to be terrorists.”’

Australian writer Caitlin Johnstone wrote this week:

‘Israel has ended its assault on the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, because there is nothing left to assault. The facility — the largest medical complex in Gaza where hundreds of civilians had been sheltering — is now an empty, unusable, burnt-out husk. Witnesses report hundreds of corpses in and around the complex, with video footage showing human body parts protruding from the earth and bodies with zip ties on their wrists.’

British Palestinian reconstructive surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah, who spent over a month treating patients at Al-Shifa and Al-Ahli Baptist hospitals in Gaza, 

‘I blame the Western journalists, who perpetuated the narrative that militarised the [Al-Shifa] hospital as a justifiable and an acceptable target to the Israelis. These genocide enablers, these Western journalists, from the very beginning, peddled these stories that the Israelis were feeding them about Shifa being on top of this massive complex of a command-and-control center. And their job was to enable the genocide to take place.

Western Media Journalists Avoid Mention of IDF Videos Showing Israeli soldiers Laughing as Universities, Mosques, Hospitals, and Apartment Buildings Are Blown Up

As hegemonic news media makes sure this macabre inhuman slaughter goes on and on, we can recall what hero publisher of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, cried out during the barbaric U.S.UK led war on Iraq. Assange suggested we ask ourselves:

– “of the complicit media, (which is the majority of the mainstream press), what is the average death child count that could be attributed to each journalist?”

When we understand that wars come about and are continued as a result of lies peddled to the British public and the American public and the publics all over Europe and other countries then who are the war criminals?

“Journalists Are War Criminals!”

“It is not just leaders, it is not just soldiers, it is journalists; journalists are war criminals. …the reality that is constructed around us is constructed by liars, …if wars can be started by lies, truth can be started, peace can be started by truth. So go and get the truth, and we’ll spread it all over the world.” [War By Media: “Journalists Are War Criminals,” Julian Assange “The Reality That Is Constructed Around Us Is Constructed By Liars.” Celia Farber, The Truth Barrier, Oct. 10, 2023]

Julian Assange spoke succinctly about those media journalists who read us selected, bent and twisted one-sided news to disinform, blind or subtly trick the public to support, accept or ignore ongoing atrocity wars even when massive amount of lives are being taken.

Julian Assange has brought to our attention the pleasant-looking evening news anchor who captivates TV audiences with alternating joviality and gravitas, asking whether they should be seen as insidiously evil as they generate support for horrific suffering, death, maiming and destruction.

Assange seems to have tasked us to awaken a critical number of decent but unwary citizens to the realisation that a trusted prime time personality of theirs is in fact a war criminal?

Countering the CIA-overseen giant entertainment /news/ information conglomerates wars enabling deceptive journalism [11] with truth is more effective than attacking the wars ordering government officials, both those elected and those appointed, who in reality must take orders form the ‘deep state’ Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex ‘deep pocket’ war investors – just, for example, as President Eisenhower did when he ordered Laos bombed, and the Guatemalan and Congo governments overthrown. 

The seemingly ubiquitous accessory to wars CIA overseen international media must and will eventually be taken down by a growing alternate media and new media from powerful greatly populated countries like China, India and other emerging nations of the awakening South. Today’s realities and their history will soon be apparent even to Americans.

Truth will out.

*

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

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist,  musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, in Germany & Sweden Einartysken,and in the US by Greanville Post, Dissident Voice; Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents; Minority Perspective, UK,and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, which contains a history of US crimes in 19 nations from 1945 thru 2012.

Notes

1. “Israel has a right to defend itself, but can’t claim it when it comes to the people it oppresses [or] whose land it colonizes,” [UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, tweeted on X, April 8, 2023]

2. [UN] https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east%C2%A0

3. In recent days, at least 15 children have died from malnutrition and dehydration at Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital. Additionally, almost 350,000 children under the age of 5 are at risk of starvation. This man-made crisis demands urgent attention and action to prevent further loss of innocent lives.

The international community must come together to address this humanitarian catastrophe and ensure the safety and well-being of the vulnerable population in Gaza. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/gaza-food-famine-malnutrition-children-aid/

4. Outrageous allegations, such as the story of Hamas “beheading 40 babies’ made headlines and the front pages of countless western news outlets. President Biden claimed to have seen “confirmed photos of terrorists beheading babies,” and that Israeli women were “raped, assaulted, paraded as trophies” The New York Jewish newspaper Forward’s article on 11 October reported that the Israeli military acknowledged they had no evidence of such allegations. (The White House spokesperson’s retraction received minimal media coverage.)

5. AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948 https://archive.org/details/

6. Survivor Speaks: Israeli forces shot their own civilians, You Tube 

Israeli Apache helicopters killed own soldiers, civilians on …New footage corroborates previous reports that say the Israeli military is responsible for many of the Israeli casualties

The Cradlecradle.com/articles-id/11993

IDF combat helicopter targeting Hamas fighters at Nova festival massacre shot some partygoers by mistake, says Haaretz. 

A Hebrew-language Haaretz newspaper article published on 20 October quotes a kibbutz resident survivor trembling as he spoke of Israeli Defence Force shelling houses with all their occupants inside in order to eliminate the terrorists. Photos show that only the heavy munitions of the Israeli army could have destroyed residential homes in this manner. Yasmin Porat, another survivor from Kibbutz Be’eri, said in an interview for an Israeli radio-show, hosted by state-broadcaster Kan, that Israeli forces “eliminated everyone, including the hostages,” going on to state that “there was very, very heavy crossfire” and even noted tank shelling. 

Chris Hedges Max Blumenthal – What Really Happened on Oct 8

7. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/

8.  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/yehoshua-joshua-full-text

9. https://www.timesofisrael.com/radical-israeli-rabbis-come-under-fire-amid-settler-violence/ 

10. ‘Genocide Enablers’: Gaza And The Corporate Media, MediaLens

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/AA4fDqpIU6vbZg_mZAEVWNGncnk?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9tYWlsLnlhaG9vLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANSKf2EOF95iT6GbFvbINwFLT3X8Jp-qsqLraVUuUEJCXTwwnCWZRA1cmk3TzTm52eB_vOCwDB2a9GZGrP-kRdeC6yQc09ENhlgcfG9ym2g7HPVx_NHtf9h6SHVcLQPzj39cJQJvJx882aE5iAGAGwH1VKQmDWCmxcuIlEzZqB4s

11. “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A,” December 26, 1977, New York Times

Featured image is from Countercurrents

WHO Official Admits Vaccine Passports May Have Been a Scam

By Paul D Thacker, April 12, 2024

The World Health Organization’s Dr. Hanna Nohynek testified in court that she advised her government that vaccine passports were not needed but was ignored, despite explaining that the COVID vaccines did not stop virus transmission and the passports gave a false sense of security.

The US-Israel War Against Iran Will be the Beginning of the End of Western-Zionist Dominance in the Middle East

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, April 12, 2024

Following Israel’s terrorist attack on the diplomatic building of the consulate of Iran in Damascus, Syria that resulted in the deaths of several officials of the Iranian military including a highly respected IRGC official, Mohammad Reza Zahedi is essentially the beginning of the end for Western-Zionist power structure in the Middle East. 

Not to Forget US-NATO Armed Aggression. 1999 – 2024. The Belgrade Declaration

By Belgrade Forum, April 12, 2024

The NATO aggression embodied the undoing of the legal order of peace and security in Europe and the world, established on the outcome of the Second World War. Today, the Balkans is more unstable, Europe militarized on dangerous tracks, without autonomy, identity and vision.

US Drones Useless in Ukraine. Russia’s Electromagnetic Waves Technology Used to Neutralize Enemy Attacks

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, April 12, 2024

US aid to Ukraine with drones is proving insufficient on the battlefield. Recently, the Western media admitted that American unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Ukraine are ineffective in combating Russia. The case clearly shows the weaknesses of Western military technology, which has proven useless when tested on the battlefield.

U.S. War Secretary Austin Just – “Frankly” – Outlined the Road to Full-scale NATO-Russia War. Jan Oberg

By Jan Oberg, April 12, 2024

Austin here reveals how the real NATO is anything but what you are told: it’s offensive, pursues out-of-area operations (e.g. Yugoslavia), willing to fight an opponent we are told is a huge threat and NATO is inferior to. And, thus, it has operated in complete violation of its treaty’s peaceful, defensive provisions.

War and Peace in an Ocean of Lies. Does Anyone in Washington Care About Israel’s Crimes? Dr. Philip Giraldi

By Philip Giraldi, April 12, 2024

One would have thought that the fake intelligence fabricated by a group of Zionists in the Pentagon and White House to launch the misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq would be as bad as it could possibly get, but the Joe Biden team has outdone even those unfortunately unindicted criminals by allowing itself to be maneuvered by friends in NATO and by Israel into situations that are one step short of nuclear war.

Bombshell: Molecular Geneticist: COVID mRNA Shots Were ‘Designed’ to ‘Destroy Humanity’

By Peter Koenig, April 12, 2024

Would you believe, Michael Nehls, MD, PhD, molecular geneticist, immunologist, author, and educator, reveals as an insider that the mRNA shots, falsely called vaccines, were from the beginning designed to “destroy humanity”.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Following Israel’s terrorist attack on the diplomatic building of the consulate of Iran in Damascus, Syria that resulted in the deaths of several officials of the Iranian military including a highly respected IRGC official, Mohammad Reza Zahedi is essentially the beginning of the end for Western-Zionist power structure in the Middle East. 

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s reaction to the terrorist attack said that

“After repeated defeats and failures against the faith and will of the Resistance Front fighters, the Zionist regime has put blind assassinations on its agenda in the struggle to save itself,” he continued “Day by day, we have witnessed the strengthening of the Resistance Front and the disgust and hatred of free nations towards the illegitimate nature of (Israel). This cowardly crime will not go unanswered.” 

The Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian wrote on his account on X social media platform

“An important message was sent to the American government as a supporter of the Zionist regime. America must be held responsible.”

The US and Israel should be very worried about their military bases and assets across the Middle East and Africa because Iran will respond with full force.  The red line has been crossed with an unprecedented attack on Iran’s consulate thus angering governments who are allied with Iran including Russia and China and most of the Global South.  

US Commander of the Central Command Visits Israel  

General Michael Erik Kurilla is in Israel to coordinate preparations with top officials from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to counter an Iranian attack. The Jerusalem Post reported that

“In recent days, Israeli and American officials have held a series of consultations at all levels to prepare for an Iranian response, senior officials from both countries said.”  The report also highlighted what Biden had said, “Our commitment to Israel’s security is an ironclad commitment.” 

Sounds familiar? of course, because all presidents before Biden had basically said the same thing many times. 

The US military had established a base in Israel back in 2017. The US government funded news organization, Voice of America reported on the development,

“Israel and the U.S. inaugurated the first American military base on Israeli soil on Monday, which will serve dozens of soldiers operating a missile defense system.” The report also said that “The base is located within an existing Israeli air force base and will operate under Israeli military directives.” 

Fast forward to the war in Gaza, the Biden regime is sending more than 1000 US troops who will be assisting in building a seaport to bring food to the Palestinian people even though his regime is arming and funding the Israeli government’s genocide of the same people he claims to be helping. 

Earlier this month, a military news website, ‘Stars and Stripes headlined ‘1,000 US troops will deploy for temporary port operations to move aid into Gaza’ which we know is a complete lie because it’s about establishing a US military presence in a show a force against Israel’s enemies that includes the Palestinian resistance, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen.  

Biden had ordered the Pentagon to support efforts to get “humanitarian aid” into Gaza,

“The Pentagon will soon deploy about 1,000 American troops to build a temporary seaport just off the coast of war-torn Gaza to provide its inhabitants some 2 million meals per day, a Defense Department spokesman said Friday” but this is clearly ‘Mission Creep,’ therefore in reality, US troops who are stationed in Israel are ready to become cannon fodder for Israel.

Israel and the US Face an Uncontrollable Situation in the Middle East

There is no turning back after Israel’s brazen attack because Iran will retaliate against Israel who is already in a war with Hezbollah in its northern borders and with Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip. Israel is also at war with the Houthis in Yemen, various resistance groups in Iraq and with the Syrian government. 

Israel and US forces will eventually face the Middle East with over one billion Muslims who reject Israel and its claims to Palestinian land.  Iran can target every US military base in Iraq, Syria (which is an illegal military base in Syria who is literally stealing oil), Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states including its secret bases throughout the Middle East filled with CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda operatives conducting terrorist operations to further destabilize the region.

Iran has close to one million active and reserve personnel and remember, if Israel or the US were to attack Iran directly, most of Iran would unite around the flag, therefore, they will face 10’s of millions of angry Iranians.  The Iranians will unleash everything they have to defeat Israel and the US including its ballistic missiles that can hit every US base in the Middle East. 

The maps below shows that any missile that Iran decides to launch can reach any US military base in the region:

US military bases are within the perimeter listed in the following image:

Israel committed a terrorist attack knowing that any retaliation from Iran would most likely pull in the United States just like what they did in Iraq with the Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction lie. That lie ended up becoming a disaster for the US war machine who clearly lost the war in Iraq with nothing positive to show the world, only resentment from the Iraqi population who wants US forces out of their country.  

Despite what happened in Iraq, the US population, especially in the Midwest and Southern parts who blindly support Israel would eagerly sacrifice their children to fight for the Jewish State to protect the “chosen ones” at all costs. 

Israel and the United States will possibly counterattack, then a full-scale war short of using nuclear weapons will take center stage thus driving up oil prices in an unstable economic global landscape. Rest assured, Russia and China will get involved in some capacity.

Iran’s ballistic missile program has been regarded by many experts across the globe as the largest in the Middle East. Therefore, all US military bases will be hit with Iran’s variety of missiles including one of the most advanced ballistic missiles such as the Zolfaghar, which is capable of striking targets as far as 300 to 700 km away or (186 to 435 miles). They also have the Fateh-110, a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) with a range of 300km (185 miles) and there are many other missiles at their disposal. 

Israel and their closest ally, the US will face an unwinnable war, would it go nuclear?  Israel is the wild card with nuclear weapons.  Are they willing to use them against Iran?  We don’t know, but one thing is certain, if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran, every single person in the Muslim world and beyond would target Israel, therefore, they will never live in peace. 

Would a new Middle East war between Israel and Iran create a new refugee crisis on US borders? Yes, but this time, it will be Israelis trying to get into the US because they will be fleeing from a war that their own government had started. 

So, would the US government take in the Israelis and create a new Jewish homeland somewhere in Texas or Florida? Would those who support Israel in the US give up their land to help Zionist Jews? I wonder how most Americans would react to that idea.         

*

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

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

US aid to Ukraine with drones is proving insufficient on the battlefield. Recently, the Western media admitted that American unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Ukraine are ineffective in combating Russia. The case clearly shows the weaknesses of Western military technology, which has proven useless when tested on the battlefield.

According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), small American drones sent to Ukraine are not capable of evading efficient Russian electronic warfare mechanisms.

US-made UAVs are used massively for reconnaissance operations and grenade attacks, but their results are unsatisfactory and do not bring real benefits to Ukrainian troops on the front lines.

According to the newspaper, the reputation of the American military drone industry is seriously threatened by the poor performance of UAVs on the combat zone. Previously, this equipment was considered adequate by the Pentagon even for American soldiers, but the failure to deal with the Ukrainian military reality has shown that the technology of the US armed forces is outdated and urgently needs changes to face the new challenges of contemporary warfare.

“The general reputation for every class of U.S. drone in Ukraine is that they don’t work as well as other systems (…) [American drones are] not a very successful platform on the front lines,” an expert told the WSJ.

The article mentions a list of weapons with operational problems, including drones manufactured by Cyberlux and, mainly, by Skydio, a Silicon Valley company that has sent millions of military equipment to Ukraine. US defense startups, which until then were praised as great centers of innovation in the military industry, are now being tested and showing true incompetence in dealing with the realities of war.

“The Silicon Valley company Skydio sent hundreds of its best drones to Ukraine to help fight the Russians. Things didn’t go well. Skydio’s drones flew off course and were lost, victims of Russia’s electronic warfare. The company has since gone back to the drawing board to build a new fleet. Most small drones from U.S. startups have failed to perform in combat, dashing companies’ hopes that a badge of being battle-tested would bring the startups sales and attention. It is also bad news for the Pentagon, which needs a reliable supply of thousands of small, unmanned aircraft. In the first war to feature small drones prominently, American companies still have no meaningful presence. Made-in-America drones tend to be expensive, glitchy and hard to repair, said drone company executives, Ukrainians on the front lines, Ukrainian government officials and former U.S. defense officials,” the article reads.

In fact, this news should be understood as further evidence that the American military industry is severely affected by a process of “de-professionalization”.

Startups from investors who do not have any military knowledge are undertaking projects that are often praised and incorporated by the Pentagon amid the search for “innovation” in the defense sector. The result is that the absence of military technical knowledge and combat experience makes it impossible for manufacturers to produce equipment strong enough to deal with the realities of an actual war. In this sense, American drones, which were considered as “innovative” products of high technological quality, are now being seen as expensive and easily neutralizable weapons.

The US spent decades investing in technological innovation projects in the military sector that, in the end, are proving to be useless. Most of these “innovations” focused on meeting the interests of investors in the technological sector, but did not take into account military technical expertise. The American State trusted in the entry of new technological startups within the apparatus of the military-industrial complex and now the result is proving to be catastrophic. Meanwhile, in Russia the defense sector remains extremely controlled by experienced military professionals, with all technological innovations being rigorously assessed by military experts and tested on the battlefield.

A point that also needs to be emphasized is the development of the Russian electronic warfare sector – also called “spectrum warfare”.

This sector basically consists of the use of the electromagnetic field for military purposes. Today’s weapons, given their high technology, create a field of electromagnetic waves around the conflict zone. The side most skilled at using these electromagnetic data in intelligence, reconnaissance and sabotage operations becomes capable of neutralizing most enemy attacks.

Russian efficiency in electronic warfare is already recognized even by military analysts as the main reason for the failure of Ukraine’s drone efforts. Most of the Western drones launched by Kiev are diverted by electronic warfare mechanisms. The result is a scenario where Americans spend millions to produce useless UAVs that are easily sabotaged by cheap spectrum warfare tools.

In the end, the conflict in Ukraine is showing how the American military industry has become a true paper tiger, controlled by investors without specialized knowledge and heavily dependent on expensive investments for poor results.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

France has halted talks with Russia over differing accounts on a phone call pertaining mainly to the Moscow terror attack.

Paris is also denying having discussed the issue of Ukraine. What is going on?

After a rare telephone conversation last week between French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu and Sergei Shoigu, his Russian counterpart, which at first seemed like a diplomatic sign of good will for some dialogue, France’s foreign minister said on Monday that Paris was no longer interested in talking to Moscow.

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron said the Russian remarks during the aforementioned phone call had been “bizarre and threatening”. Supposedly Russia told France it hoped French Secret Services had not been involved in the Moscow region Crocus City Hall terrorist attack.

French minister Lecornu reportedly wanted to pass on “useful information” regarding the March 22 killings in the spirit of the “long tradition with Russia of cooperation on terrorism”. There are differing accounts on who exactly said what, but in any case France, as well as other Western powers, is currently waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and moreover, these same powers have played a key role in the rise of the ISIS terror group, which is a Russian enemy in Syria and elsewhere, as I wrote. It is thus no wonder at all any Western offer of cooperation on that regard would be met with suspicion or even hostility by Moscow.

After the telephone call, in any case, Russia stated that “readiness for dialogue on Ukraine was noted” during the conversation – which France denies.

French-Russian tensions have been on the rise for a while. In February, President Macron suggested (and then half-denied) Western troops could be deployed in Ukraine. According to Le Monde on February 21 Macron told a handful of guests: “in any case, in the coming year, I’m going to have to send guys to Odessa.” On February 26, after hosting a meeting with several Western leaders, he stated “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war”, adding that “we should not exclude that there might be a need for security that then justifies some elements of deployment.” The remark was promptly rebutted by other NATO leaders and by a White house statement.

One may recall that in June 2022, the French leader was being criticized by his allies for being supposedly “too soft on Russia.” 

In addition, since 2023, Macron had been a key proponent of the idea of “strategic autonomy” – which, in stark contrast with today’s stance on the New Cold War, sounded a lot like an European rendering of the Global South’s non-alignmentism. In April 2023, the French President said, in an interview, shortly after having met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, that Europeans should not be “America’s followers” and that the continent should rather become a “third superpower” between the US and China, by focusing on  promoting defense industries. Employing strong language, which sparked controversy, he even said that without “strategic autonomy”, Europeans would become “vassals” (of the Americans).

Macron’s increasingly hawkish rhetoric today, once again igniting controversy, may have a lot to do with attempts to show strength, while preparing for a Trump presidency scenario) in face of the geopolitical crisis currently faced by Paris in the African continent, exemplified by the Niger, Mali and Chad disasters.

This is a region where, military presence aside, France competes with Moscow for influence and soft power projection. Anti-French feelings are in fact on the rise in Africa, while pro-Russian attitudes remain a legacy of the Soviet age: since the early decolonization period in the1950s, Moscow did support a large part of the African independence struggles.

Rhetoric aside, both Paris’ flirting with a non-aligned state and its more recent suggestions about sending troops to Ukraine are seriously constrained by the same factor, namely US-led NATO. France, much like the rest of Western Europe, is too dependent on its American ally (who is also its industrial competitor in a subsidy war), and  too deindustrialized to be able to come up with any real sovereign foreign policy. Moreover, even though its relationship with the Atlantic alliance has always been complex to say the least, France (again, much like the rest of the EU) is too entangled with NATO’s structures to pursue any substantial “strategic autonomy”.

On the other hand, the same NATO structures, namely Article 5 provisions (on attacks against one member being attacks against all) prevent France from deploying troops to Russia’s gates.

Nobody wants a global thermonuclear war for now.

For Washington, it has always been about an attrition proxy war against Russia, anyway.

With the “Ukrainian fatigue” and global tensions having shifted to Palestine and the Red Sea, the US-led West bets, after the American elections, are apparently on a South Korea “land-for-peace” scenario for Ukraine. And Paris, in all likelihood, will follow that line, even if Macron chooses to keep adopting a controversial hawkish tone for reasons that are still not entirely clear. This kind of rhetoric in any case certainly does not do much good, diplomatically speaking.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from Shuttertstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Austin here reveals how the real NATO is anything but what you are told: it’s offensive, pursues out-of-area operations (e.g. Yugoslavia), willing to fight an opponent we are told is a huge threat and NATO is inferior to. And, thus, it has operated in complete violation of its treaty’s peaceful, defensive provisions.

He did not say that NATO will fight if Russia attacks a NATO country. He says NATO will fight Russia if Ukraine falls. Ukraine is a non-NATO country (which NATO should have nothing to do with).

Ask yourself who threatens whom.

Ask how you think people in Moscow will interpret and react to his words.

Notice how he searches for words and invents on the go because his mind isn’t clear – and it should be in matters like these.

Take note of how he postulates the Russian threat out of the blue and without a shred of evidence or probability.

And shiver at the fact that he does not say – “but we must do what we can to avoid that” or “we of course do not want that.” No, Russia shall be destroyed in Ukraine or in Russia.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

A new study describes how, despite deaths from heart disease plummeting in the United States over the past three decades, the benefits have mostly been seen in people with higher incomes. Among those with lower incomes, heart attack rates have either stayed the same or worsened. This pattern reflects America’s use of dietary supplements over the same period. While the number of Americans taking supplements has increased dramatically during the past thirty years, people with higher incomes remain far more likely to use them than those with lower incomes. Following the groundbreaking discovery by Dr. Matthias Rath that deficiencies of vitamin C and other nutrients are the primary cause of heart disease, it is time for the protective benefits of dietary supplements to be extended to everyone regardless of economic status.

Published in the Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes journal, the study examines data from national surveys involving 26,633 Americans aged between 40 and 75 years old. Overall, the trends show a clear improvement in heart disease between 1988 and 2018. But when the study participants’ economic status is taken into account, it becomes apparent that this progress was not experienced equally across all income groups. While the 10-year cardiovascular risk fell from 7.7 percent to 5.1 percent for people in the highest income group, and from 7.6 percent to 6.1 percent for those in the second-wealthiest group, the risk for people with the lowest incomes remained at more than 8 percent.

The pattern of improvement in cardiovascular health among Americans mirrors their increasing use of dietary supplements over the same period. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) shows that the percentage of the country’s population who used at least one dietary supplement increased from 42 percent in 1988-1994 to 53 percent in 2003-2006. By 2018 consumer surveys indicate that 75 percent of American adults were taking them. Notably, however, mirroring the finding that the country’s least-wealthiest people continue to have the greatest cardiovascular risk, socioeconomic analysis shows that adults with lower incomes are significantly less likely to use dietary supplements than those with higher incomes.

The End of Heart Disease Is Now Possible

The association between dietary supplements and the prevention of heart disease is not merely statistical. Beginning in the late 1980s, Dr. Matthias Rath published a succession of groundbreaking scientific papers describing the role of vitamin C and other nutrients in preventing heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular problems. These publications included, in 1991, a landmark paper coauthored with two-time Nobel prizewinner Linus Pauling in which Dr. Rath presented the solution to the puzzle of heart disease and explained how its primary cause is vitamin C deficiency. The publication of these papers contributed to an explosion of interest in dietary supplements in the United States. This ultimately led to the passing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, legislation guaranteeing free access to vitamins and other supplementary nutrients for all Americans.

By 2015, when the Dr. Rath Research Institute published a study proving that atherosclerosis is an early form of scurvy, the clinical syndrome resulting from vitamin C deficiency, it had become clear that the end of heart disease was now possible. Two years later, a review published in the Pharmaceutical Journal – a publication of Britain’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society – added fuel to the scientific fire by confirming that the cholesterol theory of heart disease was now “dead”. Pointing out that the lives of heart attack survivors participating in pharma-sponsored statin trials had been shown to be extended by an average of just 4 days, the authors stated that there was an “ethical and moral imperative” for the potential harms of these drugs to be discussed.

With three-quarters of all American adults using dietary supplements, and deaths from heart disease consequently plummeting, the cardiovascular benefits of dietary supplementation should now be extended to everyone regardless of economic status. Otherwise, the way things are headed, the American Heart Association projects that by 2035 the annual cost of the cardiovascular epidemic to the United States will exceed $1 trillion. It is therefore time for a radical change of approach. As the old saying goes, one sure sign of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

One expects that anyone involved in politics will lie whenever they think they can get away with it to burnish one’s own image and while also distorting reality to promote policies that are being favored. Nevertheless, the record of high crimes committed by a series of presidents and their top aides since the so-called “war on terror” began has established a new low for government veracity. One would have thought that the fake intelligence fabricated by a group of Zionists in the Pentagon and White House to launch the misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq would be as bad as it could possibly get, but the Joe Biden team has outdone even those unfortunately unindicted criminals by allowing itself to be maneuvered by friends in NATO and by Israel into situations that are one step short of nuclear war.

Listening to John Kirby, Lloyd Austin, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield speak suggests that a course of remedial English might be in order as they cannot articulate a sentence that is coherent, especially as they are frequently lying or being deliberately evasive. And then there is teleprompter Joe himself who can pout over the killing of 13,000 children in Palestine while also secretly sending weapons to the Israelis who are eager to slaughter still more based on the judgement that they will grow up to be “terrorists.” Joe’s idea of a exchange of views with the Israeli government is a threat to maybe do something unspecific followed by a strongly worded message from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling him to “Go to hell!”

Joe’s gang cannot confirm that the Israelis are committing war crimes linked to genocide even though the rest of the world, including a majority of Americans, watch it happening on television and are convinced regarding what is taking place. But hey, Israel is a wonderful little democracy and America’s best friend and ally in the whole wide world. Or at least that is what Congress and the White House as well as the Jewish dominated media want you to believe. In reality, Israel is a racist and sectarian state that has been a US liability since it was founded, something that Secretary of State George Marshall warned about, but Harry Truman wanted Jewish money so he could get reelected. Some things never change as we watch Biden and Trump battle for the shekels by pledging their loyalty to Israel.

The latest wrinkle on the consequences of loving Israel so much comes with what it going on with Iran, which had its Embassy Consulate General building in Damascus Syria attacked by Israeli fighter planes, killing two senior Iranian generals plus a number of other Iranians, Lebanese and Syrians. For what it’s worth, embassies and consulates are generally speaking regarded as untouchable military targets under the terms of the Vienna Convention, which sought to keep enemies talking to each other even under the most adverse circumstances. In fact, Syria last fought Israel in 1973, more than fifty years ago, and has not gone to war with the Israelis since that time while Israel has been bombing Syria regularly as well as killing Iranian officials and scientists for many years. Iran, like Syria of late, has never attacked Israel.

Iran has said it will retaliate and Israel has gone on high alert. So what does Biden do? He warned Iran to back off and ignores the fact that it was Israel that did the unprovoked attacking and started the whole business and pledges “ironclad” support for the Jewish state if Iran dares to do anything serious in response. There are also reports that Israel and the US are planning jointly their possible retaliation if Iran were to strike. General Erik Kurilla, commander of the US Central Command, is now on his way to Israel and is expected to meet Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and senior Israel Defense Forces officials to coordinate possible US responses with those of Israel. Nota bene that President Biden has flipped the right or wrong of the entire affair over to do exactly what Israel wants, i.e. hopefully have the US go to war with the Iranians. This has been Netanyahu’s intention right from the beginning and there is also a bit of blackmail thrown in for good measure with Israel threatening to start using its secret nuclear arsenal if the United States stops supplying the Jewish state with weapons. Israeli Knesset member Nissim Vaturi, a representative in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, issued the threat in an unsubtle way while discussing the probability that Iran would retaliate against Israel for bombing its embassy. He said

“In the event of a conflict with Iran, if we do not receive American ammunition … we will have to use everything we have.”

In other words, Israel will have no choice but to start dropping nuclear weapons on its enemies and might also attack its friends who failed to support it, a reference to the Samson Option in which a beleaguered Israel would use its nukes to “take everyone down with them.”

The timing of the embassy attack suggests that Israel is acting as it does, i.e. taking steps to shift the narrative and restore its perpetual “victimhood,” because it definitely needs a public relations boost in a world where only the US and a few other nations aligned with Washington are not yet ready to give up on Bibi and his wild plans for regional domination. The horrific killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza as well as the targeted assassination of seven employees of a charity that was bringing in food to those starving due to Israel’s blocking the entry of relief supplies have been the top stories all over the world, and rightly so. The Israeli disdain for any behavior that might show weakness in the drive to remove the Palestinians from Palestine has resulted in the Jewish state’s being condemned and boycotted by much of the world with more to come.

Nevertheless, even in those countries that have made illegal pro-Palestinian expressions, demonstrations calling for a ceasefire have attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters. The governments confronting elections later this year, including the US and Germany, are under considerable pressure to respond to the popular sentiment. Indeed, it is already being mooted that President Joe Biden might well fail to be re-elected due to his kid gloves handling of Netanyahu who has assessed Biden’s weakness and has heedlessly taken US support as a given while also ignoring the warnings that are now coming out of Washington and elsewhere over the genocide taking place.

Indeed, it would be useful to speculate that the conflict in Gaza is in part being used as a smokescreen for developments with Iran and other Israeli neighbors that may prove more dangerous in the long run. Even the well-informed might be surprised to learn that even though Israel is not actually at war legally with several of its neighbors, it is nevertheless de facto at war with three countries, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. It has been exchanging fire with the Lebanese Hezbollah militias on its northern border on an almost daily basis since fighting with Hamas began in October and has sought and apparently obtained US guarantees of direct support should Hezbollah escalate its activity. In Syria, which has not in any way attacked Israel, the Israeli air and missile forces have staged numerous attacks against targets that it invariably claims to be “Iranian” even though most of the casualties are Syrians. There have been missile and bombing attacks on Syria nearly weekly since 2017, including a number of recent incidents involving both Damascus and Aleppo international airports that endangered civilian passengers and air crews.

As reported above, the most recent and most damaging attack was directed against the Iranian Consulate General, which was attached to the Iranian Embassy located in an upscale neighborhood in Damascus, Syria’s capital. The building was completely destroyed by six missiles fired from F-35 fighter planes that had crossed over the Syrian border from Israel, killing several long-serving diplomats alongside Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and Zahedi’s deputy, General Haji Rahimi. It was also reported that Brigadier General Hossein Amirollah, the chief of general staff for the al-Quds force in Syria and Lebanon, was among the victims as was at least one Hezbollah member. Sources in Syria confirmed that a total of 13 people were killed in the attack, including six Syrians. Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said afterwards that

“We consider this aggression to have violated all diplomatic norms and international treaties. Benjamin Netanyahu has completely lost his mental balance due to the successive failures in Gaza and his failure to achieve his Zionist goals.”

Both Iran and Hezbollah vowed revenge.

And just days before the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the Israeli military had launched massive strikes against a target in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo which killed at least 40 people, most of them soldiers. The air strikes hit a weapons depot, resulting in a series of explosions that also killed six Hezbollah fighters.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) subsequently revealed that it had strengthened air defenses and called up reservists in expectation of a response either from Lebanon or directly from Iran itself. Zahedi was an important Iranian official, reportedly responsible for the IRGC’s operations in Syria and Lebanon, for Iranian militias there, and for ties with Hezbollah, and was thus the most senior commander of Iranian forces in the two countries. His killing was the most significant death of a senior Iranian official since the murder in Baghdad of General Qassim Soleimani by the Trump Administration in January 2020. As the IRGC is a US-designated terrorist organization, Washington may have in advance approved of the Israeli action, though that was denied by the Pentagon.

Iran’s possible reprisal includes the capability to respond by directly launching missiles from its own territory rather than via any of its proxy groups, which include the militias it supports in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Responding to that possibility, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Israel Katz has warned on social media that if Tehran attacked from its territory, Israel would react and “attack in Iran.” Iran may therefore choose to respond indirectly or through a proxy, but any major reprisal would be giving Israel an excuse to elevate the conflict, which just might be the main reason for the attack on the Consulate General in the first place. It is, however, widely believed that the Iranian leadership is eager to avoid any escalation into a major or even a minor exchange that could be referred to as a war. Nevertheless, posters have gone up around Tehran in a sign of public pressure for an Iranian response.

“The defeat of the Zionist regime in Gaza will continue and this regime will be close to decline and dissolution,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech to the country’s officials in Tehran. “Desperate efforts like the one they committed in Syria will not save them from defeat. Of course, they will also be slapped for that action,” he added.

Israeli Defense Minister Gallant responded to the Ayatollah, saying that Israel is “increasing preparedness” in the face of threats from all across the Middle East. Gallant said that the country’s defense establishment is “expanding our operations against Hezbollah, against other bodies that threaten us,” and reiterated that Israel “strikes our enemies all over the Middle East… We will know how to protect the citizens of Israel and we will know how to attack our enemies.”

Intelligence sources in Washington suggest that Iran will try to respond by possibly blowing up an Israeli Embassy or other building, or even by assassinating an Israeli official, but they will more likely do something indirectly through a proxy like Hezbollah or the Houthis. They could also send a more subtle message by accelerating their nuclear program, though there is a danger that that would definitely bring the US into the game, which is precisely what Israel would like to see. They want to cripple Iran but would much prefer that all the heavy lifting – and the casualties and costs – be endured by Washington. If a US intervention were to occur and there were a misstep, it could easily escalate into a regional war with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran all lined up against the US and Israel with China and Russia likely to be playing a supporting role aiding the Arabs and Iranians. And don’t forget that Israel is nuclear armed. If it gets in trouble it would see itself as a victim and would be tempted to do something very dangerous.

So it is easy to see that Israel has staged a deliberate provocation to draw Washington into its wars.

It is playing with fire in an attempt to once and for all establish its dominance over all of its neighbors. Interestingly, the tone deaf Biden Administration appears to be falling into the trap set by the Israelis.

Beyond the “ironclad” pledge, it also voted against a Russian and Chinese drafted UN Security Council resolution to condemn the Israeli attack on the Iranian Consulate General.

The vote should have been a no brainer given the clear violation of international law and act of war committed by Israel in doing what it did, but the US was joined by Britain and France in casting the veto vote “no” reportedly after “Diplomats said the US told council colleagues that many of the facts of what happened on Monday in Damascus remained unclear.” It all means that Biden is stepping in it yet again in a situation where Netanyahu is in control and running circles around him.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Introduction

Would you believe, Michael Nehls, MD, PhD, molecular geneticist, immunologist, author, and educator, reveals as an insider that the mRNA shots, falsely called vaccines, were from the beginning designed to “destroy humanity”.

He claims the injections were part of a plan by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO), and Big Pharma to massively reduce world population.

One of the few insiders who blows the whistle on the truth.

One may add that among the hidden criminals were and are to this day active, also Big Finance, the Military Industrial Complex, Big IT, and the corrupted mainstream media, that dominate over 90% of western news outlets.

However, Dr. Nehls, a leading expert with inside knowledge of the plot, says the plan may not be realized in time, because the “shots were created as a ticking time bomb, that would continue to eliminate the vaccinated for several years after they received the shots”.

It would therefore be difficult to identify the cause of death with the covid jabs.

Besides, people who are on the path of dying, or people who know people who have most-likely died due to the shots, will not dare to speak up, either for shame or for fear.

This corner has been “wonderfully” covered by the plotsters. Call it – built-in mind-manipulated propaganda. See also this extraordinary interview of Dr. Nehls by Mike Adams

The delayed genocide-effect was also confirmed by Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President, and chief scientist of Pfizer. See this and this and this.

In a recent video, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (1972) which planted the seeds for drastic depopulation talks about a 86% reduction of the world population. See Genocide Promotion – Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” Author.

According to Dr. Nehls, the plan sought to “conquer the human mind” by destroying most of the human race to eliminate barriers and frontiers that are preventing the globalists from their technocratic take-over through a One World Order and a One World Government.

Dr. Nehls has also studied the effects of the mRNA vaxxes on the brain, and believes it is the way these jabs affect our minds – making people “complacent” – that made governments so eager to push them on their populations.

The “vaxxes” acting on the brain are accompanied by decades of clandestine poisoning of our Mother Earth’s air, soil, and water, with micro-chemicals and microscopic heavy metal particles, through chemtrails, chloride and fluoride in the water – and much more.

The average people have no clue. But their brain capacity and emotion-sensitive pineal gland are being gradually diminished and eventually destroyed.

See also the article on Dr. Nehls entitled: 

Molecular Geneticist: mRNA Shots Were ‘Designed’ to ‘Destroy Humanity’

***

Let us hope that We, the People, will enter a stage of conscious awakening, able to resist and boycott their plan. We are People of the Light.

*

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

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

 

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel

German Government Admits There Was No Pandemic

Baxter Dmitry, April 4, 2024

The Next Crisis “Bigger than Covid”: Paralysis of Power Supply, Communications, Transportation. The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario, “Usher In the Great Reset”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 8, 2024

“Russia Losing”: Biden Administration Admits It Lied. “Why is Russia Winning All of a Sudden”?

Drago Bosnic, April 8, 2024

A Bridge Too Far. The Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Was it An Accident?

Peter Koenig, April 8, 2024

Video: Climate – The Cold Truth. The Massive Scam which Promotes Global Warming / Climate Change

Julian Rose, April 11, 2024

Biden-Netanyahu Secret Agreement? Leave Gaza and Attack Iran? Escalation in the Middle East

Germán Gorraiz López, April 8, 2024

Shocking Moment Hillary Clinton Is Branded a ‘Super Predator’ While Husband Bill Is Told He’s a ‘Piece of S**t’ to His Face by Anti-Israel Protesters in NYC

Bethan Sexton, April 8, 2024

Baltimore’s Frances Scott Key Bridge Disaster Declared a “Crime Scene”

Richard C. Cook, April 5, 2024

Video: “Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves

Felicity Arbuthnot, March 20, 2024

Video: Putin Dares Macron to Trigger World War III. Gives a Chilling Warning After Macron Reiterates Sending NATO Troops to Ukraine

The Times of India, April 7, 2024

Putin’s Road to Armageddon?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 5, 2024

Will Paris ’24 be the Genocidal Olympics?

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, April 9, 2024

Just Nuke Gaza, Get It Over Quick, Advises US Representative Tim Walberg, Evangelical Zionist

Steven Sahiounie, April 10, 2024

Could Avian H5N1 Influenza be Disease X for the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex?

Dr. Peter McCullough, April 10, 2024

WEF’s Great Reset: The Great Dispossession. The Loss of Property Rights in Financial Assets. “Own Nothing Be Happy”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 11, 2024

Putin Has Allowed the Ukraine Conflict to Spiral Out of Control

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 10, 2024

Doctors Report Mysterious Worldwide Cancer ‘Epidemic’

Paul Anthony Taylor, March 31, 2024

Hawai’i—The Very First U.S. Regime Change

Jon Olsen, April 8, 2024

Influenza H5N1 Fear-mongering Is Flooding the News. Perfect Candidate for “Disease X”? How to Protect Against H5N1

Dr. William Makis, April 4, 2024

A Turbo Cancer “Dual Diagnosis” Phenomenon in the COVID-19 Vaccinated

Dr. William Makis, April 5, 2024

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Walking stiffly, largely distracted, and struggling to focus on the bare essentials, US President Joe Biden was keeping company with his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, when asked the question. It concerned what he was doing regarding Australia’s request that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be returned to Australia.

Assange, who has spent five tormenting years in Belmarsh Prison in London, is battling extradition to the US on 18 charges, 17 tenuously and dangerously based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.

The words that followed from the near mummified defender of the Free World were short, yet bright enough for the publisher’s supporters. “We’re considering it.” No details were supplied.

To these barest of crumbs came this reaction from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on ABC’s News Breakfast:

“We have raised on behalf of Mr Assange, Australia’s national interest, that enough is enough, that this needs to be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve raised it at each level of government in every possible way.” 

When pressed on whether this was merely an afterthought from the president, Albanese responded with the usual acknowledgments: the case was complex, and responsibility lay with the US Department of Justice.

One of Assange’s lawyers, the relentless Jennifer Robinson, told Sky News Australia of her encouragement at Biden’s “response, this is what we have been asking for over five years. Since 2010 we’ve been saying this is a dangerous precedent that’s being set.  So, we certainly hope it was a serious remark and the US will act on it.” Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, also told Sky News that the statement was significant while WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson thought the utterance “extraordinary”, cautiously hoping “to see in the coming days” whether “clarification of what this means” would be offered by “those in power” and the press corps.

The campaign to free Assange has burgeoned with admirable ferocity.  The transformation of the WikiLeaks founder from eccentric, renegade cyber thief deserving punishment to prosecuted and persecuted scribbler and political prisoner has been astonishing.

The boggling legal process has also been shown up as woefully inadequate and scandalous, a form of long-term torture via judicial torment and deprivation.  The current ludicrous pitstop entails waiting for a UK Court of Appeal decision as to whether Assange will be granted leave for a full reconsideration of his case, including the merits of the extradition order itself.

The March 26 Court of Appeal decision refused to entertain the glaringly obvious features of the case: that Assange is being prosecuted for his political views, that due process is bound to be denied in a country whose authorities have contemplated his abduction and murder, and that he risks being sentenced for conduct he is not charged with “based on evidence he will not see and which may have been unlawfully obtained.”  The refusal to entertain such material as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on kidnapping and assassination options again cast the entire affair in a poor light.

Even if Assange is granted a full hearing, it is not clear whether the court will go so far as to accept the arguments.  The judges have already nobbled the case by offering US prosecutors the chance to offer undertakings, none of which would or could be binding on the DOJ or any US judge hearing the case.  Extradition, in other words, is likely to be approved if Assange is “permitted to rely on the First Amendment”, “is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality” and that he “is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed”.  These conditions, on the face of it, look absurd in their naïve presumption.

Whether Biden’s latest casual spray lends any credibility to a change of heart remains to be seen.  In December 2010, when Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden described Assange as a “high-tech terrorist” for disclosing State Department cables.  He failed to identify any parallels with previous cases of disclosures such as the Pentagon papers.

Craig Murray, former British diplomat and Assange confidant, adds a note of cautious sobriety to the recent offering from the president: “I’m not going to get too hopeful immediately on a few words out of the mouth of Biden, because there has been no previous indication, nothing from the Justice Department so far to indicate any easing up.”

For all that, it may well be that the current administration, facing a relentless publicity campaign from human rights organisations, newspapers, legal and medical professionals, not to mention pressure from both his own party in Congress and Republicans, is finally yielding.  Caution, however, is the order of the day, and nothing should be read or considered in earnest till signatures are inked and dried.  We are quite a way off from that.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected] 

Featured image: Campaigners pressing for the release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange take part in a demonstration during a Night Carnival in Parliament Square in London, February 11, 2023

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on October 20, 2022

***

The COVID database is invalid.

First, the tests are not fit for purpose. Dr. Michael Yeadon describes the PCR tests as the “central operational deceit.” (1) The CDC itself withdrew its support for these tests as of January 2022 . (2) Similarly, rapid antigen test data is invalid.  The test insert states specifically under Intended Use Advisory that

“Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” (emphasis mine)

As for the WHO which is the fountainhead of the global plandemic, even this institution of corruption, funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has admitted to the failings of the PCR tests. (3)

So the basis for determining the existence of “confirmed cases” is flawed on multiple levels.

The data for COVID mortality rates is also flawed and invalid.

The CDC changed coding to death certificates for COVID in March 2020, prior to the declared pandemic. CODING changes falsely elevate COVID as cause of death by a factor of about 17 times. How? So-called “COVID deaths” would have been deemed due to other causes using the long-standing, peer-reviewed system of data collection and reporting established in 2003. (4)

As Dr. Ionniditis noted years ago, distinctions are not being made between dying with COVID and dying of COVID. Additionally, there are financial incentives for hospitals to list COVID as cause of death. The CARES ACT, for example, adds a 20% premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. (5)

On a personal note, I know from a reliable source two local fatal vehicle accidents where the clear cause of death was trauma, but the Death Certificates indicate COVID.

Read Prof Chossudovsky’s new e-book, The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity. It is a fabricated plandemic. Effective, early treatment therapies (off-patent) exist but continue to be censored and prohibited, even as toxic COVID mandates and protocols are embraced.

In a sense it is a pandemic of the vaccinated since they are the ones suffering jab morbidities and mortalities, they are the ones filling hospitals, and they are the ones suffering from impaired immunity thanks to the jabs. (6) All in response to a virus that, according to pre-eminent Doctor John Ionniditis,  “was far less deadly than previously thought.” (7)

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) Dr. Mike Yeadon, “The Covid Lies”, 10 April, 2022. (The Covid Lies – Doctors for COVID Ethics (doctors4covidethics.org) Accessed 19 October, 2022.

(2) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

As of January 1, 2022, the CDC in a request to the FDA withdraws it’s endorsement of the RT-PCR test. ” Global Reserch, 06 April, 2022. (Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”? – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization” ) Accessed October, 2022.

(3) Mark Taliano, ” Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying.” Global Research, 05 April, 2021. (Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying. – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 19 October, 2022

see also:

“PCR tests are FOR RESEARCH ONLY. They are not designated for Diagnostic purposes.” 10 July, 2020. (PCR tests are FOR RESEARCH ONLY. They are not designated for Diagnostic purposes. ), Accessed 19 October, 2022.

(4) GreenMedInfo Research Group, ” COVID-19 Fatalities 16.7 Times Too High Due to ‘Illegal’ Inflation.” 1 February, 2021. (COVID-19 Fatalities 16.7 Times Too High Due to ‘Illegal’ Inflation (greenmedinfo.com) Accessed, 19 October, 2022.

(5) John R. Lott Jr. , ” The US is Dramatically Overcounting Coronavirus Deaths.” townhall.com, 16 May, 2020. (The US is Dramatically Overcounting Coronavirus Deaths (townhall.com) Accessed 19 October, 2022.

(6) Dr. Suzanne Burdich, PhD, “UK Documentary Exposes Lies Behind ‘Safe and Effective’ COVID Vaccine Narrative.” Children’s Health Defence, 14 October, 2022. (UK Documentary Exposes Lies Behind ‘Safe and Effective’ COVID Vaccine Narrative • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org) Accessed 19 October, 2022.

(7) Thomas Oysmuller, ” New Ioannidis study: Covid was already safer in 2020 than previously thought.” tkp, 18 October, 2022. (New Ioannidis study: Covid was already safer in 2020 than previously thought (tkp.at) Accessed 19 October, 2022.

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

My political awakening came relatively late in life — in my middle twenties — and it came as a consequence of my psychoanalysis. Hitherto I had eschewed all things political, sneered at them, dismissed them and focused instead on the majesty and glories of art, principally literature and music. These were my havens.

Havens they may have been, but I nonetheless was required to live in a real and practically driven world, a world shaped by ‘City Hall’ and the chaotic clamor of individuals attempting to maximize their personal gain, most times at the expense of others. On the rough and tumble streets of Philadelphia one learned quickly about the various personalities and their wiles engaged in self-aggrandizement. And one also learned about the consequences of such personalities on political office.

When Frank Rizzo served as mayor it was common knowledge that favors had been doled out to his supporters or friends or friends of friends. I knew, for example, a classmate of mine who got a job thanks to the mayor, which required nothing more than picking up a pay-check every two weeks.

The vastly larger realm of world politics was, mostly, a mystery. I grew up being worried about Russia and nuclear war, about the murders of JFK, MLK and RFK; about the Vietnam War and the draft which I luckily and narrowly escaped; about the oil crisis that, for the first time in my life, created lines at gas stations; about Oliver North and Nicaragua; and sky-high interest rates during the presidency of Ronald Reagan that essentially doubled the tuition I borrowed to attend medical school at the University of Pennsylvania. These were, I am sorry to say, parochial concerns at the time.

My personal inclinations and, frankly, a wish to be removed from the sordid terrain of political activity, kept me ignorant of the larger and vastly more encompassing influences shaping the world I inhabited. But gradually, as a result of my psychoanalytic treatment and the widened vista I acquired about myself and, consequently, my surroundings, I learned. Thanks to the brilliant essays of Gore Vidal, which combined ancient history — something I liked and studied — with American history, I came to recognize the enormous corrupting power of the modern United States and its virtually limitless thirst for war.

When 9/11 hit I was prepared to see beyond the spectacle and the insipid but effective propaganda that spawned the Patriot Act and forever changed air travel and resulted in a declaration of a never-ending ‘war on terror’. By then I had fully understood that the forces of a state that had already conspired to murder a president, his brother, and a religious man who not only sought to eliminate structural racism but also to protest war and poverty, could be capable of anything.

By anything I mean exactly that: anything. Which includes both selective and widespread murder of its own citizens.

You see, the greatest obstacle to persuading the sleep-walking masses about the enormity of the covidian crimes is precisely that: their enormity. It beggars belief. Surely no government could ever seek purposefully to sicken and kill its peoples. Surely these governments had our interests at heart, and all their lockdowns and masks and inoculations were but the signs of their benevolent, if sometimes stern, compassion for our welfare!

Here in New Zealand where the coronavirus was never a danger, our ‘single source of truth’ managed to convince the population of its correctness in sequestering us, ignoring and suppressing treatment, and insisting on the gene-altering inadequately-tested panacea otherwise known as the Pfizer Jab.

I understand that 86.6 percent of persons 12 and older have received the primary course of covid ‘vaccination’ — which is a positively staggering number.

Harping on the sudden deaths and early deaths and excess deaths and all the adverse events as a consequence of the jabs seems to do little to dent the majority’s naivete, because they simply cannot and will not believe their government could be so astonishingly and despicably evil. Yet the evidence is there for the taking, if only one would take the time to look, and take the time to listen to the creeping stories of recurrent illness and strange cancers and early strokes and other cardiovascular events.

Like the famous prisoners of Plato’s cave in Book VII of The Republic, the shadows they observe flitting in front of them — not the objects casting these shadows nor the world of sunlight above the cave — define reality. Their world has been defined by what they were raised in: the phantoms spewed out from their trusted oracular Media creating the warm illusion of governmental kindness and caritas and good.

We here on the ground, for whom covid has served as a window into the unspeakable depths of governmental malfeasance, deception and destruction — we here who see an attempt to maim, cull, murder and terrify, who reject the scam of climate change, the push for universal digital IDs, the elimination of privacy, the eradication of gender, and the rejection of anything spiritual in favor of a material digitalism — we have the courage to face the evil before us, at least.

And the masses who cannot face it will become willing executioners of their Masters’ designs, and then, eventually and inevitably, hapless victims.

From the street it looks an awful lot like a bunch of transnational war-mongering banksters have been pulling strings. They no doubt fight and squabble among themselves, but they certainly achieved enough unity to have shut down our world and purposefully to have wrought medical and economic devastation genocidal in scope upon us all.

It is the job of those of us who have cast away our chains to show the shackled that there is indeed a different and far better world than the one they have been prostrate before.

However, to do this we ourselves must recognize fully that our opposition is lawless and that they are hell-bent. We are up against an enemy that won’t be won over by niceties or our good will or irrefutable logic or appeals to conscience. Unless and until we bow to this profoundly dark truth we will have no chance.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Massimo Giachetti

---

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Listen to Professor Inoue’s “Message to the World” and try to fathom the crime against humanity he describes. 

A Stunning message from Professor Masayasu Inoue, Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School warning of ‘a dangerous, new governmental development’ was delivered from Japan at a World Council for Health conference. 

His powerful statement largely confirms the numerous independent studies which describe the mRNA jab as a “Killer Vaccine”:

“Media lies coupled with a systemic and carefully engineered fear campaign have sustained the image of a killer virus which is relentlessly spreading to all major regions of the world. 

Several billion people in more than 190 countries have been tested (as well as retested) for COVID-19.  

Both sets of figures — morbidity and mortality — are invalid.

These invalid COVID-19 “estimates” have been used to justify confinement, social distancing, wearing of the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, as well as the enforcement of the mRNA “vaccine” launched in November 2020. 

There is no such thing as a “COVID-19 confirmed case”.

The fear campaign is relentlessly spearheaded by political statements and media disinformation. A closer examination of official reports from national health authorities as well as peer-reviewed articles provides a totally different picture.”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 11, 2024

Professor Masayasu Inoue, who specialises in Molecular Pathology and Medicine, warns that

“There is high risk that Japan made vaccines will be exported under the guise for false trust.

If Japan were to become a vaccine perpetrator, it would leave irreparable harm to future generations.

Therefore, the actions of the Japanese government MUST BE STOPPED by international collaborations.”

Video:  Professor Inoue’s Message to the World

 

Our thanks to John Leake who brought this video to our attention:

Masayasu Inoue is Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School who specializes in molecular pathology.  

Reviewing his publishing resume, I wasn’t surprised to see that he has a longstanding interest in oxidative stress. His paper titled Mitochondrial Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species and its Role in Aerobic Life presents the following summary:

The present work also describes that a cross-talk of molecular oxygen, nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide radicals regulates the circulation, energy metabolism, apoptosis, and functions as a major defense system against pathogens. Pathophysiological significance of ROS generation by mitochondria in the etiology of aging, cancer and degenerative neuronal diseases is also described.

Lately “the etiology of aging, cancer and degenerative neuronal diseases” has been been on my mind a lot, as the young friend of a friend was recently discovered to have advanced, metastatic melanoma of unknown primary site that had spread to her brain. The day after I heard this news, I saw the following article in the New York Post: Cancer rates rising in young people due to ‘accelerated aging,’ according to ‘highly troubling’ new study.

Naturally the “troubling new study” mentions nothing about the genetic shots that have been repeatedly injected into young people for the last three years. (John Leake) 

---

 

My thanks to the Publisher and to the translator Tatsuo Iwana.

.

.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Though the start of 2024 may have signaled the beginning of a new year, Afghanistan continues to endure the decades-long denial of its sovereignty by the United States.

U.S.-led regime change to produce subservient leadership to fall in line with the militaristic and capitalist aims of the collective West continues to be of utmost importance, especially as the U.S. empire decays and its New Cold War on China escalates. Countries like Afghanistan and Haiti, in key geographic locations for U.S. imperialist aims, are continuously denied self-determination and thus subject to ongoing destabilization efforts that produce exploitation, oppression, and death.

There are indications that U.S.-supported groups, including the National Resistance Front (NRF), are attempting to destabilize the Taliban government militarily.

Ahmad Massoud, leader of the NRF, has requested help from the United States while being hosted by Washington DC think tanks as part of the organization’s bid to depose the Taliban. In October 2023, Massoud even indicated the NRF sought help from Israel. In March 2024, the NRF ramped up attacks with bombings in Kabul, a departure from assessments a year prior that the NRF had been defeated by the Taliban. The new attacks come after reports that neighboring Tajikistan is playing host to a majority of former Afghan officials and opposition leaders, including the NRF, as well as allegations by the Taliban that Tajikistan is hosting ISIS to infiltrate Afghanistan militarily. The United States has also offered support to recent Pakistani airstrikes on Afghan territory, which killed at least five women and three children. All of this comes despite the Doha peace agreement signed between the United States and the Taliban in 2020.

While international recognition of the Taliban government has often been withheld on the grounds of the Taliban’s treatment of women, U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan, Thomas West, recently indicated that their primary reason for punitive measures against the Taliban is that the United States believes the Taliban are not doing enough to comply with U.S. security interests in Afghanistan.

However, 40 years of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan created the same terror groups, like ISIS-K, who claimed responsibility for the recent attack in Moscow which left 139 people dead, that Thomas West now uses to justify policies of collective punishment against the Afghan people. The U.S. State Department wields the power to decide when the Taliban have met their security obligations. 

The United States continues to hold more than $7 billion of Afghanistan’s sovereign assets seized in 2021, a major factor behind the sharp subsequent economic decline that a recent United Nations Development Program (UNDP) study found is disproportionately affecting women and children. The seizure of assets combined with both U.S. and UN sanctions–ostensibly only targeting the Taliban–have hurt ordinary Afghans and aid organizations, affirmed by US-aligned rights groups and media outlets. The same UNDP report found that 69 percent of Afghans “do not have adequate resources for basic subsistence living,” while an estimated 15.8 million Afghans–including nearly 8 million children–are expected to experience “acute food insecurity” by early 2024.

Meanwhile, a U.S.-controlled “Afghan Fund” possessing $3.5 billion of the $7 billion in Afghan assets seized by the U.S. has indicated that none of these funds have been spent, are planned to be spent, or will ever be used to provide humanitarian or development assistance, according to congressional testimony by SIGAR (Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) on January 4, 2024. This gross enactment of economic warfare against the Afghan people echoes the imperialist treatment inflicted upon Iran, Venezuela, and Russia – countries that have also faced deadly sanctions and the U.S. seizure of their national reserves.

*

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

Featured image is from BAP

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Back in late October 2017, Russia donated six MiG-29 fighter jets to Serbia.

Less than a year and a half later, Belarus did the same, donating four aircraft of the same type.

This was a major boost for Belgrade, as it previously had only four (three of which were airworthy) MiG-29 fighter jets that survived NATO aggression in 1999.

Moscow’s and Minsk’s military aid was instrumental in preserving the Serbian Air Force and Air Defense (RViPVO), as it brought the number of operational fighter jets to 14, an increase of 250%. Serbia paid for and conducted the modernization, bringing all jets to the MiG-29SM+ standard. The cost of the upgrade was reportedly less than $400 million altogether, an excellent deal given the circumstances and the general state of RViPVO back then. By early 2022, the modernization was completed and the refurbished MiG-29s now form the backbone of Belgrade’s aerial fleet.

However, this was always an interim solution and was supposed to ensure the safety of Serbian airspace before a more up-to-date successor was found.

Naturally, newer Russian jets were the first in consideration, as Moscow’s and Minsk’s donations were a major geopolitical move that only true allies would make. The political West was determined to torpedo a potential deal in any way it could, but Belgrade stood its ground for the most part. In the meantime, an orchestrated effort to smear and downplay the donation of “Fulcrums” (MiG-29’s NATO reporting name) was launched by the mainstream propaganda machine. These jets were being actively presented as “Russian junk” in an attempt to insult the donors, as well as to discourage potential acquisitions of new Russian-made aircraft. Still, Moscow’s world-class aviation was the natural and logical solution for Belgrade.

Several types came into play, particularly the Kremlin’s export superstar, the Su-30. In addition, when MiG-35 was officially introduced back in 2019, many wanted to acquire this jet, as it was by far the most advanced “Fulcrum” derivative. It would’ve been quite easy and cheap to integrate this aircraft due to its similarities with the MiG-29. Serbia was also planning to acquire advanced Russian air defenses and electronic warfare (EW) systems, with a strong possibility of getting even the unrivaled S-400. However, all this caught the attention of the United States and NATO, which threatened to not only enforce the infamous (and essentially illegal) Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), but also suggested they would block the transport of Russian weapons to Serbia (as the country is surrounded by NATO members), blackmailing Belgrade to “reconsider”.

Its options were now more limited than ever, as Russian weapons that were already paid for and awaiting delivery to Serbia couldn’t reach the country. By the time the special military operation (SMO) started, the situation became unbearable for Belgrade. What’s more, its decision not to impose sanctions on Moscow was seen as “heresy” in Washington DC and Brussels, so Serbia’s desire to acquire Russian weapons was now out of the question, as the possibility of NATO agreeing to this moved from theoretical (albeit already extremely unlikely) to simply impossible. The political West would’ve never allowed any of the Russian weapons to ever reach Serbia. Belgrade was able to acquire some Russian-made weapons from Cyprus, but even this was criticized as “too pro-Russian”. Worse yet, NATO only kept escalating its pressure and crawling aggression on Serbia.

As an alternative, Belgrade tried switching to Chinese weapons. It acquired air defenses from Beijing, specifically the FK-3 (export variant of HQ-22), with military sources suggesting it might even acquire Chinese fighter jets.

However, NATO once again threatened the country, barely allowing it to transport even the FK-3 from China.

Thus, Serbia was left with no choice except to acquire the exorbitantly expensive and overhyped Western weapons. Getting US-made jets was not an option, leaving only several other European candidates, of which France seemed the most logical choice. After years of speculation, recent weeks and months showed that the deal with Paris was closer than ever.

On April 9, during the official state visit in Paris, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said that Belgrade “reached concrete agreements” on the purchase of “Rafale” jets.

After talks with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, Vucic stated that the contract is expected to be signed in the next two months. The details of the potential deal are yet to be revealed, but military sources suggest that 12 “Rafales” that Belgrade seeks to acquire will cost around €3 billion ($3.2 billion). This massive price tag is equivalent to nearly three annual Serbian military budgets.

The geopolitical aspect of the deal is understandable.

However, the staggering cost could hardly ever be justified. The price of the latest F4.1 jet is upwards of €160 million (over $170 million) apiece, meaning that nearly €2 billion will be paid for the airframes alone, with another billion for missiles, bombs and other weapons, as well as pilot and ground crews training, etc. This is without taking into account any additional costs due to possible delays or any other issues.

What’s more, there are even more expenses such as building adequate infrastructure and making other mandatory changes to the existing one. Western jets such as the “Rafale” are far less robust than Russian equivalents. All of this will only push the price tag even further. Does this mean that “Rafale” is a bad jet? Certainly not. It’s one of the most advanced Western aircraft with excellent multirole capabilities. On paper, it can carry up to 9.5 tons of payload, but in reality, this is much closer to around 6 tons, which is still quite good for such a light aircraft. As for speed, its Mach 1.8 is anything but impressive, although it somewhat makes up for it with a limited Mach 1.4 supercruise ability (supersonic flight without afterburners). And while “Rafale” has more advanced avionics than the older MiG-29, the latter is far more affordable, with a flight hour price tag of €5,000.

In comparison, the French jet costs €20,000 per flight hour or four times as much. It’s also slower than the MiG-29 which can fly at Mach 2.3 or even faster. All this makes the “Fulcrum” a better option for air policing, as it’s far more affordable and easier to maintain and operate. However, in terms of multirole capabilities, “Rafale” certainly has an advantage, although this is expected as it was built for this purpose, while the “Fulcrum” was envisaged as a frontline air superiority fighter. However, this is where problems might arise for Serbia, as the French jet’s armament comes into play, but there’s no guarantee that Paris would deliver the necessary assets (particularly the Damocles and TALIOS targeting pods and relevant air-to-ground weapons such as the AASM-HAMMER bombs and various types of missiles). France may omit those immediately or in any future deals.

As for the more advanced air-to-air missiles, Paris will certainly refuse to export the new “Meteor” (range up to 200 km). Worse yet, it may deny the latest MICA NG variant (range reportedly up to 150 km) and instead provide the older iteration (range 60-80 km). Serbia already has missiles with superior range for its MiG-29SM+ (specifically the R-77-1 with a range of over 110 km). Thus, in purely military terms, this acquisition is extremely risky and unreasonably costly. If Belgrade wasn’t surrounded by NATO, it would’ve easily gotten at least two Su-30SM jets for the price of a single “Rafale”. Better yet, it could’ve gotten at least one Su-35 and saved dozens of millions per airframe. And last but not least, the Su-57E would’ve been more affordable while being at least a generation ahead of the “Rafale”. This is without taking weapons into account.

Namely, Russian air-to-air missiles aren’t just cheaper, but are also far more advanced and stand in a league of their own. Modernized versions of the R-77 (particularly the RVV-AE-PD) have a range of up to 200 km, while the larger R-37M’s maximum range stands at a staggering 400 km. In addition, both missiles are hypersonic (Mach 5-6 and Mach 6-7, respectively). This leaves both the “Meteor” and MICA NG in the dust (both inferior in range and speed). What’s more, Serbia will most likely be waiting until the early 2030s to get the first jet. By then, aircraft such as the MiG-41 will already be operational, making the “Rafale” not only outclassed in every sense of the word, but simply obsolete. Worse yet, even older (but heavier, much faster and higher-flying) jets such as the MiG-31BM and comparable era ones such as the Su-35S are far deadlier in air-to-air combat.

Once again, it’s quite clear that the acquisition from France is a move born out of geopolitical necessity, as getting such extremely expensive aircraft for air policing is tantamount to using sports cars for traffic stops.

However, even the geopolitical aspect is very risky, as Paris has a long history of backstabbing its customers for the sake of NATO allies such as the US and UK. There are multiple accounts of France installing kill switches on its aircraft and air-launched missiles to prevent them from being used against NATO interests.

In addition, many (if not most) weapons used by the “Rafale” rely on US-made components and guidance systems, meaning that these could be turned off or sabotaged in some other way in case of yet another direct NATO aggression against Serbia, while France has repeatedly demonstrated coordination with US/NATO geopolitical interests.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Video: Climate – The Cold Truth. The Massive Scam Which Promotes Global Warming / Climate Change

By Julian Rose, April 11, 2024

We  are  rapidly  waking  up  to the massive scam that promotes global warming/climate change as ‘doomsday scenario par excellence’. In  this  film  (see below) is a succinct and powerfully presented series  of  exposes  by  scientists  and  climatologists coming clean about the real truth behind the global warming invention.

WEF’s Great Reset: The Great Dispossession. The Loss of Property Rights in Financial Assets. “Own Nothing, be Happy”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 11, 2024

Klaus Schwab tells us that in the Great Reset that the World Economic Forum is preparing for us “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” Well, we already own nothing. Our bank deposits and stocks and bonds, in the event the depository institution gets into trouble, belong to the depository institution’s creditors, not to us.

Erdogan’s AKP Loses Elections: “Turkey faces a terrorist threat East of the Euphrates from the Kurds and the US.”

By Aydin Sezer and Steven Sahiounie, April 11, 2024

In the recent elections in Turkey, clearly, Erdoğan and the AKP failed. This is readily apparent. Nonetheless, the nation’s overall governance remains unaffected by these local elections. Indeed, the Republican People’s Party chairman and election victor, Ozgur Ozel, has declared that the party has no intention of calling early elections.

Are There Bounds to Collective West’s Cynicism? Srebrenica and the Criminalization of the UN Judicial System. The Genocide Convention Under the Jurisdiction of the War Criminals

By Stephen Karganovic, April 11, 2024

There is a question that needs to be put to the leadership of Ecuador. The next time there is a coup in their country and, as deposed Latin American officials regularly do, they also take refuge in a foreign embassy, after the appalling precedent they foolishly established the other day how safe will they be from their pursuers?

Cannon Fodder. Heavy Losses on the Front Lines. Ukrainians Refuse to Fight. Reports of Teenagers on the Battlefield

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, April 11, 2024

Apparently, the Kiev regime is willing to sacrifice the lives of all Ukrainian citizens in order to continue fighting Russia. In a recent statement, the commander of the Ukrainian army stated that all the people of the country must be prepared to go to war, making it clear that no citizen will escape military mobilization policies.

There Is No “Natural Capital”: Transforming Nature Which Is Alive Into Her Opposite

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, April 11, 2024

Instead of nature today one speaks of “ecosystem services”, a kind of mechanical order controlled by capital. The idea is to transform nature, which is alive, into her opposite, in the sense that it is “dead matter”. In this way, modern man appears as the creator of a new, better and superior nature in an attempt to do without with Mother Nature and the human mother.

Launch an International Investigation of the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge

By Emanuel Pastreich, April 11, 2024

When most of the Francis Scott Key Bridge suddenly collapsed into Chesapeake Bay before dawn on Tuesday, March 26, the nation was left with a queasy feeling in its collective stomach. The bridge fell apart like a pile of lightly glued toothpicks would; the breakup did not even radiate out from where the container ship Dali hit the bridge.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

This year, 2024, marks the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide. Ann Garrison reviews “How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsi,” one of many important books that challenge the prevailing narrative about the events of 1994.

On October 1, 1990, Ugandan troops invaded Rwanda from Uganda. They wore Ugandan uniforms, drove Ugandan vehicles, and carried weapons from the Ugandan arsenal. They were led by top ranking officers in the Ugandan military who had family roots in Rwanda and called themselves the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

Led by then General, now President Paul Kagame, they were determined to seize power in Rwanda and re-establish the ethno-supremacist Tutsi rule that had ended with the Hutu Power Revolution of 1959. They succeeded after waging a four-year war, with the help of the US, and though Rwanda pretends to have ended ethnic division and exclusion, a Wikileaks diplomatic cable reveals that all top government positions are in fact held by Tutsi and Rwanda reconciliation is a lie. Only Tutsi are allowed to publicly mourn their family members who died in the 90-day massacres of 1994, and the description “genocide against the Tutsi” is legally codified and enforced. Anyone using any other description faces prison time in Rwanda.

The invasion violated international law and Rwanda’s sovereignty, but the world barely noticed. The UN Security Council declined to even discuss it, despite the request of Rwanda’s Ambassador to the UN. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had just become President of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—which later became the African Union—and as such he assumed the role of “mediator” even though he was the principal aggressor and of course had no interest in upholding international law.

In “How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsi, ” former Rwandan Ambassador to Paris Jean-Marie Ndagijimana writes,

“Two months earlier, on 2 August, 1990, Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded its little neighbor Kuwait, and the international community went to work to put out the oil pipeline fires in what is the world’s premier oil reserve. So we poor Negroes could kill one another in silence without bothering the masters of the world who were busy elsewhere.”

The ensuing four-year war included the RPF’s horrific massacres, including targeted massacres of Hutus, but it was still barely noticed by the international community until it finally concluded in the 90-day bloodbath that included both Tutsi and Hutu genocides. Only the Tutsi genocide was broadcast around the world and later depicted in the Hollywood movie “Hotel Rwanda.”

Millions of people saw “Hotel Rwanda,” and the Rwandan Genocide thus came to be understood ahistorically, as a sudden 90-day episode of mass psychosis and bloodlust in which the Hutu majority attempted to exterminate the Tutsi minority. Hutu people have been demonized not only in Rwanda but around the world ever since. For thirty years, Rwandan President Paul Kagame has been allowed to wage a devastating war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the grounds that he is hunting Hutus who were guilty of the genocide against the Tutsi and who still threaten Rwanda.

“Stopping the next Rwanda” became the battle cry of the humanitarian warriors led by Samantha Power, who built her career on “Bystanders to Genocide, ” her crusading critique of the Clinton administration for failing to stop the genocide. She insisted that we must all from hereon be “upstanders,” not bystanders to genocide, most notably in Libya and Syria, but she hasn’t called for any upstanding to stop genocide in Gaza.

“How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsi” is one of many important books that tell the far more complex story of both Hutu and Tutsi genocides that took place over four years in Rwanda and years after that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It was a Ugandan invasion he writes, but it “was gradually transformed into a civil war by the desire for appeasement between the parties.” In other words, the Rwandan government led by President Juvenal Habyarimana accepted that the Ugandan troops with Rwandan roots were Rwandans and entered into negotiations with them, which produced the Arusha Accords signed in Arusha, Tanzania, on August 4, 1993, by the Rwandan government and the RPF. 

The Arusha Accords laid out a timetable that would lead to the multi-party elections that the international community had insisted on. However, Paul Kagame and the RPF, as a minority Tutsi party, could not have won those elections, so he had to find an excuse to seize power by force of arms with the support of the US. That excuse was, Ndagijimana argues, the genocide of the Tutsi who remained in Rwanda after the Hutu Revolution of 1959.

Ndagijimana cites the abundant evidence that Kagame ordered the assassination of President Habyarimana, which triggered panic and the horrifying Tutsi massacres broadcast internationally. “It must be noted, however,” he writes, “that the involvement of Paul Kagame does nothing to excuse the perpetrators of the Tutsi genocide, even if it does explain the Machiavellian cynicism of this former chief of military intelligence for the Ugandan army.”

As soon as the president was assassinated, the RPF broke the ceasefire, launching a push to seize power while claiming that they were fighting to save the Tutsi. The government and its army made repeated pleas to stop the war so that they could stop the Tutsi genocide, but Kagame and the RPF absolutely refused and even blocked a plan for UN intervention because they were determined to see the RPF and Kagame seize power. “The RPF and the American government did everything they could to make sure our parents would not be saved from these massacres,” Ndagijimana writes. “They stacked ‘one obstacle on another’ to keep the UN from sending international troops to stop the genocide, with their sole purpose being to allow Kagame to ‘ascend to power.’”

Ndagijimana is of both Hutu and Tutsi parentage. Why, he asks, shouldn’t he be allowed to mourn both, and why shouldn’t both receive justice? He says, as many others have, that the unequal, victor’s justice meted out by the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda and the repression of memory and mourning create dangerous ethnic tension simmering below Rwanda’s facade of ethnic reconciliation.

“I already know,” he writes, “what to expect from writing this book: to be held up to public obloquy as a negationist and revisionist. It is a sort of existential challenge when you consider the fate that generally awaits confirmed negationists and revisionists. I accept this challenge because there is no price on the Truth. I crossed the Rubicon without trepidation. I have been a political exile far from my home since 1994. I felt welcome in France because it represented an alternative to the atmosphere of terror that pervaded my country. If I had to continue living in fear of expressing myself in this country I consider my second home, I don’t know what I would be doing in France.”

Jean-Marie Ndagijimana is far from the only one to publish the same, similar, and related conclusions with various areas of emphasis and investigation. This is an incomplete list:

• Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, from Tragedy to Useful Imperial Fiction , by Robin Philpot
• Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later , by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
• In Praise of Blood: Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front , by Judi Rever
• The Accidental Genocide , by Peter Erlinder
• Surviving the Slaughter: The Ordeal of a Rwandan Refugee in Zaire , by Marie Beatrice Umutesi
• Dying to Live: A Rwandan Family’s Five Year Flight Across the Congo , by Pierre-Claver Ndacyayisenga
• America’s Wars on Democracy in Rwanda and the DRC , by Justin Podhur
• Post-Genocide Rwandan Refugees: Why They Refuse to Return ‘Home’: Myths and Realities , by Masako Yonekawa
• Rwanda 1994: The Myth of the Akazu Genocide Conspiracy and Its Consequences , by Barrie Collins
• The 1994 [UN] Gersony Report
• The 1998 [UN] Garreton Report
• The UN Group of Experts Reports on the Democratic Republic of the Congo , 2001-2020
• The UN Mapping Report on Human Rights Abuse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993 to 2003

*

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

Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. You can help support her work on Patreon. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Klaus Schwab tells us that in the Great Reset that the World Economic Forum is preparing for us “you will own nothing and you will be happy.”

Well, we already own nothing. Our bank deposits and stocks and bonds, in the event the depository institution gets into trouble, belong to the depository institution’s creditors, not to us.

All assets are pooled and serve as collateral whether or not labeled “segregated.”

You might remember that during the last financial crisis we were told that there would be no more bail-outs, that in the future there would be bail-ins. A bail-out is when central bank money creation rescues the favored troubled financial institutions.

A bail-in is when the depositors’ assets are used for the rescues.

David Rogers Webb, an experienced financial market participant, explains it in The Great Taking in 72 readable pages plus a 25 page prologue explaining who he is and a 20 page reply of the New York Fed to the European Commission Legal Certainty Group’s questions. The Great Taking is available from Lulu for $10 and is free online.

The loss of property rights in financial assets is the case throughout the Western world.

The rewrite of financial property rights appears to be the work of regulatory bodies, not legislatures which seem to be unaware of it.

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. Regulatory authorities have made legal changes of which financial market participants are unaware. Webb’s purpose is to bring awareness, which is why he has made his book freely available.

As a result of these changes, which appear to have been made by financial regulatory authorities rather than by elected legislatures, individuals no longer have property rights in “their” securities.

“Owners” now have “entitlement rights,” which means that they have pro-rata rights to whatever securities remain in the depository institution after secured creditors’ claims are met.

In actual fact, “your” securities and your bank deposits are no longer recognized in law as your personal property if the depository institution–the bank or, for example, Merrill Lynch–becomes financially troubled.

Your “ownership” is encumbered as collateral for secured creditors who are the owners in fact. Apparently, this was done by regulatory authorities as underpinning for the derivatives complex, which is many magnitudes greater than world GNP, or perhaps derivative exposure served as an excuse for setting up the Great Reset in which “you will own nothing.” Indeed, individual banks among the world’s largest have derivative exposure the size of world GDP.

You might wonder why regulatory authorities permitted something so dangerous and irresponsible to occur.

To state the bottom line in another way, “your” securities serve as collateral for the creditors of depository institutions.

Your right to “your” property terminates the minute the depository institution gets in financial trouble.

Communications between the New York Federal Reserve Bank and the European Commission Legal Certainty Group and the court case resulting from the failure of Lehman Brothers have established legal certainty that secured creditors are empowered to immediately take client assets in the event of a failure in the custodian.

National central depositories of securities (all are now pooled, none held under the “owner’s” name or segregated) are now established and are linked to the international depository so that securities can instantly be delivered world wide to meet secured creditors’ claims. Essentially, the mega-banks are “privileged creditors.”

You might think that your money and your stocks and bonds would be safe if you use as your depository one of the “banks too big to fail.” You would be mistaken. The Federal Reserve permits the large banks to create subsidiaries that hold deposits, and the Federal Reserve permits the large banks to transfer their derivatives to these same subsidiaries. In this way, the bank itself remains afloat. Only its subsidiaries holding your money and securities are wiped out in the event of a crash.

At the risk of over-promising, as even for a person of my education and experience getting one’s mind around the enormity of what has been put in place is a challenge,

I hope for this article, which you have just read, to be part 1 in a 3-part series, with the second part being an outline of the regulatory changes that stole our financial property rights, and the third part being the implications of the Federal Reserve’s raising of interest rates after 15 years of near zero rates, thus shredding the value of financial assets held in portfolios. We face the prospect of the worst financial crisis in history “solved” with the introduction of digital money that places total control into the hands of political power and its masters.

---

Read Part II:

The Great Dispossession: Turning Our Property in Financial Assets Into the Property of “Secured Creditors”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 16, 2024

---

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Sunday’s nationwide elections in Turkey were surprising. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its majority to the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) for the first time since 2001.

The left-leaning CHP emerged as the leading party in Turkey for the first time since 1977.

The AKP’s overall vote share fell 2% below that of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), which secured 37.74% of the vote nationwide.

The CHP won landslide victories in the largest cities, including in Ankara and Istanbul, and also captured 16 cities and provinces that were formerly controlled by the AKP or its allied parties.

Turkey ’s rampant inflation fuelled the fire which brought the CHP up and over the AKP after food prices skyrocketed, hitting a whopping 78%.

Voter turnout was another significant factor in the election. Many AKP supporters did not vote, as a form of protest, or apathy, since feeling their leaders are responsible for the rapidly decreasing purchasing power of the Turkish lira.

Voter turnout dropped to 78.6%, roughly 7% lower than the May general elections last year and 6% lower than the 2019 local polls.

Steven Sahiounie, of MidEastDiscourse, interviewed Aydin Sezer to gain a better understanding of what this election means to Turkey, and neighboring Syria, where there has been a Turkish supported conflict since 2011.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): Recent elections in Turkey saw President Erdogan’s AKP party lose. In your view, what does this mean for the direction of the country?

Aydin Sezer (AS): In the recent elections in Turkey, clearly, Erdoğan and the AKP failed. This is readily apparent. Nonetheless, the nation’s overall governance remains unaffected by these local elections. Indeed, the Republican People’s Party chairman and election victor, Ozgur Ozel, has declared that the party has no intention of calling early elections.

The protracted economic crisis that has hit Turkey is well-known. Already, local elections have been impacted negatively by inflation and the cost of living. Erdoğan will face significant challenges over the next four years. Will he ensure the continuity of national governance through 2028? The core question stands as such. Erdoğan’s position will be further complicated by the election results and mounting public pressure, which leads me to believe that Turkey will conduct early general elections in the coming years, as do many other analysts.

SS: Ekrem İmamoğlu won as Mayor of Istanbul again. How do you see his agenda for the city?

AS:  Ekrem İmamoğlu is the strongest candidate for the 2028 presidential elections. He portrays Erdogan’s alternative. Imamoğlu is particularly interested in not only Istanbul’s governance, but also Turkey’s overall concerns. To that purpose, he is crafting policies through think tanks and institutes with a large staff movement.

In terms of governance in Istanbul, the public have rated his work over the last five years as successful. In particular, we find that his social support to low-income groups has gained popularity.  In his initial phase of governance, it appears Imamoğlu will likely focus on Turkey rather than Istanbul alone.

SS: Turkey has three million Syrian refugees. In your opinion, what is the current view on the Syrians, and will they be sent home?

AS: Not just Syrians, but refugees from many other nations also reside in Turkey. Regarding their costs and their contribution to economic life, there are tense discussions. Radical nationalist movements contend that returning foreigners is necessary. These groups’ voting rates have now surpassed all but insignificant thresholds. Numerous social and cultural issues are brought about by asylum seekers. To be frank, Turkey’s major parties view this issue from diverse angles. Although sending them all home is not physically possible, there are increasing worries that this issue may worsen in the years to come.

SS: Some experts have said that Erdogan wants to get rid of Muhamed al-Julani and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Idlib. In your opinion, what is President Erdogan’s strategy for Idlib?

AS: Erdogan, in my opinion, has no a clear departure plan from Idlib. Erdogan is watching to see what time the procedure will begin. He is attempting to formulate a policy in light of the events. As a result, he is handing the authority to Russian President Putin in regards to Assad and HTS ties. Russia is known to have communicated different plans to Turkey and Syria. But, I think that Assad and Erdogan reaching a peace agreement should be the first requirement. In the near future, this won’t be possible; therefore, it doesn’t appear that Erdogan will be able to agree to Assad’s demands.

SS: The Turkish military and their mercenaries have established a military occupation north of Aleppo on the border region.  In your opinion, what are the chances of a Turkish withdrawal?

AS: This question is a continuation of the one above. Assad proposes two requirements: Turkey’s troops will be withdrawn from Syria, and Turkey’s backing for HTS will cease. These are unacceptable for Erdogan. As a result, his Syria policy is regarded a dead end. To make matters worse, we know that Turkey faces security challenges east of the Euphrates with both the Kurds and the US; there is a terrorist threat there. Therefore, unfortunately, there does not appear to be a solution to Syria’s multi-factor and multi-actor difficulties in the immediate future.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

There is a question that needs to be put to the leadership of Ecuador.

The next time there is a coup in their country and, as deposed Latin American officials regularly do, they also take refuge in a foreign embassy, after the appalling precedent they foolishly established the other day how safe will they be from their pursuers?

That is a matter they should be pondering gravely right now аs they contemplate the ruins of international law and the Vienna Convention following the ill-conceived incursion and abduction on foreign sovereign territory instigated on their orders in their own capital. But we do not intend to do their legal and intellectual work for them because this column is devoted to another topic.

In the United Nations General Assembly, a nasty resolution is being prepared to cement the narrative about the fabricated July 1995 genocide in Srebrenica.

The resolution’s purpose is three-fold:

• to officially endorse the dubious findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,
• to condemn “Srebrenica genocide denial,” and to
• mandate that henceforth July 11 should be observed as the international Srebrenica genocide day, akin one supposes to Women’s Day on March 8.

The last such attempt to force Srebrenica down the international community’s throat was in 2015.

It was sponsored unashamedly in the Security Council of the United Nations by the Perfidious Albion, the godfather of all genocides this side of antiquity, stretching from North America to India and with everywhere in between, not forgetting the unhappy Emerald Isle of Ireland, of course.

That slimy attempt to tar an entire nation, the Serbs in this particular case, by sullying them collectively with the most heinous crime known in international law failed only because it was vetoed by Russia.

The authors of the pending resolution assume that the clever change of venue to the General Assembly, where there are no inconvenient procedural obstacles to their machinations, should do the trick, thus avoiding a repetition of the 2015 failure. They hope that cajoling the usual assortment of obscure Pacific island statelets and subservient “allies” drawn from the four corners of the Earth should suffice to produce a respectable General Assembly vote in support of their Srebrenica resolution. It matters not to them that most of those strong-armed and blackmailed governments have no stake whatsoever in this matter and that their public for the most part have not even heard of Srebrenica.

The fact that such a resolution will have been sponsored by Germany and Rwanda, though of course it was conceived and written not by them but by their controllers, encapsulates the perfidy. Germany embodies genocide running into millions, and not just in Europe but in Southwest Africa as well. Rwanda, an obedient African protectorate of the collective West, exemplifies racially motivated mass killing on a ghastly scale in the  1990s, covertly  managed by Western special services but brilliantly deconstructed and exposed by Prof. Edward Herman and David Peterson. The fact that these two governments tainted by genocide were tasked in the UN by their hegemonic masters to table a resolution on the subject of genocide, to morally compromise a nation that historically has itself been a victim a genocide, speaks volumes about the cynicism of this sick project’s degenerate authors.

The false narrative of “Srebrenica genocide” has been picked apart relentlessly over the last decade and a half, knocking out every one of its propaganda props. As Dr. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem, said a few days ago “according to the original definition of genocide, which holds that it is an attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group, the crime committed in Srebrenica cannot be an act of genocide. Serbian forces let go all women and children before executing the men, some of whom were combatants. I do not consider the General Assembly of the United Nations to be competent to determine whether or not an event was genocide.”

The evidence strongly supports Zuroff’’s position. Over twenty years after the event, there is no proof that Serbian forces had the required special intent (dolus specialis) to exterminate the population of Srebrenica, not to speak of their coreligionists throughout Bosnia.

As Zuroff observed, the reproductive part of the population was unharmed, which directly contradicts the existence of genocidal intent. Furthermore, autopsy reports show that there were remains of a total of 1,920 individuals in Srebrenica mass graves, which is less than a quarter of the wildly inflated official figure of 8,000 victims. Pattern of injury analysis reveals that even of those about 70% died of a variety of causes, mainly combat injuries, and that at most about 800 exhibited injuries consistent with execution.

That number is roughly equivalent to the number of Serbian civilians that were killed in raids on surrounding Serbian villages carried out from the UN protected enclave of Srebrenica during the three years that preceded its capture.  

It was also established, on the basis of survivor statements, that in the period immediately following the Serbian forces’ entry into Srebrenica, on July 11, 1995, fierce combat continued with the 28^th Division of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it was breaking out of Serbian encirclement. That resulted in several thousand combat deaths that were entirely legitimate under international law and therefore could not be attributed to “genocide”. However, collective West propaganda and the illegal Tribunal at the Hague that was set up specifically to reach preordained legal and factual conclusions about the war in Bosnia were happy to conflate combat casualties with real victims in order to fix the 8,000 victims figure that they regarded as the psychological minimum for the allegation of genocide to appear credible.

The politically motivated Srebrenica resolution is due to be introduced on the General Assembly’s agenda toward the end of April, 2024.

Coincidentally, that also happens to be a date of great significance to a real genocide, commemorated at roughly the same time.

On April 22, 1945, just days before  the defeat of the Axis and the end of World War II, the few surviving prisoners of the Jasenovac concentration camp in Nazi-aligned “Independent State of Croatia,” called by Israeli historian Gideon Greif the “Auschwitz of the Balkans,” staged a rebellion, with a handful managing to escape. It is estimated that between 1941 and 1945 in Jasenovac about 600,000 victims, Serbs, Jews and Roma, perished for reasons of their race or ethnicity.

And yet this anniversary of a real genocide is of no interest to the German government. It chose pointedly to ignore it when signing on to the baseless Srebrenica resolution. If it had a shred of honour and decency it would not have done so, regardless of the instructions of its Transatlantic overseers.  The appalling details of the uninterrupted four-year butchery in Jasenovac are not in dispute, having  horrified even hardened SS officers. It was regarded with disgust by the German commanding general in Zagreb Glaise von Horstenau and the top German diplomat in the Balkans, Hermann Neubacher. The Jasenovac death camp was run and atrocities there were committed by the Croat equivalent of Ukrainian Banderites, that is correct, but under international law, as the occupying power, it is Germany that had overall responsibility to ensure the safety of civilians and to prevent their indiscriminate extermination.

By choosing not to interfere with the bestiality of its local Croatian satellites, instead of preventing Germany in fact facilitated those outrages.

We now have a clear answer to the question in the title of this text. No, there seem to be no limits to their contemptible cynicism and hypocrisy. If Germany were truly looking for a way to assuage its conscience and to demonstrate repentance, it would be submitting in the General Assembly a resolution to condemn one of the authentic genocides, in Jasenovac and throughout Croatia during World War II, in the perpetration of which it played at least a facilitating role. It would not be virtue signalling with the politically concocted “genocide” in Srebrenica, made up out of thin air to humiliate and bully a proud nation that refuses to submit to the dictates of the collective West (of which Germany is a subservient member) today, just as its grandparents had refused to bow to Hitler and his minions in 1941.

Sadly, whatever Germany and its Transatlantic handlers ultimately do, it would be naïve to expect that they will receive their proper comeuppance from the cowardly Serbian government. That government will not, as it should and is perfectly entitled to do, introduce in the General Assembly its own resolution calling on the world community to recognise and condemn the genocidal extermination of the Serbian people in Jasenovac and elsewhere in Banderite Croatia during World War II.

In fact, it is a matter of great interest to see whether in fear of its Western masters that miserable government will even dare to vote against occupied Germany’s and pathetic Rwanda’s resolution in the General Assembly, blaming the Serbian people for the fictitious “genocide” in Srebrenica.

After all, in November 2022 the Serbian government instructed their representative in the UN to shamefully abstain on the resolution  condemning the glorification of Nazism, racism, and xenophobia, evils from which their own people had suffered immeasurably. So on the upcoming Srebrenica resolution, all bets are off.

*

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

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

---

Rethinking Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic

Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.

Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:

1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;

2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;

3) Genocide or Blowback?;

4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);

5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;

6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;

7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;

8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;

9) The Balance Sheet; and

10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.

• ASIN:‎ B0992RRJRK
• Publisher: ‎Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
• Language: ‎English

Click here to purchase. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Apparently, the Kiev regime is willing to sacrifice the lives of all Ukrainian citizens in order to continue fighting Russia.

In a recent statement, the commander of the Ukrainian army stated that all the people of the country must be prepared to go to war, making it clear that no citizen will escape military mobilization policies.

In a social media post, the commander of Kiev’s ground forces, Aleksandr Pavlyuk, stated that all eligible Ukrainians will fight on the battlefield at some point, considering the country’s armed forces’ constant need to replace their losses on the front lines. He called on all Ukrainians to “put aside their emotions” and enlist as soon as possible in the defense forces to “protect the state.” More than that, he said fighting Russia is a “constitutional duty” of all Ukrainian citizens.

Pavlyuk also commented on the criticism made by ordinary Ukrainians against the recruitment centers. According to him, the people’s hostility towards recruitment officers is intolerable since the workers at the centers are veterans and therefore the citizens “have no right to make them feel guilty, unwanted or unsafe before those whose lives they literally saved.”

“No matter how much help we get, how many weapons we have – we lack people (…) Everyone who was examined as eligible (for service), with no exceptions, will go to the training centers. The basic training program lasts one month”, he said.

As well known, Ukraine recently lowered the military recruitment age from 27 to 25 – although there are reports of even teenagers fighting on the battlefield.

This measure has been considered by experts as a desperate effort to replace the heavy losses suffered by the regime during intense fighting on the front lines. The country’s situation is increasingly critical, as there is a lack of skilled people to fight. The constant deaths at the front and mass migration have made the country incapable of maintaining a prolonged war effort, which has worried the regime’s authorities.

Interestingly, he admitted in his post that the military aid received from the West is not enough to win the war.

He states that the number of weapons does not really matter, since there are not enough people to fight. This assessment is correct, as obviously weapons are useless if there are no personnel to use them – as well as to occupy the ground gained on the battlefield.

However, tyrannical forced recruitment measures are not the solution to the Ukrainian problem.

It is not enough to recruit as many citizens as possible and send them to the front lines in a few days. It is necessary to qualify them in the handling of Western weapons and train them appropriately to deal with the brutal reality of the conflict.

The basic training offered by Kiev to its new recruits has already proven useless and incapable of preparing real combatants.

Most newly enlisted soldiers die during their first days on the front lines, making them easy targets for Russian missiles and drones. In practice, Kiev is just creating “meat grinders” and making its own citizens mere cannon fodder.

In fact, Pavlyuk’s position on the topic reflects the hegemonic mentality in Ukraine and the West. There is strong pressure for recruitment to continue, even if forced. The proxy war against Russia cannot end anytime soon, as the West has failed to achieve its objective of causing damage and “wearing down” the Russian Federation.

So, even without any expectation of victory, Kiev can only continue recruiting and sending everything it has to the front lines.

However, it is necessary to remember that Pavlyuk himself was a victim of Vladimir Zelensky’s recent purge policies.

He currently works as commander of ground forces, but previously he served as First Deputy Minister of Defense, having been dismissed in February. The reasons for his removal from office are still unclear, but the case is certainly related to the preventive measures taken by Zelensky to weaken other Ukrainian officials and prevent maneuvers against his government. Pavlyuk is certainly afraid of suffering even more reprisals, which is why he is increasing his public activities, but what happened to him is further evidence that the neo-Nazi regime is weakened and polarized between different factions.

Recently, reports have spread about Ukrainian citizens fleeing to border countries, such as Romania. As much as Kiev’s allies encourage these citizens to return to their country to fight, international obligations prevent forced repatriation, which makes Ukrainian mobilization even more complicated. Without people to send to the front, the regime is already recruiting even women, the elderly and people with serious health problems. This is an absolutely unsustainable situation in the long term, with the collapse of the regime being a matter of time.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

When most of the Francis Scott Key Bridge suddenly collapsed into Chesapeake Bay before dawn on Tuesday, March 26, the nation was left with a queasy feeling in its collective stomach.

The bridge fell apart like a pile of lightly glued toothpicks would; the breakup did not even radiate out from where the container ship Dali hit the bridge.

The result? An important railroad track for the transportation of freight on the East Coast was interrrupted, the entrance to the major harbor near the nation’s capital was shut down, and hazardous materials were spilled in the water that restricted an immediate clean up.

We all remember the manner in which the corporate media tried to normalize, to explain scientifically, how the World Trade Center fell into itself, pancaking down to the ground in a free fall that denied every law of physics.  

Maybe this was all a big accident, but it is not likely.

We are not going to be fooled again by a massive false flag attack on our vital infrastructure. We must launch an international, scientific, objective, and fearless international investigation into what forces, foreign, domestic, or perhaps some twisted combination of the two, were behind this attack, and whether it was tied to, or in response to, American actions in Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, or elsewhere.

The possibility that the boat was hacked, and that the bridge was rigged up to collapse, are high enough to demand a careful investigation with all the evidence made public for the world.

The corruption within the Department of Transportation and Homeland Security is so great today as to demand an international investigation that will be forced to be scientific.

Those who declare this incident to be an accident before any investigation has been conducted are not doing us any favors.

If it was an attack, it would be impossible for there to be such a blanket of silence in response unless there were inside players involved.

We will not know what happened until we investigate via an international scientific team.

Nevertheless, we do know a few facts from the start. The Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed on March 26, just four days after the mysterious attacks in Moscow at Crocus City Hall.

We know that gas pipelines were mysteriously blown up in the Iranian provinces of Fars and Chahar, at 1 AM on Feb. 14—the same time of day as this collapse.

We also know that General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed a few days later in the April 1 Bombing of Iranian Embassy in Syria by Israel.

There are many other unanswered questions concerning this incident that closed down America’s vital infrastructure. Before we pretend that nothing happened, before we are convinced to blame the wrong people, let us launch a real investigation.

Finally, let us not rule out the possibility that the ultimate responsibility may lie with forces that are transnational in nature, and that those powers would love to lure us into fighting each other, rather than following the money to the top—but I get ahead of myself.

Let us first launch a real investigation that is fearless and scientific, and that is for the benefit of all the citizens of the world.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Last year I published one of the most popular articles on Ivermectin and Cancer Treatment ever published, which went viral internationally:

Oct. 2, 2023 – IVERMECTIN and CANCER, it has at least 15 anti-cancer mechanisms of action. Can Ivermectin Treat COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers? – 9 Ivermectin papers reviewed

2024 – New Studies

• (2024 Fan et al) – Ivermectin Inhibits Bladder Cancer Cell Growth and Induces Oxidative Stress and DNA Damage
• (2024 Man-Yuan Li et al) – Ivermectin induces nonprotective autophagy by downregulating PAK1 and apoptosis in lung adenocarcinoma cells
• (2024 Kaur et al) – Ivermectin: A Multifaceted drug with a potential beyond anti-parasitic therapy
• (2024 Xing Hu et al) – Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma
• (2024 Yang Song et al) – Gene signatures to therapeutics: Assessing the potential of ivermectin against t(4;14) multiple myeloma
• (2024 Goldfarb et al) – Lipid-Restricted Culture Media Reveal Unexpected Cancer Cell Sensitivities
• (2024 Newell et al) – Therapeutic targeting of nuclear export and import receptors in cancer and their potential in combination chemotherapy

Practical approach to using Ivermectin in cancer treatment (Disclaimer: the following is not medical advice): 

In “Ivermectin and Cancer Part 1”, I covered all the mechanisms of action that Ivermectin has shown against cancer in many in vitro and in vivo studies.

The 7 new studies published in 2024 only confirm what we already know from previous studies. Ivermectin is highly effective against many cancers.

Since my previous Ivermectin article, I‘ve had 1000s of questions sent to me. Not about mechanisms of action against Cancer. But about practical use – how to use Ivermectin to treat Stage 4 Cancers, what formulations, what doses?

The goal of this article (Part 2) is to answer all of those questions to the best of my ability.

First, dose safety. Can you overdose on Ivermectin? Not really.

Click here to watch the video

 

Safety of 18mg and 36mg single dose regimens: (2018, Munoz et al)

• Safety data showed no significant differences between groups and no serious adverse events: headache was the most frequent adverse event in all treatment groups, none of them severe.
• “highlighting its safety across different dosing regimens.”

Safety of 30 or 60mg (3 times a week) or 90 or 120mg (single dose) (2002, Guzzo et al)

• Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 microg/kg.
• Following single doses of 30 to 120 mg, AUC and Cmax were generally dose proportional, with t(max) approximately 4 hours and t1/2 approximately 18 hours
• This study demonstrated that ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these higher doses and more frequent regimens.

Safety of 1mg/kg dose for 180 days (2020 de Castro et al)

• “Cancer patients who took ivermectin at five times that standard dose daily for up to 180 consecutive days had no serious adverse effects from it, in experimental protocols with harsh additional drugs”

Safety of 800ug/kg (2020, Navarro et al)

• “add evidence to the safety of ivermectin at doses up to 800 μg/kg, which demonstrated an overall comparable safety to standard doses, which in this meta-analysis was tested in separate analyses using the 200 and 400 μg/kg doses”

Safety of 2mg/kg dose (Jonathan Lee, critical care paramedic in Toronto Canada) 

“The human data surrounding ivermectin overdose is limited. Animal models generally report doses between 5-15 mg/kg as toxic. Poison control suggests individuals who have received more than 2 mg/kg be seen in a hospital. It is with larger doses that Ivermectin is able to cross the blood-brain barrier in humans and begin to cause neurological symptoms.”

Formulations

I don’t recommend brands or sell Ivermectin or recommend particular suppliers! Get the formulation or brand that is right for you.

Some common formulations that are available on the market:

 

• pills or tablets typically come in 3mg, 6mg or 12mg

• liquid form is usually 1mL per 10mg of IVM (always double check)
• paste form is usually 6.4g per 120mg of IVM (always double check)

Experimental Cancer Protocols

I propose the following thought experiment & hypothetical “Experimental Protocols” for Turbo Cancer Treatment:

Assume a 60kg person is diagnosed with Stage 4 Turbo Colon Cancer.

And this person wants to take a 1mg/kg/day regimen. That’s 60mg of IVM per day.

That would be five 12mg pills a day. Or 150 12mg pills a month. This can get very expensive, especially if the cost of pills is anywhere from $2 to $5 per pill.

Alternatively, it would be 6mL of IVM liquid (10mg/1mL) per day.

Alternatively, it would be 3g or half a tube of paste per day.

If cost is an issue, the cheapest would be the liquid, which is typically $100 per 500mL or $1 per 5mL, or about $1 per day.

A tube of paste would be $10 per 6g, and half would be $5 per day.

Five 12mg pills a day would be anywhere from $10 to $25 per day.

The cost of pills varies widely, depending on where you obtain them. Most people import them from India but they can still be pricy. I was in Mexico recently and over the counter 6mg pills were $5 USD each (a ridiculous price so I didn’t buy, but it was a small pharmacy in a very Tourist area).

Low Dose 

Some people want to take Ivermectin prophylactically to protect themselves in these types of situations:

• Cancer in remission
• Strong family history of Cancer
• Genetic predisposition to cancer

In these cases a low dose would be 12mg or 24mg a day and would be considered prophylaxis. There are currently no studies looking at Ivermectin taken as prophylaxis to protect against cancer.

Would you get protection against cancer? I believe you would.

Medium Dose

1mg/kg/day seems to be a reasonable starting dose for most cancer cases.

You would not expect any side effects at this dose and finacially, it can be accomplished very affordably.

When you can monitor tumor burden with a blood test for cancers like prostate cancer (PSA), colon cancer (CEA) or ovarian cancer (CA125), it’s very important to measure these on a regular basis and watch the numbers drop over time.

Another method of monitoring response to Ivermectin 1mg/kg/day treatment is to follow up with regular ultrasounds or CTs (or other types of diagnostic imaging)

This regimen would be taken daily until tumors disappear or cancer blood markers drop to normal range.

Typical Turbo Cancers: lymphomas, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, testicular cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, kidney cancer.

High Dose

2mg/kg/day is a high dose.

I would start with this dose in aggressive Turbo Cancer cases where time is of the essence: Leukemia, Pancreatic Cancer, Brain cancers (glioblastoma, astrocytoma).

For brain cancers in particular the issue is getting sufficient IVM across the blood brain barrier to have an impact on brain tumors. So a higher dose is necessary.

Could be used for some rarer but aggressive Turbo Cancers such as: appendix, gallbladder, cholangiocarcinoma, angiosarcoma and other types of sarcoma.

Very High Dose 

2.5mg/kg/day is a very high dose with possibility of transient visual side effects.

The effect on cancer is likely similar to 2mg/kg/day, but if anyone is in a very desperate situation:

• extensive burden of metastatic disease
• extremely aggressive or large brain tumors
• only days to live
• extremely poor prognosis

It may be worth pushing the dose to this level. 

*

Stage 4 Colon Cancer Case – Rick Alderson took Ivermectin with his Cancer Treatment (Epoch Times)

Click here to watch the video

*

Conclusion

This is information based on peer reviewed research and some hypotheses and thought experiments in the interest of advancing science and medical knowledge.

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel

---

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Aparentemente, o regime de Kiev está disposto a sacrificar as vidas de todos os cidadãos ucranianos para continuar a lutar contra a Rússia. Numa declaração recente, o comandante do exército ucraniano afirmou que toda a população do país deve estar preparada para ir para a guerra, deixando claro que nenhum cidadão escapará às políticas de mobilização militar.

Numa publicação nas redes sociais, o comandante das forças terrestres de Kiev, Aleksandr Pavlyuk, afirmou que todos os ucranianos em condições lutarão no campo de batalha em algum momento, considerando a necessidade constante das forças armadas do país de repor as suas perdas nas linhas da frente. Ele apelou a todos os ucranianos para “deixarem de lado as suas emoções” e se alistarem o mais rapidamente possível nas forças de defesa para “proteger o Estado”. Mais do que isso, disse que combater a Rússia é um “dever constitucional” de todos os cidadãos ucranianos.

Pavlyuk também comentou as críticas feitas pelos ucranianos comuns aos centros de recrutamento. Segundo ele, a hostilidade do povo para com os oficiais de recrutamento é intolerável, uma vez que os trabalhadores dos centros são veteranos e, portanto, os cidadãos “não têm o direito de os fazer sentir culpados, indesejados ou inseguros”.

“Não importa quanta ajuda recebamos, quantas armas tenhamos – faltam-nos pessoas (…) Todos os que foram examinados como elegíveis (para o serviço), sem exceções, irão para os centros de formação por um mês”, disse ele.

Como é bem sabido, a Ucrânia baixou recentemente a idade de recrutamento militar de 27 para 25 anos – embora haja relatos de até adolescentes que lutaram no campo de batalha. Esta medida foi considerada pelos especialistas como um esforço desesperado para substituir as pesadas perdas sofridas pelo regime durante os intensos combates nas linhas da frente. A situação do país é cada vez mais crítica, pois falta gente qualificada para lutar. As constantes mortes na frente e a migração em massa tornaram o país incapaz de manter um esforço de guerra prolongado, o que tem preocupado as autoridades do regime.

Curiosamente, ele admitiu no seu post que a ajuda militar recebida do Ocidente não é suficiente para vencer a guerra. Ele afirma que a quantidade de armas não importa muito, pois não há gente suficiente para lutar. Esta avaliação está correta, pois obviamente as armas são inúteis se não houver pessoal para utilizá-las – bem como para ocupar o terreno conquistado no campo de batalha.

No entanto, as medidas tirânicas de recrutamento forçado não são a solução para o problema ucraniano. Não basta recrutar o maior número possível de cidadãos e enviá-los para a linha da frente em poucos dias. É necessário qualificá-los no manejo das armas ocidentais e treiná-los adequadamente para lidar com a realidade brutal do conflito. A formação básica oferecida por Kiev aos seus novos recrutas já se revelou inútil e incapaz de preparar verdadeiros combatentes. A maioria dos soldados recém-alistados morre durante os primeiros dias na linha de frente, tornando-os alvos fáceis para mísseis e drones russos. Na prática, Kiev está apenas a criar “moedores de carne” e a transformar os seus próprios cidadãos em meras buchas de canhão.

Na verdade, a posição de Pavlyuk sobre o tema reflete a mentalidade hegemônica na Ucrânia e no Ocidente. Há uma forte pressão para que o recrutamento continue, mesmo que forçado. A guerra por procuração contra a Rússia não pode terminar tão cedo, uma vez que o Ocidente não conseguiu atingir o seu objectivo de causar danos e “desgastar” a Federação Russa. Assim, mesmo sem qualquer expectativa de vitória, Kiev só pode continuar a recrutar e a enviar tudo o que tem para a linha da frente.

Contudo, é necessário lembrar que o próprio Pavlyuk foi vítima das recentes políticas de purga de Vladimir Zelensky. Atualmente trabalha como comandante de forças terrestres, mas anteriormente atuou como Primeiro Vice-Ministro da Defesa, tendo sido demitido em fevereiro. As razões da sua destituição do cargo ainda não são claras, mas o caso está certamente relacionado com as medidas preventivas tomadas por Zelensky para enfraquecer outras autoridades ucranianas e evitar manobras contra o seu governo. Pavlyuk tem certamente medo de sofrer ainda mais represálias, razão pela qual está a aumentar as suas atividades públicas, mas o que lhe aconteceu é mais uma prova de que o regime neonazista está enfraquecido e polarizado entre diferentes facções.

Recentemente, espalharam-se relatos sobre cidadãos ucranianos que fogem para países fronteiriços, como a Romênia. Por mais que os aliados de Kiev incentivem estes cidadãos a regressar ao seu país para lutar, as leis internacionais impedem o repatriamento forçado, o que torna a mobilização ucraniana ainda mais complicada. Sem pessoas para enviar para a frente, o regime já recruta até mulheres, idosos e pessoas com graves problemas de saúde. Esta é uma situação absolutamente insustentável a longo prazo, sendo o colapso do regime uma questão de tempo.

 

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Kiev having serious mobilization problems, InfoBrics, 9 de Abril de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

By allowing (or even being an accomplice to) NATO’s terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, the European Union effectively committed macroeconomic suicide.

As per usual, the mainstream propaganda machine immediately blamed Russia for supposedly “sabotaging” its own natural gas pipelines it had been building for well over a decade.

The cartoonishly “evil Kremlin” was once again accused of allegedly “weaponizing” its vast energy reserves against the EU.

For months, claiming anyone but Moscow was behind the terrorist attacks would get one branded a “conspiracy theorist”, a designation perfectly fit to have dissenting opinions “canceled”. However, as time passed, it became clear who the real perpetrators were, a fact that even some mainstream propaganda machine outlets couldn’t ignore anymore. At least 23 diplomatic and intelligence officials in nine countries, all of whom have been involved in the international investigation into the terrorist attack, stated there’s “no evidence that Russia was behind the sabotage”.

However, after this revelation finally exonerated Russia, it also opened a series of new questions as to who actually organized the terrorist attacks. The US-led political West keeps insisting it was some “mysterious, deep-diving pro-Ukrainian group”, a claim that one is barely able to utter with a straight face.

And while the Kiev regime certainly had the means and the interest to commit such a terrorist attack, the chances of it being the true organizer are virtually none. In addition, the simple fact that the United States profited immensely as a result of the ensuing EU-Russia economic decoupling, particularly the former’s weaning off Russian piped natural gas, Washington DC’s involvement becomes even clearer, as it suggests a strong motive (not to mention that several top-ranking American officials actually threatened to stop the project by any means necessary). The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines came approximately a month after some in Brussels suggested using them to increase Russian energy imports.

What’s more, it also “coincided perfectly” with the manifold surge in US LNG shipments to the EU, which surpassed Russian natural gas deliveries for the very first time.

This was so painfully obvious that even the usually compliant Brussels bureaucrats complained that Washington DC was engaged in war profiteering.

And yet, even in this situation, the EU simply couldn’t get enough natural gas without additional LNG shipments – from Russia.

According to Charles Kennedy, Moscow’s LNG exports “gained over 4% in the first quarter of this year as it increased output to replace sanctioned pipeline gas exports to Europe”. Quoting the Russian Kommersant newspaper report published on April 8, Kennedy relayed the findings in his own report for OilPrice.com. Citing a 4.3% increase in unsanctioned LNG exports in the first quarter of 2024 based on data from Kpler, Kommersant reported that Russian LNG exports to the EU are rising, while those to Asia are declining. The aforementioned 4.3% increase amounts to 8.7 million metric tons.

On the other hand, Moscow’s LNG exports to Asia for the same period of the year saw a 7% decline, which was made up for by a 4% increase in exports to Europe, which received some 5 million tons of Russian LNG during the first quarter. 

According to the report, the bulk of LNG production in Russia comes from the Yamal LNG project, run by Novatek, and the Sakhalin Energy project, run by Gazprom. In late March, Moscow moved to sell Shell’s minority stake in the Sakhalin LNG project to Gazprom for $1 billion. Initially, the Kremlin was planning to give the stake to Novatek in the wake of Shell’s move to abandon the project after the political West launched its unprecedented (albeit ultimately self-defeating) sanctions warfare against the Eurasian giant. Quoting the Russian newspaper Vedomosti, Kennedy reports that “Novatek has deemed its participation in the Sakhalin project to have high legal risks”. And yet, the market is not only still there, but it keeps growing, and the EU needs to get its LNG from somewhere.

According to Kennedy’s report, the new data is showing the rise in Russian LNG exports to the EU, which indicates that Brussels has effectively replaced Russian natural gas through pipelines from its eastern ports with Russian LNG at its western ports as the bloc becomes the biggest buyer of Russian LNG, clocking in half of all Russian LNG export volume this year so far, followed by China, which scooped up 21% as of February data. 

Kennedy also quotes Reuters and its data analysis in February that also showed that the EU has replaced Russian piped gas flows with Russian LNG imported primarily to Spain, Belgium and France.

This clearly indicates that the bureaucratic elites in Brussels don’t really care about the economic and financial well-being of their own populace, as it makes no sense to replace the highly affordable natural gas transported via pipelines with the shipborne LNG that’s not only incomparably more expensive, but it also takes far longer to reach Europe and is far more expensive in terms of storage.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

There has been a lot of speculation about the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky‘s mental stability, particularly since the special military operation (SMO) started more than two years ago.

While he’s certainly never been an independent actor, his behavior sometimes indicates that he’s truly a loose cannon and perhaps even a liability for the political West. Obviously, as long as he’s “getting the job done” (i.e. fully turning former Ukraine into a neocolony), it’s all “nice and dandy” for the belligerent power pole, so we’ll still be forced to endure the mainstream propaganda machine’s laughable praises about Zelensky being the “beacon of freedom and democracy for the whole world“. However, once again, that doesn’t mean we won’t get to see the somewhat less controlled side of the Kiev regime frontman’s increasingly deranged personality.

Namely, we all remember just how much Zelensky has been parroting about “closing the sky” over Ukraine with the “best fighter jets in the world”, rather ignorantly referring to the US-made F-16.

His incessant “begmanding” for these light single-engine jets resulted in years of futile efforts to get them ready for battle usage against far more advanced heavyweight Russian air superiority fighter jets and interceptors.

By the time last year’s much-touted counteroffensive failed, it became clear that F-16s would certainly not be the so-called “game changer”, a fact that several important Western media outlets, think tanks and similar organizations, as well as some top-ranking officials, all warned about. However, instead of serving as some sort of a reality check, this made Zelensky even worse, as he then doubled down on his requests.

Worse yet, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman was now demanding over a hundred upgraded F-16s, as the ones his forces were promised turned out to be hopelessly outclassed by modern Russian jets.

However, the interests of individual NATO member states precede the needs of the Kiev regime, which is why major prospective donors such as Denmark switched to actually selling their obsolete surplus jets to other countries, a move unequivocally supported by the United States, particularly as its geopolitical rivalry with China keeps escalating. It could be argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent comments about the futility of the delivery of F-16s and their actual impact (or, more precisely, the lack thereof) on the battlefield could’ve been the final nail in the coffin of that ludicrous “game changer” propaganda narrative.

Still, Zelensky obviously needs something to get him going, so he decided to now switch to the much more overhyped “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) system.

What started out as the notorious “begmanding” for a couple of systems to help augment the Neo-Nazi junta’s existing air defenses, all inherited from the Soviet Union’s world-class SAMs inventory, has now degenerated into completely uncontrollable demands for hundreds of systems and thousands of missiles that the political West couldn’t possibly supply even if it wanted to.

Namely, on March 28, CBS News published a video interview with Zelensky, during which he claimed that only “five to seven ‘Patriot’ systems from [the US] will protect industrial platforms in Ukraine today”, adding that, with them, the Kiev regime forces would “unblock the sky and our guys will go forward“.

However, just a bit over a week later, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman made a starkly different assessment in an interview with national television on April 6, when he said that “it’s preferable to have 25 Patriot systems, with 6-8 batteries each”.

This is a four or fivefold increase, a massive difference in comparison to his previous claims. It should be noted that the word “systems” in this case refers to entire units, specifically to battalions (or divisions in Russian military nomenclature). Each battalion consists of six batteries, while each battery (i.e. the basic firing unit) consists of a phased array radar, an engagement control station, computers, power generating equipment and up to eight launchers (usually six), each of which holds at least four ready-to-fire missiles (although this has been increased significantly in the latest versions).

If we count six launchers per battery, depending on the variant, this is anywhere between 24 and 96 missiles per battery. For instance, the relatively basic PAC-2 carries four missiles in each launcher, while the more advanced PAC-3 carries sixteen (four in each of the four launchers). Thus, a single battalion has at least 144 missiles for PAC-2 and 576 for PAC-3. And Zelensky wants 25 battalions, up from 5-7 he mentioned just over a week before. Thus, if he were to get the PAC-2, that’s 3600 missiles. Although the exact number of “Patriot” battalions in the US military and NATO is certainly a secret, open source data shows that the Pentagon had less than 500 launchers in 2010, while the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC) produced around 10,000 missiles so far, meaning that Zelensky wants a “mere” third of all missiles ever made.

In terms of funding, this amounts to the following – a single battery for the US military costs over a billion dollars, while export customers are charged a staggering $2.5 billion. Thus, in the best-case scenario (non-export pricing with a slight, albeit unlikely, discount that not even the US military is getting), the Kiev regime needs at least $150 billion for 25 “Patriot” battalions alone. In terms of missiles, the US military is paying $4 million apiece, while export customers pay up to $10 million. Once again, if non-export pricing is taken into account, that’s at least another $14.4 billion for PAC-2 missiles alone. It’s important to note that these numbers could be several times higher if the Kiev regime starts demanding more advanced versions such as the PAC-3. Who in their right mind believes this is viable and sustainable for the political West?

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

One of the last major, and most strident, institutes of higher learning holdouts clinging to pseudoscientific and immoral COVID-19 vaccine mandates, Rutgers University, recently unexpectedly halted its requirements for students.

Pending litigation against Rutgers by Children’s Health Defense continues unabated:

“We are planning to appeal further to the U.S. Supreme Court, continuing to press our position that Rutgers never had the power to do what it did,” per lead attorney in the suit, Julio C. Gomez.

In an email obtained by Children’s Health Defense and distributed by the administration to all faculty, staff, and students, the university made the following claims before noting it has decided to drop COVID-19 vaxx requirements despite emphasizing that “ALL other vaccine requirements will remain in effect” for students:

“Since March 2020 we have relied on science, including guidance from our own experts and from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[1], on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Your cooperation has been unfailing and led to a successful effort in keeping our community safe[2].”

It is public record, and has for years at this point, that, in addition to the “vaccines” not stopping transmission, Pfizer never even tested in its clinical trials to determine whether they prevented transmission. The pharmaceutical industry simply dispatched the dutiful corporate state media stenographers who rely on its advertising bucks, and politicians who rely on their campaign bucks, to say they prevent transmission, thereby granting carte blanche to workplaces, schools, and local governments to enforce unjustifiable mandates.

Anyone who challenged the transmission narrative, by the way, as I did from the start of their rollout, got their social media accounts permanently suspended.

What all of this boils down to is that there is not now and never was any legitimate public health rationale for COVID-19 vaccine mandates, and any institution like Rutgers that exercised even a modicum of due diligence would have known this from the start.

Accordingly, all of the students who got the shot and suffered lifelong injuries or died, as well as those who refused and were expelled or denied admission, are owed reparations.

Wake Up NJ hosted a X Spaces last night featuring No College Mandates and students impacted by the mandates.

One of the main takeaways for me were the life-changing impacts on a personal level that these draconian edicts inflicted on students; it occurred to me, while listening, that, had I been a student at Rutgers or anywhere with a mandate in the COVID era, I may never have graduated from college. We may never know fully how many lives were destroyed over the last several years, but the evidence of the devastation will only mount moving forward.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] This is how institutions like Rutgers have been allowed to get away with enforcing pseudoscientific COVID policies throughout the pandemic: hiding behind the “guidelines” from the CDC. It’s also how the Public Health™ appendages of the federal government have been able to enforce their will yet retain plausible deniability that they themselves ever created or enforced any mandates; they simply released “guidelines” that Rutgers and other institutions reflectively followed, with implications of revoked federal funding or other consequences for non-compliance. It’s a shell game of deferred responsibility.

[2] On the substantive merit of mandates, the so-called “vaccines,” we now have the data to prove, did no such thing as “led to a successful effort in keeping our community safe,” as Rutgers claims — a claim, by the way, likely designed to indemnify itself against legal responsibility in the pending CHD lawsuit.

Featured image source

---

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

 

The Jews are closely associated with the word holocaust. The word is culturally attached to the Jewish people, recalling a terrible genocide in Europe in the WW2 era which killed millions. It wasn’t the first genocide of modern times, that was committed on the Armenians and Syrian Christians in 1916, and it likely will not be the last genocide. We are currently watching the 2024 genocide in Gaza.

Similarly, the Japanese are closely associated with the word Hiroshima, recalling the twin US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which turned some 100,000 people instantly into ashes, and killed thousands more in the days that followed, mostly civilians.

On March 25, US Representative Tim Walberg, Republican of Michigan, was speaking at a town hall meeting in Dundee, Michigan. He was asked a question about why US money is being spent to build a port to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

Walberg said,

“It’s (President) Joe Biden’s reason. I don’t think we should. I don’t think any of our aid that goes to Israel to support our greatest ally, arguably maybe in the world, to defeat Hamas, and Iran and Russia and probably North Korea’s in there and China too, with them helping Hamas. We shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid. It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.”

After the video of Walberg’s calling for the Palestinian people in Gaza to be nuked went viral on social media, Walberg spokesman Mike Rorke confirmed the validity of the video.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI), a Michigan chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, condemned Walberg’s call to end humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in Gaza and instead nuke the civilian population into extermination.

Humanitarian groups and the UN say a port is necessary because Israel has blocked seven land routes for food and medicine to get in to Gaza. The UN warns that famine is “imminent” in Gaza. The International Court of Justice last week ruled unanimously that Israel must allow humanitarian assistance to enter Gaza because “famine is setting in.”

Walberg serves as the US Congressional representative from Michigan’s 5th congressional district. He has previously represented the 7th district from 2007 to 2009 and from 2011 to 2023. As the longest tenured member from Michigan, Walberg is the current Dean of its delegation to the US House of Representatives.

Walberg the Christian Leader

From 1973 to 1977, Walberg served as pastor at Grace Fellowship Church in New Haven, Indiana. He also spent time as a pastor and as a division manager for the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

Walberg often talks about his faith guiding his politics. A graduate of three evangelical schools: Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, Tayler University in Indiana, and Wheaton College in Illinois.

In February, Moody published a quote from Walberg,

“Living out my biblical worldview and not succumbing to acquiesce in any way, shape, or form to anything that God condemns. … I can’t — by silence or direct statement — condone what God condemns.”

In an interview with World magazine, Walberg said,

“Everything comes at me through the filter of my faith. It has to be that way if this is more than a religion.”

In April 2019, a Jewish group at the University of Michigan hosted Walberg speaking. Walberg spoke on how his religion guides his support for Israel. He said the main reason he fervently believes the US must support Israel is because he believes God supports Israel.

“I read the Torah, I’ve read the entire Old Testament,” Walberg said. “What God condemns, I condemn. Who God loves I will love. If I don’t, I’m a sinner.”

Walberg went on to say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “moral clarity.”

“The most impressive experience was being able to be with Bibi Netanyahu,” Walberg said. “In his presence, I understand very clearly he knows good from evil, right from wrong, success from failure.”

US College and University Students Protest

In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Gaza, American college students began protesting the Israeli slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza. They carried Palestinian flags and placards reading ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘Stop the War’ among other sentiments.

The American youth have seen the war on Gaza as a social justice issue which needs to be solved, and the US and other nations have called for a two-state solution, where Palestinians and Jews live in freedom ‘from the river to the sea’.

However, AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobbying group which welds enormous power over the Congress and the White House, immediately instituted a campaign to discredit university presidents, professors and students with a label of ‘anti-Semitics’.

Walberg authored a letter in October and signed it along with 43 other lawmakers calling on Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to take action on college campuses across the US.

Walberg, and others, identified statements in support of Palestinians as ‘anti-Semitism’, when the freedom for Palestinians called for by the students is the same as the UN resolution ratified by the US and calling for a two-state solution, which Netanyahu has said will never be allowed in Israel.

Palestinian Christians

Christian churches in Gaza have been destroyed by Israeli forces, including a Baptist church. The remaining Christian communities would be among those facing the nukes called for by Walberg, a former Baptist pastor.

“A genocide has been normalized,” Reverend Munther Isaac, pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, said during his Easter Vigil sermon on March 30, as he pleaded for an end to the war in Gaza.

“As people of faith, if we truly claim to follow a crucified Savior, we can never be okay with this. We should never accept the normalization of a genocide. We should never be okay with children dying from starvation,” Isaac said.

“These are dark, dark days. And in times like this, we Palestinians look at the cross, identify with the cross, and see Jesus identifying with us,” he added as he stood next to a cross planted in rubble to represent Gaza. “In Easter, we relive his arrest, torture, and execution at the hands of empire with a complicity of the religious ideology.”

Isaac said, speaking to Al Jazeera from Bethlehem in the West Bank at Easter, “I think the restrictions this year have definitely increased. Even for us here in Bethlehem – and Jerusalem is literally 20 minutes away from here – we don’t have access.”

Zionism

The opinion Walberg voiced publically was full of hate and racism. He might have gotten away with his bigoted hate speech; however, he is a former Christian leader, and is on the record as depending on his faith as the guiding factor in his life and public service.

How did Walburg profess Christian faith, while suggesting a quick end to the Israeli war on Gaza by using nuclear bombs?

Walburg is a Zionist. Zionism is a fascist political ideology hiding behind religion. Not every Jew is a Zionist, and not every Christian is a Zionist, but many are. If Jews are following their religious tenant, “do no harm” and Christians are living their religious tenant, “love your neighbor as yourself” then nuking Gaza has no place in either faith.

Fascism is a political dogma best described as, “you are either with me, or against me”. The German NAZI party was a fascist political ideology. Zionism calls for the Jewish State of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians, as they have no legal claim on the land of their ancestors, or even the land they legally own presently. Zionists want Palestinians to leave by their own choice, or deportation, or by death.

Zionism disregards international law and religious teachings of humanity and the value of human life.

Japan

Walberg called for Gaza to get the Hiroshima treatment. If you ask the Japanese people about Nagasaki and Hiroshima they will tell you a far different story than the US school textbooks, because they suffered massive deaths and destruction, while no Americans lost their life in the attack.

‘Oppenheimer’ ,the US film, finally premiered in Japan eight months after its release, in a deliberate delay due to the sensitivity of the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Oscar-winning film left Japanese filmgoers’ with reactions that were mixed and highly emotional.

Former Hiroshima Mayor Takashi Hiraoka said,

“From Hiroshima’s standpoint, the horror of nuclear weapons was not sufficiently depicted,” he was quoted as saying by Japanese media. “The film was made in a way to validate the conclusion that the atomic bomb was used to save the lives of Americans.”

Kamikawa Yoko, the Japanese foreign minister, has told the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa, on April 2 that Japan will resume funding the UNRWA, the largest food and aid agency delivering to Gaza.

The Japanese government suspended funding to UNRWA in January following Israeli allegations that some UNRWA staff members were involved in the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.

Kamikawa said Japan will also provide medical services to Palestinians in the neighboring countries, and plans to offer relief supplies for women and infants in the Gaza.

US Complicity in the Genocide in Gaza

On March 19, the US Congress and the Biden Administration reached an agreement on a massive bill funding the military among others government programs. The bill will continue to ban US funding of UNRWA until March 2025.

Biden had said in January it was temporarily pausing funding to UNRWA based on the Israeli accusation that 12 agency workers out of 13,000 in Gaza had participated in the October 7 Hamas attack, which killed more than 1,100 Israelis.

Gaza already resembles the aftermath of a nuclear attack after more than five months of constant and intense bombing by Israel, which has killed more than 32,700 people in Gaza, including more than 13,000 children.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from the Public Domain

Could Avian H5N1 Influenza be Disease X for the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex?

By Dr. Peter McCullough and Nicolas Hulscher, April 10, 2024

A few days ago, the CDC issued a health advisory for the H5N1 bird flu as it was detected in a Texas dairy farm worker. His only symptom was conjunctivitis, or inflammation of the eye. As of today, human-to-human transmission has not occurred and thus H5N1 poses limited risk to humans.

Containing China’s Development: “U.S. Funds Wars, China Funds Development”

By Simplicius, April 10, 2024

The fact of the matter is, China is simply leaping ahead of the decrepit, deteriorating U.S. by every measure and the panicked elites have sent Yellen to beg China to “slow down” and not embarrass them on the world stage.

7-year-old Brazilian Boy Died After First Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine

By Dr. William Makis, April 10, 2024

A 7 year old Brazilian boy had a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine. 3 days later he had muscle pain and 7 days later he presented with arthritis in his right ankle. He was diagnosed with septic arthritis and sent home with antibiotics. He presented again 10 days after jab with persistent symptoms and was sent home again with a new antibiotic regimen.

Tyranny by the Numbers: The Government Wants Your Money Any Way It Can Get It

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, April 10, 2024

It’s estimated that the amount this country owes is now 130% greater than its gross domestic product (all the products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens). In other words, the government is spending more than it brings in.

Putin Has Allowed the Ukraine Conflict to Spiral Out of Control

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 10, 2024

The war has widened far from Donbass into Russian cities–Belgorod from which there have been evacuations, Tula, Kalunga, 
Bryansk, and Moscow–and military bases, oil refineries, and concert halls. The attacks are mainly defeated by Russian air defense, but the attacks show that the conflict has spread beyond Donbas into Russia.

Will Paris ’24 be the Genocidal Olympics?

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, April 09, 2024

Based on a wrongheaded view of Russia’s necessary intervention to hold back NATO and US-backed aggressions in Ukraine, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) has already excluded Russia and Belarus from the Paris Games. In contrast the IOC is, so far at least, sticking to the position that the genocide— a genocide already subject to a host of judicial interventions at the World Court— will welcome Israel to the Paris Olympic Games.

Ukraine May Have to Compromise with Russia, Says NATO Chief Stoltenberg

By Ahmed Adel, April 09, 2024

Ukraine may ultimately have to agree to some kind of compromise with Russia to end the conflict, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with the BBC published on April 6, adding that it is up to the West to ensure Kiev achieves an “acceptable result.”

Israeli Milestones: From Six-Day Victory in 1967 to Six-Month Failure

By Rick Sterling, April 09, 2024

In June 1967 Israel launched surprise attacks on its Arab neighbors and captured Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan. With military and intelligence support from Lyndon Johnson’s administration, Israel shocked and overwhelmed its neighbors, largely destroying Egypt’s air force on the ground.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The U.S.’ growing urgency in ‘containing’ China’s development was thrown in sharp relief this week as Janet Yellen arrived in Beijing for what turned out to be an execrable beggar’s tour. Just days prior to her arrival, she had buzzed the punditry with her historically memorable exclamation that China was now operating at “overcapacity”(!!).

What is overcapacity, you ask? It’s a new word for me, too—so let’s consult the dictionary together:

overcapacity
noun
o·​ver·​ca·​pac·​i·​ty: ō′vər-kə-ˈpa-sə-tē
1: When an insolent upstart nation’s surging economic activity totally humiliates the reigning hegemon’s own faltering economy, causing the many expensive dentures and porcelain veneers of the ruling class gerontocracy to rattle and grate with moral outrage and jealousy.

1b: An undesirable situation causing Janet Yellen and Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio to droop like a pair of botox-sapped jowls.

Granted…my dictionary might be slightly different to yours, I have a rare edition. That said, are we on the same page? Good.

The above definition may be missing in the new official regime argot pamphlet, but it’s safe to say the inept leaders of the U.S. are down to making up creative new euphemisms for describing China’s total undressing and upending of the economic order.

But if you were skeptical about the meaning behind Yellen’s risible “overcapacity” solecism, her speech from inside of China confirms precisely what’s on the regime’s mind:

 

Click here to watch the video.

“China is now simply too large for the rest of the world to absorb this enormous capacity. Actions taken by the PRC today can shift world prices….”

And the bombshell:

“When the global market is flooded with cheap Chinese goods, the viability of American firms is put into question.”

Well, I’ll say.

The important distinction to note in the above statement is that for a long time the ‘cheap’ moniker used to describe Chinese goods often underhandedly referred to their quality, in the secondary definitional sense. Here, Yellen is referring to cheap as in price: the distinction is significant because it’s referential to the fact that Chinese manufacturing processes have simply far exceeded the efficiency in the West, as recently highlighted by videos of the Xiaomi e-car factory with its own native Giga Press that’s claimed to be able to pump out a car every 17 seconds.

Click here to watch the video.

The fact of the matter is, China is simply leaping ahead of the decrepit, deteriorating U.S. by every measure and the panicked elites have sent Yellen to beg China to “slow down” and not embarrass them on the world stage.

How is China doing this? Let’s run through a few of the most poignant ways:

[1] First and foremost, it’s become almost a passe bromide to observe:

“The U.S. funds wars, while China funds development.” But it really is true. Think about this for a moment:

 

 

The above is factual: Esquire reported that a Brown University investigation found the U.S. has spent an ineffable $14T on wars since 9/11:

 

 

Source

 

The fact is, Israel is a destructive parasite sucking the lifeblood out of America, causing the host to wage unnecessary wars on its behalf which have utterly removed every advantageous and competitive edge the country might have had over its Chinese ‘rival’

[2] As a corollary of the above, beyond just the simple kinetic nature of the profligately wasteful wars, America wastes an exorbitant amount of money just on maintenance and upkeep of its global hegemony. The reason is, it costs a lot of ‘enforcement’ money to strongarm vassals who hate you into compliance.

China doesn’t form vassals, it forms partners. That means it spends comparatively far less spreading its influence because that influence has compounding abilities owing to the fair bilateral nature of China’s arrangements. The U.S. has to spend comparatively inordinate amounts of blood and treasure to maintain the same level of ‘influence’ because that ‘influence’ is totally artificial, confected out of a poisonous mixture of fear, strong-arming tactics, economic terrorism that leads to blowback which hurts the U.S. economy, etc. In short, it is mafia tactics versus real business partnerships.

One big difference between China and the U.S. is that China is open to sharing the earth, willing to co-prosper with the U.S. Conversely, the U.S. is unwilling to abdicate its global domination:

 

 

The above was highlighted by Graham Allison, coiner of the Thucydides Trap idiom in relation to U.S./China. The Thucydides Trap, as some may know, describes a situation where an emerging power begins to displace the incumbent global power, and how historically this almost always leads to major war. To popularize the theory apropos U.S./China, Graham Allison used the historical example of the Peloponnesian war, where a cagey Sparta was forced to take on the rising power of Athens.

Allison was recently invited by President Xi to a forum for U.S. business leaders where Xi told him directly:

 

 

Contrast President Xi’s magnanimous statements with those of the seething, guilt-wracked, bloodthirstily conniving Western ‘executives’. In fact, Xi called for more exchanges between China and the U.S. in order to entwine the two countries in mutual understanding, to avoid the Thucydides Trap:

This is the enduring image of what global leadership truly looks like, and the principles it embodies.

Meanwhile, when one thinks of America’s progressive decline, the one enduring image that comes to mind is of a bitterly frightened but dangerous, beady-eyed cornered rodent, conspiring on how to inflict damage and suffering onto the world in order to mask its own downfall.

[3] The U.S. government does a grave disservice to its own development by cooking all of its economic books. Every country does it at times to some degree—and going by U.S.’ notoriously frequent accusations of China in this regard, one would think China to be the most flagrant violator—but in fact, no one does this more than the current U.S. regime.

The recent “jobs” report touted as a major victory by the Biden administration was a disgraceful travesty. The admin touted major jobs figures:

 

 

But it turned out every job was either part time, a federal job, or went to illegals:

 

 

 

 

In reality, the U.S. economy is in atrocious shape with sky-high inflation.

Here’s Jesse Watters revealing that:

“The Fed chair just confessed that #Bidenomics is just a migrant job fair. There is actually a million less American citizens working today than there were in 2020.”

Biden created 5 million migrant jobs! So don’t be fooled by his propaganda that’s spewed by the liberal machine. YOU DONT MATTER!

The data is cooked even more when comparing to China’s economic situation. As the following Tweeter explains:

While Chinese INCOMES are below American INCOMES, Chinese have much higher NET WORTH than Americans. How? They own apartments at a much higher rate and with a lot more equity than Americans. The MEAN and MEDIAN insight is even more beautiful. This graphic here is pretty much the only thing you need to understand about the difference between the economies of China and United States. But you really need to understand it and you need to have a deep understanding of what it means.

 

 

U.S. home ownership is on a precipitous decline toward the low ~60s%, while China now has over 90% home ownership rate:

 

 

[4] The above naturally springs the question of how China is able to do these things while the U.S. cannot. One of the answers comes by way of this fascinating explainer which shows that, contrary to the West’s depiction of China as some kind of rigidly authoritarian system, forward-looking President Xi is actually utilizing very cutting edge economic experimentation models to keep the Chinese economy as innovative, limber, and supple as possible.

In short, a deep study of thousands of official documents shows a huge upswing in language promoting economic experimentation in the directives issued under Xi’s government.

 

 

This is further compounded by the most important point of all: that under President Xi, China has embarked on a meticulous plan of curbing financialization and speculation of the ‘Western model’ in its economy. This is where it starts getting important so buckle up.

A good breakdown of that is given here by Chinese academic Thomas Hon Wing Polin, who pulls from this recent article:

 

Source

The article gives a brief history of financialization, from the Genoese bankers to modern times, observing the historical cycles that have precipitated America’s current deterioration:

Observers of the current American hegemony will recognize the transformation of the global system to suit American interests. The maintenance of an ideologically charged ‘rules-based’ order – ostensibly for the benefit of everyone – fits neatly into the category of conflation of national and international interests. Meanwhile, the previous hegemon, the British, had their own version that incorporated both free-trade policies and a matching ideology that emphasized the wealth of nations over national sovereignty.

In describing the cycle of financialization and its connection to the death of empires, the article notes about Britain:

For example, the incumbent hegemon at the time, Great Britain, was the country hardest hit by the so-called Long Depression of 1873-1896, a prolonged period of malaise that saw Britain’s industrial growth decelerate and its economic standing diminished. Arrighi identifies this as the ‘signal crisis’ – the point in the cycle where productive vigor is lost and financialization sets in.

And yet, as Arrighi quotes David Landes’ 1969 book ‘The Unbound Prometheus,’ “as if by magic, the wheel turned.” In the last years of the century, business suddenly improved and profits rose. “Confidence returned—not the spotty, evanescent confidence of the brief booms that had punctuated the gloom of the preceding decades, but a general euphoria such as had not prevailed since…the early 1870s….In all of western Europe, these years live on in memory as the good old days—the Edwardian era, la belle époque.” Everything seemed right again.

However, there is nothing magical about the sudden restoration of profits, Arrighi explains. What happened is that “as its industrial supremacy waned, its finance triumphed and its services as shipper, trader, insurance broker and intermediary in the world’s system of payments became more indispensable than ever.”

In short: as an empire dies, loses its industrial and manufacturing capacity, finance takes over, pumping up huge bubbles of phony speculative money that gives the brief appearance of economic prosperity—for a time. This is what’s currently happening in the U.S., as it drowns in its self-created agony of debt, misery, corruption, and global destabilization.

One thing to note—if you’ll allow me this not-so-brief aside—is that the entire Western system is based on the actual institutionalized economic sabotage and subversion of the developing world. Books like the following go into some of it:

 

 

The rise of the underground economy: The book reveals how the United States’ underground economy evolved parallel to its legitimate economy, exploiting loopholes and leveraging secrecy jurisdictions to facilitate illegal activities such as drug trafficking, arms smuggling, and money laundering.

The “dark” side of globalization: Mills challenges the prevailing narrative of globalization as a force for progress, highlighting how it has facilitated the expansion of illicit networks across borders and allowed criminal enterprises to flourish.

The complicity of financial institutions: The author examines the role played by major financial institutions in enabling money laundering and illicit transactions. He underlines the need for stronger regulations and accountability to prevent banks from becoming facilitators of underground activities.

I challenge you to read notes on the National Memorandum 200, if you haven’t heard of it before.

Incidentally, John Michael Greer just penned a new column (thanks to whoever shouted out this blog in the comments!) about the neologism he coined: Lenocracy, which derives from the Latin “leno” for pimp; i.e. a government run by pimps, or pimpocracy.

His definition of pimps in this case is that of middlemen who are the classic rent-seeking leeches—or rentier class—which extract economic rent without adding any value to the economy—all Michael Hudson territory, for those in the know.

Bear with me, I promise this will all tie together into an overall picture of China.

JMG characterizes the ‘pimps’ as basically all the unelected, bureaucratic, red-tape-weaving, blood-sucking monetary vultures killing growth and livelihoods by each taking their nibbles in turn from the carcass of the working class, exacting some small transactional charge at every step of routine business in Western nations, particularly the U.S. This has served to suffocate the average small business or entrepreneurship in general, not counting the big ticket venture capitalists who are mostly offshoots of global financial and investment firms. This is part and parcel to the lethal ‘financialization’ of the country that has spelled doom for its future.

Now, getting back to Thomas Hon Wing Polin’s precis, and how it relates to this. He notes:

It is noteworthy that the CPC leadership recently launched a major drive to build China into a “financial great power,” with a financial system “based on the real economy.” That would be the antithesis to Anglo-American-style economic financialization.

He pulls from the following article:

 

Source

 

Read that last part: “…set pure profit-making aside.”

Pay attention to this big kicker:

Beijing is powering ahead with the epic project.

“China’s 461-trillion-yuan (US$63.7 trillion) financial industry and its regulatory regime will be heavily prioritised in a broad economic reshuffle engendered by the country’s top leadership, with the sector remoulded to serve national objectives like sustainable growth and advancement in the global tech race.

Are you beginning to get it yet? If not, here’s the crowning finial:

Specifically, it vowed to rein in Wall Street-style practices seen as unsustainable and crisis-prone, and move toward functionality as an overriding value for the financial system rather than profitability.

It also mandated that Chinese financial institutions have “higher efficiency” than their peers in the capitalist world and provide inclusive, accessible services in the pursuit of common prosperity.

“Like it or not, banks and other institutions on the supply side should expect top-down directives and overhauls cued by the CFC,” said Zhu Tian, a professor with the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS).

 

 

And there it is. In essence: China is creating a revolution, striking out a new path of finance which steers away from the wild excesses of the West into a bold new direction. Finance to benefit the real economy, the common man, the people. This is what the fig leaf of Rothschild-pushed ‘stakeholder capitalism’ is meant to be, or better yet: pretends to be.

It’s hard not to wax poetic on these developments, because they are truly groundbreaking. China is paving a new path forward for the entire world. The Chinese banking industry is now by far the largest on earth and President Xi has wisely put his foot down with a bold edict: we will not follow the path of destruction chosen by the West, but rather will set our own new path.

This is an iconoclastic, paradigm-breaking revolution which ends six centuries of Old Nobility world finance dominion, traced from the Spanish-Crown-allied Genoese bankers, to the Dutch then English banking system which now continues to enslave the world, and is referred to by a variety of names in the dissident sphere: from Hydra, to Leviathan, to Cthulu, to simply: the Cabal.

All those 600 years are going up in smoke with China’s repudiation of the ‘old standards’, which privilege predatory, deceptive, extractive terms and practices meant to benefit only the Old Nobility elite class. China’s system is true stakeholder finance: the government will forcibly bend the bankers to its will, making sure that finance serves the common good and the people first, rather than speculation, financialization, capitalization, and all the other wicked inventions of the Western Old Nobility class.

It begins like so:

 

 

 

 

“…bringing greed is good era to an end.”

The big one:

“Government has called for banks to abandon a Western-style ethos and adopt an outlook in line with broader economic priorities.”

It’s a revolution in the making.

But if you’re thinking my dramatic flights above verge a touch on hyperbole or idealism, you could be right. I, of course, still proceed with caution; we can’t be sure that China will succeed in its grand demolishment of the age-old paradigm. But all signals point to early success thus far, and more importantly, it’s clear that China has a leader that fundamentally understands these things at the most rooted level. Western leaders not only are incapable of even grasping the complexities involved of reining in capital, they are unable to do so for the mere fact that they’re totally bought and paid for by the representatives of that very capital class. The cabal of Capital is so deeply and institutionally entrenched in Western governmental systems that it’s simply impossible to imagine them being able to see ‘the forest for the trees’ from within the forest itself.

By the way, in light of the above, here’s the West’s truly desperate, pathetically envious, face-saving attempt to tarnish and mischaracterize China’s new direction:

 

 

 

As well as:

 

Source

The above is particularly astounding in its admissions. Read carefully:

Market-based US and European economies are struggling to survive against China’s “very effective” alternative economic model, a top US trade representative has warned, according to Euractiv.

Katherine Tai told a briefing in Brussels on Thursday that Beijing’s “non-market” policies will cause severe economic and political damage, unless they are tackled through appropriate “countermeasures.” Tai’s remarks came as the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC) kicked off in Leuven, Belgium.

“I think what we see in terms of the challenge that we have from China is… the ability for our firms to be able to survive in competition with a very effective economic system,” Tai said in response to a question from Euractiv.

In short: China isn’t playing fair—they’re actually privileging their people and economy over financial speculation, and this is causing their firms to outcompete ours!

But what she’s really talking about gets to the essence of the difference in the two systems:

The trade official described China as a system “that we’ve articulated as being not market-based, as being fundamentally nurtured differently, against which a market-based system like ours is going to have trouble competing against and surviving.”

These are code words: what she means by “market based” is free market capitalism, while China uses more of a centrally-planned directive system, as outlined earlier. Recall just recently I posted complaints from Western officials that their companies are not able to compete with Russian defense manufacturers due to their ‘unfairly’ efficient ‘central planning’ style.

Here too, what they mean is that the Chinese government creates directives that spurn ‘market logics’ and are aimed at direct improvements to the lives of ordinary citizens. In the West there’s no such thing: all market decisions are based merely on the totally detached financial firms’ speculations and are exclusively at the behest of a tiny claque of finance and banking elite at the top of the pyramid.

You see, the U.S. is threatened because it knows it can never compete with China fairly, by squelching or containing its own gluttonous financial elite—so that leaves only one avenue for keeping up: sabotage and war.

This is the real reason the U.S. is desperate to stoke a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by various provocations, including weapons shipments. Just like the U.S. used Ukraine as the battering ram to bleed and weaken Russia economically, disconnecting it from Europe, U.S. hopes to use Taiwan as the Ukraine against China. It would love to foment a bloody war that would leave China battered and economically set back to give the failing and greed-suffocated U.S. economy some breathing room.

But it’s unlikely to work—China is too sagacious to take the bait and fall for the trap. It will patiently wait things out, allowing the U.S. to drown in its own endless poison and treachery.

No, there will be no Thucydides Trap—it’s already too late for that. The Trap worked for Sparta because it was still at its peak and able to thwart Athens. The U.S. is in terminal decline and would lose a war against China, which is why they hope to stage a proxy war instead, cowardly using Taiwan as the battering ram. But China can read these desperate motives with the clarity of finely glazed porcelain.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Historical concerns about the lethality of bird flu to humans have consistently proven unfounded, with no recorded deaths in the U.S. from such outbreaks, despite significant government spending and public warnings in the past

Recent discussions around “global biosecurity” and the potential for disease outbreaks to foster a totalitarian world government have intensified. A weaponized bird flu could be the next major threat

Recent cases of bird flu affecting various mammals, including livestock and pets, suggest the virus may be adapting to new hosts, raising alarms about its potential impact on humans

In March 2024, the first case of bird flu in livestock was found in a goat in Minnesota. That same month, infected cows were identified in Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, Idaho and Michigan. Three cats have also reportedly died from H5N1 infection, and one individual who came into close contact with infected cows has tested positive after presenting with conjunctivitis (pink eye)

Current countermeasures against bird flu, such as culling infected and exposed animals, hinder the development of natural immunity. Smaller flock sizes and better management would also reduce the disease risk

*

So far, every instance of fearmongering about the possibility of a lethal bird flu has turned out to be false. That’s why I wrote my New York Times best-selling book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax,” 15 years ago in 2009. Four years earlier, in 2005, then-President George Bush spent over $7 billion dollars on preparations and warned that more than 2 million Americans could die.¹

The reality is that no one in the U.S. died from bird flu. Not one. Annual outbreaks of bird flu were also recorded and hyped between 2014 and 2017, again with no human victims.²

Fast-forward a couple of decades, and “global biosecurity” has become one of the primary tactics chosen to usher in a totalitarian One World Government. COVID-19 was just the warmup. I’ve repeatedly stated that more outbreaks, be they real or imagined, are to be expected for that very reason. The only question, really, is which pathogen it will be.

Is Weaponized Bird Flu Next?

In the spring of 2022, Bill Gates warned that another pandemic will emerge, and that this yet-to-come pandemic “will get attention this time.”³ Based on the news chatter emerging right now, a weaponized bird flu seems a possibility.

According to virologists speaking at a White House briefing, the bird flu (H5N1) has mutated to “spread more easily among mammals,” and an outbreak in the human population could be “100 times worse than COVID,” killing up to half of those infected.⁴ As reported by MSN on April 3, 2024:⁵

“Multiple cases of the infection in a variety of mammals, including cows, cats and, more recently, humans, are all raising the risk of the virus mutating to become more transmissible …

But others at the briefing said it was too early to panic because there were still too many unknowns about recent cases to warrant sounding the alarm. A White House representative said today it was tracking bird flu in the U.S.”

A graphic by the Daily Mail purporting to illustrate how bird flu is “edging closer to human spillover” lists the following cases:⁶

By late December 2023, hundreds of elephant seals in Antarctica were also found to have perished from the infection¹² and mink farms across Europe were decimated that same year.¹³ Well over half a million seabirds have also perished from the virus, according to some estimates.¹⁴

Current Bird Flu Countermeasures Are the Wrong Approach

In early April 2024, the largest egg producer in the U.S., Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., also halted egg production at a Texas facility after bird flu was detected there. According to a company announcement, 1.6 million egg-laying hens were killed as a precaution, along with 337,000 pullets (3.6% of the total flock).¹⁵

But by culling animals whenever a case is detected basically guarantees that natural immunity will never develop. A far saner strategy would be to eliminate the chickens that die from the infection but keep those who survive it alive. An interesting article by regenerative farmer Joel Salatin, in which he discusses the bird flu cycle, was published by Brownstone Institute in mid-March 2023:¹⁶

“If thinking people learned only one thing from the COVID pandemic, it was that official government narratives are politically slanted and often untrue. In this latest HPAI [highly pathogenic avian influenza] outbreak, perhaps the most egregious departure from truth is the notion that the birds have died as a result of the disease and that euthanasia for survivors is the best and only option …

To be sure, HPAI is and can be deadly, but it never kills everything. The policy of mass extermination without regard to immunity, without even researching why some birds flourish while all around are dying, is insane. The most fundamental principles of animal husbandry and breeding demand that farmers select for healthy immune systems. We farmers have been doing that for millennia …

But in its wisdom, the US Department of Agriculture … has no interest in selecting, protecting, and then propagating the healthy survivors. The policy is clear and simple: kill everything that ever contacted the diseased birds. The second part of the policy is also simple: find a vaccine to stop HPAI …

The scorched earth policy is the only option even though it doesn’t seem to be working. In fact, the cycles are coming faster and seem to be affecting more birds. Someone ought to question the efficacy.”

Bird Flu Solutions That Make Sense

As noted by Salatin, it’s well-recognized among farmers that cramped quarters and having too many chicken farms too close together, geographically, is the problem. “The USDA and the industry desperately want to blame wild birds, backyard flocks, and dirty shoes rather than looking in the mirror and realizing this is nature’s way of screaming ‘Enough!'” Salatin writes.

The answer is relatively simple. Save birds that survive the infection and breed them. That way, future generations will have natural immunity. “If a flock gets HPAI, let it run its course. It’ll kill the ones it’ll kill but in a few days the survivors will be obvious. Keep those and put them in a breeding program,” Salatin writes.

Secondly, chicken farmers can also ward off epidemics by focusing on optimal herd sizes. For example, wild turkeys stay in flocks of no more than a couple of hundred. Wild pigs rarely exceed groups of 100. For chickens, optimal herd size is about 1,000, according to Salatin. He goes on to explain:

“An elderly poultry industry scientist visited our farm once and told me that if houses would break up chickens into 1,000-bird groups it would virtually eliminate diseases.

He said it was okay to have 10,000 birds in a house as long as they were in 1,000-bird units. That way their social structure can function in a natural interaction. Animals have a hierarchy of bullies and timids. That social structure breaks down above optimal size …

While I don’t want to sound flippant or above HPAI susceptibility, incident rates definitely indicate less vulnerability in well-managed pastured flocks.

Creating an immune-building protocol surely merits research as much as overriding the immune system with vaccines and trying to stay ahead of disease mutations and adaptations with human cleverness. How about humbly seeking nature for solutions rather than relying on hubris?

The parallels between HPAI expert orthodoxy and COVID orthodoxy are too numerous to mention … The HPAI worry feeds food worry, which makes people clamor for government security. People will accept just about anything if they’re afraid … Think it through and then embrace a more natural remedy: well-managed decentralized pastured poultry with appropriate flock sizes.”

Second Human Case of Bird Flu in the US

Within a week of bird flu being found in Texas dairy cows in late March 2024, a Texas resident also tested positive for the virus after coming into close contact with the infected cows. The primary symptom this person experienced was conjunctivitis (pink eye).¹⁷ It’s said to be the second human case of avian influenza A(H5N1) in the U.S. No human-to-human transmission has as yet been identified. Citing “federal and state health authorities investigating the outbreak,” MSN reported:¹⁸

“Avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses have only rarely been transmitted from person to person … As such, the risk to the general public is believed to be low; however, people with close contact with affected animals suspected of having avian influenza A(H5N1) have a higher risk of infection.”

Symptoms of Bird Flu Infection

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, symptoms of bird flu infection can include:¹⁹

Severe cases may progress to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock and death.

Fingerprints of COVID Are All Over Weaponized Bird Flu

Historically, natural avian influenza (H5N1) never posed a threat to mankind, but then scientists started tinkering with it, creating a hybrid with human pandemic potential.²⁰ Some of that research has been undertaken in Pentagon-funded biolabs in Ukraine.^21,22,23

Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), have also funded gain-of-function research on H5N1.²⁴ One scientist whose work on H5N1 has been funded by both Fauci and Gates is Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka.²⁵

In one experiment, Kawaoka mixed bird flu virus with the Spanish flu virus, resulting in a highly lethal respiratory virus with human transmission capability. Kawaoka has also played around with mixtures of H5N1 and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) virus, creating an airborne hybrid^26,27,28 capable of evading the human immune system, effectively rendering humans defenseless against it,²⁹ and this extremely risky research was done at a biosafety Level 2 lab!³⁰

Fauci also funded the work of virologist Ron Fouchier, a Dutch researcher whose team created an airborne version of the bird flu using a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets.³¹ So, the bird flu has been manipulated and tinkered with in a variety of different ways, making it both airborne (which it was not initially) and capable of cross-species infection.

In 2012, the work of Kawaoka and Fouchier sparked widespread concern about gain-of-function research, as it was readily recognized that it could accidentally cause a human pandemic.^32,33

As a result, the U.S. government issued a temporary ban on gain-of-function research on certain viruses in 2014, which remained in place until December 2017.³⁴ We now know this ban was circumvented by Fauci, who continued to fund gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in China during those years.

It now looks as though weaponized bird flu might eventually be released to achieve the geopolitical aims of the technocratic cabal that is trying to give the World Health Organization a monopoly on pandemic decision-making.

So, if we do end up with a lethal human bird flu, there’s every reason to suspect it was manmade. There’s also every reason to suspect a bird flu vaccine will be either ineffective, hazardous or both. Moderna launched a small human trial for an mRNA shot for avian influenza in the spring of 2023,³⁵but results have yet to be released.

Inoculate Yourself Against Upcoming Fearmongering

As we move forward, it is vitally important for you to keep an eye on the narratives we’re being fed. If bird flu becomes a human epidemic or pandemic, there are plenty of reasons to suspect it’s a weaponized virus, and the “solution” offered will be the same as that for COVID-19: “Get vaccinated.”

Considering the widespread harm caused by the COVID-19 mRNA shots, can we really trust that fast-tracked bird flu shots will be any safer or more effective? Already, the U.S. and other countries are stockpiling H5N1 vaccine³⁶ “just in case,” which is telling.

While some traditional vaccines are in the lineup, mRNA shots tweaked to target H5N1 are also in the pipeline,³⁷ and they probably won’t need to undergo additional testing over and beyond what was already done for the COVID jabs. As reported by Reuters:³⁸

“Some of the world’s leading makers of flu vaccines say they could make hundreds of millions of bird flu shots for humans within months if a new strain of avian influenza ever jumps across the species divide …

In a pandemic, vaccine manufacturers would shift production of seasonal flu vaccines and instead make shots tailored to the new outbreak when needed …

Many of the potential pandemic shots are pre-approved by regulators, based on data from human trials showing the vaccines are safe and prompt an immune response, a process already used with seasonal flu vaccines.

This means they might not require further human trials, even if they have to be tweaked to better match whichever strain does jump to humans. Data on how well the vaccines actually protect against infection would be gathered in real-time …”

To think that an mRNA-based jab against a weaponized bird flu will be any safer than the shots for COVID-19 would be naïve in the extreme, if you ask me, yet you can be sure we’ll be told otherwise, if bird flu does end up spreading among the human population.

Be Prepared

One of the best things I did in my youth was join the Boy Scouts. Their motto “Be Prepared” has been enormously useful my entire life. Well, it applies to bird flu as well. While we don’t know for sure, as no studies have been done, it is highly likely that many of the same protocols used in early outpatient treatment of COVID will also work for bird flu, since they are both viral respiratory pathogens.

So, as a first basic prevention step, optimize your vitamin D (the ideal range is between 60 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml). Be sure to measure it to confirm, as there is no way to know what your vitamin D level is without doing a blood test.

Summer is nearly here, so ditch your oral vitamin supplement and strip off your clothes and get out in the sun around solar noon, which is 1 p.m. for most people in the U.S. To learn more, download my “Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19” report, available on stopCOVIDcold.com.

In case you do get sick, I would strongly advise you to purchase a nebulizer so that you can nebulize hydrogen peroxide at first signs of symptoms. If you have not previously viewed my Hydrogen Peroxide video below and purchased all the ingredients, you must do so now. If this crisis hits and you do not have a nebulizer you could be out of luck.

More comprehensive prevention and treatment protocols can be downloaded from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) website, covid19criticalcare.com.³⁹ They also have a treatment protocol for RSV and influenza. Print them out and make sure you have the basic supplements in your medicine cabinet.

Hydrogen Peroxide Rapidly Inactivates Viruses

Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) consists of a water molecule (H₂O) with an extra oxygen atom (O₂), and it is the additional oxygen atom that allows it to inactivate viral pathogens. Some of your immune cells produce hydrogen peroxide to destroy pathogens. By killing the infected cell, viral reproduction is stopped. So, hydrogen peroxide therapy aids your immune cells to perform their natural function more effectively.

Many studies have investigated the use of hydrogen peroxide against different pathogens. For example, a 2020 review⁴⁰ of 22 studies found that 0.5% hydrogen peroxide effectively inactivated a range of human coronaviruses, including those responsible for SARS and MERS, within one minute of exposure.

According to Brownstein, all pathogens studied to date have been found to succumb to hydrogen peroxide, albeit at varying concentrations and for different amounts of exposure.

How to Properly Dilute the Peroxide

While you can use virtually any percentage of food grade peroxide, it’s crucial to dilute it properly before use. What you want is a 0.1% dilution, so even a 3% hydrogen peroxide will need to be diluted at least 30 times.

In a pinch, you could use commercial 3% hydrogen peroxide, the stuff used for wound care, but I don’t recommend routine use of it as it contains stabilizing chemicals that can detract from the benefits. Also, you want to dilute the hydrogen peroxide with hypertonic saline, not plain water, as the lack of electrolytes in the water can damage your lungs if you nebulize that. Using saline prevents the osmotic differential that can damage lung cells.

To end up with a final peroxide/hypertonic saline solution concentration of 0.1%, you need to go through two steps:

1. Create the hypertonic saline solution
2. Dilute the peroxide

I used to recommend using normal saline, which contains 0.9% salt, but a 2021 study⁴¹ found that a 1.5% sodium chloride solution (hypertonic saline) achieved a 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro (in cell culture). Using lower levels of saline, like 1.1%, only inhibited 88%. So, I now recommend using hypertonic saline instead, which would be slightly less than double the amount of salt used to make normal saline.

To make hypertonic (1.5%) saline, simply mix 1.5 teaspoons of high-quality unprocessed salt to one pint of purified or distilled water. Stir until the salt is thoroughly dissolved. Be sure to use proper measuring spoons and not a regular kitchen teaspoon. For even greater precision, you could use a digital scale to measure out exactly 7.1 grams of salt.

If the 1.5% hypertonic solution causes nasal burning, irritation or cough, you can lower the concentration to 0.9% salt, which is isotonic normal saline. For this you would decrease the salt to one level teaspoon to one pint of water. Once you have your saline solution and a food grade hydrogen peroxide, dilute the peroxide according to the following chart, based on the concentration you’re starting with.

Warning: Food grade peroxide at concentrations of 12% and 36% should NEVER be used full-strength either topically or internally. It MUST be diluted or severe injury can occur. Your safest bet is to use 3% food grade peroxide and dilute it as indicated so you end up with a solution of 0.1%.

Once you have your peroxide-saline solution, simply pour 1 teaspoon of it into the nebulizer and inhale the entire amount. If you like, you can add one drop of 5% Lugol’s iodine solution to the nebulizer as well. Some find it boosts the effects.

I recommend using nebulized peroxide for any suspected respiratory infection, and the earlier you start, the better. If you’re already presenting with a runny nose or sore throat, use the nebulizer for 10 to 15 minutes four times a day until your symptoms are relieved.

You can also use nebulized hydrogen peroxide for prevention and maintenance, which may be advisable during flu season. There is no danger in doing it every day if you’re frequently exposed, and there may even be additional beneficial effects, such as a rapid rise in your blood oxygen level.

*

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

Notes

¹ A Retrospective on the Avian Flu Scare of 2005 AIER March 22, 2020

^2, 9, 10 MSN April 4, 2024 Bird Flu Outbreaks Popping Up

^3, 23 Ice Age Farmer April 8, 2022

^{4, 5, 6, 11} MSN April 3, 2024

⁷ USDA April 2, 2024

⁸ Ag Daily April 1, 2024

^12, 14 Salon December 10, 2023

¹³ Salon August 6, 2023

¹⁵ NPR April 3, 2024

¹⁶ Brownstone Institute March 14, 2023

^17, 18, 19 MSN April 4, 2024

²⁰ Slate December 22, 2011

^21, 24, 25 OCA January 4, 2023

²² Youtube Ice Age Farmer

²⁶ Journal of Virology May 2009; 83(10): 5278-5281

^27, 31, 32 Cidrap June 21, 2012

²⁸ Scott McPherson February 22, 2010 (Archived)

^29, 30 Business Insider July 1, 2014

³³ Science May 2, 2012 (Archived)

³⁴ Nature December 19, 2017

³⁵ CBC March 20, 2023

³⁶ Precision Vaccination Audenz for 2022 (Archived)

^37, 38 Reuters March 20, 2023 (Archived)

³⁹ Covid19criticalcare.com

⁴⁰ J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-251

⁴¹ ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci October 8, 2021; 4(5): 1514-1527