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.
According to the official story, an apparent lone nut, 20 years old Republican named Thomas Matthew Crooks, allegedly fired from a rooftop around 150 meters from the stage, where former President Trump gave a Presidential Campaign address.
One of the bullets brushed Trump’s ear, causing blood spilling over his face but without causing major damage. However, an assistant of Trump’s campaign tour was killed and two spectators gravely injured.
The presumed shooter was shot dead by Secret Service snipers stationed on a different rooftop.
Was Thomas Crooks indeed the shooter?
This is currently being investigated by the FBI.
This happened just two days before the beginning of the Republican Party Convention, on 15 July 2024, in Milwaukee. Coincidence?
Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Park, a small town also in Pennsylvania, about an hour’s drive south from Butler. Thomas Crooks graduated in 2022 from Bethel Park High School, according to a statement from the Bethel Park School District received by a local ABC affiliate. He was apparently not known to police.
When his dad was contacted by the media and police, he seemed to be shocked, having no idea what happened to his son, a quiet young man, who graduated with honors.
Trump’s security guards immediately killed the shooter, no attempt whatsoever to arrest him, so he could NOT be put on trial. There is no trace and Thomas can no longer talk about his possible motives, what may have prompted his shooting, whether he acted alone or in a team or whether he was in one way or another prepared for the assault – if so, by whom. He was silenced.
Isn’t it typical for this type of assassination attempt or shooting? The alleged murderers are silenced.
No traces, no witnesses, no trial, nobody can talk. Thomas Crooks will be registered as lone nut who committed this atrocious crime.
Wasn’t this the case with the Kennedy Brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King? Until much later, when the truth surfaced, or at least the lie about the “lone nut”. The truth is still not officially out about the JFK killing. But Donald Trump said, when he will be President, he will open the “secret” files and make them available to the public.
There was clearly a major security lapse. No close-by security protection surrounded Trump when he was speaking. The sharpshooters from the rooftops were warned by at least one man that there was a man on a roof with a gun. They did not react. See this from Reuters.
Also see this video clip (1:59 min) with a close-up witness who ran to help Trump.
An eyewitness said in a BBC interview that his alerting the secret security detail, the snipers on the roof, was ignored. This prompted Elon Musk (“X” former Twitter) calling on the leader of the Trump security team to resign.
The head of the Secret Service and the leader of this security detail should resign https://t.co/ihlEC5NP1w
Right now, the news are full with speculations, hearsay and finger-pointing. There are even people, who suggest it may have been a Trump fabricated attempt at himself, so his popularity would increase. This assumption is insane because he could have been killed.
The bullet missed his brain by just a few centimeters.
No doubt, though, Trump’s popularity may increase due to this botched “martyr event”.
However, what nobody ever talks about anymore these days is the science-refined MK-Ultra brain manipulation program designed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a semi-secret Pentagon think-tank, that often works hand-in-hand with the CIA and Mossad – and frequently also with the British MI6.
Vulnerable people are “recruited” by the program. They are told their mission was secret and could not be talked about. During their training, their brains are prepared to react to certain signals, music, specific words, specific noise – or other trigger moments. Then they are told to attend the event where their target is or targets are located. Maybe they are given a weapon to be able to “defend” their target if necessary.
When the “trigger” moment happens, they start shooting at the target. They may not even know what happens to their mind. If they were given a chance to wake up from their trance condition, they might not remember what they did.
This is of course not to say, that this is what happened. Far from it. It is just one more option thrown in the ring for consideration because the MK-Ultra program exists, is alive, and has been used on many instances before.
Who would be interested in “canceling” Donald Trump from the Presidential race – just before the Republican Convention, July 15 to 18, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Mr. Trump will most likely be nominated as the Republican candidate for the November 5, 2024, Presidential elections?
Mr. Trump has already an almost-landslide lead over Joe Biden, the (still) official candidate of the Democrats.
Earlier this year, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson proposed legislation that would strip this protection from former presidents convicted of felonies, as Trump was in May.
After Saturday’s shooting, one of Thompson’s staffers wrote on Facebook that the shooter should “get some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time.” Ms. Thomson removed the post, which Republicans called despicable. (RT – 14 July 2024 – see this).
Guessing whose interest is at stake is up to the reader.
Abroad, who might be interested in a true Democrat Party alternative to Biden, a Globalist as new US President? Another Globalist, of course. Someone who may be Zionist / Jewish and in full support of Netanyahu’s killing spree and attempt at establishing Greater Israel – with the Ben Gurion Canal, gradually replacing the Suez Canal, with the foremost petrol riches of the Middle East falling under the control of the Zionists, the same Zionists who also largely control Washington, and by proxy, Brussels, the EU gnomes.
Let us not forget, Donald Trump is not a Globalist. He is a nationalist. He wants a sovereign United States for a sovereign US population. Quite the contrary form what the Dems strive for – a Globalist, One World Order.
Not too long ago, Donald Trump has distanced himself from a unilateral support for Israel, warning Bibi Netanyahu about his atrocious genocide war in Gaza.
The truth is hanging in the air.
Will it ever hit the ground and continue shaking people awake – open and receptive to the truth, and nothing but the truth?
*
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. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
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.
The interview covered the hardly noticeable but with warp speed advancing digitization of everything, the implementation of what Klaus Schwab — World Economic Forum (WEF) — professes in his “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. A dystopian world, where humans are enslaved by digital means, transhumanism, self-driving cars, total control through QR-codes, and – the final straw – by a fully digitized monetary system.
If it goes unnoticed, as the masters of the universe would like it, it will lead to a drastically reduced-world populations, with mostly transhuman survivors, who will own nothing but are happy.
Only We, the People can stop it, if and when, we wake up, and reject the plan, simply refuse to go along with it, creating an alternative life society, alternative monetary system – and re-introducing true human values, ethics, togetherness, solidarity, work-places that care, trust and friendships.
It is high time.
We can do it.
We MUST do it.
The interview streamed on 11 July 2024.
This is a loose transcript of the interview.
Questions or topics of conversation were introduced by Dr. Ana Mihalcea of Humanity United Now.
Dr. Ana Mihalcea (DAM): How do you see the progression of digital ID and digital money evolving?
Peter Koenig (PK): Unfortunately digitization is advancing rapidly, without most people noticing it. Publication about it is sparse, and mostly only by the non-mainstream media.
Digital money is evolving much faster than digital ID. On purpose.
Why?
Digital ID has been propagated by the EU to such an extent that rejection became loud.
So, they switched to an alternative.
Full digitization of money. Because once money is fully digitized, with or without the infamous so-called Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), a formal digital ID is just a question of converting each one of our QR code into an ID. And bingo. The money is controlled and so are we.
Yes, we all have a QR code. During Covid, whether vaccinated or not, each time we were compelled to take a PCR test, we were given a QR code. This personal QR code is automatically linked to all other QR codes we use… in restaurants, purchasing goods, airline tickets / boarding passes …. Just about anything is QR coded nowadays.
Back to digital money: In fact, CBDC is not even necessary, if all banks go along with digitization – and if the respective governments tell them they must – they will, no choice, if they don’t want to be sidelined or completely closed then cash can be abandoned basically from one day to the next.
Several countries have been selected to test-case the digitization of money. Switzerland is one of them. Selected banks have agreed to do so.
I know from personal experience.
When refusing to change my bank account transactions to using a QR code, my bank account was blocked. For over three weeks I had no access to it. Only when I agreed, thinking of changing banks afterwards, they gave me access to my account again.
I am now with another bank, where I have an alternative option – for now. How long that will last – I have no idea.
DAM: Do we have a chance to stop it?
PK: Yes, we do. By insisting on using cash, by refusing to use credit cards, and electronic payment systems as much as possible.
This is a challenge, as most people are still unaware of what digital payment modes eventually will do to them. Especially young people find it cool to be able to just pass a card over a payment device, or pay with their watch, or their cell phone, or in some Scandinavian countries, they have an option of an implanted chip in their hand, between the index finger and the thumb.
We, the elders, must find ways to tell the up-and-coming generation to what dangers they expose themselves, full enslavement – if they fall for the comfort of paying “playing” digitally.
Many will not listen. Their answer is often – “Well, I have nothing to hide”. This is very shortsighted, of course.
Maybe more importantly – we must launch public activities, protests, against digital money – more protests, more people become aware of the risk and start thinking by themselves.
Because the best method of awakening is when someone feels the spark of conscience by himself.
And we must become more vociferous in the non-mainstream – and to the extent possible – in the mainstream, about preserving CASH.
Even banks, I have noticed when talking to bankers, are not convinced about a future of exclusively digital money. Because they too, may become victims of repressive actions, for example, if they do not follow globalist rules – of which they have no clue today, that they may come.
DAM: How does slavery and social credit system connect in your view with the push for digital money?
PK:Digital money IS already slavery. At first it is slavery in a passive stage, but it can be activated at will of the powers-that-be.
The slavery is already occurring, even without digital money. It has happened in France and Canada – and maybe other countries, that people’s bank accounts have been blocked, because they did not conform to the rules of Government, or because they have not been paying a so-called government-issued fine for misbehaving.
The government has access to your bank account.
This option is already open for governments under the “Rules-based Order”.
As to social credit systems – as far as I know, China is the only country that uses Social Credit system. It is not linked to individual bank accounts.
In China, although digital money is very popular – cash is still available and can be used almost everywhere.
If the WEF and the UN want to introduce a Social Credit System, link it to our bank accounts – to help push through their Agenda 2030, it is again up to us the People, to say no and resist it.
If we stand up in masses, there is little so-called authorities can do to implement it. But to stand up in masses, it needs a critical mass. And today we are not yet there.
Our honest thinking – and the thoughts of living in another sphere, outside of the darkness and government-imposed globalist actions — will proliferate without our knowing. Without thoughts of anger and revenge, we may have what we often call a “butterfly effect”. It is part of quantum science. We just start learning about it.
DAM: Can you explain how far along we are in the process?
PK: As I said at the beginning, unfortunately, the process of digitization of everything is already quite advanced. It is what Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s (former) boss, calls the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. It consists of first reducing the world population to the extent possible, and replacing the survivors with robots or transhumans or completely with AI-driven robots.
Gadgets such as “ChatGPT”, translations by AI, driverless cars – and much — are being introduced, if accepted, made mandatory. That we must be aware of. This is not just a trial.
The trial are We, the people.
If we accept, bingo – it will become mandatory. Accepting is not objecting, not protesting; it is going along with it, even if we do not like it. Active resistance is needed.
Otherwise, our chance has gone.
We must stop evil at the gate; like right now, REFUSING, to being subjected to driverless cars.
Go even further, refuse all digitized cars, with everything from the car window to turning on and off the engine at red light… and so on, request old-style cars where you open your window by hand – no automatics, the less digitized the better. Same for kitchen equipment and other household tools.
It is hard to believe that less than 50 years ago we have lived analogue lives, without digitization whatsoever. Life was less complicated, human contact was warmer and closer. Solidarity was of the order.
Again, what is needed, are aware people, who know of the dangers of digitization, of the risk of total enslavement by AI.
We are not there yet.
Programs such as yours [Humanity United Now] can and will help bringing more people to senses; to think for themselves what AI and digitization can do to them.
DAM: What concrete things can the average citizen do?
PK: Well, some of them, I mentioned before:
refusing digital money – insisting in using CASH instead.
take to the streets – talk to each other about the enslavement risk of digitization, of digitized money
Write about it…
For example, quit banks that have been pre-selected to digitize money by using the QR code.
The QR code can accumulate almost unlimited amounts of personal information, and eventually knows you better than you know yourself.
Stay away to the extent possible from QR codes.
For example, I know restaurants they presented their menus ONLY by giving you a QR code to read in our cellphone. By doing that – you have already been caught and registered.
Since, using a QR code to read the menu is also uncomfortable, many customers have complained. So, many of these restaurants have gone back to printed menus.
That is a small success, but every big change starts small.
DAM:How do you view the threat of Artificial Intelligence and convergence of man and machine?
PK: Yes, listening to the WEF’s Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030, there is a chance that such convergences may happen. For sure, they are working on it – in the various Silicon Valley IT corporations.
Their goal is: for those who survive, “you will own nothing but be happy.” That would be typical for a trans-humanized being.
But it is my strong belief they will not succeed for a simple reason. Anything digital, including AI, is based on linear information, on linear inputs, maybe millions of them, but still linear. Human beings are living beings, and living beings are not linear or digital, they are dynamic, adjusting to circumstances, often spontaneously, unpredictably. That is also why making economic projections – I’m talking as an economist – usually does not work. Since they are all based on linear inputs.
The longer-term such projections are attempted – I know from experience with the World Bank – the further off reality they are.
Dynamism is perhaps a forerunner of quantum mechanics that can switch dimensions instantaneously.
If we Humans are convinced and aware that we belong to the creation of LIFE – which is analogue and has nothing to do with digital linearism, they will not succeed.
I am convinced of it.
The timing is crucial, though. The longer it takes for Us, the People, to become conscience of these facts and act accordingly, the more damage their attempts to digitize the world and us humans can do.
It is up to We, the People, to stop it.
*
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. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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.
[First published in 2022, with updates on 14 July 2024.]
Trump’s near assassination this weekend represents an incredibly important reminder of the stakes going into the 2024 election amidst a vast systemic collapse and heightened threat of a thermonuclear war. At this stage, despite the cast of compromised characters among Trump’s support network, no one has displayed so consistent a quality of leadership that qualifies them for dealing with the current crisis as Trump has displayed.
I thought it fitting to revisit the recent Canadian Patriot Review film (based upon the essay “Why Assume There Will be a 2024 Election?“) where we are introduced into this dense period of history from the orchestrated demolition of the financial system in 1929, the Wall Street/London fueled “economic miracle solution” of fascism and eugenics between 1930-1934, and the story of FDR’s war with the financier oligarchy’s London and Wall Street tentacles. From this vantage point, we are then thrust into a deep dive into the person of Smedley Butler and his courageous defense of the republic.
Why Assume There Will be a 2024 Election? America’s 1934 “Bankers’ Coup Plot” Revisited
By Matthew Ehret-Kump, July 19, 2022
Earlier this week, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to run in the 2024 elections which is a no-brainer considering his support among potential republican contenders is 49% (compared to a 25% support for DeSantis) and no other candidate earning above 7%.
It didn’t take two days before Defense Authorization Act of 2022 (HR-4350) was passed by the House of Representatives giving the President full controls over the military in all domestic operations and which takes direct aim at all “domestic extremists” in the USA.
Obviously, the senile and politically compromised Biden’s days in power are shaky to say the least and echoes of the 1933 Reichstag fire that provided a newly elected Hitler regime the excuse it needed to impose tyrannical ‘enabling acts’ rings in the memory.
With the perfect storm of crises now converging onto our beleagured world (economic meltdown, energy crisis, food crisis, and general dangers of both civil and global wars), it is worth considering the very real possibility that the days of elections may soon be over. Despite the many talking heads yapping about the 2024 elections as if it were a football game, reality and real history paints a very different picture of bankers’-directed military coups both in the USA and abroad.
In order to best understand this danger and also gain insight into how it might be circumvented, I suggest revisiting the 1932-1934 efforts by the international deep state to impose a fascist dictatorship upon Americans and even overthrow the elected government of Franklin Roosevelt with a JP Morgan-funded military coup d’état.
The Fascist Economic Miracle Solution of 1932
1932-1934 was a period of history that saw the world torn down into a deep depression which the people of Europe and America were told by their media, could only be solved by the “economic miracle solution” of a new system of governance known as “fascism”.
This “fascist economic solution” took hold in Europe with the quick rise of Nazism, Franco and Mussolini’s Corporatism as well what later became Vichy France. In English Canada, the League for Social Reconstruction was ready to take power in 1932 and French-speaking Canada was quickly embracing the Nazi-inspired political party of Adrien Arcand. The British governing class, led by the royal family were fully backing Nazism, and Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was rising faster than ever. All of these movements came in different flavors but were united under a cold utilitarian philosophy of government, a devout love for eugenics (the racist “science” of population control) and addiction to City of London/Wall Street money.
In the United States however, things weren’t going as smoothly.
The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt
Even though the financial elite of Wall Street had pulled the plug on the system four years earlier, the population had still not been broken sufficiently to accept fascism as the solution which Time magazine told them it was. Instead, the people voted for one of the few anti-fascist presidential candidates available in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt was elected under the theme of taking the money lenders out of power and restoring the constitution.
“Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
During FDR’s famous 100 Days, an all-out war was declared on the “economic royalists” that had taken over the nation. Audits and investigations were conducted on the banks in the form of the Pecora Commission, and the biggest financial houses which had spent billions on fascist parties of Europe were broken up while speculation was reined in under Glass-Steagall. Meanwhile a new form of banking was unveiled more in alignment with America’s constitutional traditions in the form of productive credit and long term public works which created real jobs and increased the national productive powers of labor.
Many people remain totally ignorant that even before his March 4, 1933 inauguration, Franklin Roosevelt narrowly avoided an assassination attempt in Florida which saw 5 people struck by bullets and the mayor of Chicago dying of his wounds 3 weeks later. Within days of the mayor’s death, the assassin Giuseppe Zingara was speedily labelled a “lone gunman” and executed without any serious investigation into his freemasonic connections. This however was just a pre-cursor for an even greater battle which Wall Street financiers would launch in order to overthrow the presidency later that year. This effort would only be stopped by the courageous intervention of a patriotic marine named Smedley Darlington Butler.
Who was General Butler?
Born in 1881 to a family of patriotic Quakers, Smedley Butler quickly rose through the ranks of the military becoming the most decorated military figure of U.S. History- a record he holds to this day with multiple medals of honor, an Army distinguished service medal and Marine Corps Bruvet medal (to name just a few).
By the end of the British-orchestrated meat grinder known as WWI, the General had become an activist patriot giving speeches across America in denunciation of the private financiers steering America’s war-driven economy. Speaking to veterans in August 1933, the general said:
“I have spent 33 years being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism… I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped rape half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street… In China, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested… I had a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotions. I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…”
In spite of his outspoken criticism of crony capitalism, Wall Street’s elite simply presumed all men had their price, and Butler was probably just indignant because he was never given a big enough piece of pie.
The Wall Street Putsch Is Launched
These financiers needed someone like Butler to channel the rage of the striking veterans of WWI across America who had been fighting for the bonus pay promised them years earlier but which didn’t exist due to the 1929 collapse. A force of hundreds of thousands of disgruntled seasoned soldiers was exactly what was needed to overthrow Roosevelt, but leadership was sorely lacking, and General Butler was their man for the job. He was a war hero who was seen as honest and loved by the veterans. He was perfect.
Under the guiding hand of JP Morgan’s Grayson Prevost Murphy, two representatives of the American Legion (Commander Bill Doyle and bond salesman Gerald MacGuire) approached Butler in July 1933 for the job of rallying the Legion’s veterans and began dropping hints of a larger coup plot. Butler became suspicious, but continued playing along with the plan to see how far this went up the ladder of power[1].
Over the course of the next several months, Butler discovered that America’s financial elite centered around John Pierpont Morgan Jr., the Harrimans, the Melons, Warburgs, Rockefellers and Duponts were at the heart of the plot. These men used their agents such as Gerald MacGuire a Morgan-affiliated bond salesman, Democratic Party controllers John W. Davis and Thomas Lamont (both occupying directorships in the House of Morgan), Robert Sterling Clark (heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune), Grayson Prevost Murphy and Harriman Family investment banker Prescott Bush. All of these characters had become well known “investors” in European fascism, owned the biggest media platforms including Fortune and Time Magazine (both of which promoted Mussolini extensively for years), and controlled the levers of industry.
Luckily, the 1932-1934 Pecora Commission exposed these forces publicly as the architects of the great depression, making their ability to acquire popular support and sympathy more than a little difficult.
Outlining his Committee’s findings Pecora had written publicly:
“Undoubtedly, this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the U.S.A.”
Butler Blows the Whistle
When the time was right, Butler blew the whistle by approaching the Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the McCormack-Dickstein Committee) which began an investigation on November 20, 1934. Unlike the Committee on Un-American Activities which made its reputation destroying patriotic lives under the communist witch hunt of McCarthyism, this earlier version was aligned to FDR and dedicated solely to identifying Nazi activity in America.
At first sceptical of the general’s claims, the committee soon substantiated everything over the course of a month long investigation and made their findings public to FDR and congress on December 29, 1934. An invaluable part of the hearings were the testimonies of journalist Paul Comly French whom Butler recruited to act as the general’s intermediary with the bankers.
Butler told the committee that MacGuire stated it
“wouldn’t take any constitutional change to authorize another cabinet official, somebody to take over the details of the office—to take them off the President’s shoulders” and that “we’d do with him what Mussolini did to the King of Italy”.
When French asked MacGuire how the coup would help solve unemployment, MacGuire responded:
“We need a fascist government to save the nation from the Communists… It was the plan that Hitler had used in putting all of the unemployed in labor camps or barracks—enforced labor. That would solve it overnight.”
Although the full transcripts were not made public, Butler did get the message to the population by giving his story to as many journalists as possible and recorded a message to the people in 1935 which should be listened to in full.
The Aftermath of the Exposure
This exposure, alongside the Pecora Commission findings, and earlier failed assassination attempt gave FDR the ammunition he needed to force America’s deep state into submission (at least for a while). As I outlined in my recent paper, FDR’s fight to stop a central bankers’ dictatorship started from the earliest days of his presidency to his dying breath on April 14, 1945.
Incredibly, after the sanitized and redacted 1934 report was published, the committee was disbanded (to be reformed later under a fascist mandate), and the thousands of pages of transcripts were buried for years- only officially made public in the 21st century- the contents of which can be found here with censored testimony in red.
The coup plotters lost no time forming a new organization on August 22, 1934 called the American Liberty League which spent the next decade sabotaging FDR’s New Deal. This group made every effort to promote an American alliance with Axis powers (until 1941’s Pearl Harbor attack), widely financed eugenics, and after FDR died, acted as the driving force behind the McCarthyite police state in America during the Cold War. Without understanding this fascist deep state operation within the heart of the American establishment, it were impossible to make sense of the manichean Cold War dualism that destroyed FDR’s vision for a world of cooperating sovereign nation states or.
This organization also gave birth to such think tanks as the American Enterprise Association, Heritage Foundation and CATO institute which incrementally made Austrian school economics a part of the American right. Anyone wishing to understand what created the Frankenstein Monster called “neo-conservativism” during the last 60 years would not get very far without understanding the role of the American Liberty League and its hell spawn.
Today, a new systemic meltdown of a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble has similarities to the 1929 crash and other similarities to the 1923 hyperinflation of Weimar. While the coronavirus may or may not be used to trigger this new blowout, one thing is certain: a new fascist coup and general war should be taken more seriously than ever.
*
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.
[1] The Legion was a very different beast from the benign organization of old veterans it is known as today, as it was originally founded with Wall Street capital in 1919 and was run early on as a fascist machine. Legion Commander Alvin Owsley made this explicit in 1921 when he said: “If need be the American Legion is ready to protect the institutions of this country and its ideals, in the same way as the Fascists have treated the destructive forces threatening Italy. Don’t forget that the Fascists are for today’s Italy what the American Legion is for the United States.”
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.
As I have observed in previous columns, our era in the United States is frequently beset with incidents characterized by a catastrophic loss of competence. Decades of procedural knowledge seem to vanish from one day to the next, leaving sensible people wondering how it could possibly happen.
The attempted assassination of Donald Trump this evening at the the Butler Farm Show Grounds is a perfect example of this bizarre phenomenon. The shooter climbed onto the roof—purportedly with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle —120 meters from Trump on the stage. From this vantage point, he had a clear line of sight for a shot that would have been easy for even a middling marksman. The following aerial photograph shows the shooter’s position relative to Trumps.
As anyone who understands the rudiments of security knows, the FIRST thing you do is secure all rooftops within sniper range. Note in the following video that a counter sniper (with the word POLICE embroidered on the back of his vest) on the roof behind Trump is scoping the would-be assassin’s position.
He appears to see the would-be assassin and start to engage (while flinching) right before the would-be assassin’s shots can be heard. Clearly the counter snipers knew that the rooftop presented a high risk position or they wouldn’t have been scoping it.
Why wasn’t this building—AGR International Inc., a manufacturing plant just north of the Butler Farm show ground—secured before Trump began speaking? It seems to me that this building would be the first thing a security detail would secure. The green pin on the roof to the east of Trump’s position marks where the counter snipers are posted. Again, why didn’t they just secure the building onto which the shooter climbed? This makes no sense.
The gunman apparently fired right as Trump looked to the right, towards the gunman. The grazing shot to Trump’s right ear was just a centimeter to the left (from the gunman’s POV) of a fatal head shot. I emphasize that the gunman was positioned at very close range. In the following video, I hit a small condiment package at 75 yards on the second shot with the same kind of rifle with open sights.
Note what appears to be a vapor trail behind the bullet.
The Nato 5.56 cartridge fires the bullet at a velocity of 3,250 feet per second — almost three times the speed of sound (1,125 feet per second). A bullet moving at this speed induces air pressure changes around the bullet that produce a contrail similar to those that form on the low pressure side of aircraft wings.
What could possibly explain the catastrophic failure to secure the perimeter around the stage? It’s hard for me to imagine a legitimate explanation for such a lapse of such elementary security procedures.
*
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 images in this article are from Courageous Discourse unless otherwise stated
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.
“Berit “Bear” was healthy when he was born on January 29th, 2015. He was three weeks early, but never had any issues whatsoever. (He received his first dose of the Hepatitis B vaccine on January 30th.) Being a first time mom I was very protective, but not protective enough.
He had started smiling and rolling over and was really alert. Bear was a cuddle bug. He loved to be held. He was a happy baby and very laid back until he was done with that and wanted to be held. He would smile when he heard people talking, especially if they were talking to him.
The days before his 2-month checkup I started feeling like I really didn’t want to get him vaccinated. I expressed my concerns to the doctor which they told me “many parents feel this way before their child’s shots” and assured me he would be fine. Bear was vaccinated on the 26th of March. He received the DTaP, Hep. B, IPV, Hib, Pneumo Conjugate 13, and Rotavirus vaccines.
After his shots, he slept a lot. He slept almost all day. I had to wake him up to feed him – that was very unusual. He cried so much more than normal. He never ran a fever. Looking back on pictures now I can see his eyes were glazed over. He was not alert anymore, and he was swollen.
It was the 28th of March at 3:00 a.m., I woke up having really bad cramps (I had ovarian cysts ever since I received the HPV/Gardasil vaccine). I had Bear sleeping on my chest (he was wanting to be held more than usual), so when I got up, I had to put him down. He went right back to sleep. I put him down in bed on his back and went to take a bath.
I came back 15 minutes later and picked him up — he was limp. I screamed. Woke up my now ex-husband and he began doing CPR while I called 911. I remember I was in such a shock that I told them our old address and not our new one. I finally gave up trying to explain and told them to call the hospital in our town and tell them we were coming. We lived two minutes away.
When we got there, the doctors and nurses immediately took Bear from us and started working on him. By the time we got there, he had blood running out of his nose. They got him back and lost him several times. That beeping sound still to this day makes me feel like my heart is being ripped out of my chest. Neonatal nurses were flown in from Oklahoma University via helicopter to try to stabilize him, so we could transfer him. It wasn’t happening. Even on the ventilator he was still going in and out.
Around 9:00 a.m., all family and close friends were there. The doctor pulled us back to a room by ourselves and told us Bear was without oxygen to his brain for too long and he would never be able to have a normal life. We were still losing him on and off at this point too.
We had to make the hardest decision ever. We decided to take him off of the machine and hold him while he took his last breaths. At 10:13 a.m., he was pronounced dead.
Those months following, and still to this day, are sometimes unbearable. Sometimes it’s like you think you’ll eventually wake up from this nightmare that’s actually your life. I’ve had two children since then – a girl (2016) and a boy (2018). Neither are vaccinated and both are very healthy.
*
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.
The European Union’s legal service informed members of the bloc that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s recent visit to Moscow and his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin violated EU treaties, the Financial Times reported on July 11. Nonetheless, despite EU threats to have Hungary stripped of the presidency of the Council of the European Union, Orbán remains committed to his “peace mission” to end the war in Ukraine and even shunned US President Joe Biden to meet with his predecessor instead, Donald Trump.
On July 7, Orbán visited Russia for talks with Putin. The Hungarian prime minister described his visit as a continuation of the “peace mission” he began with a trip to Kiev in early July. Nonetheless, the EU’s legal service told member states on July 10 that Orbán had violated agreements that prohibit “any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives,” FT reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.
At the same time, the Hungarian leader is said to have violated a provision requiring all members to conduct foreign policy “unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.”
According to sources involved in the investigation, during the NATO summit in Washington on July 10, European leaders were discussing, among other things, a joint letter to Orbán that clarified their objections to his actions and demanded that he stop his independent foreign policy initiative. Another suggestion was a special meeting of EU foreign ministers specifically on the subject.
Some diplomats told the FT that many EU members have also discussed a possible boycott of informal ministerial meetings during Hungary’s presidency of the Council of the European Union.
A smaller number of countries have launched informal talks on how to use the EU treaty to limit Orbán’s ability to act during his presidency. Some EU officials have even privately suggested taking the presidency away from Budapest.
Politico reported that Hungary’s EU envoy, Balint Odor, was verbally heckled by his Brussels counterparts like never before.
“It’s unprecedented that the presidency would be reprimanded in such a way by all the others,” a senior EU diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
Since Budapest took over the rotating EU presidency in July, Orbán has undertaken self-declared “peacekeeping missions” to Kiev, Moscow, Beijing, and Washington. However, they were “not conducted in the name of the European Union or any of its institutions,” Hungarian EU Affairs Minister János Bóka stressed at a news conference.
Media outlets reported earlier that Orbán had also sent confidential letters to European Council President Charles Michel and EU leaders detailing his recent trips to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. Orbán reportedly said that Russia and China hoped that peace talks between Moscow and Kiev would begin by the end of this year.
Hungarian Foreign noted that Orbán met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the NATO summit.
“We [Hungary and Turkey] have taken a common position that in the coming times, a peace conference in which both parties to the conflict will participate will be necessary. This is the only opportunity to reach an agreement,” he told M1 television.
Szijjártó also highlighted that the peace conference in Switzerland failed because Russia was not involved, adding:
“It is important that the peace conference planned for the second half of this year, whether in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, involves both sides, Russia and Ukraine, to give the best opportunity to find a solution.”
Although the EU is outraged by Orbán’s peace mission, the Hungarian leader is a realist and has consistently said that Russia has won the war and that Western powers are just prolonging the suffering by continually sending weapons to Ukraine. In fact, he is so much of a realist that he, along with most pollsters, believes Donald Trump will win the US election and, therefore, he decided to fly into Mar-a-Lago on July 11 to discuss the Ukraine situation, effectively shunning Joe Biden by not requesting a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit.
Orbán has not had an official meeting with Biden since he became president nearly four years ago. The Hungarian prime minister met Trump in March this year in Mar-a-Lago and has endorsed him several times throughout the past eight years, even describing the billionaire as a “man of honour.”
It is unlikely that Hungary will be stripped of its presidency of the Council of the European Union, but it does indicate the anger and frustration that Orbán’s peace mission has caused in Brussels. Although the EU desperately wants the Kiev regime to prevail over Russia, a Trump reelection will all but end the war in a relatively short time, and this is the reality that Orbán is working with.
*
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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban made statements for the press. Photo: Aleksey Maishev, RIA Novosti
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.
The FBI is investigating an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13.
Former President Donald Trump is injured but safe after a bullet fired by a would-be assassin pierced his right ear about 10 minutes after the start of the rally.
The FBI named Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, as the subject involved in the assassination attempt. The agency said the investigation remains active and ongoing. Agency officials said they believe Mr. Crooks acted alone. No motive has been identified.
Corey Comperatore, a firefighter and father of two daughters, was identified as the sole slain victim. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he died protecting his family.
The two rally attendees who were injured have been identified as David Dutch, 57, of New Kensington, Pennsylvania, and James Copenhaver, 74, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania. Both are in a stable condition, according to the Pennsylvania State Police
Former President Trump on July 14 called for unity, adding that it was “God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.”
What else we know so far:
The Secret Service shot and killed the attacker, who fired from a nearby rooftop with a direct line of sight to the former president.Several witnesses on the ground say they saw the man on the roof prior to the shooting and had warned law enforcement officers.
The FBI says it is investigating the attack as both an attempted assassination and a potential domestic terrorism act. Mr. Crooks was not on the agency’s radar as a potential threat before the attack, officials said. The FBI also found a “suspicious device” while sweeping Mr. Crooks’s car and later diffused it.
President Joe Biden has vowed a “thorough and swift” investigation of the assassination attempt and has directed an independent review of the security at the Saturday rally. The president said he had a “short, but good conversation” with former President Trump on Saturday evening. He condemned the assassination attempt, calling it “contrary to everything we stand for as a nation.”
Democrats, Republicans, and world leaders expressed shock and issued an outpouring of well wishes.
The Trump campaign confirmed in a statement that the former president will appear as planned at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where he will be formally nominated to represent the GOP in the presidential election.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other lawmakers said that Congress intends to conduct a full investigation into the attack.
***
Biden Urges Americans to Stand Together in Oval Office Address
President Joe Biden on July 14 addressed the nation from the Oval Office, highlighting a need to “lower the temperature on our politics” in the wake of the assassination attempt against his rival, former President Donald Trump.
“We are not enemies. We’re neighbors or friends, coworkers, citizens, and most importantly, we’re our fellow Americans,” he said. “We must stand together.”
This was his first Oval Office address since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last year.
He said the political rhetoric in the country “has gotten very heated.”
“It’s time to cool it down,” the president added.
The shooting, he said, calls on Americans to “take a step back, take stock of where we are, how we go forward from here.”
The president reiterated his condemnation of the attack, saying,
“There is no place in America for this kind of violence, for any violence ever. Period. No exceptions. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.”
“The power to change America should always rest in the hands of the people, not in the hands of would-be assassins,” the president said.
*
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 by Evan Vucci / Licensed under Fair Use
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.
Western-supported Zionists bomb civilians in areas identified as “safe” as policy.
Gaza journalist Bisan Owda describes how Zionists recently bombed and massacred, from the air and the sea, about 300 civilians taking shelter in their tents.
The number 300, she says, does not include those buried alive or those who have not interfaced with hospitals.
The bombs upturn the earth and bury people alive.
This massacre of 300 is only one of the 3,000 that have so-far been committed by Zionists against Gazan civilians.
Imagine that. No, we can not imagine that. Impossible.
This genocide is even more impossible for Westerners to imagine because not only do the American-supplied bombs bury people alive, but the Zionists also target civil defence workers and ambulances.
This of course is all part of the Western/Zionist-imposed genocide against Palestine and Palestinians.
As mentioned earlier, the genocide also involves targeting electrical, water, and health care infrasctructure, with a view to further imposing famine, disease, and disaster. Famine and disease are fabricated instruments of genocide.
In this video, Dr. Ahmad Yousaf, reporting from Deir Al Balah, describes the staggering and grossly under-reported death count from the bombs and the bleeding, from the siege and the restrictions on humanitarian aid.
Author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik noted on his Telegram page,
“Today’s horrific massacre & savage bombing of displaced Palestinians in Israeli designated ‘safe’ zones of Muassi, Khan Younis is the latest in an escalation that has turned all of Gaza into one massive death zone. American bombs & shells rain down on Gaza while the Israeli government & thugs succeed in preventing any form of medical, food, or fuel supplies from reaching the devastated population.”
This is genocide, in plain view, for all to see.
*
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.
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.
Featured image is a screenshot via Mark Taliano
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from 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.
NATO celebrated the 75th anniversary of its foundation at the Washington Summit, it should have been held on April 4, but Washington – which for 75 years has been keeping the key commands of NATO starting from the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, an American general has always been appointed by the President of the United States – decided to celebrate it more than three months later for its internal political reasons.
The official history of NATO, presented at the Washington Summit, explained the birth of NATO thus:
“In 1949, 12 European and North American countries, faced with the growing threat from the Soviet Union, signed a Treaty based on the principle of collective defence.”
The text is accompanied by the front page of a newspaper dated August 29, 1949, with a headline in large letters: “RUSSIA HAS ATOMIC BOMB” – “RUSSIA HAS THE ATOMIC BOMB”.
It is a colossal historical fake. The Soviet Union emerged from the Second World War largely destroyed, after being attacked and invaded in June 1941 by Nazi Germany with 201 divisions, including 5.5 million soldiers equal to 75% of all German troops, 3,500 tanks, and 5000 aircraft, plus 37 divisions from satellite countries (including Italy). The USSR had repeatedly asked the Allies to open a second front in Europe, but the United States and Great Britain had deliberately delayed doing it.
Image: Ruins in Stalingrad, typical of the destruction in many Soviet cities. (From the Public Domain)
The price paid by the Soviet Union was very high: around 27 million deaths, over half of them civilians, corresponding to 15% of the population (compared to 0.3% in the USA throughout the Second World War); around 5 million deported to Germany; over 1700 cities and large population centres, 70 thousand small villages devastated; 30 thousand factories destroyed. The Soviet Union could not therefore constitute a threat to the West, also because the United States was the only one to possess the atomic weapon, of which it held a monopoly from 1945 to 1949. Already from September 1945, just a month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Pentagon calculated that around 200 nuclear bombs were needed to attack the USSR. In 1949 the US arsenal rose to around 170 atomic bombs. At this point, the United States was confident that it would have enough bombs to attack the Soviet Union within a short time. In that same year, however, the American dream of maintaining the monopoly on nuclear weapons vanished. On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union carried out its first experimental atomic explosion. Now the USSR also has the Bomb. At this point, the nuclear arms race between the two superpowers begins.
Since then, for 75 years, NATO has justified its war strategy with the false claim of being threatened. Today’s “threat” comes, according to the Washington Summit, from the “growing alignment of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea”. For this reason, “NATO works increasingly closely with partners in the Indo-Pacific and with the European Union to help maintain peace and protect the rules-based international order”. Based on this historical falsification, NATO – which has expanded from 12 to 32 countries increasingly close to Russia – is dragging Europe and the world into catastrophe.
*
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 in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: The NATO Summit at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2024 (Photo by U.S. Department of State from United States / From the Public Domain)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
This article was first published on March 9, 2022, revised and expanded on October 5, 2022, minor revisions on May 25, 2023.
Introduction
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.
Let us also recall the unspoken history of America’s doctrine pertaining to the conduct of nuclear war.
Barely six weeks after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,the U.S. War Department released a Secret Plan on September 15, 1945 to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs.
The September 1945 Plan was to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” at a time when the US and the USSR were allies. Confirmed by declassified documents, Hiroshima and Nagasaki served as a “Dress Rehearsal” (see historical details and analysis below).
Video: The Dangers of Nuclear War: Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux
Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was a response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A first strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America:
“Let me [Putin] explain that U.S. strategic planning documents contain the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And who is the main enemy for the U.S. and NATO? We know that too. It’s Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike.” (Putin Speech, February 21, 2022, emphasis added)
In July 2021, the Biden administration launched its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which was formally announced in October 2022.
The 2022 NPR includes what is described as a “nuclear declaratory policy of the United States”.
The 2022 NPR largely confirms the nuclear options developed by the Obama and Bush administrations predicated on the notion of preemptive nuclear war raised in President Putin’s speech.
The underlying US nuclear doctrine consists in portraying nuclear weapons as a means of “self defense” rather than as a “weapon of mass destruction”.
The NPR does not rule out the possibility of a “first strike” nuclear attack against Russia. According to theUS Congress Research Service:
“The NPR [2022] suggests that the United States may use nuclear weapons in circumstances that do not involve potential adversaries’ potential use of nuclear weapons. …The review also asserts that an ‘effective nuclear deterrent is foundational to broader U.S. defense strategy,’ but does not elaborate. (…)”
“Should deterrence fail, ‘the United States would seek to end any conflict at the lowest level of damage possible on the best achievable terms’— language implying that the United States might use nuclear weapons for purposes other than deterrence.” (CRS Reports. US Congress 2022 NPR, emphasis added)
The Privatization of Nuclear War
It should be understood, that there are powerful financial interests behind the NPR which are tied into the $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program initiated under President Obama.
Although the Ukraine conflict has so-far been limited to conventional weapons coupled with “economic warfare”, the use of a large array of sophisticated WMDs including nuclear weapons is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
Dangerous narrative: The NPR proposes “increased integration of conventional and nuclear planning”, which consists in categorizing tactical nuclear weapons (e.g. B61-11 and 12) as conventional weapons, to be used on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater (as a means of self defense)
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the total number of nuclear warheads Worldwide is of the order of 13,000. Russia and the United States “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles”.
The Dangers of Nuclear War are Real. Profit Driven. Two Trillion Dollars
Under Joe Biden, public funds allocated to nuclear weapons are slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030 allegedly as a means to safeguarding peace and national security at taxpayers expense. (How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?):
The United States maintains an arsenal of about 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and at strategic bomber bases. There are an additional estimated 100 non-strategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons at bomber bases in five European countries and about 2,000 nuclear warheads in storage. [see our analysis of B61-11 and B61-12 below]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May 2021 that the United States will spend a total of $634 billion over the next 10 years to sustain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. (Arms Control)
In this article, I will focus on
The Post Cold War shift in US Nuclear Doctrine,
A brief review of the History of US-Russia Relations since World War I,
An Assessment of the history of nuclear weapons going back to the Manhattan Project initiated in 1939 with the participation of both Canada and the United Kingdom.
Most people in America do not know that the Manhattan Project in the immediate wake of bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki in August 1945, was intended to formulate a nuclear attack against the USSR, at a time when the Soviet Union and the U.S. were allies.
What I am referring to is the U.S Blueprint of September 15, 1945 according to which the US War Department planned to drop more than 200 atomic bombs on 66 cities of the Soviet Union. This is not mentioned in the history books. See:
A Note on the History of US-Russia Relations. The Forgotten War of 1918
From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 104 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918, (two months following the November 7, 1917 revolution allegedly in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).
The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War.
It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I dispatched 70,000 troops.
The US threat of nuclear war against Russia was formulated more than 76 years ago in September 1945, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies. It consisted in a “World War III Blueprint” of nuclear war against the USSR, targeting 66 cities with more than 200 atomic bombs. This diabolical project under the Manhattan Project was instrumental in triggering the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. (See analysis below).
Chronology
1918-1920: The first US and allied forces led war against Soviet Russia with more than 10 countries sending troops to fight alongside the White Imperial Russian army. This happened exactly two months after the October Revolution, on January 12, 1918, and it lasted until the early 1920s.
The Manhattan Project initiated in 1939, with the participation of the UK and Canada. Development of the Atomic Bomb.
Operation Barbarossa, June 1941. Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union. Standard Oil of New Jersey was selling oil to Nazi Germany.
February 1945: The Yalta Conference. The meeting of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
“Operation Unthinkable”: A Secret attack plan against the Soviet Union formulated by Winston Churchill in the immediate wake of the Yalta conference. It was scrapped in June 1945.
April 12, 1945:The Potsdam Conference. President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill approve the atomic bombing of Japan.
September 15, 1945: A World War III Scenario formulated by the US War Department: A plan to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs, when the US and USSR were allies. The Secret plan (declassified in 1975) formulated during WWII, was released less than two weeks after the official end of WWII on September 2, 1945
1949: The Soviet Union announces the testing of its nuclear bomb.
Post Cold War Doctrine: “Preemptive Nuclear War”
The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War Era no longer prevails. It was replaced at the outset of the George W. Bush Administration with the Doctrine of Preemptive Nuclear War, namely the use of nuclear weapons as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.
In early 2002, the text of George W. Bush’s Nuclear Posture Review had already been leaked, several months prior to the release of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) which defined, “Preemption” as:
“the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack”.
Namely as an act of war on the grounds of self-defense
The MAD doctrine was scrapped. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review not only redefined the use of nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons or bunker buster bombs (mini-nukes) could henceforth be used in the conventional war theater without the authorization of the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States.
Discussing “requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the report lists Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as “among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.” …
Three of these countries (Iraq, Libya and Syria) have since then been the object of US-led wars. The 2001 NPR also confirmed continued nuclear war preparations against China and Russia.
“The Bush review also indicates that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, citing “the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces.”
“Finally, although the review repeats Bush administration assertions that Russia is no longer an enemy, it says the United States must be prepared for nuclear contingencies with Russia and notes that, if “U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.” Ultimately, the review concludes that nuclear conflict with Russia is “plausible” but “not expected.” [that. was back in 2002] ( Arms Control) emphasis added.
The Privatization of Nuclear War
With tensions growing in major regions of the World, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology was unfolding making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US had embarked on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike “preemptive” doctrine. This process went into full swing in the immediate wake of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (2001 NPR) adopted by the US Senate in 2002.
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance.
This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.”
Nuclear War against both China and Russia is contemplated
Russia is tagged as “Plausible” but “Not Expected”. That was back in 2002.
Today at the height of the Ukraine war, a Preemptive Nuclear attack against Russia is on the drawing of the Pentagon. That does not however mean that it will be implemented.
A Nuclear War Cannot be Won?
We recall Reagan’s historic statement: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.”
Nonetheless, there are powerful voices and lobby groups within the US establishment and the Biden administration that are convinced that “a nuclear war is winnable”.
Flashback to Inter-War Period: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Election Campaign
According to Yuri Robsov, Wall Street and the Rockefellers were funding Germany’s war machine as well as Adolf Hitler’s election campaign:
American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc. were under the control of American financial capital.
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.
On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler andFranz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.
This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.
A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.
It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.
World War II: “Operation Barbarossa”
There is ample evidence that both the US and its British ally were intent upon Nazi Germany winning the war on the Eastern Front with a view to destroying the Soviet Union:
.
“Stalin and his entourage’s growing suspicions, that the Anglo-American powers hoped the Nazi-Soviet War would last for years, were based on well-founded concerns. This desire had already been expressed in part by Harry S. Truman, future US president, hours after the Wehrmacht had invaded the Soviet Union.
Truman, then a US Senator, said he wanted to see the Soviets and Germans “kill as many as possible” between themselves, an attitude which the New York Times later called “a firm policy”. The Times had previously published Truman’s remarks on 24 June 1941, and as a result his views would most likely not have escaped the Soviets’ attention. (Shane Quinn, Global Research, March 2022)
Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa initiated in June 1941 would have failed from the very outset had it not been for the support of Standard Oil of New Jersey (owned by the Rockefellers) which routinely delivered ample supplies of oil to the Third Reich. While Germany was able to transform coal into fuel, this synthetic production was insufficient. Moreover, Romania’s Ploesti oil resources (under Nazi control until 1944) were minimal. Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.
.
Trading with the Enemy legislation (1917) officially implemented following America’s entry into World War II did not prevent Standard Oil of New Jersey from selling oil to Nazi Germany. This despite the Senate 1942 investigation of US Standard Oil.
While direct US oil shipments were curtailed, Standard Oil would sell US oil through third countries. US oil was shipped to occupied France (officially via Switzerland, and from France it was shipped to Germany: “… The shipments went through Spain, Vichy France’s colonies in the West Indies, and Switzerland.”
Without those oil shipments instrumented by Standard Oil and the Rockefellers, Nazi Germany would not have been able to implement its military agenda. Without fuel, the Third Reich’s eastern front under Operation Barbarossa would most probably not have taken place, saving millions of lives. The Western front including the military occupation of France, Belgium and The Netherlands would no doubt also have been affected.
The USSR actually won the war against Nazi Germany, with 27 million deaths, which in part resulted from the blatant violation of Trading with the Enemy by Standard Oil.
.
“Operation Unthinkable”: A World War III Scenario Formulated During World War II
.
A World War III scenario against the Soviet Union had already been envisaged in early 1945, under what was called Operation Unthinkable, to be launched prior to the official end of World War II on September 2, 1945.
.
Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta in early February 1945 largely with a view to negotiating the post war occupation of Germany and Japan.
“If you thought the Cold War between East and West reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, then think again. 1945 was the year when Europe was the crucible for a Third World War.
.
The plan called for a massive Allied assault on 1 July 1945 by British, American, Polish and German – yes German – forces against the Red Army. They aimed to push them back out of Soviet-occupied East Germany and Poland, give Stalin and bloody nose, and force him to re-consider his domination of East Europe. … Eventually in June 1945 Churchill’s military advisors cautioned him against implementing the plan, but it still remained a blueprint for a Third World War. …The Americans had just successfully tested an atomic bomb, and there was now the final temptation of obliterating Soviet centres of population”
.
Churchill’s “Operation Unthinkable” against Soviet Forces in Eastern Europe (see above) was abandoned in June 1945.
During his mandate as Prime Minister (1940-45), Churchill had supported the Manhattan Project. He was a protagonist of nuclear war against the Soviet Union, which had been contemplated under the Manhattan project as early as 1942, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies against Nazi Germany.
A Blueprint for a Third World War using nuclear weapons against 66 major urban areas of the Soviet Union was officially formulated on September 15, 1945 by the US War Department (see section below).
The Potsdam Conference
Vice President Harry S. Truman was sworn in as president of the United States on April 12, 1945, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage.
.
At the Potsdam meetings, President Truman entered into discussions (July 1945) with Stalin and Churchill: (see image right). The discussions were of a different nature to those of Yalta, specifically with regard to both Truman and Churchill who were both in favour of nuclear warfare:
.
“[British] PM [Churchill] and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told PM [Churchill] of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time. (Truman Diary, July 17, 1945, emphasis added)
What this statement from Truman’s Diary confirms is that Japan would “fold up” and surrender to the US “before Russia comes in”. Ultimately this was the objective of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While Stalin was casually informed by Truman regarding the Manhattan Project in July 1945, sources suggest that the Soviet Union was aware of the Manhattan Project as early as 1942. Did Truman tell Stalin that the atom bomb was intended for Japan?
“We met at 11.00am. today.[ That is, Stalin, Churchill and the US president].
But I had a most important session [without Stalin?] with Lord Mountbatten and General Marshall [US joint Chiefs of Staff] before that. [This meeting was not part of the official agenda] We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark. Anyway, we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling – to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused a crater six hundred feet deep and twelve hundred feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower a half mile away, and knocked men down ten thousand yards away. The explosion was visible for more than two hundred miles and audible for forty miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th.I have told the secretary of war, Mr Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (Truman’s Diary, Potsdam meeting on July 18, 1945)
The discussion on the Manhattan Project does not appear in the official minutes of the meetings.
The Infamous “WW III Blueprint” to Wage a Nuclear Attack against the Soviet Union (September 15, 1945)
Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued a directive (September 15, 1945) to “Erase the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and USSR were allies, confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)
All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.
Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.
The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
One single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds. Imagine what would have happened if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on major cities of the Soviet Union as outlined in a secret U.S. plan formulated during the Second World War.
Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb attack, 6 August 1945
The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).
The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II, at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.
The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Dress Rehearsal for Planned Nuclear Attack against the Soviet Union
Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs? The key documents to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union (15 September 1945) were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945):
“On September 15, 1945 — just under two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan and the end of World War II — Norstad sent a copy of the estimate to General Leslie Groves, still the head of the Manhattan Project, and the guy who, for the short term anyway, would be in charge of producing whatever bombs the USAAF might want. As you might guess, the classification on this document was high: “TOP SECRET LIMITED,” which was about as high as it went during World War II. (Alex Wellerstein, The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945)
The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
The documents confirm that the US was involved in the “planning of genocide” against the Soviet Union.
Let’s cut to the chase. How many bombs did the USAAF request of the atomic general, when there were maybe one, maybe twobombs worth of fissile material on hand? At a minimum they wanted 123. Ideally, they’d like 466. This is just a little over a month after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course, in true bureaucratic fashion, they provided a handy-dandy chart (Alex Wellerstein, op. cit)
Central to our understanding of the Cold War which started (officially) in 1947, Washington’s September 1945 plan to bomb 66 cities into smithereens played a key role in triggering the nuclear arms race.
The Soviet Union was threatened and developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
While the Kremlin knew about these plans to “Wipe out” the USSR, the broader public was not informed because the September 1945 documents were of course classified. They were declassified 30 years later in September 1975
Today, neither the September 1945 plan to blow up the Soviet Union nor the underlying cause of the nuclear arms race are acknowledged. The Western media has largely focussed its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation. The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan project are not mentioned.
Washington’s Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented in response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the U.S. plan released in September 1945 (formulated at an earlier period at the height of World War II) to wipe out the Soviet which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.
The assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists mistakenly blamed and continue to blame the Soviet Union for having launched the nuclear arms race in 1949, four years after the release of the September 1945 US Secret Plan to target 66 major Soviet cities with 204 nuclear bombs:
“1949: The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.” (Timeline of the Doomsday Clock, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2017)
IMPORTANT: Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.
Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” agains the US which had already formulated plans to annihilate the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
The Cold War Era
The Nuclear Arms Race was the direct result of America’s September 1945 plan to “blow up the Soviet Union”, formulated by the US War Department.
The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb in 1949. Without the Manhattan Project and the War Department’s September 15, 1945 “World War III Blueprint”, the Arms Race would not have occurred.
The September 15, 1945 War Department set the stage for numerous plans to wage World War III against Russia and China:
The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities
This initial 1945 list of sixty-six cities was updated in the course of the Cold War (1956) to include some 1200 cities in the USSR and the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe (see declassified documents below). The bombs slated for use were more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Excerpt from list of 1200 Soviet cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.
“According to the 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Major Cities in the Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings. (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015
During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.
In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
Humanitarian Nuclear Warfare under Joe Biden
US-NATO led military Interventions (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) which have resulted in millions of civilian casualties are heralded as Humanitarian Wars, as a means to ensuring Peace.
This is also the discourse underlying US-NATO intervention in Ukraine.
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace” said George W. Bush
“Humanitarian Nuclear Bombs”
This kind of window dressing of “humanitarian nuclear bombs” is not only embedded into Joe Biden’s foreign policy agenda, it constitutes the mainstay of US military doctrine, namely the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, not to mention the 1.2 trillion nuclear weapons program initiated during the Obama administration.
The B61 Mini-nukes Deployed in Western Europe
The latest B61-12 “mini nuke” is slated to be deployed in Western Europe, aimed at Russia and the Middle East (replacing the existing of B61 nuclear bombs).
B-61-12 is portrayed as a “more usable” “low yield” “humanitarian bomb” “‘harmless to civilians”. That’s the ideology. The reality is “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD).
The B61-12 has a maximum yield of 50 kilotons which is more than three times that of a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons) which resulted in excess of 100,000 deaths in matter of minutes.
If a preemptive attack using a so-called mini nuke were to succeed, targeted against Russia or Iran, this could potentially lead humanity into a WW III scenario. Of course these details are not highlighted in mainstream media reports.
F-15E Eagle Strike Eagle Fighter for the Delivery of the B-61-12
Low Yield Nukes: Humanitarian Warfare Goes Live
And when the characteristics of this “harmless” low yield nuclear bomb are inserted into the military manuals, “humanitarian warfare” goes live: “It’s low yield and safe for civilians, let’s use it” [paraphrase].
The US arsenal of B61 nuclear bombs directed against the Middle East are currently located in the military bases of 5 non-nuclear states (Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey). The command structure pertaining to the B61-12 is yet to be confirmed. The situation with regard to Turkey’s Incirlik base is unclear.
Upholding WMDs as Instruments of Peace is a Dangerous Gimmick
Throughout History, “Mistakes” have Played a Key Role
We are at a Dangerous Crossroads. There is no Real Anti-war Movement in Sight.
Why? Because War is Good for Business!
And the powers of Big Money which are behind US-NATO led wars control both the anti-war movement as well as the media coverage of US led wars. That’s nothing new. It goes back to the so-called Soviet-Afghan War (1979-) which was spearheaded by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Through their “philanthropic” foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros et al) the financial elites have over the years channelled millions of dollars into financing so-called “progressive movements” including the World Social Forum (WSF)
It’s Called “Manufactured Dissent”: Big Money is also behind numerous coups d’état and color revolutions.
Meanwhile, important sectors of the Left including committed anti-war activists have endorsed the Covid mandates without verifying or acknowledging the facts and the history of the so-called pandemic.
It should be understood that the lockdown policies as well as the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine” are an integral part of the financial elite’s “broader arsenal”. They are instruments of submission and tyranny.
The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is an integral part of the World War III scenario which consists in establishing through military and non military means an imperial system of “global governance”.
The same powerful financial interests (Rockefeller, Rothschild, BlackRock, Vanguard, et al) which are supportive of the US-NATO military agenda are firmly behind the “Covid Pandemic Op”.
***
The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Spells the End of Humanity?
Relentless War Propaganda and Media Disinformation Is the Driving Force. It Must be Confronted.
Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option?
“War is Good for Business”: Corrupt Governments which Uphold the Interests of Big Money Must be Challenged
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
A Cúpula de Washington, com a qual a OTAN comemorou o 75º aniversário de sua fundação, deveria ter sido realizada em 4 de abril, mas Washington – que há 75 anos detém os principais comandos da OTAN, a começar pelo de Comandante Supremo Aliado na Europa, sempre um general norte-americano nomeado pelo presidente dos EUA – decidiu, por motivos próprios também de política interna, celebrá-la mais de três meses depois. A história oficial da OTAN, apresentada na Cúpula de Washington, explica o nascimento da OTAN da seguinte forma
“Em 1949, diante da crescente ameaça da União Soviética, 12 países europeus e norte-americanos assinaram um tratado baseado no princípio da defesa coletiva.”
O texto é acompanhado pela primeira página de um jornal datado de 29 de agosto de 1949, com uma manchete em letras grandes: “RÚSSIA TEM BOMBA ATÔMICA”.
Uma falsificação histórica colossal. A União Soviética emergiu da Segunda Guerra Mundial em grande parte destruída, tendo sido atacada e invadida em junho de 1941 pela Alemanha nazista com 201 divisões, compreendendo 5,5 milhões de soldados ou 75% de todas as tropas alemãs, 3.500 tanques e 5.000 aeronaves, além de 37 divisões dos países satélites (incluindo a Itália). A URSS havia pedido repetidamente aos Aliados que abrissem uma segunda frente na Europa, mas os EUA e a Grã-Bretanha haviam deliberadamente adiado.
O preço pago pela União Soviética é muito alto: cerca de 27 milhões de mortos, mais da metade deles civis, o que corresponde a 15% da população (em comparação com os 0,3% dos EUA em toda a Segunda Guerra Mundial); cerca de 5 milhões de deportados para a Alemanha; mais de 1.700 cidades e grandes vilas, 70 mil pequenos vilarejos devastados; 30 mil fábricas destruídas. Portanto, a União Soviética não poderia representar nenhuma ameaça para o Ocidente, até porque somente os Estados Unidos possuíam a arma atômica, da qual detinham o monopólio de 1945 a 1949. Já em setembro de 1945, apenas um mês após o bombardeio de Hiroshima e Nagasaki, o Pentágono calculou que seriam necessárias cerca de 200 bombas nucleares para atacar a URSS.
Em 1949, o arsenal dos EUA aumentou para cerca de 170 bombas nucleares. A essa altura, os EUA estavam confiantes de que logo teriam bombas suficientes para atacar a União Soviética. No entanto, naquele mesmo ano, o sonho americano de manter o monopólio das armas nucleares desapareceu. Em 29 de agosto de 1949, a União Soviética realizou sua primeira explosão nuclear experimental. Agora a URSS também tem a bomba. Nesse momento, teve início a corrida armamentista nuclear entre as duas superpotências.
Desde então, há 75 anos, a OTAN tem justificado sua estratégia de guerra com a falsa alegação de estar sendo ameaçada. A “ameaça” de hoje vem, de acordo com a Cúpula de Washington, do “crescente alinhamento da Rússia, China, Irã e Coreia do Norte”. É por isso que “a OTAN está trabalhando cada vez mais estreitamente com seus parceiros do Indo-Pacífico e com a União Europeia para ajudar a manter a paz e proteger a ordem internacional baseada em regras”. Com base nessa falsificação histórica, a OTAN – ampliada de 12 para 32 países cada vez mais próximos da Rússia – está arrastando a Europa e o mundo para uma catástrofe.
Manlio Dinuccié geógrafo e jornalista, e ex-diretor executivo italiano da International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, associação que recebeu o Prêmio Nobel da Paz em 1985. Porta-voz do Comitato no Guerra no Nato (Itália) e pesquisador associado do Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation (Canadá). Vencedor do Prêmio Internacional de Jornalismo de Análise Geoestratégica 2019 do Club de Periodistas de México.
Documentos internos recentemente divulgados pelo Instituto Robert Koch (RKI), a agência federal de controlo e prevenção de doenças da Alemanha, revelam uma forte desconexão entre o conhecimento especializado e as mensagens de saúde pública durante a pandemia da COVID-19.
Os documentos de janeiro de 2020 a abril de 2021 sugerem que os consultores científicos adaptaram as suas recomendações médicas e políticas sobre a COVID-19 para se alinharem com as diretivas políticas e não com as evidências disponíveis.
Comentando o vídeo de Homburg, o ex-vice-presidente da Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, chamou a interferência política nas análises e recomendações científicas do RKI de “terrível” e o cumprimento contínuo do RKI de “covarde”.
‘Este evento foi totalmente político’
O RKI desempenhou um papel fundamental na definição da resposta do país à COVID-19. Os arquivos divulgados recentemente incluem atas de reuniões internas da equipe de gestão de crises da agência.
Posteriormente, o RKI disponibilizou publicamente mais de 2.500 páginas, em sua maioria não editadas, em 30 de maio, citando “interesse público no conteúdo dos protocolos da equipe de crise do COVID-19”.
De acordo com a introdução do RKI aos ficheiros divulgados, as atas “refletem o discurso científico aberto em que diferentes perspectivas são abordadas e ponderadas”.
O instituto alertou que as declarações individuais nos documentos “não representam necessariamente uma posição coordenada do RKI e nem sempre são compreensíveis sem o conhecimento do contexto”.
Yeadon escreveu: “Não creio que exista um documento equivalente que admita repetidamente que este evento foi totalmente POLÍTICO e que as decisões foram inteiramente conduzidas por pessoas políticas não tecnicamente qualificadas no topo do governo”.
‘Os especialistas sabiam disso, mas afirmaram o contrário’
Homburg discutiu como os documentos do RKI expõem diversas discrepâncias entre as discussões internas de especialistas e as mensagens de saúde pública:
Gravidade da COVID-19: Ao contrário das mensagens públicas, as discussões internas sugeriram que a COVID-19 pode ser menos grave do que a gripe típica. “Mais pessoas morrem numa onda normal de gripe”, diz uma entrada. “O principal risco de morrer de COVID-19 é a idade.”
“Certo – 83 anos para ser mais preciso, na Alemanha”, disse Homburg.
“Em vez disso, o público foi enganado e forçado durante anos a usar máscaras FFP2”, disse Homburg.
Fechamento de escolas: Os especialistas recomendaram o fechamento de escolas apenas nas áreas fortemente afetadas. “O fechamento de escolas em áreas que não são particularmente afetadas não é recomendado”, afirmam os documentos.
No entanto, Homburg observou: “Na mesma semana, os políticos decidiram fechar todas as escolas alemãs por meses”.
Eficácia da vacina e imunidade coletiva: Já em janeiro de 2021, os especialistas do RKI questionaram a propaganda em torno da imunidade coletiva. Uma nota diz: “Estamos nos despedindo da narrativa da imunidade coletiva por meio da vacinação?”
“O ensaio clínico anterior da Pfizer não demonstrou proteção contra doenças graves e nem sequer testou proteção contra transmissão”, destacou Homburg. “Os especialistas sabiam disso, mas afirmaram o contrário em público e até mesmo perante os nossos tribunais.”
Efeitos colaterais da vacina: Um arquivo revela preocupações sobre os efeitos colaterais graves da vacina AstraZeneca. “A trombose sinusal é um efeito colateral da vacina AstraZeneca”, afirma o documento. “Há também uma incidência 20 vezes maior em homens.”
Homburg alegou que logo após esta declaração, “os políticos alemães fingiram ter recebido a vacina AstraZeneca”. Ele mostrou imagens de vários jornais anunciando vacinações da chanceler Angela Merkel, do ministro da Saúde Karl Lauterbach e outros.
Apesar deste reconhecimento interno, Homburg observou: “Os especialistas não informaram a população sobre este perigo, mas insistiram que a AstraZeneca era segura e eficaz”.
‘Corona foi uma fraude singular’
Os documentos revelam um nível preocupante de influência política nas recomendações científicas. Um verbete ilustra claramente essa pressão: “Risco ainda alto, ordem do Ministério Federal da Saúde: nada será alterado até primeiro de julho”.
Esta diretiva aparentemente levou à promoção de avaliações de alto risco, apesar do declínio do número de casos. Homburg argumentou que esta interferência política ajudou a continuação dos mandatos pandêmicos.
“Na verdade, nada mudou durante três anos”, disse ele. “Para recordar, no verão de 2020, os casos de Corona aproximavam-se de zero e o público queria a suspensão das medidas.”
Os arquivos também expõem os receios dos especialistas de perderem as suas funções consultivas se não cumprirem as diretivas políticas. Uma entrada diz: “Se o RKI não cumprir o requisito político, existe o risco de os decisores políticos desenvolverem eles próprios indicadores e/ou deixarem de envolver o RKI em tarefas semelhantes”.
“Corona foi uma fraude singular”, concluiu Homburg. “O vírus substituiu a gripe, enquanto o número total de doenças permaneceu inalterado.”
Políticos alemães divididos quanto à resposta
A divulgação dos documentos acendeu um debate acirrado sobre a gestão da pandemia COVID-19 na Alemanha, chegando ao Bundestag alemão. O texto a seguir foi adaptado da reportagem de Schreyer de 30 de abril na Rádio Munique (traduzido do alemão).
Em 24 de abril de 2024, o Parlamento deliberou sobre uma moção do grupo parlamentar Alternativa para a Alemanha (AfD) para estabelecer uma comissão de inquérito para rever o período Corona. A comissão proposta examinaria os limites dos direitos de intervenção dos governos estaduais e federais e revisaria os papéis dos atores relevantes, como o RKI.
O debate revelou divisões profundas entre os partidos políticos. A AfD e o Partido Democrático Livre (FDP) apoiaram a criação de uma comissão de inquérito, enquanto o Partido Social-Democrata (SPD) e os partidos Verdes (também denominados Aliança 90) se opuseram, defendendo abordagens alternativas, como um conselho de cidadãos. O grupo União Democrata Cristã (CDU) e União Social Cristã (CSU) sugeriu, em vez disso, um grupo de trabalho federal-estadual.
Alguns políticos expressaram preocupação com os arquivos RKI. Simone Borchardt, membro da CDU, argumentou que o tratamento dos documentos RKI – primeiro divulgando-os com supressões e depois permitindo o acesso a versões não redigidas – sugeria uma tentativa deliberada de controlar ou limitar a informação.
O debate também abordou questões mais amplas, com alguns a pedirem amnistia para os cidadãos que violaram as medidas de confinamento. Outros alertaram contra a busca de bodes expiatórios ou a divulgação de “ideias de conspiração incompletas”.
Desde o relatório de Schreyer, o cenário político na Alemanha mudou significativamente. As eleições parlamentares europeias de junho de 2024 registaram um declínio no apoio aos partidos da coligação no governo, enquanto a AfD, de extrema-direita, obteve ganhos substanciais, provavelmente fortalecendo a posição daqueles que criticam a resposta do governo à pandemia.
Yeadon apelou a um maior ativismo para chamar mais atenção às revelações de Homburg e Schreyer, especialmente à luz do recente “ruído de ‘gripe aviária‘” ou gripe aviária .
“Esta tarefa não pode ser deixada a um pequeno número de nós com a informação, porque estamos tão eficazmente amordaçados em relação a alcançar um grande número de pessoas que os perpetradores já não estão preocupados com o fato de nos manifestarmos”, escreveu ele.
De 1996 a 2003, atuou no Conselho Consultivo Científico do Ministério Federal das Finanças da Alemanha. Ele também foi membro da Comissão de Federalismo do Bundestag e do Bundesrat de 2003 a 2004, e do Conselho de Sustentabilidade do Governo Federal de 2004 a 2007.
Ele é autor de vários livros sobre macroeconomia e teoria tributária e tem sido regularmente convocado como especialista para audiências do Bundestag sobre legislação tributária e financeira.
Homburg foi geralmente visto com bons olhos pela imprensa até 2020, quando começou a questionar as políticas pandêmicas da Alemanha. Desde então, escreveu artigos científicos e posts em blogs sobre a crise do coronavírus e temas relacionados, publicou podcasts e participou de entrevistas e talk shows.
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.
In September 2024, the first 10 international students in the fields of Medicine and Dentistry within the quota of the Government of the Russian Federation are expected to arrive at Donetsk State Medical University named after M. Gorky.
Russian public figures discussed the possibility of cooperation between the Ministry of Higher Education of the Republic of Cameroon and educational institutions of the Donetsk People’s Republic.
The Minister of Higher Education of Cameroon, Mr. Jacques Fame Ndongo, expressed interest in closer cooperation between Russia and Cameroon in the field of education, emphasizing the desire to actively cooperate with specialized universities focused on development and training in complex specialized areas. According to the minister, in the modern world, not just basic education is especially important, but the training of specialists in high-tech and promising fields such as neurology and cardiology, who can effectively solve complex problems and tasks.
During the meeting, the head of the delegation Vladislav Chevachin spoke in detail about the wide opportunities of Donetsk State Medical University named after M. Gorky in training professional staff, touched upon the issues of expanding academic student exchange between Russia and Cameroon, as well as professional development for teachers from Cameroon in cooperation with Russian universities. Mr. Jacques Fame Ndongo confirmed Cameroon’s readiness to consider Donetsk as an international base for the training of medical specialists, in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic.
The Minister supported the proposal for a partnership to strengthen the professional training of Cameroonian teachers using the Russian teaching methodology through industrial training practice, continuing education, and multifaceted academic cooperation. Mr. Jacques Fame Ndongo proposed to hold an expanded meeting of the Ministry in the near future with the participation of all relevant departments on strengthening Russian-Cameroonian cooperation in the field of education. The new system of distribution of Russian scholarships has become the subject of special attention from the Ministry of Higher Education of the Republic of Cameroon.
During the meeting, the Minister of Higher Education of the Republic of Cameroon proposed to work out mechanisms to improve the scholarship distribution system of the Government of the Russian Federation. According to Mr. Jacques Fame Ndongo, they are aimed at providing more effective and equitable access to financial support for students who seek quality education abroad. One of the key proposals of the Minister is the creation of transparent criteria and procedures for the selection of fellows. This will ensure equal opportunities for everyone who wants to get an education in Russia.
At the end of the meeting, the Minister of Higher Education of Cameroon was presented with memorable gifts, as well as an invitation to personally visit the Donetsk People’s Republic. In the near future, a number of educational events are planned in Cameroon and other African countries about the possibilities of studying in the Donetsk People’s Republic.
These steps are aimed at strengthening friendly ties between Russia and Cameroon, as well as expanding opportunities for future cooperation in the field of education and health between the two countries.
*
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.
Lucas Leiroz de Almeida is a Brazilian journalist, geopolitical analyst. Graduated from the Cultural Extension Program of the Brazilian War College. Researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. Professionally, he works as a journalist and geopolitical analyst. Researcher in the “Crisis, Development and International Relations” research group at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro. At the invitation of the Russian Delegation in Geneva, he presented a report on the use of chemical weapons by the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the 52nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council and at the OSCE’s “Supplementary Discussions”.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (Desk Top version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on February 7, 2023
Author’s Introduction
My long-standing commitment is to “the value of human life”, “the criminalization of war” , “peaceful co-existence” between nation states and “the future of humanity” which is currently threatened by nuclear war.
I have been researching nuclear war for more than 20 years focussing on its historical, strategic and geopolitical dimensions as well as its criminal features as a means to implementing what is best described as “genocide on a massive scale”.
What is presented below is a brief history of nuclear war: a succession of U.S. nuclear war plans going back to the Manhattan Project (1939-1945) leading up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Unknown to the broader public, the first U.S. Doomsday Blueprint of a nuclear attack directed against the Soviet Union was formulated by the US War Department at the height of World War II, confirmed by “Top Secret” documents on September 15, 1945 when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
There is an element of political delusion and paranoia in the formulation of US foreign policy. The Doomsday Scenario against the Soviet Union has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for almost 80 years.
Had it not been for the September 1945 plan to “wipe the Soviet Union off the map” (66 urban areas and more than 200 atomic bombs), neither Russia nor China would have developed nuclear weapons. There wouldn’t have been a Nuclear Arms Race.
Numerous US nuclear war plans have been formulated from the outset, leading up to The 1956 Strategic Air Command SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study (Declassified in December 2015) which consisted in targeting 1200 urban areas in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
The World is at a dangerous crossroads: it should be understood that the use of nuclear weapons in relation to the confrontation between US-NATO and Russia would inevitably lead to escalation and the end of humanity as we know it.
Video en français : Les Dangers de la guerre nucléaire
Video Odysee
Earlier video interview, April 2022
Click to access full screen
What is required is a Worldwide peace movement coupled with the banning of nuclear weapons.
In recent developments, several EU-NATO proxy heads of state and heads of government including President Macron (acting on behalf of powerful financial interests) have candidly intimated the need for NATO to wage war against Russia on behalf of a Neo-Nazi government, which indelibly would lead us into a World War III scenario.
What is unfolding is not only “the criminalization of “La Classe politique”,
the judicial system is also criminalized with a view to upholding the legitimacy of the war criminals in high office.
And the corporate media through omission, half truths and outright lies upholds war as a peace-making endeavor. In the words of the Washington Post, “war makes us safer and richer”
Globe and Mail
Business Insider
Washington Post
And Many More…
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2024
***
The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”:
Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s
Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to
“Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
by
Michel Chossudovsky
February 1, 2023
90 Seconds to Midnight according to the Doomsday Clock
The Nobel Peace Laureates are casually blaming Russia, without recalling the history of nuclear war, not to mention Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollar program to develop “more usable”, “low intensity” “preemptive nuclear weapons” to be used on a “first strike basis” against both nuclear and non nuclear states as a means of “self defense”.
This is the nuclear doctrine which currently prevails in US-NATO’s confrontation against Russia.
It is clearly outlined in the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
America’s Manhattan Project
Let us recall the history of the “doomsday scenario” which was part of America’s Manhattan project launched in 1939 with the participation of Britain and Canada.
The Manhattan Project was a secret plan to develop the atomic bomb coordinated by the US War Department, headed (1941) by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves.
Prominent physicist Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer had been appointed by Lt General Groves to head the Los Alamos Laboratory (also known as Project Y) which was established in 1943 as a “top-secret site for designing atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project”. Oppenheimer was entrusted in recruiting and coordinating a team of prominent nuclear scientists including Italian Physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Enrico Fermi who joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1944.
Oppenheimer not only played a key role in coordinating the team of nuclear scientists, he was also engaged in routine consultations with the head of the Manhattan project Lieutenant General Groves, specifically withregard to the use of the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in more than 300,000 immediate deaths.
The September 15, 1945 Blueprint to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued a blueprint (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)
Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department.
The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).
“To Ensure our National Security”
Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists.
On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Groves requesting an estimate of the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security” ( The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )
Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimer responded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945 in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
See section 2, subsections a, b and c.
“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”
Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.
Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.
Answering your memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below]
The 1949 “Dropshot Plan”: 300 Nuclear Bombs, Targeting More than 100 Soviet Cities
Numerous US war plans (under the Truman presidency) to attack the Soviet Union were “formulated and revised on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950”. Most of them were totally dysfunctional as outlined by J.W. Smith in his book entitled “The World’s Wasted Wealth 2”.
“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic.
The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly”
Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod in their book entitled: “To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,”provide evidence (based on declassified documents) that the September 1945 blueprint was followed by a continuous plan by USG to bomb the Soviet Union (as well as Russia in the post-Cold War era):
“This book [preface by Ramsey Clark] compels us to re-think and re-write the history of the Cold War and the arms race… It provides a startling glimpse into secret U.S. plans to initiate a nuclear war from 1945 to the present.”
The September 1945 Blueprint (66 Cities) was followed in 1949 by another insidious project entitled the Dropshot Plan:
According to Kaku and Axelrod, the 1949 DropShot consisted of a plan directed against the Soviet Union to “drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
The Dropshot Plan was formulated prior to Russia’s August 1949 announcement pertaining to the testing of its nuclear bomb.
The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities
The initial 1945 Blueprint to attack 66 cities, the subsequent 1949 Dropshot Plan (targeting 100 cities) were updated in the course of the Cold War. The 1956 Planincluded some 1200 cities in the USSR, the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europeand China (see declassified documents below).
The bombs slated for the attack significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see below)
We are talking about planned genocide against the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe .
Excerpt from list of the 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.
Details pertaining to the “The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 were declassified on December 22, 2015 (Excerpts below, click to access full text).
According to the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, the SAC, 1956:
“…provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.
The SAC study includes chilling details. … the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.
The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base. …
A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.” SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established. Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively. Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets. … According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons.
Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians. SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. (emphasis added).
Read carefully:
Had this diabolical project been carried out against the Soviet Union and its allies, the death toll would be beyond description (ie. when compared to Hiroshima. 100,000 immediate deaths). The smallest nuclear bomb contemplated had an explosive yield of 1.7 megatons, 119 times more “powerful’ than a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons of TNT)
The 9 megaton bomb mentioned above was 630 times a Hiroshima bomb, The 60 megaton bomb: 4200 times a Hiroshima bomb.
The Bulletin: Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists in September 1945
In a bitter irony, in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 in Chicago by Manhattan Project scientists, who had been involved in the development of the atomic bomb.
Two years later, in 1947, The Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock, “with an original setting of seven minutes to midnight”.
The initiative was formulated at a time when there was no arms race:
There was only one nuclear weapons state, namely the USA, which was intent upon carrying out a Doomsday scenario (genocide) against the Soviet Union formulated in September 1945.
In 1947, when the Doomsday Clock was created, the “justification” which was upheld by The Bulletin was that:
“the greatest danger to humanity came … from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race.”
The underlying premise of this statement was to ensure that the US retain a monopoly over nuclear weapons.
While in 1947, “The Plan to Wipe the Soviet Union of the Map” was still on the drawing Board of the Pentagon, the relevant documents were declassified thirty years later in 1975. Most of the former Manhattan project scientists were unaware of the September 1945 blueprint against the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear power in August 1949, two years after the launching of the Doomsday Clock, largely in view of applying what was later entitled “deterrence”, namely an action to discourage a nuclear attack by the US. At the height of the Cold War and the Arms Race, this concept eventually evolved into what was defined as “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
While several authors and scientists featured by The Bulletin have provided a critical perspective concerning America’s nuclear weapons program, there was no cohesive attempt to question the history nor the legitimacy of the Manhattan Project.
The broader tendency has been to “erase history”, sustaining the “rightfulness” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also casually placing the blame on Russia, as well as China and North Korea.
Nuclear War versus the “Imminent Dangers of CO2”
In the last fews years, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists “seeks to provide relevant information about nuclear weapons, climate change, and other global security issues”.
According to Mary Robinson, Chair of The Doomsday Clock Elders and former President of the Republic of Ireland (2023 statement):
The Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity. We are on the brink of a precipice. … From cutting carbon emissions to strengthening arms control treaties and investing in pandemic preparedness, we know what needs to be done. … We are facing multiple, existential crises. Leaders need a crisis mindset. (emphasis added)
This perspective borders on ridicule. CO2 is casually put forth as a danger to humanity comparable to nuclear war. It becomes an instrument of propaganda.
The Doomsday Clock is now said to “represent threats to humanity from a variety of sources” according to a collective of Nobel Prize Laureates.
Presenting C02 or Covid as a danger comparable to nuclear war is an outright lie.
Its intent is to mislead public opinion. It is part of a rather unsubtle propaganda campaign which provides legitimacy to the US doctrine of first strike “preemptive nuclear war”, i.e. nuclear war as a means of “self-defense” (formulated in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review).
What is of concern is that U.S. decision makers including Joe Biden believe in their own propaganda, that a preemptive first strike nuclear war against Russia is “winnable”. And that tactical nuclear weapons are “instruments of peace”.
Meanwhile history is erased. America’s persistent role in developing “a Doomsday Agenda” (aka genocide) since the onslaught of the Manhattan Project in 1939 is simply not mentioned.
What is of concern is that there is a continuous history of numerous projects and WWIII scenarios consisting in “Wiping Russia off the Map” and triggering a Third World War.
Nuclear war against Russia has been embedded in US military doctrine since 1945.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
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.
Using creative tactics, the Resistance to U.S.-Israeli terror is causing frustration and reversals for the oppressors. Consider the following:
CNN reported June 22 that the U.S. will support Israel in the event of a war with Hezbollah with everything it has.
U.S. officials publicly reassured top Israeli officials at a series of meetings in Washington, D.C., on June 20 that if a full-out war were to break out between Israel and Hezbollah, the Biden administration is fully prepared to back its ally.
The U.S. officials gave the assurances in person to a delegation of Israeli security officials, including National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer. The face-to-face assurances come amid active Israeli mobilization on the Lebanese border.
Faced with months of failure in Gaza, both Israeli and the U.S. war planners appeared determined to go in another direction — widen the war.
Israeli officials issued multiple threats claiming they will launch a major attack on Lebanon. This includes attacking civilian areas in the capital, Beirut, in order to provide security for 100,000 displaced Israeli settlers so they can return to northern Israel. Major infantry and armored forces werebeing moved into place along the Lebanese border.
Israeli war threats on Lebanon became the big media story, crashing in from every direction.
From the BBC on June 22:
“Unable to back down, Israel and Hezbollah move closer to all-out war.”
The Jerusalem Post announced June 24:
“Countdown to war between Israel and Hezbollah has begun – Israel will do what it needs to do.”
Politico asks:
“Are Israel and Hezbollah about to square up?”
Time Magazine’s headline of June 22:
“The Coming Israeli-Hezbollah War.”
Corporate think tank, The Center for Strategic and International Studies announced its assessment:
“The Coming Conflict with Hezbollah.”
Then a Sudden U.S. Change
After the promises at the White House to support Israel to the max in war with Hezbollah, it took only four days for a reversal. In a national news conference, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Charles Brown suddenly warned Israel that the U.S. was likely unable to assist Israelin an all-out war with Hezbollah, unlike the way the U.S. stepped in during the April drone launch from Iran.
What caused this reversal? General Brown said that any Israeli military offensive into Lebanon could risk triggering a broader war, pulling in Iran and putting U.S. forces in danger. He said the safety of U.S. forces was the priority. He admitted that it is hard to fend off the shorter-range rockets Hezbollah fires.
Air Force Gen. Brown must understand that even with U.S. military backing, Israel can’t reverse the creative low-tech capacity that the Palestinians in Gaza, the Ansarullah movement in Yemen and the Hezbollah movement have developed under the pressure of decades of occupation, bombings and invasions.
Hezbollah Video with Exact Coordinates
Just days after the June 20 White House meetings, on June 22, Hezbollah released a 10-minute video that showcases the most vital targets in Israel, with locations believed known only by those working with Israeli and U.S. military security systems. (The video is titled “To Whom it May Concern. Here is the link.)
Screenshot from the linked video
The widely distributed video includes drone footage, with the exact pinpoint coordinates of strategic Israeli facilities. The video opens with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s declaration that “if a war is imposed on Lebanon, Hezbollah will fight without restraints and without limits” and that Israel’s seaports and airports will be targeted. This was a clear warning.
Using small “Hoopoe” drones, the Lebanese resistance group monitors Israeli military installations, strategic structures like power stations, a swath of Israeli commercial centers and in the Haifa region also arms factories, power plants, warship docks and oil reservoirs. Haifa isa key seaport. Shutting Haifa down would ravage the Israeli economy, already crumbling. (same verb tense)
The Hoopoe drone, named after a small bird in the region, uses low-altitude flyovers that evade Israeli radar.
The video includes precise coordinates and visuals of key Israeli military installations Iron Dome batteries, David’s Sling defenses, the Dimona nuclear reactor, missile testing radar and more. Hezbollah thus demonstrated its ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses and reach deep into Israel without detection.
Israeli analyst Or Heller, whose media work is widely read, explained on Iran’s Press TV that Hezbollah “wants to show Israel that it has the ability to fly over its airspace as Israel flies over Lebanon.” Striking critical infrastructure such as substations and hydro plants can paralyze neighborhoods, even entire cities.
“Hezbollah is putting everyone in check,” Heller continued. “If the Israeli regime invades and strikes Lebanese citizens, then they can be reached too.”
The destruction of the economy in northern Israel, paired with the shut-down on Israel’s southern tip of the port of Eilat on the Red Sea by Yemen’s Ansarullah Movement, warns Israeli top brass that their best assets are at risk. Military sites have now been identified, labeled and displayed for the world to see. (presstv.ir, June 23)
The Jerusalem Post admitted June 19 that the video was a challenge for the Israeli regime, because “it is used to being the hi-tech superpower in the region and prides itself on being able to use drones and other means of surveillance against enemies near and far.”
Hezbollah spent the past two decades training revolutionary militia units and accumulating military, scientific and technical expertise to deter Israel from attacking Lebanon.
Palestinian-American journalist Rami Khouri, senior public policy fellow at American University of Beirut, summarized this new development: “If Hezbollah has these capabilities, you can be pretty sure that its friends and allies all around the region have either the same or something similar, and/or Iran or Hezbollah will help them develop it soon. … About two years ago, we passed the point where Israel and the U.S. dominated the strategic realities, military realities, in the Middle East. (democracynow.org, June 24)
Hezbollah Technical / Military Capacity Grows
Hezbollah not only has the exact coordinates of Israeli sites, but according to Haaretz News,
“Hezbollah has managed to increase its stockpile of missiles, shells and drones by hundreds of percentages, either smuggled through Syria into Lebanon or produced locally, despite all attempts by the [Israeli] Air Force in Syria and on the Syrian-Iraqi border to thwart and disrupt the entry of these weapons.”
This claim is corroborated by Hezbollah’s Resource and Border Affairs official Nawaf Al-Musawi, who told Al-Mayadeen in March that Hezbollah is opening new warehouses for more accurate missiles and that they can restock in a month what they used to restock in six months.
Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen have said since October that their strikes on Israel and its backers will end only when an agreement is reached in Gaza.
Why Is Israel Unable to Defeat Hamas?
It is revealing to read how the Zionist media evaluates the reasons for Israel’s failure in Gaza.
An article in the June 23 issue of the Jerusalem Post asked in a headline, “Why is Israel unable to defeat Hamas?”
“The most widespread public frustration regarding the war, after the October 7 failure,” continued this article, “concerns Israel’s inability to defeat Hamas. Although Israel put boots on the ground in Gaza and carried out a massive military maneuver, almost unlimited in resources or time, Hamas is still standing on both feet. The organization populates the tunnels, maneuvers in them, maintains a chain of command, mobilizes armed forces, and holds hostages underground. …
“[I]t was impossible to imagine that the strongest military power in the region, which previously defeated several armies in six days, would not be able to defeat a local terrorist organization when forced to do so. … The area above the ground is controlled by Israel, and below the ground is occupied by Hamas.
“The use that Hamas was able to make of the tunnels is groundbreaking, giving it technological supremacy in the underground battlefield.” The tunnels are the “underground iron dome” of the Resistance.
“The Biden administration first clearly supported the dismantling of Hamas, but stopped doing so when it realized that, unfortunately, this goal was not practical with the existing capabilities.”
Numerous other articles and video footage from Resistance organizations working in the tunnels give video evidence of how Palestinians now have the capacity to build small shoulder rockets by repurposing the endless supply of unexploded Israeli bombs dropped on them.
Yemen Develops Hypersonic Missiles
Since Israel opened its all-out attack on Gaza, following the October 7 military action by Hamas, the Ansarullah Movement in Yemen has vowed to block ships traveling the Red Sea through the Suez Canal to Israeli ports on the Mediterranean Sea.
According to reports in Bloomberg News, from mid-November to May 1 approximately 65 merchant ships have been attacked for attempting to violate the Ansarullah ban on trade with Israel at a time when Israel is waging a genocidal war on Gaza. Cargo shipping traffic has dropped by about half. U.S. efforts using aircraft carriers and jet bombers have failed to stop the missile, drone and small-boat attacks against commercial vessels linked to Israeli shippers.
The Yemeni movement now claims to have developed a hypersonic missile. They announced a strike on the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower. The commander of the giant warship denied it was hit. But the U.S. Navy did pull the aircraft carrier, valued at $4.5 billion dollars, further out of range.
Israel Lacks Troops, Preparation and Morale
In Gaza, Israel has failed to achieve any of its publicized goals, despite almost nine months of continuing genocidal attacks. Netanyahu’s war cabinet has crumbled in resignations. Escalating internal dissention and demonstrations of tens of thousands of people within Israel are demanding negotiations. Finding housing, schools, jobs and subsidies for over 100,000 angry settlers driven out of stolen lands is creating a crisis in Zionist ideology and in the economy.
The head of the Israel Occupation Forces Herzi Halevisaid the army is facing troop shortages amid rising casualties in the war against Hamas in Gaza. Enlisting more troops is difficult due to rising public opposition to the war. There is open conflict between Netanyahu, his defense minister and conflicting infighting among his gaggle of small reactionary political parties.
The U.S. military machine has overwhelming deadly capacity. Imperialist strategists flaunt their power in obscene ways. Military contractors sell their weapons in ways that increase their profits and ensnare countries in debt traps.
Israel, as a primary ally in U.S. regional domination of West Asia, has access and use of an endless supply, paid for by workers in the U.S. from the U.S. treasury.
Impoverished and developing countries, determined to assert their sovereignty and escape a colonial death grip, are using science and applying their limited locally available resources to engineer weapons and strategies of self-defense that can prevent the destructive U.S. mega-weapons from determining the outcome.
The Zionist movement and its U.S. imperialist backers face a strategic dilemma — in order to avoid a very destructive wider war, for which they are not prepared and cannot win, they need to end the current genocidal war on Gaza. Ending the war without defeating the resistance would be a huge setback for the Zionist movement and an even larger humiliation for its protector and co-conspirator — U.S. imperialism. It will be a huge advance on a world scale.
*
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.
Iran has a new president, but that won’t affect the US-Iran relationship, because the US is held hostage to the Israel Lobby, AIPAC. Masoud Pezeshkian, a 69-year-old cardiac surgeon, former health minister, and current Member of Parliament, won 53% of the vote in a runoff election in Iran.
Pezeshkian is open to a new relationship with the US, but any policy change will have to wait until the outcome of the US election in November. Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is waiting for the outcome of the US election.
“I have come … to seek lasting peace and tranquility and cooperation in the region, as well as dialogue and constructive interaction with the world,” Pezeshkian said in a speech.
Regardless of which candidate will be elected, they will be a supporter of Israel. President Donald Trump will remember in his 2020 election race Netanyahu stabbed him in the back, and came out publically in support of Joe Biden, even though Trump had done more for Israel than any previous US president.
“I haven’t spoken to him since,” Trump said in an interview with Axios’ Barak Ravid in December 2021, in reference to Netanyahu. “F**k him,” he said.
Israel keeps Iran as their designated ‘Enemy Number One’. Regardless of leadership change, or international diplomacy, Iran is destined to remain the bad guy in the Israeli drama.
The US has a similar policy, which is designed to keep the American public in fear of something foreign. At one time, Americans were afraid of Al Qaeda, and then it morphed into ISIS. Putin has taken the place of the enemy as portrayed in the Biden-controlled US media.
Pezeshkian has been a member of parliament since 2008, representing Tabriz in northwestern Iran. His father is of Turkic descent, while his mother is Kurdish. Pezeshkian grew up speaking Turkic, Kurdish, and Farsi. Some analysts see Pezeshkian as a moderating force who may sympathize with minorities.
According to Netanyahu, Iran seeks to develop a nuclear bomb with which to ‘nuke’ Israel into non-existence. According to the Iranian supreme leadership, Iran wants nuclear ability to have a source of electricity, rather than polluting the environment by burning fossil fuels.
Saudi Arabia, a close US ally and US-made weapons customer, also has told the US administration they will pursue building a nuclear power plant, which is common in many Western countries. The US will allow the Saudis their nuclear project, but in exchange for signing the Abraham Accords, which will normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Experts view Saudi Arabia as the powerhouse in the Middle East, and signing a deal with Israel has been one of the two main goals of Netanyahu since taking office. His second goal is to expand the illegal settlements in the West Bank, effectively annexing the land. The Gaza War has put normalization plans on hold as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reiterated the official Saudi position rejecting the occupation of Palestine and demanding a two-state solution.
Iran and Hezbollah, and others in the resistance movement are demanding the end of the occupation of Palestine. If Israel would negotiate a final peace deal with the Palestinian people, there would be no armed resistance. In theory, the UN, the US, the UK, and almost every country have agreed that the UN resolution for a two-state solution should be implemented as soon as possible. That peace deal would mark the end of violence against Israel, and both Israelis and Palestinians could live in peace, and with human rights.
Pezeshkian signaled there would be no change in Iran’s backing of Hezbollah, whose attacks since Oct. 7 have raised the specter of a wider war in the region. He wrote to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah that “support for resistance groups will continue vigorously.”
But, Netanyahu’s extremist government has said they will never give one inch of land to the Palestinians, and instead want to keep Gaza under military occupation forever and continue to hold the 3 million Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank under an iron-fist rule which is designed never to end.
The US has a two-faced policy on Israel. On the one hand, the US President says they are committed to a two-state solution, and on the other hand, he is sending Israel all the weapons they request to keep the genocide going in Gaza. On April 20, the House passed a bill to provide $26.3 billion in assistance to Israel. This split personality is due to AIPAC. From the White House to Capitol Hill, every politician knows their political career depends on bowing down to AIPAC.
The White House, regardless of its occupant, will have the opportunity to see whether a serious diplomatic process containing the nuclear issue and de-escalation is possible with the Pezeshkian leadership.
Although Pezeshkian is open to dialog with the West, he will face a serious obstacle because the US is unwilling to engage in diplomacy with Iran, and that stems from the political power of AIPAC which is determined to keep Iran as the enemy.
Iran is a regional power with important allies: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine. Pezeshkian recently thanked Russia and China for their support during some of the darkest days in Iran.
The US would like to isolate Iran, but that has failed, as the days of the US as the sole superpower are over, and a new world is emerging with opportunities for change and growth.
Pezeshkian will not likely change the US-Iran relationship fundamentally, but he might be able to improve the lives of Iranians.
*
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.
It is of extreme importance to understand the concept and motivation of soft power by China – the most rising emerging market power today and already the first export nation with the second-largest economy in the world.
Concerning China and its foreign policy, soft power is one of the most frequently used political and social concepts during the last two decades. It has to be immediately noticed that one of the major reasons for China’s easy acceptance of soft power is that soft use of power has historically a strong cultural foundation in traditional Chinese foreign policy (for instance, in the case of the Korean Peninsula). Traditional China has a rich military-free culture, which mostly contributes to China’s use of cultural power in its foreign relations[1]. The revival of material and cultural power prompts China to easily find an echo in the concept of soft power. As a matter of fact, all ethnic Chinese people are proud of their cultural history.
Given that soft power is highly related to culture, it can be said that it is natural that China should stress the importance and use of cultural and soft power concerning its competitive cultural advantage in international society. Additionally, for most Chinese political and economic elites, the factor of civilization is playing a key role in shaping the future global order of world politics. In other words, in the eye of the Chinese elite, the way civilizations shape world order is not through clashes, as Samuel P. Huntington claims (a theory of Clash of Civilizations), but through dialogue between them. Such belief in civilization as well as is reinforcing the Chinese emphasis on soft power. Another reason for this is that Chinese society is fundamentally a relation-based society. This means, practically that social power is originating mostly, but not entirely, from the density of relational networks. Social power should be used for strengthening rather than disrupting the balance of social relations. Such a particular understanding of power is as well as consistent with the nature of soft power.
Some principles relating to Chinese use of soft power in foreign policy could be summarized briefly as follows:
At the cultural level, people from different cultures and civilizations should be mutually appreciated through communication. Diplomacy is, therefore, understood by the Chinese political authorities to be a useful means to reduce tensions among different civilizations.
At the economic level, China prefers to use persuasive rather than coercive means in order to address political disputes. In practice, in many cases, China insists that disputes cannot easily and simply be resolved through economic sanctions.
At the societal level, soft power building should help to establish mutual social assistance systems in international areas. That is why China is stressing the importance of transnational societal linkage in a globalized world.
It has to be emphasized that most citizens of China like officials and scholars are fully aware of the great gap in terms of soft power capacity between China and the USA. There is an opinion when the long line at the USA embassy visa application window in Beijing starts to get shorter, this may well mean that the soft power gap between China and the USA has become more balanced. In a soft power survey in East Asian countries in 2008, for instance, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that the USA has much more soft power than China in East Asia. Even more, China’s soft power, in some indices, was even weaker than that of South Korea and Japan[2]. Through the opposite lens, with the growing wave of China-craze and businessmen’s rush to China, however, is it accurate to think that China is facing an unprecedented opportunity to upgrade its soft power around the globe?
It is frequently reported that China’s image in Africa, compared with its image there before the reform program started in 1979, is quite mixed. On one hand, China greatly increased its official aid to several African states, but on the other hand, its image is more or less damaged by some Chinese companies’ profits-before-everything activities there (that is the same with many Western companies too).
Several indicators are showing that China’s soft power is increasing in Asia and the rest of the world during the last 20 years, particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis that started in the USA[3]. From that time onward, soft power has become a keyword in Chinese foreign policy as there is great potential for the development of China’s soft power[4]. It has to be noticed that in many countries in developing world of emerging market economies Chinese formula of authoritarian government and successful market economy (China’s tripling of its GDP over 30 years) has become more popular than the previously dominant American formula of liberal market economics with democratic government.
However, from a general point of view, even if the authoritarian growth model produces soft power for China in authoritarian countries, it does not produce attraction in democratic countries. In other words, what attracts Venezuela, may repel in France[5]. However, many Western nations are losing their image and soft power in developing countries in their race with both China and Russia because of their neo-imperialistic policies recognized as such by ex-Western colonies in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. For instance, the G. W. Bush (Junior) administration’s general tendency towards unilateralism and in particular its approach to the “war on terror” damaged the USA’s soft power and bred resentment, particularly within the Muslim world. This US unilateralism was dramatically demonstrated by the USA’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Indeed, the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that, as the invasion had not been sanctioned by the OUN SC, and was not following the principles of the UN Charter, it was a clear breach of international law (like NATO’s aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999). The 2003 Iraq War demonstrated how the OUN could be reduced to the role of a bystander in a world dominated by the hegemonic USA. However, such action undoubtedly weakened the USA’s soft power[6].
Instead of placing weight only on the economy and material resources, for the application of soft power, the future of China’s soft power will depend on what kinds of ideas China can contribute to the world, especially under the current uncertain international conditions and global rivalry between China and the USA and the USA and Russia.
The most significant challenge to US power and global hegemony is the rise of emerging market states (like BRIC) especially China. In general warnings about the decline of US global hegemony date back after the Vietnam War and the Iranian Islamic revolution. The rise of China is, nevertheless, the most significant phenomenon in IR during the last 40 years, suggesting the emergence of a new global hegemon, with China, set to overtake the USA in economic terms during the 2020s. Although China’s global power is very closely related to its economic resurgence, its influence is as well as growing in other respects.
China has by far the largest army in the world and is second only to the USA in terms of military spending. Chinese influence over Africa, in particular, has expanded considerably due to massive financial investment, linked to securing supplies of energy and raw materials. China’s structural power is as well as growing, as is reflected in the growing influence of the G-20, its role within the WTO, and the fate of both the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Change conferences. China’s soft power is linked to its association with anti-colonialism and its capacity to portray itself as the representative of the global South.
On the other hand, the USA’s soft power has declined in several respects. Its reputation has been damaged by its association with corporate power and widening global inequality, and resentment developing against “globalization as Americanization”. Serious damage has also been done to the USA’s moral authority by the military invasion of Iraq and by the terrible treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detention camp.
*
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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] See more in [Lei Haizong, Chinese Culture and Chinese Soldiers in History, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2001 (in Chinese)].
[2] Christopher Whitney, David Shambaugh, Soft Power in Asia: Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion, Chicago Council on Global Affairs [www.thechicagocouncil.org].
[3] Sheng Ding, The Dragon’s Hidden Wings: How China Rises with Its Soft Power, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008.
[5] Ingrid d’Hooghe, The Limits of China’s Soft Power in Europe: Beijing’s Public Diplomacy Puzzle, Clingendael Diplomacy Papers, No. 25, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingandel, 2010.
[6] By definition, soft power is the power of attraction rather than coercion. It is the ability to influence others by persuading them to follow or agree to norms and aspirations that produce the desired behavior, as opposed to using threats or rewards.
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.
As a nation, the United States, as if we did not already know, is convulsed. Paranoid and divided, giddy with conspiracy and deranged by a fear of totalitarian seizure, hyper partisan and hostile to debate and any loose definition of facts (this condition afflicts the entire political spectrum), the only thing missing so far was this: an assassination attempt on a presidential candidate.
Till now, we were seeing the cruel spectacle of an aged president visibly and publicly being mauled, a wounded beast let out on safari in order to be hunted by all manner of trophy hunting punditry. Joe Biden has mumbled and fumbled his way through a haze, even as his stage managers desperately try to operate the strings. With each day, another Democratic lawmaker is expressing concern that he voluntarily yields to a fitter model.
In this whole business, the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has remained unusually reticent. Let the Democrats keep finding the rope, and the rest will follow. Then came the shots at a rally held in Pennsylvania on July 13.
Cue to the event. Videos aplenty to choose from. Faint gunshots register in the background. Trump seems to grab his head and proceeds to fall to the ground. Secret Service agents form a scrum. Trump is then lifted, blood streaking his head, seemingly from a grazing wound. A moment of near martyred glory follows: Trump, pausing the agents, salutes to the crowd.
“I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin,” he stated in a post on Truth Social. “Much bleeding took place, so I realized what was taking place.”
The shooter in question is said to have been shot by the Secret Service, making this the first attempt to assassinate either a president or presidential candidate since an effort was made on Ronald Reagan’s life in 1981. One spectator was also killed, with two others “critically injured”. “It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead,” stated Trump.
President Biden, in condemning the attack, told reporters that “the idea – the idea – that there’s political violence, or violence in America like this, is just unheard of, it’s just not appropriate.”
Far from this being incredible, such acts of violence speckle and blood US politics. Candidates have been previously gunned down in cold blood. Presidents, whether going to the theatre or appearing in public motorcades, have been very publicly assassinated.
Within minutes, the metre on the political gauge was ticking, making Trump sound like an oppressed jihadi warrior. These are the effusive words of Texan Gov. Greg Abbott: “They try to jail him. They try to kill him. It will not work. He is indomitable.” The state’s Attorney General Ken Paxtonsounded forbiddingly biblical: “The world is evil. Praise God that President Trump was able to walk away on his own. Praying for his complete healing and that this person is captured immediately.”
Republican Florida Senator Rick Scott also gave an inkling about how the shooting will be processed in the political mix. “Democrats and liberals in the media have called Trump a fascist. They’ve compared him to Hitler. They’ve tried to lock him up. They tried to remove his Secret Service protection.” This was nothing less than “an assassination attempt by a madman inspired by the rhetoric of the radical left.”
While the US is a republic proud of overthrowing a supposedly tyrannical monarch, it sports one unassailable kingdom: that of conspiracy. With its vast court, it exercises a curious tyranny over the mind. All can fall for it. There are those who will assume, and already have, that Trump staged his own shooting for the sheer convenience of it all. Nothing he will say will convince them otherwise, seeing that his relationship with truth is estranged beyond repair.
On the other side, there will be a narrative that lone shooters in these instances never exist. Behind the gun is a long cast shadow of the Establishment: the intelligence community, law enforcement, and other dark annexes of the Deep State.
As both Trump and Biden have been seen by their respective detractors as satanic guarantors of doom should they return to the White House, the moderates have a mere sliver to work with. The tedious words of “existential threat” are used as wounding weapons to excoriate opponents.
Despite such cheap language, the United States has previously endured an effort to constitutionally and tangibly divide it, leading to a Civil War that continues its haunting reach. It has also survived the assassination of its political figures, in large part because the Republic, at some point, took less interest in representative politics than politics bought. It was a point Gore Vidal proved relentless on: Why run for office when you can buy its occupants?
A mad patient, an inspired experiment, a cruel manifestation, a sprawling empire, the republic will continue surviving, even in decline, overseen by corporate boardrooms and unelected figures. “The lesson,” the Financial Reviewremarked optimistically, “is that American democracy has proven itself resilient.” Despite making the usual error about a political system that is distinctly not democratic – the Founding Fathers hated the idea of a fully represented demos – the paper is unlikely to be proved wrong. A spell of febrile lunacy, however, is likely to follow first.
*
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: Evan Vucci / Licensed under Fair Use
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.
It’s been just over two years since NATO officially restarted the Cold War. Obviously, the conflict never really stopped, as the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel kept expanding eastward, exclusively through lies and deceit. Namely, it turned out that NATO deliberately crossed all Russian red lines in order to provoke a reaction. Moscow kept its cool, but American belligerence made it virtually impossible to maintain even basic bilateral ties. The Kremlin realized it could not rely on any sanity in Washington DC, as the warmongering elites fully took power. NATO’s strategic setup for yet another Western invasion of Russia was all done, or so it seemed. Namely, after eight years of futile attempts to reason with the political West, Moscow realized it was time for action (SMO).
In the last nearly two and a half years, the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta became the proverbial punching bag for probing Russian military might. And while the mainstream propaganda machine is doing a somewhat decent job hiding the atrocious results, the massive amount of resources that the Kiev regime is demanding only keeps growing, clearly indicating what’s really going on. What was supposed to be NATO’s third most powerful member (had it ever joined) turned into a virtual junkyard of the latest Western military equipment. And yet, it seems there are several other nations in NATO that would want this horribly unflattering role as well. Namely, Poland is the “logical” choice for many, although most of those people don’t seem to understand the gravity of the current situation.
High-ranking NATO officials have already announced a number of major moves that can only be described as extremely hostile toward Russia.
The annual NATO summit in Washington DC this week is a clear indicator of that. Apart from the regular weapons shipments to the Neo-Nazi junta, particularly air defense systems, the much-touted F-16s are in the spotlight again. The Netherlands, Denmark and the United States jointly announced that the deliveries of these US-made jets are ongoing. The Dutch F-16 are of particular concern, as they’re also nuclear-capable. However, while this could certainly lead to an uncontrollable escalation, the moves of some individual member states are a real danger to global peace. As previously mentioned, the situation with Poland is particularly concerning.
For instance, on July 10, Polish Army Chief of Staff General Wieslaw Kukulaopenly called for Warsaw to prepare its troops for an all-out war, insisting that it shouldn’t focus on asymmetric warfare, but a full-scale one. Although he didn’t really mention any specific country, it’s only logical to presume he was talking about war with Russia. Such provocative statements accomplish nothing, and yet, here we are.
“Today, we need to prepare our forces for full-scale conflict, not an asymmetric-type conflict,” General Kukula said at a press conference, adding: “This forces us to find a good balance between the border mission and maintaining the intensity of training in the army.”
Another thing that’s easy to miss in General Kukula’s statement is the escalating situation on the border with Belarus, the closest Russian ally and member of virtually all international multipolar organizations as Russia itself, including the CSTO and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). What’s more, Minsk and Moscow are part of the Union State. Although still de facto not implemented, this post-Soviet supranational entity gives both countries security from outside threats. Namely, while Belarus is important for Russia historically, ethnically, culturally, militarily, you name it, Minsk needs Moscow for the same reasons, as well as geopolitical and economic stability. Not to mention that Russia repeatedly warned that attacking Belarus also means attacking Russia itself.
“Speaking at the same event, Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Bejda said that as of August, the number of troops guarding Poland’s eastern border would be increased to 8,000 from the current 6,000, with an additional rearguard of 9,000 able to step up within 48 hours notice,” Reuters reported.
And indeed, Poland is investing billions in “beefing up defenses”, particularly along the Belarussian and Russian border. It’s also massively increasing troop numbers, a trend that is the complete opposite of what’s going on in the vast majority of other NATO member states.The current size of the Polish military is estimated at 190,000 soldiers, but the government wants it at a staggering 300,000 in the next several years. Such a massive expansion also suggests that Warsaw is preparing for “something big”. This is without even taking into the latest agreement between Poland and the Kiev regime which will effectively allow Warsaw to target Russian missiles, making Poland a direct party to the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. This alone could light the fuse of a new war in Europe.
Neighboring Belarus might be smaller and less populous, but its military is similarly sized and it has not one, but two superpower allies – Russia and China. Minsk acquired a number of technologies from both sides to help modernize its military industry, while exercises are regularly conducted with both Moscow and Beijing. In fact, one such with the latter was conducted this week. However, apart from that, Belarus can also use Russian nuclear weapons stationed in the country in case of a foreign aggression. In other words, Poland is risking thermonuclear war by allowing its top-ranking military officials to openly talk about preparations for an all-out conflict. And to say nothing of the possibility of Poland shooting down Russian missiles in airspace under the Neo-Nazi junta’s control.
*
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.
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.
What has been taking place in Gaza during the last nine months is one of the most horrible man-made and entirely avoidable human tragedies. This tragedy is still continuing although it can be stopped any day if there is sincerity for peace and high commitment to peace on the part of the aggressors and their weapon suppliers.
For the record, over 38,000 people have died and thousands of unidentified persons are reported to be buried under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Over 80,000 people are reported to be injured in very painful ways while proper medical help has become extremely difficult to access. Hunger in extreme forms, deprivation of housing in extreme weather conditions, denial of clean drinking water and sanitation, spread of disease and repeated displacement have been reported extensively among others by UN sources. People of Gaza time and again get arbitrary instructions from Israeli military forces to move from one place to another.
Most people have been displaced at least once and some have been displaced about 9 times in 9 months. On the basis of the reasonable assumption that due to all these factors the indirect mortality related to the Israeli attack is about four times the directly caused mortality, the total mortality related to this aggression is close to 200,000 or two hundred thousand in a very small region with a total population of around just about 2.3 million at the start of the attack. At the same time, the Palestinian population in the sister territory of West Bank has also faced increasing aggression resulting in many tragic deaths.
Amazingly, this horrible tragedy has taken place in a small region which is surrounded by much bigger and well-endowed Arab countries. As expected, there have been a lot of shrill voices condemning this aggression. But rhetoric without real action is meaningless and isolated actions without real results also mean nothing when such a great human tragedy is unfolding day by day. What is more, it appears that although many responsible Israelis also oppose this unjust war, the Israeli prime minister appears to be bent on prolonging it due to reasons which are increasingly seen to be related to his own selfish interests.
Panelists speak at ‘The War on Gaza: What’s Next for Palestine?’ event, hosted by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, on 30 October 2023 (MEE)
So should Arab countries not take more united and firm action to stop the horrible atrocities and human rights violations in Gaza which have been described as genocidal actions by many well informed observers? Here it should be added that the International Court of Justice has found it ‘plausible’ that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention in Gaza.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not at all speaking of any armed intervention by neighboring Arab countries. In fact this writer has been consistently writing against any widening of existing conflicts. In addition this writer is also very firmly against all acts of terrorist violence. What this writer is pleading for here is the achievement of much greater firmness, unity and continuity in the peaceful efforts and actions of Arab countries to stop the horrible killings and human right violations by Israel in Gaza.
The Arab countries should get over all their other differences to speak with completely one voice and united voice to try to end this most horrible violence as early as possible.In terms of their many joint meetings and declarations they should very clearly convey the message that firstly, the entire Arab world is united in demanding an immediate end to this terrible aggression and secondly, that the Arab world will not rest till this aim is achieved. This united action should also convey this message that those who are leading weapon suppliers for this aggression will not be considered as a friend. For balance, this message should make it clear that as long as Israel is peaceful and causes no harm to Palestinians, the Arab countries are happy to live peacefully with Israel.
Such increasing unity and firmness in the Arab world reflected in a series of continuing actions will certainly have a much bigger influence and will be much more effective in achieving the desired results compared to the isolated, weak and indecisive actions for the support of the cause of Gaza that have taken place so far particularly in the bigger and more influential Arab countries. These efforts should be made in transparent ways in the form of open declarations made jointly by all Arab countries, and the Arab people should be free to voice support for these declarations in peaceful ways at the street level. One important meeting calling for immediate end of aggression should lead to yet another effort and so on till the desired result of durable ceasefire and peace is achieved, to be followed by very large-scale relief and rehabilitation effort for the people of Gaza and of course the release of all Israeli hostages (who should never have been taken as hostages in the first place).
*
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, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071.
Featured image: Yazan al-Kafarna is one of the latest to die of hunger and malnutrition in Gaza since the start of the war on 7 October (Screengrab/X)
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.
The next President of the United States will likely be called upon to decide about engaging in a nuclear conflict. This doesn’t have to be our future.
It’s time to get real, America.
Election Day 2024, November 5, is rapidly approaching, and the reality is that the person who wins will either have an R or a D next to his or her name.
Many Americans support a candidate with an I or a G next to their names.
But these candidates won’t win the White House.
A vote for those candidates is little more than a protest vote.
The time for protest is over.
It is now the time for action.
America is fundamentally divided over who should occupy the White House for the next four years.
If you support the D candidate, you think the R candidate, who previously served as President for four years, was the worst President in American history.
And if you support the R candidate, you think the same about the current D candidate.
The reality is, however, that America survived four years of the R guy.
And so far, we have survived four years of the D guy.
And it is highly likely that we will survive the next four years as well, regardless of who wins.
Unless there is a nuclear war.
Then we all die.
There are many issues confronting America today.
All of them are important.
Most of them divide us.
None are of immediate existential concern.
Nuclear war is an immediate existential threat to our existence.
And yet this issue is not being discussed or debated in the lead-up to the November 5 elections.
As such, no matter who we put in the White House, America will face the real probability of nuclear war during their term in office.
And we all die.
So, the question we all face as Americans is what are we willing to do to prevent this outcome?
What would you do to save Democracy?
What would you do to save America?
What would you do to save the World?
The answer? By making your vote count in November.
Make your vote about the one issue which is literally life and death—preventing a nuclear war by promoting peace.
How?
By pledging your vote to the single issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace.
By avoiding the trap presented by political party or personality.
By declaring that your vote will go to the candidate that best articulates a policy designed to avoid nuclear war and promote peace.
This election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters spread out among several critical battleground states.
If enough Americans commit their vote to the issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace so that they constitute a constituency capable of swinging a state to the candidate that earns their vote by promulgating such a policy, then we have a chance to put someone in the White House who won’t kill us all by getting us involved in a nuclear conflict once he or she is elected.
The 1986 Doomsday Map
In 1986, scientists from the Institute of Medicine published a study exploring the potential impact of a nuclear strike on the continental United States.
The study highlighted the most dangerous zones produced by such a strike on a map, indicating areas where radiation exposure would surpass 3,500 rads. “Within this region… more than three-quarters of the population would die,” the study concluded.
“It is our hope,” the authors of the study declared, “that national decision-makers will develop a better understanding of the ‘collateral’ consequences of hypothetical first strikes and of the enormous destructive capacity of the weapons that would survive. That understanding should make them less likely to seek counterforce capabilities or to fear such attacks from the other side.”
In 1987, the US and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a foundational arms control agreement which eliminated entire categories of nuclear missiles and set the stage for even larger reductions in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the respective sides.
Today the INF treaty is no more. The last strategic arms control treaty is set to expire. There are no new arms control negotiations. Both the US and Russia are building new nuclear weapons as part of an arms race that has the world on the cusp of general nuclear war.
The next President of the United States will more than likely be faced with a decision regarding whether or not to enter into a nuclear conflict with Russia.
So, I ask again:
What would you do to save Democracy?
What would you do to save America?
What would you do to save the World?
What would you do to make your vote count in November?
By supporting Operation DAWN, you will have the opportunity to accomplish all these tasks.
Operation DAWN is a nationwide event designed to garner a million-plus pledges by American voters to make preventing nuclear war and promoting peace the single issue upon which they will cast their vote come December.
Join us in Kingston, New York on September 28, at one of our satellite locations throughout America, or online through one of our affiliated podcasts.
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.
In late October 2023, the Pentagon announced—to the surprise of many, including congressional staffers who work on these issues—that it was pursuing a new nuclear weapon to be known as the B61-13, a gravity bomb.
This is a troubling development for many reasons. First, it is merely the latest in a long line of new nuclear weapons that the United States is building or proposing, in yet another sign that a new nuclear arms race is expanding. In addition, it breaks a promise the Obama administration made to eliminate almost all types of US nuclear gravity bombs, while further undermining President Biden’s pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in US security. Most tragically, it further cements an absolute commitment on the part of the United States to retain nuclear deterrence as the centerpiece of its security policy for decades to come. While most of us hope the world can eventually stop relying on the threat of mass murder at a global scale as the basis for international security, the B61-13 moves everyone further away from that day.
Starting from the top, here is the entire, vast set of new nuclear bombs and warheads the United States recently developed or is pursuing:
The Trump administration’s new “low-yield” warhead, deployed on sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) carried by US submarines, with an estimated explosive yield roughly one-third the size of the gravity bomb dropped on Hiroshima. “Low-yield” is a relative term; this warhead could still kill tens of thousands in an instant.
The new, more lethal B61-12 gravity bomb that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) recently started producing, after many years of delay (and with each bomb costing more than its weight in gold).
The updated warhead for the stealthy air-launched cruise missile first proposed by the Obama administration, ideally suited to start a nuclear war.
A variant of that cruise missile warhead for a sea-launched cruise missile that a) the Trump administration proposed, b) the Biden administration is trying to cancel, but c) Congress recently required the administration to pursue.
The precedent-setting warhead for land-based missiles that, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, will be made entirely from new components, with nothing being reused except the basic design of the warhead.
The momentous new warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the first entirely new bomb since the end of the Cold War, with both the components and the design of the weapon made anew.
The B61-13.
All these new bombs and warheads are just part of a massive rebuilding of the entire US nuclear arsenal, which also includes new long-range, land-based missiles, new submarines, new stealthy, long-range bombers that will carry the new stealthy cruise missiles mentioned above, and major upgrades to the missiles carried by the submarines. The total cost to do all that while maintaining the existing weapons will be well over $1.2 trillion during the next 25 years.
In short, a new nuclear arms race is exploding across the globe, and while the Biden administration has not announced plans to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal (despite bipartisan pressure to do so), it is racing to climb what is often called a “modernization mountain”—a journey that will certainly take longer and cost far more than currently projected, all to produce a vastly oversized nuclear stockpile that everyone hopes will never be used.
The broken promise. There is a second and compounding problem with the B61-13: It breaks a promise made during the Obama administration to eliminate all but one of the types of US gravity bombs. Specifically, to win support for the B61-12—a new guided gravity bomb the Pentagon and NNSA badly wanted—the Obama administration proposed to retire the B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10, B61-11, and the B83 gravity bombs, trading six weapons for one. Unfortunately, since its inception the B61-12 has faced major cost overruns and years of delays. The NNSA initially said the bomb would cost $4 billion, then quickly raised the tab to $8 billion, while the Pentagon initially estimated it at $10 billion. The actual cost, including work the Air Force is doing, will be as much as $14 billion. The NNSA initially projected it would begin making the bombs in 2017, while the Pentagon said it would be 2022 before work started. The Pentagon was right, with the B61-12 finally entering production late in 2022.
On top of all the cost increases and delays, the associated commitment to retire the six other gravity bombs is changing significantly.
First, it is not clear the B61-11 will be retired at all; planning documents no longer include it as something the B61-12 will replace. That variant is designed to penetrate into the Earth, to attack hardened and deeply buried targets. No administration has ever explained why it was removed from the retirement list; it simply stopped being included on it. Second, the sole bright spot is the B61-10, but oddly so. Although the bomb’s retirement was tied to starting production of the B61-12, the B61-10 was removed from the stockpile in 2016. Apparently, it really was not needed at all, regardless of the B61-12.
More dangerously, the decision to retire the B83—by far the most destructive weapon in the US nuclear stockpile—was reversed by the Trump administration.The B83 has an explosive yield of some 1.2 megatons—or 80 times larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In a simulation developed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS, where I work), dropping one bomb like the B83 on a nuclear facility in Iran would kill over three million people and spread deadly radiation across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. It is this behemoth that the Trump administration declared its intention to keep “until a suitable replacement is identified.” Fortunately, the Biden administration reversed the reversal, and the B83 is currently on a path to be retired at some point, though the plan for when that will happen is classified. (Unfortunately, election results this year could again change that outcome.)
In the meantime, the Biden administration has announced the B61-13.
Significantly, this new bomb will be based on the B61-7, the most destructive of the B61 variants, with a maximum yield of 360 kilotons, or 24 times more devastating than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Just to remind you, that one bomb killed 70,000 to 140,000 people. In other words, the B61-13 will be massively destructive, accompanied by immense and widespread fallout. In other other words, this is yet another tool for nuclear warfighting—or, more specifically, seeking to win a nuclear war.
That mission should not exist. Indeed, as five of the countries with nuclear weapons—the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom—have declared, “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Yet fighting and winning a nuclear war is precisely the goal of developing the B61-13. There are, apparently, specific targets that this more powerful gravity bomb can hold at risk—ones that cannot reliably be destroyed with the B61-12, despite its vastly increased accuracy in comparison to existing gravity bombs. But existing nuclear warheads on submarine-based missiles can already hold those same targets at risk. So the B61-13, it turns out, is just another option to blow up something the Pentagon can already destroy, and many times over. In fact, each US nuclear-armed submarine carries seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II, including the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
The scope of the mistake. Coming from a Biden administration that pledged to seek to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, with a president who, as a candidate for office, declared his support for the policy that the United States would never use nuclear weapons first in any conflict, the decision to pursue the B61-13 is not only deeply disappointing, but a profound mistake. In short, the B61-13 is yet another sign that the United States intends to make its nuclear arsenal even more deadly and the foundational element of the existing security system. That system is based on the principle that this country, to keep itself “safe,” needs to be able to kill tens or hundreds of millions of people in less than an hour.
On moral grounds, and under international law, that prospect alone should be evidence enough to conclude that such an approach to security is grievously wrong, and that the United States should do everything it can to move away from that system.
But the reality is far worse, because Russia already has and China is now moving toward nuclear arsenals that will give them similar capabilities. Even with their vastly smaller arsenals, the other six nuclear weapons states—the UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—also have the capacity to kill tens of millions of people in hours. That horrible reality is the basis of the world’s security system. If everyone can kill everyone else, and no one can be safe from that threat, then—in the supreme irony of nuclear deterrence—everyone is supposed to be safe.
The mutual assured destruction precept of deterrence theory is ludicrous. For such a system to make sense, it would have to work perfectly and for all time.If it doesn’t, then we are all dead.What human system has ever worked perfectly for any significant length of time? In just one example of far too many, nuclear war was barely averted when a Russian officer refused to go along with two colleagues who wanted to use a nuclear-armed torpedo against US Navy ships harassing their submarine at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As has been noted, it was as much luck as careful choices that avoided the start of a nuclear war that would almost certainly have spiraled out of control.
Rather than develop a new nuclear weapon that adds fuel to a rapidly growing arms race, the Biden administration should launch a concerted effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It should publicly announce this intention, invite representatives from other nuclear-armed states to the table, and begin talks about what would be required to eliminate nuclear weapons from Earth. In an ideal world, we could turn the tragedy of the B61-13 into the launching point for a global effort to push for that outcome.
*
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 Young is a senior Washington representative for the Global Security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Featured image: A US F-35A combat aircraft tests an unarmed B61-12 bomb in the Nevada Desert. Source: Sandia National Laboratory
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.
Through persistent, systematic, and widespread targeting of the Gaza Strip’s water sources and desalination plants, Israel is using water as a weapon against Palestinian civilians. In addition to imposing famine, Israel is deliberately reducing the amount of water available to residents of the Strip—especially potable water sources—intentionally targeting the over 2.3 million people who live there as part of its genocide, ongoing since last October.
On Monday, July 1, the Euro-Med Monitor field team observed significant damage to a desalination plant in the Al-Zaytoun neighbourhood, south of Gaza City, as a result of direct Israeli targeting. This also resulted in the killing of a young man who was filling a gallon with water, plus the wounding of other individuals. The station, which provided services to at least 50,000 people in several nearby residential neighbourhoods, sustained significant damage after being bombed by the Israeli army with a GBU missile that broke through multiple stories and detonated on the ground floor.
As summer temperatures rise, the people of the Gaza Strip are facing significant challenges in accessingwater. Estimates show that since October of last year, the per capita share of water in the Gaza Strip has decreased by 97% due to the extensive destruction of water infrastructure by Israel. Therefore, as a result of the genocide, the per capita share of water in the Strip has decreased to between 3 and 15 litres per day, while in 2022 it was approximately 84.6 litres per day.
In view of the ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people that deprive them of necessities for survival—such as the destruction of over 700 wells and water desalination plants since the start of the genocide—all areas of the Gaza Strip are experiencing a shortage of water, and the sewage system is collapsing. Meanwhile, certain areas of the Strip are suffering from a shortage of fuel, which Israel forbids from entering the Strip, despite the large number of casualties—including children—caused by infectious diseases and epidemics that spread through the accumulation ofcontaminated water due to inoperative sewage stations.
Continued destruction and devastation by the Israeli army is rendering the Gaza Strip unlivable, particularly after the army’s destruction of 9 out of 10 water tanks and half of the water networks, or 350 km out of 700 km.
Additionally, as a result of the crimes and arbitrary policies of Israel, all six wastewater treatment plants have been disrupted, approximately 65 sewage pumps stopped, and 70 km of sewage networks destroyed. This has resulted in the unchecked disposal of wastewater, estimated to be around 130 thousand cubic metres per day, onto Gaza Strip roads and shelters for displaced people.
According to United Nations estimates, about 96 percent of the Strip’s population (2.15 million people) faces high levels of acute food insecurity. While the whole territory is classified in Emergency (IPC Phase 4), over 495,000 people (22 per cent of the population) are still facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 5). In this Phase, households experience an extreme lack of food, starvation, and exhaustion of coping capacities.
Euro-Med Monitor warned last January that distress is engulfing Gaza City and the Strip’s northern regions in alarming ways—a result of Israel’s cutting off of the water supply in the Strip, systematic and intentional Israeli bombing of water sources and wells, and a lack of fuel required to run water conversion and distribution facilities.
The lack of drinking water in the Gaza Strip has become a matter of life and death, with residents currently being forced to drink unclean well water amid continued Israeli military attacks and lack of food, water, and fuel supplies.
The excessive consumption of undrinkable salt water leads to high blood pressure; kidney disease; increased risk of stroke, intestinal, and stomach diseases; constant vomiting; and diarrhoea. These effects willultimately result in excessive dehydration of the body’s tissues, particularly brain tissue.
Euro-Med Monitor conducted an analytical study last December month that included a sample of 1,200 people in the Gaza Strip in order to ascertain the impact of the humanitarian crisis experienced by residents of the enclave in the midst of Israel’s genocidal war.
According to the study, the rate of access to water in the Strip, including drinking, bathing, and cleaning water, is just 1.5 litres per person per day. This is 15 litres less than the minimum amount of water required for survival at the level required by international standards.
International humanitarian law forbids attacks, destruction, or disruption of vital facilities necessary to the survival of the civilian population, such as drinking water facilities and networks. International humanitarian law also strictly prohibits the use of starvation as a weapon; as an occupying power, Israel is obligated under international humanitarian law to provide basic needs and protection to the Palestinianpeople of the Gaza Strip.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides that intentionally starving civilians by “depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies” is a war crime.
Israel has been committing acts of genocide against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and pertinent international judicial rulings. Israel’s egregious crimes include depriving the civilian population in the Strip of enough potable water, which has caused serious, intentional harm and trapped them in living conditions meant to destroy them.
*
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.
Forty-six thousand Israeli businesses have been forced to shut as a result of the ongoing war and its devastating effect on the economy, Hebrew newspaper Maariv reported on 10 July, referring to Israel as a “country in collapse.”
“This is a very high number that encompasses many sectors. About 77 percent of the businesses that have been closed since the beginning of the war, which make up about 35,000 businesses, are small businesses with up to five employees, and are the most vulnerable in the economy,” Yoel Amir, CEO of Israeli information services and credit risk management firm, CofaceBdi, told Maariv.
The report adds that
“the most vulnerable industries are the construction industry, and as a result also the entire ecosystem that operates around it: ceramics, air conditioning, aluminum, building materials, and more – All of these were significantly damaged,” according to CofaceBdi’s risk ratings.
The trade sector has also been severely affected. This includes the service sector and industries including fashion, furniture, housewares, entertainment, transport, and tourism.
Israel is in a situation where “there is almost no foreign tourism,” the report said, adding that “damage to businesses is all over the country, and almost no sector has been spared.”
This includes the agriculture sector, which is based mainly in the south and the north – both considered active combat zones due to the threat posed by the Palestinian resistance and Lebanon’s Hezbollah – whose support front against Israel has significantly contributed to the downfall of the economy.
The CofaceBdi CEO estimates that 60,000 Israeli businesses are expected to be shut down by the end of 2024.
Hezbollah’s attacks have severely affected local business and education in the north. Tens of thousands of settlers have been forced to evacuate.
“Our goal of draining the enemy’s economy … has been achieved,” Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallahsaid on 10 July.
The Yemeni army’s maritime operations have also contributed to the economy’s downfall. Revenues at key ports, such as the southern port of Eilat, have fallen significantly.
In the final months of 2023, the Israeli GDP plummeted by nearly 20 percent.
The threat of escalation with Hezbollah has also posed fears in Israel that any full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance would plunge the economy much deeper into the abyss. Hezbollah has demonstrated through recent video warnings that it is capable of attacking energy infrastructure such as oil refineries and gas tanks.
*
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.
Os EUA estão a aproveitar a cimeira da OTAN para promover medidas nucleares na política interna. Num comunicado recente, o Departamento de Defesa anunciou que continuará o seu projeto de desenvolvimento de um novo míssil balístico intercontinental Sentinel, apesar do aumento exponencial dos custos. O Congresso aprovou a proposta apesar da sua natureza altamente irresponsável. O objetivo é melhorar as capacidades nucleares dos EUA na atual crise de segurança.
Espera-se que o programa Sentinel substitua todos os obsoletos mísseis nucleares Minuteman III do país. Os custos do projeto estão atualmente estimados em 140 mil milhões de dólares, um aumento de 81% nas expectativas de custos em comparação com a primeira avaliação do programa. O Pentágono tinha prometido anteriormente gastar apenas 77 mil milhões de dólares na produção dos novos mísseis, mas os avaliadores dizem agora que o projeto custará quase o dobro disso.
De acordo com a lei americana, quando se espera que um projeto cresça mais de 25% no custo, o departamento responsável pela proposta deve revisar o programa e justificar sua necessidade ao Congresso. Depois de estudar o projeto, o Pentágono concluiu que não existem alternativas ao programa Sentinel, e que os legisladores americanos deveriam consentir o mais rapidamente possível na sua implementação, garantindo assim a renovação das capacidades nucleares americanas. Temendo supostas “ameaças”, os políticos norte-americanos aprovaram a exigência.
“[Estamos] plenamente conscientes dos custos (…) Mas também estamos conscientes dos riscos de não modernizarmos as nossas forças nucleares e de não enfrentarmos as ameaças reais que temos”, disse William LaPlante, subsecretário de Defesa da ONU sobre o caso.
Obviamente, as “ameaças” vistas pelos EUA em relação às questões nucleares centram-se na Federação Russa. Desde o início da operação militar especial, o Ocidente tem respondido às medidas de Moscou através da chantagem nuclear. Alguns líderes ocidentais declararam mesmo que estariam prontos para enfrentar uma guerra nuclear com a Rússia. Paralelamente, os EUA deram recentemente permissão à Ucrânia para atacar unidades militares russas fora da zona de conflito, o que poderia colocar em risco algumas instalações nucleares.
Em retaliação à chantagem nuclear ocidental, Moscou suspendeu a sua participação no Novo Tratado START. O acordo bilateral russo-americano assinado em 2010 limita as capacidades nucleares de ambos os países e, embora a Rússia tenha suspendido a sua participação, o país ainda segue as regras do pacto, limitando severamente o seu número de armas e sistemas de lançamento. Contudo, em 2026 o acordo expirará e é pouco provável que as partes cheguem a qualquer tipo de consenso para renová-lo.
Na prática, é possível dizer que as ações irresponsáveis do Ocidente desde fevereiro de 2022 estão a conduzir o mundo para uma nova corrida nuclear. O Ocidente liderado pelos EUA está a tomar várias iniciativas para escalar esta corrida, sendo a aprovação de um novo programa nuclear multibilionário, mesmo no meio de uma grave crise interna nos EUA, um exemplo disso. Em vez de usar dinheiro público para resolver o problema nas fronteiras ou criar medidas para aliviar as tensões sociais e étnicas, Washington está a dar prioridade ao investimento em armas nucleares para alegadamente enfrentar “riscos” que são criados pela própria política externa dos EUA.
Todas as ações nucleares russas foram meramente reativas. Moscou pôs recentemente fim à proibição de testes nucleares e iniciou exercícios conjuntos de armas táticas com a República da Bielorrússia – um país ao qual foi recentemente fornecido equipamento nuclear para fortalecer Minsk no meio de ameaças representadas tanto pelo regime de Kiev como pelos países vizinhos da OTAN. Estas ações foram retaliatórias, dada a pressão nuclear e as constantes ameaças representadas pela aliança liderada pelos EUA no ambiente estratégico russo. Na prática, os EUA criam a ameaça, levando a Rússia a reagir – e então a retaliação russa é descrita pela propaganda ocidental como um “perigo”, endossando novas ações dos EUA e criando um ciclo vicioso.
É importante sublinhar que a última medida americana ocorreu no primeiro dia da cimeira da OTAN em Washington. Os responsáveis da aliança reúnem-se precisamente para discutir novas estratégias para confrontar a Rússia no atual conflito por procuração. Dado o contexto, a atmosfera política americana está ainda mais paranóica quanto à possibilidade de uma guerra direta com a Rússia, o que explica porque o discurso da “ameaça nuclear” persuadiu os congressistas a aprovar o novo programa Sentinel, apesar dos seus custos exorbitantes.
Na verdade, os EUA e a OTAN estão a seguir um caminho perigoso. A escalada nuclear poderá não terminar se as medidas para expandir as capacidades militares continuarem a ser tomadas com frequência. Dada a natureza estritamente defensiva da política nuclear da Rússia, o caminho para a desescalada é simples: os EUA e os seus parceiros só precisam de parar de representar ameaças à Rússia e convidar Moscou a renegociar um novo acordo nuclear.
Il Summit di Washington, con cui la Nato ha celebrato il 75° anniversario della sua fondazione, avrebbe dovuto tenersi il 4 aprile ma Washington – che da 75 anni detiene i comandi chiave della NATO a partire da quello di Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa, sempre un generale statunitense nominato dal presidente degli Stati Uniti – ha deciso, per sue ragioni anche di politica interna, di celebrarlo oltre tre mesi dopo. La storia ufficiale della NATO, presentata al Summit di Washington, spiega così la nascita della NATO:
“Nel 1949, di fronte alla crescente minaccia dell’Unione Sovietica, 12 paesi europei e nordamericani firmarono un Trattato basato sul principio della difesa collettiva”.
Il testo è accompagnato dalla prima pagina di un giornale del 29 agosto 1949 con un titolo a caratteri cubitali: “RUSSIA HAS ATOMIC BOMB” – “LA RUSSIA HA LA BOMBA ATOMICA”.
Un colossale falso storico. L’Unione Sovietica esce dalla Seconda guerra mondiale in gran parte distrutta, dopo essere stata attaccata e invasa nel giugno 1941 dalla Germania nazista con 201 divisioni, comprendenti 5,5 milioni di soldati pari al 75% di tutte le truppe tedesche, 3500 carrarmati e 5000 aerei, più 37 divisioni dei paesi satelliti (tra cui l’Italia). L’URSS aveva chiesto ripetutamente agli Alleati di aprire un secondo fronte in Europa, ma Stati Uniti e Gran Bretagna lo avevano volutamente. ritardato.
Il prezzo pagato dall’Unione Sovietica è altissimo: circa 27 milioni di morti, per oltre la metà civili, corrispondenti al 15% della popolazione (in rapporto allo 0,3% degli USA in tutta la Seconda guerra mondiale); circa 5 milioni di deportati in Germania; oltre 1700 città e grossi centri abitati, 70 mila piccoli villaggi devastati; 30 mila fabbriche distrutte. L’Unione Sovietica non può quindi costituire una minaccia per l’Occidente, anche perché gli Stati Uniti sono gli unici a possedere l’arma atomica, di cui detengono il monopolio dal 1945 al 1949. Già dal settembre 1945, appena un mese dopo il bombardamento di Hiroshima e Nagasaki, al Pentagono calcolano che per attaccare l’URSS occorrono circa 200 bombe nucleari.
Nel 1949 l’arsenale statunitense sale a circa 170 bombe nucleari. A questo punto gli Stati Uniti sono sicuri di poter avere, entro breve tempo, abbastanza bombe per attaccare l’Unione Sovietica. In quello stesso anno, però, svanisce il sogno americano di conservare il monopolio delle armi nucleari. Il 29 agosto 1949, l’Unione Sovietica effettua la sua prima esplosione nucleare sperimentale. Ora anche l’URSS ha la Bomba. Comincia a questo punto la corsa agli armamenti nucleari tra le due superpotenze.
Da allora, per 75 anni, la NATO giustifica la sua strategia di guerra con la falsa affermazione di essere minacciata. La “minaccia” odierna proviene, secondo il Summit di Washington, dal “crescente allineamento di Russia, Cina, Iran e Corea del Nord”. Per questo “la NATO lavora sempre più a stretto contatto con i partner dell’Indo-Pacifico e con l’Unione Europea per contribuire a mantenere la pace e a proteggere l’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole”. Su questa falsificazione storica, la NATO – allargatasi da 12 a 32 Paesi sempre più a ridosso della Russia – sta trascinando l’Europa e il mondo alla catastrofe.
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 incisive article was first written by the late Stephen Lendman in the wake of France’s April 2017 first runoff election.
May Stephen’s legacy prevail.
It is followed by my July 2024 article focussing on Emmanuel Macron’s Unbending Support of the Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine.
Feature image: les présidentielles, April 2017
***
,
“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” in France?
Historic Crisis of the French Republic
by
Stephen Lendman,
April 2017
.
Its deplorable policies belie its national motto – first declared during its 1789 – 99 revolution, overthrowing monarchical rule, establishing the First French Republic in 1792.
When the 1848 Constitution was drafted, it was considered a “principle of the Republic.”
July 14, Bastille Day, represents transferring power from the monarchy to the people.
The national motto was written into the 1946 and 1958 Constitutions. It’s part of France’s national heritage, inscribed on the pediments of public buildings, appearing on coins, postage stamps and elsewhere.
Modern French governance is deplorable, its sovereignty sacrificed to Brussels, a US-dominated NATO member, an imperial American partner.
After its May 7 [2017] runoff election, it’s likely to stay that way – establishment favorite Emmanuel Macron heavily favored to win.
French aristocracy loves him, strongly opposes Le Pen for wanting national sovereignty regained, an anathema notion for globalists, a scheme to enrich privileged elites at the expense of most others.
Hoping to distance herself from unpopular National Front policies, she announced she’s no longer its president, stressing “I am the candidate for the French presidency.”
Explaining her move, she said it’s to be “above partisan considerations.” She faces a daunting task of winning over enough undecided voters and others supporting defeated candidates.
Polls aren’t encouraging, showing Macron heavily favored. On May 7, voters will choose a new president.
Hugely unpopular Francois Hollande’s tenure will end days later, continuity under Macron likely to follow.
French media and establishment figures already proclaimed him the winner.
Le Pen warned he’ll “destroy (the) entire (French) social and economic structure.”
It’s already in shambles after five disastrous Hollande years. Under him, his recent predecessors, with Macron likely France’s next president, dirty business as usual should replace its Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité national motto.
Stephen Lendman, April 2017
***
Emmanuel Macron and Segments of The Left
Support the Nazi Regime in Kiev
by
Michel Chossudovsky,
July 13, 2024
“Plus Ça change, plus c’est la même chose” . “The more things change the more they stay the same”
Ironically, the only party firmly committed to suspending military aid to the Nazi Kiev regime is Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) which is tagged by people on the Left as “fascist” and “anti-semitic”.
Meanwhile, according to the Kiev Post, Ukraine is rejoicing.
Several of France’s leftist parties which are part of the NFP socialist coalition are firmly supportive of Ukraine’s Nazi regime.
To my Friends on the Left
How is it that people who are committed to social democracy and socialism are endorsing a Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine?
Brigitte Macron, Baron David de Rothschild, Emmanuel Macron
In the above report emanating from the Rothschilds (image February 2016) Emmanuel Macron endorsed by Baron David de Rothschild is casually announced as the future president of France, more than a year prior to the April 2017 elections.
Emmanuel Macron is not acting on behalf of the French people. Since the inauguration of his presidency on May 14, 2017, endorsed by powerful financial interests, he has acted as a proxy, supported by France’s “imperial American partner”
The Left is misinformed
Supporting the Nazis in Ukraine, serves the interests of the Global Financial Establishment and the hegemonic interests of the US.
The following image is revealing. From Left to Right: the Blue NATO flag, the Azov Battalion’s Wolfangel SS of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Swastika (red and white background) are displayed, which points to collaboration between NATO and the Neo-Nazi regime.
While Western governments (including France) are actively repressing the protest movements against Israel’s act of genocide, —with mass arrests on charges of antisemitism—, those same governments are supporting Ukraine’s Nazi movement which actively participated and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the genocide directed against the Jewish population of Ukraine during World War II.
What this implies is that our governments are antisemitic.
Specifically, the German penal codeprohibits “Denial of the Holocaust” as well as the “dissemination of Nazi propaganda”.
We are dealing with something far more serious than Nazi “hate speech”, namely the relationship of the German Government with the Kiev regime’s Nazi Movement.
See also the Resolution of the UN General Assembly, dated January 2022 quoted in the above document.
Unquestionably, the German Government of Chancellor Scholz’s decision to support the Kiev regime’s Nazi Movement constitutes a criminal act under German law., namely the violation of. the Penal Code.
The World is Upside Down
C’est Le Monde à l’Envers
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research. July 13, 2024
For more analysis on the Holocaust in Ukraine, see:
Comments Off on 14 July 2024: “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” in France with Macron? Historic Crisis of the French Republic. “Ce n’est pas la Révolution”
Israel has launched an invasion (October 7, 2023) of the Gaza Strip.
As outlined by Felicity Arbuthnot with foresight 10 years ago in a December, 30 2013 article:
“Israel is set to become a major exporter of gas and some oil, “If All Goes to Plan”.
In the current context, Israel’s “All Goes to Plan” option consists in bypassing Palestine and “Wiping Gaza off the Map”, as well confiscating ALL Gaza’s maritime offshore gas reserves, worth billions of dollars.
The ultimate objective is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.
Update. Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum
An official “secret” memorandum authored by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence “is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”, namely to a refugee camp in Egyptian territory. There are indications of Israel-Egypt negotiations as well as consultations with the U.S.
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry … assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. … The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972. See below, click here or below to access complete document (10 pages)
First published on October 22, 2023. Video added on October 27, 2023, Update, November 1, 2023
***
Video: Michel Chossudovsky, Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
“The Giant Leviathan natural gas field, in the eastern Mediterranean, discovered in December 2010, widely described [by governments and media] as “off the coast of Israel.”
These Levant reserves must be distinguished from those discovered in Gaza in 1999 by British Gas, which belong to Palestine. Felicity Arbuthnot’s analysis nonetheless confirms that “Part of the Leviathan Gas fields lie in Gazan territorial waters” (See Map Below).
Whilst Israel claims them as her very own treasure trove, only a fraction of the sea’s wealth lies in Israel’s bailiwick as maps. Much is still unexplored, but currently Palestine’s Gaza and the West Bank between them show the greatest discoveries… (Felicity Arbuthnot, 2013)
Flash Forward to October 2023
Netanyahu’s October 2023 declaration of war against 2.3 million people of the Gaza Strip is a continuation of its 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead.”
The underlying objective is the outright military occupation of Gaza by Israel’s IDF forces and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
I should however mention that there are powerful financial interests which stand to benefit from Israel’s criminal undertaking (Genocide) directed against Gaza.
.
The ultimate objective is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.
Egypt-Israel “Secret Bilateral Talks”
In 2021-22, Egypt and Israel were involved in “secret bilateral talks” regarding “the extraction of natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Egypt and Israel, which had the rubber-stamp of the Palestinian National Authority (PA):
“The Egyptian official explained that Israel required the start of practical measures to extract gas from the Gaza fields at the beginning of 2024, to ensure its own security. (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
Netanyahu’s Timeline: “Before The Beginning of 2024”
The timeline resulting from these bilateral Israel-Egypt “secret talks” i.e. confiscation of Palestine’s offshore Maritime Gas Reserves is “The Beginning of 2024”.
Geologists and natural resources economists have confirmed that the Occupied Palestinian Territory lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in Area C of the occupied West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip.
However, occupation continues to prevent Palestinians from developing their energy fields so as to exploit and benefit from such assets. As such, the Palestinian people have been denied the benefits of using this natural resource to finance socioeconomic development and meet their need for energy.
The accumulated losses are estimated in the billions of dollars. The longer Israel prevents Palestinians from exploiting their own oil and natural gas reserves, the greater the opportunity costs and the greater the total costs of the occupation borne by Palestinians become.
This study identifies and assesses existing and potential Palestinian oil and natural gas reserves that could be exploited for the benefit of the Palestinian people, which Israel is either preventing them from exploiting or is exploiting without due regard for international law. (UNCTAD, August 2019, emphasis added, download complete report)
Crimes against Humanity
In the words of Netanyahu who is on Record for Supporting and Financing a faction within Hamas:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
(Benjamin Netanyahu, statement at a March 2019 meeting of his Likud Party’s Knesset members, Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.”
Crimes against humanity beyond description by the Netanyahu government against the People of Palestine,
Crimes also committed against the People of Israel who are the victims of the Hamas “False Flag Attack” carefully engineered by Mossad-IDF.
There are deep-seated divisions within Hamas. Our “False Flag” analysis pertains to a military-intelligence faction within Hamas which cooperates with Israeli and U.S. intelligence. See:
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 21, 2023
Below is the 2013 article by Felicity Arbuthnot
Israel Gas-Oil and Trouble in the Levant
by Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research,
December 13, 2013
Israel is set to become a major exporter of gas and some oil, if all goes to plan. The giant Leviathan natural gas field, in the eastern Mediterranean, discovered in December 2010, is widely described as “off the coast of Israel.”
At the time the gas field was:
“ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)
Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration.
Also involved is Perth, Australia-based Woodside Petroleum, which has signed a memorandum of understanding for a thirty percent stake in the project, in negotiations which have been described as “up and down.”
There is currently speculation that Woodside might pull out of the deal: “ …since the original plans to refrigerate the gas for export were pursued when relations between Israel and Turkey were strained. That has changed, more recently, which has opened the door for gas to be piped to Turkey.”
The spoils of the Leviathan field has already expanded from an estimated 16.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf ) of gas to nineteen trillion – and counting:
”We’ve discovered nearly 40 tcf of gas, and we have roughly 19 tcf of that gas that’s available for export to both regional and extra-regional markets. We see exports reaching 2 billion cubic feet a day in capacity in the next decade. And we continue to explore.”, stated Noble Vice Chairman Keith Elliot (ii) There are also estimated to be possibly six hundred million barrels of oil, according to Michael Economides of energytribune.com (“Eastern Mediterranean Energy – the next Great Game.”)
However, even these estimates may prove modest. In their: “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Levant Basin Province, Eastern Mediterranean”, the US Department of the Interior’s US Geological Survey, wrote in 2010:
“We estimated a mean of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean of 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in this province using a geology based assessment methodology.”
Nevertheless, Woodside Petroleum, might also be hesitant to become involved in further disputes, since they are already embroiled, with the Australian government, in a protracted one in East Timor relating to the bonanaza of energy and minerals beneath the Timor Sea, which has even led to East Timor accusing Australia “of bugging East Timorese officials during the negotiations over the agreement.”(iii)
Woodside’s conflict in East Timor however, may well pale against what might well erupt over the Leviathan and Tamar fields. The area is not for nothing called the Levantine Basin.
Whilst Israel claims them as her very own treasure trove, only a fraction of the sea’s wealth lies in Israel’s bailiwick as maps (iv, v, see below) clearly show.
Much is still unexplored, but currently Palestine’s Gaza and the West Bank between them show the greatest discoveries, with anything found in Lebanon and Syria’s territorial waters sure to involve claims from both countries.
In a pre-emptive move, on Christmas Day, Syria announced a deal with Russia to explore 2,190 kilometres (850 Sq. miles) for oil and gas off its Mediterranean coast, to be: “… financed by Russia, and should oil and gas be discovered in commercial quantities, Moscow will recover the exploration costs.”
Syrian Oil Minister, Ali Abbas said during the signing ceremony that the contract covers “25 years, over several phases.”
Syria, increasingly crippled by international sanctions, has seen oil production plummet by ninety percent since the largely Western fermented unrest began in March 2011. Gas production has nearly halved, from thirty million cubic metres a day, to 16.7 cubic metres daily.
The agreement is reported to have resulted from “months of long negotiations” between the two countries. Russia, as one of the Syrian government’s main backers, looks set to also become a major player in the Levant Basin’s energy wealth. (vi)
Lebanon disputes Israel’s map of the Israeli-Lebanese maritime border, filing their own map and claims with the UN in 2010. Israel claims Lebanon is in the process of granting oil and gas exploration licenses in what Israel claims as its “exclusive economic zone.”
That the US in the guise of Vice President Joe Biden, as honest broker, acting peace negotiator in the maritime border dispute would be laughable, were it not potential for Israel to attack their neighbour again. In a visit to Israel in March 2010, Biden announced: “There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security- none at all”, also announcing on arrival in Israel:”It’s good to be home.”
Given US decades of “peace brokering” between Israel and Palestine, this is already a road of pitfalls, one sidedness and duplicity, well traveled. There is trouble ahead.
Oh, and in demonology, Leviathan is one of the seven princes of Hell.
Notes
i. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/leviathan-gas-field-levantine-israel/
ii. http://m.theage.com.au/business/options-widen-for-woodsides-leviathan-partners-20131219-2znu6.html
iii. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/east-timor-offers-funds-for-onshore- gas-processing/4933106
iv. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/leviathan-gas-field-levantine-israel/leviathan-gas-field-levantine-israel1.html
v. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Leviathan+gas+project+Israel+map&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ntC2UvO7IcPE7Ab7rIDYCQ&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1017&bih=598
vi. http://www.phantomreport.com/syria-inks-oil-gas-deal-with-russia-firm#more-20238
Almost fifteen years ago in December 2008, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)”.
The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.
War and Natural Gas:
The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 8, 2009
The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.
This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.
The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).
The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).
The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.
The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.
Map 1
Map 2
Who Owns the Gas Fields
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.
The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.
In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)
The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.
In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.
The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.
Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:
“Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)
The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.
The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:
“Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)
Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).
Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board
The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:
“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.
The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)
The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.
Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.
In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.
In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)
“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.
The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)
Gaza and Energy Geopolitics
The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.
What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?
What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?
A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?
The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?
The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?
If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above)
These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Map 3
Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline.
“What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
Readers’ Thanks to Michel Chossudovsky
Thank you for your continued activism and truth-telling. A thankless task but the right thing.
You Sir are a Canadian hero. Thank you for your wonderful site and all the fine work you have done over the many years I have followed your work.
Michel Chossudovsky, you are a voice of reason and understanding. Thank you for your awareness. I am a Syrian/American. I heard one voice during the bombing of Gaza of a child screaming for his father and his father could not reach him, but he cried out to him, “PUT YOUR HEART ON MY HEART.” Those humans who are putting your Heart on Palestine, 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.
“First off, it’s vaccine injury awareness month and a memory popped up today about me taking Faith to get another round of vaccines, which just so happens to be the day of her first vaccine injury.
Her little eyes started crossing right after.
She’s under went surgery to try and fix the problem which it didn’t do. Because surgery will rarely fix a vaccine injury like this. Her eyes still cross to this day. This picture from the other day shows it, even though it looks much more dramatic at other times. But look how beautiful she still is.
Her second injury was when she stopped speaking after her MMR, but thankfully after detoxing her, words started flowing again, but we are still working with her speech for sure
For those of you that don’t know, after extensive doctors appointments and extensive DNA testing our girls are exempt from vaccines for life.
They carry THREE different MTHFRs, one of them being the one that makes it very hard for their bodies to rid of toxins (vaccines are LOADED with toxins.) I know I still get judged for not vaccinating by some on my friends list. But why?
It’s extremely dangerous for our girls to get vaccinated, which was confirmed by a doctor.
Vaccines are not one size fits all, but yet they are treated like one.
They are dangerous for everyone, some more than others.
Where I stand today, it’s my biggest regret I have in life. Literally the biggest regret I have was vaccinating my babies.
I’m just extremely thankful her life was not taken from us by vaccines. From this point on, its about healing and doing what’s right. It took my baby being injured twice from vaccines before I got woke. I don’t want that being the reason you get woke too.”
The abbreviation MTHFR refers to a relatively common genetic mutation. It stands for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, and having this mutation may lead to high levels of homocysteine in the blood and low levels of folate and other vitamins.
Its main function is to provide your body with instructions for creating the MTHFRprotein, which helps your body produce folate. This B vitamin is necessary to create DNA.
There’s been concern that certain health issues are associated with MTHFR mutations, so testing has become more mainstream over the years.
You can have either one or two mutations — or neither — on the MTHFR gene. These mutations are often called variants
Health conditions linked to MTHFR depend on your type of mutation and how many copies you contain.
If you have only one copy of the C677T or A1298C mutation or two copies of the A1298C mutation, there are typically no health conditions or risks linked.
A person with two gene variants or who is homozygous for the MTHFR mutation may have an increased chance of health conditions.
*
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.
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.
One result of the just concluded NATO Summit is Germany’s decision to host US intermediate-range missiles. Prior to 2019 when Washington cancelled the INF Treaty, the treaty prevented such deployment.
The INF Treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8,1987, and the treaty was ratified on June 1, 1988. The treaty was part and parcel of ending the cold war. Reagan called the treaty a “step toward a safer world.”
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark nuclear arms control treaty in 1987. (Photo: White House Photographic Office/National Archives and Records Administration)
“The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty’s implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.”
Blaming Russia the Trump administration pulled out of the treaty. The consequence was to kill the nuclear disarmament that the INF Treaty began and to renew the arms race. If I had to bet I would say Washington’s withdrawal was a consequence of the US nuclear industry needing the source of profits that the arms race provided and the neoconservatives’ determination to revive US hegemony through the buildup of force.
If Russia was truly out of compliance, Trump’s focus should have been to work to bring Russia into compliance, not terminate the treaty.
The efforts of several American presidents and Soviet leaders in the 20th century to defuse tensions and to build trust were squandered by Washington in the 21st century.
Regardless, what is clear is that Washington is pushing both Europe and Russia into preparing for war, and is itself preparing.
The US Senate has joined the House of Representatives in creating a draft registration system from which to field a conscripted army. The Senate’s version includes women in the draft, as equal treatment requires. Clearly, Washington sees the need for a larger army than a volunteer army can provide.
Now that the Biden regime is supplying F-16s and long-range missiles to Ukraine, weapon systems that Biden said would never be given to the Ukrainians, along with targeting information, clearly Washington’s intent is to further widen the war by carrying it deep into civilian areas of Russia. Simultaneously, Washington is using its NGOs in Georgia to orchestrate a color revolution there in order to open a second front against Russia. Putin’s slow forever war in Ukraine has played directly into Washington’s hands.
China is the main focus of Washington’s strategy of isolating Russia. At the recent NATO Summit China was accused of being a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. By allegedly supplying armaments to Russia, China is accused of challenging “our interests, security and values.”
I would have expected a different Chinese reply than was made. China should have said to Washington/NATO: “You started the conflict and your weapons systems and French troops are supporting and widening the conflict. You have blocked all efforts to end the conflict; yet you dare accuse us of responsibility for it.”
Instead, the Chinese disavowed supplying Russia with any military support.
This is an extremely weak response. It suggests that all the Russian-Chinese assurance of a “no-limits partnership” is just words. An appropriate response from China would have been: “We are considering sending 500,000 of our best soldiers to serve under Russian command in Ukraine and have called up another million men for military training.
A response such as this is what would end the conflict before the dumbshit hegemonic West puts us all in a war of annihilation.
In recorded history one can find very few competent civilian and military leaders. Alexander the Great, Constantine, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the Duke of Marlborough, Robert E. Lee. No such men exist today, but the weapons are far more terrible. Moreover, modern war targets civilians and civilian infrastructure, as the Israelis are doing in Gaza. The goal is less to defeat an opposing army than it is to foreclose an opponent’s ability to conduct war.
In Europe a warrior class no longer exists. European male ethnicities are so oppressed by their own governments and by immigrant-invaders favored by European governments, that the defense ministers of Europe are women. What does a white ethnic European male have to fight for?
In the US the fighting force has always come from the southern states. But what have these traditional Americans, these military families, witnessed? They have seen all southern names struck from military bases. They have experienced their promotions on hold while homosexuals, black females, and transgendered people confused about their own gender are promoted. Taking orders from such people is not a southern man’s idea of the military. So recruitment has collapsed.
There are so few people willing to fight for America that Congress entertains proposals to enroll immigrant-invaders, paid with citizenship for fighting for American hegemony.
America has reached the point that Rome reached. Once the Roman military was German, the Germans became the emperors. The Germans did a fairly decent job compared to the decadent Romans, but the Empire was exhausted by its internal conflicts and collapsed.
Perhaps it is the collapse of the West that Putin and Xi are banking on. Why bother to fight people busy destroying themselves.
*
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.
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.
For several weeks officials from the United States administration of President Joe Biden have led the international community to believe once again that an end to the fighting in Gaza was imminent.
Nonetheless, as in recent months, movement towards ending the occupation of Gaza and the efforts to secure a permanent cessation of hostilities remain elusive.
The reality is that the Biden administration is still sending weapons and bombs to Tel Aviv which are being utilized to inflict terror upon the Palestinian people on a daily basis. During a press conference held in the aftermath of the NATO Summit in Washington, D.C., Biden emphasized that the administration has not wavered in its support of the State of Israel.
His slight references to a ceasefire and the need for a two-state solution was no different than the same rhetoric enunciated by successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican, for decades. Biden said that the war must end while never citing the 76-year occupation, ethnic cleansing and genocide as the underlying causes of the ongoing crisis.
Official statistics from the Health Ministry in Gaza indicate that more than 38,000 Palestinians have been killed and approximately 88,000 wounded after nine months of the most recent genocidal onslaught beginning after October 7. The entire length and breath of the Gaza Strip is filled with displaced persons. (See this)
Several examples of recent massacres provide a clear assessment of the devastating impact of U.S. foreign policy which props-up the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in Gaza. The almost daily evacuation orders given by the Israeli military reinforces the overall insecurity of the Palestinians.
Nuseirat
Reuters reported on the current situation in an article published on July 9 noting:
“Palestinian officials said an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza Strip killed more than two dozen people while advancing tanks in Gaza City forced residents to flee under fire as Israel on Tuesday stepped up an offensive that Hamas warned could jeopardize ceasefire talks. The airstrike hit the tents of displaced families outside a school in the town of Abassan east of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, killing at least 29, most of them were women and children, Palestinian medical officials said. The Israeli military said it was reviewing reports that civilians were harmed. It said the incident occurred when it struck with ‘precise munition’ a Hamas fighter who took part in the Oct. 7 raid on Israel that precipitated the Israeli assault on Gaza. Ismail Al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, said Israeli strikes on central Gaza areas killed 60 Palestinians and wounded dozens of others on Tuesday.
These incidents illustrate the complicity of U.S. imperialism and its allies in the genocide against the Palestinians. Ordinances made in the U.S. and transferred by the administration are essential to maintaining the status-quo.
A systematic campaign of bombings and shelling of residential areas all across Gaza has been condemned as war crimes. In addition to the efforts to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza by destroying houses, apartment buildings, encampments, hospitals, schools, universities, religious institutions, marketplaces, infrastructure and social service agencies, the Israeli military units have blocked the shipments of food, fuel, medical supplies and freshwater.
A ridiculous announcement made by the Biden administration months ago saying it would build a temporary pier in the Mediterranean to facilitate the shipment of humanitarian assistance to those suffering in Gaza has been exposed as just another ploy in its efforts to reinforce the settler-colonial project in Palestine. Finally admitting the scheme had collapsed even before it started, Biden has further illustrated his deceitful enunciations which pretend to express concern for the oppressed while carrying on with its imperialist policies. (See this)
In the same above-mentioned Reuters report it points to the widespread attacks throughout Gaza emphasizing:
“Ismail Al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, said Israeli strikes on central Gaza areas killed 60 Palestinians and wounded dozens of others on Tuesday. Residents said Israeli tanks that pushed into the Tel Al-Hawa, Shejaia and Sabra neighborhoods of Gaza City shelled roads and buildings, forcing them to flee their homes. This was followed by Israeli military orders to evacuate several districts in eastern and western Gaza City posted on social media, which included these neighborhoods. ‘We hold the occupation and the U.S. administration responsible for the horrifying massacres against civilians,’ said Thawabta in a statement. The Palestinian Red Crescent said early on Wednesday on Facebook that its crews received dozens of humanitarian distress calls from Gaza City but were unable to help due to the intensity of the bombing there. On Gaza City’s front lines, the armed wings of Hamas and its ally Islamic Jihad said their fighters battled Israeli forces with machine guns, mortar fire and anti-tank missiles and killed and wounded Israeli soldiers.”
The reality of the situation on the ground in Gaza makes a mockery of the purported diplomatic efforts in the West Asian and North African region. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been traveling throughout the region for nine months, yet the genocidal program aimed at the Palestinians remains the order of the day.
In fact, the resistance against the occupation of Gaza has escalated over the recent period. Not only are the armed Palestinian brigades stepping up their attacks on the IDF the war has intensified with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon carrying out military operations against Tel Aviv.
Imperialist Diplomacy and Regional Hegemony
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 11 that Tel Aviv would send a representative to talks in Doha, Qatar which have so far failed to reach any satisfactory agreement on achieving a ceasefire. Hamas, the leading Palestinian resistance organization in Gaza, has demonstrated flexibility in the negotiations for an end to the fighting.
However, it has been quite obvious over the last nine months that the State of Israel and the U.S. does not want a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. An end to the fighting with the resistance forces intact would place further political pressure on the imperialists and the Zionist regime to contemplate a general political solution to the Palestinian question.
Another formidable resistance movement, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), said recently in an interview with Al Mayadeen television that the negotiations have not made any headway in ending the recent phase of the war. PIJ and its military wing, the Al-Quds Brigade, have fought alongside Al-Qassam, the armed forces of Hamas, over the last nine months.
“The latest round of mediated negotiations between the Palestinian Resistance and the Israeli occupation did not lead to any results, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Mohammad al-Hindi, told Al Mayadeen. Al-Hindi explained that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government’s priority is unrelated to retrieving Israeli captives in the Gaza Strip, but instead, it is to carry on the war on the besieged territory. ‘The Israeli negotiator is stalling, as he told the mediators that he would return to Tel Aviv, and then he would give them a response regarding what was proposed (in the meetings),’ al-Hindi explained. Pointing to the crucial opportunity to finalize a deal that recently presented itself to the Israeli government, the PIJ official said that Israeli authorities encroached on a dangerous escalation when they demanded that all residents of Gaza City leave their residences and head southwards.”
The resistance to the Zionist state and its imperialist allies poses a serious challenge to the efforts by Washington and Wall Street to maintain their hegemony over the entire region. In Yemen, the Ansar Allah movement has intervened in the siege on Gaza by utilizing its naval forces to impose a blockade from the Red Sea. Other resistance organizations in Iraq and Syria have been utilizing their military capabilities to strike blows against the occupation forces in Palestine.
In response, the White House has ordered a series of airstrikes by the Pentagon against Yemen. Ansar Allah leader Sayeed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi noted in a recent interview with Al Mayadeen that the examples set by the resistance forces in the region from Palestine and Lebanon to Syria, Iraq and Iran has influenced the solidarity movement in the U.S. where students took center-stage during the spring by demanding the full disclosure and divestment of all economic interests which are enabling the genocide against the oppressed peoples living under occupation.
The NATO Summit reconfirmed the imperialist commitment to continue the war in Ukraine, the attempts to contain China and the genocide in Gaza. Consequently, it will take the global solidarity movement working in conjunction with the regional resistance forces and all anti-imperialists and anti-war groupings to create the conditions for the total liberation of oppressed peoples throughout 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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
I recently became aware of a policy brief with recommendations for the 2024 Summit of the Future, which lays out in plain terms what our “Overlords” have in store for us. It reads like a plot from a Bond-movie.
With the EU’s and NATO’s wrath and vehement disapproval, President Viktor Orban of Hungary used the occasion of Hungary’s European Union Presidency from 1 July to 31 December 2024, to go on a peace mission. Mr. Orban wants peace against the will of the EU and against the mandate of NATO.
The issue by the Army of a directive entitled “Handling Protest, Extremism, and Criminal Gang Activities” on June 14, 2024, essentially forbids the discussion of any issues that the military designates as “extremist” by any member of the army, even when off duty.
At 75, NATO has not aged well. Back in 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron was already sounding the alarm, accusing NATO of being “brain dead.” While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given NATO a new lease on life, NATO’s embrace of Ukraine actually makes the conflict–and the world–more dangerous.
Keir Starmer, leader of the remodelled Labour Party is now Britains’s “progressive” Prime Minister. As we recall Keir Starmer was invited to Davos back in January 2024, by the World Economic Forum’.Ironically, Starmer started his election campaign in the Swiss Alps, in conformity with Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Canadian government is extending its Covidian preoccupations by trying to push the population into embracing a broad array of synthetic biology initiatives. In other words, the senior figures in the Trudeau government once again see nothing wrong with putting the untested and unknown consequences of genetic modification at the forefront of Canadian health care.
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.
Most certainly, Russia’s final irreversible decision to suspend its membership and future participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly on July 3, on the eve of U.S. Independence Day, marked another significant chapter in its shifting geopolitical relations with United States and Europe.
As global situation heightens, particularly over security in Europe, Central EurAsia and the former Soviet space, Russia has also engaged in transforming not only economic relations but also paying attention to its security.
Over the past three decades, Russia became a member of many global bodies, participating actively at the United Nations. It spearheads the formation of the Greater Eurasia Union, the informal association BRICS—a group of states comprising Brazil, India, China and South Africa—and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Ukraine, which shares common geographical borders with Russia, and has primary ambitions of moving up to the global stage, has attempted joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. These systematic steps angered the Russian President and the Kremlin administration, the Executive Cabinet, the Federation Council and the State Duma, resulting into Russia undertaking “special military operation” in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, stressed that Moscow had no plans to occupy Ukrainian territories.
As the United States and European sanctions broadened due to the “special military operation”, largely directed at “demilitarization” and “denazification” in Ukraine, Russia was ultimately expelled from most of foreign organizations including the Council of Europe.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has also announced it had suspended Russia and Belarus from any participation in that organization. The OECD is one of the world’s major multilateral economic bodies with a membership of mostly of the rich, highly developed countries. The exclusion of Russia and Belarus will mean both countries are barred from participating in negotiations on issues including taxation, international business regulation and trade.
We can establish the fact that Russia and Belarus are not official members of the Paris-based group. But, Russia’s accession into the OECD was postponed after the country annexed Crimea in 2014 and was terminated because of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The group announced a plan “to develop proposals to further strengthen support to the democratically elected government of Ukraine, including to support recovery and reconstruction”.
Remarkable, during these past few years, Russia also exited from a number of international organizations. The simple interpretations and far reaching implications are that, as the world undergoes evolutionary process, Russia, emerging out of Soviet era setting, has broadly been restructuring its architecture and status. It emphasizes its national interest, sovereignty and better lives for its citizens while exercising its legitimate roles in the global system.
Noticeably, Russia continues to seek a profound respectable position and lately plays the role of an advocate for multipolar order, and consistently opposes conservative western-style rules-based order and hegemony. Reports monitored by this author indicated that Russia has already exited, the historic fall of the Soviet era, from international organizations, including
Russia’s upper and lower houses of parliament, the Federation Council and the State Duma, have expectedly decided to suspend Moscow’s participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly. That said of the withdrawal from the OSCE, Russia still reserves the right to return if conditions are improved for its delegation, according to several interviews conducted with parliament members by local Russian media Izvestia in late June 2024, just before the final suspension.
Prominent Russian Senators have spoken:
Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, pointed out that since 2022, Russia has faced increasing obstacles from the organization, such as its delegation members being denied entry visas and the right to speak.
Konstantin Kosachev, member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, noted that “the OSCE was conceived as a platform for comparing positions and trying to align them, if possible.” “The OSCE has recently stopped addressing general issues, becoming a vehicle for the collective West to impose its views on all others. It’s not us that have changed but the organization; it has been changed from within and actually destroyed. It certainly makes no sense for Russia to work in an organization that no longer is a platform for comparing and harmonizing positions,” the senator stated. “If and when the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly creates normal conditions for our work, if and when we receive guarantees and the principle of consensus is established in the organization, the decision may be reviewed,” Kosachev added.
Alexey Fenenko, professor with the Department of International Security at Moscow State University’s Faculty of World Politics, believes that things are heading towards Russia’s gradual withdrawal from the OSCE. “Following Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s high-profile statement in 2004 that the OSCE in its current shape does not suit us, Russia has been trying to promote various reforms of the organization. But this did not work out at all,” the expert explained. “In fact, we have to deal with a new version of the Russia-NATO Council. I think that it’s only a matter of time before Russia decides to pull out of it,” Fenenko added.
In spite of the marked outrages, the Federation Council (the upper chamber) and the State Duma (the lower house) unanimously voted to adopt the Russian Federal Assembly’s motion to suspend the Russian delegation’s participation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA) and stop paying dues to the organization.
“The Russian senators and State Duma members consider it sensible and justified to suspend the participation of the delegation of the Russian Federal Assembly in the OSCE PA and the payment of contributions to the OSCE PA budget. During the suspension period, any actions to amend the rules of procedure of the assembly with the aim of prejudicing the Russian delegation will be considered legally null and void,” the document states.
The parliamentarians also believe that the leadership of the OSCE PA and its members have ignored repeated appeals to return to an equal interparliamentary dialogue, the statement says. “Despite the Russian delegation’s repeated appeals and proposals, the priorities of the OSCE PA leadership indicate that at present, instead of creating conditions for a constructive exchange of views and the formation of a unifying agenda, this platform is being used as a politicized tool to deliberately implement an anti-Russian course, and also to intentionally distort what is going on in Ukraine,” the senators and MPs state.
The MPs emphasize that biased discriminatory approaches, double standards and total Russophobia, as well as an unwillingness to engage in substantive discussion, testify to the extreme degradation of the OSCE PA as a mechanism for interparliamentary co-operation. In addition, they draw attention to the fact that for many years the Parliamentary Assembly has ignored the problems related to the violation of the rights of national minorities in Ukraine and the Baltic States, the freedom of communication and education in one’s native language, has not paid attention to the blasphemous glorification of the Nazis and their accomplices, the harassment and murder of journalists who voice a position different from that of Brussels and Washington.
The parliamentarians also emphasize that the Russian delegation to the OSCE PA has, under spurious pretexts, “repeatedly been deprived of the opportunity to continue dialogue and to participate fully and equally in the work of the plenary sessions and governing bodies of the OSCE PA.” Romania’s demonstrative refusal to issue visas to members of the Russian delegation to participate in the annual session of the OSCE PA in Bucharest in 2024 was “the last point in the emerging deadlock,” as it has demonstrated that “confrontational tendencies and intolerance have taken over the common sense, spirit and values of this organization,” the statement reads.
Early July 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin participated in the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Astana, Kazakhstan. Twenty-four documents were adopted at the summit. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the leaders of several international organizations were invited, including CIS Secretary General Sergey Lebedev and Secretary General of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Imangali Tasmagambetov. The topic of the meeting is “Strengthening multilateral dialogue – the pursuit of sustainable peace and development.” Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko expected Belarus would be formally granted full-fledged membership. Minsk filed a bid to join the SCO in 2022, but started to participate in the organization’s work as early as in 2009. The SCO was founded on June 15, 2001, in Shanghai. Initially the organization included Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, in 2017 they were joined by India and Pakistan. Tehran applied to join in 2008 and became a full-fledged member of the organization in July 2023.
The OSCE has a comprehensive approach to security that encompasses politico-military, economic and environmental, and human aspects. It therefore addresses a wide range of security-related concerns, including arms control, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, national minorities, democratization, policing strategies, counter-terrorism and economic and environmental activities.
It has a secretariat and currently headed by Helga Maria Schmid, who was appointed to the post of Secretary General of the OSCE in December 2020 for a three-year term and then extended until September 2024. OSCE also has specialized institutions with specific functions. But what is important here is that all 57 participating States enjoy equal status, and decisions are taken by consensus on a politically, but not legally binding basis.
The fall of the Soviet Union required a change of role for the CSCE. And Russia, after Soviet’s collapse, renewed its membership in According the records researched by this author, Then Soviet Union was admitted on 25 June 1973. Along the line, members of OSCE have criticized the organization for being in a position where Russia, and sometimes Belarus, can veto all OSCE decisions, Moscow has, for a number of years, not allowed the approval of the organization’s budget, the organization of official OSCE events or the extension of missions. In November 2023, they vetoed the appointment of Estonia as chairman from 2024.
The OSCE Mission to Georgia was established in November 1992 with its headquarters in the capital Tbilisi. The Mission’s mandate expired on 31 December 2008. Between these dates it was powerless to control the outbreak of the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war.
The objective of the mission to Moldova is to facilitate a comprehensive and lasting political settlement of the Transnistria conflict in all its aspects, strengthening the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova within its internationally recognised borders with a special status for Transnistria.[15]
OSCE promoted a 5+2 format as a diplomatic negotiation platform, which began in 2005, suspended by Russia and Transnistria in 2006 until it started again in 2012, before making slow progress over the next ten years. The process stopped following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as two of the parties were then at war with each other. In December 2022 Russia blocked the renewal of the annual mandate by limiting it to a six month period, repeated again in June 2023 to another six month period.
OSCE involvement in Ukraine. It has deployed its Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine at the request of Ukraine’s government. The mission has received mixed reviews. While some observers have applauded its function as the “eyes and ears of the international community”, others have accused the mission of bias towards either Russia or Ukraine.
OSCE has had so many disagreements with Russia, especially since the Ukraine crisis began on 24 February 2022 to de-nazify and de-militarize that former Soviet republic. It has protested the detention of four staff members in Donetsk and Luhansk, without specifying who had detained them. Further, two Ukrainian OSCE staffers were sentenced to 13 years of prison by a court in the Luhansk People’s Republic for “alleged high treason and espionage for the United States.”
The Russian delegation was not invited to the 29th OSCE Ministerial Council held in December 2022 where the delegates considered the ramifications and regional security challenges created by Russia’s continued ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine. There were calls to assess the reparations that Russia should be accountable for.
Since the start of its conflict with Ukraine, Russia has seized €2.7 million worth of armored vehicles that were previously part of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. According to a letter that was sent by Russian OSCE representatives to OSCE Secretary-General Helga Schmid in January 2023, 71 trucks and cars were brought to the Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic as “evidence” and criminal proceedings were initiated against former OSCE personnel for espionage.
As a regional security-oriented intergovernmental organization comprising member states in Europe, North America, and Asia, its mandate includes issues such as arms control, the promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and free and fair elections. It employs around 3,460 people, mostly in its field operations but also in its secretariat in Vienna, Austria, and its institutions. It has observer status at the United Nations.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
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 strongly hints that Poland isn’t ruling out a conventional intervention in Ukraine under certain circumstances and expects that it would rapidly escalate into another Polish-Russian War just like the one that broke out after World War I.
Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces General Wieslaw Kukulatold a press conference on Wednesday that
“Today, we need to prepare our forces for full-scale conflict, not an asymmetric-type conflict.”
This came right after the newly signed Polish-Ukrainian security pact, which was summarized here and analyzed in detail here. The relevant takeaways are that Poland will obtain enormous economic stakes in Ukraine, will assemble a ‘Ukrainian Legion’, and is contemplating intercepting Russian missiles.
With these terms in mind and noting how Kukula’s comments coincided with the NATO Summit, some observers suspected that they signaled progress on Poland’s possible plans to conventionally intervene in Ukraine to safeguard its investments there if Russia threatens them or achieves a breakthrough. The military-strategic dynamics of the conflict have trended in Russia’s favor for the past year, but no game-changing developments have yet to occur, though Poland isn’t taking any chances.
Kukula’s decision to prepare for a “full-scale conflict” strongly hints that Poland isn’t ruling out a conventional intervention in Ukraine under the abovementioned circumstances and expects that it would rapidly escalate into another Polish-Russian War just like the one that broke out after World War I. Not coincidentally, the Polish-Ukrainian security pact stipulates that they’ll “build on the Polish-Ukrainian brotherhood in arms in the 1920 war with Bolshevik Russia” when crafting new school curricula.
The reader should also be reminded that their pact calls for the creation of a ‘Ukrainian Legion’ in Poland, which head of the National Security Bureau Jacek Siewierasaid could potentially include “millions” of “volunteers”. It’s obvious that this claim is overly ambitious, but the point is that this fighting force could function as the tip of the spear if Poland conventionally intervenes in the conflict, plus Polish servicemen might masquerade as Ukrainians to bolster its numbers and effectiveness.
Regardless of however another “full-scale” Polish-Russian War might begin, there’s no doubt that it would spike the risk of World War III. Poland is a NATO member to whom the nuclear-armed US has mutual security obligations, and even if their extension to allies’ activities in third countries is legally dubious, it’s unlikely that the US would hang any of its allies out to dry if their uniformed troops get pulverized by Russia in Ukraine. The Western elite would demand that the US respond in some way.
Leaving aside speculation about how such a conflict might end, it’s time to turn towards what Poland’s endgame would be for conventionally intervening in the first place. It was argued here back in spring 2022 that Polish interests wouldn’t be best served by annexing the Western Ukrainian regions that it controlled during the interwar period. Rather, this follow-up here from summer 2023 argues that a “sphere of influence” would be much better, which was already being pursued before their security pact.
Accordingly, upon weighing the costs and benefits, it’s much more likely that Poland would refrain from annexing Western Ukraine and instead remain content with turning it into a client state where Polish companies have privileged access to its natural and labor resources without any of the responsibilities. The ‘Ukrainian Legion’ could then act as Poland’s praetorian guards while some uniformed troops might still be deployed for training and other purposes behind the scenes.
Poland’s plans to nearly triple its border forces from 6,000 to 17,000, 9,000 of whom will form a rapid border reaction force, were also coincidentally announced on the same day as Kukula’s scandalous comment and could facilitate a conventional intervention. Those that might cross into Ukraine wouldn’t leave the Belarusian border vulnerable to illegal immigrant invaders or whatever other threats though since Poland already called on Germany to assume partial responsibility for that front.
As it stands, however, Poland would be taking a huge gamble by conventionally intervening in Ukraine anytime soon. Its planned military buildup isn’t complete and will still require at least a few more years before it’s ready to fight a “full-scale conflict”. There’s also no guarantee that the US would directly attack Russian forces in response to them pulverizing Poles ones in Ukraine. It might instead agree to asymmetricallypartition Ukraine as a swift de-escalation compromise to avoid World War III.
That said, a limited intervention that’s concentrated in Western Ukraine and focused on non-combat roles can’t be ruled out, though the reader should know that a top European think tank’s latest survey proved that it would still be very unpopular with Poles. This could take the form of a “no-fly zone” over Lvov, around which its military-industrial and other investments could be based, and the deployment of uniformed troops there for training purposes alongside its ‘Ukrainian Legion’ praetorian guards.
Russia couldn’t ignore that development if it unfolds since doing so could embolden NATO as a whole to rapidly scale this Polish-led intervention to cover everything up to the Dnieper, after which the bloc’s hawks might get frisky and flirt with crossing the river to threaten Russia’s new regions. The resultant game of nuclear chicken that was described here could end in mutual catastrophe if Russia feels that it must employ tactical nukes as a last resort in self-defense to stop an impending invasion.
It’s therefore expected that Russia would kinetically respond to the official introduction of Polish troops in Ukraine and/or a limited “no-fly zone” over its western regions, though depending on the scale of Poland’s intervention and Russia’s response, the US might not get directly involved in the fray. To be clear, Poland might not do either of these two and could formally remain outside of the conflict, but Kukula’s comments nevertheless strongly hint that there are conditions under which it’ll take the plunge.
*
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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
US President Joe Biden used the opening of the NATO summit in Washington DC on July 9 to reassure member states that he can fight off an election challenge from Donald Trump. Nonetheless, Democratic Party donors are already writing off the presidential election and want another candidate.
Although Biden defiantly spoke for about 13 minutes at the NATO summit and delusionally said, “Russia will not prevail; Ukraine will prevail,” visiting diplomats expressed scepticism about Biden’s leadership capabilities.
“We don’t see how he can come back after the debate,” one unnamed European envoy told Reuters news agency. “I can’t imagine him being at [the] helm of the US and NATO for four more years.”
Politico spoke to several fundraisers and donors who said they do not believe that President Joe Biden will triumph over Donald Trump in the November elections. Therefore, they said, they are thinking about where else to invest their money.
“The events of recent days have put at risk House and Senate Democrats, and we feel it around the country,” said a New York Democratic donor on condition of anonymity.
“Clearly, Democratic donors are looking at down-ballot candidates to try to salvage the House or Senate,” the source added.
The president has said that he will not withdraw from the presidential race and insists that he is the strongest political figure in his party to win the election. However, more than 70% of Americans believe Biden’s mental state is unfit for a second term, according to a CBS News poll conducted after the June 28 debate.
Several Democratic lawmakers, including Jerry Nadler and Joe Morelle, a representative from New York, have already urged Biden not to accept the presidential nomination due to his advanced age.
A New York fundraiser working with Democratic and Republican donors and speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the ruling party has been in “a tizzy” since Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump, whilst Republicans are elated and predicting a red wave.
“The feeling is that the problems at the top will drag everything else completely under: local, state, federal, everything,” the fundraiser told Politico.
The New York Times also reported a few days ago that some of the Biden campaign’s top donors are quietly pressuring the Democratic Party to replace Biden with someone else for the presidential election after support for the president plummeted after the debate with Trump. According to the newspaper, in various private meetings of Democratic donors, many favour Biden resigning and being replaced by someone capable of facing the Republican candidate.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported, citing sources familiar with the issue, that major Democratic donors have chosen Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom as their favourite candidates to succeed Biden in the presidential race.
“Biden’s candidacy is doomed,” a donor and fundraiser close to the president told the British outlet. “I’m Joe’s biggest fan, he’s an admirable public servant but he’s condemned (…) we have to start concentrating on what comes next.”
Even major figures in the Democratic Party, such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schummer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have held crisis talks with big donors to gauge their mood, the FT notes, citing donors and fundraisers.
“You’re starting to see a lot of frustration among donors and the pressure is mounting to turn the page and start focusing on finding the right candidate to win against Trump,” one New York fundraiser told the paper. “Everybody is talking to their contacts to make sure we are ready to back the right candidate as soon as Biden steps down.”
Some donors have warned that any move to replace Biden with one of the governors could spark a “civil war” among Democrats, warning that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a less controversial choice. According to The Washington Post, despite having a popularity level as low as Biden’s, current Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a replacement.
Another party figure who has emerged as an option is Pete Buttigieg, the current Secretary of Transportation. However, The Washington Post claims that he has little chance of attracting the diversity vote since, for example, he obtained little support from the African-American community.
The current president’s poor performance during the debate, which included stammering and blanking out at times, has clearly generated concern among the Democrats regarding the future of the president’s candidacy. However, Biden, as his speech at the NATO Summit opening indicates, appears to have no plans to abandon the presidential race
Seventy-seven percent of registered voters who watched the debate said Trump performed better, while only 33% of respondents reported Biden won the debate, according to a CNN poll. The two will debate again on September 10 in an event moderated by ABC News, and if there is a repeat of the June debate, it will all but likely secure Trump’s return to the White House.
*
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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. 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.
This week NATO is convening its three-day summit in Washington, celebrating its 75th birthday. Much has been talked about Ukraine, of course. One of the highlights of this year’s summit however is the issue of Asia – China appearing in this summit’s declaration again (this being the third time in a row). The Asian superpower was described as a “decisive enabler” in Russia’s conflict against Ukraine. The document further describes Beijing as posing “systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security.”
Wang Yi, Chinese Foreign Minister told his Thai counterpart Maris Sangiampongsa in Beijing this week that “It is necessary to resist the negative impact of the Indo-Pacific strategy and guard against NATO reaching out to the Asia-Pacific.” This was a message to ASEAN countries in general.
The matter of opening a NATO office in Tokyo is part of this larger context. It is not officially on this week’s agenda, but Tobias Billström (Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs) has said that NATO members are likely to bring the issue up with France soon (Paris opposes it). It was discussed last year, and often described in very humble terms. According to a 2023 Reuters report:
“NATO officials have said the proposed Japan office would be small, with a staff of only a few people focused on building partnerships, and would not be a military base.”
Last year, this seemingly modest proposal (heavily criticized by China) was nevertheless blocked by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, who, at the time, said that, although the Alliance should have partners “with whom we manage major security issues in the Indo-Pacific, Africa and also the Middle East”, NATO “remains an organization of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Macron added, ironically, that “whatever one says, geography is stubborn: the Indo-Pacific isn’t the North Atlantic.” As I wrote back in 2021, Paris is still a global player, and has its own interests in the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) and globally – and sometimes they clash with NATO and Washington in a number of issues.
This relatively modest proposal of setting up a NATO office in Tokyo, which, as I mentioned, has resurfaced, means in fact much more. According to Jack Detsch and Robbie Gramer (Foreign Policy’s reporters) it is all about giving the Atlantic Alliance “its first-ever permanent footprint in the Indo-Pacific region.”
On Tuesday, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan went as far as to say that “Japan, [South] Korea, and Australia are all on the road to invest 2 percent of their GDP on defense, a historic step forward”, adding that “put simply, the ties between the United States, Europe, and the Indo-Pacific have never been more important or more interrelated than they are today.” The 2 per cent figure is clearly a nod to NATO’s two per cent spending target, which has always been an internal issue.
As I wrote recently, back in 1997, then senator Joe Biden was already saying that the attitudes of European NATO members pertaining to the American share of the Alliance’s costs, “seem to many senators to be variants of taking the United States for suckers” and that “unless we quickly come to a satisfactory burden sharing understanding in all its facets with our European and Canadian allies, the future of NATO in the next century will be very much in doubt.” This rhetoric finds an echo in Donald Trump points today. In other words, Sullivan is saying that the West might find allies that are more eager and ready to invest on defense in the East.
In the same page, ahead of his participation at the summit, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told Reuters that “Japan is determined to strengthen its cooperation with NATO and its partners.”Along with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea (known as the “Indo-Pacific Four” – IP4), are also attending the Alliance’s meeting. Kishida also echoed NATO officials’ accusations against Beijing, by saying, without naming China, that “some countries” have been providing Moscow with dual-use civilian-military goods.
Last year, as mentioned, Macron, in an appeal to the institution’s founding treaty and to the acronym itself, described NATO, in a rather simplistic manner (his words), as “an organization of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Since the 2022 NATO Summit in Madrid, however, it has become increasingly clear to anyone that a “global NATO” (as Liz Truss, who was briefly the British First Minister in 2022, famously called it) has been emerging. Truss, at the time, claimed that London rejected “the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security” in favor of “a global NATO”: “I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.”
While there has been much talk about a “new Asian NATO” (pertaining to the QUAD or even the so-called “new QUAD”), the specter of a new (US-pushed) “global NATO”, comprising allies in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East still haunts global peace. This proposed “bloc” raison d’être would be – what else? – to counter the so-called “threat” of Chinese-Russian cooperation, a “threat” that is nothing but the outcome of the Alliance’s own encirclement policies against these two great powers.
The whole “pivoting east” talk is nothing new and has often been pushed by Washington – Hillary Clinton’s “Pacific Century” comes to mind, for instance. US foreign policy (in pursuit of the “American Century” and maintaining unipolarity) often resembles the swing of a pendulum. It often oscillates, in the long run, back and forth, between the idea “countering” Beijing or Moscow – and at times it might even attempt to accomplish both things simultaneously, as was the case with the incumbent American presidency and its ambitious and risky “dual containment” approach.
Such geopolitical voracity (albeit pendulous) is to face more than a few challenges. For one thing, up to very recently, very few Alliance members could even keep up with their military spending commitments (a fact which, by the way, explains much of Trump’s rhetoric against the organization). Washington itself is an increasing overextended superpower.
To sum it up, today one can see an increasingly divided NATO, which does not possess a clear view on the challenges of dual containment. With Ukraine’s fatigue lingering on, and the specter of Biden’s senility and a new Trump presidency (amid a US political crisis), the idea of pivoting east is gaining traction – however important allies within the Alliance will challenge that notion.
*
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.
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.
I recently became aware of a policy brief with recommendations for the 2024 Summit of the Future, which lays out in plain terms what our “Overlords” have in store for us. It reads like a plot from a Bond-movie. In order to avoid “irreversible tipping points”, it is advised that all life supporting systems – “the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), biosphere (life), lithosphere (land), and cryosphere (ice)” – be administered collectively by a “global governance body” . This means total control of the earth system (Planetary Commons) and the establishment of a global government.
Governance of the planetary commons would require a shift from present-day nationalistic, siloed approaches to environmental protection, recognising the core fact that our planet is composed of interconnected, interdependent systems. Instead of a fragmented, treaty-based system, the planetary commons approach proposes a “nested” governance structure involving multiple layers of regulation enacting highly tailored local responses, all overseen by a global governance body.
It also means that no nation will have a sovereign right to exploit its own resources because it may have consequences for the planetary whole.
Today’s system is predicated on the sovereign right of nation-states to exploit resources within their national boundaries with little regard for global consequences. A concept of global stewardship of planetary commons as environmental resources we all depend on would run directly against this core understanding of international law and would face stiff resistance, including from developing countries that might see such a step as impinging on their ability to develop quickly. However, the science is increasingly clear and incontrovertible: without a major change to governance frameworks, our planet will become increasingly unstable, unpredictable, and unliveable. The planetary commons may be the only way to manage systemic change in the Anthropocene.
We must therefore be managed from above.
And who is behind the recommendations for the 2024 Summit of the Future?
It means that the very same actors who have defined the problem offer us the solution. As Professor Johan Rockström, director of PIK and board member of Global Challenges Foundation, said in 2015:
I cannot see any other way than 200 nations having to surrender some of their decision-making sovereignty to a global institutional administration. We have to work with the institutions we have, and their is only one institution that is global, the UN.
They also have some problematic Malthusian and futuristic beliefs (as I have analysed in an earlier article).
*
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.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day (July 8–9) official visit to hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated the significant depth of their bilateral relations within the context of global changes. Russia’s closeness in enhancing and deepening economic cooperation also has an intertwined strategy for ensuring readiness against threats from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. But India has, thus far, shown pragmatism in approach as it builds a strong partnership with the United States and, at the same time, maintains ties with Russia.
Narendra Modi’s agenda was really loaded. Choosing Moscow after his re-election as prime minister underlined the importance of Russian-Indian relations, at least from the Soviet era through Moscow’s post Soviet economic transformations until today. Today, both are staunch members of the ‘informal association’ – BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.) Long before that was RIC ‘trioka’ (Russia, India and China), which according to the Russia Foreign Ministry would be revived. Russia and India also belong to the G20, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Notwithstanding the common visions, Russia and India have distinctive features in geography, politics and economy. India is the third-largest economy in the world. It is probably the largest country in the world by population,1.4 billion people. Russia was only recently upgraded into middle-income category and said to have overtaken Japan, which has only stripes of land and estimated population of 128 million people. By contrast, Russia with an extremely huge territory and vast natural resources, can boast of tiny population of 143 million. It took Russia more than thirty years, after Soviet’s collapse, to join middle-level income countries and to overtake Japan. Despite its achievements, Russia is still far away from what economists referred to as private-oriented economy. Russia’s economy is largely state-controlled.
Modi emphasized during his conversation with Putin that “India is the largest democracy; it is considered the mother of democracy” and therefore democratic elections were very important and huge in scale. “It is the first time in 60 years that a government has been elected for a third term in a row. The first time it happened was when India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was elected for a third term. I have done the same 60 years later. The people of India have given me a chance to serve my homeland,” underscored Modi. According to the official transcript, the Indian people voted for Modi on the principle: reform, perform and transform. Putin and Modi had their first informal encounter at the presidential residence in Novo-Ogaryovo, Moscow Region.
A new era is setting in the world, wrote the local Russia’s Kommersant newspaper on the eve of PM Modi’s visit. According to the newspaper, India considers itself the leader of the Global South, and Russia, one of the driving forces shaping a multipolar world, recognizes each other as important political partners. An additional factor pushing Moscow and New Delhi toward rapprochement is the increasing pressure on Russia and India from the United States.
What Moscow Offers India
Russia-India relations have flourished across all areas under Putin’s leadership for 25 years, i.e. since 1991. The trustworthy relations has hit new milestones and new heights these past few years. In the current global context, India and Russia, as well as their partnership, have taken on a new importance. It is hard to overestimate Russia-India cooperation in the ff; trade and the economy, in the military-technical industry, nuclear and hydrogen energy, in high technology and space development.
In the Grand Kremlin Palace, several documents were discussed, negotiated and outlined bilateral economic sectors for India’s strategic cooperation with Russia until 2030.
The programme was signed of Russian-Indian cooperation in trade, economic and investment spheres in the Russian Far East for 2024–2029, and on the principles of cooperation in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Given the vast territory of the Far East, and with its tiny 6.3 million people, China and India have been showing high interest in investment sectors in the region. In the Far East region, Russia is collaborating with Asian countries in trade and investment, strengthening its economic ties especially with China, India, North Korea and Vietnam.
Already local media reports said earlier that India has been a major buyer of Russian oil since the start of the ‘special military operation’ and it has amassed a trade deficit worth around $60 billion in its dealings with Russia.
Head of the Center for the Indian Ocean Region at IMEMO, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Alexey Kupriyanov said in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta:
“While the trade deficit problem cannot be solved through negotiations, it can be resolved as the trade structure levels off and Indian exports to Russia grow. These mostly include high-tech products that India either produces itself or buys in the West to resell to Russia.”
In January-April, Russia was the second largest supplier of goods to India (with only China ahead of it with deliveries worth $32.6 billion). In turn, exports of Indian goods to Russia increased by 21% to $1.6 billion, with Russia rising from 33rd to 29th place among recipients of goods from India. The top five importers of Indian goods include the United States, the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Singapore, and China.
During negotiations on July 9, inter-agency documents were signed concerning issues of climate change and low-carbon development, geodesy and cartography, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, scientific research and logistics in the polar regions, and cooperation in the field of television broadcasting. A number of signed agreements concern investment and arbitration issues.
In addition, economic cooperation featured prominently in the bilateral discussions, ended with signing memorandums of understanding between the all-Russia Public Organisation Delovaya Rossiya (Business Russia) and the Trade Promotion Council of India, as well as between the National Research University Higher School of Economics (Russia) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (New Delhi, India). The world will be watching with eagles eyes for the tangible results from these ambitious initiatives and strategies in shaping the evolving regional politics and economy not only in Russia but also in Eurasian region and, further the global dynamics.
Crowning the two-day interaction, President Vladimir Putin decorated Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, with “the Order of St Andrew the Apostle” in a modest ceremony held in St Andrew’s Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace. According to the decree, Modi was honored with this award “for his outstanding merit in development of the particularly privileged strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India, as well as friendly ties between Russian and Indian peoples.”
This order can be awarded to heads of foreign states for outstanding services to the Russian Federation. It is the oldest order instituted more than three centuries ago by Russian Emperor Peter the Great.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Indian economy in 2024 was nominally worth $3.94 trillion. Driven by growth, India’s nominal GDP per capita increased steadily from $308 in 1991 and now reached an estimated $2,731 in 2024. India is officially known as the Republic of India located in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 2024. India borders the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
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.
The excessive support and public adoration the U.S. government has given to Kenya’s President William Ruto represents the racist contempt this settler state has for all of Africa and the domestic population of descendants from the continent. Two days before African Liberation Day on May 25th and one month before the Kenyan police’s brutal crackdown on protests against the US-IMF backed Finance Act that increases taxes up to 35% on essential goods, U.S. President Biden rolled out a red carpet for Ruto at a White House state dinner.
The debt this bill is supposed to address only exists because of the incessant and indiscriminate borrowing by the previous government of Kenya, for which Ruto was vice president. Ruto is a Grade A lackey for U.S. interests reminiscent of the dictator Mobutu of the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire) who U.S. imperialism supported for 32 years in order to plunder the Congo.
U.S. neo-colonialism praised as an “endearing” and “enduring” democracy, the Ruto presidency, a puppet government that unleashed its notoriously vicious police to reportedly arrest more than 300, kill as many as 23 and injure dozens of Kenyan citizens in the demonstrations over the past week. These police are the same force U.S. imperialism has maneuvered into being dispatched to Haiti to contain the people’s resistance against imperialism in that Caribbean nation.
An elevation in the parlance of U.S. statecraft is the paternalistic promise of granting Kenya the status of a “Major Non-NATO Ally,” a role granted to the African Union’s African Standby Force. This designation is in sharp contrast to the Alliance of Sahel States newly formed confederation, a declaration of African self-determination.
The Africa Team of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) and the organizing arm U.S. Out of Africa Network (USOAN) stand in uncompromising solidarity with the masses of Kenyans fighting against the proposed Finance Bill 2024. We denounce in the strongest terms the complicity of the U.S., especially its Black misleaders in Congress, in passing this legislation. In fact, on the day the bill was introduced in the Kenyan parliament, members of the U.S. Congress including Barbara Lee.
Ruto must go! U.S. Out of Africa! BAP and USOAN salute the courage and determination of the masses of youth throughout Kenya “Gen Z”! The blood spilled will not be in vain. Our martyrs are alive alongside the living. We stand unwaveringly with the Gen Z Movement, our people of Kenya!
*
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.
The US is taking advantage of the NATO summit to advance nuclear measures in domestic politics. In a recent statement, the Department of Defense announced that it will continue its project to develop a new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, despite the exponential increase in costs. The Congress approved the proposal despite its highly irresponsible nature. The goal is to improve US nuclear capabilities in the current security crisis.
The Sentinel program is expected to replace all of the country’s outdated Minuteman III nuclear missiles.The project’s costs are currently estimated at 140 billion dollars, an 81% increase in cost expectations compared to the program’s first assessment. The Pentagon had previously promised to spend just 77 billion dollars on the production of the new missiles, but evaluators now say the project will cost nearly twice that.
According to American law, when a project is expected to grow in cost by more than 25%, the department responsible for the proposal must review the program and justify its need to the Congress. After studying the project, the Pentagon concluded that there are no alternatives to the Sentinel program, and that American lawmakers should consent as soon as possible for its implementation, thus ensuring the renewal of American nuclear capabilities. Fearing alleged “threats”, US politicians approved the requirement.
“[We are] fully aware of the costs (…) But we are also aware of the risks of not modernizing our nuclear forces and not addressing the very real threats we confront,” said William LaPlante, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, about the case.
Obviously, the “threats” seen by the US regarding nuclear issues are focused on the Russian Federation. Since the beginning of the special military operation, the West has been responding to Moscow’s measures through nuclear blackmail.Some Western leaders have even stated that they would be ready to face a nuclear war with Russia. In parallel, the US recently gave Ukraine permission to attack Russian military units outside the conflict zone, which could put some nuclear facilities at risk.
In retaliation to Western nuclear blackmail, Moscow has suspended its participation in the New START treaty. The bilateral Russian-American agreement signed in 2010 limits the nuclear capabilities of both countries, and although Russia has suspended its participation, the country still observes the rules of the pact, severely limiting its number of weapons and delivery systems. However, in 2026 the agreement will expire and it is unlikely that the parties will reach any kind of consensus to renew it.
In practice, it is possible to say that the irresponsible actions of the West since February 2022 are leading the world into a new nuclear race. The US-led West is taking several initiatives to escalate this race, with the approval of a new multi-billion-dollar nuclear program, even in the midst of a serious internal crisis in the US, being an example of this. Instead of using public money to solve the problem on the borders or create measures to ease social and ethnic tensions, Washington is prioritizing investing in nuclear weapons to allegedly face “risks” that are created by the US’ own foreign policy.
All Russian nuclear actions have been merely reactive. Moscow recently ended the ban on nuclear tests and began joint tactical weapons exercises with the Republic of Belarus – a country to which nuclear equipment was recently provided to strengthen Minsk amid threats posed by both the Kiev regime and neighboring NATO countries. These actions were retaliatory given the nuclear pressure and the constant threats posed by the US-led alliance in the Russian strategic environment. In practice, the US creates the threat, prompting Russia to react – and then Russian retaliation is described by Western propaganda as a “danger”, endorsing further US actions and creating a vicious cycle.
For the first time, a photo at the Washington summit captures all 32 NATO member states’ delegation groups together (9th of July 2024) (From the Public Domain)
It is important to emphasize that the latest American move came in the first day of the NATO summit in Washington. The alliance’s officials are meeting precisely to discuss new strategies to confront Russia in the current proxy conflict. Given the context, the American political atmosphere is even more paranoid about the possibility of a direct war with Russia, which explains why the “nuclear threat” speech persuaded Congressmen to approve the new Sentinel program, despite its exorbitant costs.
Indeed, the US and NATO are taking a dangerous path. The nuclear escalation may not end if measures to expand military capabilities continue to be taken frequently. Given the strictly defensive nature of Russia’s nuclear policy, the path to de-escalation is simple: the US and its partners need only stop posing threats to Russia and invite Moscow to renegotiate a new nuclear agreement.
*
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. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Featured image: President Joe Biden awards NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg the Presidential Medal of Freedom during an event marking the 75th anniversary of the NATO Alliance, Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott / Public Domain)
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.
As NATO wrapped up its Summit and Biden held a crucial press conference, the media frenzy continued to focus on Biden’s age and cognitive abilities. Is he too old and disoriented to lead the “free world”? Was he able to get through his press conference without stumbling too many times? Lost in the media coverage about the Summit, however, has been a serious discussion of NATO’s advanced age and NATO’s ability to lead the “free world.”
At 75, NATO has not aged well. Back in 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron was already sounding the alarm, accusing NATO of being “brain dead.” While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given NATO a new lease on life, NATO’s embrace of Ukraine actually makes the conflict–and the world–more dangerous.
Let’s remember why NATO was founded. As the contours of the Cold War were emerging after the devastation of WWII, 10 European nations, along with the U.S. and Canada, came together in 1949 to create an alliance that would deter Soviet expansion, stop the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encourage European political integration. Or, as the alliance’s first Secretary General Lord Ismayquipped, its purpose was “to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
It is decades now since the Soviet Union has disintegrated and European nations have been well integrated. So why is NATO still hanging on? When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, along with its military alliance called the Warsaw Pact, NATO could have–and should have–declared victory and folded. Instead, it expanded from 16 members in 1991 to 32 members today.
Its eastward expansion not only violated the promises made by Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, but it was a grave mistake. U.S. diplomat George Keenanwarned in 1997 “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold-War era.” Indeed, while NATO expansion does not justify Russia’s 2022 illegal invasion of Ukraine, it did provoke Russia and inflame tensions. NATO members also played a key role in the Ukraine’s 2014 coup, the training and arming of Ukrainian forces in preparation for war with Russia, and the quashing of negotiations that could have ended the war in its first two months.
After two years of brutal war, the NATO Summit focused on how to shore up Ukraine’s flailing efforts to repel Russia. The insistence on setting up a “Trump-proof” scenario that would guarantee Ukraine billions in military aid for years to come and an “irreversible path” to NATO membership is really a guarantee that the war will drag on for years–precisely because NATO membership is Russia’s number one concern. There was no talk at the Summit of how to end the war by moving towards a ceasefire and peace talks. Why? Because NATO is a military alliance. The only tool it has is a hammer.
We have seen NATO illegally and unsuccessfully wield that hammer in country after country over the past 30 years. From Bosnia and Serbia to Afghanistan and Libya, NATO has justified this violence and instability as defending “the Rules-Based Order,” while repeatedly violating the core precepts of the UN Charter.
NATO is now a military behemoth with partners far beyond the North Atlantic that encircle the globe from Colombia to Mongolia to Australia. It has proven to be an aggressive alliance that initiates and escalates wars without international consensus, exacerbates global instability, and prioritizes arms deals over humanitarian needs. NATO provides a cover for the U.S. to place nuclear weapons in five European nations, bringing us closer to nuclear war in violation of both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. NATO is endangering us all in a desperate attempt to reassert U.S. global hegemony in what is now a multipolar world.
NATO’s 75th anniversary is an opportune time to take stock of NATO’s outdated world view and violations of international law. NATO should be laid to rest so we can revitalize and democratize the proper venue for dealing with global conflicts: the United Nations.
*
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.
Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the women-led peace group CODEPINK and co-founder of the human rights group Global Exchange. She is the author of 11 books, including War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, coauthored with Nicolas J.S. Davies. Her most recent book, coauthored with David Swanson, is NATO: What You Need to Know.
Featured image: President Joe Biden shakes hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the NATO Summit in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2024 (Official State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy / Public Domain)
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.
There is something to be said about ignoring actors. They assume roles, quite literally, camouflage themselves in scripts where personalities are created, and behave accordingly. Given that they are paid liars, their political promptings should be treated with caution. It is no accident that much the same thing can be said about the members of Congress.
Given that the US President is now not so much functioning in twilight as in rapidly descending darkness, the recent intervention by Hollywood grandee and Democrat benefactor George Clooney has prompted ever more tittering about the electoral prospects of Joe Biden.
Choosing the New York Times to make his point, Clooney spoke of his love for Biden mixed with anguish about political realities. “We are not going to win in November with this president.” He wished the Democratic party operators “to stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw”, referring to Biden’s calamitous showing in the first debate against Donald Trump. “We’re so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign.”
Personal reflections about Biden’s recent behaviour flowed. At a co-hosted Hollywood fundraiser held over three weeks ago at the Peacock Theatre, Clooney found “not the Joe ‘big F-king deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020.”
Reflections about the Democratic establishment are also plentiful. Having spoken to Democratic lawmakers – Clooney does not say how many – the broad consensus was clear: Biden’s candidacy was a liability across all political races. “We won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate.”
The grim assessment is inevitable:
“Most of our members of Congress are opting to wait and see if the dam breaks. But the dam has broken. We can put our heads in the sand and pray for a miracle in November, or we can speak the truth.”
Others in the movie business are also offering their “love you but exit” suggestions. This is director Robert Reiner’sunimpressive gobbet on social media:
“We love and respect Joe Biden. We acknowledge all he has done for our country. But Democracy is facing an existential threat. We need someone younger to fight back. Joe Biden must step aside.”
Predictably, given their profession, there were also suggestions from the thespian community about how Biden could do better from a purely superficial perspective, satisfying the spectators and viewers transfixed by the blood sport of a US presidential race. Michael Douglas, for instance, had his own morsel on The View about how the debate with Trump should have gone.
“First of all they should have just told the president to stand up, put a little makeup on for the debate and then where to look.”
Biden should – and here, the jaw drops – have not dealt with his own facts – “just deal with [Trump’s] lies.” Now that’s acting.
With all that out of the way, Douglas still had to concede feeling “deeply, deeply concerned” while gazing at the “big bench” of “heavy hitters, a lot of talent” on the Democratic side. (Names, please.) Clooney, in making his case for a replacement, had made “a valid point.”
Not that we should assume all such figures feel the same way. Perennial cause seeking activist Jane Fonda, in views expressed last month, thought that age could actually play to Biden’s advantage. In remarks made to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Fonda noted how she was
“older than he is. And I’m all for age. I can tell you that you do get wise and you do learn things you learn from your mistakes. And I have seen him close and personal and he’s fine.” The incumbent was accordingly “perfectly suited to be president of the United States I don’t know of or in spite of the age he’s just fine.”
With such supremely skewed analysis, we know that anybody can be president, whatever their mental infirmities. Appropriately, Whoopi Goldberg was full of candour in declaring that she would still vote for the president even “if he’s pooped his pants. I don’t care if he can’t put a sentence together. Show me he can’t do the job and then I’ll say, okay, maybe it’s time to go.” Presidential politics really has struck a low bar.
Clooney’s scribble has laid bare the knotty state the Democrats have created for themselves. The issue of Biden’s condition was already well inked last year, but the machine men and women would not have a bar of considering his replacement. This late in the day, the Democrats have been shown, by virtue of such mildly condescending notes from Clooney (the “love you Joe” sort), to have abused their elderly relative by initially supporting them, only to publicly withdraw their blessing as the show is wearing thin. You were good for the laughs; time to go home.
Through this, Biden has become a victim of wide scale elder abuse, be it in the form of prolonging his agony as a candidate – disingenuously or otherwise – or calling for his prompt exit. Whether he soils his pants or not, he certainly is proving on the international stage that his cerebral functions are blunted beyond repair.
His latest addition to the cabinet of gaffes and mental enfeeblement: confusing, at the NATO summit in Washington, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. In another slip, he also referred to Vice-President Kamala Harris as “Vice-President Trump”.
Those in the dream factory of Hollywood can take some comfort in these displays. A CNN report, citing an unnamed White House source, makes the delicious point that the president’s “entire display is a kind of an act”. Unfortunately, even for those in thespian land, it’s not even a good one.
*
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: U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)
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.
The issue by the Army of a directive entitled “Handling Protest, Extremism, and Criminal Gang Activities” on June 14, 2024, essentially forbids the discussion of any issues that the military designates as “extremist” by any member of the army, even when off duty.
The directive applies to the reserve and national guard, and most likely will be expanded to cover all armed services, and then the entire federal government.
Two detailed memorandums were sent out by Army Secretary Christine Wormuth.
All such activities, including bumper stickers on cars and posts on social media when off duty, that are deemed to be “extremist” must be reported to commanders who are, in turn, required to report to the US ARMY Criminal Investigation Division. What is and what is not “extremist” is left to the commander to determine.
If the main concern was criminal gangs and racist ideology, it would be one thing, but a careful reading of the directive shows that this blanket prohibition can be, and will be, applied to COVID-19 truth, 9/11 truth, discussions of the illegal or criminal actions of officers and politicians, corruption within the army, and all discussion concerning whether directives and orders are legal, or constitutional, or even consistent with US Army policy.
Army Directive 2024-07 “Handling Protest, Extremism, and Criminal Gang Activities”
June 14, 2024
4-12. Extremist activities Military personnel are prohibited from actively participating in extremist activities. Active participation in extremist activities by Servicemembers is inconsistent with the responsibilities and obligations of military service, as well as the oaths of office and enlistment. Active participation in extremist activities can be prohibited even in some circumstances in which such activities would be constitutionally protected in a civilian setting. Enforcement of this policy is a responsibility of every command, is vitally important to unit cohesion and morale, and is SUBJECT: Anny Directive 2024-07 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities) essential to the Anny’s ability to accomplish its mission. It is the commander’s responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in the unit. Every commander has the inherent authority to take appropriate actions to accomplish this goal. This paragraph identifies prohibited actions by Servicemembers involving extremist activities, discusses the authority of the commander to establish other prohibitions, and establishes that violations of prohibitions contained in this paragraph or those established by a commander may result in punitive or administrative action.
a. Extremist activities. The term “extremist activities” means
(1) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force, unlawful violence, or other illegal means to
deprive individuals of their rights under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, including those of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision thereof.
(2) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force or violence to achieve goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature.
(3) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting terrorism within the United States or abroad.
(4) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting the overthrow of the Government of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, by force or violence, or seeking to alter the forms of these governments by unconstitutional or other unlawful means (such as sedition).
(5) Advocating or encouraging military, civilian, or contractor personnel within the DoD or United States Coast Guard to violate the laws of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to disobey lawful orders or regulations, for the purpose of disrupting military activities (such as subversion), or personally undertaking the same.
(6) Advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation.
b. Active participation. The term “active participation” means the following, except where such activity is within the scope of an official duty (for example, intelligence or law enforcement operations)-
(1) Advocating or engaging in the use or threat of unlawful force or violence in support of extremist activities.
2 SUBJECT: Army Directive 2024-07 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities)
(2) Advocating for, or providing material support or resources to, individuals or organizations that promote or threaten the unlawful use of force or violence in support of extremist activities, with the intent to support such promotion or threats.
(3) Knowingly communicating information that compromises the operational security of any military organization or mission, in support of extremist activities.
(4) Recruiting or training others to engage in extremist activities.
(5) Fundraising for or making personal contributions through donations of any kind (including but not limited to the solicitation, collection, or payment of fees or dues) to, a group or organization that engages in extremist activities, with the intent to support those activities.
(6) Creating, organizing, or taking a leadership role in a group or organization that engages in or advocates for extremist activities, with knowledge of those activities.
(7) Actively demonstrating or rallying in support of extremist activities (but not merely observing such demonstrations or rallies as a spectator).
(8) Attending a meeting or activity with the knowledge that the meeting or activity involves extremist activities, with the intent to support those activities:
(a) When the nature of the meeting or activity constitutes a breach of law and order.
(b) When a reasonable person would determine the meeting or activity is likely to result in violence; or
(c) In violation of off-limits sanctions or other lawful orders.
(9) Distributing literature or other promotional materials, on or off a military installation, the primary purpose and content of which is to advocate for extremist activities, with the intent to promote that advocacy.
(10) Knowingly receiving material support or resources from a person or organization that advocates or actively participates in extremist activities with the intent to use the material support or resources in support of extremist activities.
(11) When using a government communications system and with the intent to support extremist activities, knowingly accessing internet websites or other materials that promote or advocate extremist activities.
3 SUBJECT: Army Directive 2024-07 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities)
(12) Knowingly displaying paraphernalia, words, or symbols in support of extremist activities or in support of groups or organizations that support extremist activities, such as flags, clothing, tattoos, and bumper stickers, whether on or off a military installation.
(13) Engaging in electronic and cyber activities regarding extremist activities, or groups that support extremist activities-including posting, liking, sharing, re-tweeting, or otherwise distributing content-when such action is taken with the intent to promote or otherwise endorse extremist activities. Military personnel are responsible for the content they publish on all personal and public internet domains, including social media platforms, blogs, websites, and applications.
(14) Knowingly taking any other action in support of or engaging in extremist activities, when such conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline or is service discrediting.
c. Command authority. Commanders have the authority and responsibility to prohibit Servicemembers from actively participating in extremist activities and any other activities that the commander determines will adversely affect readiness, good order and discipline, or morale within the command. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from military-controlled areas; to place areas or activities off-limits (see AR 190 -24); or to order Servicemembers not to participate in those activities that are contrary to good order and discipline or morale of the unit, or pose a threat to health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation.
d. Command options. The policy rules and prohibitions regarding participation in extremist activities apply to members of the Army Reserve and the ARNG regardless of whether the prohibited activity occurs while on or off orders under Title 10 or 32 of the USC. As appropriate, commanders may pursue adverse administrative in addition to or in lieu of punitive action in response to a Servicemember’s active participation in extremist activities. A commander’s options for dealing with a Servicemember’ s violation of the prohibitions include, but are not limited to:
(1) UCMJ action, subject to jurisdictional limitations requirements set forth in the Manual for Courts-Martial.
(2) Adverse administrative action which may include, but is not limited to:
(a) Involuntary separation.
(b) Reassignment.
(c) Loss of security clearance.
4 SUBJECT: Army Directive 2024-07 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities)
(d) Bar to continued service.
(e) Other administrative or disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the commander, based on the specific facts and circumstances of the particular case.
e. Command responsibility. Military personnel actively participating in extremist activities could threaten the good order and discipline of a unit. As such, and in an effort to minimize the risk of future active participation in extremist activities, commanders should remain alert and should intervene early, primarily through counseling, when observing signs of future extremist activities that may not rise to the level of the prohibitions in paragraphs 3-12a and 3-12b.
The goal of early intervention is to minimize the risk of future extremist activities. In these situations, commanders will take positive actions to educate Soldiers, putting them on notice of the potential adverse effects that participation in violation of Army policy may have upon good order and discipline in the unit and upon their military service.
*
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.
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.
With the EU’s and NATO’s wrath and vehement disapproval, President Viktor Orban of Hungary used the occasion of Hungary’s European Union Presidency from 1 July to 31 December 2024, to go on a peace mission. Mr. Orban wants peace against the will of the EU and against the mandate of NATO.
“Orbán’s Big Hungarian Presidency Speech Blocked by European Parliament”
Hungarian European Union (EU) Council presidency will have to wait until later in the year for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to present its agenda under the slogan “Make Europe Great Again” before the European Parliament.
Attempts by Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán to address MEPs at the inaugural plenary sitting of the newly elected assembly in Strasbourg have been rebuffed by parliamentary chiefs unable to find room to accommodate him in the agenda, two sources familiar with the issue have told Euronews. See this.
The EU and NATO are warmongers, working for the war industry, especially the United States weapons manufacturers – and of course, showing the world that they adhere to the Western world’s narrative – “hating” Russia – which is IN, as in “fashionable”, and increasingly as in “neo-fascism”.
When you hate Russia and want to do harm to President Putin, you are respected in the West.
If you ask them why? But nobody does – they would say, “Because of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine”. They know and we know it is a lie.
Ever since the Western-instigated Maidan Coup on February 22, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine’s politics have taken a new turn to Nazism, what they were already during WWII, when the Banderas Azov battalions were fighting Russia alongside Hitler’s Reich’s troops. And killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Russians.
Yes, Kiev’s troops did.
The same Azov units, still very much alive today – and still out for killing Russian citizens in the Donbass areas and other Ukraine regions, where Russian speaking people are the majority. An estimated 14,000 to 17,000 Russians were killed from February 2014 until the Russian intervention in February 2022 – which was the principal reason for Russia to act.
So, it is not a Russian aggression war as the West propagates, but it’s rather a Russian defense war, as history clearly shows.
The West knows this of course. NATO chief Stoltenberg himself repeated several times in the last six months that the Ukraine Russia war started already in 2014 – a clear admission that the instigators were the West, not Russia.
Obviously, France, Germany, Italy, the Brussels technocrats and the entire “leadership” of Europe are fully aware of this. They just keep lying and misleading people to believe this is a Russian-initiated war, when it is NOT. It is a purely Western provocation, continuing as of this day.
Mr. Orban knows it.
So, instead of continuing the Western lie narrative, he did NOT attend the NATO Summit in Washington DC during the past couple of days. But he traveled to Kiev and met with President Zelenskyy, then to Moscow to talk to President Putin, and finally to Beijing to meet with President Xi — all on a mission to seek PEACE.
Details and results of the talks are so far kept secret. It is just known that Zelenskyy was not non-plussed by President Orban’s proposals. Or let’s put it this way: Zelenskyy, who deep down probably also would prefer to be at peace, is not allowed by the West and especially not NATO, to seek peace.
In an ultimate act of provocation, the West wants to make Ukraine a NATO country, simultaneously with making the turbo-corrupt Ukraine a European Union member, thereby breaking all economic and ethical rules, and act beyond ALL Reason.
Why is Mr. Zelenskyy’s deep-down wish for peace obvious? Because in April 2022, he was ready to sign a Peace Agreement with President Putin, at the Erdogan-sponsored Peace Talks in Istanbul. It was Boris Johnson, then British PM, who called stop, told Zelenskyy not to sign because the UK and the larger West, NATO did not want peace. They wanted the war of attrition to continue. And so it does – until this day.
As PM Orban embarked on his “unapproved” journey to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing, the Brussels so-called lead-cadres, like Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrell, were falling all over themselves condemning Mr. Orban for not adhering to EU rules, going his own way – the Peace way — a way so distant from the path Europe has chosen, which is harming Russia as much as possible.
In recent days, the unelected EU Commission even threatened Orban with taking the EU Presidency away from him, for his misbehavior. Of course, they cannot. They know it. So, it is again just propaganda talk for make-believe people that Orban and Putin are bad people, not to be associate with the goodness of the West.
The EU is already busy with preparing yet more useless “sanctions” against Russia – and who knows, maybe also against one of their own, Hungary.
Self-propelled Western destructive events are advancing fast, and people around these events are waking up to the truth.
Combine the Orban Peace Initiative, with the de facto French election win of Madame Le Pen’s National Rally Party, though fraudulently denied, and with the effective alliance established between Mr. Orban and Ms. Marine Le Pen, you may see that the plot is cooking.
What if Mr. Orban would decide to exit the EU and / or NATO and if simultaneously civil war-like unrest would break out in France because of the election fraud?
The Macron government would have to resign and Ms. Le Pen may take over, or early general [honest] elections would have to be called and the new leader – barring fraud – would decide on behalf of the people and for the people, that France should exit the EU, and even remembering their old visionary, General Charles de Gaulle’s decision of June 21, 1966, to withdraw from NATO, and pledging that Europe should have its own defense system, independently from that of the US of A.
General De Gaulle was also a staunch opponent of a united Europe, defending the sovereignty of his country, his people.
There are no coincidences. Who knows, Mr. Orban’s Peace initiative, in combination with the French election fraud, may break the Western’s warrior back, and become a corner stone for a new area.
*
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. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
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.
On Sunday, July 7, the Israeli army ordered residents of three neighborhoods in eastern Gaza City to immediately evacuate toward the west, ahead of a new ground invasion. Thousands of displaced families abandoned their shelters and searched desperately for a place to stay the night in the city’s western neighborhoods. Within hours, however, Israeli forces attacked those very areas.
The evacuation order came less than two weeks after Israeli forces reinvaded the Shuja’iya neighborhood in the east of Gaza City. Amid continuing displacement and ground incursions in the southern cities of Khan Younis and Rafah, and bombing throughout the Strip — including in designated “safe zones” — there is nowhere for Palestinians to find reprieve from Israel’s onslaught.
Mahmoud Al-Shawa, 28, fled with his family from the eastern Al-Tuffah neighborhood after the army ordered them to leave on Sunday. He recounted how thousands of others displaced from Al-Tuffah, Al-Daraj, and the Old City sought refuge in what little space remained in university buildings and UN schools. After those quickly filled up, many were forced to sleep on the streets.
Al-Shawa’s family were lucky to find temporary shelter at Al-Zeitoun Preparatory School in the western neighborhood of Al-Rimal, but it didn’t provide any safety from what soon followed. “At approximately 2 a.m., the bombing began from every direction,” he told +972. “The sky was ablaze. Everyone was screaming.
“We were in the schoolyard, and shrapnel was falling on us,” Al-Shawa continued. “We tried to hide in the classrooms, but quadcopter drones were shooting directly at us. Suddenly, my cousin fell to the floor — he’d been hit in his left arm by shrapnel. There were dozens of bodies on the ground. I’m sure people were killed. I was trying to escort my mother away from the chaos, but suddenly she stopped and vomited on the floor due to all the bodies. I covered her eyes so she wouldn’t see them.
“We heard the sound of army tanks, and then someone screamed: the army had surrounded the headquarters of UNRWA [the UN Relief and Works Agency], only meters away from us,” he went on. “Somehow, we escaped from the school with Israeli tanks behind us and quadcopters shooting at us from the sky. It was like an earthquake or a volcano erupting. There was complete darkness — only the color of blood and missiles illuminated the area.”
Al-Shawa and his family eventually reached the Majda Wasila School, further away from the invading Israeli forces. But as they fled from their initial shelter, they saw two paralyzed girls in wheelchairs, who had likely taken shelter in the nearby UNRWA rehabilitation center and were now left to fend for themselves. Amid the crowds of those fleeing, Al-Shawa recounted, the girls were in danger of being trampled — but he was unable to help them.
According to the Gaza Civil Emergency Service, dozens of people were killed or wounded in Israeli attacks that night. Due to the intensivemilitary operations in the area, however, emergency teams have not been able to reach the victims to verify the numbers, and Al-Rimal has become a ghost town.
‘If We Try to Evacuate, We Will be Shot; If We Stay, We Will be Killed’
Like Al-Rimal, the neighborhood of Al-Sabra in southwestern Gaza City was also attacked by the Israeli military Sunday night without prior warning. Many displaced families had sought refuge there from the eastern neighborhoods following the initial evacuation order. But at around 11 p.m., residents began hearing explosions and Israeli helicopters in the area. “What we witnessed was not a safe area but a battlefront,” Alaa Sbaih, a 24-year-old resident of Al-Sabra, told +972.
Earlier that day, Sbaih had opened her home to relatives who had fled from the eastern neighborhood of Al-Daraj. But they soon became trapped: as the bombings continued into the following day, they discovered that Israeli snipers had set up positions atop the nearby buildings of Al-Azhar University, the Islamic University, and Al-Sousi Tower, and were shooting at anyone who moved.
Sbaih is fearful of even approaching the windows to check what is happening outside — and for good reason. “Our neighbor from the Al-Qasas family tried to escape, but once he got to his car, a sniper shot him and left him bleeding in the street, with his children screaming for him,” Sbaih recounted. Indeed, Israeli soldiers have testified to +972 and Local Call that Palestinian civilians throughout Gaza are routinely shot dead, simply for being outside in areas where Israeli forces operate or even for watching them from behind a window.
It was not until Monday afternoon that the Israeli army eventually issued a second evacuation order, instructing people in the western neighborhoods of Al-Sabra, Al-Rimal, and Tal Al-Hawa to evacuate southward to the city of Deir Al-Balah. But as Israeli forces remain in the area, Sbaih and her relatives face an impossible decision. “We have no option except death: if we try to evacuate, we will be shot, and if we stay, we will be killed.”
Maher Mamdooh, 21, told +972 that after being forced to relocate with more than 30 of his relatives just two weeks ago from Shuja’iya, he was then displaced three times between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning: from Al-Daraj to the border of Al-Rimal, then into central Al-Rimal, and then eventually further north toward Jabalia. During this ordeal, he lost all of his belongings, and was separated from some of his relatives.
“We fled from the house in the middle of the night — we were running in all directions and no one knew where to go,” he recounted. “There were explosions everywhere, and we were surrounded by helicopters, quadcopters, and tanks. My relatives were with us, but now we do not know where they went. It was a night from hell.”
On Wednesday, the Israeli army issued a third new evacuation order, instructing Palestinians to flee the entire Gaza City area. The renewed offensive has also forced Gaza City’s two remaining hospitals to close their doors: Al-Ahli — which was hit by missiles — and the Patient’s Friends Benevolent Society. Al-Shifa, Gaza’s largest hospital, remains in ruins following the Israeli siege of the area in March.
After nine months of endless displacement, killing, and starvation, Mamdooh said life long ago became unbearable. “How many times do we have to die? There are no ways left for Israel to kill us. No one in the world can feel what I feel now.”
In a comment to +972, a spokesperson for the Israeli army spokesperson denied that it had bombed the areas described, and said that “all of northern Gaza is defined by the IDF as an evacuated combat zone, and Hamas operates in the heart of civilian areas.”
*
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.
Mahmoud Mushtaha is a Gaza-based freelance journalist and human rights activist.
Featured image: Palestinians flee the neighborhood of Al-Rimal in response to Israeli evacuation orders, Gaza City, July 8, 2024. (Ferial Abdu)
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.
Killers of the Flower Moon is a recent epic movie set in the 1920s examining a series of murders of members of the Osage Nation who became wealthy when oil was found on their tribal land. The film is set in Oklahoma (Choctaw language phrase: okla, ‘people’, and humma, ‘red’) and depicts the story of a local political boss who was contriving to steal the Osage wealth. The film is long with a running time of 206 minutes and shows an ensemble cast of well-known actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, John Lithgow, and Brendan Fraser.
It did well, grossing $157 million worldwide as well as receiving “critical acclaim, with praise for Scorsese’s direction, the screenplay, production values, editing, cinematography, musical score, and cast performances, especially DiCaprio, Gladstone, and De Niro […] It was also nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture, seven Golden Globe Awards, including Best Motion Picture – Drama, and with Gladstone winning Best Actress, nine British Academy Film Awards, and three SAG Awards, with Gladstone winning Best Actress.”
Image: Lily Gladstone at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
The story revolves around Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) who comes to live with his brother and uncle William King Hale on Hale’s reservation ranch after World War I. Hale is a reserve deputy sheriff and cattle rancher who poses as a friend of the Osage while at the same time secretly organising the killing of the Osage through multiple different means such as shooting, poisoning, and even blowing up a house. Ernest Burkhart marries Mollie Kyle, an Osage whose family owns oil headrights.
Mollie decides to go to Washington and asks President Calvin Coolidge for help in solving the murders. Bureau of Investigation (the eventual FBI) Agent Thomas Bruce White Sr. and his assistants are sent to Oklahoma to find out who is behind the murders. White finds out the truth and persuades Ernest to confess his involvement and testify against his uncle Hale.
Hale and Ernest were sentenced to life imprisonment but “both were paroled after years of incarceration, despite Osage protests to the parole board.”
Killers of the Flower Moon has themes which differ from traditional Westerns in that the ‘cowboys’ are focused on oil production and resent the community that owns the rights to oilfields. It is also different in that law and order is controlled not by the local sheriff [who is corrupt in this case] but by the federal state who sends in its Agents to find out what is going on. This twentieth century concept of the developing power of the state taking over from the nineteenth century local power of the sheriff is only the start. The newly developed FBI launches into containing local criminality with all the power and forces of the federal state.
The FBI went on to be involved “in the capture and deaths of numerous infamous mobsters of the day, including John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Machine Gun Kelly.”
The Osage case is also depicted in the 1959 American crime drama film, The FBI Story, showing how the FBI developed from a detective agency to an enforcement agency with the statutory authority to carry guns and make arrests:
“The FBI was compelled to investigate after one of the [Osage] murders was committed on federal government land. The FBI forensics laboratory ties the doctored wills and life insurance policies of the murder victims to a local banker, Dwight McCutcheon, with the typewriter that he used.”
In Killers of the Flower Moon Martin Scorsese had originally intended that Leonardo DiCaprio would play the FBI agent who solves the crimes.
However screenwriter Eric Roth “began to fear the story underplayed the experience of the Osage people and repeated tired tropes. “We didn’t want to go much further with this great white hope saving Native Americans,” says Roth.”
This fear of stereotyping led to Scorsese meeting with members of the Osage community in Pawhuska, Oklahoma, including Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear, the principal chief of the Osage Nation.
Image is licensed under Fair Use
Hollywood has had a long history of depicting Native Americans in cinema. The Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond covers a century of the portrayal of North American Natives in his documentaryReel Injun:
“Reel Injun explores the various stereotypes about Natives in film, from the noble savage to the drunken Indian. It profiles such figures as Iron Eyes Cody, an Italian American who reinvented himself as a Native American on screen. The film also explores Hollywood’s practice of using Italian Americans and American Jews to portray Indians in the movies and reveals how some Native American actors made jokes in their native tongue on screen when the director thought they were simply speaking gibberish.”
Scorsese was obviously aware that to be taken seriously today he would have to involve the Osage Nation in the making of this film. This story involved an extraordinary situation for Native Americans anywhere in North America as the Osage directly benefited from the natural resources of their territory.
“I was anxious,” Scorsese says. “I knew that if I could not gain their trust, then there’s no sense in making the film. As a European American, a Sicilian American, I may have natural limitations, and I hoped that they would forgive that. But they had to know it was coming from the right place and not a surface revisionism, which is simplistic. I wanted something really, really complex that deals with humanity.” […] “One of the people in the room said, ‘You have to be very careful. You’re putting words in the mouths of people that … These are real people to us. They’re part of our families.’ ”
The depiction of the Native Americans from the early cinematic beginnings emphasised violence, vacillating from violence to be admired to violence to be feared, depending on the ideological needs of each decade in the twentieth century. When America was under internal or external threat then the violence of the ‘Injun’ was to be feared. When America needed a strong identity, a powerful role model of the fearless warrior, then the Native American was to be admired.
In either case the violence provides catharsis for the colonising power. Even though it is the Native Americans that are being depicted, their needs are secondary.
Many white actors played Native American roles and had no concern for Native American opinions about their roles. “White people playing native roles? I love it, cos it’s funny!” says Cheyenne/Arapaho filmmaker, Chris Eyre, in Reel Injun. Native Americans were played by Burt Lancaster, Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, Elvis Presley, Boris Karloff, Anthony Quinn, Chuck Connors, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sylvester Stallone, Pierce Brosnan, Johnny Depp etc.
In Smoke Signals, a 1998 coming-of-age comedy-drama film directed by Chris Eyre, there is an awareness of the Romanticist portrayal of the Native American as a hero for white audiences. Similarly, white heroes were seen as belonging to the colonial cultural mindset. In Smoke Signals, Thomas Builds-the-Fire argues: “Nobody can help us. No Superman. No Batman. No Wonder Woman. Not even Charles Bronson, man.” (Reel Injun)
Killers of the Flower Moon tells a Native American story and is even populated with Osage actors yet it is still a white man’s story, paid for and dominated by, white actors.
While it is difficult for any group to tell their story, especially in an expensive medium like cinema, it is even more difficult to imagine the dominant group/oppressor telling your story. Can we expect the British to make radical films about Irish uprisings against British rule? Can we expect the Israelis to make films about the Palestinian struggle against settler land grabs?
As Jesse Wente, a Ojibway film critic, remarks about Dances with Wolves (1990), one of the most successful films about the American West:
“The natives were fleshed out as characters, allowed to be seen as more complete people. They weren’t just warriors; they weren’t just peaceful. There was a very sensitive and sympathetic approach. It doesn’t erase the fact that at it’s core the film is not a native movie. It is still a movie made from the outside of us and it’s about us and is meant to be sympathetic towards us. But, it isn’t us. It’s a story about a white guy. And, Indians are the T and A, but it gets promoted as being about native people or Indians, but it’s not, really. We’re just backdrop.” (Reel Injun)
Even though in the Native American, Irish, and Palestinian stories, failures were more common than successes, the depiction of struggle is always profound no matter what era the story is set in. The difficulties, the hardships, the bravery, the resistance is always inspiring.
*
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.
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáinis an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Caoimhghin has just published his new book – Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery, which looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. It is available on Amazon (amazon.co.uk) and the info page is here.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on May 17, 2022
***
Introduction and Update
Why has the “Confidential Pfizer report” made public under Freedom of Information (FOI) in October 2021 not been quoted or referred to in parliamentary and public enquiries as a means to refuting the official narrative (which contends that the Covid-19 vaccine is “safe and effective”). Neither has it been the object of media coverage.
We have documented numerous public enquiries.
The evidence amply confirms that the Pfizer vaccine is a dangerous substance, resulting in deaths and adverse events. This is confirmed by the Pfizer Confidential Report released under FOI in October 2021. It come’s from the Horse’s Mouth.
Bombshell Study: Cancer Related Excess Mortality in England and Wales
Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 [based on data] from the U.K. Office for National Statistics
He compared excess death rates, the difference between observed deaths and the baseline for expected deaths, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
He established a baseline of normal cancer death rates from 2010-2020 that was remarkably consistent with few deviations, he said — until the cancer death rates rose significantly in late 2021 in the U.K. following the vaccine rollout”
The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).
The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine.
Video: Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux
The following video interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky pertains to the Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 23, 2023, April 20, 2024
**
What’s Inside Pfizer’s “Secret Report”?
The Confidential report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
This Confidential Pfizer Report provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The data from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 unequivocally confirms “Manslaughter”. Based on the evidence, Pfizer had the responsibility to immediately cancel and withdraw the “vaccine”.
Pfizer’s Worldwide marketing of the Covid-19 Vaccine beyond February 28th, 2021, is no longer an “Act of Manslaughter”.
Murder as opposed to Manslaughter implies “Criminal Intent”.
Pfizer’s Covid 19 Vaccine constitutes a Criminal Act. From a legal standpoint it is an “Act of Murder” applied Worldwide to a target population of 8 billion people. Sofar more than 60 percent of the World’s population have been Covid-19 vaccinated.
“This document provides an integrated analysis of the cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization adverse event reports received through 28 February 2021.
(…)
“Pfizer is responsible for the management post-authorization safety data on behalf of the MAH BioNTech according to the Pharmacovigilance Agreement in place. Data from BioNTech are included in the report when applicable.
“Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.
(…)
“Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021 [in less than three months], there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Most cases (34,762) were received from United States (13,739), United Kingdom (13,404) Italy (2,578), Germany (1913), France (1506), Portugal (866) and Spain (756); the remaining 7,324 were distributed among 56 other countries.
(…)
“As shown in Figure 1 [see below], the System Organ Classes (SOCs) that contained the greatest number (≥2%) of events, in the overall dataset, were General disorders and administration site conditions (51,335 AEs), Nervous system disorders (25,957), Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), Gastrointestinal disorders (14,096), Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (8,476), Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (8,848), Infections and infestations (4,610), Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (5,590), and Investigations (3,693)”
The following video interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky pertains to the Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
Video: Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on the “Secret” Pfizer Report Puts Forth a Strategy and Legal Procedure to Confront Big Pharma with a view to Withdrawing the Covid-19 Vaccine Worldwide
VIDEO
Odysee version
[Click upper title and right corner to enter fullscreen]
Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち
As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided in the course of the next few weeks to distribute the eBook for FREE.
Can we trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty in 2009 to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) including “fraudulent marketing” and“felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?
Video. US Department of Justice. 2.3 Billion Medical Fraud Settlement
“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. … less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. (emphasis added)
This Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
In a Court of Law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours.
Bear in mind: it’s data which is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine related deaths and adverse events.
This is a de facto Mea Culpa on the part of Pfizer. #Yes it is a Killer Vaccine
Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.
Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine.
It is also a Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.
No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.
People are told that the vaccine is intended to save lives.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Comments Off on Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid “Vaccine”. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
O grande derrotado nas eleições francesas não foi a extrema-direita. É certo que, se não fossem os espúrios acordos entre a Nova Frente Popular e os macronistas, o Reagrupamento Nacional teria crescido ainda mais. Só que o resultado do segundo turno não é exatamente uma vitória da esquerda.
Após o RN de Marine Le Pen liderar o primeiro turno das eleições, as lideranças da NFP caíram na armadilha da imprensa francesa e de Emmanuel Macron, abandonando inúmeras candidaturas próprias para aumentar as chances da direita neoliberal ligada ao partido do Renascimento vencer a extrema-direita.
A grande burguesia francesa chamou a uma “frente republicana” para criar um “cordão sanitário” formado pela esquerda e a direita neoliberal a fim de impedir uma vitória acachapante do RN, o que levou a acordos em cerca de 220 circunscrições eleitorais para que o candidato com supostamente menor chance de vencer o RN abandonasse a disputa a favor do candidato com maior chance. Só que a maioria dos abandonos foi da NFP para que os aliados de Macron pudessem vencer os aliados de Le Pen, embora a NFP tenha ficado em segundo lugar no primeiro turno, muito à frente da coligação de Macron.
Os rivais da extrema-direita ficaram aliviados com os resultados, pois agora o parlamento está pulverizado e não dominado pelo RN. Mas perderam a oportunidade de enterrar a direita macronista, ou seja, a direita neoliberal tradicional, que nos últimos anos vem pavimentando o caminho para o fascismo ao aplicar uma política cada vez mais semelhante à defendida por Le Pen.
De fato, a coalizão da direita governista perdeu 82 cadeiras na Assembleia Nacional, em comparação com as últimas eleições. Ela sofreu a redução em um terço dos seus deputados. Os Republicanos, também da direita neoliberal tradicional, perderam um quarto dos seus legisladores. A ala direita da Quinta República foi a maior derrotada, sem dúvida nenhuma.
Isso significa que seus votos foram divididos, sendo a maior parte obviamente destinada à extrema-direita. O RN aumentou sua bancada em 38%. A outra parte dos votos foi para a esquerda. A NFP conquistou 18% de cadeiras a mais do que nas últimas eleições. No entanto, foi a ala direita da NFP que abocanhou a maioria desses votos.
Enquanto o número de deputados eleitos pela França Insubmissa praticamente não se modificou, o Partido Socialista passou de 30 para 59, dobrando o número de cadeiras no parlamento. O PS, como toda a antiga social-democracia europeia (SPD alemão, Labour britânico, PSOE espanhol), aderiu ao neoliberalismo há muitas décadas. Não passa de uma ala esquerda da Quinta República, ou seja, do atual regime imperialista francês – basta lembrar que o PS governava a França quando ela invadiu o Mali, é anti-Rússia e ajuda a sustentar o sionismo.
O outro partido da ala direita da NFP beneficiado nessas eleições foram os Verdes, que apresentaram um crescimento de 18%. Portanto, as conclusões a partir dos resultados eleitorais são as seguintes: 1) a direita neoliberal macronista foi a maior derrotada, mas não caiu até o fundo do poço porque 2) a esquerda a salvou, com medo da extrema-direita, embora 3) dentro das forças de esquerda, a grande beneficiada tenha sido a social-democracia neoliberal, que aplica um “neoliberalismo cor-de-rosa” que pouco se diferencia de Macron 4) a extrema-direita foi apenas contida e, como disse Le Pen, sua vitória foi somente “adiada”.
A tensão social não será refreada
A grande burguesia imperialista francesa manejou o resultado das eleições com a meta principal de conter as massas populares que vêm varrendo as grandes cidades com uma revolta crescente nos últimos anos. Uma vitória aparente da esquerda contenta uma parcela dessas massas, que ainda acredita que o PS e a França Insubmissa levarão o seu país a uma transformação social.
Uma vitória da centro-esquerda, isto é, dos reformistas tradicionais que ora são escolhidos pela burguesia para administrar a França, também contém momentaneamente a escalada da extrema-direita ao poder, o que dá mais tempo para negociações entre as diferentes alas da burguesia.
Todas as cidades com mais de 200 mil habitantes votaram majoritariamente nos candidatos da NFP. Mas em Marselha, a segunda maior cidade do país, tradicional palco do movimento operário sulista, a RN conseguiu vencer em metade das circunscrições, o que serve de alerta para o possível direcionamento de uma parcela do proletariado para a extrema-direita.
Porque, no campo e nas pequenas cidades, o apoio ao RN já é muito visível. O interior da França é onde vive a grande base eleitoral da extrema-direita. E ele tem uma força que não pode ser ignorada. Foram justamente os pequenos e médios produtores rurais que geraram uma enorme crise por toda a União Europeia entre o final do ano passado e o início deste ano, desfilando seus tratores por todas as metrópoles (e em 85% dos departamentos franceses), como se lembrassem ao governo que eles existem e podem ajudar a derrubá-lo e a transformar o país.
Assim como o proletariado urbano, as classes média e baixa do campo também estão revoltadas com a política neoliberal. Nos últimos 40 anos, o Estado entregou nas mãos da iniciativa privada todo o dever de fornecer infraestrutura às populações rurais. Mas a iniciativa privada não investe no campo, porque não vê grandes retornos. Há muito menos hospitais e clínicas do que o necessário, por exemplo. Só o Estado tem plenas condições de garantir esses serviços, mas ele está ausente nas últimas décadas.
Os jovens do campo, tal como os das cidades, são os principais prejudicados. Têm menos acesso à educação e, portanto, menores chances de serem bem-sucedidos no mercado de trabalho, muito competitivo. Na última década, a taxa de jovens sem educação suficiente, sem emprego e sem realizar estágio tem sido muito mais alta no campo do que nas cidades e as mulheres do campo também conseguem menos empregos do que os homens, em comparação com as mulheres das cidades. A ideologia woke, apregoada tanto pelo regime Macron como pela esquerda reformista da NFP, não resolve nenhum problema dessas mulheres, que acabam sendo atraídas para a extrema-direita.
Um dos principais pilares que sustentam o regime capitalista é a aliança da grande burguesia com a classe média, tanto da cidade como do campo. E esse pilar está caindo aos poucos, conforme a qualidade de vida e as condições econômicas e materiais da classe média vêm se deteriorando acentuadamente neste século. A única alternativa para a melhoria de vida da classe média empobrecida é se aliar aos trabalhadores, que também estão crescentemente insatisfeitos. Ambas as classes vêm golpeando o regime francês, mas não de forma unificada.
Quem poderia unificar essas classes para combaterem juntas o regime, e assim fatalmente derrubá-lo, seria a esquerda francesa. O problema é que ela não se interessa em derrubar o regime, mas faz parte dele, alegremente. E se ela faz parte do regime, é seu cúmplice. Cúmplice de um regime que explora e oprime a maioria da população. A extrema-direita tem sabido utilizar esse fato em sua propaganda para atrair as classes médias urbana e rural e parte do proletariado desorganizado, principalmente nas cidades menores, onde a desindustrialização é muito visível. Mas, como ela também tem demonstrado fazer parte desse regime – ao se alinhar com Macron em diversas oportunidades –, ainda tem grande repúdio no meio das classes populares, que vêm se radicalizando mas carecem de direção política.
De qualquer forma, a extrema-direita segue crescendo. E, embora a burguesia francesa ainda não tenha se unificado em torno do RN, a crise da direita tradicional está levando uma parte significativa dessa burguesia a apoiá-lo. A tendência na França é que as classe populares, impulsionadas pelos trabalhadores urbanos, entrem em conflito também com a social-democracia e a esquerda em quem acabaram de votar, porque se ela formar ou fizer parte do novo governo, inevitavelmente dará prosseguimento à odiada política neoliberal. Uma convulsão social, que é cada vez mais provável, ameaçará varrer o regime e isso fará com que a parcela da burguesia que hoje acredita que a ala esquerda dos seus funcionários pode salvar o regime passe também a apoiar a extrema-direita como única força capaz de conter a revolta dos trabalhadores.
Então, todos os que foram salvos do precipício pela ingenuidade da esquerda e hoje se apresentam como campeões da democracia e da liberdade estarão saudando Marine Le Pen como a única capaz de garantir a ordem e a coesão social.
Eduardo Vasco
*
Eduardo Vascoé jornalista especializado em política internacional, correspondente de guerra e autor dos livros-reportagem “O povo esquecido: uma história de genocídio e resistência no Donbass” e “Bloqueio: a guerra silenciosa contra Cuba”.
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 article was originally published under the title.
“We have to Deal with the Anti-Vaxxers” says Keir Starmer. Next UK PM? With the Endorsement of the WEF
First published on June 2, 2023
Author’s Update
Keir Starmer, leader of the remodelled Labour Party is now Britains’s “progressive” Prime Minister.
As we recall Keir Starmer was invited to Davos back in January 2024, by the World Economic Forum’.
Ironically, Starmer started his election campaign in the Swiss Alps, in conformity with Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution
Was he elected or was he selected? U.K formerPrime Minister Rishi Sunak decided not to participate in the Davos Venue (or was he advised not to attend?):
“Number 10 has not provided an explanation for his absence but the Prime Minister is facing significant problems at home”.
In retrospect, “the explanation of his absence” sounds obvious.
Fait accompli. In the absence of Rishi Sunak, Starmer was presented and upheld at Davos in January as the WEF’s “favourite candidate” for the position of PM.
Was pressure exerted on Rishi Sunak to call for snap general elections slated for July 4 (America’s Independence Day)?
Sunak was fully aware that the “new remodelled Labour Party” under the helm of Keir Starmer had been “pre-selected” as the winner.
Sunak said outside Downing Street that he had informed King Charles III of the rare summer poll, firing the starting gun on a six-week campaign that is almost universally expected to conclude in the demise of his Conservative government. (CNN, May 23, emphasis added)
The defeat of the Conservatives had been announced well in advance.
“why has the PM called an election that he is almost certain to lose? For months, polls have placed Sunak’s Conservative Party way behind the opposition Labour Party”(CNN, emphasis added)
Was PM Rishi Sunak following instructions by powerful financial interests? He was fully aware that the Conservative Party was slated to loose.
It’s what you might call a “democratic regime change” (decided in Davos).
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the NATO Summit in Washington
He won the general election on July 4, and was confirmed as Prime Minister on July 5.
Namely, in yet another move tantamount to a declaration of war, the new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fully supported the use of UK-sourced “Storm Shadow” air-launched cruise missiles against targets within Russia’s undisputed territory, with no apparent limitations. (Drago Bosnic, July 11 2024)
Starmer at the NATO Summit
The following text first published on June 3, 2024 largely focusses on Starmer’s unbending support of the Covid Vaccine, pointing to the need for emergency legislation and totalitarian measures.
His foreign policy stance regarding the UK’s long range weapons for Ukraine’s (also requiring emergency legislation?) is largely supportive of America’s hegemonic agenda.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 11 2024
“We have to Deal with the Anti-Vaxxers” says Keir Starmer.
Next UK PM? With the Endorsement of the WEF
By Michel Chossudovsky
June 2, 2024
The Labour Party’s “Great Reset”
“it’s an opportunity to present the Labour Party as the UK’s future”, with a candidate who fully endorses the covid “vaccine” coupled with the repeal of civil liberties.
He also confirmed his fight against global warming and CO2, which will indelibly lead to bankruptcies and the impoverishment of British farmers.
“He took the opportunity to push his Green Agenda which he would take forward if he enters Downing Street.”
“During a panel discussion, it was put to Mr Starmer that the polls suggest he has a high chance of becoming Britain’s next prime minister.”
He touched on Labour’s “ambitious” plan for a new, publicly owned energy company dubbed Great British Energy, which was unveiled at last year’s party conference.
He said his first visit to the summit at Davos had given him the opportunity to speak to CEOs of business and investors “who would partner with us if we were in government”.
Repowering the World. Keir Starmer’s WEF Panel Presentation
Speakers: Mark Rutte, Joe Manchin III, Ilham Kadri, Samia Suluhu Hassan, Keir Starmer, Hadley Gamble, Francesco Starace
Keir Starmer, likely the next UK PM: “We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns, because they will cost lives.”
“And if we need to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I’ll be quite prepared to work with the government on that… And the sooner we do that, frankly,… pic.twitter.com/GejVND0nTu
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 25, 2024
My Message to Keir Starmer. Examine the Data Before “Going After the Anti-Vaxxers”
Emergency legislation to combat the anti-vax campaign WILL COST LIVES. It will result in excess mortality.
We recall that the COVID-19 vaccine was rolled-out in several phases in England and Wales starting on December 8, 2020 (See Michel Chossudovsky)
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) confirmed by official statistics commenced in 2021. According to the Lancet:
The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has calculated that there were 7.2% or 44,255 more deaths registered in the UK in 2022 based on comparison with the five-year average (excluding 2020).[1]
This persisted into 2023 with 8.6% or 28,024 more deaths registered in the first six months of the year than expected.[1]
The Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) found a similar excess (28,500 deaths) for the same period using different methods.[3]
England and Wales: Mortality and Morbidity pertaining to Malignant Neoplasm.
Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 [based on data] from the U.K. Office for National Statistics
He compared excess death rates, the difference between observed deaths and the baseline for expected deaths, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
He established a baseline of normal cancer death rates from 2010-2020 that was remarkably consistent with few deviations, he said — until the cancer death rates rose significantly in late 2021 in the U.K. following the vaccine rollout”
The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).
The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.
England and Wales: the Vaccine was launched in December 2020
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine.
The Ed Dowd study’s results in the rate of cancer deaths above the historic norm in 2022 for ages 15-44 in the U.K. included:
A 28% rise in fatal breast cancer rates in women.
An 80% increase in pancreatic cancer deaths among women and a 60% increase among men.
A 55% increase among men in colon cancer deaths and a 41% increase in women.
A 120% increase in fatal melanomas among men and a 35% increase in women.
A 35% increase in brain cancer deaths among men and a 12% rise in women.
A 60% increase in cancer death rates among men in cancers “without site specification” and a 55% increase among women.
Excess Mortality in Germany
Below is a similar table pertaining to Excess Mortality in Germany (all Causes), which points to the Deviation of Observed Mortality from Expected Mortality (by age group) in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Pfizer’s declassified Report was made public in the U.S. in October 2021 under Freedom of Information (FOI)
The Confidential report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021:
“Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
Não há realmente limites para as incessantes exigências militares do regime de Kiev. A Ucrânia pede agora ao Ocidente que entregue submarinos, a fim de intensificar as operações militares no Mar Negro. Na verdade, esta medida poderia agravar seriamente o conflito, mas não ajudaria as forças ucranianas a alcançar quaisquer resultados militares úteis.
O chefe da Marinha Ucraniana, Almirante Aleksey Neizhpapa, afirmou recentemente que a Ucrânia necessita urgentemente de receber submarinos ocidentais para reforçar as suas posições militares no Mar Negro. Segundo ele, só através da implantação de submarinos será possível melhorar as capacidades estratégicas da Ucrânia e danificar as forças russas no Mar Negro.
Neizhpapa não acredita que a Ucrânia possa alcançar uma “vitória” militar no Mar Negro sem o uso de submarinos, razão pela qual apela aos parceiros ocidentais para que satisfaçam rapidamente esta procura estratégica. Ele ressalta que os grandes submarinos são inúteis na região, dadas as condições geográficas locais. No entanto, ele acredita que pequenos submarinos são necessários para que a Marinha Ucraniana seja capaz de se “espalhar” pelo mar, ampliando o campo de atividade contra as posições navais e costeiras da Federação Russa.
“Estamos pensando nisso, os submarinos são necessários para nós, deveriam fazer parte da marinha (…) Ficar só perto de Odessa é não ter nada, devemos olhar mais longe, espalhar a frota pelo Mar Negro e usar toda a sua área (…) [Assim, a Ucrânia pode passar] de um estado costeiro a uma potência marítima”, disse ele
É importante sublinhar que a Ucrânia praticamente não tem mais marinha. As forças navais ucranianas têm sido fortemente atingidas pela Rússia desde 2022, restando pouca força útil deste ramo das forças armadas ucranianas. Kiev conseguiu ocasionalmente causar danos a posições navais russas no Mar Negro, tendo já afundado alguns navios de guerra russos – o que impulsionou enormemente a máquina de propaganda ocidental, com jornais americanos e europeus a reportarem tais casos como “grandes vitórias”. No entanto, estas medidas devem-se à assistência da OTAN – principalmente de drones e satélites americanos e britânicos – na região do Mar Negro. O mérito da Marinha Ucraniana nesses ataques é mínimo, sendo quase inteiramente operações ocidentais.
Recentemente, a Rússia tem vindo a reforçar progressivamente as medidas nas zonas portuárias ucranianas, especialmente em Odessa. Dados de inteligência mostram que o regime de Kiev está a utilizar instalações civis para fins militares, escondendo armas e munições em depósitos de cereais, bem como transportando armas em navios civis. A paciência de Moscou com este tipo de atividade ilegal tem diminuído gradualmente, uma vez que são frequentes os bombardeamentos para impedir a utilização militar dos portos de Odessa.
Contudo, a frente naval da operação militar especial sempre foi secundária nos seus aspectos estratégicos. O conflito está sendo decidido por terra e ar. No terreno, as tropas russas avançam nas Novas Regiões e no norte da Ucrânia. No ar, aeronaves e drones russos circulam livremente, dado o colapso da defesa aérea ucraniana, permitindo assim a destruição de vários tanques e veículos militares inimigos.
No mar, a prioridade da Rússia é proteger as suas próprias regiões costeiras, evitando incursões terroristas em áreas como a Crimeia e Krasnodar. A Rússia poderia usar as suas posições navais para lançar grandes ataques a Odessa, o que faria avançar significativamente os resultados da operação militar especial. Contudo, Moscou ainda tem como um dos seus principais objetivos a concretização dos seus objetivos militares através de ações moderadas, sem grandes vítimas civis – razão pela qual as incursões em grande escala têm sido evitadas, tanto quanto possível.
Paralelamente, o Reino Unido tem sido o agente mais desestabilizador no Mar Negro. Não só o software militar britânico, mas os comandos especiais da Marinha Britânica também foram utilizados no campo de batalha marítimo pelas forças de Kiev. Os EUA também têm desempenhado um papel incisivo, principalmente através de assistência técnica, fornecendo dados de inteligência e geolocalização a Kiev para planear ataques terroristas. Neste sentido, por mais escalável e irresponsável que possa parecer a ação ocidental para fornecer submarinos à Ucrânia, esta possibilidade não deve ser descartada.
Em vez de infligir danos aos russos e gerar uma vantagem estratégica para a Ucrânia, tal medida apenas aceleraria a destruição das posições ucranianas no Mar Negro. A resposta russa seria levada a cabo através de uma escalada de ações militares na frente naval. Até agora, Moscou poupou o inimigo do seu verdadeiro potencial marítimo, mas esta situação pode mudar rapidamente.
Nas atuais circunstâncias, quaisquer medidas escalonadoras tomadas pela Ucrânia terão um impacto negativo no próprio regime de Kiev. Nada parece mais perigoso para as forças ucranianas do que tomar decisões que possam testar a paciência da Rússia.
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.
The Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, says:
‘We’ve been “gaslit’ and deceived” – for years – “all in the name of ‘democracy’”. That deceit “collapsed” with the Presidential debate, Thursday’.
“Until the world saw the truth … [against] the ‘misinformation’ … the fiction of Mr. Biden’s competence … suggests they [the Democrats] evidently thought they could get away with promoting it. [Yet] by perpetuating that fiction they were also revealing their contempt for the voters and for democracy itself”.
Baker continues:
“Biden succeeded because he made toeing the party line his life’s work. Like all politicians whose egos dwarf their talents, he ascended the greasy pole by slavishly following his party wherever it led … Finally—in the ultimate act of partisan servility, he became Barack Obama’s vice president, the summit of achievement for those incapable, yet loyal: the apex position for the consummate ‘yes man’”.
“But then, just as he was ready to drift into a comfortable and well-deserved obscurity, his party needed a front man … They sought a loyal and reliable figurehead, a flag of convenience, under which they could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life — on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery. There was no more loyal and convenient vehicle than Joe”.
If so, then who actually has been ‘pulling America’s strings’ these past years?
“You [the Democratic machine] don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years about how this man was both brilliantly competent at the job and a healing force for national unity – and now tell us, when your deception is uncovered, that it’s ‘bedtime for Bonzo’ – thanks for your service, and let’s move on”, Baker warns.
“[Now] it is going horribly wrong. Much of his party has no use for him anymore … in a remarkably cynical act of bait-and-switch, [they are trying to] swap him out for someone more useful to their cause. Part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. I find myself in the odd position of wanting to root for poor mumbling Joe … It’s tempting to say to the Democratic machine frantically mobilizing against him: You don’t get to do this. You don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years”.
Something significant has snapped within ‘the system’. It is always tempting to situate such events in ‘immediate time’, but even Baker seems to allude to a longer cycle of gaslighting and deception – one that only now has suddenly burst into open view.
Such events – though seemingly ephemeral and of the moment – can be portents to deeper structural contradictions moving.
When Baker writes of Biden being the latest ‘flag of convenience’ under which the ruling strata could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life – “on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery” – it seems probable that he is referring to the 1970s era of the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome.
The 1970s and 1980s were the point at which the long arc of traditional liberalism gave place to an avowedly illiberal, mechanical ‘control system’ (managerial technocracy) that today fraudulently poses as liberal democracy.
Emmanuel Todd, the French anthropological historian, examines the longer dynamics to events unfolding in the present: The prime agent of change leading to the Decline of the West (La Défaite de l’Occident), he argues, was the implosion of ‘Anglo’ Protestantism in the U.S. (and England), with its entailed habits of work, individualism and industry – a creed whose qualities were held then to reflect God’s grace through material success, and, above all, to confirm membership of the divine ‘Elect’.
Whereas traditional liberalism had its mores, the decline of traditional values triggered the slide towards managerial technocracy, and to nihilism. Religion lingers on in the West, though in a ‘zombie’ state, Todd avers. Such societies, he argues, flounder – absent some guiding metaphysical sphere that provides people with non-material sustenance.
However, the incoming doctrine that only a wealthy financial élite, tech experts, leaders of multinational corporations and banks possess the required foresight and technological understanding to manipulate a complex and increasingly controlled system changed politics completely.
Mores were gone – and so was empathy. Many experienced the disconnect and the disregard of cold technocracy.
So when a senior WSJ editor tells us that the ‘deception and ‘gaslighting’ collapsed with the CNN Biden-Trump debate, we should surely pay attention; He is saying the scales finally fell from peoples’ eyes.
What was being gaslighted was the fiction of democracy and also that of America declaring itself – in its own scripture – to be the trailblazer and pathfinder of humanity: America as the exceptional nation: the singular, the pure-of-heart, the baptizer, and redeemer of all peoples despised and downtrodden; the “last, best hope of earth”.
The reality was very different. Of course, states can ‘live a lie’ for a long period. The underlying problem – the point Todd makes so compellingly – is that you can be successful in deceiving and manipulating public perceptions, but only up to a point.
The reality was, it simply was not working.
The same is true of ‘Europe’. The EU’s aspiration to become a global geo-political actor too, was contingent on gaslighting the public that France, Italy and Germany et al could continue to be real national entities – even as the EU scooped up all national decision-making prerogatives, by deceit. The mutiny at the recent European elections reflected this discontent.
Of course, Biden’s condition has been long known. So who then has been running affairs; making critical daily decisions about war, peace, the composition of the judiciary and the boundaries of state authority? The WSJ piece gives one answer: “Unelected advisers, party hacks, scheming family members and random hangers-on make the critical daily decisions” on these issues.
Maybe we have to reconcile to the fact that Biden is an angry, senile man who yells at his staff:
“During meetings with aides who are putting together formal briefings, some senior officials have at times gone to great lengths to curate the information in an effort to avoid provoking a negative reaction”.
“It’s like, ‘You can’t include that, that will set him off’ or ‘Put that in, he likes that,’” said one senior administration official. “It’s very difficult and people are scared sh*tless of him.” The official added, “He doesn’t take advice from anyone other than those few top aides, and it becomes a perfect storm because he just gets more and more isolated from their efforts to control it”.
Seymour Hersh, the well-known investigative journalist reports:
“Biden’s drift into blankness has been ongoing for months, as he and his foreign policy aides have been urging a ceasefire that will not happen in Gaza whilst continuing to supply the weapons that make a ceasefire less likely. There’s a similar paradox in Ukraine, where Biden has been financing a war that cannot be won – yet refusing to participate in negotiations that could end the slaughter”.
“The reality behind all of this, as I’ve been told for months, is that Biden is simply ‘no longer there’ – in terms of understanding the contradictions of the policies he and his foreign policy advisers have been carrying out”.
“Biden’s insular senior team are well acquainted with the longtime aides who continue to have the president’s ear: Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed, as well as Ted Kaufman and Klain on the outside”.
“It’s the same people — he has not changed those people for 40 years … The number of people who have access to the president has gotten smaller and smaller and smaller. They’ve been digging deeper into the bunker for months now.” And, the strategist said, “the more you get into the bunker, the less you listen to anyone”.
In Todd’s words then, decisions are made by a small ‘Washington village’.
Of course, Jake Sullivan and Blinken sit at the centre of what is called the ‘inter-agency’ view. This where policy mostly is discussed. It is not coherent – with its locus in the National Security Committee – but rather is spread through a matrix of interlocking ‘clusters’ that includes the Military Industrial Complex, Congressional leaders, Big Donors, Wall Street, the Treasury, the CIA, the FBI, a few cosmopolitan oligarchs and the princelings of the security-intelligence world.
All these ‘princes’ pretend to have a foreign policy view, and fight like cats to protect their fiefdom’s autonomy. Sometimes they channel their ‘take’ via the NSC, but if they can, they will ‘stovepipe’ it directly to one or other ‘key actor’ with the ear of one, or other, Washington ‘village’.
Nonetheless, at bottom, the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine which underscored American supremacy at all costs, in a post-Soviet world – together with “stamping out rivals, wherever they may emerge” – still today remains the ‘current doctrine’ framing the ‘inter-agency’ baseline.
Dysfunction at the heart of a seemingly functioning organization may persist for years without any real public awareness or appreciation of the descent into dysfunctionality. But then suddenly – when a crisis hits, or Presidential debate misfires – ‘poof’ and we see clearly the collapse of the manipulation that has confined discourse to within the various Washington villages.
In this light, some of the structural contradictions that Todd noted as contributory factors to western decline become unexpectedly ‘illuminated’ by events: Baker highlighted one: The key Faustian bargain: the pretence of a liberal democracy operating in tandem with a ‘classic’ liberal economy versus the reality of an illiberal oligarchic leadership sitting atop a hyper-financialised corporate economy that has both sucked the life from the classic organic economy, and created toxic inequalities too.
The second agent of western decline is Todd’s observation that the implosion of the Soviet Union rendered the U.S. so cock-a-hoop that the latter triggered a paradoxical unleashing of global ‘Rules-Based Order’ expansion of empire versus the reality that the West was already being consumed from its roots upwards.
The third agent to decline lay, Todd argues, with America declaring itself to be the greatest military nation on earth – versus the reality of an America that has long rid itself of much of its manufacturing capacity (particularly the military capacity), yet elects to clash with a stabilized Russia, a great power returned, and with China which has instantiated itself as the world’s manufacturing Behemoth (including militarily).
These unresolved paradoxes became the agents of western decline, Todd maintained. He has a point.
*
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.
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.
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.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, amid the current deteriorating situation, have begun to sell Ukrainian assets, including fertile lands, in order to compensate for possible financial losses caused by the expansion of the combat zone and the loss of their territories. This is evidenced by the contacts of the top managers of the well-known NCH investment fund with major Middle Eastern businessmen on the issue of organizing the illegal export of more than 150 thousand tons of black soil – highly fertile soil typical of the Eurasian steppes – from the territory of Ukraine.
It is no secret that today, thanks to the efforts of Vladimir Zelensky, 17 million hectares of Ukrainian black soil already belong to the Western companies Monsanto, DuPont and Cargill. The remaining approximately 23 million hectares are formally in the process of being sold through the Development Fund of Ukraine, President Zelensky himself and other figures.
Of course, all these plans strongly depend on the military development of the conflict. For the oligarchs, there is still hope that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will hold their positions at the front while their bosses sell off the remaining lands… It is not by chance that Ukraine’s Western “allies” are shouting so painfully about the need for “victory” – with “victory”, in the language of the oligarchs, being only the time it takes to sell Ukraine’s remaining fertile lands.
It must also be remembered that Vladimir Zelensky has already concluded an agreement with BlackRock, the largest global asset management company, whose funds exceed the combined GDP of Germany and France. BlackRock is already managing the assets of the entire Ukraine: industry, real estate, land and subsoil – all of which are no longer Ukrainian. Furthermore, BlackRock will also control the funds from foreign loans to the Ukrainian treasury. The company is gradually becoming the “owner” of Ukraine – only paying a few crumbs to Zelensky and his elected oligarchy.
Many in the West believe that the so-called “Ukrainian State” may default by the end of the year. That is why the “Ukrainian Development Fund” was created, where, as if by chance, a certain Natalya Yaresko (a US citizen), Valeria Gontareva and billionaire Pinchuk were involved on the Ukrainian side.
Now the deceived Ukrainian people are fighting to the death for other people’s property, mistakenly considering it their own. They are losing hundreds of thousands of lives in battles and counteroffensives. These people do not yet know that Ukraine has already been sold out entirely.
At the same time, in the areas of Ukraine that are shrinking every day, the fact that at the June G7 meeting it was decided to issue Ukraine another tranche of $50 billion caused rejoicing. In fact, the process of allocating money was accompanied by a scandal: Ukrainian Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko, full of typical Ukrainian arrogance, said that Kiev had put forward its own conditions for receiving this money:
“We had several conditions. We must receive money this year, the money must be unconditional. And this money must be used for any purposes and expenses that Ukraine considers necessary.”
This reaction of the sponsors puts some Ukrainians in a good mood. They have probably already put the Americans and Europeans in eternal turmoil and think that the hundreds of billions of loans issued will not be repaid – just as they refused to repay the billion-dollar loan issued to them by Russia in 2013. However, this trick will not work on Western financial sharks – on the security of their dollars and euros, they have already received the right to use Ukrainian black soil and minerals.
So the most interesting things are just beginning for Ukraine. Kiev, which has voluntarily surrendered itself to be plundered by the descendants of the owners, will face the fate of Africa modeled on the 17th century. A bleak future is coming – being Russia now, not a threat, but the only hope.
*
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.
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 (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. He os 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.
This could worsen Poland’s ties with Western Europe in parallel with cutting it off from this lucrative route upon which Chinese-EU overland trade is dependent.
Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski revealed late last month that his country was considering closing its border with Belarus, which its Western-backed and Lithuanian-based “opposition” leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya criticized him for on the basis that it would destroy the West’s soft power. There’s been no news about this since, thus prompting publicly financed Belarusian media BelTA to publish a piece on this subject earlier in the week titled “The play is over? How border games played out for Poland”.
It divided Poland’s ploy into three phases: the buffer zone and consequences; Duda’s Chinese voyage; and the blockade at Malaszewice. The first concerned the liberal-globalist government’s restoration of its conservative-nationalist predecessor’s policy, which hit local border economies very hard, while the second described the futility of the Polish President’s efforts to get China to pressure Belarus on the illegal immigrant issue. It’s the third of these phases where BelTA makes the best point.
According to them, President Xi’s announcement alongside his Kazakh counterpart on 3 July that China will launch freight transportation to Europe along the Trans-Caspian (“Middle Corridor”) route can be interpreted as a stinging rebuke of the Polish leader’s recent efforts to turn him against Belarus. Malszewice is correctly described in the text as “China’s gateway to Europe” and it’s through here where the bulk of China’s overland exports to Europe pass.
Although that dry point remains important, BelTA interpreted China’s abovementioned move as signaling that it has alternatives for maintaining trade with the EU in the event that Poland indefinitely shuts down that crossing, which was coincidentally disrupted for 33 hours on the same day as Xi’s announcement. One of the experts whose assessments they cited in their piece also noted that China could get France and Germany to pressure Poland to lift any potential blockade in order to restore access.
It would therefore be maximally detrimental to Poland to flirt with any more border closures since this could worsen its ties with Western Europe in parallel with cutting Poland off from this lucrative route upon which Chinese-EU overland trade is dependent.
Belarus wouldn’t be all that adversely affected, their experts predicted, since non-Western companies are already replacing Poland’s pre-sanctions role in that country’s markets. The only one who’d be dealt a powerful blow would be Poland.
It’s perhaps with these observations in mind, which France and/or Germany might have reminded Poland of during the recent Weimar Triangle meeting, that Poland has remained silent on this front.
Simply put, its leadership might have realized how counterproductive it would be to close the border with Belarus, which wouldn’t have any significant effect on stopping illegal immigrant invaders. Only more robust border security and cooperation with Belarus can help curb these flows.
The first is already in progress while the second remains an impossibility so long as Poland continues imposing sanctions against Belarus and hosting anti-government militants that still threaten it. This policy isn’t expected to change since Poland considers itself to be NATO’s vanguard against Russia and Belarus. It’s also presenting itself as a semi–autonomous pole of regional influence through its latest powerplay in Ukraine, which it plans to turn into a clientstate through their new security pact.
Nevertheless, for as regionally disruptive as these policies are, they could be even more counterproductive for the average Pole if Warsaw closed the border with Belarus and thus deprived their economy of its competitive advantage in serving as a middleman for Chinese-EU trade.
That policy still remains on the table in theory, but policymakers’ conspicuous silence in recent weeks suggests that they’re reconsidering its wisdom, which might have to do with Poland finally realize what it would lose.
*
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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
UN staff continue to play an important and at times life-saving role among many people facing humanitarian crisis. However the role of the UN in maintaining world peace has suffered and has been increasingly marginalized as big powers tend more frequently to take the matters into their own hands.
Nevertheless, the UN remains very important and relevant for any peace initiatives, and one should not and cannot ignore the potentially very significant contribution of the UN in any world peace initiatives.
While there are many conflict zones in the world and many risks to peace, there is wide agreement that the biggest risk to the peace and safety of the world comes from the possibility of any direct confrontation between the USA/NATO and Russia. The two sides have nearly 11000 nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction and highly destructive weapons. If in any direct confrontation of the two sides, only 5 to 10% of the nuclear weapons get used, then this would more or less end all life on earth and this would happen in the most painful way imaginable.
Despite the fact that the possibility of a direct confrontation between the USA/Russia and NATO is the biggest danger facing our troubled world, adequate efforts have not been made to reduce this possibility.
In recent years the possibilities of such confrontation have been increasing. Several treaties regarding reduction of nuclear arms threat in various ways have not been renewed or else have broken down. There has been increasing suspicion and hostility between the leadership of two sides. Eastward expansion of NATO has always been a source of escalating tensions.
Matters have come to a head during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and in the prolonged brinkmanship the risks of a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA/NATO have been increasing steadily and have been at a very high level for a prolonged period. This is deeply worrying but there are not many ongoing efforts to reduce these high risks.
Unfortunately the UN has also not been seen to be actively involved in reducing these escalations at various points of important events. As various red lines were being crossed in the relationship of two sides becoming more dangerous, the United Nations could have intervened to prevent the escalation to the extent possible. It could at least have sounded timely warnings in more effective ways.
However not all is lost yet and the UN can still make an important contribution to de-escalation.
In this effort it should seek and obtain the support (which should be readily available) of several senior statesmen, diplomats, academics and other experts and peace activists who have from time to time issued statements regarding the need to reduce these tensions or else through their writings and speeches are known to be very worried about the very high risks and possibilities of direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia. With their help the UN can organize very important international conferences and also smaller get-togethers from where important statements and warnings can be issued not once but several times to emphasize the need for reducing tensions and risks of direct confrontation between NATO/US and Russia. These statements and warnings should be further used to spread worldwide awareness regarding the world-level very high risks of such confrontation. With the statements released at various conferences distinguished statesman and experts should meet leaders of both sides to demand de-escalation.
All this should continue till some good results are achieved. With the authority as well as the goodwill of the UN behind this, such a campaign is likely to achieve much better results compared to any campaign launched by any other organization.
*
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, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine, Planet in Peril and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
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.
There are very few countries in history that are as Russophobic as the United Kingdom. This pathological hatred for all things Russian goes back centuries in many Western countries. Even when Moscow and London were fighting on the same side, the latter always sought to undermine the former, usually by looking to balance an ongoing conflict in a way that makes sure Russia loses the most while gaining as little as possible.
This was the case during the Napoleonic and both world wars. Worse yet, Winston Churchill supported a number of plans for wars against the Soviet Union right after WW2, including the infamous “Operation Unthinkable”, when the UK openly planned to use atomic weapons to “impose its will on Russia”. There’s certainly no shortage of rabid Russophobia in Europe and the political West in general, but London really gives the likes of Poland and the Baltic states a run for their money.
It should be noted that the pathological hatred for Russia in the UK is quite difficult to explain with the rather simplified logic of “thalassocracy vs. tellurocracy” competition. There are other tellurocracies that London could surely focus on, but it’s still dead set on hurting Moscow’s interests, so there has to be something more to it. By making Russophobia perhaps the main constant of its politics for centuries, the UK is quite literally jeopardizing its own existence. The Kremlin is aware of all this, which is why it has been considering the option of cutting even the most basic diplomatic ties with Downing Street. And who could possibly blame Russia given the fact that the UK is doing everything in its power to destroy whatever’s left of their relationship? London has simply crossed all red lines. However, it seems things are going to get a lot worse, as evidenced by the new British government’s belligerent rhetoric.
Namely, in yet another move tantamount to a declaration of war, the new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fully supported the use of UK-sourced “Storm Shadow” air-launched cruise missiles against targets within Russia’s undisputed territory, with no apparent limitations.
Starmer’s Labour Party won the general election on July 4, with him confirmed as the new PM on July 5.
Further supplies of long-range weapons to the Kiev regime will most likely be one of the central topics of the NATO summit and the UK is expected to be among the first to support the initiative. And indeed, London has supported virtually every escalatory move since the start of the special military operation (SMO), including the deliveries of depleted uranium munitions. This fact alone makes Starmer’s statement that “the missiles must obviously be used in accordance with international humanitarian law as you would expect” all the more laughable, as depleted uranium is among the worst weapons one could possibly deliver to a warzone. And yet, the UK was the first country to do so. At the time, it insisted that this was for “defensive purposes only”, and that’s precisely what Starmer said about the “Storm Shadow” missiles, which are clearly offensive deep-strike weapons.
The missile has a maximum range of 550 km, although NATO insists it delivered only a downgraded export version with a range of up to 300 km. However, given its history of lies and deceit, this has to be taken with a mountain of salt. Considering the “Storm Shadow’s” maximum range, this means that areas as far as Kaluga, a city in the relative vicinity of the Moscow oblast (region), can be targeted. It also covers nearly all of Belarus with the exception of the northern portion of the country.
Still, to make things worse, back in May last year, the mainstream propaganda machine reported that British special forces, specifically SAS (Special Air Service), SRR (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) and SBS (Special Boat Service), are directly involved in the fighting. And yet, by February this year, it turned out that this was merely the tip of the iceberg.
Worse yet, it seems that other NATO assets have also been involved, presumably various ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms, meaning that London certainly wasn’t alone in this “noble endeavor”. In other words, this isn’t a simple arming of the Neo-Nazi junta forces, but a direct participation in hostilities. For all intents and purposes, it amounts to a declaration of war and all of it despite the horrendous state of the UK military (which is only getting worse).
*
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.
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.
From COVID-19 to Synthetic Design: Forcing a Shift to the Genetic Modification of Humans:
An Injection of Truth: The Ongoing Covidian Controversy in Alberta , Part II
This same phenomenon of public policy developed contrary to the thrust of scientific evidence, was repeated again and again throughout the world, including in Alberta Canada where I live. Alberta has been the main jurisdiction in Canada where there seemed in the recent past to be some level of government awareness of the need for some reckoning with the harm imposed on the public by perpetrators of the Covidian crimes.
Such inroads of reckoning with past harms, including facing the reality of millions of injection fatalities and injuries worldwide, form the the basic conditions for halting the extension of the invasive crimes against humanity. Only by making the responsible parties accountable for their lies and malfeasance to date, can precedents be firmly established to halt the damage being done and being contemplated by even more invasive and many-faceted applications of gene-modifying synthetic biology.
Skeptical perspectives on the Covidian crimes have been at best an undercurrent of most legislative bodies. Nevertheless, critical perspectives from within the decision-making entities of government have helped to encourage and anchor those millions of citizens who have understood that the supposed public health crisis which began in 2020, is something quite different from how it has been depicted by many mainstream sources.
In the United States Senator Ron Johnson utilized the US Congress to create forums to present the expertise and practical knowledge of many learned critics of the Covidian orthodoxy as pushed uniformly by coalitions of some of the world’s most powerful agencies.
A similar phenomenon developed because of the efforts of a small group of Members of the European Parliament that gathered around the eloquent critiques developed by MEP Christine Anderson.
In the Westminster Parliament in the UK, British MP Andrew Bridgen became, like Anderson and Johnson, the point person for Covidian skepticism based in the UK’s primary seat of government.
With some few small exceptions, elected MPs in the Canadian Parliament have, as individuals and as members of political parties, failed to organize events creating platforms to enable some of Canada’s leading Covidian skeptics to articulate their positions. Way too much conformity of opinion prevailed in Parliament and in the big media venues to sustain any significant challenge to the injection mandates embraced so ferociously by Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and the Liberal Party’s NDP allies led by Jagmeet Singh.
Not surprisingly, the Canadian government is extending its Covidian preoccupations by trying to push the population into embracing a broad array of synthetic biology initiatives. In other words, the senior figures in the Trudeau government once again see nothing wrong with putting the untested and unknown consequences of genetic modification at the forefront of Canadian health care.
Alberta, it seemed, would compensate somewhat for the severe democratic deficit at the national level of parliamentary governance in Canada. In mid June the United Conservative Party Constituency Association of the Calgary-Lougheed riding organized an event entitled “An injection of Truth.”
Highlighting Dr Byram Bridle, Dr William Makis, Dr Eric Payne, Dr Jessica Rose, Dr Chris Shoemaker, Dr David Speicher, and Dr Mark Trozzi, the event brought together some of Canada’s most expert researchers and medical practitioners critical of Canada’s policies of mass injections.
All of the presenters listed above have faced considerable persecution and even deplatforming for confronting lies and crimes of the promoters of the manufactured COVID crisis. A particular emphasis running throughout all of their presentations was the travesty of injecting children.
Dr. Trozzi has assembled the video of the whole June 17 event as well as of its constituent parts.
On June 18 the main presenters organized to offer up a press conference of sorts. The quality of the video below, filmed by a single camera with sound that is far from perfect, is indicative of a lack of solid backup support.
I was surprised that an event of this magnitude of importance in Canada— an event with the backing of an important provincial government— was not dazzling in its production values. Certainly the event would have been better filmed if it had conveyed the Covidian message of the notoriously corrupt people at Alberta Health Services.
In the days following the Injection of Truth events, Premier Danielle Smith and the rest of the top leadership of the UCP Party were conspicuous in their failure to openly and proudly sing the praises of those who organized and participated in the Injection of Truth event.
For some reason Alberta’s governing power seemed to lose heart before the onslaught of attacks levelled at the event by the New Democratic Party of Alberta during the final days of the leadership of Rachel Notley. Notley lost the provincial election of May 2023 to the Smith government.
Dr. William Makis, an Albertan who is currently one of the most courageous and erudite Covidian whistleblowers in the world, followed up on his controversial presentation at the Injection of Truth event. He presented a deserved Blitzkreig-style attack on the pathetic blundering of NDP officials who have dug themselves deeply into defending a pandemic of pedophilia that permeates the activities of Alberta Health Services and of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Alberta.
In dealing with the deplatforming of several doctors who have tried to remain true to their Hippocratic Oaths to do no harm in the name of addressing COVID-19, Dr. Makis began looking into the contrast with the treatment of medical practitioners who have been charge and convicted of pedophilia. The double standards are striking. The contrast raises many questions about the partnership of Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau as doctrinaire Covidian authoritarians who place a high premium on defending pedophiles.
Danielle Smith came to the top political job in Alberta in significant measure because she won the support of Albertans appalled with the COVID policies of former UCP Premier Jason Kenney. Premier Smith won the popular election in May of 2023 in the face of much media hostility. She won because many average Albertans, but especially those organized in opposition to the wrongheaded Covidian tyranny that the NDP has so tellingly epitomized, turned out to give Premier Smith a majority government.
Premier Smith’s new assignment is to go head-to-head with former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi. But as she goes into battle with the new provincial NDP leader who replaced Rachel Notley, how will her core supporters view her apparent snub by failing to build on the momentum set in motion by the grass roots Injection of Truth event?
How tolerant will Premier Smith’s core supporters be now that is seems she is giving ground to the Covidian culprits in the Legacy media, in the NDP, in Alberta Health Services, and in the perverse intrigues of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons?
While it is said Premier Smith is an advocate of “free choice” when it comes to taking the gene-modifying injections for COVID and for a growing array of other ailments, how much has been done in Alberta by her government to create the conditions of informed consent? Without informed consent, how “free” can so-called free choice really be? What is the responsibility of the Alberta premier to put in place the conditions where solid educational resources are readily accessible to make it possible for Albertans to develop the capacity to give genuinely informed consent?
The AHS was never in the business of giving sufficient background education to enable Albertans to offer up genuinely informed consent for the injections that came on stream in 2021. There is no “free choice” on this pivotal public health issue as long as the Covidian lies remain mostly unaddressed by those in the upper echelons of the provincial and national governments.
This is no time to go soft and to look the other way as millions more are offered up for human sacrifice in the transition from the lies and crimes of COVID-19 to the profoundly flawed forms of health care developing in the name of delivering synthetic biology.
*
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. Anthony Hall is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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.
Meet Liam, here he is getting his 6 month shots at the Doctor’s office back in 2019. He died that same day.
6 month old Liam Archer Osterhout died the same day he received the HepB, Tdap, Rotovirus, polio and pneumococcal vaccines on his six-month birthday.
Liam was very fussy when they arrived home so his mother gave him Tylenol and nursed Liam to console him and then he fell asleep.
Liam was laid down in his crib and found blue and lifeless less than 30 minutes later.
She rushed him to his Papa, Del, who is a First Responder, and he did all he could to try to revive Liam until the ambulance arrived. Unfortunately, Liam could not be revived.
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.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official visit to Moscow has debunked the West’s allegation that Russian President Vladimir Putin is isolated from the rest of the world over the conflict in Ukraine and is another step in the strengthening ties between Russia and India. In fact, the New Delhi-Moscow relationship is so immovable because, as Modi explained, it is founded on “mutual trust and mutual respect.”
When Westerners refuse to believe direct on-the-ground evidence about the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, then their governments can continue to supply assistance of all kinds, including 2,000 pound neighbourhood-destroying bombs.
The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state. This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.
In April 2022, the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, announced the Asylum Partnership Arrangement with Rwanda, ostensibly designed “to contribute to the prevention and combating of illegally facilitated and unlawful cross border migration by establishing a bilateral asylum partnership”.
In the middle of several serious risks and conflicts the safety of our world has been somehow ensured on the basis of certain basic understandings that till recently were well appreciated by almost all of the top leaders and diplomats of the international community.
Poland is about to take a dangerous step in the Ukrainian conflict. Vladimir Zelensky stated that under the terms of a recently signed pact between Kiev and Warsaw, the NATO country could use its military forces to detain Russian missiles and drones in Ukrainian airspace.
U.S. organic farmers are being driven out of business by low-priced organic imports of hazelnuts, turmeric and other products, which may not be grown to the organic standards you’d expect. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 is a U.S. federal law that was enacted to establish national standards for the production and handling of organic foods.
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.
The former Argentine President, Lionel Fernandez, in his visit to Putin offered him the possibility of being “the gateway to Latin America” and in his meeting with Xi Jinping, confirmed Argentina’s adherence to the Belt and Silk Road Project, which could mean a staggering $24 billion in investments for Argentina and the end of its pivot in the orbit of the United States.
This set off alarms in the Biden administration who expressed concern over the growing presence of China and Russia in the country and in particular the possibility of China installing a joint military base with Argentina in Ushuaia in exchange for financial support Chinese to install a gigantic logistic Pole in the province of Tierra del Fuego.
After being elected President, Milei announced a “new foreign policy doctrine of Argentina based on a special relationship with the United States” after meeting with the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, to discuss the installation of a joint US-Argentina base in Ushuaia that will control the traffic of mega containers through the Drake pass.
This, coupled with the future installation of a pseudoscientific base of Britain in the South Shetland Islands, will ensure maritime control of the Anglo-American axis of a route that will be the alternative to the Panama Canal.
However, the Falklands could be the black swan of Milei, after his optimistic claims in which he did not rule out “reaching a long-term agreement with Great Britain similar to that of Hong Kong involving the Malvinas return to the country”, the appearance of immense oil reserves in Sea Lion would be a missile on the geopolitical waterline of Milei.
Thus, according to the English newspaper The Telegraph, the British local authorities of the Malvinas Islands intend to organize a popular consultation to extract 500 million barrels of oil in a well located 240 kilometers north of Port Argentino, in Sea Lion.The drilling and exploitation tasks would be carried out by the Israeli company Navitas Petroleum who plans to extract 300 million barrels in the next 30 years, which would ward off the possibility of a British-Argentine co-rule over the disputed islands.
Milei is aware that if he positions himself far from the space acceptable to Argentine society and his decisions do not manage to move the window to his point of interest, the frame could end up breaking. At this point, it would not be ruled out that Milei assumed the flag of the historic claim of the Argentinian Islands and thus reinstate the previous frame of the window agreed by the vast majority of the Argentine population, decision that however could trigger a new war with Britain in the horizon of the next quinquennium.
*
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.
Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
US-NATO led military Interventions (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) which have resulted in millions of civilian casualties are heralded as Humanitarian Wars, as a means to ensuring Peace.
provide evidence (based on 
Dr. Charles Hoffe Denounces the Covid Vaccine: “Biggest Disaster in Medical History”. Confronts College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC
13 Nations Sign Agreement to Engineer Global Famine by Destroying Food Supply
Guess Who Are the Real Protagonists of Anti-Semitism
U.S. Plan to “Expand the War Beyond Ukraine”: NATO Buildup in Finland Puts Hostile Anti-Russia Army on Putin’s Doorstep
The West’s Lunatic Woke Agenda
Ukraine Continues Attacks on Energodar Nuclear Power Facility, Is Kiev’s Intent to Create “Nuclear Terror” and Blame it on Russia?
Childhood Vaccine Injury: 5 Years Old Had Been Vaccinated Against Influenza A and Developed “Flu” Days Before Sudden Death
Dr. Francis Boyle Provides Affidavit: COVID 19 mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Are Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction
De-Banking Political Opponents: After “Leftist” Lobbying, German Bank Kills “Anti-Globalist Opposition AfD Donation Account
Poland About to Participate Directly in Ukrainian Conflict
This Is What Genocide Looks Like
“Alarming 3000% Increase in Unexplained Child Deaths in Alberta”: Medical Doctors and Scientists’ Press Conference
Fluoridation and “Forever Chemicals” (PFAS): Federal Hypocrisy Is Poisoning Americans with Toxic Synthetic Chemicals
The DNC Biden Dilemma, Then and Now: “I Tried to Prostitute Myself to Big Donors” (1974), Joe Biden’s “Political Plagiarism” (1988 Presidential Campaign)
The End of Obama’s War on Syria
Americans Ready for War… Against US Government?
From COVID-19 to Synthetic Design: Forcing a Shift to the Genetic Modification of Humans
Bomb Cyclones and Atmospheric Rivers: Is Someone Messing with the Weather?
Saved from Drowning: From a Virtual Existence to a Real Life
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity
January 2024, by the World Economic Forum’.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
Thank you for your continued activism and truth-telling. A thankless task but the right thing.
You Sir are a Canadian hero. Thank you for your wonderful site and all the fine work you have done over the many years I have followed your work.
Michel Chossudovsky, you are a voice of reason and understanding. Thank you for your awareness. I am a Syrian/American. I heard one voice during the bombing of Gaza of a child screaming for his father and his father could not reach him, but he cried out to him, “PUT YOUR HEART ON MY HEART.” Those humans who are putting your Heart on Palestine, thank you.