All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

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

The following text is Chapter XII of Michel Chossudovsky’s book.

 

 

***

The Worldwide Corona Crisis,

Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

 

Global Debt and Neoliberal “Shock Treatment”

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

 

Introduction

Big Money including the billionaire foundations are the driving force. It’s a complex alliance of Wall Street and the banking establishment, the Big Oil and Energy Conglomerates, the so-called “Defense Contractors”, Big Pharma, the Biotech Conglomerates, the Corporate Media, the Telecom, Communications and Digital Technology Giants, together with a network of think tanks, lobby groups, research labs, etc. The ownership of intellectual property also plays a central role.

This powerful digital-financial decision-making network also involves major creditor and banking institutions: the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, and the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which plays a key strategic role.

By far the most powerful financial entities are the giant investment portfolio conglomerates including Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity. They control: 

“… a combined 20 trillion dollars in managed assets…. Conservatively counting, a four to five-fold leverage power (i.e. some US$ 80 to 100 trillion)”. These powerful financial conglomerates have a leverage in excess of the the world’s GDP which is of the order of about 82 trillion dollars.”⁷

In turn, the upper echelons of the US state apparatus (and Washington’s Western allies) are directly or indirectly involved, including the Pentagon, US Intelligence (and its research labs), the health authorities, Homeland Security and the US State Department (including US embassies in over 150 countries).

The “Real Economy” and “Big Money”

Why are these COVID lockdown policies spearheading bankruptcy, poverty and unemployment?

Global capitalism is not monolithic. There is indeed “a class conflict” “between the super rich and the vast majority of the world population”.

But there is also intense rivalry within the capitalist system; namely a conflict between “Big Money Capital” and what might be described as “Real Capitalism” which consists of corporations in different areas of productive activity at the national and regional levels. It also includes small and medium-sized enterprises.

What is ongoing is a process of concentration of wealth (and control of advanced technologies) unprecedented in world history, whereby the financial establishment (i.e. the multi-billion dollar creditors) are slated to appropriate the real assets of both bankrupt companies as well as state assets.

The “real economy” constitutes “the economic landscape” of  real economic activity: productive assets, agriculture, industry, services, economic and social infrastructure, investment, employment, etc. The real economy at the global and national levels is being targeted by the lockdown and closure of economic activity. The Global Money financial institutions are the “creditors” of the real economy.

---

Click here to download the full eBook.

---

Global Governance: Towards a Totalitarian State

The individuals and organizations involved in the October 18, 2019 201 Simulation are now involved in the actual management of the crisis once it went live on January 30, 2020 under the WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), which in turn set the stage for the February 2020 financial crisis and the March lockdown (see Chapter I).

The lockdown and closure of national economies has triggered several waves of mass unemployment coupled with the engineered bankruptcy (applied worldwide) of small and medium-sized enterprises (see Chapter IV).

All of which is spearheaded by the installation of a global totalitarian state which is intent upon breaking all forms of protest and resistance.

The COVID vaccination program (including the embedded digital passport and the QR Code) is an integral part of a global totalitarian regime (see Chapter VIII and Chapter XIII).

What is the infamous ID2020? It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society. It’s an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity. The program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity.red zones, face masks, social distancing, lockdown. (Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020)⁸

Click here to watch the interview, Towards Digital Tyranny, with Peter Koenig. Click here for the Bitchute version.

Screenshot from the video / Copyright Global Research

June 2020. The WEF Officially Announces the Great Reset

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.” -Klaus Schwab, WEF (June 2020) 

What is envisaged under “the Great Reset” is a scenario whereby the global creditors will have appropriated by 2030 the world’s wealth while impoverishing large sectors of the world population.

In 2030, “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” (Click here to watch the video) 

The United Nations: An Instrument of Global Governance on Behalf of an Unelected Public-Private Partnership

The UN system is also complicit. It has endorsed “Global Governance” and the Great Reset. And so has the Vatican. 

Image: Antonio Guterres (By U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers/Flickr, licensed under the Public Domain)

While UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres rightfully acknowledges that the pandemic is “more than a health crisis”, no meaningful analysis or debate under UN auspices as to the real causes of this crisis has been undertaken.

According to a September 2020 UN Report:

“Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. The lives of billions of people have been disrupted. In addition to the health impacts, COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated deep inequalities … It has affected us as individuals, as families, communities and societies. It has had an impact on every generation, including on those not yet born. The crisis has highlighted fragilities within and among nations, as well as in our systems for mounting a coordinated global response to shared threats. (UN Report)¹⁰

The far-reaching decisions which triggered social and economic destruction worldwide are not mentioned. No debate in the UN Security Council. Consensus among all five permanent members of the UNSC.

V the Virus is casually held responsible for the process of economic destruction. 

The World Economic Forum’s “public-private partnership” project entitled “Reimagine and Reset Our World” has been endorsed by the United Nations. 

Image: George Kennan (By Harris & Ewing/Library of Congress, licensed under the Public Domain)

Flashback to George Kennan and the Truman Doctrine in the late 1940s. Kennan believed that the UN provided a useful way to “connect power with morality,” using morality as a means to rubber-stamp America’s “humanitarian wars”.

The COVID crisis, the lockdown measures and the mRNA vaccine are the culmination of a historical process.

The lockdown and closure of the global economy are “weapons of mass destruction” which in the real sense of the word“destroy people’s lives”. Amply documented, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is best described as a “killer vaccine”. 

What we are dealing with are extensive “crimes against humanity”.

President Joe Biden and the “Great Reset”

Joe Biden is a groomed politician, a trusted proxy, serving the interests of the financial establishment.

Let’s not forget that Joe Biden was a firm supporter of the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein “had weapons of mass destruction”. “The American people were deceived into this war”, said Senator Dick Durbin. Do not let yourself be deceived again by Joe Biden.¹¹

Evolving acronyms: 9/11, GWOT, WMD and now COVID. Biden was rewarded for having supported the invasion of Iraq.

During the election campaign, Fox News described Biden as a “socialist” who threatens capitalism; “Joe Biden’s disturbing connection to the socialist ‘Great Reset’ movement”.

While this is absolute nonsense, many “progressives” and anti-war activists have endorsed Joe Biden without analyzing the broader consequences of the Biden presidency.

“The Great Reset” is socially divisive, it’s racist. It is a diabolical project of global capitalism. It constitutes a threat to the large majority of American workers as well as to small and medium-sized enterprises. It also undermines several important sectors of the capitalist economy.  

The Biden Presidency and the Lockdown

With regard to COVID, Biden is firmly committed to maintaining the partial closing down of both the US economy and the global economy as a means to “combating the killer virus”.  

President Biden is a firm supporter of the corona lockdown. He not only endorses the adoption of staunch COVID-19 lockdown policies, his administration is committed to the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the “vaccine passport” as an integral part of US foreign policy, to be implemented or more correctly “imposed” worldwide.

In turn, the Biden-Harris administration will attempt to override all forms of popular resistance to the coronavirus lockdown.

What is unfolding is a new and destructive phase of US imperialism. It’s a totalitarian project of economic and social engineering, which ultimately destroys people’s lives worldwide. This “novel” neoliberal agenda using the corona lockdown as an instrument of social oppression has been endorsed by President Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party. 

The Biden White House is committed to the instatement of what David Rockefeller called “Global Governance”. 

The Protest Movement

It should be noted that the protest movement in the US against the lockdown is weak. In fact there is no coherent grassroots national protest movement. Why? Because “progressive forces” including leftist intellectuals, NGO leaders, trade union and labor leaders — most of whom are aligned with the Democratic Party — have from the outset been supportive of the lockdown. And they are also supportive of Joe Biden.  

In a bitter irony, anti-war activists as well as the critics of neoliberalism have endorsed Joe Biden.

Unless there is significant protest and organized resistance, nationally and internationally, the Great Reset will be embedded in both domestic and US foreign policy agendas of the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration.

It’s what you call imperialism with a “human face”.

Where Is the Protest Movement Against This Unelected Corona “Public-Private Partnership”?

The same philanthropic foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, et al.) which are the unspoken architects of the “Great Reset” and “Global Governance” are also involved in (generously) financing climate change activism, the Extinction Rebellion, the World Social Forum, Black Lives Matter, LGBT, et al. 

What this means is that the grassroots of these social movements are often misled and betrayed by their leaders who are routinely co-opted and generously rewarded by a handful of corporate foundations.

The World Social Forum (WSF), which is commemorating its 21st anniversary, brings together committed anti-globalization  activists from all over the world. But who controls the WSF? From the outset in January 2001, it was (initially) funded by the Ford Foundation. 

It’s what you call “manufactured dissent” (far more insidious than Herman-Chomsky’s “manufactured consent”).

The objective of the financial elites “has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Manufacturing Dissent, Global Research, 2010)¹²

Image: Joe Biden with Henry Kissinger (By Kai Mörk – www.securityconference.de, licensed under CC BY 3.0 de)

In the words of McGeorge Bundy, President of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979):

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the world safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government.¹³

The protest movement against the Great Reset which constitutes a “global coup d’état” requires a process of worldwide mobilization:

“There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests [WEF, Gates, Ford, et al.] which are the target of the protest movement”.¹⁴

*

Notes

1 Michel Chossudovsky, April-June 1975. Hacia El Nuevo Modelo Económico Chileno Inflación Y Redistribución Del Ingreso. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20856482?refreqid=excelsior%3A9228243fa26a81bb3c2b0c2d58094922&seq=1

2 Ibid.

3 Michel Chossudovsky, April 16, 1977. Legitimised Violence and Economic Policy in Argentina. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4365500?seq=1 

4 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 3, 2020. Understand the Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. https://www.globalresearch.ca/understand-the-globalization-of-poverty-and-the-new-world-order/25371

5 Ibid. 

6 National Security Council, December 10, 1974. Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT). https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

7 Peter Koenig, January 22, 2022. The COVID-Omicron Crisis: The Roadmap Towards a Worldwide Financial Crash, Inflation, Digitization. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-omicron-is-killing-christmas-and-beyond-financial-crash-inflation-digitization/5765170

8 Peter Keonig, March 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153

9 Colin Todhunter, November 9, 2020. Dystopian “Great Reset”: “Own Nothing and Be Happy”, Being Human in 2030. https://www.globalresearch.ca/own-nothing-happy-being-human-2030/5728960

10 UN, September 2020. United Nations Comprehensive Response to COVID-19. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un-comprehensive-response-to-covid-19.pdf

11 Mark Weisbrot, February 17, 2020. WORTH THE PRICE? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War (narrated by Danny Glover). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM

12 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 20, 2010. “Manufacturing Dissent”: The Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites. https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufacturing-dissent-the-anti-globalization-movement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110

13 Ibid. 

14 Ibid.

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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 January 17, 2023

***

In recent months the world is hearing unusual terms to describe extreme weather events. Now terms like Bomb Cyclone or Atmospheric Rivers are used in the daily TV weather reports to describe dumping of record volumes of rain or snow in regions of the world in an extremely destructive way. The Green Mafia claims, without a shred of factual proof, that it is all because of man’s too-large “carbon footprint.” They use it as an excuse to double down on phasing out oil, gas, coal as well as nuclear energy in favor of unworkable, taxpayer-subsidized “green energy”– unreliable wind or solar. Could it be that these freak weather calamities are indeed “manmade,” but not from CO2 emissions? 

Since late December, especially the United States has undergone severe weather events from the Bomb Cyclone storm that buried much of the East Coast in record snow from Buffalo down as far as Florida. At the same time the US West Coast from Washington State down the coast of California has undergone extreme flooding from wave after wave of so-called Oceanic Rivers carrying huge volumes of water from the Pacific causing severe flooding. Without presenting any scientific proof, green ideologues have claimed it is all due to manmade global warming– now called “climate change” to confuse the original issue– and argue for accelerated transition to a dystopian carbon free world.

A serious case can be made that it could well be manmade. But not because of too much CO2 or other manmade greenhouse gas emissions. It could be due to deliberate and malicious manipulation of our major weather patterns.

Geoengineering?

Weather manipulation technology is one of the areas that is highly secret and has been kept from open debate since the end of World War II. It is often called geoengineering or more recently the less ominous-sounding “climate intervention.” Whatever name, it involves man messing with the complexities of Earth weather, with potentially catastrophic results. What do we know about the possibilities?

Following the 2015 Paris Climate Conference and subsequent Paris Agreement, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, along with other leading global warming scientists, began an open call for geoengineering to “solve” the alleged climate crisis and prevent global warming above 1.5 ‘ C above pre-industrial levels, an utterly arbitrary target. What the post-Paris scientists claim is that, “Our backs are against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are small and the risks of implementation are great.“ [1] What they do not say is that geo-engineering weather manipulation has been developed in secrecy by the military and intelligence agencies of the USA for decades.

‘Owning the Weather in 2025’

In June 1996 the US Air Force published a report with the provocative title, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” The report outlined the possibilities of manmade geoengineering to, among other things, enhance precipitation or storms, deny precipitation (induce droughts), eliminate cloud cover of an enemy, and other events. It was produced, “to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.”  The report noted at the onset, “weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale.” (emphasis added).[2]

 The Air Force document  also states,

“…the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril… appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined… The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together.” By 2025 it claimed, “we can Own the Weather.” The report notes that way back in the Eisenhower era, “In 1957, the President’s Advisory Committee on Weather Control explicitly recognized the military potential of weather modification, warning in their report that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb.” [3] That was almost seven decades ago.

---

Consult the original document. US Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025“

Screen Shot from the Report submitted to Air Force 2025, click to access full report

---

Image is a screenshot from a Ripley’s Believe It or Not video

Going back to the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the CIA authorized a top secret geoengineering, code-named Operation PopEye, from Thailand over Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Using military WC-130 planes and RF-4 jets, the US forces sprayed silver iodide and lead iodide into seasonal monsoon storm clouds to turn the North Vietnamese supply roads into impassable mud sinks. The mission was to create enough year-round rain to keep the Ho Chi Minh trails blocked. [4] The secret geoengineering operation was made public by award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in 1972, resulting in Congressional hearings, but little more. A few years later in 1976 a toothless law was passed “requiring” any actors to report annually to the government NOAA any weather modification undertaken. Tell that to the CIA or Pentagon. [5]

Ionospheric Heaters and atmospheric resonance technology

Since the 1970s the work on manmade geoengineering has gotten more sophisticated and also much more secret.  The traditional method of “rainmaking”, cloud seeding by planes dispersing, typically, particles of silver iodide onto clouds containing water droplets to induce rainfall has been used since the 1940s. However, since the 1990s, around the time the US Air Force published Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, significant new methods were developed with far greater reach and effect, and well before 2025.

Notably, that US Air Force 1996 report stated, “…modification of the ionosphere is an area rich with potential applications and there are also likely spin-off applications that have yet to be envisioned.” [6]

Much international attention and concern has been given to a US Air Force and Office of Naval Research ionospheric research project, HAARP– High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program– in Gakona, Alaska. In January 1999, the European Union called the project a “global concern” and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Washington ignored the call. Most of HAARP research data has been classified for reasons of “national security,” leading to wide speculation of sinister activity.

In 1985 while working for ARCO Oil Company on a grant from the Pentagon’s DARPA, a brilliant physicist, Dr. Bernard J. Eastlund, filed a patent  (US #4,686,605), for a “Method and Apparatus for Altering A Region In the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere, And Or Magnetosphere.” The patent description claimed that a specific beaming of powerful radio waves into the ionosphere could cause heating and “elevate” the Earth’s ionosphere. It  could be used to control weather, altering jet streams, changing tornadoes or creating or denying rainfall. ARCO was approached by the US military and sold them the patent rights from their then-employee Eastlund.

The US military then reportedly turned the patent rights over to top military contractor, Raytheon. Raytheon is reportedly also involved in construction of every major ionosphere heating radar arrays globally. [7]  Coincidence? A HAARP spokesman  denied it used the patent of Eastlund in HAARP. They did not mention any of the other sites, however.  [8]

HAARP antenna array (Licensed under the Public Domain)

HAARP is a highly powerful phased array of radar antennas aimed at the ionosphere. It is sometimes referred to as an ionic heater. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region. Initially its own website, now deleted, stated HAARP was “a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere… for both civilian and defense purposes.” [9]

HAARP at Gakona was officially shuttered by the US military in 2013. In 2015 officially they transferred operation of HAARP to their civilian partner, The University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The closure provided the excuse to stop the live broadcasting of HAARP’s signals on a public website, which had given strong evidence of links between HAARP activities and major weather catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina or the 2008 China Chengdu earthquake. Operation of the facility was transferred to the University of Alaska in 2015.

Some researchers have speculated that the Gakona HAARP is a sly diversion, an innocent site open to academic scrutiny, while serious military ionospheric manipulation takes place at other top secret sites. [10]

By 2015  the US military and government agencies such as NOAA had moved well beyond the capacities of HAARP. They oversaw construction of far more powerful phased array ionospheric radar heat arrays around the world. This included a more powerful HIPAS – a 70 megawatt facility east of Fairbanks. It also included Arecibo Observatory, formerly known as the Arecibo Ionosphere Observatory – 2 megawatt facility in Puerto Rico;  Mu Radar – 1 megawatt facility in Japan. And the mother of all atmospheric heating radar arrays, EISCAT – a 1 gigawatt facility in Tromsø, Northern Norway. HAARP is only a mere 3.6 megawatt facility. Many other phased array ionospheric heater sites are either classified secret  or give little information. It is believed one such is at Vandenberg Air Force base in Southern California. Another in Millstone Hill, Massachusetts, another in Taiwan and in the Marshall  Islands. Because the Pentagon and other relevant US Government agencies choose to say little or nothing about their inter-connectedness and use in climate alteration, we are left to speculate. [11]

The military contractor Raytheon, who got the Eastlund patents from ARCO, reportedly is involved in many such sites globally.

China As Well?

Because the US Government work on geoengineering has been classified and kept from an open public discussion, it is not possible to prove in a court of law that events like the East Coast Bomb Tornadoes or the September 2022 Florida Hurricane Ian, one of the most powerful storms ever to hit the US, or the January 2023 record floods from repeated waves of Atmospheric River storms lashing California after extraordinary drought, are simply natural freaks. There is no scientific evidence it is due to a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere.  But as the above suggests, there is a huge body of evidence pointing to malicious actors with powers of the state, using geoengineering not to benefit, even if manmade geoengineering could benefit.

In 2018 Chinese media reported that the state’s Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology was launching a vast geoengineering project, Tianhe which translates as “Sky River.” The project, which reportedly will be based on the high Tibetan Plateau, source of some of the world’s largest rivers, is intended to shift huge volumes of water from the rain-abundant South into the arid north. It was to have begun operation in 2020 but no details have since been published. [12]

Recent discussion of Bill Gates’ project with Harvard physicist David Keith to release calcium carbonate particles high above the earth to mimic the effects of volcanic ash blocking out the sun, or the recent experiments of Make Sunsets to launch weather balloons from Baja Mexico of Sulphur dioxide to block the sun, are clearly meant as diversions to hide how advanced real geoengineering of our weather is.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

[1] Derrick Broze, Leading Climate Scientists, Say Paris Conference Failed  Call for Geoengineering, January 15, 2016, https://www.activistpost.com/2016/01/leading-climate-scientists-say-paris-conference-failed-call-for-geoengineering.html.

[2] Col Tamzy J. House, et al,  Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,

https://web.archive.org/web/20170909014905/http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

[3] Ibid.

[4] Seymour Hersh, “Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S.” The New York Times, July 3, 1972,

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/03/archives/rainmaking-is-used-as-weapon-by-us-cloudseeding-in-indochina-is.html

[5] US Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Report: Prohibiting Environmental Modification as a Weapon of War, Report no. 93-270. Washington, DC: OS Govt. Printing Office, 27 June 1973.

[6] Col Tamzy, Op Cit.

[7] Gary Vey (Dan Eden),  The Never Ending, 2010, http://www.viewzone.com/never/TNE0440.pdf

[8] Mark Farmer, Mystery in Alaska,  Popular Science, September 1995, https://books.google.de/books?id=nSeBEQ2wGlUC&pg=PA79&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[9] HAARP website, Program Purpose, http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html

[10] Gary Vey, Op cit.

[11] Jim Lee, HAARP and Ionospheric Heaters Worldwide, http://climateviewer.org/pollution-and-privacy/atmospheric-sensors-and-emf-sites/maps/haarp-ionospheric-heaters-worldwide/

[12] China’s Tianhe Project satellite to debut at Airshow China 2018, People’s Daily, November 06, 2018,

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/1106/c90000-9515300.html

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3

Year: 2007

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Click here to purchase.

This incisive article by Julie Lévesque was first published on March 6, 2014 in the wake of the EuroMaidan “regime change”.

***

Dmitry Yarosh (center), leader of the Maidan Brown Shirts, on an international wanted list and charged with inciting terrorism.

Under the new government, Yarosh is leader of the Neo-Nazi Right Sector delegation to the Ukraine Parliament.

His close friend and political partner Andriy Parubiy co-founder of the Neo-Nazi  Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed by the new government to the position of Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU), a key position which oversees the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. Right Sektor leaders Yarosh was appointed to the number 2 position at RNBOU. 

Have the Neo-Nazis cornered Ukraine’s National Security agenda?

Welcome to “The New Normal”

In the following video filmed in the Ukrainian Parliament and posted in late December 2013, we can clearly see on the pillars two flags which are listed in the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) “Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos and Tattoos”: the White power flag and the Confederate flag.

The Celtic Cross is categorized by the ADL as a “General Racist Symbol” representing “International white pride” and used by Neo-Nazis and White supremacists.  (Click on image to enlarge.)

The Confederate flag is also described as a “General Racist Symbol” representing “White pride” and used by White supremacist. (Click on image to enlarge.)

The flags from France, the United Kingdom, Canada, as well as the one from the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Svoboda party hang beside those two White supremacist flags.

This “hate on display”, as the ADL puts it, adds on to other evidence of the neo-Nazi elements in the Ukrainian political factions which ousted elected President Yanukovych.

The western mainstream media can no longer casually dismiss this as Russian propaganda.

From left to right: Confederate flag, White power flag and Svoboda party flag.

Max Blumenthal, as well as many other authors,  described the fascist essence of the political groups involved in the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine:

One of the “Big Three” political parties behind the protests is the ultra-nationalist Svoboda, whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has called for the liberation of his country from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” After the 2010 conviction of the Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk for his supporting role in the death of nearly 30,000 people at the Sobibor camp, Tyahnybok rushed to Germany to declare him a hero who was “fighting for truth.”

In the Ukrainian parliament, where Svoboda holds an unprecedented 37 seats, Tyahnybok’s deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is fond of quoting Joseph Goebbels – he has even founded a think tank originally called “the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.”

According to Per Anders Rudling, a leading academic expert on European neo-fascism, the self-described “socialist nationalist” Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda’s official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector. (Max Blumenthal, Is the US backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?, Alternet, February 25, 2014)

Numerous reports have exposed the links between the U.S. government and Svoboda, and several pictures show U.S. and European authorities with the controversial Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok.

U.S. Assistant secretary of State Victoria Nuland with Oleh Tyahnybok (left)

U.S. Senator John McCain with Oleh Tyahnybok (right).

 

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union Catherine Ashton and  Oleh Tyahnybok (left).

European Union Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele (center) and  Oleh Tyahnybok (right).

The ADL, which has expressed its concern about the Svoboda party,  has yet to condemn U.S. and European support for it. In a statement published February 28, ADL’s National Director Abraham H. Foxman writes:

The Ukrainian Jewish community is nervous. The ultra-nationalist Svoboda party, with its history of anti-Semitism and platform of ethnic nationalism, won more than 10 percent of the vote in October 2012, shared the political leadership of the Maidan revolution over the past months, and just this week received three ministries in the new Ukrainian government.

While Svoboda’s leaders have refrained recently from making anti-Semitic statements, it is troubling that Oleksandr Sych, Svoboda’s chief ideologue, was named vice prime minister. Sych’s speeches over the years have focused on promoting Ukrainian nationalism, which he says is exemplified by Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. Bandera was at times aligned with the Nazis during World War II and was complicit in mass killings of Jews and Poles by Ukrainian partisans…

Dmitro Yarosh, leader of Right Sector, met with Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine, Reuven Din El, and told him that their movement rejects anti-Semitism and xenophobia and will not tolerate it.

Ukrainian Jewish journalist Eleonora Groisman interviewed Sergei Mischenko, the leader of “Spilna Sprava,” and told him that Ukraine’s Jews were worried about the nationalists. Mischenko responded that Jews will not have any problems and shouldn’t worry. He went on to say, “On the Maidan there were Jews with us who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. We got along excellently and fought shoulder to shoulder...”

Will Svoboda accept Jews as full-fledged Ukrainians and follow the welcome assurances of the armed nationalists? Or will the promises of Right Sector and Spilna Sprava be overtaken by the ethnic nationalism of Svoboda? (Abraham H. Foxman, In Ukraine, New Government Must Reassure Jewish Community, The Huffington Post, February 28, 2014)

The ADL doesn’t address the fact that former Israeli soldiers fought alongside with known neo-Nazi militants who now claim to reject antisemitism. This sends the paradoxical message that neo-Nazism is somehow acceptable. It is worth noting that the US media as well as the ADL refrain from using the terms “neo-Nazi” , neo-fascist and “extremist”. Instead of condemning this abnormal alliance, the ADL sees a glimmer of hope in the “promises of Right Sector and Spilna Sprava”, groups which the Israeli media itself qualified as “fascist and neo-Nazi”.

Along with similar fascist and neo-Nazi groups such as Spilna Sprava (Common Cause) and Afgantsy (a coalition of veterans from the Soviet war in Afghanistan), Pravy Sektor has played a key role both in seizing government buildings and providing security for the sprawling protest camps against riot police.  (Ari Soffer, Ukraine: Neo-Nazi Militia Leader Threatens ‘Civil War’, Arutz Sheva, February 5, 2014)

Israel’s Haaretz also reported that members of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor, were “flying flags with neo-Nazi symbols” and were “distributing freshly translated editions of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Independence Square.” (Anshel Pfeffer, The new dilemma for Jews in Ukraine, February 25, 2014)

The Anti-Defamation League should not only firmly condemn the presence of all the fascist and neo-Nazi groups in the post-coup Ukrainian government, but also denounce the countries which support them morally and/or financially, like the U.S., Canada, and member countries of the European Union.

In sharp contrast with today, Hillary Clinton was heavily criticized by Jewish groups in 2012 for “indirectly legitimizing (the) Ukrainian opposition party that entered into a parliamentary alliance with (a) neo-Nazi party”:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has criticized the Ukrainian Opposition Party of Yulia Tymoshenko for having signed a parliamentary alliance that gave legitimacy to a far-right extremist party well known for its anti-Semitic views.

Today, former Israeli soldiers are fighting with Svoboda allies, the ADL is not “alarmed” and Avigdor Lieberman has not condemned this unholy alliance. ADL’s Abraham Foxman now hopes Prime Minister Yatsenyuk will “set an admirable example” by ensuring anti-semitism is not tolerated:

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, together with UDAR leader Vitaliy Klichko, brought Svoboda into the opposition coalition in 2012. Now, having brought Svoboda into the government, it is up to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to ensure that anti-Semitism is not tolerated and that democratic norms are adhered to. By sending that message to the people of Ukraine now, the prime minister will reassure the Jewish community and set an admirable example. (Foxman, op., cit).

What kind of example are we talking about exactly? Alliance with neo-Nazi groups is ok as long as they’re not anti-Semitic?

The presence of former Israeli soldiers in the Maidan protests along with neo-Nazi militias and the attitude of the ADL and Israeli officials in this matter raise questions about what the Zionist lobby and Israel might possibly gain from the coup which put in power, among others, Igor Kolomoysky, a Ukrainian-Israeli who was appointed governor of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine’s vital business and political center.

After calling for attacks on Russia, the Right Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh, seen by the ADL as reassuring, is now on an  international wanted list for inciting terrorism. RT reported March 5, 2013:

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.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

First published by Global Research on July 1, 2024

***

Confronted by a multidimensional, highly coordinated attack on our humanity – our identity as Homo Sapiens, our freedom and even our existence – most humans retreat in fear. And, in this state, people are incapable of resisting.

Despite the rapidly advancing technocracy that is systematically depopulating humanity and taking control of those left alive, the threat of nuclear war between NATO and Russia as NATO insanely responds to the impending Russian defeat of Ukraine, the ongoing destruction of the world economy and the threat of wider war barely concealed by the televised genocide being conducted by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank which the official international community is utterly powerless to halt, most people remain unaware of the severity of these threats and the overall predicament in which humanity finds itself, and retreat behind the chatter and babble of everyday life, comforted by what is familiar.

For an overview of some key technocratic, political and other threats, see

‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s “Great Reset”: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’,

and for discussions of threats that are less well known, such as those posed by geoengineering, synthetic biology and artificial intelligence, see

Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetism & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology,

and watch

‘AI Exterminating Humans Through Synthetic Biology’.

For a sample of expert commentary on the risk of nuclear war between NATO and Russia, see

‘Press Release – RED ALERT: Ukrainian Strike on Russian Early Warning Radar Threatens To Unleash Nuclear World War’,

‘To Avoid Nuclear War, Putin Needs to be a Little Crazier’,

‘Ukraine’s NATO Allies Dragging World Into Nuclear Armageddon’ and

‘Watching Washington Foment Nuclear War’.

For an overview of why and how the global economy is being ‘transformed’ as part of the Elite program, see

Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’

And for thoughtful commentary on the push to expand the genocide being inflicted on Palestinians into war in the Middle East, see

‘Expanding Middle East War. Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways: Genocide is on The Drawing Board of the Pentagon. The Zionist Lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. Foreign Policy’ and

‘Israel’s War on Palestine. Escalation in the Middle East. Towards a World War III Scenario? The Future of Humanity’.

Unfortunately, too, most serious commentators observing or even analyzing one or more of these rapidly advancing threats offer no message of resistance or, at best, encouragement to use Elite channels. Devoid of the knowledge to resist effectively, any ‘resistance’ that is conducted almost invariably conforms to Elite-approved methods ensuring that it is absorbed and dissipated.

See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

So after observing virtually all humans fail to respond even remotely adequately to the predominant threats of any given period for more than 50 years, despite my own efforts to mobilize a strategic response on many occasions, the fearful powerlessness of most humans in the current context is not surprising. See, for example, ‘Rage Against the War Machine: What Rage? “When will they ever learn?”’

And so each of us stands at the brink of either no future or a future not worth living with the rare howls of warning barely escaping the narrow confines of those occasional, aware progressive media outlets before being overwhelmed by the insane chatter of ill-informed and irrelevant commentary.

Sadly, it cannot be any other way.

Just like the typical child who is endlessly subjected to ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence – see

‘Why Violence?’ and

‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’

– eventually learns that resistance only incurs further violence, virtually all human adults have learned to submit to the violence – direct, structural and cultural: see

‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’ and

‘Cultural Violence’

– that is inflicted on them by Elite agents.

Beyond the childhood experience of near-endless ‘terrorization’ (what humans like to label ‘socialization’), the Elite also deploys a vast array of tools to ensure submission. See ‘The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind is Climaxing. Can We Defeat it?’

And among those few who do not just quietly submit, like children, most will complain powerlessly to their perpetrator although the ‘complaint’ might take one or more of various forms – a petition to a higher authority (employer, government, international agency), a demonstration, a legal challenge – and some will resort to trivial acts of sabotage. Unfortunately, most people simplistically perceive this type of activity as equivalent to strategically effective action. See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

Few are capable of analyzing, thoughtfully, what makes the violence possible and how it might be effectively countered by a strategy to undermine its foundations using nonviolent action. And then few people will have the capacity to perceive this potential and participate in this strategy, given it requires considerable thought, self-discipline, changes in personal behaviour and, sometimes, courage.

Solving Conflicts Using Nonviolent Strategy

Any thoughtful consideration of the threats to a meaningful and sustainable human future reveals an incredibly complex configuration of conflicts, with some of the keys ones – the risk of nuclear war, destruction of the global economy, the genocide in Palestine, the advancing technocracy – briefly touched on above.

And each of these, not just those mentioned above, must be tackled.

So here are my own thoughts on achieving resolution in many areas, starting with the foundation of them all.

If we want powerful human individuals who are capable of responding strategically and nonviolently to conflicts in their life, we must stop terrorizing them into obedience during childhood in the belief we are simply ‘socializing’ them. How? See ‘My Promise to Children’.

If this promise seems beyond you, check out the value to yourself of ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If you read some of the links to key referenced articles above, you will know that my analysis has led me to ascribe responsibility for the advancing technocracy, economic destruction, wars, the genocide in Palestine (among other crises) to the Global Elite. And this Elite is insane. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So dealing with major global conflicts requires strategies that take this fact into account and do not simply assume that a conflict can be dealt with by ignoring this fact or by using Elite-controlled channels such as governments, international organizations and legal systems. Nor can they be addressed by simply attending a demonstration, popular though these have always been.

Power in our world is a ‘stacked deck’. We cannot win if we play by Elite rules.

So we must mobilize ‘ordinary’ people to act strategically outside the rules of the Elite ‘game’.

To halt the genocide in Palestine, see ‘Strategic Goals to Halt the Genocide in Gaza and Liberate Palestine’.

For insight into the war in Ukraine and how to end it, see

‘The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda’ and

‘The War to End War 100 Years On: An Evaluation and Reorientation of our Resistance to War’.

To stop the advancing technocracy and defend yourself against the ongoing destruction of the global economy, see the 30 strategic goals on ‘We Are Human We Are Free’ with one-page flyers available in 23 languages.

And to read nonviolent strategies to halt a range of other threats, including those posed by 5G – see

‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

– see

Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

With generalized strategies (easily refined to a particular context) to end a variety of international threats such as coups, genocides, invasions and foreign occupations, explained here: Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Conclusion

Time has virtually run out. Arguably, we are already too late to act, effectively, to halt the worst of what is happening, whether in the Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia or in relation to the economy and the technocracy. And, to reiterate, this is not to exclude myriad other conflicts, environmental and otherwise, that could easily attract our committed attention.

It is certainly the case that it would have been much better had we acted sooner.

Still, because I never quit, I hope that others, for whatever reasons of their own, won’t either.

But only strategic action, whatever the context, is worth your time.

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a regular contributor to ‘Global Research’.  

Featured image source

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“Everything is being set up for a confrontation that has not been seen for decades. Or even more than half a century. So, this is what is really dangerous. For all of us.” – Drago Bosnic, from this week’s interview.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Alerts of a third and final world war are out there. Plastered all over the newspapers, network broadcasts, and on the various social media outlets.

Rather like the lead-up to World War I, the major nations of the world are convulsing into a rivalry between two great alliances – the U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance and the Russia-China-Iran alliance. The former representing the “rules-based international order.” The latter representing the alternative, identified frequently by NATO leaders as the “authoritarian” by Western entities like the Atlantic Council.[1]

As with WWI, immense expenditures on weaponry is underway. And also, moves on the grand chessboard are starting to evolve into escalating a series of “checks.”[2]

With the war in Ukraine seeing a major failure in the so-called “Counter-offensive” and the Russians holding their ground and advancing, we heard the French President Emmanuel Macron apparently intend on sending Western troops to Ukrainian soil to aid the ailing Ukrainian forces. This was followed by Russia threatening to fire on the forces should they arrive in Ukraine. [3]

We saw that, according to Western military sources, 300,000 soldiers from the NATO alliance are stationed on the border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on high-readiness and are offensive-oriented. Russia. As well, indications are that the U.S., UK and EU are preparing to draft soldiers into service. Russia is preparing to revamp its entire doctrine on the usage of WMDs. Russia has also dispatched warships to Cuba about two weeks ago. [4][5][6]

And now, just last weekend, there were MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System  (ATACMS) fired on Sevastopol in Crimea, mostly intercepted by Russian air defence but killing four people and injuring 151. Russia blamed the U.S. for the attack, as the U.S. military supplied the weapons, aimed them and provided data for the attack. As of this date, Russia is planning retaliation. [7]

Pressure is building as neither Russia nor the U.S. appears ready to blink. Will one of them blink? Or will there be a moment, not unlike the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that sparked the vital mix of imperial tensions causing an explosion that was the most destructive war to that point in history – World War I. Will history repeat itself in 2024? That is the subject of this week’s special episode of the Global Research News Hour. [8]

In our first half hour, Drago Bosnic, a military and geopolitical analyst studying the war constantly gives his assessment of the recent developments, and assesses the high probability that a major confrontation and ultimately a nuclear war will result.

In our second half hour, we have a lengthy chat with historian Dr. Jacques Pauwels about the World War II victory 80 years ago and how the lion’s share of the work, and the sacrifice, and the bloodshed fighting the German Nazis was on the Russian side in the east, not Normandy in the West. He makes a comparison between the two wars as a necessary one highlighting the dangers and stupidity of the Ukraine War.

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

Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels was born in Belgium in 1946, moved to Canada in 1969. Undergraduate history studies at Ghent  University, Phd in history from York University in Toronto; MA and PhD in Political Science from University of Toronto. Part-time lecturer in history at various universities in Ontario from approximately 1975 to 2005.

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

(Global Research News Hour episode 438)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

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.

New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

First published by the Centre for Research on Globalization on January 20, 2024

***

Introduction

The world looks on with horror,  and apparent impotence, as more than 23,000 [at time of writing] defenseless Palestinians, many of them women and children, have been killed, many more wounded since the October 7, 2023  bombing campaign by the Israeli armed forces,  pulverizing Gaza, ostensibly in retaliation for the attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, which killed approximately 1,500 Israelis.  

Calls for a ceasefire from around the world are ignored, and, most shamefully of all,  the United Nations Security Council, whose mandate requires it to uphold global peace and security, has, to date, remained impotent, failing to draft any resolution which would demand a cessation of the bombing; and despite the fact that United Nations workers themselves have also been killed as a consequence of the assault on Gaza, the Security Council has completely failed, as of this writing, to produce any resolutions which would halt this collective punishment of the Palestinians, which is now described as genocide.

It would be unfathomable why the UN Security Council permits this slaughter to continue, unabated; it is also unfathomable why the UN Security Council failed to demand that the Minsk Accords be complied with, which would have prevented the current prolonged war between Russia and Ukraine, and saved approximately half a million lives, slaughtered in a useless and preventable war. To make matters more scandalous were the admission by France and Germany that they never intended the Minsk Accords to be complied with, and that they cynically used the UN Security Council approval of the Minsk accords to buy time to strengthen the Ukrainian Army, for the purpose of shattering demolishing Russia.

The Historical Context

A study of the manipulation and abuse of the UN Security Council for the enactment of the geopolitical agenda of the Western powers,  should begin with the 1990-1991 manipulation of the Security Council by the Western powers, just prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USSR by then almost fatally weakened, and unable to withstand US/UK pressure. This study follows, including the exposure of the cynical and Machiavellian tactics used by the West to force through Security Council Resolution 678, which unleashed the pattern of slaughters for which the United Nations Security Council provided both authorization and “cover.”

An examination of overt and covert means by which Security Council approval for resolution 678 was obtained, the methods of coercion, intimidation and bribery by which Security Council members were drawn by the United States into tragic and shameful collaboration in passage of a resolution which has betrayed the very purpose for which the United Nations was originally created (“to prevent the scourge of war”) reveals the criminal and barbarous character or the “New World Order which the former Bush administration intended to impose throughout the world by the most violent means in human history.

On November 16, 1990 the Non-Aligned members of the Security Council drafted an initiative alerting the Security Council members to the risk: “Talk of war option establishes its own momentum which increases the risks of war.” The initiative states:

“1. Given the cultural gap and lack of direct, face-to-face communication between principal parties, and the overall atmosphere of suspicion, there is a high probability that any Iraqi ‘signal’ of ‘flexibility’ would either be ignored, discounted as insincere, or otherwise misinterpreted.”

“2. Given the overwhelming negative consequences now attached to withdrawal, Iraq is not likely to send a signal of flexibility that is sufficiently strong and clear to be understood until war is imminent, by which time it may be too late to stop the momentum toward war.”

Iraq’s Serious Efforts to Cooperate

The New York Times, December 2, 1990 stated:

“Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State James Baker 3^rd responded publicly today to Iraq’s acceptance of Mr. Bush’s offer of talks on the Gulf crisis. But Administration officials rebuffed the Iraqi Government’s suggestion that any direct talks between Iraq and the US on Kuwait should deal with the issue of a Palestinian homeland. In its statement, Iraq welcomed the chance for the two countries to have ‘a deep and serious dialogue,’ but did not make its acceptance of Mr. Bush’s offer conditional on discussion of the Palestinian issue.’”

It would be difficult to misunderstand Iraq’s eagerness for dialogue, or to deny its flexibility. On November 29, following what the New York Times described as a “smoothly orchestrated” series of Security Council meetings (“disrupted today when Cuba complained that the Council is rushing into voting a new Persian Gulf crisis resolution before it has voted on an earlier resolution criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories…..The United States has been striving to delay a vote on the anti-Israel resolution until after the Council gives permission for military action against Iraq, because it would like to veto the measure.  Such a reminder of the United States’ friendship with Israel would embarrass Washington’s Arab friends.”) inciting the psychological atmosphere necessary for passage of Resolution 678 (the Security Council listened to descriptions of Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait for two days, all sensationally reported by the New York Times.

But interestingly, the major media failed to mention a press conference in United Nations Room 226, given by Dr. Mohammad Said, and contradicting many of the statements describing Iraqi “atrocities” “smoothly orchestrated” in the Security Council chamber.

Dr. Said’s testimony and his description of the historical circumstances and context of the Iraqi invasion were documented extensively with videotapes (he has two half-brothers and other relatives in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and eyewitness reports from his travels in Kuwait and Iraq: he brought a view of both Iraq and Kuwait at odds with the picture painted by the American news media “and called for both sides to pursue a rational approach to peace based on a plan put forth by the Committee of Arab-Americans Against “US intervention in the Gulf.” His testimony was ignored by both the press and the Security Council.

US/UK Machiavellian Maneuvers Making War Inevitable 

The War Resolution 678 was adopted, following a campaign of manipulation akin to gangster tactics (to be described in detail, later.) And as, legally, Security Council members opposing the War Resolution 678 could have legitimately obstructed its ignominious passage by demanding a procedural vote on which issue took precedence, and should be dealt with first: in fact, S. 219331, concerning the issue of Palestine, brought before the council on October 8, 1990 legally took precedence, and massive disruption of the “smoothly orchestrated ministerial level ‘war council’” could legitimately have been caused by Security Council members outraged by the brazenly displayed double standard of 12 hastily and threateningly passed resolutions in four months, punishing Iraq for its 4 month old occupation of Kuwait, and no effective resolutions protecting Palestinians in territories “occupied” by Israel after 20 years.

And with cynicism equivalent to utter contempt (November 29, Newsday report),

“The United States agreed informally last night to allow passage of a new Security Council resolution protecting Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories if the measure’s sponsors don’t raise the issue and disrupt today’s historic UN vote authorizing the use of force to oust Iraq from Kuwait, according to reliable diplomatic sources. Egyptian Ambassador Amre Moussa said the United States had agreed ‘in principle’ last night not to block the measure on the occupied territories and the sponsors of the resolution promised in return that “there won’t be any ‘show biz’ during today’s council meeting on Iraq and Kuwait.”

The Non-Aligned honored their agreement and the “War Resolution 678” passed without disruption or complication, or the disgrace that the Non-Aligned could have legitimately heaped upon the United States and it Foreign Ministerial collaborators. (In fact, a senior US official told an AP correspondent that the Non-Aligned would have “every reason to feel betrayed if they didn’t get cooperation on S/21933/Rev.1”).

The Famous / Infamous BBC “Leak”

On December 5, a resolution approved by the Permanent Five, including the United States Mission, and the Non-Aligned was drafted and scheduled for Security Council vote, as promised by the United States Mission, and the Non-Aligned was drafted and scheduled for Security Council vote, as promised by the United States, and would have, crucially, also met Iraq’s request for conditions enabling it to immediately and honorably withdraw from Kuwait, thereby averting a devastating war.  “Interestingly,” the resolution, (acceptable to all, including, crucially, Iraq, and guaranteeing a peaceful solution) was “leaked” the evening of December 5 to a BBC reporter by “several of the usual reliable US diplomatic sources,” and immediately broadcast by the BBC as an “important shift in US” policy since “as part of negotiations on this resolution the Americans were proposing a reference in the Security Council resolution to a Middle East peace conference; this was the first time such a conference was mentioned in connection with the Security Council, and would be binding, implying further action of the kind Israel wouldn’t like.”

The premature BBC leak spotlighting the peace conference “caused (more accurately, enabled) Bush to immediately reject the “peace resolution,” and it was squashed. Though the BBC correspondent stated disingenuously that “this kind of proposal would have to have a green light from Washington”’ if it already did, the BBC “leak” relieved, and allowed Bush to “back off” from support for a resolution his administration never intended to support from the outset, though the US mission could appear to support it initially until the cooperative BBC “leak” enabled Washington to obstruct the “peace resolution” from coming to a vote at the Security Council, at which point the US would have vetoed it, exposing its own double standard. (Washington once stated:  “it is not opposed to leaks, it simply wants to control them.”) Had the resolution passed, it might have offered protection to Palestinian civilians, and led to Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, clearly something Washington and its British lackeys in cynical collaboration intended to prevent.

Cynical US/UK Postponements of Vote on Peace Restoration, Malaysia Protest Deception

Nevertheless, this cowardly and dishonorable ploy did not go unnoticed by many Ambassadors at the UN, accustomed to US conniving methods of interference in the domestic affairs of other countries: privately a majority of Ambassadors at the UN referred with disgust to the so-called “leak,” but they lacked a voice on the Security Council. Meanwhile, back at the Security Council events developed in an even more odious and disgraceful fashion: the meeting at the Security Council, scheduled for the afternoon on December 6, and at which the Non-Aligned Resolution S/21933.Rev.2 on Palestine should have been brought to a vote at the Security Council with US support, as promised on November 28, was then shifted to Friday morning, then to Friday evening, then to Saturday evening.  On December 8, 1990, the Soviet Ambassador moved for postponement till December 10 (to spare the US the embarrassment of vetoing Res. 21933/Rev.2:  Ambassador Razalli of Malaysia stated: 

“I appeal to members of the Council to understand what the request for a postponement is all about.  It is not to work towards a different formulation of paragraph 7; it is to work towards the exclusion of paragraph 7, which calls for the convening of an internal peace conference on the Middle East, in the interest of the position of an important member of the Council.”

Nevertheless, the meeting was postponed. At 3PM December 10, the Soviet Ambassador again moved the adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, December 12 at 6PM (again sparing the US the embarrassment of vetoing the Resolution and exposing its own double standards). The Representative of Malaysia again protested:

“For the record, too, let me say that the sponsors have made the maximum concession on the international conference.  We have offered, in what may be called ‘Revision 3,’ if ever that revision clears the surface, to transpose paragraph 7 into the preamble and what is in the preamble into the operative part; this is a maximum concession that in many ways diluted many things on the matter of the international conference.”

To no avail, the meeting was adjourned until December 12 at 6PM. On December 12, the Deputy Ambassador of the Soviet Union proposed adjournment of the meeting to Monday, December 17 at 3PM. Outside the Security Council chambers, Mr. Al Kidwah, the representative of Palestine stated unequivocally that

“it is the USA that is blocking and ultimately preventing any action toward a peaceful and equitable solution of the Palestinian and the entire Middle East crisis.”

When challenged that it was the USSR that had moved to postpone the meetings, Al Kidwah lucidly reaffirmed that it is the USA that is fundamentally responsible for the deadlock, implying that other members were serving the US interest in masking its role, and not too nakedly revealing its duplicitous double-standard.

Stupefaction and disbelief, followed by tension, frustration, rage and despair were shared by Asian, African, Latin American and Middle Eastern diplomats as well as others observing the vulgar and contemptuous methods of the USA, its British and European lackeys, and a collaborative, emasculated USSR, of manipulating and paralyzing any Security Council action protecting Palestinian citizens in the “occupied territories” and ultimately sabotaging effective action toward a peaceful resolution of the crisis in the Middle East. And the extent to which the USA dishonored itself, betrayed its promise of November 28, and succeeded in manipulating the Security Council and the United Nations to serve its own “interest” in instigating the Gulf War was staggering.

Highjacking of the United Nations Security Council by US Dominated Western Powers

The formal meeting scheduled for December 17, 3PM did not occur. Evidently a “long epic informal meeting” (as described by the Representative of Malaysia on December 19) served to further delay serious efforts to resolve the crisis – peacefully, and when on Wednesday, December 19 at 11:55 AM a formal meeting was convened, Finland moved for further postponement – implicitly to enforce a further dilution o S/21933/Rev.3 which would ultimately result in castration of the resolution, thereby serving the USA’s intransigent, obsessive and virtually fanatic insistence that nothing even remotely suggesting that the crucial problems of the Middle East might have some common basis (that suggestion of “linkage,” a word which attained the status of a taboo throughout these negotiations) survive, as Finland thereby insured protection of the “interests” of a tiny ‘elite,’ the Ruling Class in the USA which succeeded in using the entire United Nations apparatus to impose and inflice its own interes upon the entire planet.

The War: UN Security Council Resolution 678: Pulverizing Iraq

And while epithets were hurled at Saddam Hussein throughout this period, references to him as a “madman, another Hitler, etc., the US delegation’s panic at any suggestion of the work “linkage” verged on psychosis, causing any impartial observer to wonder who was in fact the madman, and whether Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was being used by the USA in precisely the same manner as Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to justify all his ultimately genocidal actions. Unfortunately, George H. W. Bush’s statement almost 4 weeks later (as on January 16, 1991 the US began bombing Iraq in what was to become the most “intensive bombing campaign in the history of warfare”) (New York Times, January 23, 1991,  p.8…. described, as follows by an Egyptian refugee: 

“They are bombing;  people are dying in the street,” said Mr. Mohammed, the auto mechanic. “This is not war, it is the annihilation of a people, an entire Muslim people. People are sleeping in the Mosques. Soldiers are dead in the streets with no one to evacuate them.

This is a black day.”) was conclusive proof that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was indeed Washington’s Reischstag, as George Bush stated before the world that the goal of the bombing was to destroy Iraq’s nuclear and chemical industries and to eliminate Hussein from power. (This despite UNDPI International Atomic Energy Agency/1154 stating “no change has taken place in the status of nuclear material under safeguards in Iraq since the last inspections”…April, 1990. At that time, the conclusion was reached that all nuclear material under safeguard was accounted for.)

According to Felicity Arbuthnot:

“The US having refused all negotiation, then dispatched an extra three hundred and sixty thousand US troops to the Gulf at the end of November, the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 678, threatening force of Iraq did not withdraw by January 15th – Iraq having offered to withdraw, albeit with conditions on August 12th., and without conditions a short time later.

In Geneva, on 9th January 1991, then Secretary of State James Baker (a “diplomat” who stated: “We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”) met Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Tareq Aziz, with a letter from Bush Snr., promising the destruction of Iraq, if Kuwait was not withdrawn from by 15th January. Tareq Aziz stated he would not deliver the letter.

 

Expansion of the Attack on Iraq: In Violation of UN Security Council Mandate

The New York Times, January 21, 1991: 

“The Bush Administration is taking advantage of combat in the Persian Gulf to try to achieve military aims that go beyond an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait:…The process began from the moment President Bush announced the onset of war and said the US would destroy Iraq’s nuclear and chemical industries. That was not envisioned in the 12 United Nations Resolutions on Kuwait, but that was an objective that was certainly on the lists of American officials who had been looking for ways to neutralize Iraq as a regional power. The United Nations resolutions on Kuwait never mentioned Iraq’s nuclear potential. But announcing the start of hostilities permitted Mr. Bush to say explicitly that he intended to destroy the chemical and nuclear potentials of Iraq…The US continues to say that it is not trying to kill Mr. Hussein, but it has made no secret of its hope that he would fall from power as a result of the war.” (New York Times, January 22, 1991)

Yes, United States’ will prevailed, with the collaboration of Finland, and of course the meeting was postponed to December 20, 1990, at which point the US had bludgeoned the entire Security Council into submission, the diluted “offending preambular paragraph  in S/21922/Rev.3” was entirely eliminated and replaced by a Presidential Statement (not legally binding, as a Security Council Resolution including the paragraph would have been) which was virtually meaningless, in any case, stating: 

“In this context they agree that an international conference, at an appropriate time, properly structured, should facilitate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement and lasting peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.’ “However, the members of the council are of the view that there is not unanimity as to when would be the appropriate time for such a conference. In the view of the members of the council, the Arab-Israeli conflict is important and unique and must be addressed independently, on its own merits.”

The only voice of sanity (reminiscent of the boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who stated, in opposition to the totally deluded consensus on the exquisite finery of the Emperor’s new clothes, that the Emperor was, in fact, naked) was expressed by Yemen’s Ambassador Al-Ashtal: 

“Since there has been much recent talk of linkage between the Gulf crisis and the problem of the Middle East, I should like in conclusion to recount a brief folk tale that may portray the overall situation with regard to this problem. The story – which by the way is an old Chinese proverb – goes as follows: A farmer had some silver coins and wanted to hide them somewhere. He therefore dug up a small hole in his orchard and buried the coins in it. He then put up a sign reading: ‘There are no silver coins buried here.’ The moral of that terse little tale is that the more we affirm that there is no linkage between the Gulf crisis and the Middle East problem, the more we highlight that link.”

Under the circumstances, it is doubtful whether the BBC would have been severely reprimanded for its “leak” that entirely disrupted negotiations toward a peaceful settlement of the Gulf crisis. All evidence leads toward the BBC “leak” as part of a “smoothly orchestrated” inexorable and deadly “legal” preparation for a war that has revealed its perpetrators, the “coalition” architects as genocidal and barbarous was criminals.

*

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.

Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York. 

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.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

First published on June 12, 2024

During the previous years, and more specifically the last few months, the intensity of a putrid smell of war has increased to the point where apocalypse could be just around the corner. More and more talks of war, a fear-mongering discourse, the projection of a hot (nuclear) WWIII – hitting Central Europe the third time in just over hundred years, is dominating the mainstream and even non-mainstream media.

It could be true, of course.

Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, envisions a West entangled in Ukraine close to no return. This would mean a direct clash with Russia. Mr. Orban is especially referring to French President Macron’s promise of delivering to Ukraine Mirage fighter jets (no numbers mentioned) and his repeated threats of sending French / NATO troops to fight in and for Ukraine and against Russia.

NATO soldiers in Ukraine is a fully understandable no-no for President Putin, as he repeated on many occasions. It had been part of the Minsk Agreements (2014 and 2015), as signed by all parties, but completely ignored. According to Madame Merkel, then-German Chancellor, Minsk was never meant to be serious, but rather to “buy time” for the west to bolster Ukraine for war with Russia. So, western lies, tricks and cheats are gradually seeping out.

NATO troops are already in Ukraine, just not officially, but admitted and referred to on several occasions by the Polish Foreign Minister.

Hungary’s Head of State also says that NATO requires its members to supply Ukraine with at least 45 billion dollars-worth of weaponry – which he is against. Hungary will not participate in any NATO (or otherwise) direct intervention in Ukraine against Russia. See this.

As a sideline-advise, Mr. Orban may surround himself with bodyguards, as anti-Nato-Ukraine politicians have been cautioned, if not warned, by unidentified sources – for example politicians in Georgia – about the fate of Slovakia’s PM, Robert Fico – who recently just survived an assassination attempt.

Mr. Fico was openly against arming and funding Ukraine in the war against Russia. He is also a fierce opponent of the WHO “Pandemic Treaty”, which is “disabled” for now. The death cult knows no limits.

The other war – in the Middle East – the US Biden-Blinken Administration is doing whatever they can to drive the Zionist Israeli horrendously brutal killing machine to extremes in Gaza – and, less reported on, in all of Palestine, extending into Lebanon and Jordan and soon deeper into the Middle East for the Zionists holy goal of a Greater Israel. See this and this and this.

On 8 June, Washington supported the IDF (better called ZDF – “Z” for Zionist) to “rescue 4 Israeli captives” in Gaza. That offensive ended up killing at least 200 Palestinians, with children being the main target, maiming them, blowing them up, leaving them destroyed, either death or horrendously suffering until death relieves them from suffering.

A US official told Axios (American news website), a US “cell” was stationed in Israel since 7 October 2023, supporting the IDF with military and intelligence data, or as the NYT calls it “intelligence and other logistical support”. All the while, there are, of course, no US boots on the ground.

Does anybody still doubt that the October 7, 2023 “Hamas attack” was planned well in advance by Israel’s Mossad, along with the CIA and MI6?

It looks obvious that these two active and hot wars – Ukraine and Gaza – are connected, as are many others with less news coverage. Both are following the interests of the same Zionist-led worldwide financial apparatus. Killing by wars is among the western system’s biggest money-making affairs.

Plus, it serves the same cabal’s key priority of depopulating the planet. Therefore, wars may rather proliferate than abate, as we see on a daily basis. Atrocities and rules-based assassination of objectors to the orders, are reaching extremes – with a largely desensitized public just looking on “as long as it doesn’t touch me…”

This is the world we are living in.

Or is it?

Simultaneously, there is a fresh breeze of hope and peace cleansing the stench of war. Things are shifting – into a new direction. All over the world. This move is often hard to see – because we are living in a western propaganda and lie-media cage. It ignores the ongoing contest between evil darkness and the light of liberation and Peace.

For example, this past weekend (8 / 9 June 2024), an Anti-Globalist rage swept Europe. Elections took place in many countries in Europe, notable for the European Parliament – where the so-called left, the corrupted “socialists” (no longer deserving their noble name) and greens, the Master Globalists (as in the Green Deal, the largest sham in recent party history) were out-voted by a landslide, in favor of conservative politicians and parties representing the will of the people, national sovereignty, personal independence – screaming a loud NO to globalism.

Eurovision Debate 2024 with Lead Candidates (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

A drastic shift to the so-called right – a better term would be towards “people’s and national sovereignty” in the EU Parliament, took place.

Under the circumstances, it is far from sure that Madame Ursula Von der Leyen, unelected European Commission (EC) President for the last five ears and loaded with corruption lawsuits, will be reappointed for a second five-year term in August 2024.

The Belgian Prime Minister resigned. In France, the people revolted against Macron, chanting RESIGN!

Consequently, Macron dissolved Parliament and called for snap elections on June 30 and July 7, 2024. For details on how French dissolution of the National Assembly (Parliament) and snap  elections work, see this from Le Monde.

President Macron’s opponent, National Rally’s Marine Le Pen, and her young ally, Jordan Bardella, were jubilant after Sunday’s victory. They are projected winning the upcoming elections by a large majority.

Is this the beginning of the downfall of Globalist Europe? If so, where will Washington go? A people’s revolt in the US is also just around the corner. Many barbarian acts – like the literal promotion and funding with hundreds of millions of dollars of “illegal immigrants” by the Biden / Blinken Administration, are keeping the American public on edge. 

So far about US$120 billion, and more promised, in US tax-payers money transferred to ultra-corrupt Ukraine in the form of cash or weaponry, is further polarizing Americans, especially those aware of the real level of recession, poverty and unemployment ravaging the United States’ economy since the covid sham. 

Image: Two soldiers are positioned on the Statue of Liberty’s torch, which has been turned into a makeshift fighting position. (Licensed under Fair Use)

Many speak about a potential civil war, going as far as a breaking off by Texas into a new independence (Texas was a breakaway state from March 2, 1836 to February 19, 1846). See also the independent 2024 movie, “Civil War”. Films are often used by the Cult-Cabal to predict what may be planned and coming.

Potential scenarios are many. And who knows how long the struggle between the forces of darkness and those of light will last, when finally light will outshine darkness?

Does it mean that the western systems of usurpation – thousand years of colonizing the Global South – may collapse on both sides of the Atlantic?

Speculating positively, Europe may rebuild itself along the lines of the ancient giant Eurasian Continent that 2100 years ago was united by the original Silk Road, already then initiated by China.

It would be a logical unification and cooperation in Peace and harmony with Russia, China, and the Global South, today represented by the expanded BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

We are not there yet.

Kiev is still fighting for more and more western support, in arms, in money, in training of Ukrainian troops to fight against Russia. They will, on average, according to expert Scott Ritter, last about a week or less before they are killed.

Russia could indeed bring a halt to this bloodshed by decapitating Kiev in a matter of 72 hours or less. If it has not happened yet, it is because President Putin does not want to risk a hot – God forbid – nuclear WWIII, destroying Europe and possibly much of Moscow too.

Figuratively speaking, it is a few seconds to noon before a collapse may be triggered by an act of cowardice, by the western illusion of supremacy. Yet, Russia is today and has always been ready to negotiate for a fair arrangement that protects the Russian population in the Donbas and keeps Ukraine out of NATO – as a neutral state.

Why does it not happen?

Why does the West not take advantage of the so-called Peace Conference sponsored by Switzerland on 15 / 16 June on the Swiss luxury resort Burgenstock, a frequent Bilderberger venue, to which it is expected that more than 160 delegations, nations, organizations, NGOs and individuals will attend – but NOT Russia? Naturally, names of expected attendees are secret.

Why is it that they lie about not inviting Russia, saying, because Russia would not want to attend, when the exact contrary is the case? The truth is, Switzerland was falling for Zelenskyy’s wish to hold a Peace Conference without Russia. Can anybody imagine this billion-dollar effort for zilch? For sheer anti-Russia propaganda? And for bending to western arrogance? 

Such a sinister plan can only be a loser’s plan. 

Whatever it is, subtle events of reconciliation are occurring throughout the world, the breeze of fresh air is brushing away the stench of war, of ever more obvious political incompetence, of the endless war propaganda, and, instead, they are announcing a new, non-globalist multi-polar world working together for shared benefits and a common future.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A famous person (was it Karl Marx?) once remarked that when history repeats itself, the first time it is a tragedy, the second time a farce. Many of Marx’s important predictions may not have come to fruition exactly as he wanted, but on this one he was spot on.

Image: Evo Morales (Source: Peoples Dispatch)

The recent commotion in the South American country of Bolivia may be regarded as an illustration. The potential tragedy part of the drama was the 2019 coup, executed professionally according to the regime change rulebook in order to seize the country’s valuable lithium deposits and incidentally despoil it’s citizens of all their remaining mineral wealth.

In that coup, President Evo Morales, the indisputable champion of the bulk of Bolivia’s majority indigenous population, was ruthlessly deposed. The farce is the amateurishly attempted replay of that episode on 26 June 2024, which in spite of best laid plans unexpectedly went awry. The farce took all of three hours to collapse.

On both occasions, in 2019 and on 26 June 2024, the principal points of contention were Bolivia’s vast lithium deposits, estimated at 21 million tonnes, and for whose benefit they would be exploited.

A related but equally fundamental issue was (and still very much is) Bolivia’s orientation in the geopolitical arena, whether it would side with the BRICS block or the collective West.

In everything but the operation’s outcome in the farcical stage, the symmetry between the two coups was evident.

In 2019 the intended rapine of Bolivia’s natural resources, with lithium deposits at the top of the plunder list, initially was successful but ultimately it failed.

To be sure, the regime change manual was followed faithfully. After shameless electoral interference with abundant cash and a flood of corrupt media disinformation, Evo Morales’s commanding lead in the 2019 elections was whittled down to a manageable level so that his electoral victory could be plausibly portrayed as stolen.

In standard fashion, rented mobs demanded his withdrawal and commissions were set up by vassal entities such as the Organisation of American States to declare that the election process was fraudulent. At the appropriate moment, army officers who almost to a man were graduates of the notorious subversion academy, the School of the Americas (since innocuously renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation to cover up its criminal tracks) were activated to administer the coup de grace to Morales’ presidency, or so it was expected. The legally re-elected, however narrowly, President Morales was compelled to flee for his life into exile.

A dumb and as it turned out also venal, but extremely cooperative, Aryan blonde without a drop of Inca blood, Jeanine Áñez, was invested with the presidential sash and illegally installed to replace him.

The multinational lithium cartel could now rub their hands and gloat over the succulent Bolivian pickings that had fallen into their lap, a booty Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid could only have dreamt of.

Elon Musk, one of the rapacious magnates who was allegedly involved in the coup and who was in dire need of lithium to power his electric car venture, publicly flaunted his complicity in the affair, instigated to thwart the political will of a long-suffering and impoverished nation. He arrogantly boasted that “we will coup whoever we want” when asked to explain his sordid role in  overthrowing a democratically elected foreign government.

But it was a short lived party. Bolivia’s unwashed masses, the Andean “deplorables,” stubbornly refused to play by the script. Following months of civil disobedience by the abused population, Bolivia became virtually ungovernable and it was the coup regime that finally had to give in.

After a new election, Bolivia was returned to constitutional rule under the legally elected current President Luis Arce, Morales’ protégé and former finance minister.

The stage was set for the recent farce the moment Evo Morales announced his intention to run for President in the forthcoming 2025 elections.

His stand-in Luis Arce’s patriotic policies were bad enough for the cabal, particularly his plan to treat Bolivia’s national resources as the common patrimony of its people, to explore the use of safe lithium extraction technologies developed by Russia, and to apply for membership in BRICS.

But the prospect of their charismatic bête noire Evo Morales’ being elected again next year was simply intolerable for both oligarchies, the international and the domestic.

Image: Luis Alberto Arce Catacora (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

The big lesson of the failed attempted coup in Bolivia is that the hegemon’s bag of tricks is nearly empty and that its technologies of control, which in the past had almost always worked flawlessly, are now faltering badly. It is futile however to try to teach an old dog new tricks.

Taking a leaf from Alexander Lukashenko’s playbook during the foreign orchestrated upheaval in Belarus, instead of fleeing to seek refuge in a foreign embassy, which is what Latin American presidents have traditionally done in similar circumstances, Luis Arce decided to change the paradigm. He came down from his office, personally confronted the rebellious troops, all native Bolivians like himself, informed them that he was their legal President and commander-in-chief, and addressing them over the head of the treacherous School of the Americas graduate, General Juan José Zúñiga, who enticed them to mutiny on the false pretext of protecting democracy, Arce ordered them to return to their barracks. And lo and behold, obediently they did. After a brief stand-off in Plaza Murillo in front of the Presidential palace, the second Bolivian lithium coup fizzled pathetically.

But as the saying goes, you lose some and you win some. Whilst being chased out of proud Bolivia, the lithium cabal are scoring big in servile Serbia.

Compared to Bolivia and other lithium rich countries, Serbia’s reserves are relatively modest, estimated at 1,3 million tonnes. It is nevertheless an attractive venue because its corrupt regime grants foreign concessions on the principle of baksheesh and is always keen to make under the table deals for a cut of the proceeds.

It is as uninterested in the devastating impact of unregulated lithium mining as it is completely indifferent to where its munitions will end up in the Ukrainian conflict. The health of citizens theoretically entrusted to its care or the environment are the least of its concerns.

Mostly unnoticed by the rest of the world, for several years an intense lithium battle has been simmering in Serbia. Spearheading the international mining cartel’s assault on Serbia’s mineral wealth is the predatory Rio Tinto corporation, an outfit with a terrible record for environmentally destructive practices and callous exploitation of human labour.

One suspects that the reason Rio Tinto and the Serbian government are getting on so well is that they are kindred spirits.

The crux of the Serbian situation is that the government does not have a policy of treating natural resources as the inalienable patrimony of the nation not subject to privatisation and which must be administered with regard for the common good.

Rio Tinto’s objective, naturally, is the maximisation of profit for the least investment. There are other European countries, such as Germany, which have considerable lithium deposits but they also have strict environmental laws, high labour costs, and a much more ecologically sophisticated public than is the case in Serbia.

That is why for Rio Tinto a symbiotic relationship with Serbia’s corrupt government is the perfect solution for getting a piece of the electric vehicle battery market at minimum cost. The waste its mining activities would leave behind once they cease to be profitable, having devastated productive agricultural land and contaminating Serbia’s water supply with poisonous substances, is not Rio Tinto’s problem. It should be the government’s concern, of course, but like everywhere else where it operates Rio Tinto has the government in its pocket.

There are indications that sections of the Serbian public are waking up to the existential danger to life and health posed by their government’s shady deal with a predatory corporation whose track record is scandalous even by the abysmally low mining industry standards. Serbs do not have the stamina of Bolivians, but over the next several weeks protests are scheduled in the most endangered areas as well as in the rest of the country.

It is unlikely that the protesters will stray very far from their comfort zone or that a general on a white horse (perhaps this time a graduate of the Suvorov military academy?) will appear to save the day. But as the situation unfolds it bears watching, and we will keep readers abreast of further developments as warranted.

*

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

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: Laguna Cañapa in Bolivia. Photo via Wikimedia.

---

Rethinking Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic

Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.

Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:

1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;

2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;

3) Genocide or Blowback?;

4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);

5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;

6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;

7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;

8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;

9) The Balance Sheet; and

10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.

• ASIN:‎ B0992RRJRK
• Publisher: ‎Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
• Language: ‎English

Click here to purchase.

NATO’s 70th anniversary in Florence, Italy (April 7, 2019) called for NATO-Exit. 

We are currently gearing up to the Washington NATO July Summit  to be held on 9-11, July 2024.

At this juncture in our history the crimes committed by NATO and its 32 member states are beyond description, specifically with regard to its unbending support of a Nazi government in Kiev. 

***

Five years ago in April 2019, we met in Florence at a Conference Venue calling for NATO EXIT.

No Guerra, No NATO.

The Florence Declaration adopted by more than 600 participants called for NATO-Exit: the withdrawal of NATO member states from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 

The object of the Florence Declaration was NATO-EXIT. The Dismantling of NATO and the closure of US military bases. 

NATO is not an Alliance. It is an organisation under the command of the Pentagon, and its objective is the military control of Western and Eastern Europe.

US bases in the member countries of NATO serve to occupy these countries, by maintaining a permanent military presence which enables Washington to influence and control their policies and prevent genuine democratic choices.

NATO is a war machine which works for the interests of the United States, with the complicity of the major European power groups, staining itself with crimes against humanity.

Text of The Florence Declaration: NATO EXIT

Adopted by more than 600 participants to the Florence No War No NATO Conference, April 7, 2019.

Original in Italian. Translations into English, French, Russian, Spanish.

The debates and discussions were chaired by renowned author and geographer Manlio Dinucci.

The event was organized by Italy’s Comitato No Guerra, No NATO, in collaboration with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

The Florence Declaration was drafted by Italy’s Comitato and the CRG.

 

First published on Global Research on May 06, 2019, July 6, 2024

 

The risk of a vast war which, with the use of nuclear weapons, could mean the end of Humanity, is real and growing, even though it is not noticed by the general public, which is maintained in the ignorance of this imminent danger.

A strong engagement to find a way out of the war system is of vital importance. This raises the question of the affiliation of Italy and other European countries with NATO.

NATO is not an Alliance. It is an organisation under the command of the Pentagon, and its objective is the military control of Western and Eastern Europe.

US bases in the member countries of NATO serve to occupy these countries, by maintaining a permanent military presence which enables Washington to influence and control their policies and prevent genuine democratic choices. 

NATO is a war machine which works for the interests of the United States, with the complicity of the major European power groups, staining itself with crimes against humanity.

The war of aggression waged by NATO in 1999 against Yugoslavia paved the way for the globalization of military interventions, with wars against Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other countries, in complete violation of international law.

These wars are financed by the member countries, whose military budgets are increasing continually to the detriment of social expenditure, in order to support colossal military programmes like that of the US nuclear programme which costs 1,200 billion dollars.

In violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the USA is deploying nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear NATO States, under the false pretext of the ”Russian menace”. By doing so, they are risking the security of Europe.

To exit the war system which is causing more and more damage and exposing us to increasing dangers, we must leave NATO, affirming our rights as sovereign and neutral States.

In this way, it becomes possible to contribute to the dismantling of NATO and all other military alliances, to the reconfiguration of the structures of the whole European region, to the formation of a multipolar world where the aspirations of the People for liberty and social justice may be realised.

We propose the creation of a NATO EXIT International Front in all NATO member countries , by building an organisational network at a basic level strong enough to support the very difficult struggle we must face in order to attain this objective, which is vital for our future.

Florence, April 7, 2019

 

 

 

Manlio Dinucci from Italy

Michel Chossudovsky from Canada

 

Zivadin Jovanovic from Serbia

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The United States tax code allows exemptions from federal taxes for certain categories of nonprofit organizations or groups that frequently serve either an educational or charitable purpose. Such organizations are categorized as 501(c)(3) and exempt from Federal income taxes while the donors who contribute to their support can deduct the total donations up to the limits imposed by their own overall tax liability. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recognizes more than 30 types of nonprofit organizations but only those that qualify for 501(c)(3) status can say that donations made to them are tax deductible.

Most of the organizations that may be eligible for 501(c)(3) designation

“fall into one of three categories: charitable organizations, churches and religious organizations, and private foundations. A group must operate exclusively for one of certain purposes to be considered a charitable organization by the IRS: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.”

The IRS further defines “charitable” activities as “relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

A 501(c)(3) organization is also “forbidden from using its activities to influence legislation in a substantial way, including participating in any campaign activities to support or deny any particular political candidate. It’s also typically not permitted to engage in political lobbying.” A private foundation is typically “held by an individual, a family, or a corporation and it obtains most of its income from a relatively small group of donors. Private foundations are subject to stricter rules and regulations than public charities. A public charity is a nonprofit organization that receives a substantial portion of its income or revenue from the general public or the government.”

It is worth considering how a 501(c)(3) is supposed to work when one examines how the numerous organizations that constitute the Israel Lobby in the United States have attained that status, which enables them to avoid US taxes while also attracting donors through tax deductions in spite of the fact that they lobby heavily, which ignores US laws, and exist to support and empower a foreign government that is engaged in a genocide.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), regarded as the wealthiest and most politically powerful of the Lobby groups, even boasts about its lobbying ability as well as the amazing success of its associated PAC in endorsing favorable to Israel political candidates. The heavily politically engaged Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the pro-Iran war Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) are likewise 501(c)(3). Smaller foundations such as the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation, founded by the father of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, are likewise 501(c)(3) and engaged in supporting illegal settlement development in Israeli occupied Palestine.

The 501(c)(3) status enables many Jewish and Israel-oriented groups to obtain large sums of money which are then used politically to enabled the corruption of the political process in the United States to the benefit of both Israel and domestic Jewish-favored issues. And being non-profit most definitely does not mean that anyone is going broke or working out of shabby offices in some dank suburb. AIPAC reported in excess of $90 million in earnings since Israel has been at war in Gaza, plus ADL $105 million in 1922, and FDD $18 million in earnings in the same year. The chief executives of the three organizations are, respectively Howard Kohr, Jonathan Greenblatt, and Mark Dubowitz. They earned $1,055,000, $993,000, and $771,000 respectively in 2021-2022.

This all means in practice that there is a steady cash flow from the United States to Israel that far exceeds the $3.8 billion plus special appropriations annually that President Barack Obama foolishly guaranteed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2016 in a bid to maintain Jewish donor and media support for Hillary Clinton’s election. Grant Smith, who heads the “Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRMEP)”, has estimated that the annual total going to Israel far exceeds $10 billion and, which does not include other freebies like US government co-development and production projects and disbursements like the $14 billion gift from President Joe Biden to Israel in April to help pay for and arm that nation’s extermination of the Gazans.

Israel and the Jewish community also get an enormous free ride from some state governments. Smith has described how one such board that he has identified in Virginia is a unique example of a state’s economic policies being manipulated by a dedicated Israeli fifth column in government. It is named the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB).

The VIAB is actually part of the Virginia state government. It is funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia and is able to access funds from other government agencies to support Israeli businesses. It is staffed by Israelis and American Jews drawn from what has been described as the “Israel advocacy ecosystem” and is self-administered, appointing its own members and officers. Only Virginia has such a group actually sitting within the government itself though other states have similar advisory or “trade” commissions. VIAB is able to make secret preferential agreements, to arrange special concessions on taxes and to establish start-up subsidies for Israeli businesses. Israeli business projects have been, as a result, regularly funded using Virginia state resources with little accountability. It has been estimated that the cash flow in favor of Israel from Virginia alone has exceeded $500 million annually.

Smith has reported how VIAB is not just an economic mechanism. Its charter states that it was “created to foster closer economic integration between the United States and Israel while supporting the Israeli government’s policy agenda.” Smith also has observed that “VIAB is a pilot for how Israel can quietly obtain taxpayer funding and official status for networked entities that advance Israel from within key state governments.” The board grew significantly under Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe’s administration (2014-2018). McAuliffe, regarded by many as the Clintons’ “bag man,” has received what are regarded as generous out-of-state campaign contributions from actively pro-Israeli billionaires Haim Saban and J.B. Pritzker, who are both affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Terry McAuliffe as governor met regularly in off-the-record “no press allowed” sessions with several Israel advocacy groups and spoke frequently about “the Virginia Advisory Board and its successes.” That was, of course, a self-serving lie by one of the slimiest of the Clinton unindicted criminals. In short, the VIAB is little more than a mechanism set up to carry out licensed robbery of Virginia state resources to benefit Israel. As a side benefit to us Virginians, its reckless activities have led to numerous zoning and environmental violations.

Judging by all of the above, one would reasonably have to accept that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, that there are many “non-profit” federal tax-exempt foundations and other boards and organizations that exist in the United States to benefit Israel. That said, however, there are a couple of pro-Israel 501(c)(3) “charitable” foundations that boggle the mind for their openly state mission. They consist of several organizations that have been established and exploited to support the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which, as noted above, are currently engaged in carrying out what is widely recognized to be a genocide in Gaza as well as persecution of Palestinians on parts of the illegally occupied West Bank. They are perhaps deserving of some special attention.

The best known and largest of the Israeli army focused “charities” is the “Friends of the Israel Defense Forces” (FIDF) which stages annual rallies and gatherings both in Los Angeles and New York to raise money for those brave warriors who are nearly every day bombing hospitals and schools and killing many thousands of children. The gatherings are well attended by the usual celebrities and politicians and widely reported in the accommodating media. The group, based in New York City, boasts of how it works directly with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Friends of IDF raised a record $60 million at a Los Angeles gala in 2018. Major Donald Trump financial supporters Miriam and Sheldon Adelson donated $10 million, matched by Israeli-American Hollywood figure Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl.

FIDF claims to be the only 501(c)(3) certified IDF fund raiser in the US, but there is at least one other organization that has been in the news recently. It is “The Association for Israel’s Soldiers” which also goes by “The Friends of LIBI” and “LIBI USA”, which is a volunteer outfit based in Brighton, Massachusetts. It actually also claims to be part of Israel’s Ministry of Defense and its job is to cover expenses that are not part of the Israeli government budget. As money is fungible, that frees up money for more warlike purposes. But that description inevitably makes one wonder how an element of the Israeli government is able to collect tax exempt money that is also deductible as federal income taxes donations which are apparently repatriated from the US to Israel without any “charitable” or “educational” function intruding in America?

It does not require any particular brilliance to realize that both politically and economically Israel is not treated like everyone else by governments at various levels in the United States. At risk of being repetitive, how is it possible that organizations that are committed to supporting war crimes and even genocide by a foreign nation are allowed to have tax breaks that enable them to collect more money to corrupt the system that feeds them? How is it possible that the foreign army carrying out the war crimes is also allowed to benefit directly from the exemption from taxation? Those are questions that need to be answered!

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Zionists bomb homes and businesses and families and people have nowhere safe to go. They have lost everything, including family members, and they have nowhere safe to go.

This is what genocide looks like. Western-supported Zionists use Western-supplied 2,000 pound bombs to obliterate neighbourhoods, to obliterate Palestinians. This is policy.  The genocide, the mass-killings and the mass destruction are intentional.

This is what fascist genocide looks like. Western-supported Israel rounds up and tortures civilians as policy.

This is what genocide looks like. Zionists intentionally destroy healthcare and hospitals. Doctors have no choice but to perform surgeries WITHOUT ANESTHETICS.

This is genocide. Western governments support 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.

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: Let Them Eat Dirt – by Mr. Fish

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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.

Towards Peace?

On June 15-16, 2024, 2024 delegates from 90 countries met at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucerne, in the context of a Peace Conference organized by the Swiss government to which Russia was not invited.

The so-called Peace Conference was a failure.

 

The article below focusses on the sabotage of the Istanbul Peace negotiations in March 2022, which took place a couple of weeks after Russia’s February 24th “Special Operation”

Michel Chossudovsky‘s introductory text is followed by the carefully researched article by Nauman Sadiq first published by Global Research on March 31st, 2022 in the immediate wake of the failed peace negotiations in Istanbul. 

 

 

Sabotage of the Kiev-Moscow March 2022

Peace Agreement in Istanbul

The End Game is the Destruction and Privatization of Ukraine

 

by

Michel Chossudovsky

December 8, 2023 

 

 

Introduction 

My first reaction in early March 2022, following Russia’s “Special Operation” initiated on February 24, 2022, was that

The War in Ukraine had “Ended before it Began”. 

The Russians literally destroyed Ukraine’s Air Force and Navy at the very outset in February-March 2022.

Also Russia gained strategic control over a large part of the Black Sea and almost total control of the Sea of Azov. 

Anyone who has a minimal understanding of military strategies, knows that you cannot wage a conventional ground war without a Navy and an Air Force.  

U.S. military strategists were no doubt fully aware at the very outset that Ukraine could not under any circumstances “win the war”. 

Peace negotiations were carried out in early March in Istanbul between Kiev and Moscow.

The organization of these peace negotiations were undertaken prior to the conduct of  the “Special Operation” on February 24, 2022. Moscow’s intent was to coordinate the Special Operation with peace negotiations. 

A  draft agreement was signed by both parties. It was immediately the object of sabotage by Washington.

1. The NeoCons in Washington. Peace is Not An Option

The NeoCons are firmly behind the Ukraine agenda. They were actively involved in the US Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état, which was conducive “in the name of Western democracy” to a “regime change”: namely the instatement of a Neo-Nazi puppet government in Kiev.

US-NATO is firmly embedded in the Kiev regime’s Neo-Nazi project the objective of which is to destroy Ukraine as well wage war on Russia. 

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) dominates US foreign policy on behalf of powerful financial interests. 

The PNAC dispels the planning of “consecutive” military operations: it describes:

America’s “Long War” as follows: 

“fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”

The conduct of  “Simultaneous Theater Wars” in different regions of the World is the backbone of America’s hegemonic Agenda.

It’s a project of global warfare. The PNAC controlled by the NeoCons also dispels the holding of real peace negotiations. 

 

 

There is a hidden agenda behind this war. 

Ukraine was slated to be destroyed as a sovereign country and eventually privatized. (see analysis in Section 6 below)

2. Boris Johnson’s Sabotage Mission 

In response to the Istanbul peace agreement,  (Former) U.K. PM Boris Johnson was dispatched in March 2022 on an unannounced special mission to Kiev.

The objective of his assignment was sabotage on behalf of Washington:

“The media had already started to announce the probable success of the peace talks… but…‼️ Boris Johnson suddenly appeared in Kiev with military gifts for Zelensky, after which the Ukrainian delegation did not appear again at the negotiations,” he further tweeted. 

He [Tweet] cited that Zelensky broke his promise when the Russians withdrew their troops from Kiev in view of the peace agreement between the two nations.

It is worth noting that Denis Kireev, who was part of the Kiev negotiating team, “was killed in broad daylight in Kiev after the first round of talks with Russia”. Kireev was subsequently accused in local Ukrainian media of “treason.”

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement that “there would be consequences for collaborators” [with Russia] indicates that these atrocities have been sanctioned by the highest levels of government. (See this)

3. President Putin Revealed Details Concerning the Draft Peace Agreement 

At Saint Petersburg (June 19, 2023), President Putin revealed details concerning the draft peace agreement signed in Istanbul by Kiev and Moscow in March 2022.

“initialed by a leader from the negotiation group of Kyiv who even signed the document of ‘security guarantees of Ukraine”. 

 

 

#Putin publicly showed the previously unpublished document in front of South African President Ramaphosa.

(Nato reportedly sent disgraced US puppet Boris Johnson to force Kiev to back down.) pic.twitter.com/DQ4stmvAD3

— Djole 🇷🇸 (@onlydjole) June 17, 2023

 

Putin also questioned, “Where are the guarantees that they will not renounce any other agreements in the future?” (Live Mint, June 19, 2023)

Bear in mind that this was the THIRD failed initiative on the part of the Kremlin. Recall the earlier Minsk I and II initiatives.

4. Germany’s Former Chancellor G. Schroeder Confirms “Sabotage” of the Peace Agreement 

In October 2023, Germany’s Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder confirmed in an October 2023 Interview with the Berliner Zeitung that the United States had deliberately sabotaged the Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks.

Below are excerpts of this interview: (Translation from German by Global Research)

Berliner Zeitung

According to Ukraine, the Bucha massacres [allegedly] committed by the Russians led to the end of the negotiations.

G. Schroeder

Nothing was known about Butscha during the [peace] talks on March 7th and 13th.  I think the Americans didn’t want an agreement [compromise] between Ukraine and Russia. The Americans believed that they could keep the Russians down.

Now it is the case that two actors, China and Russia, which are confronted by the USA, are joining forces. Americans believe they are strong enough to keep both sides in check. In my humble opinion, this is a mistake. Just look at how torn the American side is now. Look at the chaos in the U.S. Congress.

Berliner Zeitung 

Do you think the peace plan can be resumed? 

G.  Schroeder

Yes. And the only ones who can initiate this are France and Germany.

Berliner Zeitung

But how can you trust the Russians? In January 2022 it was said that the Russians did not want a war with Ukraine. Then, when the Russians invaded Donbass, it was said that the Russians didn’t want to go to Kiev. All of these promises have been broken. Shouldn’t we be afraid that the Russians might go further and further?

G. Schroeder

There is no threat. This fear of the Russians coming is absurd. How are they supposed to defeat NATO, let alone occupy Western Europe?

They had almost reached Kiev. What do the Russians want? Status quo in Donbass and Crimea. Not more. I think it was a fatal mistake that Putin started the war. It is clear to me that Russia feels threatened.

Look: Turkey is a NATO member. There are missiles that can reach Moscow directly. The USA wanted to bring NATO to Russia’s western border, with Ukraine as a new member. All of this was felt like [interpreted] as a threat to the Russians.

There are also irrational points of view. I don’t want to deny that. The Russians responded with a mix of both: fear and forward defense.

That’s why no one in Poland, the Baltics, and certainly not in Germany – all NATO members, by the way – has to believe they are in danger.

The Russians would not start a war with any NATO member.”

(Berliner Zeitung, translation and minor edits by Global Research, emphasis added)

 

Of significance Schroeder acknowledges that “the peace plan can be resumed”. He calls upon France and Germany to play a lead role:

“And the only ones who can initiate this are France and Germany”.

5. Washington Pressures German Politicians: Defend Your Country against “a Russian Attack” 

Washington is not only behind the sabotage of  peace negotiations –including Minsk 1, 2 and Istanbul– it has also pressured German politicians to defend their country against the possibility of  a “Russian attack”:

“In a confidential strategy paper, General Chief of Staff Zorn swears that the Bundeswehr will face tough years ahead. A conflict with Russia is becoming more likely. The troops must concentrate fully on defence [Abwehr] against an attack”.

What this bold statement suggests is that Germany and its allies should “defend themselves” (plural) against a Russian attack.

Translation of the above (From German by Global Research)

Feared confrontation with Russia   

Preparation for “forced war” – The Bundeswehr must become significantly more powerful”

In a confidential strategy paper, General Chief of Staff Zorn swears that the Bundeswehr will face tough years ahead. A conflict with Russia is becoming more likely. The troops must concentrate fully on defence [Abwehr] against an attack.

What this bold statement suggests is that Germany and its allies should “defend themselves” (plural) against a Russian attack.

See also the contradictory statement of Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who studied foreign policy in Klaus Schwab’s WEF Forum of Young Global Leaders (YGL): 

“The most important is that we do it together, we are fighting against Russia

Germany’s FM, Annalena Baerbock: “We are fighting a war against Russia,”

They are openly saying it. They are literally saying US/NATO are at war with Russia. pic.twitter.com/80cERnKHHK

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 25, 2023

 

6. The Destruction and Privatization of Ukraine

In retrospect, “this never ending war” (which has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives) has another unspoken objective: 

The destruction and privatization of  an entire country on behalf of powerful financial interests. 

BlackRock, which is the World’s largest portfolio investment company together with JPMorgan have  come to the rescue of Ukraine. They are slated to set up the Ukraine Reconstruction Bank.

The stated objective is “to attract billions of dollars in private investment to assist rebuilding projects in a war-torn country”. (FT, June 19, 2023)

“… BlackRock, JP Morgan and private investors, aim to profit from the country’s reconstruction along with 400 global companies, including Citi, Sanofi and Philips. … JP Morgan’s Stefan Weiler sees a “tremendous opportunity” for private investors. (Colin Todhunter, Global Research June 28, 2023)

The Kiev Neo-Nazi regime is a partner in this endeavour. War is Good for Business. The greater the destruction, the greater the stranglehold on Ukraine by “private investors”:

“BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase are helping the Ukrainian government set up a reconstruction bank to steer public seed capital into rebuilding projects that can attract hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment.” (FT, op cit)

The Privatization of Ukraine was launched in November 2022 in liaison  with BlackRock’s  consulting company  McKinsey, a public relations firm which has largely been responsible for co-opting corrupt politicians and officials Worldwide not to mention scientists and intellectuals on behalf of powerful financial interests. 

“The Kyiv government engaged BlackRock’s consulting arm in November to determine how best to attract that kind of capital, and then added JPMorgan in February. Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced last month that the country was working with the two financial groups and consultants at McKinsey.

BlackRock and Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy signed a Memorandum of Understanding in November 2023.

In late December 2022, president Zelensky and BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink agreed on an investment strategy.

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research, December 8, 2023

 

Below is the detailed report by Nauman Sadiq published by Global Research in March 2022.

The article provides details on the peace negotiations as well as on the political response of the Pentagon, the US State Department and Western media.  

 

***

 

Is Peace on the Horizon?

Russia Wraps Up Military Operation in Ukraine?

by Nauman Sadiq

Global Research, March 31, 2022

 

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin, leading the Russian peace delegation in Istanbul talks, told reporters Tuesday:

“In order to increase mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations and achieving the ultimate goal of agreeing and signing an agreement, a decision was made to radically, by a large margin, reduce military activity in the Kyiv and Chernihiv directions.”  (emphasis added)

Ukrainian negotiators said that under their proposals, Kyiv would agree not to join alliances or host bases of foreign troops, but would have security guarantees in terms similar to Article 5, the collective defense clause of the transatlantic NATO military alliance.

The proposals, which would require a referendum in Ukraine, mentioned a 15-year consultation period on the status of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014. The fate of the southeastern Donbas region, which Russia demands Ukraine cede to separatists, would be discussed by the Ukrainian and Russian leaders.

Kyiv’s proposals also included one that Moscow would not oppose Ukraine joining the European Union, Russia’s lead negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said. Russia has previously opposed Ukrainian membership of the EU and especially of the NATO military alliance. Medinsky said Russia’s delegation would study and present the proposals to President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian offer scaling back its blitz north of the capital and focusing instead on liberating Russian-majority Donbas region in east Ukraine, a task that has already been accomplished in large measure, was a major concession ending the month-long offensive in Ukraine.

Whereas Ukrainian demands were minor details that can be discussed later, either bilaterally between Russia and Ukraine, or on international forums, such as the UN Security Council or General Assembly.

In any case, Russia has already accomplished its strategic objectives in Ukraine, as the Crimean Peninsula and the Donbas region are now de facto independent territories where Russian peacekeeping forces have been deployed to maintain peace and stability.

“Ukrainian negotiators have essentially agreed to Russia’s principal security demands of rejecting NATO membership and regarding the presence of foreign military bases on its territory,” the Kremlin’s chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky told Sputnik News.

Zelensky  Contradicts Ukraine Peace Negotiators

Tacitly acknowledging Russian troop withdrawal north of the capital as pledged by the Russian peace delegation in Istanbul, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky referred to Russian troop movements away from Kyiv and Chernihiv in an early morning video address and said that was not a withdrawal but rather “the consequence of our defenders’ work.”

Zelensky added that Ukraine is seeing “a build-up of Russian forces for new strikes on the Donbas and we are preparing for that.”

“The combat potential of the Ukrainian Armed Forces has been significantly reduced, which allows us to focus our main attention and efforts on achieving the main goal—the liberation of Donbas,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu proudly boasted Tuesday. (emphasis added)

He added that 123 of Ukraine’s 152 fighter jets had been destroyed, as well as 77 of its 149 helicopters and 152 of its 180 long- and medium-range air defense systems, while its naval forces had been totally eliminated.

It’s noteworthy that the Russian special military operation, dubbed “Operation Z” by Vladimir Putin, wasn’t a full-scale war. In fact, the Kremlin strictly forbade Russian media from calling the operation a war. It was a calculated military incursion having well-defined security objectives: the liberation of Donbas and denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.

Those military objectives have already been achieved in large measure, as not only the Russian-majority Donbas including Kherson and Mariupol in the southeast have been liberated but the battles are ongoing in the adjacent areas in the northeast, Kharkiv and Sumy, that will hopefully fall soon.

Sergey Shoigu has already proved through facts and figures how the country has been demilitarized with the combat potential of Ukraine’s armed forces significantly degraded.

Denazification

As for denazification, Donbas was the hub of neo-Nazi Azov, Right Sector, Dnipro 1 and 2, Aidar and myriad of other ultra-nationalist militias funded, armed and trained by the CIA since the 2014 Maidan coup toppling Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and consequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia.

With the liberation of Donbas and deployment of Russian peacekeeping forces, neo-Nazi militias wouldn’t find a foothold, at least, in east Ukraine bordering Russia’s vulnerable western flank.

As for the “40-mile-long” convoy of battle tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery that descended from Belarus in the north and reached the outskirts of Kyiv in the early days of the war without encountering much resistance en route the capital, that was simply a power projection gambit astutely designed as a diversionary tactic by Russia’s cunning military strategists in order to deter Ukraine from sending reinforcements to Donbas in east Ukraine, where real battles for territory were actually fought, and scramble to defend the embattled country’s capital instead.

Except in the early days of the war when Russian airstrikes and long-range artillery shelling targeted military infrastructure in the outskirts of Kyiv to reduce the combat potential of Ukraine’s armed forces, the capital did not witness much action during the month-long offensive.

Otherwise, with the tremendous firepower at its disposal, the world’s second most powerful military had the demonstrable capability to reduce the whole city down to ashes.

What further lends credence to the indisputable fact that the Russian assault on Kyiv was meant simply as a show of force rather than actual military objective to occupy the capital is the fact that Belarusian troops didn’t take part in the battle despite staging military exercises alongside Russian forces before the invasion and despite the fact that Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko is a dependable ally of the Russian strongman, Vladimir Putin.

Although Russia incurred 1,351 fatalities during the war, as candidly admitted by the Russian defense ministry, the myth of countless charred Russian tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces littering the streets of Ukraine’s towns and cities is a downright fabrication peddled by the corporate media as a psychological warfare tactic to insidiously portray the losing side in the conflict as a winning side.

Besides the handful of neo-Nazi militias and foreign mercenaries fighting pitched battles against Russian forces in Donbas, the much-touted “resistance” was nowhere to be found in the rest of Ukraine.

The “40-mile-long” column of armored vehicles that created panic in the rank and file of Ukraine’s security forces and their international backers didn’t move an inch further after reaching the outskirts of Kyiv in the early days of the war.

In fact, it wasn’t a fighting force at all. After conducting joint military exercises with Belarussian troops last month, young Russian soldiers, dubbed “conscripts” by the Western media, continued their training exercises on the Ukrainian territory and gained valuable battlefield experience. Now, they would return home and recount their adventures to their families.

Nonetheless, in the parallel reality of the Russo-Ukraine War conjured up by the spin-doctors of foreign policy think tanks and national security correspondents of the corporate media, Russia “failed to achieve” its presumed military objectives of “ransacking the capital Kyiv” and “overrunning the whole territory” of the embattled country, and that the “botched invasion” was thwarted by the “valiant Ukrainian resistance.”

In line with this illusory narrative of the war, the mainstream media is abuzz with fabricated reports, citing “credible Western intelligence,” that President Putin was supposedly “misled by Russia’s military leadership,” and tensions over the military’s alleged “setbacks have strained ties and created a rift” between the Russian strongman and his military.

White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield told reporters:

“We believe that Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about how badly the Russian military is performing, and how the Russian economy is being crippled by sanctions because his senior advisers are too afraid to tell him the truth,” Bedingfield said, without providing details on the evidence behind the assessment.

“It is increasingly clear that Putin’s war has been a strategic blunder that has left Russia weaker over the long-term, and increasingly isolated on the world stage.”

Speaking in Algiers, Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged Putin had been given “less than truthful information” from his advisers.

“With regard to President Putin, look, what I can tell you is this, and I said this before, one of the Achilles’ heels of autocracies is that you don’t have people in those systems who speak truth to power or who have the ability to speak truth to power,” Mr. Blinken said. “And I think that is something that we’re seeing in Russia.”

In a news conference on Wednesday afternoon, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that the Defense Department believed that Putin has not had access to an accurate account of his “army’s failures” in Ukraine. “We would concur with the conclusion that Mr. Putin has not been fully informed by his Ministry of Defense, at every turn over the last month,” Kirby said.

“If Mr. Putin is misinformed or uninformed about what’s going on inside Ukraine, it’s his military, it’s his war, he chose it,” Pentagon spokesman said. “And so the fact that he may not have all the context — that he may not fully understand the degree to which his forces are failing in Ukraine, that’s a little discomforting, to be honest with you.”

Other American officials, as reported in the mainstream media, have said that Putin’s rigid isolation during the pandemic and willingness to publicly rebuke advisers who do not share his views have created a degree of wariness, or even fear, in senior ranks of the Russian military. Officials believe that Putin has been getting incomplete or overly optimistic reports about the progress of Russian forces, creating mistrust with his military advisers.

The New York Times reported:

“The Russian military’s stumbles have eroded trust between Mr. Putin and his Ministry of Defense. While Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu had been considered one of the few advisers Mr. Putin confided in, the prosecution of the war in Ukraine has damaged the relationship. Mr. Putin has put two top intelligence officials under house arrest for providing poor intelligence ahead of the invasion, something that may have further contributed to the climate of fear.”

It’s worth pointing out that these misleading news reports are based on declassified Western intelligence. But a question would naturally arise in the minds of perceptive readers that why the intelligence reports are being leaked to news organizations now.

A Reuters report offers a glimpse into the malicious motive for declassifying the intelligence now after Russia has wrapped up its military campaign in Ukraine and claimed victory in achieving security objectives of the intervention: the liberation of Donbas and denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.

“Washington’s decision to share its intelligence more publicly reflects a strategy it has pursued since before the war began. In this case, it could also complicate Putin’s calculations, a U.S. official said, adding, ‘It’s potentially useful. Does it sow dissension in the ranks? It could make Putin reconsider whom he can trust.’

“There were no indications at the moment that the situation could foster a revolt among the Russian military, but the situation was unpredictable and Western powers would hope that unhappy people would speak up, a senior European diplomat said. Military analysts say Russia has reframed its war goals in Ukraine in a way that may make it easier for Putin to claim a face-saving victory despite a woeful campaign in which his army has suffered humiliating setbacks.”

All the media hype in order to misguide gullible audiences on the eve of impending Russian troop withdrawal from Ukraine aside, the fact remains it’s old wine in new bottles. The intelligence wasn’t declassified now, it was declassified three weeks ago, but nobody paid much attention to the asinine assertion of an alleged rift between Putin and the Russian military leadership.

 Politico reported as early as March 8, in an article titled “Putin is angry,” that the US intelligence heads warned before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the panel’s annual hearing on worldwide threats that Russia could “double down” in Ukraine.

The remarks by Director National Intelligence Avril Haines and four fellow intelligence agency leaders — Defense Intelligence Agency Director Scott Berrier, CIA Director William Burns, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and FBI Director Christopher Wray — represented some of the most candid assessments of Moscow’s thinking by US officials since the start of the security crisis in late January.

“Although it still remains unclear whether Russia will pursue a maximalist plan to capture all or most of Ukraine, Haines said, such an effort would run up against what the U.S. intelligence community assesses is likely to be a persistent and significant insurgency by Ukrainian forces.”

Clearly, DNI Avril Haines spilled the secret before the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the US intelligence was in dark whether the Russian forces would overrun the whole of Ukraine, or the Russian blitz north of the capital was only a diversionary tactic meant for tying up Ukrainian forces in the north, while Russia concentrated its efforts in liberating Donbas in the east.

“Burns, the CIA director, portrayed for lawmakers an isolated and indignant Russian president who is determined to dominate and control Ukraine to shape its orientation. Putin has been ‘stewing in a combustible combination of grievance and ambition for many years. That personal conviction matters more than ever,’ Burns said.

“Burns also described how Putin had created a system within the Kremlin in which his own circle of advisers is narrower and narrower — and sparser still because of the Covid-19 pandemic. In that hierarchy, Burns said, ‘it’s proven not career-enhancing for people to question or challenge his judgment.’”

Read the academic-cum-diplomat CIA Director William Burns’ “candid assessments” psychoanalyzing Putin’s mental state amidst the war and the pandemic from early March alongside the recently plagiarized New York Times and Reuters reports asserting that “Putin’s rigid isolation during the pandemic” made him surround himself with “yes-men too afraid to tell him the truth” and consequently he rushed to invade Ukraine to figure out the malicious motive of insidious smear campaign against the Russian peacemaker on the eve of the Russian troop withdrawal from Ukraine as pledged by the Kremlin delegation during the Istanbul peace initiative to Ukraine.

About the author:

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

O primeiro-ministro húngaro, Viktor Orban, fez uma visita surpresa a Kiev em 2 de julho e conversou com o presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky, sobre a possibilidade de um cessar-fogo. As autoridades de Kiev rejeitaram a proposta de Orban quase imediatamente, deixando claro que não haverá paz e que o país planeja seguir a diretiva ocidental de lutar “até ao último ucraniano”.

Orban propôs a Zelensky que tomasse a iniciativa de estabelecer um cessar-fogo e depois retomar as negociações de paz com a Rússia. Na opinião do líder húngaro, um cessar-fogo seria um gesto frutífero de boa vontade para o diálogo com Moscou, mostrando que Kiev está disposta a resolver o conflito diplomaticamente. Ele acredita que, com o fim das hostilidades, as negociações poderiam avançar de forma mais adequada, tendo mais chances de as partes finalmente chegarem a um acordo.

Esta foi a primeira visita de Orban a Kiev em mais de uma década, o que mostra como o político húngaro estava genuinamente disposto a propor um diálogo de paz. No entanto, as autoridades ucranianas nem sequer consideraram a proposta de Orban, com o assessor de Zelensky, Igor Zhovkva, quase imediatamente a manifestar-se para rejeitar a iniciativa.

“[Orban] expressou a sua opinião (…) Este não é o primeiro país que fala sobre tais possíveis desenvolvimentos (…) [No entanto] a posição da Ucrânia é bastante clara, compreensível e bem conhecida (…) [Para Kiev, um cessar-fogo] não pode ser considerado isoladamente”, disse ele durante um comunicado oficial.

Zhovkva está errado quando diz que Orban propôs um cessar-fogo “isolado”. A iniciativa que propôs visa retomar as negociações de paz. Obviamente, cessar as hostilidades antes das conversações seria visto por Moscou como um gesto de boa vontade, independentemente do resultado final das discussões. No entanto, esta falta de educação diplomática ucraniana era realmente esperada.

O regime neonazista deixou repetidamente claro que não está disposto a negociar a paz, excepto nos seus próprios termos – que incluem precisamente a recuperação do controle territorial sobre as áreas libertadas pelas forças russas. É evidente que Moscou não está disposto a entregar aos territórios inimigos que já foram reintegrados na Federação Russa, pelo que o diálogo com a junta de Kiev é impossível.

Na verdade, de um ponto de vista realista, só os russos podem realmente propor um acordo de paz. Como lado vitorioso no conflito, é Moscou quem decide quando encerrar a ação militar. Kiev só pode aceitar as condições da Rússia ou continuar a lutar mesmo sem qualquer possibilidade de vitória. Por seu lado, a Rússia já propôs um acordo de paz, cujos pontos principais são o reconhecimento das Novas Regiões e a promessa de Kiev de não aderir à OTAN. A Ucrânia continua a recusar estas condições, prolongando desnecessariamente o conflito.

É possível dizer que Orban fez o que pôde, mas os seus planos foram frustrados pela sede ucraniana de guerra. A junta de Kiev está obstinada em cumprir todas as ordens ocidentais, sendo infrutíferas quaisquer iniciativas de paz. No entanto, é importante sublinhar como a atitude dura da Ucrânia em relação a Orban poderá ter consequências graves, uma vez que as tensões entre Kiev e Budapeste têm aumentado continuamente nos últimos tempos.

Orban tem uma postura soberanista, sendo um líder dissidente na UE e na OTAN. Ele é contra o fornecimento de armas a Kiev e a favor da paz entre a Rússia e a Europa. Recentemente, Orban acusou os “burocratas da UE” de quererem a guerra com a Rússia e deixou claro que não quer que a Hungria se envolva numa tal situação.

Orban também está profundamente preocupado com os seus compatriotas étnicos húngaros sob jurisdição ucraniana. Tal como acontece com os russos em Donbass, Kiev está a promover a limpeza étnica na região da Transcarpátia, de maioria húngara. A língua húngara foi banida das escolas da Transcarpátia e os cidadãos locais foram enviados em massa para a morte certa nas linhas da frente, sendo uma prioridade na política de recrutamento forçado.

A Hungria denunciou repetidamente a situação na Transcarpátia, mas as organizações internacionais permanecem inertes. Zelensky não deu qualquer explicação a Orban sobre esta questão na recente reunião. É altamente esperado que isso irrite o líder húngaro e o encoraje a tomar medidas cada vez mais duras contra Kiev, talvez sancionando-o ou encorajando a emigração em massa de húngaros étnicos da Ucrânia.

Além disso, Orban poderia prosseguir uma política ainda mais soberana a partir de agora. O primeiro-ministro húngaro já compreendeu que não há futuro na cooperação com a UE e a OTAN, razão pela qual a Hungria pode procurar parcerias estratégicas com potências emergentes, incluindo a Rússia.

Lucas Leiroz De Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês :Ukrainian insistence on war might seriously irritate Hungary, InfoBrics, 3 de Julio de 2024.

Imagém : InfoBrics

*

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

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

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Donald Trump, a peacemaker?

That’s precisely how Robert C. O’Brien (former US National Security Adviser) describes the former president’s record – even if this means peace by force, or “peace through strength”, as Ronald Reagan phrased it and as Trump echoed it in his UNGA 2020 General Assembly speech. Analyses of Trump’s political profile can indeed vary wildly, depending on whom you ask (see below). O’Brien in any case forecasts that, with regards to foreign policy, one can expect realism with a “Jacksonian flavor” in case the Republican wins the election.

Andrew Byers (a nonresident Fellow at Texas A&M University’s Albritton Center for Grand Strategy) and Randall L. Schweller (an Ohio State University Professor and Director of the Program for the Study of Realist Foreign Policy) have similar views on this.

According to them, Donald Trump is, at heart, a “true realist”, that is, “someone who avoids idealistic and ideological views of global affairs in favor of power politics”.

For the experts,  in Trump’s first term, such “realist impulses were muted and sometimes stopped by hawkish national security staffers who did not share his vision”, however, “having learned that personnel is policy”, he “will not make this mistake again.”

Byers and Schweller thus forecast that Trump’s potential new administration will be “perhaps the most restrained US foreign policy in modern history.”

The idea of securing peace through readiness to engage in war is best summarized in American political culture by the aphorism of which Theodore Roosevelt was so fond of saying: “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

Trump seems to lack the softness part – this becomes abundantly clear if one takes the story of his exchange with Taliban leadership seriously, for instance (clearly a mistake, considering how other Powers today pragmatically engage with the Taliban). Even Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy was not pure bullying: it was supposed, in theory, at least, to allow adversaries to “save face” in defeat.

O’Brien and the other experts quoted do have a point with regards to Trump’s record of “peacemaking”. There is at least a grain of truth to that and one must admit it. There is however, as is often the case, another side to almost all the examples these analysts list in making their point.

O’Brien goes as far as to claim that “Trump was determined to avoid new wars and endless counterinsurgency operations, and his presidency was the first since that of Jimmy Carter in which the United States did not enter a new war or expand an existing conflict.” This assertion depends on one’s definition of “war”, of course. The claim is even contradictory, as O’Brien next says “Trump also ended one war with a rare US victory, wiping out the Islamic State (also known as ISIS)”. Besides, on the defeat of the ISIS terrorist group, O’Brien, while hailing the Republican candidate, fails to mention the key role played by Russia and Iran (not to mention Hezbollah).

Other analysts, such as Hal Brands (a Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies scholar), also ardently believe in Trump’s “isolationism” – but see it as potentially apocalyptic. For Brands, a new Trump presidency could “fracture Europe”, bringing back the European “darker, more anarchic, more illiberal patterns of its past.”

Image: Donald Trump and Iranian General Qassem Soleimani (Source: OneWorld)

I wrote in March about how Trump’s supposed “isolationism” must be taken with a grain of salt. One may recall that it was no other than Trump who assassinated Iranian General Soleimani, for one thing. Trump has also famously said that Tel Aviv must “finish the problem”. The former president may not be the insane warmonger he’s made out to be by a largely Democrat US media and some analysts. He does prefer to resort to economic warfare (rather than opting for military intervention all the time). However he is obviously no “anti-imperialist” hero as the fantasies of some of the more naïve analysts would have it.

Trump did “facilitate the Abraham Accords” to bring “peace” to “Israel and three of its neighbors in the Middle East plus Sudan” (as O’Brien writes)

However, the very same agreements, albeit attracting new allies, have caused a major increase in tensions all across Africa, the Middle East and beyond. The Israel-UEA peace deal in 2020, for instance, prompted protests in South Africa right away – by 2022, the African nation was declaring Israel an “apartheid state”. The Persian Gulf – Horn of Africa nexus has always been a strategic place for Israel, this being a region where military and commercial interests overlap. These normalization deals were in fact also part of the rise of Israeli military presence in Africa and abroad – this was made all the more clearly with the 2021 Israel’s joint naval drill with the UAE and Bahrain. Besides that, already in 2021 I wrote (as did countless others) on how the Israeli-Palestine conflict further polarized the Middle East and inflamed public opinion against the Abraham Accords.

The same normalization agreements, together with the issue of Western Sahara, escalated Algerian-Moroccan tensions tremendously, to the point of disrupting European energy interests. In December 2020, Trump recognized Morocco’s claims to the disputed region (in a kind of “quid pro quo” after Morocco normalized its relations with the Jewish state). In doing so, the former US President fueled pre-existing contradictions between the Maghreb region and the African Union, and within the Maghreb region itself – with regards to the Western Sahara  “forgotten war”, he threw gasoline on the fire. One must admit that increasing tensions globally is a rather strange way of making peace.

Trump gave the Abraham Accords a central place in its foreign policy, and Biden has inherited this. The hard fact is that the roots of today’s crisis in the Middle East lie largely at these agreements. With the escalation of conflict in the Middle East, the center of gravity for global tensions might have partially shifted away from Eastern Europe. The current Houthi crisis in the Red Sea, for one thing, is largely a collateral effect of the Washington-backed catastrophic Israeli campaign in the Levant. It turns out Trump is, by all indications, more of an unconditional backer of Israel than his opponent Biden is. And this could be bad news to the world.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore via Flickr

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A national poll (conducted by Marist Poll) in late May showed that a staggering 47% of American citizens believe a new civil war is likely to happen during their lifetime. The populace also deeply distrusts the mainstream propaganda machine, as evidenced by previous polls showing that nearly 40% of Americans don’t trust their media in the slightest. And who could possibly blame them? The American people have been lied to for decades, with warmongering politicians tricking them into supporting wars and foreign meddling that only exacerbated world problems, which would often come back and bite the electorate in the US itself. Now, many Americans believe that the corrupt federal institutions are trying to push for a global confrontation in order to take away their constitutionally guaranteed rights and basic freedoms.

American citizens find the possibility of military conscription (known as the draft in the United States) a particularly concerning prospect and a bad omen of the troubled times going forward.

Such fears grew exponentially on June 14, when the House passed an amended version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which now includes a provision that will automatically register all American men aged 18-26 with the Selective Service System. In other words, this is the restitution of the pre-Vietnam War draft policies and will effectively end the much-touted “all-volunteer force” (AVF) approach that was dominating the strategic thinking in the US military and most other global thalassocracies during the (First) Cold War, continuing throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

However, with the interest to serve in most NATO militaries plunging to its historical low, the draft seems to be the only solution for this problem. It’s broadly equivalent to the conscription that still exists in many countries, including Russia and several major NATO member states. Somewhat ironically, US politicians and the Pentagon often ridicule conscription-based militaries, claiming they’re “ineffective”. However, this approach is far more suitable than just registering untrained men for the draft. After all, Russian conscripts have at least basic military training, unlike American draftees. This is a quite radical change to the aforementioned AVF approach and the only logical explanation is that the US is preparing for a major war. And once again, as is the case historically, there’s bipartisan support for this initiative.

For instance, prominent Democrat representatives such as Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) cosponsored the NDAA. Namely, while she, a “proud feminist”, previously advocated the expansion of draft registration to both men and women, her latest proposal included automatic registration of men only. Quite interesting to see politicians ignore their own purported ideological convictions, particularly when it comes to sending other people’s children to war. One could even argue that the Kiev regime’s policies are slowly finding their way to the political West. And indeed, even the Pentagon argues that the only way to fight a near-peer adversary such as Russia is to reinstate the draft, as evidenced by the US Army War College’s publications now trying to prepare Americans and justify the draft as manpower shortages persist.

In one of its essays (PDF) published last year, the Pentagon stresses the need to learn lessons and draw conclusions from the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. In a subsection titled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions”, the authors argue that “large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription”. Apart from being yet another indirect proof of the enormous casualties among the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta forces, it’s also a bad omen for the Americans who’d be drafted into the US military and sent off to fight a country like Russia and/or China. As a result, those same Americans who have been lied to all these decades aren’t exactly keen on fighting, especially not for the very government lying to them.

The rhetoric pushing for the reinstatement of mandatory service has been ongoing for years. Some of the latest statements by high-ranking officials only exacerbate the fear of general conscription in the US and other Western countries. In mid-June, Chris Miller, the former acting Defense Secretary, publicly suggested that the draft should be reinstated. Just days later, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington DC-based think-tank, released a report in which they conducted several wargame scenarios that included conscription for a large-scale conflict with China. The DoD (Department of Defense) regularly did the same in the pre-Vietnam War era. CNAS and similar think tanks are deeply integrated with the Pentagon, which leaves Americans worried about the possibility of such scenarios becoming reality.

Interestingly, the CNAS report argues that “[mobilizing] a force of 100,000 new recruits within 200 days would be nearly impossible under current cultural conditions], insisting that [the Internet and social media present a significant obstacle, ostensibly because it allows people to share unfiltered information]. In other words, this Pentagon-linked think-tank wants to shut down your Internet access in order to make it easier to send you to war with nuclear-armed superpowers. However, CNAS went further than that, suggesting that “any significant draft could only succeed if the public knew they could face real punishment if they refused to comply”. The authors also made a particularly curious argument that older draftees should be targeted first, as they’re more likely to push back against such mandates.

Despite years of the mainstream propaganda machine’s “Russia losing” fantasies, dozens of millions of Americans have access to Telegram and similar platforms, showing the brutal realities of modern warfare.

Coupled with the atrocious casualty ratio of the US/NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta forces in Ukraine, Americans realize that their warmongering elites want to prepare them to be the next cannon fodder. Public (dis)trust in the US government is so bad now that US citizens are more likely to go to war with their own government rather than any foreign adversary. Less than 20% of Americans support a return to the pre-Vietnam War era draft, simply because they don’t see a point in going to war for the US in its current state. The so-called “woke” policies and similar end-of-civilization degeneracies are the main culprit.

Most normal people (known as “conservatives” and “radicals” to the liberal extremists in power) find the system utterly repulsive, particularly now when the so-called “woke mind virus” is slowly drifting away into the realm of pedophilia and similar mental disorders and sexual deviations. Thus, who in their right mind would go to war so that so-called “transsexuals” can dance naked in front of their kids (including preschool children and even toddlers)? In fact, it can easily be argued that the vast majority of normal people would take up arms or at least turn their guns away from the “evil Russians and Chinese” who aren’t actually forcing them to do anything and point them at those who do – the US government composed of deeply corrupt warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and child traffickers (among many other things).

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Astana on July 3. In this meeting, Erdogan’s intentions of shaping the Caucasus and Central Asia in a Turkish-led order became even more apparent.

This was the first meeting between leaders of the three countries in a trilateral format and had “historic significance,” according to Azertaj, with promises that such meetings would be held regularly. Previous trilateral meetings were only held at the level of foreign ministers, parliamentary speakers, and defence personnel.

According to the Azerbaijani outlet, “concern was expressed over the policy of militarisation in the South Caucasus by extra-regional states,” namely the delivery of French and Indian weapons to Armenia.

Only weeks earlier, Armenia ordered Caesar self-propelled howitzers from France, which French Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu described as a “new important milestone” in his country’s “defence relationship” with Yerevan but which Baku blasted as “further evidence of France’s provocative activities” in the region. 

“The Macron regime, pursuing a policy of militarisation and geopolitical intrigue in the South Caucasus region, is an obstacle to normalisation of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and ensuring lasting peace in the region,” Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry added in the statement.

This is hypocritical by Azerbaijan, considering that its military spending in 2022 was approximately 3.8 times that of Armenia. At the same time, Azerbaijan received weapons from Israel as recently as July 2, 2024.

Azertaj, in reference to the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, reported:

“The political and moral support by fraternal Turkey and Pakistan to Azerbaijan during the 44-day Patriotic War was emphasized” in the trilateral meeting.

The Turkey-Azerbaijan-Pakistan alliance, known as “Three Brothers,” has been manifesting for years as the brainchild of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to expand his country’s influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia and was cemented during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.

Turkey assisted Azerbaijan’s capture of the historically Armenian region by providing weapons and intelligence and deploying drone operators, special forces soldiers and Syrian jihadists. Pakistan, the only country in the world not to recognize Armenia, provided significant amounts of ammunition, mercenaries and Afghani and Pakistani terrorists.

Following the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, Turkey’s expanded influence since 2020 was evident as it now has permanent bases in Azerbaijan it did not have before the war, whilst all Russian troops left the country in June this year. This is part of Erdogan’s vision for Turkey to become the dominant power not only in the Caucasus but also in Central Asia – both of which are traditionally Russia’s zone of influence – by appealing to Islamic and Turkic sentimentality.

For his part, Erdogan said during the trilateral meeting that the “region is plagued by wars, conflicts, and tensions” and specifically mentioned Gaza, Cyprus and Kashmir.” Erdogan did not explain why the region was “plagued by wars” and instead claimed that trilateral cooperation “would not only contribute to the prosperity of the peoples of the three countries but also serve to promote regional and global peace and stability.”

However, it was Turkish-backed Azerbaijan that instigated the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and continues to threaten to invade the Republic of Armenia, whilst Pakistan has started every war with India since the two countries were established in 1947, in addition to training, funding and arming jihadists groups in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

Although Turkey is making inroads in the Turkic-speaking countries of Central Asia through soft power means, it is only through war and instability that Turkish influence can spread and strengthen outside of this cultural zone, such as supporting jihadist forces in Syria and then occupying large areas in the north of the country, Azerbaijan’s capture of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Pakistan’s position on Kashmir – India’s complete surrender of the region.

Turkey seeks to become the epicentre of a Turkic-centric order, which naturally challenges Russia’s interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia and even its sovereignty since the Turkish vision imagines the North Caucasus independent of Moscow.

Growing rivalry in the Caucasus and Central Asia, where China is also making inroads, creates common ground between Ankara and Washington, something which the latter will undoubtedly exploit.

But to attain this vision, Erdogan is cooperating directly with the leaders of Azerbaijan and Pakistan to achieve their individual goals, namely Azerbaijan’s territorial expansion at the expense of Armenia, Pakistan’s conquest of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and North India, which for centuries was ruled by Islamic Turkic Empires, and the establishment of a pan-Turkic Union led by Turkey.

Although Turkey is far from its goal, it is evident that steps are being taken to reach this. This will eventuate in problems with Moscow, much worse than those instigated by differences over Syria, and will inevitably lead to Ankara receiving much more support from the US.

*

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 is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) condemns the smear campaign against Birju Dattani, the incoming chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The campaign, which is led by pro-Israel advocacy organizations, seeks to cancel Dattani’s appointment over his past support for Palestinian human rights. CJPME asserts that challenging Israel’s racist practices against Palestinians is a legitimate form of political expression and entirely consistent with Dattani’s mandate to combat racism, and urges Justice Minister Virani to reject the calls to rescind the appointment.

“This witch hunt is about more than just Mr. Dattani. Pro-Israel groups are trying to police the boundaries of anti-racism work so that those who express solidarity with Palestinians are excluded,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “At a time when Israel’s racist and apartheid character is widely acknowledged by the international human rights community, pro-Israel groups are trying to make it a disqualifying offence to criticize racist Israeli practices. This is an absurd and dangerous request which the government must unambivalently reject,” added Woodley.

Mr. Dattani has been defended by his former employer the Yukon Human Rights Commission and a group of human rights and labour organizations including the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and the Federation of Black Canadians (FBC). Although Minister Virani has nominally stood by the appointment, CJPME notes with regret that the government has itself fed into the smear campaign by ceding to calls for an unnecessary investigation and by falsely suggesting that Dattani failed to disclose his background.

CJPME believes that this incident underlines the need for the federal government to recognize and combat anti-Palestinian racism, which has been described by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (ACLA) as “a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.” Unfortunately, APR was excluded from Canada’s renewed Anti-Racism Strategy, published last month, even though the document had identified Palestinians as a group facing “unprecedented levels” of hate. CJPME also notes that the same organizations behind the smear campaign to fire Dattani are also leading the campaign to prevent institutions from recognizing anti-Palestinian racism, further attempting to exclude Palestinians from discussions about racism and discrimination.

*

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: Birju Dattani has been appointed chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (Birju Dattani/Yukon News)

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

July 13, 2021 – Cause Of Death Released For West Catholic Prep Student Who Died On Football Field

 

“He had received his second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on July 7, six days before collapsing on the Coatesville Area High School football field on July 13, officials said.”

“Officials noted that no COVID-19 respiratory disease was found, and cardiac examination showed no inflammation or myocarditis.”

“while there were features of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition frequently associated with sudden death in young athletes, the diagnosis could not be definitively made or ruled out in this case”

“Testing included autopsy, toxicology, specialized cardiac pathology, neuropathology and genetic testing. Key features were an enlarged heart and a thickened heart muscle that showed scarring…toxicology was negative….genetic testing was negative”

My Take…

Hundreds of teenagers have collapsed and died while playing sports, starting in 2021, after the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines rolled out.

It’s extremely rare that we get details in mainstream media on the COVID-19 Vaccine status of such sudden deaths.

16 year old Ivan Hicks received his 2nd Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine 6 days before he dropped dead on the field during a football scrimmage on July 13, 2021.

The autopsy was inconclusive.

Unfortunately, the pathologist did not stain his heart for the spike protein, the one test that probably would have given a definitive answer.

Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Damage the Heart Within 48 Hours 

2023 Oct.12 – Schreckenberg et al – Cardiac side effects of RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Hidden cardiotoxic effects of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 on ventricular myocyte function and structure

• “After 48 h, expression of the encoded spike protein was detected in ventricular cardiomyocytes for both mRNAs.”
• “At this point in time, mRNA-1273 induced arrhythmic as well as completely irregular contractions associated with irregular as well as localized calcium transients, which provide indications of significant dysfunction of the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2)”
• “In contrast, BNT162b2 increased cardiomyocyte contraction via significantly increased protein kinase A (PKA) activity at the cellular level.”
• “Here, we demonstrated for the first time, that in isolated cardiomyocytes, both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 induce specific dysfunctions that correlate pathophysiologically to CARDIOMYOPATHY”

• “Both RyR2 impairment (Moderna) and sustained PKA activation (Pfizer) may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events.”

This is a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine sudden death until proven otherwise. 

There doesn’t need to be overt myocarditis for these kids to drop dead.

Within 48 hours of the first COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine injection, their heart cells suffer dysfunctions that “increase the risk of acute cardiac events”.

Within 48 hours.

How many kids have died in this manner since start of 2021?

*

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.  

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In this article, I examine the historical origins of two well known political symbols: the symbol utilised on the flag of Israel; and the swastika symbol we usually associate with Nazism. 

The Ancient Swastika (Svasktika)

The swastika, usually associated Nazism, actually originates from the ancient auspicious Sanskrit symbol and word ‘svasktika’, which means “It is,” “Well Being,” “Good Existence” and “Good Luck.”

It is notable that the 6-Pointed Star of David (associated with Judaism and utilized by political Zionism in modern times) also originates from a very ancient Vedic symbol, the ‘satkona’.

Before these symbols were seemingly ‘hijacked’ by modern political forces, the symbols were commonly and widely used for thousands of years throughout human history. Ancient Vedic motifs, such as the swastika and the satkona, can be seen on ancient architecture on all continents worldwide, from ancient standing stones and tombs in Ireland, the Caucasian civilizations of ancient Europe, ancient temples in Iraq and India, and amongst native tribal communities in North America. The video below evidences the existence of the ancient swastika in numerous countries worldwide. 

Incredibly the picture of a swastika, and other Vedic motifs, shown below, is from an ancient temple in what is today Zionist Israel. The temple is called the Second Temple. The appearance of the swastika as an ancient symbol in cultures worldwide is an indication that ancient civilisations worldwide were all once part of a ‘connected’ ancient ‘worldwide’ civilisation. I examine this subject in the book Godless Fake Science.

The Ancient Satkona

The six-pointed star symbol with a hexgram within, often associated with Zionist Israel, is actually an ancient Vedic symbol known as ‘satkona’ in Sanskrit language.  The sat-kona is constructed by joining two perfect triangles. The symbol is found not only on ancient architecture in India, but on ancient architecture throughout the world, see Endnote . Below is picture of the satkona on an ancient Vedic temple pillar in Kerala; and in a Vedic temple in Katmandu.

Given that the ‘political tenets of Zionist Isreal’ and ‘the literatures of ancient Vedic Vaisnavism’ (which pre-dates Christianity) appear to be poles apart – one may validly ask whether the satkona symbol has , in essence, been ‘politically hijacked’?

 

 

The satkona is the oldest spiritual symbol known to the world. In the oldest known Vedic literature, Sri Brahma-samhita, the Sat-kona is mentioned in a description of the supreme abode of Goloka, the abode of Krsna, God personified in ancient Vedic literature[2].

The use of the satkona is evidenced in ancient Vedic cultures dating back over 5,000 years ago. The satkona has been used throughout the ages in India, Nepal, China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and other countries in Asia by proponents of Vedic Vaisnavism, Jainism, and also in Buddhism. In the west and the middle-east the Carthaginians, the Greeks, Romans, Christians [Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic], Muslims and Medieval Alchemists also used the satkona. Below is an image of a satkona in an ancient temple in Iraq – an area that is in modern times pre-dominantly Muslim.

Ancient temple in Iraq

Phoenician coin (500 BC)

Nepalese coin

Anglo-saxon sword hilt (200 BC)

Ancient Arabian jar

Ancient Fatmid weight (Egypt)

Freemason lodge Edinburgh

The satkona is evidenced in many cultures dating back long before the appearance of Jesus Christ. This includes in Sumeria, Iraq,  Crete , Mongolia, Japan (in some of the oldest shrines of Shinto), Sri Lanka, Egypt, as well as in the lands currently known as Israel[1].

According to the referenced research of Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha, “for the Jews themselves the use of Satkona… the Star of David only takes shape for the first time between the 12th and 14th centuries… From ancient times to the Middle Ages, the Jews possessed no particular national or religious symbol… It was only later that the term Star of David gradually became dominant in ‘Ashkenazi’ Jewish communities… as a popular Jewish symbol, sat-kona did not find its place permanently in Judaism until European Jews adopted it in 1648 CE.” 

World War 2

We have been led to believe by mainstream history that Nazism and Zionism were opposing forces, however, in my book Censored History of WW2 and Communism I also examine interesting connections and involving the Balfour Declaration, the creation of Nazism in Germany, the Zionist movement that established the state of Israel, and the transfer of Jews from Germany to Israel. 

Furthermore, it may be controversial to say, yet in defense of the people of Germany during WW2, it appears to me that there are many censored historical books and testimonies that provide a history of WW2 very different from that which we were all taught in school. These censored histories indicate that:

• the German people, and the European people that did so, were absolutely correct in defending themselves from the expansion of genocidal communism – it is evident that communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people; 
• and that there is a deeper story involving the creation of Nazism, and the planned orchestration of WW2 by ‘behind the scenes’ financial and political ‘ulteriors’. A war that created mass death and destruction on both ‘sides’ whilst benefitting those financial and political ‘ulteriors’.  

The symbol of freemasonry also appears to be a hijacking of the Vedic shatkona. The intersecting lines of the two triangles are simply removed. The fact that non-Vedic sources have hijacked ancient Vedic symbols, should not be a reason for rejecting the satkona, or the swastika. The demonic forces hijacking these symbols invert the energy. However, when used consciously by God-conscious people they emanate their original auspicious energy as they have done for thousands of years.

The Very Ancient Vedic World

One wonders how could the ancient ‘svasktika’ and ‘satkona’ exist in cultures worldwide (in locations far apart) thousands of years ago? Does mainstream history not tell us that mankind only became capable of worldwide travel in relatively recent times? Based on my research it is clear to me that the mainstream historical timeline of human history is incorrect.

Furthermore, I note that many languages throughout the world, for example, the ancient Irish ‘Gaelic’ language, contain words that are clearly derived from ancient Sanskrit (the language the Vedas were written in). Sanskrit is purported by various Vedic scholars to be the world’s oldest language.

“Thus in any part of the world we, mortals, can trace our origin and genealogical table or tree…. The word Norway is derived from the Sanskrit narak, or hell. Soviet comes from sveta (white). Russia from rushis or rsis (sages), who meditated there. Siberia from the Sanskrit word for inhospitable camping. Scandinavia from Skanda, the commander of the denizens of heaven…. The word Viking and the English “king” is derived from the Sanskrit singh (lion)… In many places in Europe murti’s (images) of Krishna, Shiva and other divine manifestations were found.” – Authors, Gauranga Premananda dasa and Avadhuta Raya

In addition, my research indicates that the pyramids in Egypt are much older than mainstream history tells us. The pyramids were built on the model of the smasana-cit altars for the Vedic cremation rituals.

It also appears that ancient pyramids that similar in design can be found worldwide, including in China, Australia, Mexico, and the USA (in Illnois). Below is a fascinating picture of mountains in Russia and Bosnia. Some people assert that these are actually ‘very’ ancient pyramids, that have been subject to erosion and vegetation growth, and therefore now look like mountains.

Pyramid-like mountain in Russia

Pyramid of the sun in Bosnia

Could these structures of advanced engineering worldwide be proof standing that ancient mankind was not primitive, but highly advanced? and that civilisations capable of world-wide communication and travel existed in the very ancient past? This narrative is in contrast to the history we have been taught in school.

Could it be that the flood, as described in the Bible, was an event that caused such destruction it disconnected us from our very ancient past? Some Vedic scholars assert that a great flood occurred around 11,000 BC to the end of the Ice Age. I note that the flood story, and that of Noah, which, in the western world, we usually associate with the Judeo-Christian bible, is here referred as being in the ancient Vedic histories. 

“According to the puranas, the history books of the Vedas, and the smaller puranas, the Upa puranas, there were floods around 11,000 BC to the end of the Ice Age. Vaisvata Manu (Noah) and his family were, thanks to their boat, practically the only survivors.” – Authors, Gauranga Premananda dasa and Avadhuta Raya

Was Darwin correct? Is the theory of Darwinian evolution correct?

Incredibly, the Vedic histories, written in ancient Sanskrit, indicate that the modern-day theory of evolution is incorrect; and that human civilisations have existed not just for thousands of years, but for –  wait for it – ‘millions of years’. I refer to evidence supporting this assertion in the book Godless Fake Science. This includes reference to much archaeological evidence documented by Micheal Cremo that appears to have been ignored by the institutional orthodoxy of archaeology. It appears these evidences simply did not fit the ‘approved’ evolutionary narrative/timeline. 

---

---

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 Keenan, is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is author of the following books available on amazon.com:

• Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability
• CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement
• Godless Fake Science (see above)
• No Worries No Virus
• Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers
• Fake Moon Landings and the Lies of NASA
• Censored History of WW2 and Communism

Website: Reality Distinguished From Illusion

Donate for Mark’s articles here via Paypal.

Notes

[1] Source: https://gosai.com/writings/satkona-star-of-david-or-star-of-goloka

[2] Source: https://gosai.com/writings/satkona-star-of-david-or-star-of-goloka

All images in this article are from the author 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

As we watch the narrative surrounding bird flu and its alleged jump into the beef supply develop, the stage is increasingly set for a crackdown on raw dairy suppliers. 

Why target raw milk? The reason is, perhaps, two-fold:

a.) Raw milk proprietors tend to be small operations with limited political clout whom giant agricultural interests see as competition they would like to wipe;

b.)  Raw milk is full of beneficial bacteria that get wiped out during pasteurization. Parsing official narratives from the government and corporate state media is actually not so difficult once your central operating theory — which is proven correct time and time again — becomes: whatever is good for people, the governing authorities wish to stamp out by whatever means available to them.

First, we have the government now reassuring the public — with important caveats we’ll get to in short order — that pasteurization does actually kill viruses (which any middle school student should know).

Via US News (emphasis added):

“As bird flu continues to spread among U.S. dairy cows, reassuring new government research finds the pasteurization process widely used in the industry effectively kills all bird flu virus in milk.

In a health update posted Friday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the results are the latest to show that pasteurized grocery store milk remains safe from the highly pathogenic avian virus H5N1.”

Via FDA (emphasis added):

“The FDA, along with our federal partners at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is announcing results from a first-of-its-kind study using the process typically used by commercial milk processors. The intention of this study was to further confirm that pasteurization is effective at inactivating Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza (H5N1 HPAI) virus in fluid milk and other dairy products made from pasteurized milk.

The study – the only one to date designed to simulate commercial milk processing – found that the most commonly used pasteurization time and temperature requirements were effective at inactivating the H5N1 HPAI virus in milk. These results complement the FDA’s initial retail sampling study in which all 297 samples of dairy products collected at retail locations were found to be negative for viable H5N1 HPAI virus.

Collectively, these studies provide strong assurances that the commercial milk supply is safe.”

So Pasteurization Kills Bird Flu (Obviously). However…

According to Forbes, “a certain type of pasteurization may not always be effective in killing the virus,” leaving the door ajar to dig up positive bird flu tests out of the commercial beef supply in the future if need be.

Via Forbes (emphasis added):

“Dozens of cows infected with bird flu have either died or been slaughtered in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina and Texas, which is unusual since—unlike poultry—cows cost more to slaughter and around 90% usually make a full recovery…

A new study with mice suggests that drinking infected milk can spread the disease—and that a certain type of pasteurization may not always be effective in killing the virus…

The Food and Drug Administration announced it will commit an additional $8 million to ensure the commercial milk supply is safe, while the Department of Agriculture said it will pay up to $28,000 per farm to help mitigate the spread of the disease, totaling around $98 million in funds.”

So they’re not entirely done with the “pasteurized milk is going to kill you” narrative just yet; they’re going to throw $8 million more at it and see what they want to do with it in the future.

More immediately, though, it seems that the raw milk supply is in the crosshairs.

Via Forbes (emphasis added):

“An alarming 14% of raw milk samples taken from four states with dairy herd outbreaks contained infectious H5N1 bird flu, according to new testing results released by the FDA.

The researchers took 275 milk samples from bulk storage tanks on farms in states where dairy cattle are confirmed to be infected by H5N1. The virus was actually detected in 57.5% of the samples, with further testing showing that a quarter of these contained infectious virus. However, the FDA was keen to stress that the study was not specifically designed to assess the prevalence of the virus in milk and that the numbers might not be more widely representative.

‘The goal of this study was to determine what range of viral load might be present in raw milk samples from farms that routinely send product for pasteurization, not to determine state-wide or national H5N1 virus prevalence in the overall milk supply,’ said a spokesperson for the FDA.”

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Ever since the eruption of the Russo-Ukraine War in February 2022, the foremost insidious objective of the Western authoritarian regimes has been to somehow create a schism between Russia’s national security institutions and the general public. Because Western military strategists are acutely aware of the historically proven fact that popular wars supported by the public almost invariably end in glorious triumphs, whereas unpopular wars disliked by the public end in humiliating defeats.

Therefore, for the purpose of creating a rift between Russia’s military and the public, the rogue Western regimes have applied all available tactics in the Machiavellian playbook of hybrid warfare. They have imposed stringent economic sanctions on Russia in order to squeeze its typically vibrant economy. The Western deep states have literally coerced multinational corporations to wrap up lucrative and highly profitable businesses in Russia since the beginning of the war.

Against the established rules of the international financial system, the European Union has recently decided to allocate $300 billion of seized Russian assets for rearming Ukraine. But after all available tactics failed to break the spirit of the valiant Russian nation, then the security establishment of the United States decided to play the most effective trump card in its scaremongering playbook since the days of the Soviet-Afghan War of the eighties, the Islamic terrorism, in order to send a clear message to the Russian public that the war will impact their lives, too, and they wouldn’t be safe at home.

Image: HTS in Idlib, Syria 

For this nefarious purpose, four Tajiks, allegedly belonging to the Islamic State, were hired from a former Soviet republic in order to reduce suspicion of the CIA’s involvement. They were paid large sum of money to travel to Turkey, from where the Turkish intelligence, known for closely collaborating with the CIA in Syria’s proxy war since 2011, whisked the jihadists away across the border to northwest Syria in the territory controlled by the Turkish proxy al-Nusra Front, rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Thus, after training for several months in Syria’s northwest Idlib Governorate with al-Nusra’s highly skilled fighters, the terrorists were let loose at Moscow’s fabled Crocus City Hall on March 22, where they massacred over 140 innocent civilians and wounded many more before being arrested by Russia’s security agencies.

Reportedly, two weeks before the terrorists staged the bloody attack in the suburbs of Moscow, the US government gave a vague warning of imminent terrorist attack to Russian officials. But one doesn’t have to be an Agatha Christie, the celebrated British detective novelist, to understand the simple fact that actually it’s quite common in the world of crime that the real perpetrator of the crime becomes the confidant of the victim in order to gain his trust, hence absolving himself from the crime and deploying diversionary tactics to implicate others.

The recent spate of terrorist attacks in Russia, specifically the Crocus City Hall massacre and the attacks on churches, synagogues and police posts in Dagestan on June 23 claiming 25 lives, clearly has the fingerprints of the CIA all over them in order to destabilize Russia amidst the Ukraine War.

It’s worth noting that both self-proclaimed caliphs of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his successor Abu Ibrahim al-Qurayshi, were killed in October 2019 and February 2022, respectively, in al-Nusra’s territory in Syria’s northwest Idlib Governorate, miles away from the Turkish border, which lends credence to the assertion that the caliphs of the Islamic State are merely Turkish stooges, and in fact the real caliph of the Islamic State is none other than neo-Ottoman Sultan Erdogan himself. Moreover, the artificial distinction between the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front and the rest of Syria’s jihadist proxies is more illusory than real.

The imperial United States’ steadfast NATO client, Turkish President Erdogan, has not only provided Bayraktar drones, military assistance and offer of joint production of weapons to Kyiv but he has also sent Syria’s battle-hardened jihadists to fight alongside Ukrainian forces against Russia.

Clearly, both the self-styled caliphs of the Islamic State, al-Baghdadi and his successor al-Qurayshi, were hiding in Syria’s Idlib with the blessings of al-Nusra leadership and the Turkish security forces, which have trained and armed myriad groups of jihadists during Syria’s proxy war since 2011, and were used as bargaining chips to extract geo-strategic concessions from Washington.

The scapegoating of both the ISIS caliphs by the Erdogan government, first in October 2019 to let Turkey mount Operation Peace Spring in northeast Syria and then in February 2022, was done to reconcile with the Biden administration as Erdogan was repeatedly snubbed by Biden throughout the maiden year as the president due to Erdogan’s personal friendship and business partnership with Biden’s predecessor and political rival Trump.

During the four years of the Trump presidency, Erdogan acted with impunity in regional conflicts, from Syria and Libya to Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, because he had forged a personal bonhomie with Donald Trump, as Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was a business partner of Erdogan’s son-in-law and former finance minister of Turkey Berat Albayrak, who was summarily dismissed from the ministry as soon as Trump lost the US presidential election in November 2020.

This is the reason Erdogan is bending over backwards to reconcile with the Biden administration to regain their lost international prestige. For the purpose, Erdogan took a trip to Ukraine in 2022, offered to mediate in the crisis while ironically selling armed drones and lethal weaponry to Ukraine, and is recruiting and sending Syria’s battle-hardened jihadists to fight alongside Ukrainian forces against Russia, some of whom have been tasked by the CIA and SBU to infiltrate across the border to mount subversive activities inside Russia, including the four Tajik jihadist who were reportedly fleeing toward the Ukraine border after perpetrating the Crocus City Hall massacre before they were caught by Russia’s vigilant security forces.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image: Russian Crocus City Hall amphitheater interiors, day after terrorist attack on 22 March 2024 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Despite its reputation as a professional military that prides itself on being “the most moral military in the world,” the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) campaign against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza has exposed serious command and control problems.

Before proceeding, it is worth noting that while the Israeli military is operating in an incredibly challenging environment in Gaza, where Hamas uses civilians as human shields, the human costs of its operations have been staggering; more than 38,000 Palestinians, many of them women and children, are dead, and over a million have been displaced in more than eight months of war. While some have argued that the IDF has done more than any army in history to protect enemy civilians, others have highlighted how Israel has not done nearly enough to protect innocent Palestinians in Gaza.

As Israel continues operations in Rafah, pushing into the city’s center, questions surrounding the use of U.S. military equipment will continue to proliferate, as seen in the catastrophic May 26 Israeli airstrike on a tent camp in Rafah that killed at least 45, which was conducted utilizing U.S. munitions.

Strategically speaking, the regional situation remains fraught. Hezbollah attacks on Israel in May were the most intense since October, as the IDF warns of offensive military action against its northern neighbor. In early June, an Israeli airstrike near Aleppo in Syria killed a top Iranian military advisor. (When the Israeli military killed a top Iranian general in Damascus in April, it led to the first direct Iranian attack on Israeli territory in history.)

Clearly, then, there is plenty of room for escalation. This renders the seeming lack of proper chain of command in Israel an even more urgent problem—and one in which U.S. support and arms are entangled.

Israel’s command and control issues are clearest in its alleged war crimes. The purpose of this piece is not to litigate which allegations are true but rather to examine the implications of those war crimes for the Israeli chain of command. Though these categories overlap, Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict in the war may be broadly grouped as follows: starvation, torture, mass executions, and the indiscriminate use of bombs, drones, and missiles.

Here are a handful of cases that most clearly suggest the command and control problems.

First, the Israeli military has blamed midlevel officers for the killing of seven World Central Kitchen volunteers in an early April drone strike. Numerous experts and nongovernmental organizations have noted the need for better coordination processes between humanitarian organizations and the IDF. Statements from the Israeli military and Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (an Israeli governmental body responsible for implementing Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) indicate that World Central Kitchen properly coordinated its movements with the IDF but midlevel commanders made the decision to fire anyway. This suggests that the Israeli military’s command and control structures are not as strong as they ought to be.

Click here to read the full article on Foreign Policy.

*

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. 

Benjamin V. Allison, a Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Texas at Austin, where he specializes in U.S. foreign and national security policy since 1945, especially toward the Middle East and Russia.

Featured image: Israeli soldiers around Gaza Strip on Oct. 7. (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A couple of weeks ago, I attended as a speaker (together with astrophysicist Willie Soon and geologist Gregory Wrightstone) at Clintels five year anniversary conferencein the Netherlands. It was a very well organised event with around 140 guests. I contributed with a talk called “The Climate Emergency Illusionists”.

It also gave me the opportunity for some meetings and interviews as well as visiting some well-known Dutch landmarks. One of these was the Peace Palace in the Hague.

Image: Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)

The beautiful building was inaugurated in 1913, with financing from the wealthy Scottish steel magnate Andrew Carnegie with the intention to serve as a “Temple of Peace”.

It now hosts the International Court of Justice (established 1945 as one of United Nations six main organs), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (founded 1899) and The Hague Academy of International Law (established 1923).

The decision to build the palace was made at the “First Hague Peace Conference” in 1899, initiated by Russian Tsar Nicholas II. The conference wasn’t a great success as Russia’s war with Japan broke out five years later, resulting in a humiliating defeat for Russia, while the Tsar was executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Andrew Carnegie supported the construction of the “Temple” with a 5 million dollar donation in 1903. He also lent his name to the Carnegie Foundation in the Netherlands that was set up with the purpose to own and manage the Peace Palace.

Today the foundation receives financial grants from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It is a joint venture by Carnegie and the state of the Netherlands.

Just a year after the inauguration ceremony, the Great War broke out. The president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nobel Peace laureate and former US Secretary of War, Elihu Root, advocated for American entry into the war.

In other words, the great ideal of universal peace had a price that counted in millions of lives.

The Peace Palace was a part of Carnegie’s internationalist aspirations, and the march towards a global governance system. A goal shared by the Dutch royals. The first step was The League of Nations in 1920, followed by the successor United Nations in 1945. The two world wars acted as a catalyst for a new international order.

The Peace Palace has ever since been an important venue to further the internationalists goals for the world.

Bilderberg Group

Hotel Bilderberg, in Oosterbeek, the Netherlands.

These aspirations are also reflected in the Bilderberg Group, which was founded in 1954 to gather prominent movers and shakers to influence the future direction of world events, as well as inviting politicians to carry out the agenda in their respective countries.[1] Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was one of the co-founders, together with David Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank) and Polish politician Józef Retinger, and served as chairman until the Lockheed bribe scandal in 1976 forced him to step down.

Earth Charter

Earth Charter Launch Ceremony. Peace Palace, The Hague. June 2000

On June 29, 2000, the Earth Charter was launched at a ceremony in the Peace Palace. The Earth Charter Commission had been initiated by Bernhards daughter, Queen Beatrix, and her Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (with oil executive Maurice Strong and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev as co-chairs) with the mission to create an ethical framework for the planet. The Dutch government provided financial support to the project. Steven Rockefeller, chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fundand David Rockefellers nephew, served as the commission’s coordinator.

The sixteen principles share similarities with the UN 2030 Agenda with its seventeen Sustainable Development Goals.

The Albright-Gambari Commission

The launch of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance, at the residence of the Dutch ambassador in Washington D.C. 21 November 2014.

Fourteen years later “The Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance” was set up by the Hague Institute of Global Justice (supported by the Dutch government) and Stimson Institute (supported by Carnegie Corporation, and US Department of Defense).

They launched their report Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance, at the Peace Palace in The Hague on 16 June 2016. The intent was to promote global governance innovations and, “to encourage a broad-based global policy dialogue and an institutional reform agenda aimed at 2020”.

These new governance innovations would be presented at a proposed “World Conference on Global Institutions” during United Nations seventy-fifth anniversary in 2020.

New Shape Prize and Bahá’í Faith 

The Swedish Global Challenges Foundation heeded the call and launched the New Shape Prize competition in November 2016.

The winners of the New Shape Prize with Laszlo Szombatfalvy from Global Challenges Foundation

One of the winning contributions were “Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century”, by Maja Groff, a teacher at the Hague Academy of International Law in the Peace Palace, Professor Arthur Dahl from the International Environment Forum and Augusto Lopez-Claros, a former chief economist at the World Economic Forum and the World Bank Group.

The three of them are Bahá’ís. Believers of a religion that preaches the unification of the world under a world government. This will according to their teachings bring universal peace and harmony. As expressed in “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh” from 1936:

A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. — The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, The Unfoldment of World Civilization

These ideas closely align with Carnegie’s visions. The winning trio has since the prize ceremony in 2018 been awarded key positions to develop new governance arrangements.

Climate Governance Commission

 

The “World Conference on Global Institutions”, that was arranged as the virtual event United Nations Global Governance Forum in September 2020, birthed the Climate Governance Commission with Groff as convener (with Dahl and Lopez Claros as experts). The COVID-19 pandemic had in their opinion high-lighted the need for closer international cooperation to manage global risks.

The commission (with former Irish president Mary Robinson as chair, and Swedish “climate tsar” Johan Rockström as one of the co-chairs) serve as advisors to the ongoing reform of the United Nations, initiated at the seventy-fifth session of the UN General Assembly (which resulted in the report Our Common Agenda report a year later).

In September 2023, The Climate Governance Commission, funded by Global Challenges Foundation, Stimson Center, Rockefeller Foundation and Baha’i International, proposed the declaration of a Planetary Emergency at the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in September 2024. If their advice is granted, it will trigger the establishment of a Planetary Emergency Platform, and a Planetary Emergency Plan. They advocate collective management of the “Planetary Commons”.

Maja Groff and the New Institute 

Maja Groff recently joined The New Institute, a think-tank founded 2020 by German social democrat politician Erck Rickmers and led by the former secretary-general of the Volkswagen Foundation, Wilhelm Krull.

Groff will chair the program Planetary Governance with the mission to “design and implement the needed global governance reforms to address the planetary emergency.” This includes developing a Global Environmental Agency and an International Court of the Environment. We can assume that the location of the latter will be in Carnegie’s “Temple of Peace”.

As with the world wars, the climate crisis scaremongering acts as a leverage to further the construction of their envisioned “peaceful global order”. And as Groffs colleague Arthur Dahl said during a meeting with the Global Governance Forum:

Maybe the best solution to climate change would be a nuclear winter for a few years to cool down the planet very quickly. And maybe, in the longer term, that would be in our best interest than any other solutions tried at the moment.

The Bahá’ís supreme goal of universal peace comes at a high price. To quote George Orwell: “War is Peace”.

*

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.

Note

[1] dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/172172/140100744.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

All images in this article are from the author 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The Brandon entity, from the start of its career in the executive branch, has been a synthetic creation of the corporate state, sponsored by the donor class, foisted on the American people with no due consideration to their will.

(The reason, incidentally, Biden has always been a useful tool for the donor class is because it has publicly acknowledged that it is a prostitute in very clear, literal terms — subtlety not being a personality trait it is known for.)

“I Tried To Prostitute Myself”

Via Washington Free Beacon (emphasis added):

“Former Vice President Joe Biden said during a 1974 discussion on campaign finance that he tried to ‘prostitute’ himself to big donors during his first run for U.S. Senate but failed to get their money because he was too young.

His youth, however, was what enabled Biden to raise enough money to win, he explained.

‘I’m like the token black or the token woman,’ Biden said. ‘I was the token young person.’”

Unlike bona fide party stars like Barack Obama and Bernie — who, whatever one might think of them, have legitimate grassroots bases of support — Biden never had and never will have any significant popular support.

The only reason it ascended to its current position is because Obama’s handlers handpicked it out of obscurity in 2008 for VP — an avowed segregationist racist to balance out the first black top-of-the-ticket — after having run two failed campaigns itself, the first of which in 1988 it had to abandon because it was discovered it had plagiarized an entire speech from a British politician.

Joe Biden: Political Plagiarism, 1988 Presidential Campaign 

No matter: a proven liar multiple times over — that was rejected by the voters and would have languished in obscurity until the unceremonious end of its career — was named VP anyway.

In 2020, it was again Obama who swooped in to salvage Biden’s failing campaign, at which time even then it was obvious it had dementia, to prevent Bernie Sanders from clinching the win.

Via CNN, April 8, 2020 (emphasis added):

“Former President Barack Obama played an active, albeit private, role in the Democratic presidential primary that effectively ended on Wednesday when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race.

Obama and Sanders spoke multiple times in the last few weeks as the Vermont senator determined the future of his campaign, a source familiar with the conversation tells CNN. Sanders’ decision to get out on Wednesday paves the way for Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president for eight years, to become the Democratic nominee.

Obama’s eventual endorsement of Biden and fulsome entry into the campaign, whenever it occurs, will signal a new phase in Democrats’ efforts to defeat President Donald Trump.”

After it was announced as the nominee, the message was disseminated publicly and privately that pointing out Biden’s dementia was verboten, which I have previously written about, and so the team players in the party and the corporate state media never brought it up again until last week when the lie became unmanageable.

 

Via CNN, October 2019 (emphasis added):

“In yet another sign of trouble for Sen. Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential race, the California Democrat has slid from an enviable front-runner position in her home state into the single digits in a new poll of likely voters in the Golden State.

As the state’s March 5 primary draws closer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (23%), former Vice President Joe Biden (22%) and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (21%) are now tied as the leaders in the field among likely voters who are either registered as Democrats or identify as Democratic-leaning independents in the new Public Policy Institute of California poll, which was conducted in mid- to late September after Harris’ uneven performance in the last debate.

Harris tumbled from 19% in July to 8% in the new poll by the institute, failing to sustain the momentum she sparked with her first debate performance in June. She lost significant ground over the summer, while her chief rivals all solidified their standing among California voters.”

No matter: for its remarkably poor performance and total rejection by even the citizens of its own state, the Karamel-uh entity was crowned VP.

In this election cycle, the party of Democracy™ canceled all primary debates — despite Brandon essentially pledging to be a one-term president back in 2020 — that would have exposed its dementia much sooner, perhaps in time to swap it out before hitting the current crisis point.

Via ABC News, June 2, 2023 (emphasis added):

“Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as ‘un-democratic’ for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.

As former President Donald Trump sought re-election in 2020, the Republican National Committee didn’t hold primary debates, nor did former President Barack Obama during his second bid. The same pattern can be traced as far back as Gerald Ford.

And Democrats today show no signs of changing course.

Biden’s candidacy is being challenged by two Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, who have remained critical of the DNC’s expected decision to unite behind the incumbent president.”

None of this, you will further note, has anything whatsoever to do with the will of the voters. In fact, appointing the Karamel-uh entity and the Brandon entity to their posts was in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the voters.

To the extent there are any card-carrying Democrats left out there with any self-respect who still believe in advancing the party’s political agenda — whatever that is at this point; child trannyism and state-funded abortion drive-thru service, I guess — the extraordinary anti-democratic lengths to which the party went to rig the political process up until this current date should enrage them.

This is what comes from making lying and gaslighting and manipulating and rigging the political machinery the modus operandi.

I know from personal experience, as the Soviet Union leadership also learned the hard way: on a long enough timeline, dirty deeds come back to haunt you.

All things come to light; it’s only a matter of time.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. President Joe Biden preparing to disembark Marine One, July 2021. (White House, Adam Schultz)

Finland Gives US Control Over 15 Military Bases, on Russia’s Doorstep

By Drago Bosnic, July 04, 2024

Starting from July 1, Washington DC has access to at least 15 Finnish military bases, with the possibility of deploying heavy weapons. It wasn’t specified what sort of arms and equipment that refers to, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.

“Alarming 3000% Increase in Unexplained Child Deaths in Alberta”: Medical Doctors and Scientists’ Press Conference

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Byram W. Bridle, Dr. William Makis, and et al., July 04, 2024

The morning after the landmark event “An Injection of Truth” in Calgary, where a delegation of Canadian MDs and scientists presented crucial scientific information, a press conference was held. This event addressed the alarming 3000% increase in unexplained child deaths in Alberta and aimed to provide essential knowledge to Albertans and the global community.

Iran Elections: Shame or War?

By Konrad Rękas, July 05, 2024

The second round of the presidential elections in Iran on Friday, 5th July, is not only a continuation of the clash between pro-Western liberals and traditionalists attached to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and determined to maintain the independence of Persian civilisation.

Can We Rest Assured That Just Because of the Unacceptably High Costs of Nuclear War and World War III, These Will Never Happen?

By Bharat Dogra, July 04, 2024

In the middle of several very serious questions haunting humanity today the one which looms over all others is this terrible one—how high is the possibility of World War III/nuclear war and how destructive this will be?

Russia Finally Acknowledges That She Is at War with Washington

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 04, 2024

Russia responded to Washington’s cluster bomb attack on civilians in Crimea by informing Washington that the two countries are now at war. What it means, if anything, remains to be seen. It does not seem to have caused any consternation in Washington.

Julian Assange Is Finally Free, But Let’s Not Forget the War Crimes He Exposed

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, July 04, 2024

Under the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the Espionage Act. Assange was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in the indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration.

Biden and Trump Battle Over a Rattle

By Edward Curtin, July 04, 2024

The spectacle of presidential politics and people’s addiction to it is a depressing commentary on people’s gullibility.  To think that the candidates are not puppets manipulated by the same hidden powerful elite forces is a form of illiteracy that fails to grasp the nature of the fairy tale told through the looking-glass.

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

33 year old Drag Racer Lizzy Musi (Driver on Street Outlaws) died from Stage 4 Triple Negative Breast Cancer on June 27, 2024.

 

 

 

She was diagnosed with Stage 4 TNBC in April 2023.

June 28, 2024 – ‘Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings’ star Lizzy Musi dead at 33

 

 

Lizzy Musi has died at 33.

The driver and reality TV star, best known for “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings,” passed away after a battle with breast cancer.

Her father, Pat Musi, announced her death in a post shared via Facebook on Thursday.

“Surrounded by her Family, in the comfort of her own home, Lizzy was called to heaven at 11:25pm tonight,” the post read.

“Thank you for all the prayers and support throughout her battle

Musi, who grew up in North Carolina, rose to fame on the Discovery Channel series “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings,” a spinoff of 2018’s “Street Outlaws,” a docu-series about drag racers competing on rough terrain.

She starred on the show with her father Pat, an eight-time PDRA Pro Street World Champion, according to his website.

In addition to being a driver, she was also the director of Musi Racing in Mooresville, North Carolina.

Musi revealed her cancer diagnosis in an April 2023 Instagram post.

“Hey Everyone, I haven’t been able to have much time to post due to an unexpected life change. A few days ago I have been Diagnosed with Triple Negative Stage 4 Breast Cancer that has moved to my lymph nodes to my liver,” she wrote, adding, “I have a rough journey ahead of me. I appreciate everyone’s messages and calls.

In June 2023, she showed off “the new me” after shaving her head.

“Never thought in a million years I would post a picture like this. I want to share every raw moment with you guys through my journey,” Lizzy captioned the image. “2 nights ago I had to shave my head due to extreme hair loss,” adding that her ex-fiance, Kye Kelly, helped her shave her head.

“Some days are tough to look in the mirror,” she wrote.

After winning the 2023 “Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings” invitational at Tulsa Raceway Park in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Musi told Drag Illustrated in August, “I swear I haven’t been this happy in my whole life. I just feel like I can do my job as a driver, and it just came so naturally. It felt so good to be able to be myself again and race.”

She added, “I can’t even begin to explain everything I’ve been going through and dealing with this cancer diagnosis – a lot of people had their doubts about me. I’m very thankful and blessed that I can keep doing what I’m doing.”

She noted that her health struggles didn’t put her down, saying: “I still have the fire in me.”

“I have such a huge support system that keeps me going. My family has been so supportive. It’s incredible, and I’m so thankful for that.”

Musi continued, “I’ll sit in treatment rooms, getting this chemo done, and here I am a couple of days later in a race car, and now we won this race – it feels like the biggest accomplishment ever. We struggled so much, so I feel like going through all those struggles makes a win so much more worthwhile.  Me and my dad got emotional at the top end, but we both know that we went through hell and back to get to where we’re at. I look up to him so much.”

“But there are days where I feel stronger than ever.”

Her father wrote in his Facebook post about her death, “At this time, the family would like to have time to process, grief and make arrangements in peace. We will give an update as soon as we have information to share.”

My Take… 

Lizzy didn’t push COVID-19 vaccines but with all the sponsors, TV show on Discovery, racing on various racetracks during 2021-2023, etc, she is presumed vaccinated.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) has the worst prognosis.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines cause Turbo Cancer. Breast cancer is in the top 3 most common Turbo Cancers. Of the Turbo Breast Cancers, TNBC is the most common type.

Look at the features:

1. Very young age: 33 is much too young, we start screening at 50
2. Stage 4 Presentation. No warning signs.
3. Triple Negative – this is the most common type after mRNA injection

4. Died 14 months after diagnosis – progression much too rapid and also suggests the cancer did not respond to chemo.

All of these features are typical of mRNA-induced turbo cancer.

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The second round of the presidential elections in Iran on Friday, 5th July, is not only a continuation of the clash between pro-Western liberals and traditionalists attached to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and determined to maintain the independence of Persian civilisation.

The choice of the Iranians may also have serious international implications, affecting the situation in Palestine, within the so-called Fertile Crescent (Lebanon-Syria-Iraq), and even the result of the US presidential elections.

Who Assassinated President Raisi?

Only 39.93 percent of Iranians went to the polls on 28th June 2024.

This is the lowest turnout in the history of the Islamic Republic, which has clearly not yet recovered from the shock of the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, perhaps not liked by everyone but widely respected. 

His death in a plane crash on 19th May is widely considered to the assassination inspired either by Zionists and Americans, or by the members of corrupt elites whom the president ordered a ruthless fight against.  In the unanimous opinion of the Iranian faithful, Ebrahim Raisi had the highest predispositions to become, after the end of his almost certain second term, the future spiritual leader of Iran, of course through the longest possible life of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and in accordance with the tradition strengthened by the example of Great Ayatollah Khomeini. The criminals who committed the attack clearly wanted not only to interrupt Raisi’s presidency and destroy the threat of his re-election, but also to disrupt the entire political continuity of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And so far, they continue to do everything to complete such a destructive work.

Love’s Labour’s Lost

I was in Iran during the 2017 presidential campaign, won overwhelmingly by reformist candidate Hassan Rouhani (image on the right), who promised to quickly lift international sanctions against the Republic by reaching an agreement with a U.S.-led coalition interested in ending Iran’s nuclear program.  Ebrahim Raisi, who was defeated in those elections, warned that the West cannot be trusted and all the false promises are and intended only to further weaken Iran’s economic and military potential.  The course of events very quickly proved that Raisi’s position was right, and the liberal bloc was also severely disgraced by corruption, widespread under President Rouhani’s rule.  

I also remember well the situation in Iran before the 2021 presidential elections.  It has been perfectly summarised by the Supreme Leader himself, the great Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on candidates to compete for programs and to focus on solving real problems, especially socio-economic:

“People don’t care about candidates’ views on social media or foreign policy. Our people are worried by things like unemployment and low income, in particular being the result of wrong policies that suppress national production.”

That was the real reason why the people Iran supported the real God’s Man, Ebrahim Raisi.  Even his greatest enemies always have to admit that he was a politic who had never involved in even the slightest scandal. He was always incorruptible and steadfast and He guaranteed that enemies of Iran have not been able to bribe the Iranian elites in a purpose of social ties breakdown and the destruction of the society, what happened for example to the Central European countries and all other societies affected by the disease of democratisation, liberalisation and any pro-Western political transformation.  Today, however, that fight must be repeated again.

Consolidation

Images are licensed under CC BY 4.0

Of the six candidates registered by the Council of the Guardians of the Revolution, four finally  took part in the first round, including Saeed Jalili, forcing the continuation of the Raisi’s line and loyalty to the Supreme Leader’s instructions, and Masoud Pezeshkian, announcing a return to the Rouhani’s line, once discredited, but still attractive to many today.

Jalili, a disillusioned long-time negotiator with the West, was ultimately supported by, among others, the incumbent vice president of Iran, Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi, and the mayor of Tehran, Alireza Zakani. 

The third in the race, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, who was considered a candidate particularly close to military circles, also called for voting for Jalili. 

Pezeshkian, however, is supported by the liberal establishment from the past, including former president Mohammad Khatami and former speaker of Parliament Mahdi Karroubi. 

So we are dealing with a clash similar to those in 2017 and 2021, a clash that would not have happened without the death of Raisi, who was unanimously considered to be certain of re-election. 

Only the president’s death gave the liberals a chance, and Pezeshkian obtaining 44.36 percent of votes in the first round keeps these hopes alive.

Zionists Just Wait…

Though, Dr. Jalili is now the hope of both traditionalists, gained around the Supreme Leader, and populists of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in whose administration the current candidate served as deputy minister of foreign affairs for European and American affairs, must unite. 

For both groups, Iran’s unilateral surrender to the demands of Western negotiators equals to defeat in an undeclared but ongoing war with Tel Aviv, which is only waiting for the disarmament of the Islamic Republic to attack Lebanon and Syria again and complete the pacification of the Palestinian territories. 

The election of Dr. Pezeshkian, a former health minister calling for compromise with the West, may be the final death sentence for Gaza, the Palestinian Autonomy, and ultimately also Beirut and Damascus. The Zionists will not forget Tehran’s drone attack that compromised their anti-aircraft defence, and they want to take revenge through ballot boxes filled by Iranians tormented by sanctions. However, they should not forget about other important international circumstances: the US presidential elections and the expected change of Government in the UK.

Best Friends of Israel

Both Donald Trump and Sir Kier Starmer announced a significant tightening of Anglo-Saxon policy towards Tehran after their expected election victories. 

For Trump, the war with Iran would become the final proof that he is “Israel’s greatest friend” among American presidents, and the leader of the British Labour Party would thus culminate his campaign of ruthlessly eliminating all critics of Zionism and opponents of the genocide in Gaza from the ranks of the Labor Party. Even being victorious, but at the same time unable to openly war with China (as he would like), nor able to end the war in Ukraine (which the Washington establishment will probably not allow him to do), Trump will face the huge temptation of a third armed conflict, in the Middle East, with an attempt at land including the invasion of Iran. It would be naive for the Iranians to believe that they would avert such a threat by choosing a capitulator ready to hand over the Republic to Western foundations and globalist capital. 

If the battered and frightened inhabitants of Iran choose shame, they may get war too.

*

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.

Konrad Rękas is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Attribution: Tasnim News Agency

“Could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole …

 The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack.” (emphasis added) 

Barack and Michelle Obama’s “Leave the World Behind” Movie: Cyberattack, “Synchronized Chaos”, Collapse, “Civil War”

Another controversial element has recently emerged. Available on Netflix, Hollywood has released “Leave the World Behind” produced by former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, based on the script of Rumaan Alam‘s novel. The film director is Sam Esmail.

“Leave the World Behind” “depicts the unraveling of society in the wake of a surprise attack by an unknown assailant, which “predicts a cyberattack on the U.S. power grid”.

Rumaan Alam’s novel “Leave the World Behind,” was published in October 2020, several month following the fear campaign and the March 11, 2020 Covid-19 “Lockdown”. In an interview with The Guardian: (October 26, 2021) Rumaan Alam says:  

“I’d never even heard the word coronavirus prior to February 2020. On a very basic level, the book dramatises being trapped in at home and not having enough information – and it happened to be published into a reality in which many readers felt that they were trapped in their homes and didn’t have enough information. So it’s a strange resonance. [namely]… the individual relationship to anxiety over the climate, the absurdity of the contemporary moment, our warped relationship to technology. People are thinking and talking about this stuff so it makes sense that there will be books about it.  

… The people I’m talking about are the person I am. The day lockdown began, what was the first thing we did? Aside from grocery shopping, everyone I know, myself included, went shopping …  

According to Joseph Mercola in a carefully researched review of the “Leave the World Behind” movie:

“Leave the World Behind” depicts the unraveling of society in the wake of a surprise attack by an unknown assailant. Many believe the film, produced by Barack and Michelle Obama, predicts a cyberattack on the U.S. power grid

A cyberattack that will make the COVID pandemic look like a minor inconvenience in comparison to what has been repeatedly “promised” in recent years by World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab

“Leave the World Behind” doesn’t preach preparedness ideologies or indulge in apocalyptic fantasies. Instead, it offers a glimpse into the potential ramifications of societal breakdowns and the human condition’s capacity for both despair and resilience  (See Mercola’s analysis, January 7, 2024, see Schwab quotation above) 

Rumaan Alam’s novel depicts the social impacts of a Blackout affecting the entire U.S. East Coast.

There is no concrete evidence at this stage that the producers and director of “Leave the World Behind” were cognizant of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Simulation of a Cyber Attack first conducted in July 2020. The matter requires further investigation. 

Video: “Leave the World Behind”

 

Video: the WEF Cyber Polygon 2020 Simulation. “The Year that has Changed the World”

An engineered “Cyber Terrorist Attack” conducive to unprecedented disruptions? Is this something that we should take seriously?

The World Economic Forum warns us of a new crisis of “even more significant economic and social implications than COVID19.”

“Protect People Properly”, Says former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the above video.

“What threat could possibly be more impactful?”

The Ice Age Farmer in the video below: 

“breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.”

Video: The Next Crisis “Bigger than Covid”

Jeremy Jurgens, WEF Managing Director:

In the words of Jeremy Jurgens, who is the WEF’s  Managing Director and Head of the WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: 

“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.” (emphasis added) 

The 2020 Cyber Polygon Simulation was followed by a Second Simulation in 2021

What does Klaus Schwab have up his Sleeve? A Geopolitical Slant: The 2021 Cyber Polygon Simulation 

The 2021 WEF cyber polygon simulation scenario had an obvious “contradictory” geopolitical slant: 

The event was chaired by Russia’s Prime Minister  Mikhail Mishustin, numerous Russian financial institutions, media and communications entities had been invited by the WEF.

 

Bear in Mind, the July 2021 WEF “Cyber Attack Simulation was co-chaired by Klaus Schwab and the PM of Russia Mikhail Mishustin, Barely 7 months later, the WEF suspends it relationship with the Kremlin following the launching of President Putin’s Special Military Operation (SMO) against Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

 

 

Another Crisis “Much Worse than Covid”,

Paralysis of Power Supply,

Communications, Transportation.

The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky  

December 15, 2021 

Introduction

Video: The Next Crisis Bigger than Covid

 

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of thirteen books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Israel is burning down.

More than 200 Hezbollah missiles have hit Israel the past day and night.

Though Hezbollah’s 200 missiles have been reported in western media, it has always been with the addition from censored Israeli public information, that Israel either “shoots down all Hezbollah missiles”, or “Hezbollah missiles strike empty land”. The images in the video prove that evidently Hezbollah is doing tremendous real damage, burning down Israel.

The devastation by Hezbollah in the video is not reported on CNN, NYT or WaPo.

Not even reported by Israeli media.

As Israel cannot defeat Hamas in little Gaza, taking on far bigger Hezbollah is an impossible task for Israel.

The fire will therefore grow until it consumes Israel.

*

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.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the AFP video

13 Nations Sign Agreement to Engineer Global Famine by Destroying Food Supply

Hunter Fielding, June 18, 2024

Breakthrough Study Uncovers ‘Off Switch’ for COVID mRNA Shots

Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 1, 2024

Why Is NATO Suddenly Backing Off in the Black Sea?

Drago Bosnic, July 1, 2024

“I am Not Made for War”: More and More Ukrainians Don’t Want to Go to the Front

Ahmed Adel, July 1, 2024

Cancer Success Stories: Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer – Fenbendazole Protocol Shrinking Tumors and Dropping Cancer Markers

Dr. William Makis, July 1, 2024

COVID-19 Vaccine Victims, Japanese Families Speak Out, Doctors Warning About mRNA Dangers, Speeches and Japanese TV Spots

Dr. William Makis, July 2, 2024

The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

Dr. Jack Rasmus, July 3, 2024

Our Identity as Homo Sapiens Threatened by Synthetic Biology, Humans Fiddle While Humanity Burns, Will It be Near-Term Death or Transhuman Slavery?

Robert J. Burrowes, July 1, 2024

Inside the Assange Plea Deal: Why the US Government Abruptly Ended the Case

Mohamed Elmaazi, July 2, 2024

Journalist Bisan Owda Trapped in Gaza: “It’s a Game of Death and Hunger” There Is No Place to Go. “Genocide by Design”

Mark Taliano, July 2, 2024

Bird Flu — Another Attempt to Control the Food System and Make a Profit. A New Wave of Fearmongering Begins – Should You Be Concerned?

Dr. Ashley Armstrong, July 2, 2024

Putin: The Protector of Ukraine

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 1, 2024

WEF’s Klaus Schwab Crossing the Line on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination. Exposed by WSJ

Peter Koenig, July 1, 2024

Articles and Protocols for Cancer, Research Studies and Access to Ivermectin Pills

Dr. William Makis, July 3, 2024

Large Maneuvers of War in Europe Under US Command. Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci, July 3, 2024

Video: Israel Destroys Gaza to Control World’s Most Important Shipping Lane? The Ben Gurion Canal Linking the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba

Richard Medhurst, June 30, 2024

America’s Distortion of the History of the 20th Century: “The Legacy of World War II and the Holocaust”

Dr. David Stea, July 2, 2024

NATO May Drag Us Into World War III to Delay U.S. Election ’24!

Drago Bosnic, July 1, 2024

Immediate Ban on mRNA Gene Therapy Over Escalating Turbo Cancer Crisis: UK’s Top Oncologist Prof. Angus Dalgleish

Aussie17, July 2, 2024

Trump or Blinken – That Is the Question. Will the Dems Pull a Last Minute Wild Card? So, the fight will be fierce from now to November 6, 2024

Peter Koenig, July 2, 2024

O regime de Kiev continua a tomar decisões perigosas que podem levar a uma grave escalada do conflito com a Federação Russa. Recentemente, tropas ucranianas começaram a ser posicionadas na fronteira com a República da Belarus, o que é um passo sério, considerando que qualquer ataque à soberania bielorrussa será respondido militarmente por Moscou, uma vez que ambos os países têm um pacto de defesa mútua. A Ucrânia está consciente deste risco de escalada, mas procura abertamente internacionalizar o conflito.

Em 29 de Junho, o vice-comandante das forças de operações especiais bielorrussas, coronel Vadim Lukashevich, afirmou que Kiev está a posicionar soldados, veículos blindados e sistemas de artilharia fornecidos pelos EUA ao longo da fronteira de 1.000 km entre os dois países. Além disso, foram criados campos minados na região, o que é claramente um sinal de preparação para um possível conflito aberto. Além do exército ucraniano, o serviço de fronteira bielorrusso também relatou a presença de mercenários neonazistas na fronteira.

Pouco depois das declarações das autoridades bielorrussas, o regime de Kiev confirmou as acusações, admitindo que está a realizar movimentos militares na fronteira norte. De acordo com Andrey Demchenko, porta-voz do Serviço de Fronteiras da Ucrânia, a Ucrânia vê a fronteira com a Belarus como “perigosa”, razão pela qual Kiev “continua a fortalecê-la… para evitar quaisquer ações que possam vir do território de Belarus”.

Demchenko não explicou porque é que o seu país considera Belarus uma ameaça. Figuras públicas ucranianas e pró-ucranianas salientam frequentemente que alguns dos primeiros ataques russos durante a primeira fase da operação militar especial foram realizados com tropas que se deslocavam através do território bielorrusso. De fato, alguns dos militares russos envolvidos na operação cruzaram a fronteira norte da Ucrânia em direção a Kiev para realizar uma manobra diversiva que permitiu que as tropas ucranianas se distraíssem enquanto posições de verdadeiro interesse russo eram facilmente tomadas em Donbass.

Esses movimentos militares, contudo, terminaram na Primavera de 2022. A Rússia retirou-se dos subúrbios de Kiev depois de ganhar posições estratégicas no Donbass. Além disso, Moscou deixou claro que o fim das ações na região de Kiev foi também um gesto de boa vontade diplomática para avançar nas negociações de paz, razão pela qual a Ucrânia já não precisava de temer quaisquer novas incursões nos arredores da capital.

No momento do início da operação militar especial, Belarus tinha declarado a sua neutralidade no conflito, embora tenha permitido o trânsito de tropas russas através do seu território. A presença militar russa no país é absolutamente legal, uma vez que ambos os países estão amplamente integrados no Tratado do Estado da União. Devido às constantes provocações ucranianas, Belarus mudou o seu estatuto no conflito, apoiando agora abertamente a Rússia, mas deixando claro que não está interessada em participar em quaisquer movimentos militares. No entanto, se a Ucrânia continuar a lançar manobras provocativas, Minsk poderá ser forçada a agir de forma mais decisiva para proteger o seu povo.

As autoridades russas deixaram claro em diversas ocasiões que não tolerarão qualquer tipo de ataque ao seu aliado. O Estado da União estabelece apoio militar mútuo em caso de conflito, razão pela qual um ataque a Belarus será visto como um ataque à própria Rússia. No entanto, Kiev já realizou diversas provocações nas fronteiras, incluindo incursões de drones e tentativas de ataques terroristas. Minsk tem sido paciente e ignorou as ações ucranianas, mas se mais atividades deste tipo forem realizadas, é possível que o governo bielorrusso peça o apoio russo para reforçar a segurança fronteiriça. Além disso, Moscou poderia lançar outra operação no norte, semelhante à do início do conflito, com o objetivo de dissuadir os ucranianos de se retirarem da fronteira com Belarus.

Para Kiev, a internacionalização do conflito é uma prioridade. Com o seu exército à beira do colapso e a derrota total sendo uma mera questão de tempo, a única esperança da Ucrânia é tornar o conflito tão sério e internacional quanto possível, tentando assim angariar mais apoio ocidental e uma possível intervenção da OTAN. Belarus tem sido um dos maiores alvos de provocações, tal como a república separatista da Transnístria, onde já foram reportadas diversas manobras terroristas e incursões de drones. Kiev, contudo, não conseguirá envolver tão facilmente mais actores na guerra. Minsk, por exemplo, já deixou claro que só entrará diretamente no conflito se houver um ataque militar ucraniano direto. Apesar de ser provocativo, o regime neonazista está ao mesmo tempo agindo de forma covarde, não querendo arriscar as suas já frágeis e altamente enfraquecidas forças militares.

É digno de nota que a Ucrânia está enviando tantas tropas para uma fronteira pacífica, apesar de ter sofrido pesadas perdas no campo de batalha. Talvez a esperança de Kiev com estes movimentos seja precisamente distrair as forças russas, fazendo parecer que o regime abrirá uma nova frente para tentar reduzir as ações russas nas Novas Regiões e em Kharkov, que são atualmente os principais flancos do conflito. Esta tentativa de distração, no entanto, é fútil, uma vez que Moscou continua a utilizar apenas uma pequena percentagem das suas capacidades militares, tendo força suficiente para atuar em várias frentes ao mesmo tempo.

Se Kiev intensificar as provocações na fronteira com a Belarus, a Rússia poderá facilmente entrar na Ucrânia pelo norte, sem reduzir as suas ações nas outras frentes. Por outro lado, um novo flanco poderia desgastar ainda mais a Ucrânia e levar rapidamente ao seu colapso militar.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês :

Kiev Regime Worsening Tensions by Sending Troops to Belarussian Border

InfoBrics, 2 de Julho de 2024.

Imagém : InfoBrics

*

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

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

 

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In the middle of several very serious questions haunting humanity today the one which looms over all others is this terrible one—how high is the possibility of World War III/nuclear war and how destructive this will be?

Even those who take an optimistic view of the existing situation do not deny the obvious fact that weapons of mass destruction that exist with just the two biggest nuclear weapon powers (over 10,000 nuclear weapons plus other weapons) have the capacity to destroy most life on earth several times over.

They base their optimism mainly on their view that just because the risks of a large-scale nuclear war are so unacceptably high, this will never be allowed to actually happen by the world leadership and no matter how serious the hostilities become, some solution will always be found to avoid a war that has the capacity to destroy all sides.

Can this optimism be accepted? Is this optimism justified?

Is this optimism good for reducing worries and tensions of people, or is it likely to prove extremely harmful by creating a false assurance of safety and thereby avoiding much-needed safety steps? Do the actual risks remain unacceptably high?

What is at stake here is so huge—the very survival of life on planet—that even a low probability of an all-out nuclear war should be seen as extremely dangerous. If for example a 5% probability of this existed till about a few years ago, then this was a very serious matter and if this has now increased to about 10% then this is a much more serious matter. If this probability now appears to show a further increasing trend then this makes the situation even more alarming.

On the whole we can say definitely that the probability of a life-destroying nuclear war today is unacceptably high and it shows all the signs of worsening further.

There are two aspects that need to be considered here, firstly the state of world leadership and governance and secondly certain technological factors.

It is extremely unfortunate that when international peace and cooperation are needed more than ever before to avoid the most catastrophic situations, the world leadership has been increasingly exposed in recent times for its glaring failures to achieve such peace and cooperation. In fact it is no exaggeration to say that at a time when the need for moving fast on the path of peace, disarmament and cooperation is the highest, world leadership has been instead moving in the reverse direction, as evident from increasing superpower rivalries and tensions as well as breakdown and non-renewal of important disarmament treaties or agreements.

In addition there are several serious environmental problems which together threaten to disrupt life-nurturing conditions of earth if not checked in time. To resolve these in time, apart from strong community actions, close international cooperation is also needed but this too is denied by increasing big power disputes and rivalries, as well as inability of the most of the rich countries to adopt a caring attitude towards the needs of poorer and most vulnerable countries. This is mentioned here as another example of the failure of world leadership to get its priorities right and resolve the most urgent problems before it is too late.

The most dangerous aspect of increasing irresponsibility shown by the leadership of big powers is their apparent willingness to pursue their rivalries and hostilities in ways that bring them closer to the possibilities of direct war (in addition to the several proxy wars they have fought and are fighting). Despite warnings by some of their most senior statesmen and diplomats, the USA and its close allies persisted with the relentless eastward expansion of NATO, thereby increasing tensions with Russia. This worsened with a coup in Ukraine assisted by them, followed by pushing Ukraine relentlessly towards increasing hostility with Russia. In the course of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, USA and close allies have increasingly taken decisions that can lead to direct confrontation of Russia with USA and its close allies/ NATO. New red lines have been drawn and crossed several times in the recent past.

The spread of dangerous ideas among elites and the absence of adequate training in commitment to peace makes them more susceptible to pursue irrational hostility rather than peace, and it is from these elites that the most decisive posts are filled and it is these elites that comprise the deep establishment. 

Secondly, regarding the technological aspects, the extremely high speed at which nuclear weapons can be made to reach their targets makes it difficult to correct serious mistakes. It is possible in times of high tensions to mistake normal weapon delivery as nuclear weapon delivery and take retaliatory actions. There are possibilities of accidents and misunderstandings that can start a nuclear war. 

There is huge irrationality and recklessness involved in perpetually living in a state of being just minutes away from doomsday. 

The fact that world leadership sees nothing wrong in living this way year after year, endangering the life of billions of people and other life forms, is further evidence of its glaring failure to protect the most crucial interests of the planet and its life.

The previous two world wars were fought over several years and involved prolonged battles in many countries. World War 3 can take a very different shape as so much harm is caused within just a few days that it cannot continue beyond this. However it will be worse than the previous two world wars taken together as within a few days of nuclear warfare and the resulting nuclear winter most people and other life-forms will die or will be left to die. The actual use of just 10% of the existing stock of nuclear weapons will be enough to achieve such a hugely destructive result.  

It is not just a question of whether the probability of this ever happening is 5% or 10%, more or less. The fact is that by any rational reckoning any probability of this happening even at minimum levels is unacceptable. This is a betrayal by world leadership of their most essential responsibility towards people, towards this generation and the next, towards completely innocent children, towards all forms of life.

Hence it is time for the people of the world to rise, led by women and youth, to create an entirely different world where the probability of such huge destruction by weapons and wars is zero, and where all people can live in peace and cooperate to resolve the most important environmental problems in time and ensure that all people can have creative, satisfactory livelihoods to meet their basic needs on a sustainable basis. In short, the world should be firmly on a path based on peace, safety, environment protection and justice.

*

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 Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

O primeiro debate eleitoral evidenciou a milhões de cidadãos americanos que eles são governados por uma esponja. Talvez a antecipação dos debates (nas eleições anteriores o primeiro debate ocorreu somente no final de setembro) tenha ocorrido precisamente com o objetivo de testar o recebimento da (falta de) capacidade cognitiva de Joe Biden pelo grande público para que houvesse tempo de substituí-lo por outro candidato, caso necessário. Como em 2020, Biden deu um golpe interno no Partido Democrata, impedindo a concorrência e os debates para não expor sua completa incapacidade de governar.

Mas todas as vozes da grande burguesia imperialista americana agora estão clamando desesperadamente pela sua substituição.

Mais influente porta-voz do establishment, o New York Times pediu em um editorial: “para servir a seu país, o presidente Biden deve deixar a disputa”, rasgando elogios ao “presidente admirável”, sob cuja liderança “a nação prosperou e começou a abordar uma série de desafios antigos”. Porque Biden está concorrendo contra o demônio personificado. “Donald Trump se provou um perigo significativo para a democracia – uma figura errática e egoísta que não merece a confiança do público”, opinou o jornal.

Entretanto, os democratas e a grande burguesia americana não têm ninguém com a mesma popularidade de Donald Trump. A maioria das pesquisas de opinião aponta o republicano como favorito e vem crescendo o número de adeptos às ideias e políticas defendidas por ele, como o combate à imigração, ao envio de armas à Ucrânia e à “cultura woke”. Pesquisa publicada no início de janeiro pelo Washington Post e a Universidade de Maryland indicou que 36% dos americanos acham que a eleição de Biden em 2020 não foi legítima. Trump conseguiu arrecadar 53 milhões de dólares para sua campanha em 24 horas após ser condenado em maio pela justiça de Nova York e conquistou 3 milhões de seguidores quase imediatamente após abrir uma conta no Tik Tok. É um fenômeno ainda mais arrasador do que em 2016.

Sabendo, no entanto, que não é a vontade do povo, mas sim as maquinações dos poderosos interesses dentro das instituições do Estado que realmente decidem o próximo presidente dos Estados Unidos, é preciso analisar as estruturas da burguesia americana e de seus tentáculos e medir a força de seus setores que neste momento estão em clara contradição. É a correlação de forças dentro do sistema político e econômico dos EUA que irá decidir qual camada das classes dominantes, a superior ou a inferior, terá o seu representante na Casa Branca em 2025.

O poder dos republicanos nos estados

Levando em conta o maior ou menor controle da máquina política estatal (executivo, legislativo e histórico nas últimas três eleições presidenciais), os republicanos deverão vencer em todos os “red states” e em outros 17 estados, incluindo o “swing state” da Geórgia. Terão garantidos, assim, 255 delegados para o colégio eleitoral, na soma dos delegados que cada um desses estados têm direito. Já os democratas tendem a vencer em todos os “blue states” e em mais 10 estados, incluindo os “swing states” de Nevada e Michigan e os estados de Minnesota e Maine, onde, ao contrário de todos os outros, o partido que obtêm a maioria dos votos populares no estado não elege automaticamente todos os delegados, mas têm regras próprias – nossa conta leva em consideração que os democratas controlam a máquina política nesses dois estados, portanto têm condições de manejar o resultado das eleições. Os democratas obterão, assim, 243 delegados para o colégio eleitoral.

Para que seu candidato seja o vencedor das eleições presidenciais, um partido deve ter ao menos 270 delegados no colégio eleitoral. Daí a importância essencial dos “swing states” onde o controle político não é definido (Pensilvânia, Wisconsin e Arizona). Conquistando aqueles 255 delegados, para se eleger bastará para Trump vencer em apenas um deles (a Pensilvânia), ou, se perder na Pensilvânia, se vencer nos outros dois. Já o candidato democrata será obrigado a vencer na Pensilvânia e em mais um dos outros dois “swing states” chave, se obtiver apenas 243 delegados.

Considerando, assim, o controle da máquina política nos estados, somado à tendência de maior preferência dos eleitores nas pesquisas de intenção de voto, Donald Trump tem maiores chances de se eleger presidente do que o candidato democrata.

O Deep State contra Trump

“Com uma maioria favorável ao MAGA [o movimento trumpista “Make America Great Again”] na Suprema Corte, dezenas de aliados nos tribunais federais inferiores, bem como no Congresso, nas legislaturas estaduais e nas mansões dos governadores, e uma base considerável, extremamente leal e fortemente armada de apoiadores políticos, Trump terá considerável margem de manobra e muitos apoiadores”, diz um artigo da Foreign Affairs publicado em 10 de junho, assinado por Jon D. Michaels.

O autor teme que o trumpismo esteja construindo um Deep State próprio, o que poderia ser consolidado com a volta de Trump ao governo. Os analistas tradicionais da intelectualidade ocidental costumam caracterizar os países que não pertencem à América do Norte e à Europa Ocidental como regimes extremamente burocráticos, corruptos e antidemocráticos, onde reinam as conspirações internas como forma de luta pelo poder. Pois na verdade essa caracterização cabe perfeitamente aos Estados Unidos das últimas décadas. Os EUA têm uma das maiores e certamente a mais poderosa burocracia estatal do mundo. Esqueçam as supostas preocupações com os LGBT ou os negros. Quem domina o poder nos EUA não liga para os direitos ou a falta de direitos dessas pessoas. Eles se importam com coisas mais fundamentais, como manter o estrito controle do regime político.

E Trump é uma perigosa ameaça a esse controle. Ele tende a concentrar os poderes na presidência, com um poder maior de intervenção e controle sobre as agências de inteligência e os órgãos de defesa nacional. Aprendeu com os erros de seu primeiro mandato e agora irá colocar apenas pessoas de total confiança nos postos-chave – e a tendência é que ele troque a maior parte das cabeças das principais áreas do governo. Um outro artigo da Foreign Affairs, publicado por Risa Brooks em 20 de março, mostra preocupação sobre a crescente politização das forças armadas americanas, alimentada tanto pela propaganda trumpista quanto pelos vetos de legisladores republicanos à promoção de oficiais supostamente liberais nas forças armadas. Então os chefes do Pentágono também detestam a ideia da volta de Trump ao governo. E os oficiais do Pentágono sempre são selecionados entre os quadros das empresas armamentistas, que estão de cabelos em pé com a possibilidade de que os Estados Unidos retirem suas bases militares e suas tropas da Ásia e da Europa, pois seu lucro vem justamente da venda de material ao governo dos EUA e de seus países-clientes. Os outros órgãos do Deep State, como a CIA e o Conselho de Segurança Nacional, também são alimentados com quadros da indústria militar, assim como do Vale do Silício e de Wall Street, que reúnem os grandes monopólios tecnológicos e financeiros dos Estados Unidos e do mundo. Trump já declarou também que poderia abrir os arquivos secretos sobre o assassinato de John Kennedy, o que revelaria mais um pouco sobre a podridão da CIA e do Deep State, prováveis responsáveis por aquele magnicídio.

Trump pode fazer uma reconfiguração inédita no Deep State, o verdadeiro governo dos EUA. Está mexendo com os piores instintos do imperialismo americano.

Quem são os homens de Trump?

O âmago do conflito entre Trump e o aparato que comanda os EUA são as contradições de classe. Neste caso, as contradições dos setores marginalizados da burguesia, da classe média e do proletariado, com a alta burguesia imperialista.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, um proeminente acadêmico da alta sociedade americana que trabalha diariamente com os maiores capitalistas dos EUA, tem enfatizado essa contradição em artigos para a imprensa. No New York Times, ele destacou que, até agora, nenhum dos 100 maiores bilionários na lista da Fortune doou um mísero centavo para a campanha presidencial de Trump – assim como nenhum CEO doou em 2016 e apenas dois dos top 100 o fizeram em 2020. Além disso, muitos empresários que financiaram Trump em 2016 abandonaram o barco ao longo de seu governo.

Alguns poucos financistas têm apoiado o líder republicano, mas, “na realidade, esses financistas representam um pequeno segmento da comunidade de negócios”, ressaltou Sonnenfeld na Time.

Está claro por essas informações e pela campanha nos principais meios de comunicação que a alta burguesia americana não apoia Trump. Mas quem o apoia?

Basta dar uma olhada para as posições políticas de Trump. Ele é protecionista, isolacionista e anti-imigrantes. Ataca a globalização e promete cuidar da situação interna dos Estados Unidos e diminuir a intervenção nos assuntos de outros países, o que significaria um duro golpe sobre o regime imperialista global, ainda mais em uma época de insurreições contra esse regime no mundo todo.

Obstaculizar a entrada dos imigrantes elevaria a taxa salarial dos trabalhadores americanos, pois os imigrantes que entram nos EUA aceitam receber salários baixíssimos, reduzindo a média salarial dos trabalhadores americanos. Por isso os grandes empresários atacam a pauta migratória de Trump, a fim de manter os baixos salários com a competição dos imigrantes. Muitos trabalhadores apoiam Trump porque querem, naturalmente, salários melhores.

Há mesmo uma ala esquerdista dentro do trumpismo, como existia no fascismo italiano e no nazismo alemão. Isso se dá justamente pela influência de trabalhadores desorganizados e com pouca consciência política que têm sofrido intensamente com décadas de neoliberalismo, desindustrialização e governos democratas e republicanos tradicionais. Em ambos os artigos, para o NYT e para a Time, Sonnenfeld opina que a política econômica de Trump é muito mais parecida com a da esquerda socialista do que com as posições tradicionais do Partido Republicano, “e são frequentemente mais progressistas que as da Administração Biden”.

As corporações são muito impopulares entre toda a população americana e mesmo entre membros dos dois partidos, por isso até Biden tem de criticá-las a adotar medidas que as desagradam. Mesmo setores poderosos dentro dos EUA foram afetados pelo domínio dos monopólios sobre a economia, pois estes suprimiram a concorrência de empresários que ficaram à margem do poder. De fato, se uma minoria tão reduzida governa, inclusive setores ricos da sociedade terminam prejudicados. E eles não gostaram de ter sua vida e seus negócios espionados pela NSA ou de perder seus clientes e quase falir devido à concorrência de produtores estrangeiros, principalmente chineses.

Nos últimos anos os EUA se tornaram dependentes da China em diversas áreas, como eletrônicos, vídeo games, maquinário, têxteis, produtos químicos, metais etc. Isto é, principalmente com relação aos produtos manufaturados. As empresas de Elon Musk, um notório apoiador de Trump, são competidoras das companhias chinesas de fornecimento de internet e carros elétricos. Todo esse vasto ramo empresarial, que abarca multidões de empresas e empresários, concorda quando Trump diz que os EUA precisam se proteger da competição chinesa e de outros países. Tanto é assim que exerceram grande pressão para que a administração Biden seja a mais anti-China da história ao impor altas tarifas e sanções, controle e banimento de investimentos e estar a ponto de proibir o Tik Tok. Na esfera geopolítica, a administração Biden talvez seja a mais agressiva contra  China, ameaçada de uma guerra contra os EUA por Taiwan. Muitos entendem que o principal inimigo geopolítico dos EUA não é o terrorismo, o Irã ou a Rússia, mas sim a China. Sua penetração no mercado interno dos EUA gera acusações de espionagem tanto industrial e tecnológica quanto política e o fortalecimento econômico de uma potência desafiadora da hegemonia americana.

O protecionismo e o isolacionismo de Trump foram vistos em seu primeiro mandato, quando ele retirou os EUA da Parceria Trans-Pacífico, dos Acordos Climáticos de Paris, da OMS e do acordo nuclear com o Irã, todos criados graças ao establishment imperialista americano. Trump é representante dos setores da burguesia que eram dominantes antes de os EUA se tornarem uma potência imperialista hegemônica, quando a maioria dos negócios da burguesia se resumia ao próprio território estadunidense e ao continente americano. Quando o desenvolvimento capitalista levou ao surgimento e ao monopólio da indústria e dos bancos por poucos conglomerados, aqueles setores perderam espaço na economia e na política. O capital financeiro americano se disseminou pelo mundo e exigiu a entrada dos EUA na I e na II Guerra Mundiais exatamente para que o governo protegesse os seus negócios. A ala dos políticos que representava esses interesses se autointitulou “internacionalista”, um eufemismo hipócrita para imperialista. A burguesia marginalizada pelo capital financeiro cuja área de atuação era muito mais limitada não estava interessada em entrar em guerras tão devastadoras para defender esses monopólios que a subjugavam. Por isso criou o movimento “America First”, símbolo do isolacionismo apregoado pelos políticos que representavam esse setor marginalizado da burguesia.

Durante muito tempo, até a era neoliberal, tanto o Partido Democrata quanto o Partido Republicano tinham membros ligados a esse setor. Mas isso não significa que Trump tenha apenas retomado uma política tradicional dos isolacionistas. Esta é uma nova era, influenciada pela experiência neoliberal que devastou ainda mais os negócios da burguesia marginalizada e também a qualidade de vida das classes média e trabalhadora. Ao mesmo tempo, levou a uma crise sem precedentes da própria alta burguesia imperialista. Esse fenômeno é o que os intelectuais do regime americano chamam de “crise da democracia”. E não é Trump que está fazendo essa democracia erodir. Essa “democracia” nada mais é do que a ditadura estável dos monopólios imperialistas, cuja estabilidade já não existe mais por sua própria natureza. A contribuição de Trump para isso é liderar um movimento de insurreição da grande burguesia marginalizada, da pequena burguesia urbana e rural empobrecida e do proletariado desorganizado. Qualquer semelhança com a Alemanha e a Itália da década de 1920 não é mera coincidência. Durante mais de 100 anos a política norte-americana permaneceu uma ditadura bipartidária em que os dois partidos eram gêmeos siameses e sua política quase idêntica garantiu a estabilidade do regime. Donald Trump chegou para abalar essa estabilidade, subverter o Partido Republicano, polarizar o país e estremecer as estruturas do regime político. Por isso é tão odiado pelas elites política e econômica.

Trump também tem o apoio de setores poderosos da burguesia europeia que sofrem com a competição desleal dos monopólios americanos que colonizaram a Europa a partir do Plano Marshall. A exigência de Trump para que a Europa pague uma cota maior de financiamento da OTAN favorece a redução da dependência desses países diante dos EUA, o que significa a diminuição da submissão política. Certamente vários setores da burguesia europeia veem essa possibilidade como uma pequena libertação do jugo americano. Por outro lado, a alta burguesia imperialista americana ataca sistematicamente a possibilidade de redução da participação americana na OTAN e em outros órgãos internacionais, porque sabe que a participação americana não é igual a dos outros países, mas sim uma participação dominante, cuja força econômica compra os funcionários e os chefes dessas organizações para que atendam aos interesses dos Estados Unidos.

O governo Netanyahu também é um claro patrocinador de Trump, com seus tentáculos no poderoso lobby sionista americano. Outros governos de direita de tipo nacionalista burguês, em várias partes do mundo, mesmo que não tenham condições de influenciar de maneira decisiva o resultado das eleições americanas, dão um suporte maior ou menor à candidatura do republicano, porque veem nela uma possibilidade de contenção do domínio dos monopólios imperialistas sobre a sua economia e o favorecimento da burguesia local, asfixiada pelas companhias americanas.

Uma verdadeira revolução política no regime americano?

Em seu primeiro mandato, Trump não conseguiu levar sua política até as últimas consequências. Foi sabotado dentro do próprio partido e governo. Agora, ele tomou conta do Partido Republicano e tende a integrar apenas pessoas de alta confiança no núcleo duro do governo. Pessoas que atendam aos mesmos interesses que ele. Trump pode reestruturar por completo a burocracia estatal dos Estados Unidos. Isso seria como uma revolução política no regime, ou seja, substituir os dirigentes e o sistema político sem mexer drasticamente nas bases da economia capitalista-monopolista.

A principal semelhança de Trump com o fascismo não é a sua xenofobia, seu machismo, ou seu racismo, mas sim a sua base social. A eleição de Trump poderia ser a tomada do poder pelas classes médias e pela baixa e média burguesia, a base social tradicional do fascismo em sua fase embrionária, isto é, antes da sua chegada ao poder. As experiências fascistas do século passado, como os regimes de Hitler e Mussolini, foram domesticadas e controladas pela alta burguesia imperialista quando era inevitável que tomassem o poder. Ou seja, os grandes monopólios abraçaram o fascismo naquela época. Eles não se incomodariam em fazer isso novamente por algum princípio ideológico ou ético, como o fazem em vários lugares do mundo, mas nada indica que estejam dispostos a se aliar a Donald Trump. O mais provável é que, se tudo correr como se anuncia, os EUA se afoguem em um caos jamais visto nos últimos 150 anos e cheguem à beira da guerra civil. Seria um regime absolutamente instável e insustentável, o que poderia acelerar exponencialmente o declínio do império americano.

A grande burguesia financeira e imperialista dos Estados Unidos não pode permitir uma vitória de Trump de modo algum. Pelo contrário, ela precisa retomar o controle dos EUA sobre o mundo todo, o que vai de encontro aos interesses econômicos do MAGA. Mas vai também de encontro à própria realidade objetiva: a crise desse controle e do regime imperialista liderado pelos Estados Unidos é irreversível. Para impedir uma vitória de Trump, levando em conta todo o seu apoio popular, o controle da burocracia estatal pelos republicanos em muitos estados e o respaldo que tem Trump entre setores econômicos poderosos, embora marginalizados, a grande burguesia imperialista terá de executar um golpe de Estado eleitoral. Mas ela não parece ter muita margem de manobra. Por isso não descarto, por exemplo, uma tentativa de assassinato. Se não houver um golpe, Trump será eleito.

E se Trump for eleito, é melhor se pensar em outro golpe de Estado. Caso contrário, se Trump conseguir aparelhar totalmente o Estado como seus opositores temem, os grandes capitalistas terão de fazer como fizeram com Hitler e Mussolini: domesticar a fera, comprando membros do trumpismo, extirpando sua ala mais radical e inserindo homens de confiança do imperialismo para fazer um pacto e estabilizar minimamente a situação. Mas não será nada fácil executar esse plano. É bem provável que o caos se instale. O apodrecimento violento e destruidor não é nada mais senão a tendência natural de um regime imperialista em decadência como o americano.

Eduardo Vasco

*

Eduardo Vasco é jornalista especializado em política internacional, correspondente de guerra e autor dos livros-reportagem “O povo esquecido: uma história de genocídio e resistência no Donbass” e “Bloqueio: a guerra silenciosa contra Cuba”.

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Featuring Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. William Makis, Darrell Komick, Dr. Chris Shoemaker, Dr. David Speicher, and Dr. Mark Trozzi addressing journalists’ questions.

The morning after the landmark event “An Injection of Truth” in Calgary, where a delegation of Canadian MDs and scientists presented crucial scientific information, a press conference was held.

This event addressed the alarming 3000% increase in unexplained child deaths in Alberta and aimed to provide essential knowledge to Albertans and the global community.

This knowledge is vital for making informed decisions regarding the modified mRNA C-19 injections, commonly known as Covid-19 vaccines. Here is the video recording of the press conference, featuring myself and other experts.

Click here to watch the video

*

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 Mark Trozzi, is a veteran ER physician and trauma expert, who has taught at three top medical schools. Since 2020, he’s opposed the criminal COVID agenda, fighting for human rights, justice, and the World Council for Health.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Governments are instituted to serve We the People.

We have authority over our government.

We have the power to reform, alter or even abolish our state governments.

What are WE waiting for?

Exercising the right, and the duty, to reform and to even abolish government when it no longer serves us, is how the United States of America began 248 years ago.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

See this.

 

Amending the United States Constitution:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

See this.

The Right to Alter Or Abolish the Government

According to the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right and duty to abolish any government that has committed a long train of abuses and usurpations.

The Declaration of Independence listed 27 items of complaint, constituting what they believed was a long train of abuses and usurpations.

Below are just some of the abuses and usurpations committed by our Presidents, Congress, Supreme Court and government. 

1. The President has appointed numerous officials to new offices or positions not authorized by Congress.

2. The President has legislated from the Oval Office by issuing rules and regulations for the general public by executive fiat.
3. The President has decided which laws he will enforce or not and refuses to enforce those laws ow which he does not personally approve when he has no discretion in the matter.
4. The President has refused to secure our national borders or enforce existing valid immigration laws.
5. Congress has passed burdensome laws without knowing what was in them and openly mocked the requirement to read aloud and debate legislation prior to passage.
6. Congress has farmed out the writing of major pieces of legislation to private interest groups and then adopted the same as their own work product.
7. Congress has placed many burdensome requirements on the people which Congress exempts its own members and their staffs from sharing.
8. Congress has failed to pass annual budgets as required by law or to restrain its own spending habits.
9. Congress has authorized unprecedented increases in the national debt limit which have endangered the national economy.
10. Congress has failed to hold the Federal Reserve accountable or to reign in its inexcusable printing of fiat currency in large quantities.
11. Congress has established phony courts such as the FISA court which operate in secrecy.
12. Congress has violated the separation of powers and usurped judicial power by taking testimony, administering oaths and using subpoenas to compel testimony in non-judicial hearings.
13. Congress has used the tax laws to achieve a coercive redistribution of wealth under the guise of social welfare programs and individual tax subsidies.
14. Congress has created a sizable fourth branch of government and has delegated legislative authority (rule-making) to so-called independent agencies which have no accountability to the people.
15. The Supreme Court has allowed Congress and the President to expand the scope of federal powers well beyond anything envisioned by the Constitution and has failed to act as guardians of the rights of the people.
16. The Supreme Court has colluded with Congress to deprive the states of their proper spheres of sovereignty and to defeat the will of the people.
17. The government has used national security as an excuse to deprive individuals of the due process of law in interrogations.
18. The government has engaged in intrusive government tracking of individual movements, electronic activities and transactions which are private in nature.
19. The government has limited the time, place and manner of free speech based on the content of that speech.
20. The government has restricted and regulated parents in the discharge of their natural rights and duties to educate their children in any manner they see fit.
21. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by telling people what crops they can or cannot grow on their own land.
22. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by taking private property in the name of a ‘public use’ but in reality turning such property over to another private owner.
23. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of private property by designating various agricultural crops which God has made as contraband, making it illegal to grow, sell or possess them.
24. The government has deprived or subverted the rights of free enterprise by using taxpayer monies to fund the bailout of private enterprises.
25. The government has deprived the rights of private employers by involuntarily conscripting every private employer as a tax collection agent by making them collect, pay and account for taxes owed by others, namely, their employees.
26. The government has deprived the rights of private employers by regulating business endeavors, by imposing fees, licensing requirements, as well as time, place and manner restrictions, arbitrarily making illegal what is inherently lawful by natural right.

27. The government has further deprived or subverted the rights of free association and contract by requiring individuals to enter into private contracts for the purchase of auto or health insurance under penalty of law and dictating the terms of those policies.

Whatever people have the right to institute among men by the consent of the governed, they also have the right to alter or abolish by consent. These two great powers are two sides of the same coin, for one cannot possibly exist without the other.

People not only have the right or ability to do these things, they have the duty or obligation to do them. It is just as irresponsible to fail to correct the situation when government gets so out of whack that the justice it administers is no longer just, and the individual rights of the people are no longer secure.

We as a people cannot do nothing. If not for ourselves, we owe it to our children – our posterity – to provide new guards for their future security when the existing ones have failed. This power is not to be taken lightly.

The struggle we are now facing is not about tweaking the government so that it can run better. It is about significantly paring back the size and scope of government. The government is simply doing too many things it shouldn’t be doing at all. Eliminating fraud, excess and corruption isn’t the issue. It’s about eliminating usurpation and setting the people free from their governmentally imposed chains.

All the jousting between political parties (Republican, Democrat, Independent) and philosophical camps (progressive, establishment, tea party) is just a distraction. If there’s one thing we should recognize by now, the problems we face with our government’s excesses and tyrannization of the people cannot be solved by any election, or series of elections. Merely getting “our” people in and “their” people out isn’t the solution if the entrenched interests and bureaucratic machinery currently in place remain intact.

Ultimately, we as a nation must reject the idea that the state (i.e., civil government in general) is the supreme achievement of mankind. Instead, we must embrace the ideal that the true foundation of every society is self-government, and those people are most free who have learned how to effectively stop the growth of civil power. Progressivism holds that progress is measured by an increased centralization of power. But I say the real progress of history is the ability to limit tyranny. That is the goal we must press toward.

See this.

What Are We Waiting For?

The constitutions of the 16 states listed below clearly state that the people of those states have the right to ABOLISH their state government whenever the people deem it to be appropriate. (Maine’s constitution states that the people may “totally change” their government.)

The people in the remaining 34 states clearly have the right to reform their government by amending their state constitutions or by holding state constitutional conventions to completely reform their state government.

• I am not suggesting violence or rebellion.

• We the People are fed up with state government controls and actions, and the normal processes like public testimony, initiatives, referenda, elections, and recall efforts have failed to make any of the changes that the public wants. We are left with no other recourse.

• We the People have the right right to dramatically reform or abolish state governments by adopting several amendments at the same time.
• We the People have the right to call a state-wide constitutional convention and dramatically reform their state government.
• The government would be simultaneously replaced by something that was still a republican form of government.
• All processes will follow pre-abolishment laws.
• The new constitution will still be legal under federal laws.
• The state name will not change.

Colorado 

Article II, Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles upon which our government is founded, we declare:

Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government proviso.

The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

See this.

Idaho 

ARTICLE I – DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 2. POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary;

See this.

Maine 

Article I.

Declaration of Rights.

Section 2.  Power inherent in people.  All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.

See this.

Maryland 

Article 1.

That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

See this.

Mississippi 

SECTION 6. Regulation of government; right to alter.

The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; Provided, Such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

See this.

Missouri

Article I, Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.—

That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

See this.

 

Click here to read the full 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

For nearly half a century, Scandinavia’s neutrality (with the obvious exception of Norway) was an important segment of keeping various buffer zones between the Soviet Union and NATO. And interestingly, despite the fact that the USSR was much more powerful than Russia nowadays, while also being virtually unopposed in the Baltic Sea, for some reason, neither Sweden nor Finland felt the need to become part of NATO.

What’s more, if there ever was a danger of a mythical Soviet invasion of either country, it was gone in 1991. Up to that point, Moscow’s access to the Baltic Sea stretched from Finland to Denmark (nearly, that is). Nowadays, Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad are Russia’s only access points.

Thus, if the Kremlin hadn’t invaded Sweden and Finland during the (First) Cold War, it surely wouldn’t be doing it now. However, as rabid Russophobia is an extremely damaging degenerative disease, it clouds people’s judgment, leading them to make all sorts of rash and inexplicable decisions. On the other hand, it’s impossible to explain NATO expansionism in Scandinavia without seeing it as part of a wider offensive build-up that aims to surround Russia with hostile states and other entities (including terrorist ones). In one of the latest such moves, Helsinki just gave the United States the legal permission to station troops in the country. The vote in the Finnish Parliament was unanimous.

Thus, starting from July 1, Washington DC has access to at least 15 Finnish military bases, with the possibility of deploying heavy weapons. It wasn’t specified what sort of arms and equipment that refers to, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.

The US is already trying to surround both Russia and China with the previously banned medium and intermediate-range missiles, which is precisely why it’s setting up new military bases all across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The latest agreement with Finland, aptly termed the “Defense” Cooperation Agreement (DCA), “will allow the United States to bring defense equipment, supplies, materials, and soldiers to Finland”, according to local sources.

Worse yet, the DCA gives America legal grounds to create military exclusion zones, areas that will be accessible to US personnel only. What this really means is that Finland effectively relinquished its sovereignty so it could become a legitimate target for Russian missiles.

Congratulations, Helsinki! You just exposed 5.5 million Finns to virtually immediate thermonuclear annihilation in case of (an increasingly possible) military conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the fact that the US has similar “exclusive access” facilities all over the world and that the Pentagon usually uses them for illegal programs and experiments, including with deadly biological materials, Russia will respond.

In fact, the Kremlin certainly anticipated such moves, which is why it started deploying new missile brigades in northwestern Russia, including those armed with ballistic and hypersonic weapons. Moscow’s second-to-none missiles such as those used by the “Iskander-M” platform or the MiG-31K strike fighters with 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” systems (carrying the 9-S-7760 air-launched hypersonic missiles) put the entire Scandinavia in range. In addition, the sheer speed of these unrivaled weapons gives the Kremlin the ability of a virtually instantaneous retaliation in case anyone gets any ideas. Unfortunately, none of this seems to have deterred the (obviously suicidal) ruling elite in Helsinki.

The Finnish Parliament’s rather senseless decision to antagonize its much larger nuclear-armed neighbor cannot possibly be justified by any excuses of “defense” or any similar reasoning. The simple fact that Finland is allowing the presence of American offensive capabilities on the border with Russia will be enough for the latter to deploy weapons that the former simply has no means of defending against. As the DCA creates a legal framework for a permanent American military presence in Finland, this also means that the Kremlin will surely respond in kind, making Helsinki far less safe than was the case before it joined NATO, thus defeating the very purpose of its membership in this racketeering cartel.

However, according to Finnish sources, there might even be some opposition to this in the country, as MP Anna Kontula submitted a proposal calling on other MPs to reject the DCA, although her motion received no backing. Therefore, the Finnish Parliament “did not vote on the agreement, but approved it unanimously”, local sources report. This alone puts the legality of the agreement in serious question, although we’re extremely unlikely to see any major opposition to it. Last month, Helsinki’s Constitutional Law Committee concluded that the “[DCA] would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, as it affects several aspects of the Finnish constitution” (i.e. it’s unconstitutional).

In other words, Finland is going out of its way to please the US and NATO, just like it did with Nazi Germany (their geopolitical predecessor) over 80 years ago. This was in the making for quite some time, even predating the special military operation (SMO), as Helsinki wanted to acquire the troubled F-35 fighter jets back in 2021. Having such aircraft in one’s arsenal also means that a country is relinquishing its sovereignty. Namely, the US has control over the F-35’s systems, as the jet keeps sending data back to Lockheed Martin and the US military, meaning that even if the then “neutral” Finland didn’t join NATO, the Pentagon would effectively control a crucial branch of the country’s armed forces, forcing Russia to respond either way.

*

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

Today is July 4 when we get our annual dose of patriotic propaganda that serves to wrap us in self-righteousness which enables Washington to conduct its wars. Washington has got away with it for a long time, but now has created and brought us into conflict with a powerful adversary.

According to reports, Russia responded to Washington’s cluster bomb attack on civilians in Crimea by informing Washington that the two countries are now at war. What it means, if anything, remains to be seen. It does not seem to have caused any consternation in Washington.

In actual fact hot war between Russia and Washington began in 2008 when Washington surprised Putin by sending a US trained and equipped Georgian army into South Ossetia. The American sponsored invasion resulted in the deaths of civilians and Russian peace keepers. It only took the Russian Army 5 days to defeat the American trained Georgian Army, so Washington did not have time to get more involved.

Putin was again surprised when Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014.

Persecution and murder of Donbas Russians followed. Donbas asked to be reincorporated into Russia like Crimea, but Putin refused. Instead, Putin tried to keep Donbas in Ukraine with the Minsk Agreement. Ukraine and Donbas agreed and France and Germany agreed to enforce the agreement, but in fact the agreement was used to deceive Putin while the West built and equipped a large Ukrainian army to retake the self-declared Donbas republics. In February, 2022,

Putin was forced by Washington to defend the Donbas Russians from being slaughtered like Israel is doing to the Palestinians. But Putin limited Russia’s intervention in a way that prevented Russia from obtaining a quick victory before Washington could get the West involved and widen the war. Now Putin is presented with US missiles targeting Russian civilians and with French troops in Ukraine.

Washington has been at war with Russia since 2007 when Putin said at the Munich Security Conference that Russia did not accept Washington’s unipolar world. This challenge to Washington’s hegemony put crosshairs on Putin.

Now 17 years later Putin acknowledges the fact that Washington and Russia are at war.

The question is what is Putin going to do with his belated recognition of reality?

*

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

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

We are women from across the world who deeply love our planet. We cherish the universal principles of equality, justice and peace enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We fight for the rights of women and peoples of the world against all forms of violence, exploitation and discrimination.

For decades, we have been engaged in the search for global peace, for a world system that abolishes war. We recognise the role that capitalism plays in generating militarism and war, and we want a new, non-militarized security, to ensure the life and health of present and future generations of all on this planet – and of the planet itself. 

NATO is not a democratic institution. It is an elite club of the world’s major nuclear armed militaries. NATO views war and the threat of war as the solutions to all problems. There are no preparations for peace and dialogue, only preparations for war. 

The increasingly global NATO, acting in the interests of the wealthy nations of the “West”, has extended its activities to the rest of the world. NATO seeks to impose a “model of civilization” well beyond the Euro-Atlantic area of the original Treaty. The New Strategic Concept is completely at odds with the “Helsinki spirit” that seeks peaceful cooperation between states and the rejection of threat or use of force. This offensive reconfiguration of NATO is in stark contrast with the constitutional principles of member states and often approved without the consent of national governments. It is also at odds with the manifest desire for peace of so many of the citizens of the NATO states. 

As women of peace, we reject NATO and its worldview. It foments instability and exacerbates international conflict. It is irreconcilable with our principle of taking care of the world – a principle that we strive to affirm globally.

No to global NATO – No to increasingly militarised blocs!

No to war as a way of settling international disputes!

*

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

Featured image is from the Alliance for Global Justice

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

US presidential candidate Donald Trump is reportedly wanting to make a deal with Moscow to not expand NATO into Ukraine and Georgia. At the same time, citing a senior US State Department official, The Telegraph reported that the Kiev regime would be notified at a NATO summit in Washington on July 9 that Ukraine will not join the bloc due to corruption concerns, putting further doubt that the Eastern European country could ever become an alliance member.

The Telegraph reported on July 3 that at the NATO summit, alliance members are expected to ask Kiev for “additional steps” to combat corruption ahead of accession talks. The official said this position will be set out in writing in a NATO communiqué that will be signed at the summit on July 9.

“We have to step back and applaud everything that Ukraine has done in the name of reforms over the last two-plus years,” the official told The Telegraph. “As they continue to make those reforms, we want to commend them, we want to talk about additional steps that need to be taken, particularly in the area of anti-corruption. It is a priority for many of us around the table.”

It is recalled that US President Joe Biden acknowledged in an interview with Time magazine earlier this year that he had witnessed “significant corruption” in Ukraine during his visits to the country as vice president.

In late September 2022, Zelensky said his country was applying for accelerated NATO membership. Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Moscow considers Ukraine’s non-aligned status vital to ending the years-long conflict. Kiev’s stated goal of joining the US-led alliance was one of Russia’s reasons for launching its special military operation in February 2022.

A US defence official told The Telegraph that NATO diplomats and officials have given Kiev a list of reforms it must carry out before its membership ambitions can be realised.

“That’s something NATO has been doing quietly under the radar that helps them get closer to membership,” the source added.

However, even if corruption is reduced, Ukraine faces a litany of issues in achieving NATO membership. In fact, NATO members disagree on whether they should promise Kiev an “irreversible” path to membership, with Washington preferring to use the term a “well-lit bridge.”

Another issue for the Kiev regime is the prospect of Trump’s return to the White House. According to Politico, the former president is considering making a deal with Moscow not to expand NATO into Ukraine and Georgia if he is re-elected in November.

His campaign has not yet named a national security team or released a new NATO agenda, but the magazine outlined a possible plan.

“As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts,” the article said, citing two national security experts close to billionaire.

An anonymous source reportedly familiar with Trump’s thinking said he was “open to something foreclosing NATO expansion and not going back to the 1991 borders” but did not rule out any other options, “including supplying large amounts of weapons” to Kiev.

While Trump is unlikely to withdraw from NATO immediately, he could potentially reshape the US-led bloc to require its European members to take on more responsibility—something the magazine’s sources fear they are not capable of.

“The United States does not have enough military forces to go around,” Elbridge Colby, Trump’s deputy assistant secretary for strategy, told Politico. “We can’t break our spear in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese are a more dangerous and significant threat.”

Following Biden’s humiliating performance at the recent presidential election debate, Trump, according to the latest polls, now has a 3-point lead over the current president across the battleground states collectively and a 2-point edge nationally. There is a very real prospect that Trump will be re-elected, meaning that even if corruption is reduced to a level satisfactory to the Europeans, any prospect for Ukraine’s NATO membership path could be sacrificed so that the new US administration can reach a deal with Russia and focus on challenging China.

*

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 is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

After a 14-year struggle, including five years spent in Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison in London, WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is finally free. Under the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the Espionage Act. Assange was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in the indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration.

The Justice Department agreed to the plea bargain a little over a month after the High Court of England and Wales ruled that Assange would be allowed to appeal an extradition order. The High Court found the U.S. government didn’t provide satisfactory assurances that Assange could rely on a First Amendment defense if extradited and tried in the U.S. The Justice Department, now fearful it would lose the case, scrambled to strike a deal with Assange.

The plea agreement requires that before entering his plea, Assange must have done everything he could to either return or destroy “any such unpublished information in his possession, custody, or control, or that of WikiLeaks or any affiliate of WikiLeaks.”

As stipulated in the plea deal, Ramona Manglona, U.S. Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, sentenced Assange to 62 months with credit for the time he served in Belmarsh Prison. The U.S. sentencing guidelines say the range for this “offense” is 41-51 months, so Assange served 11 to 21 months longer than this type of case would typically garner.

Assange was prosecuted because WikiLeaks exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. In 2010, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who had a “TOP SECRET” U.S. security clearance, furnished WikiLeaks with 700,000 documents and reports, many of which were classified “SECRET.”

These documents included the “Iraq War Logs,” 400,000 field reports documenting 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians, as well as systematic rape, torture and murder after U.S. forces transferred detainees to a notorious Iraqi torture squad.

They also contained the “Afghan War Diary,” comprising 90,000 reports that documented more civilian casualties by coalition forces than the U.S. military had reported. And they included the “Guantánamo Files” — 779 secret reports containing evidence that 150 innocent people had been held at Guantánamo Bay for years. The reports explain how the nearly 800 men and boys there had been tortured and abused, which violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Manning also provided WikiLeaks with the infamous 2007 “Collateral Murder” video, which depicts a U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter crew targeting and killing 12 unarmed civilians in Baghdad, including two Reutersjournalists, as well as a man who came to rescue the wounded. Two children were injured in the attack. A U.S. Army tank drove over one of the bodies, severing it in two. In a conversation after the attack, one pilot said, “Look at those dead bastards,” and the other responded, “Nice.” The video reveals evidence of three violations of the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual.

WikiLeaks provided material for news outlets around the world to report on U.S.-led atrocities. Informing the public about the illegality of George W. Bush’s “war on terror” resulted in calls for accountability.

“10 years on, the War Logs remain the only source of information regarding many thousands of violent civilian deaths in Iraq between 2004 and 2009,” John Sloboda, co-founder of Iraq Body Count (IBC), wrote in his submitted testimony for Assange’s extradition hearing in October 2020. IBC is an independent NGO that has done the only comprehensive monitoring of credibly reported casualties in Iraq since Bush’s 2003 invasion.

“WikiLeaks cables have contributed to court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offences and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior US officials involved in such strikes,” Clive Stafford Smith, co-founder of Reprieve and attorney for seven Guantánamo detainees, wrote in his submitted testimony.

“They took a hero [Assange] and turned him into a criminal,” Vahid Razavi, founder of Ethics in Tech, told Common Dreams. “Meanwhile, all of the war criminals in the files exposed by WikiLeaks via Chelsea Manning are free and never faced any punishment or even their day in court.”

The Iraq War Logs

The Iraq War Logs contained extensive evidence of U.S. war crimes. Several reports of detainee abuse were supported by medical evidence. Prisoners were blindfolded, shackled and hung by their ankles or wrists. They were subjected to punching, whipping, kicking, electrocution, electric drills, and cutting off fingers or burning with acid. Six reports document the apparent deaths of detainees.

Secret U.S. Army field reports revealed that U.S. authorities refused to investigate hundreds of reports of murder, torture, rape and abuse by Iraqi soldiers and police. The coalition had a formal policy of ignoring these allegations, marking them “no investigation is necessary.”

Although U.S. and U.K. officials maintained that no official records of civilian casualties existed, the logs document 66,081 noncombatant deaths out of 109,000 fatalities from 2004-2009.

The log describes video footage of Iraqi army officers executing a prisoner in Tal Afar. It says, “The footage shows approximately 12 Iraqi army [IA] soldiers. Ten IA soldiers were talking to one another while two soldiers held the detainee. The detainee had his hands bound … The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him.”

The Afghan War Diary

The Afghan War Diary also revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes from 2004-2009. The reports describe how a secret “black” unit composed of special operations forces hunted down accused Taliban leaders for “kill or capture” without trial. Secret commando units — classified groups of Navy and Army special operatives — used a “capture/kill list,” which resulted in the killing of civilians, angering the Afghan people.

Moreover, the CIA expanded paramilitary operations in Afghanistan, carrying out ambushes, ordering airstrikes and conducting night raids. The CIA financed the Afghan spy agency, operating it like a subsidiary.

A 2007 meeting between Afghan district officials and U.S. civil affairs officers was documented in the reports. Afghan officials are quoted as saying, “The people of Afghanistan keep loosing [sic] their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials. The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst [sic] than the Taliban.”

The logs recorded numerous civilian casualties from airstrikes, shootings on the road, in villages and at checkpoints; many were caught in the cross fire. The victims weren’t suicide bombers or insurgents. Several deaths were not reported to the public.

The Guantánamo Files

The Guantánamo Files say that only 220 of the 780 people held at the prison camp since 2002 were classified as “dangerous international terrorists.” Of the rest of the detainees, 380 were classified as low-level foot soldiers and 150 were considered innocent Afghan or Pakistani civilians or farmers.

Many detainees were held at Guantánamo for years based on paltry evidence or confessions extracted by torture and abuse. Among the detainees, for example, were an 89-year-old Afghan villager with senile dementia and a 14-year-old boy who was the innocent victim of a kidnapping.

The files document a system aimed more at extracting intelligence than detaining dangerous terrorists. One man was transferred to Guantánamo because he was a mullah with special knowledge of the Taliban. A taxi driver was sent to the prison camp because he had general knowledge of certain areas in Afghanistan. An Al Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six years to be interrogated about the news network.

Nearly 100 detainees were classified with depressive or psychotic disorders. Several joined hunger strikes to protest their indefinite detention or attempted suicide, the files revealed.

No One Was Harmed by WikiLeaks’s Revelations

Although the U.S. government alleged that WikiLeaks’s publication of information had caused “great harm,” they “admitted there was not a single person anywhere that they could produce that was harmed by these publications,” Assange’s attorney Barry Pollack said at a June 26 press conference in Australia.

The plea agreement says, “Some of these raw classified documents were publicly disclosed without removing or redacting all of the personally identifiable information relating to certain individuals who shared sensitive information about their own governments and activities in their countries with the U.S. government in confidence.”

The U.S. government claims that Assange endangered U.S. informants who were named in the published documents. But John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Der Spiegel, testified at the 2020 extradition hearing that Assange went to great lengths to ensure that the names of informants in Iraq and Afghanistan were redacted. Goetz said that WikiLeaks underwent a “very rigorous redaction process” and Assange repeatedly reminded his media partners to use encryption. Indeed, Goetz said, Assange tried to stop Der Freitag from publishing material that could result in the release of unredacted information.

Moreover, WikiLeaks’s revelations actually saved lives. After WikiLeaks published evidence of Iraqi torture centers established by the U.S., the Iraqi government refused then-President Barack Obama’s request to grant immunity to U.S. soldiers who committed criminal and civil offenses there. As a result, Obama had to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Obama took credit for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But he had tried for months to extend it beyond the December 31, 2011, deadline his predecessor negotiated with the Iraqi government. Negotiations broke down when Iraq refused to grant criminal and civil immunity to U.S. troops.

What Assange’s Plea Bargain Means for Free Speech

Before she accepted Assange’s guilty plea, Judge Manglona asked him what he did to violate the law.

“Working as a journalist, I encouraged my source to provide information that was said to be classified,” Assange said. “I believed the First Amendment protected that activity, but I accept that it was a violation of the espionage statute.” Assange then added, “The First Amendment was in contradiction with the Espionage Act, but I accept that it would be difficult to win such a case given all these circumstances.”

Even though Assange will go free, his plea deal raises concerns for First Amendment advocates in the U.S.

“The United States has now, for the first time in the more than 100-year history of the Espionage Act, obtained an Espionage Act conviction for basic journalistic acts,” David Greene, head of civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The New York Times. “These charges should never have been brought.”

Charlie Savage, who has covered the Assange case extensively for years, warned that Assange’s plea sets a “new precedent” that “will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.” But, Savage noted, since Assange pled guilty and didn’t mount a constitutional challenge to the Espionage Act, that eliminated the risk that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately sanction a narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.

“WikiLeaks published groundbreaking stories of government corruption and human rights abuses, holding the powerful accountable for their actions,” WikiLeaks said in a statement announcing the plea agreement. “As editor-in-chief, Julian paid severely for these principles, and for the people’s right to know. As he returns to Australia, we thank all who stood by us, fought for us, and remained utterly committed in the fight for his freedom.”

There is no doubt that but for the sustained activism of people around the world and the work of his superb legal team, Julian Assange would still be languishing behind bars for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace. A member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, she is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.  

Featured image is from HoweStreet.com

The Presidential Debate That Wasn’t

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, July 03, 2024

In the days immediately following the first US presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, countless analyses have appeared. Nearly all have focused on the candidates’ delivery, less on what they said, and almost nothing about what should have been but was not said.

George C. Marshall, Architect of U.S. Military Expansion, the Post-War European Reconstruction Marshall Plan, Founder of the Orwellian “Deep State”?

By Nauman Sadiq, July 04, 2024

Few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a fortyfold increase within the short span of three years.

The Houthis’ Hypersonic Missile Is a Game-Changer in Red Sea

By Mike Whitney, July 04, 2024

If the Houthis had these “advanced” weapons at their disposal, the Red Sea would be littered with smoldering US warships headed for Davy Jones locker. But that isn’t the case, so we have to assume that—who ever is supplying the Houthis—is not yet prepared to give them their top-of-the-line hypersonic missiles.

Political Deadlock Continues in Efforts to Open Peace Talks in Sudan

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 04, 2024

War erupted on April 15, 2023 between the leading state-sponsored military units, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Degalo (Hemedti). Since the fighting began, reports indicate that approximately 14,000 people have been killed with tens of thousands of others being injured.

Zelensky Opens to Talks with Moscow Through Third Parties

By Ahmed Adel, July 03, 2024

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he could start peace talks with Russia through intermediaries, a similar model already used in the Ukrainian grain corridor negotiations, where agreements were reached through the UN and Turkey.

The Dawn of a New Era of Meaningful and Rigorous Arms Control

By Emanuel Pastreich, July 03, 2024

We must forcefully and confidently sketch out a new vision for our common future, starting with the United States, starting with peace, one that gives hope to humanity and that provides a path forward towards peace and cooperation, and not war and competition. But that is not where we are now under the militarist and benighted Biden administration. And it is not where we will be under a militarist and unhinged Trump administration.

Articles and Protocols for Cancer, Research Studies and Access to Ivermectin Pills

By Dr. William Makis, July 03, 2024

Ivermectin has proven anti-cancer activity against some 20 cancer types, although these are pre-clinical studies. We will never see clinical studies because Ivermectin is off patent and cheap.

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

A United Nations Security Council resolution was passed on June 13 calling for an end to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) siege upon the North Darfur capital city of El Fasher.

In a 14-0 vote with the Russian Federation abstaining, the highest decision-making structure of the international body demanded the end to the fighting in one of the most restive areas inside the country.

The resolution was sponsored by United Kingdom (UK) Ambassador Barbara Woodward who pointed to the worsening humanitarian crisis in the area. Civilians are being prevented from moving freely in and out of El Fasher while essential infrastructure such as hospitals are being shelled by the RSF.

Several days later on June 18, there was a heated exchange between the Sudanese Ambassador to the UN, Al-Harith Idriss Al-Harith and his counterpart from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Mohamed Abushahab. The Sudanese envoy once again accused the UAE of providing weapons to the RSF in violation of the arms embargo on Darfur located in the western region of the vast oil-rich state.

In response Abushahab accused the Sudanese government of refusing to participate in negotiations with the RSF. Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan rejected an invitation to appear or send an envoy to proposed peace talks in late May in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. (See this)

Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

War erupted on April 15, 2023 between the leading state-sponsored military units, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Degalo (Hemedti). Since the fighting began, reports indicate that approximately 14,000 people have been killed with tens of thousands of others being injured.

In addition to the growing casualties in the war, millions of others have been forced to leave their homes to relocate both inside and outside of the Republic of Sudan. Most of the refugees have fled to Chad and the Republic of South Sudan. The UN says that 25 million people in Sudan are in desperate need of assistance including access to food, water and medical care which has been disrupted over the last 14 months. (See this)

Sudan refugees in neighboring Chad (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

18 million people are suffering from food deficits with 9 of those million being children. Another subset of those living without adequate food supplies includes 5 million on the brink of starvation.

The UN-affiliated World Food Program (WFP) has stated that it will urgently escalate its assistance to meet the growing need. Small-scale farmers are being selected for cash grants, the distribution of seeds and other agricultural inputs due to the fact that many working in the food production sector have been displaced.

WFP Regional Director for East Africa Michael Dunford said of the food crisis in Sudan:

“The situation in Sudan is not so much forgotten as neglected. It is already the largest displacement crisis in the world, and it has the potential to become the world’s largest hunger crisis. As global leaders focus elsewhere, it is not receiving the necessary attention and support to avert a nightmare scenario for the people of Sudan. The world cannot claim it doesn’t know how bad the situation is in Sudan or that urgent action is needed.” 

The UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan, Clementine Nkweta Salami, has made a public plea for the silencing of the guns in the North Darfur capital of El Fasher. Salami was prompted to make this call after a pharmacist, Amna Ahmed Bakhit, working in the Saudi Hospital in El Fasher, was killed as a result of shelling by the RSF.

The Sudan Tribune noted in a recent report that:

“In an emotional statement issued on Sunday, the UN official wrote, ‘Another day of violence in Sudan brings another human tragedy in Darfur’s Al Fasher. This time, the person who won’t be going home to their family was a pharmacist. Died when an explosive artillery hit the corner of the hospital where she worked’, she added.’ Nkweta-Salami said the pharmacist was ‘killed on the job, prescribing and administering medicine to women, men, and children in a place that should have been safe’.” 

Over the last 14 months, the war in Sudan has raged on despite the repeated regional efforts to reach a negotiated settlement. Former Interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok has reemerged as the leader of a coalition of political groupings known as the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces (Tagadum).

Tagadum is attempting to initiate an internal dialogue within Sudan which could reach consensus on a long-term solution to the present situation. This coalition is oriented towards the African Union (AU) which is hosting an emergency meeting on Sudan scheduled for July 10-14 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hamdok has requested discussions with the AU Commission based in Addis Ababa to review the list of invitees, agenda items and parameters of the dialogue for the emergency summit. The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) has encouraged broad participation in the gathering including the former ruling National Congress Party (NCP).

Reports suggest that Tagadum has rejected the involvement of the NCP. The High-Level Panel on Sudan (HLP-Sudan) sent a delegation into the country in March to begin dialogue with the Sovereign Council headed by General al-Burhan as well as leaders of various mass organizations and political parties.

The SAF leadership under General al-Burhan has expressed its hostility towards Hamdok and the Tagadum grouping. Tagadum has been accused of acting as a front for the RSF since General Hemedti agreed to join the proposed internal negotiating process.

Apparently the SAF wants a complete military victory over the RSF. With this reality in mind, the AU Commission and PAS alongside HLP-Sudan and the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) are continuing in their plans to convene the emergency summit at AU headquarters in Addis Ababa.

Domestic and International Dimensions of the Sudanese Conflict

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested much in the governance process in Sudan since they provided billions of dollars to shore up the Transitional Military Council (TMC) which emerged after the overthrow of former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in April 2019. A popular upsurge in political activity from a variety of organizations beginning in December 2018 created the atmosphere for the removal of al-Burhan.

Nonetheless, the coup against al-Burhan and the NCP was not sufficient for the democratic movement inside the country. The emergence of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) in 2019 brought together a broad spectrum of organizations including the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), Resistance Committees, No to Oppression Against Women Initiative, Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), among others. These developments led to a negotiated settlement aimed at implementing a three-year process towards democratic transition.

Although this dialogue took place with the involvement of the SAF and RSF, there was never a complete understanding reached over the prospective role of the military within a democratic state. As the transitional process became stalled and suffered setbacks with the continued state repression carried out by the military units and security forces, the demands of the popular democratic groupings were violently pushed into the background within the national political situation.

The quagmire deepened with the outbreak of the war involving the SAF and RSF in April 2023. At present there is ongoing widespread destruction in the state of Khartoum and in the Darfur region.

Sudan smoke fills the sky (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

In addition to the roles of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the United States has been attempting to control the political situation in Sudan for several decades. As a former British colony, the U.S., as in other geo-political regions, has become the leading imperialist power seeking to remake these areas in their own neo-colonized image.

Washington and Wall Street were clearly opposed to the possibility of a genuine revolutionary democratic transformation in Sudan. The role of the former administration of President Donald Trump and the current White House under President Joe Biden has been aimed at maintaining western influence in Sudan.

Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the Sudanese people themselves to forge ahead with a program for transformation. Obviously, the military elites within the SAF and RSF have forfeited their capacity to assist in the establishment of a civilian government based upon the interests of the majority of workers, farmers and youth in Sudan.

*

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.  

Featured image: Sudan military leaders in conflict (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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.

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

On July 2, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban visited Kiev for the first time since 2012 when he met the last legitimate (and sovereign) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. A harsh critic of the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta, Orban isn’t exactly a favorite among his hosts. Thus, it may seem strange that he would ever visit the NATO-occupied country. However, as Hungary took over the EU’s rotating presidency for the rest of the year, it can only be expected that Brussels will put additional pressure on Budapest, which might be one of the main reasons Orban decided to do so. As previously mentioned, the hosts weren’t exactly thrilled and Orban himself certainly didn’t expect a warm welcome.

In line with his repeated calls for peace negotiations (the real ones, not the ludicrous kind that Switzerland apparently likes to host), Hungary’s PM reiterated it this time as well, urging Volodymyr Zelensky “to consider a quick ceasefire”. In a press briefing right after the private meeting during which he said it, Orban stated that “[he] asked the president to think about whether we could approach this a little differently, to take a break, to cease fire, and then proceed with negotiations”. The Kiev regime didn’t take this too kindly, as it still insists on the withdrawal of the Russian military, an extremely unlikely prospect. In contrast, Orban called for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations between the two sides.

“A ceasefire connected to a deadline would give a chance to speed up peace talks. I explored this possibility with the president and I am grateful for his honest answers and negotiation,” he stated.

Orban argues that this could bring about the conditions for a real negotiated settlement that could result in a permanent peace deal. Even before the meeting, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman’s reaction was some sort of “I don’t really care”, just wrapped in a “diplomatic” form. Zelensky’s office officially said that “it will be a much-needed, important conversation about the future of Europe, security, international law, and the Formula of Peace”. The last part of the statement refers to the Kiev regime’s laughable “peace formula” that boils down to Russia’s capitulation. Knowing just how out of touch and ridiculous the very idea of it is, Orban didn’t really comment on this, focusing on other matters.

In his view, developing neighborly relations between the two countries is far more important, stressing the need to build a better partnership and highlighting that Hungary would want to have close ties to Ukraine just like with all of its other neighbors. However, the Neo-Nazi junta seems to be less excited about this, as its political leadership doesn’t really appreciate that Orban repeatedly tried blocking EU/NATO “military aid” and other initiatives that Hungary sees as escalatory and dangerous. This also includes Orban’s active opposition to the Kiev regime’s NATO membership, a stance that resulted in the mainstream propaganda machine’s regular smear campaigns targeting him and his associates.

Thus, Orban is usually referred to as a “pro-Putin” leader. The political West always uses such ad hominem attacks on “non-compliant” individuals (particularly leaders) to put additional pressure and force foreign policy changes. However, Budapest has repeatedly stated that it won’t budge, insisting on negotiations and diplomacy to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Instead, we have the policy of perpetual escalation through the shipments of ever more advanced and longer-range weapons. And to say nothing of NATO’s increasingly possible direct military involvement that Hungary doesn’t want to take part in, as Orban himself has openly stated on several occasions. Thus, this peace deal offer sounds all the more peculiar.

The timing is particularly interesting, as Orban decided to pay Zelensky this surprise visit on the second day of Hungary’s EU presidency. Perhaps it was long in the making, but another possibility is that Brussels itself okayed the move as a way to prevent “unpleasant” changes on the battlefield. Namely, NATO has up to 500,000 battle-ready soldiers whose task is to directly occupy Ukraine and engage Russian troops. As this is a less-than-ideal (or, more precisely, a desperate) move, the political West might be looking for alternatives to prevent the Neo-Nazi junta’s total defeat. Russian strike capabilities are such that any large troop concentrations would be in grave danger, leading to massive casualties.

A ceasefire could give NATO a window of opportunity to deploy all the way to the contact line and take around 80% of Ukraine without firing a single shot. Obviously, this would be a strategic defeat for Russia, which is something that the Kremlin will want to avoid, particularly now that the Russian military’s already massive advantage keeps growing. In addition, Zelensky’s statements might suggest that he’s also onboard with the idea, saying that he and Orban discussed “how to bring about a just and lasting peace”. Hungary’s PM himself told the Kiev regime frontman that he wants to hear “[his] vision of the chances for peace”. Once again, this could be an indicator that such ceasefire plans might be in effect.

Obviously, this is not to say that Hungary is working toward such a settlement because of its apparent “loyalty to NATO”, but simply because it’s in its interest for the conflict to end. However, the real danger of such a ceasefire is that it wouldn’t provide long-lasting peace. On the contrary, it would further increase the chances of strategic conflict between NATO and Russia.

In addition, the Kremlin knows that the political West cannot give any legal guarantees, simply because its politicians cannot be trusted. Empirical evidence suggests that every word that comes from their mouth could easily be a blatant lie, meaning that Moscow can only rely on its armed forces as the one true guarantee of its strategic security.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from Global Times vis InfoBrics

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

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

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

Give Truth a Chance. Secure Your Access to Unchained News, Donate to Global Research.

***

 

Most geopolitics’ nerds know George C. Marshall as President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, 1947-49, and Secretary of Defense, 1950-51, credited with initiating $13 billion Marshall Plan for rebuilding European economies devastated by the war.

But few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a fortyfold increase within the short span of three years.

Rumors circulated by the end of the war that Marshall would become the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt selected relatively modest Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for the momentous march to victory, because Roosevelt felt threatened by Marshall’s power and ambitions.

Image: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)

Thus, after the war, Eisenhower was hailed as liberator of Europe from the Nazi occupation who subsequently rose to prominence as the president, whereas the principal architect of the US deep state and a military genius who was instrumental in making the United States a global power died in relative obscurity.

Ever since Marshall, however, the United States has been ruled by the top brass of the Pentagon while presidents have been reduced to the ceremonial role of being public relations’ representatives of the deep state, pontificating and sermonizing like priests to gullible audiences at home and abroad on the virtues of supposed American democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.

Though a clarification is required here that US presidents indeed have the power to order withdrawal of troops from inconsequential theaters of war, such as the evacuation of US forces from Iraq as directed by former President Obama in 2011 or the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as ordered by President Biden in 2021, as the perceptive military brass is courteous enough to bow to sane advice of purported chosen representatives of the people and ostensible commander-in-chief of the armed forces in order to maintain the charade of democracy in the eyes of the public.

But in military oligarchy’s perpetual conflict with other major world powers deemed existential threats to the US security interests, such as arch-rivals Russia and China, as in the Ukraine War, civilian presidents, whether Biden or Trump, don’t have the authority to overrule the global domination agenda of the Pentagon.

In fact, the deep state has murdered US presidents in cold blood for appeasing adversaries and daring to stand up to the deep state, for instance the assassination of the Kennedy brothers in the sixties after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Though credulous readers of mainstream media designate alternative media’s erudite writers casting aspersions over perfectly “natural murders” of John and Robert F. Kennedy that were nothing more than “coincidences” as cynical “conspiracists.”

The gullible sheeple believe the Kennedy brothers didn’t die at all. In fact, they were raised from the dead by the Almighty and ascended alive into heaven like Jesus Christ and will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment to give credible testimony regarding their real executioners. Religiously held beliefs regarding the purported strength of American democracy are just beliefs, no matter how absurd, hence there is no cure for “the united state of denial.”

Sarcasm aside, it’s noteworthy the national security and defense policies of the United States are formulated by the all-powerful civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed the deep state, whereas the president, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process with disproportionate influence of corporate interests, political lobbyists and billionaire donors, is only a figurehead meant to legitimize militarist stranglehold of the deep state, not only over the domestic politics of the United States but also over the neocolonial world order dictated by the self-styled global hegemon.

All the militaries of the 32 NATO member states operate under the integrated military command led by the Pentagon. Before being elected president, General Dwight Eisenhower was the first commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).

The commander of Allied Command Operations has been given the title Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and is always a US four-star general officer or flag officer who also serves as the Commander US European Command, and is subordinate to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The incumbent Godfather of the Cosa Nostra is Gen. Charles Q. Brown since October 2023 following the retirement of Gen. Mark Milley who completed his tenure of four tumultuous years, including the Ukraine War and the Capitol riots, in September as the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although officially the CIA falls under the Department of State, the FBI under the Department of Justice and the NSA under the Department of Defense, all of these security agencies take orders from the Pentagon’s top brass, the de facto rulers of the imperial United States.

Moreover, it’s worth pointing out that although the Pentagon is officially headed by the Secretary of Defense, who is typically a high-ranking retired military officer, the Secretary is simply a liaison between the civilian president and the military’s top brass, and it’s the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff who calls the shots on military affairs, defense and national security policy.

In Europe, 400,000 US troops were deployed at the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European clients developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.

Since the beginning of Ukraine War in 2022, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe by deploying tens of thousands of additional NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons aimed at Russia, and NATO forces alongside regional clients have been provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.

Regarding the global footprint of the United States troops, 275,000 US military personnel are currently deployed across the world, including 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East, in addition to the aforementioned number of US troops deployed in Europe.

Clearly, through the transatlantic NATO military alliance, the overseas deployment of US forces in client states and the presence of aircraft-carriers in the international waters that are similar to floating air bases, the deep state rules not only the imperial United States but the entire unipolar 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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image: General of the Army George Catlett Marshall, Chief of Staff. U.S. Army, 1 September 1939-18 November 1945 (From the 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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

The screenshot captured from a video released by Yemen’s Houthi group on June 26, 2024 shows that a hypersonic missile is launched from an undisclosed desert area in Yemen. Xinhua

Is this Iran’s revenge?

Is this how Iran pays-back Israel for bombing its consulate in Damascus in late March; by providing the Houthis with hypersonic missiles to fight the “Great Satan”?

On June 26, Yemen’s Houthi rebels launched an attack on a commercial ship in the Arabian Sea using a long-range, solid-fuel hypersonic ballistic missile. It was the first time the group had used the state-of-the-art missile in its military operations. The significance of the development cannot be overstated. Hypersonic missiles—which feature technological advances that are still unavailable in the West—are more accurate, harder to shoot down, and travel longer distances than earlier models. These unique, cutting-edge weapons are a force-multiplier that give the Houthis a decided advantage in future attacks in the Red Sea and beyond. They will allow the Houthis to tighten their grip on commercial traffic while putting US warships at greater risk. They will also significantly improve the Houthis chances of prevailing in their war with the United States and its coalition partners. This is from an article at the Maritime Executive:

The Houthis…. are asserting that they have launched for the first time a hypersonic missile which was used to target an MSC containership far out in the Gulf of Aden….

For the first time, the identity of the missile that targeted the… MSC Sarah V in the Arabian Sea,” was being revealed according to a posting by the Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree. “It is a locally made hypersonic missile that possesses advanced technology, is accurate in hitting, and reaches long ranges.”…

Media reports in March said the Houthis had begun manufacturing their hypersonic missile… capable of reaching Mach 8. The reports said it would be used to threaten shipping further into the Indian Ocean. Video: Houthis Claim First Launch of Hypersonic Missile Targeting MSC Ship, Maritime Executive

First of all, the Houthis do not have advanced missile production facilities, so whatever hybrid ballistic missile they are presently using in their military operations, they did not manufacture it themselves.

Secondly, experts suggest that the missile that was fired in the Arabian Sea incident earlier in the week was probably a version of the Iranian-made Fattah-1, which can travel at speeds of up to Mach 3 or three times the speed of sound. The Fattah-1 represents a significant upgrade from the missiles the Houthis have been using, but they do not pose the same grave threat to commercial shipping as advanced, cutting edge hypersonic ballistic missiles. State-of-the-art solid-fuel hypersonic missiles are in a class of their own. Some of them travel at speeds that exceed Mach 5 and are highly maneuverable and able to change course during flight. Here’s some background:

The ability to launch highly maneuverable weapons at hypersonic speeds gives any country a considerable advantage, because such weapons can evade just about any defense system currently in use.

“It doesn’t matter what the threat is. If you can’t see it, you can’t defend against it,” General John Hyten, the former vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience in Washington in January 2020.

As the commander of U.S. Strategic Command in 2018, Hyten said, “We don’t have any defense that could deny the deployment of such a weapon against us. … Our defense is deterrent capability.” What Are Hypersonic Weapons and Who Has Them?, VOA

Bottom line: If the Houthis had these “advanced” weapons at their disposal, the Red Sea would be littered with smoldering US warships headed for Davy Jones locker. But that isn’t the case, so we have to assume that—who ever is supplying the Houthis—is not yet prepared to give them their top-of-the-line hypersonic missiles. Here’s more from an article at Business Insider:

Markus Schiller, director of ST Analytics, a Munich-based consulting firm that researches missiles and space technology, told Business Insider that the missile was likely designed in Iran.

“Definitely something from the Iranian Fattah family of missiles, which date back to the 1990s and were continuously advanced since then,” Schiller said. Tehran has recently touted the latest versions of its Fattah missiles as hypersonic.,,, Houthi rebels say they’ve fired a new ‘homemade hypersonic missile,’ posting footage of its launch at a civilian ship, Business Insider

It’s actually better that the Houthis do NOT have the best ballistic missiles available. After all, the point of their blockade is not to obliterate US warships and kill thousands of people, but to persuade Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza by applying pressure to the Israeli economy. In truth, the success of the Houthi strategy is largely attributable to the fact that it has been mostly peaceful which is why their cause has garnered support from people around the world. If they change their MO and start blowing ships out of the water right-and-left, popular support will vanish overnight. This is from an article at Foreign Policy:

…..eight months on, the disruption to shipping has suddenly gotten a lot worse. In late June, Houthi attacks sank a ship—the second since they began their attacks—and damaged another. The list of attempted and successful attacks is a year-to-date litany; U.S. Central Command’s public messaging is a near-daily drumbeat of reports of U.S. vessels swatting away drones, missiles, and uncrewed surface vessels. The Houthis, who’ve used anti-ship missiles to great effect, are now increasingly resorting to those surface drones, including the so-called Houthi’s Blowfish….

The deployments, and constant interceptions, have eaten into the U.S. Navy’s own magazines. Congressional aides said the United States isn’t producing nearly enough of the standard air defense missiles used by U.S. escort ships in the Red Sea to shoot down Houthi drones and missiles. “As long as the burn rate remains as precipitously high as it’s been over there, we’re in a bit more of a precarious position,” one aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about U.S. munitions shortfalls. Why Can’t the U.S. Navy and Its Allies Stop the Houthis?, Foreign Policy

You can sense the frustration in the author’s analysis, and you can understand why. Washington does not want to get bogged-down the Red Sea fighting an insurgent group that poses no national security threat to the US. No. Nor does Biden want to commit more resources or ground troops to an effort that does not advance America’s broader geopolitical ambition of rolling-back Russia’s operation in Ukraine or containing China. In short, the fracas in the Red Sea is generally perceived to be a nuisance that US foreign policy honchos wish would just “go away”. But instead of going away, it’s getting worse, which is forcing Biden to make choices he doesn’t want to make. This is from an article at gCaptain:

A naval force deployed by the European Union to protect vessels in the Red Sea needs to more than double in size because of escalating attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels, the head of the operation said.

Four EU vessels have been patrolling the waters off the coast of Yemen since February. In that time, they’ve provided “close assistance” to 164 ships, shot down more than a dozen unmanned aerial vehicles and destroyed four anti-ship ballistics missiles, Rear Admiral Vasileios Gryparis said in an interview on Wednesday.

The Yemen-based Houthis … has roiled global shipping, forcing many vessels to sail thousands of miles around southern Africa instead — despite the EU operation and US and UK bombing that began in January….

“There are daily about 40 or 50 ships going up and down the strait so it needs a significant amount of ships to be able to provide this close protection,” he said. “There are cases where we are not able to provide this close protection but we try and cope with the volume.”….

US and UK bombing campaigns have failed to stop the attacks and instead led to vessels associated with the two countries being targeted more often. The Houthis have warned of an expanded operation to potentially attack ships in the Mediterranean Sea…

“We don’t believe that hitting the Houthis might solve the problem,” he said. “Some other countries tried similar actions some years ago and some other countries still do and we see that it is not contributing to the solution to the problem.” Fending Off Houthis Requires Double the Fleet, EU Force Says, gCaptain

Think about what the author is saying: He’s saying that the current approach is not working so we should double-down on the same strategy. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

What’s clear is that the US has just one tool in its foreign policy toolkit: military force. And when that tool proves ineffective, then more force is applied. We need to understand how this is going to impact the outcome of the current stand-off in the Red Sea where Uncle Sam is beating his head against a rock without achieving anything. Wouldn’t it be better to pressure Israel into lifting the siege of Gaza?

The question policymakers should be asking themselves is fairly obvious: Is there a military solution to this problem?

The answer is “No”. Nor is there a clearly defined strategic objective or exit strategy, both of which were ignored in the rush to war and the determination of foreign policy mandarins to implement their favorite operational theory: “Shoot first and ask questions later.” As a result, the US is bogged down in another pointless conflagration that cannot be won by conventional means. This is from Business Insider:

The Houthis have scored a string of successful hits in recent weeks on commercial vessels — even sinking one of them — and demonstrated their ability to effectively strike targets with drone boats, signaling that they’re getting smarter with their attacks….

Some of the incidents have also revealed dangerous new tactics. Most notably, on June 12, the Houthis struck a commercial vessel in the Red Sea with an explosive-laden drone boat for the first time since they began attacking merchant shipping in November….

The initial drone boat attack on the commercial bulk carrier MV Tutor caused flooding and damage to the engine room. Hours later, a Houthi missile hit the ship. The double-tap strike forced the crew to abandon the vessel, and it eventually sank…

The same week, the Houthis fired two anti-ship missiles, hitting the MV Verbena in the Gulf of Aden. Not even 24 hours later, the bulk cargo carrier was struck by another missile, marking the week’s second double-tap strike. The ship’s crew eventually abandoned the vessel due to the damage sustained by the attacks.

British security firm Ambrey said the attacks on the Tutor and Verbena, in addition to successful strikes on two other vessels in the days prior, were indicative of a “significant increase in effectiveness” of Houthi operations.

“Every single Houthi attack, the Houthis are probably learning something about what works and what doesn’t,” Carter said. “If you think about how a military organization operates, they’re definitely taking away lessons from the different strike packages that they’re using.”….

It is difficult to not only prevent the rebels from obtaining their “low-tech, low-cost” means of attack and to deter them from launching attacks, Alex Stark, an associate policy researcher who covers Middle East security at the RAND Corporation, told BI.

These attacks are an “ongoing problem without an obvious or useful solution at hand,” she added. The Houthis are getting smarter with their Red Sea attacks, and the ships sailing these waters are paying the price, Business Insider

Ms. Stark is wrong. There is “an obvious… solution at hand”. The Biden administration needs to suspend all weapons shipments to Israel until they lift their blockade of food, water and medical aid to the people in Gaza. That is the only policy that will bring an end to the crisis in the Red Sea. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is a screenshot from Xinhua via TUR

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

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

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

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.”
– Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking-Glass

Once you understand that profound poem, you are ready to fathom the great debate between our dumb and dumber candidates for the Highchair in the Oval Office.

In light of Julian Assange’s release from an English prison and President Biden’s dementia-riddled debate performance against dumb-mouthed Donald Trump – Tweedledum and Tweedledee, whom Alice, when through the looking-glass, said looked exactly like a couple of schoolboys – I have been thinking about a famous proverb – “acta, non verba” (action, not words).  Like most platitudes and effective propaganda, it contains both truths and contradictions and can therefore be spun in multiple ways depending on one’s intent.

Killing people is an action that needs no words to accompany it.  It can be done silently.  Even when it is the killing of millions of people, it can be carried out without fanfare or direct responsibility.  Without a whisper, with plausible deniability, as if it were not happening.  As if you were not responsible.  The playwright Harold Pinter, in his Nobel Prize Address, wrote truthfully about U. S. war crimes:

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love. It’s a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, ‘the American people’, as in the sentence, ‘I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.’

Trust, of course, is a sick joke when it comes from the mouths of U.S. presidents, just as the two bloodthirsty debaters want the American people to trust them and agree with their support for the US/Israel genocide of Palestinians, as does Robert Kennedy, Jr., another aspirant for the position of Killer-in-Chief.

“I know what you’re thinking about,” said Tweedledum, “but it isn’t so nohow.”

“Contrariwise,” said Tweedledee. “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

And the boys continue to battle over Tweedledum’s “nice new rattle” that he accused Tweedledee of spoiling.

The spectacle of presidential politics and people’s addiction to it is a depressing commentary on people’s gullibility.  To think that the candidates are not puppets manipulated by the same hidden powerful elite forces is a form of illiteracy that fails to grasp the nature of the fairy tale told through the looking-glass. The real rattle is not a toy, but the sound of the rattling of the marionettes’ chains.  In the 2020 presidential election, more than 155 million Americans voted for Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900.  More so than the population at large, these voters are dumb and getting dumber by the day.  They think they live in a democracy where to get into the Highchair candidates will spend 10 billion dollars or so.

“Ditto,” said Tweedledum.

“Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.

Like the voters in 2020, those this year will echo the boys in illusionary expectations of political change – “Ditto, ditto, ditto” – as they look in the mirror of their cell phones and hope to take selfies with the candidates to mirror the narcissistic mendacious marionettes of their illusions.

Image: Assange. boards plane at Stansted Airport in London a free man after striking a deal with the U.S. government. (WikiLeaks video via X)

Julian Assange killed no one, but he suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. military-industrial-security state and its evil accomplices because he used words and images to reveal their atrocities.  In other words, his words were his courageous actions to counteract the murderous actions of the U.S. government.  He gave voice to the previously unspeakable, a void in confronting systematic evil that seems beyond imagining or words to convey.  Assange’s words were his deeds and therefore reversed the proverb or turned it on its head or upside down.  He showed that the words of denial from the U.S. government were lies, language used to obscure thought about its war crimes.  That is why they tortured him for so many years.

Despite such treatment, he never bowed to their violence, remaining steadfastly true to his conscience.  A true individual.  He was betrayed by the corporate mainstream media such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and others who published what Julian published, then trashed him and ignored him, and finally hypocritically supported him to save their own asses after he suffered for 14 years.  It is a very typical tale of elite betrayal.

Those who serve and wish to serve as American presidents are so lacking in Assange’s moral conscience that one should never expect truth from them, neither in words nor actions.  Assange stands head and shoulders above these craven creeps.  Here, as recounted by Marjorie Cohn, are some of their atrocities that journalist  Assange, a free man, published for all the world to read and see.

The relationship between words and actions is very complex.  Even Shakespeare compounds the complexity by having  a character say that words are not deeds.  But they are.

Neither Biden nor Trump ever personally killed a Syrian or Palestinian, but they gave orders to do so.  They made sure as young men that they would never serve in the military and kill with their own hands, having received between them nearly ten deferments.  What’s the term for such Commanders-in-Chief?   Pusillanimous armchair warriors?  Jackals with polished faces who know ten thousand ways to order others to kill and torture while keeping their hands clean but their souls sordid?

Obama had his Tuesday kill list that included American citizens whom he chose for death; Trump gave the orders to “terminate” Iranian General Qasem Soleimani; we can only imagine what orders Biden (or his handlers) has given, while Ukraine, Russia, and Gaza have suffered terribly from them.  Now Tweedledum, desperate to retain his rattle, pushes the world close to nuclear war.

But notice the expensive suits these boys wear, the crisp white shirts and pocket handkerchiefs, the elegant watches and shiny shoes.  But they are killers whose orders to kill are whispered, action words, passed down the line.  With a smile, a grin, a shrug, or completely indifferently, as if they were ordering a bagel with cream cheese to go.

Yet true it is, as the forgotten but great American poet Keneth Rexroth wrote in his 1955 poem Thou Shall Not Kill: “You killed him!  You killed him./ In your God damned Brooks Brothers  suit,/ You son of a bitch.”

Like many writers, I am politically powerless.  My words are my only weapon.  Are they actions?  I believe they are.  They are deeds.  I move my pen across the paper and try to write something meaningful.  Sometimes I succeed in this action; at others, I fail.  Who can say?  I surely can’t.  As my father used to always remind me, “Quien sabe?” (Who knows?)

There are those who claim that wordsmiths are all full of shit.  Why don’t they just shut up and do something, is what they say.  They fail to grasp the paradoxical relationship between action and words.  For writers who write to defend humanity from the predations of the ruthless ruling classes, their words are not orders to kill.  Just the opposite.

Our words are reminders that killing is wrong, that waging wars are wrong, that genocide is wrong, that assassinating people is wrong – simple truths that almost everyone knows but forgets when they get caught up in the antics of the Tweedledums and Tweedledees who come and go with the breezes as the system that creates them rolls merrily along.

So if words, contrary to the famous proverb – action, not words – are a form of action, we are caught in a paradox of our own making.  This is not uncommon.  For there are silent and wordy acts as well as words as actions, some noisy, others sotto voce.  There are violent deeds and violent words; and there are peaceful words meant to encourage peaceful deeds.

Tweedledum Biden and Tweedledee Trump are prime examples of how far my country (I write that with a lump in my throat), the United States of America, has descended into illiteracy, evil, and delusion.

The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once wrote that the “Greeks were superficial out of profundity.” Too many Americans have become superficial out of stupidity by believing the words and deeds of con men battling over a rattle.

“No Way! We landed on the moon!”

– Jim Carrey, playing Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber

*

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.

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

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

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

In a 3 July interview, judge Andrew Napolitano asked the University of Chicago political scientist, John Mearsheimer: “Why would the United States be putting missiles in the Philippines but to be provocative toward China?”

Mearsheimer: “I don’t think that the United States is trying to be provocative. I think what the United States is interested to do, doing is improving its deterrence capability in East Asia. The fact is that if you put the United States up against China in East Asia, and if you include the United States’ allies with the United States, right, you are up against a very formidable adversary. China is effectively a giant aircraft carrier. It has thousands and thousands of missiles, and the United States feels that it is at something of a disadvantage, and for that reason it is increasing its missile capability and other capabilities in Asia as well.”

If China were to put missiles in Cuba and Mexico, then that is not provocative? The US should have no problem because China is only improving its deterrence, yes? What is good for the goose is also good for the gander, no?

And why does Mearsheimer resort to using US government propaganda by referring to China as an “adversary”? Does China call the US an adversary? Is China looking for confrontation with the US?

If China is “effectively a giant aircraft carrier,” then is not the US also effectively a giant aircraft carrier? It is obvious that Mearsheimer is taking a page from the US propaganda booklet on the threat of China, in this case a militaristic threat. Mearsheimer, however, avoids referring to China as a “threat.”

From the FBI website: “Chinese Government Poses ‘Broad and Unrelenting’ Threat to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, FBI Director Says.” The drumbeat is effective. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, half of Americans name China as the US’s greatest threat.

The question raised by Mearsheimer and left unanswered is whether China is a militaristic adversary? China, for its part, publicly eschews militarism and seeks peaceful relations.

Mearsheimer: “We pushed the Russians and the Chinese closer together which makes no sense at all.”

Even if there were no United States, it is extremely rational for Russia and China to form a friendly and close relationship. They are neighbors. They are well suited to be trade partners. It is a win-win relationship that China and Russia seek from trading partners. No push was needed from the US, although US belligerence assuredly was another point in favor of a deepening Russia-China rapprochement.

Mearsheimer: I am one of a number of people who would defend Taiwan if China attacked it because I think Taiwan is of great strategic importance.

Isn’t the US aircraft carrier known as Israel considered of great strategic importance because of its location amid the Middle Eastern oil patch? Yet Mearsheimer says there is no geopolitical benefit from US support of Israel. In fact, the professor says Israel is an albatross around the US neck. What, then, is the great strategic importance Mearsheimer sees in Taiwan? It hardly seems sufficient to just state that his view is realist. In Mearsheimer’s mind moralism does not factor in.

The US has signed on to the One China Policy. Ergo, realistically, Taiwan is de jure a province of one China.

*

When one comes across analysis expressed by personalities, whether they be professors, news anchors, or laypersons, one ought to consider how these persons support their views. Ipse Dixit refers to the logical fallacy of making unsubstantiated assertions. It is arguably more difficult to substantiate one’s arguments in an interview, but to merely state that something is realist is hardly compelling, especially when that realism seems rooted in opinion. Question everything.

*

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.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

This is what many are voicing after the June 24 release of Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian Assange. The cry “sometimes the impossible happens”, was uttered a decade ago after this same U.S. Department of Justice suddenly acquiesced on an unjust sentence. It came January 1, 2014 from American civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart on her discharge from a federal prison. After serving more than 3 years into a 10-year sentence imposed in 2010 at the age of 72, Stewart went home. (In the late stages of cancer by then, she passed away in February 2017.) It was hardly medical advice or a bureaucrat’s compassion that finally freed her but a long  relentless campaign led by her family.

Image: Lynne Stewart

Besides the unexpected resolution in these cases, both Stewart and Assange endured years of injustice, ill-health, media slander and imprisonment. Like Assange, Stewart was hounded by the U.S. federal government (initiated in 2002 by then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft). As with Assange, Stewart’s pursuit by U.S. authorities was endorsed by the American media. Already well known for her defense of individuals with anti-imperialist ideals, Stewart refused to abandon legal representation of an outspoken Muslim cleric. It was 1995, well before 2001, when anti-Muslim sentiment, stoked by media’s anti-terrorist fervor, was on the rise. As the U.S. government’s charges against Assange threatened the protection of journalists’ sources, its legal pursuit of Stewart chilled any attorney who might take up the defense of Muslims. (The attack was highly effective in Stewart’s case since more than a decade would pass before civil rights specialists demanded judicial processes for hundreds of imprisoned and deported Muslims. Assange release, while celebrated, leaves uncertainty if the U.S. could again invoke the 1917 Espionage Act against journalists.)

Those welcoming Assange’s release rightly point out how, when media colludes with government, they threaten an entire profession and a principle of our democracy. Stewart’s indictment hinged on the democratic principle of client-attorney privilege.

Once, leading international newspapers widely welcomed Wikileaks’ revelations and utilized them to their advantage. Then all summarily abandoned Assange. After Wikileaks exposed the Democratic Party files, the U.S. liberal community – heavily Democrat loyalists – likewise discarded Assange and Wikileaks. A handful of smart, dedicated attorneys and individuals like film-maker John Pilger known for championing the rights of journalists, along with others began a vigorous campaign in support of Assange. This grew after his kidnapping from the Ecuadorian embassy (where he had sought asylum) and imprisonment without charge in Britain’s Belmarsh Prison. A dedicated team of legal scholars and attorneys engaged in petitions and appeals to the British high courts, a process reviewed in articles and discussions published since Assange’s release. Also noteworthy is Richard Medhurst’s recent forum with 6 journalists long-involved with Assange’s case.

The rallying cry “journalism is not a crime” was slow to gain traction. Eventually this changed, doubtless helped by the involvement of John Shipton, Assange’s father, and his brother Gabriel Shipton. Their film “ithaka” and their tour of 18 U.S. cities sometimes addressed a mere handful of attendees. Yet their persistence probably helped arouse the attention of more Australians; hitherto, its leaders seemed unconcerned by Assange’s imprisonment and the American indictment. In May 2022, a new government in Australia brought in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who elevated hopes with his promise to raise Assange’s case with U.S. authorities. While appeals to British courts continued in London, a cross-party Australian delegation visited Washington to speak with American legislators about Assange. Congressmembers’ responses were not encouraging. But the Australians were undeterred. Within Australia, Assange’s wife Stella and John and Gabriel Shipton joined Wikileaks’ editor Kristinn Hrafnsson and attorneys to urge Australians’ backing for their countryman’s freedom. From outside it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Australian campaign.

But in the Canberra Airport press conference on Assange’s arrival there last week, Stella Assange and attorney Jennifer Robinson emphasized how essential the Australian government’s role was in wrapping up the case. (Summarized in these BBC and ABC- Australia TV clips.) Those efforts, they explained, went hand in hand with an anticipated appeal to the British court on July 9 that would question Assange’s first amendment rights in a U.S. court, an appeal that might not go well for the Americans. Details and analyses of these issues have been posted here in the past week.

Unsurprisingly, our shameless, mean-spirited U.S. government could not resist imposing a final injustice—the half million-dollar charge for a private jet it obliged Assange to take from the U.K. via the Pacific Mariana Islands to his home in Australia. Thus, a new appeal for financial support to assist his family to meet that ignoble jab.

What is acknowledged by everyone concerned with Assange long ordeal is the effect of the massive international outcry against the U.S. extradition order and Assange’s cruel imprisonment. (Stewart’s release would never have happened without sustained public pressure too.) Whatever exposés of malfeasance, however much personal and family resolve, what legal acumen and changed political atmosphere helped secure Assange’s freedom, one should not lose sight of the enormous number of letters, articles, symposia, demonstrations, forums, talks, and films generated by supporters. One by one, they accumulated, giving encouragement to a hard-working legal team and Assange’s remarkable family.

Injustices designed and pursued to protect the capitalist and military structure are bound to recur; the impossible will be possible if and only when the public understands the truth and forces their leaders to act.

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon. 

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Important article first published by Global Research in 2002.

Today is July 4, 2024

Let us reflect on America’s history of unending wars

***

Image: Iraqi children

The issue of War Crimes emerged after World War I at the Versailles Conference, but it was not until the end of World War II that a more comprehensive definition of what constitutes war crimes was developed. First among new international conventions addressing war crimes was the 1950 Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Its fundamental premise was that the conduct of war in violation of international treaties was a crime against peace. Ill treatment of prisoners of war, killing hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages was a war crime. Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, deportation, and prosecution based on political, racial or religious grounds.

The 1949 Geneva Convention gave recognition to the development of new technologies which exposed civilian life to greater threats of destruction. A 1977 addendum further emphasized the right of civilians to be protected against military operations. This included the protection of civilians against starvation as a method of warfare. Article II of the Geneva Convention addressed the issue of genocide, defined as killing or causing serious bodily harm to individuals based on their nationality, ethnic, racial or religious group and with the intent to destroy that group.

Since the Geneva Convention, a number of other significant international treaties addressing war and human rights have been drafted, but the United States has rejected almost all of them.

Among the treaties that the United States has refused to sign are the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), and the American Convention on Human Rights (1965).

The United States has been particularly reluctant to sign treaties addressing the “laws of war”. It has refused to sign The Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Thermo-Nuclear Weapons (1961); The Resolution on the Non-Use of Force in International Relations and Permanent Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons (1972); The Resolution on the Definition of Aggression (1974); Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention (1977); and the Declaration on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(1989).1

Equally disturbing was the U.S. refusal to sign the Convention on Rights of the Child, introduced into the United Nations General assembly on November 20, 1989 and subsequently ratified by 191 countries.

The first use of atomic weapons against human beings occurred on August 6-9 1945, when the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, killing an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injuring another 130,000. By 1950 another 230,000 died from injuries and radiation. Earlier in 1945 two fire bombing raids on Tokyo killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more.

Since World War II the US has bombed twenty-three nations (1945-2001)

Author William Blum notes:

“It is sobering to reflect that in our era of instant world wide communications, the United States has, on many occasions, been able to mount a large or small scale military operation or undertake other equally blatant forms of intervention without the American public being aware of it until years later if ever.”2

The growing primacy or aerial bombardment in the conduct of war has inevitably defined non-combatants as the preferred target of war. Indeed, the combination of American air power and occupation ground forces has resulted in massive civilian casualties around the world.

Korea: (1945-1953)

On August 15,1945, the Korean people, devastated and impoverished by years of brutality from Japanese occupation forces, openly celebrated their liberation and immediately formed the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CKPI). By August 28, 1945, all Korean provinces on the entire Peninsula had established local people’s democratic committees, and on September 6, delegates from throughout Korea, north and south, created the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). On September 7, the day after the creation of the KPR, General Douglas MacArthur (image left), commander of the victorious Allied powers in the Pacific, formally issued a proclamation addressed “To the People of Korea.” The proclamation announced that forces under his command “will today occupy the Territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude.”

The first advance party of U.S. units, the 17th Regiment of the 7th Infantry Division, actually began arriving at Inchon on September 5th, two days before MacArthur’s occupation declaration. The bulk of the US occupation forces began unloading from twenty-one Navy ships (including five destroyers) on September 8 through the port at Inchon under the command of Lieutenant General John Reed Hodge. Hundreds of black-coated armed Japanese police on horseback, still under the direction of Japanese Governor-General Abe Noabuyki, kept angry Korean crowds away from the disembarking US soldiers.

On the morning of September 9, General Hodge announced that Governor-General Abe would continue to function with all his Japanese and Korean personnel. Within a few weeks there were 25,000 American troops and members of “civil service teams” in the country. Ultimately the number of US troops in southern Korea reached 72,000. Though the Koreans were officially characterized as a “semi-friendly, liberated” people, General Hodge regrettably instructed his own officers that Korea “was an enemy of the United States…subject to the provisions and the terms of the surrender.”

Tragically and ironically, the Korean people, citizens of the victim-nation, had become enemies, while the defeated Japanese, who had been the illegal aggressors, served as occupiers in alliance with the United States. Indeed, Korea was burdened with the very occupation originally intended for Japan, which became the recipient of massive U.S. aid and reconstruction in the post-war period. Japan remains, to this day, America=s forward military base affording protection and intelligence for its “interests” in the Asia-Pacific region.

Seventy-three-year-old Syngman Rhee was elected President of ASouth Korea@ on May 10,1948 in an election boycotted by virtually all Koreans except the elite KDP and Rhee’s own right -wing political groups. This event, historically sealing a politically divided Korea, provoked what became known at the Cheju massacre, in which as many as 70,000 residents of the southern island of Cheju were ruthlessly murdered during a single year by Rhee’s paramilitary forces under the oversight of U.S. officers. Rhee took office as President on August 15 and the Republic of Korea (ROK) was formally declared. In response, three-and -a-half weeks later (on September 9, 1948), the people of northern Korea grudgingly created their own separate government, the Democratic People’s’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), with Kim II Sung as its premier.

Korea was now clearly and tragically split in two. Kim Il Sung had survived as a guerrilla fighter against the Japanese occupation in both China and Korea since 1932 when he was twenty years old. He was thirty-three when he returned to Pyongyang in October 1945 to begin the hoped-for era of rebuilding a united Korea free of foreign domination, and three years later, on September 9, 1948, he became North Korea’s first premier. The Rhee/U.S. forces escalated their ruthless campaign of cleansing the south of dissidents, identifying as a suspected “communist” anyone who opposed the Rhee regime, publicly or privately. In reality, most participants or believers in the popular movement in the south were socialists unaffiliated with outside “communist” organizations.

As the repression intensified, however, alliances with popular movements in the north, including communist organizations, increased. The Cheju insurgency was crushed by August 1949, but on the mainland, guerrilla warfare continued in most provinces until 1959-51. In the eyes of the commander of US military forces in Korea, General Hodge, and new “President” Syngman Rhee, (left) virtually any Korean who had not publicly professed his allegiance to Rhee was considered a “communist” traitor. As a result, massive numbers of farmers, villagers and urban residents were systematically rounded up in rural areas, villages and cities throughout South Korea. Captives were regularly tortured to extract names of others. Thousands were imprisoned and even more thousands forced to dig mass graves before being ordered into them and shot by fellow Koreans, often under the watch of U.S. troops.

The introduction of U.S./UN military forces on June 26,1950 occurred with no American understanding (except by a few astute observers such as journalist I.F Stone) that in fact they were entering an ongoing revolutionary civil war waged by indigenous Koreans seeking genuine independence after five years of U.S. interference. The American occupation simply fueled Korean passions even more while creating further divisions among them.

In the Autumn of 1950, when U.S. forces were in retreat in North Korea, General Douglas MacArthur offered all air forces under his command to destroy “every means of communication, every installation, factory, city and village ” from the Yalu River, forming the border between North Korea and China, south to the battle line. The massive saturation bombing conducted throughout the war, including napalm, incendiary, and fragmentation bombs, left scorched cities and villages in total ruins. As in World War II, the U.S. strategic bombing campaign brought mass destruction and shockingly heavy civilian casualties. Such tactics were in clear violation of the Nuremburg Charter, which had, ironically, been created after World War II, largely due to pressure from the U.S. The Nuremburg Tribunal defined “the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages” to be a war crime and declared that Ainhumane acts against any civilian population” were a crime against humanity.

From that fateful day on September 8, 1945 to the present, a period of 56 years, U.S. military forces (currently numbering 37,000 positioned at 100 installations) have maintained a continuous occupation in the south supporting de facto U.S. rule over the political, economic and military life of a needlessly divided Korea. This often brutal occupation and the persistent U.S. support for the repressive policies of dictatorial puppets continues to be the single greatest obstacle to peace in Korea, preventing the inevitable reunification of the Korean Peninsula.

Until 1994, all of the hundreds of thousands of South Korean defense forces operated under direct U.S. command. Even today, although integrated into the Combined Forces Command (CFC), these forces automatically revert to direct US control when the US military commander in Korea determines that there is a state of war.

Indonesia: (1958-1965)

After 350 years of colonialism, President Sukarno, with the cooperation of the communist party (PKI), sought to make Indonesia an independent socialist democracy. Sukarno’s working relationship with the PKI would not be tolerated by Washington. Under the direction of the CIA, rebels in the Indonesian army were armed, trained and equipped in preparation for a military coup. The Indonesian army=s campaign against the PKI in 1965-66 brought the dictator Suharto to power. Under his rule, teachers, students, civil servants and peasants were systematically executed. In Central and East Java alone, 60,000 were killed. In Bali, some 50,000 people were executed, and thousands more died in remote Indonesian villages. In some areas citizens were confined in Navy vessels which were then sunk to the bottom of the sea.

The most extensive killing were committed against suspected PKI supporters identified by U.S. intelligence. Historian Gabriel Kollo states that the slaughter in Indonesia “ranks as a crime of the same type as the Nazi perpetrated.”3

Recent revealed documents at George Washington University’s National Security Achive confirmed how effectively the Indonesian army used the U.S.-prepared hit list against the Indonesian communist party in 1965-66. Among the documents cited is a 1966 airgram to Washington sent by U.S. ambassador Marshall Green stating that a list from the Embassy identifying top communist leaders was being used by the Indonesian security authorities in their extermination campaign.

For example, the US Embassy reported on November 13,1965 that information sent to Suharto resulted in the killing of between 50 to 100 PKI members every night in East and Central Java. The Embassy admitted in an April 15, 1966 airgram to Washington: “We frankly do not know whether the real figure for the PKI killed is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000.”4

The Indonesian military became the instrument of another counter revolutionary offensive in 1975 when it invaded East Timor. On September 7,1975, just 24 hours after the highest officials of the United States government, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had been in Djakarta on a state visit, 30,000 Indonesian troops landed in East Timor. Napalm, phosphorus bombs and chemical defoliants were delivered from US supplied planes and helicopters, resulting in the killing of tens of thousands of people, and the conflict continues to simmer.5

Vietnam: (1954-1965)

President Harry Truman began granting material aid to the French colonial forces in Indochina as early s 1946, and the aid was dramatically increased after the successful Chinese revolution in 1949 and the start of the “hot” Korean War in June 1950. By the time of the French army was defeated in 1954, the U.S. was paying nearly 80 percent of the French military expenditures and providing extensive air and logistical support.

The unilateral U.S. military intervention in Vietnam began in 1954, immediately following the humiliating French defeat in early May 1954. The July 21, 1954 Geneva Agreement concluded the French war against the Vietnamese and promised them a unifying election, mandated for July 1956. The U.S. government knew that fair elections would, in effect, ensure a genuine democratic victory for revered Communist leader Ho Chi Minh. This was unacceptable. In June 1954, prior to the signing of the historic Geneva agreement, the U.S. began CIA-directed internal sabotage operations against the Vietnamese while setting up the puppet Ngo Dinh Diem (brought to Vietnam from the U.S.) as “our” political leader. No electrons were ever held. This set the stage for yet another war for Vietnamese independence — this time against U.S. forces and their South Vietnamese puppets.

The significance of U.S. intentions to interfere with independence movements in Asia cannot be underestimated. U.S. National Security Council documents from 1956 declared that our national security would be endangered by communist domination of mainland Southeast Asia. Secret military plans stated that nuclear weapons will be used in general war and even in military operations short of general war. By March 1961, the Pentagon brass had recommended sending 60,000 soldiers to western Laos supported by air power that would include, if necessary, nuclear weapons, to assure that the Royal Laotian government would prevail against the popular insurgency being waged against it. For the next ten years the U.S. unleashed forces that caused (and continue to cause ) an incomprehensible amount of devastation in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia.

Eight million tons of bombs (four times the amount used by the U.S. in all of World War II) were dropped indiscriminately, leaving destruction which, if laid crater to crater, would cover an area the size of the state of Maine. Eighty percent of the bombs fell on rural areas rather than military targets, leaving ten million craters. Nearly 400,000 tons of napalm was dropped on Vietnamese villages. There was no pretense of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.

The callous designation of as much as three-fourths of South Vietnam as a “free fire zone” justified the murder of virtually anyone in thousands of villages in those vast areas. At the time, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara cited a 1967 memo in which he estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed or seriously injured by U.S. forces at 1000 per week. The CIA=s Phoenix program alone killed as many as 70,000 civilians who were suspected of being part of the political leadership of the Viet Cong in the south.

There was a historically unprecedented level of chemical warfare in Vietnam, including the indiscriminate spraying of nearly 20 million gallons of defoliants on one-seventh the area of South Vietnam. The vestigial effects of chemical warfare poisoning continue to plague the health of adult Vietnamese (and ex-GIs) while causing escalated birth defects. Samples of soil, water, food and body fat of Vietnamese citizens continue to reveal dangerously elevated levels of dioxin to the present day.

Today, Vietnamese officials estimate the continued dangerous presence of 3.5 million landmines left from the war as well as 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance. Tragically, these hidden remnants of war continue to explode when farmers plow their fields or children play in their neighborhoods, killing thousands each year. The Vietnamese report 40,000 people killed since 1975 by landmines and buried bombs. That means that each day, 4 or 5 Vietnamese civilians are killed day by U.S. ordnance.

The U.S. and its allies killed as many as 5 million Southeast Asian citizens during the active war years. The numbers of dead in Laos and Cambodia remain uncounted, but as of 1971, a congressional Research Service report prepared for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that over one million Laotians had been killed, wounded, or turned into refugees, with the figure for Cambodia estimated two million. More than a half million “secret” US bombing missions over Laos, begun in late 1964, devastated populations of ancient cultures there. Estimates indicate that around 230,000 tons of bombs were dropped over northern Laos in 1968 and 1969 alone. Increasing numbers of U.S. military personnel were added to the ground forces in Laos during 1961, preparing for major military operations to come.

The “secret” bombing of Cambodia began in March 1969, and an outright land invasion of Cambodia was conducted from late April 1970 through the end of June, causing thousand of casualties. These raging U.S. covert wars did not cease until August 14, 1973, by which time countless additional casualties were inflicted. When the bombing in Cambodia finally ceased, the U.S. Air Force had officially recorded the use of nearly 260,000 tons of bombs there. The total tonnage of bombs dropped in Laos over eight and a half years exceeded two million.

The consensus today is that more than 3 million Vietnamese were killed, with 300,000 additional missing in action and presumed dead. In the process the U.S. lost nearly 59,000 of her own men and women, with about 2,000 additional missing, while combatants from four U.S. allies lost over 6,000 more. The South Vietnamese military accounted for nearly 225,000 dead. All of this carnage was justified in order to destroy the basic rights and capacity of the Vietnamese to construct their own independent, sovereign society. None of the victims deserved to die in such a war. Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and U.S. military “grunts” were all victims.

All of these corpses were created to perpetuate an incredible lie and to serve a “cause” that had been concocted by white male plutocrats in Washington, many of whom possessed Ph.Ds from prestigious universities. Like most of their predecessors throughout U.S. history, these politicians and their appointees, along with their profit-hungry arms makers/dealers, desired to assure the destruction of people’s democratic movements in East Asia that threatened the virtually unlimited American hegemony over markets, resources, and the profits to be derived therefrom. But never did a small country suffer so much from an imperial nation as the Vietnamese did from the United States.

Iraq: (1991-2001)

The royal family in Kuwait was used by the United States government to justify a massive assault on Iraq in order to establish permanent dominion over the Gulf. The Gulf War was begun not to protect Kuwait but to establish US power over the region and its oil.6 In 1990, General Schwarzkopf had testified before the Senate that it was essential for the U.S. to increase its military presence in the Gulf in order to protect Saudi Arabia. However, satellite photos showed no Iraqi troops near the Saudi Border.

After Iraq announced that it was going to annex Kuwait, the United States began its air attacks on Iraq. For 42 days the US sent in 2000 sorties a day. By February 13,1991, 1,500 Iraqi citizens had been killed. President George Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic production.

The Red Crescent Society of Jordan announced at the end of the war that 113,00 civilians were dead and sixty percent were women and children. Some of the worst devastation was wrought by the US military’s use of Depleted Uranium (DU) on battlefields and in towns and cities across Iraq. It left a legacy of radioactive debris which has resulted in serious environmental contamination and health problems, particularly among Iraqi children. Child mortality rates have risen by 380 percent. Between August 1990 and August 1997 some 1.2 million children in Iraq died due to environmental devastation and the harsh economic sanctions imposed in 1991. Not satisfied with such havoc, the U.S. and Britain have recently sought to tighten the blockade against Iraq by imposing so-called :”smart sanctions.” This would continue the aggression against northern and southern Iraq and lead to the deaths of more women, children and elderly.

Yugoslavia: (1991-1999)

The United States and Germany prepared plans for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia in the late 1980’s and have since reconfigured Yugoslavia into mini-states, with only Serbia and Montenegro remaining in the Yugoslav federation, a situation which has opened the way to the re-colonization of the Balkans.

In 1991, the European Community, with US involvement, organized a conference on Yugoslavia that called for the separation, sovereignty and independence of the republics of Yugoslavia. President George Bush’s administration passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Act, which provided aid to the individual republics, but cut off all aid to Belgrade, the capitol of Yugoslavia. This stimulated the eventual secession of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. With secession came civil wars. Ethnic Serbs living in Croatia had been loyal to that Yugoslav republic, but great power meddling now forced them to defend their region in Croatia known as Krajina. The U.S. covertly provided arms, training, advisors, satellite intelligence and air power to the Croats in “Operation Storm” directed against the helpless Serbs in Krajina. When the bombing began, the Krajina Serbs fled to Belgrade and Bosnia. Approximately 250,000 Serbs were thus ethnically cleansed from the Krajina and all evidence of Serb habitation was systematically destroyed. Civilians were executed, livestock slaughtered and houses were burnt to the ground.7

To avoid a similar human catastrophe in Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bosnian Serbs consolidated Serb-owned lands, an area constituting about two thirds of Bosnia/Herzegovina. Germany and the U.S. quickly aided the military alliance of Bosnian Muslims and Croats against the Serbs, and , supported by American bombing and regular army forces from Croatia, the Muslim/Croat alliance soon swept the Serbs from the majority of Bosnia/Herzegovina. As in the Krajina, the conflict forced ethnic Serbs off of their lands, creating one hundred thousand Serb refugees.

Under the U.S.-brokered Dayton Agreement, Bosnia/Herzegovina was divided into two parts, a Muslim-Croat Federation and Republica Srpska. The central government today is controlled by US/NATO forces, the IMF, and international NGOs. With no history of independence, Bosnia/Herzegovina=s economic assets have been taken over by foreign investors who now own their energy facilities, water, telecommunication, media and transportation.

The effects of the Bosnian civil war on the city of Srebrenica were reported extensively in the western media. Reports claimed that 7,414 Bosnian Muslims were executed by the Serbian army. After years of searching, digging and extensive investigations, only seventy bodies were found, but the original charges of genocide are still circulated in the media.

Kosovo, an autonomous region of Serbia, is the site of the most recent, and perhaps most disastrous, U.S. military intervention. Kosovo=s problems began after World War II when immigrants from Albania flooded into the region, sparking political confrontation between Albanians and Serbs. escalated into military conflict. The “Kosovo Liberation Army, an Albanian terrorist/separatist group, escalated tensions by directing their violence against not only Serbian civilians, but Albanian who refused to join their cause. As the war intensified, a United Nations team of observers in the Kosovo village of Racak found 44 Albanian bodies. The Serbs identified them as KLA fighters killed during one of the now frequent gun battles with police. William Walker, a US diplomat, who had earlier acted as an apologist for the death squads in El Salvador, led a group of journalists to view the bodies, and their subsequent claims of Serb war crimes made world-wide headlines.8

President Clinton used this event to bring delegates form the contending forces in Bosnia to Rambouillet, and the proposed Ramboullet Accords served as a prelude to U.S. intervention in Kosovo. The accords, if accepted, would have allowed NATO forces complete access to all of Yugoslavia, a virtual foreign occupation, with all associated costs to be borne by the Yugoslav government. As the Ramboullet negotiations began to stall, U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright ordered the bombing of Yugoslavia to begin.

On March 16, 1999, twenty three thousand missiles and bombs were dropped on a country of eleven million people. Thirty five thousand cluster bombs, graphite bombs and 31,000 rounds of depleted uranium weapons were used, the latter scattering radioactive waste throughout the Yugoslav countryside.

The 78 day bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia targeted schools, hospitals, farms, bridges, roads communication centers, and waterways. Because a large number of chemical plants and oil refineries bombed by US/NATO planes were located on the banks of the Danube river, the bombing of these industrial sites polluted the Danube, a source of drinking water for ten million people in the region. The environmental damage done to the soil, water and air of Yugoslavia soon spread to Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Greece and Italy. Countries like Russia, Ukraine and Georgia, which border on the Black Sea, into which the Danube empties, also continue to face health hazards.

Afghanistan:(1979-2001)

“The Bush-Afghan war calls up memories of the Vietnam War in both actions and rhetoric, the massive use of superior arms heavily impacting civilians, deliberate food deprivation, wholesale terror allegedly combating ‘terrorism’, but always sincere regrets for collateral damages.”9

The U.S. war in Afghanistan began in 1979, ostensibly as a campaign to oust the ruling Taliban and apprehend the alleged terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who was assumed to be hiding in Afghanistan. Ironically, the Taliban had received billions of dollars worth of weapons from the CIA to help it overthrow a progressive socialist government in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden regarded himself as an important CIA asset. Indeed, the CIA had been deeply involved in Afghanistan even before the Soviet Union intervened there in 1979 to defend the revolutionary government.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, the U.S. has waged a merciless war against the Afghan people, using chemical, biological and depleted uranium (DU) weapons. The use of DU continues to spread radiation throughout large parts of Afghanistan and will affect tens of thousands of people in generations to come, causing lung cancer, leukemia and birth defects. DU was also used against Iraq and Yugoslavia, where the frequency of cancer has tripled.

The bombing of the Afghan population has forced thousands of civilians to flee to Pakistan and Iran, and seven to eight million civilians are facing starvation. UNICEF spokesman Eric Larlcke has stated, “As many as 100,000 more children will die in Afghanistan this winter unless food reaches them in sufficient quantities in the next six weeks.”10

The racist underpinnings of the American world-view allows the American press and its political leaders to be silent on the mass killing of Third World children. Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, has stated that the U.S. is not looking to negotiate peace with the Taliban and Al-Quida in Afghanistan. There is a clear indifference to the daily carnage in Afghanistan, where sixty percent of the casualties are women and children. Human rights organizations have expressed concern over reports of large-scale executions of would-be Taliban defectors in the city of Kunduz, and the United Nations has echoed human rights groups in demanding an investigation into the slaughter of prisoners at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort near Mazar-i-Sharif. With more than 500 people dead and the fort littered with bodies, allegations of war crimes against the U.S. and UK for ignoring the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war have led the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, to call for an urgent inquiry.

“Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil and contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go to pursue that agenda.”11

In his book The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brezezinski writes that the Eurasian Balkans are a potential economic prize which hold an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil and important minerals as well as gold.

Brezezinski declares that the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are “known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”12 Afghanistan will serve as a base of operations to begin the control over the South Asian Republic in order to build a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market. This pipeline will serve as a bonanza of wealth for the US oil companies.

Conclusion:

An examination of the American conduct of its wars since World War II shows the US to be in violation of the Nuremberg Principles, the 1949 Geneva Convention relating to protection of civilian prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and the amended Nuremberg Principles as formulated by the International Law Commission in 1950 proscribing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The massive murder and destruction of civilian infrastructure through the use of biological, chemical and depleted uranium weapons violates not only international laws but the moral and humanitarian standards expected in modern civilization.

Notes

1. Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1942 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1977, p. 371.

2. William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995, p. 17.

3. Gabriel Kollo, AWar Crimes and the Nature of the Vietnam War, Bertrand Russell Foundation, http:www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/br7006gk.htm

4. George Washington University’s National Security Archive, July 27, 2001, www.Narchives.org

5. Deirdre Griswold, Indonesia: the Second Greatest Crime of the Century, 2d edition. New York: World View Publishers, 1979, p. vii.

6. Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992, p. 3.

7. Scott Taylor, INAT: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict. OttAwa, Canada: Espirit de Corps Books, 2000, p. 15.

8. Michael Parenti, To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia. New York: Verso, 2000, p. 106.

9. Edward Herman, A Genocide as Collateral Damage, but with Sincere Regrets, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca , 2001

10. 100,000 Afghan Children Could Die This Winter, The Times of India, October 16, 2001.

11. Stan Goff, A September 11th Analysis, October 27, 2001, www.maisonneuvepress.com .

12. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative, New York: Harper

 

The late Lenora Foerstel is author of War, Lies & Videotape: How media monopoly stifles truth , 

Brian Willson is a Vietnam war veteran, peace activist and author. Brian Willson has carefully documented the balance sheet of US government war crimes in Vietnam and Korea 

Brian Willson is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

First published on July 4, 2022

***

I was probably seven years old before it really sunk in that everybody in my town was not celebrating my birthday on July 4. It was an exciting day with parades, picnics, fireworks and, in my case, special birthday parties and gifts. I lived much of my young life with the extra boost of having been born on the day that our earliest political framers signed the Declaration of Independence, an historical act of defiance against monarchial colonial rule from distant England.

I remember proudly carrying the U.S. American flag in one of the July 4th parades in my small, agricultural town in upstate New York. And for years I felt goosebumps looking at Old Glory waving in the breeze during the playing of the national anthem or as it passed by in a parade. How lucky I was to have been born in the greatest country in the history of the world, and blessed by God to boot. Such a blessing, such a deal!

It wasn’t until many years later, while reading an issue of the armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes in Vietnam, that I began thinking and feeling differently about the flag and what it represents. There was a story about an arrest for flag burning somewhere in the United States.

I had recently experienced the horror of seeing numerous bodies of young women and children that were burned alive in a small Delta village devastated by napalm. I imagined that since the pilots had “successfully” hit their targets, they were feeling good and probably had received glowing reports that would bode well in their military record for promotions. I wondered why it was okay to burn innocent human beings 10,000 miles from my home town, but not okay to burn a piece of cloth that was symbolic of the country that had horribly napalmed those villagers. Something was terribly wrong with the Cold War rhetoric of fighting communism that made me question what our nation stood for. There was a grand lie, an American myth, that was being fraudulently preserved under the cloak of our flag.

It took me years to process this clear cognitive dissonance between the rhetoric of my cultural teachings and the reality of my own personal experiences. I had to accept that, either there was serious distortion in how I was interpreting my personal realities, or the cultural rhetoric was terribly distorted. Hmm. A dilemma! If I accepted the former, I could relax and feel good about being an “American.” If I accepted the latter, I would experience a serious identity crisis, perhaps a nervous breakdown. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not ignore what my own conscience was continually telling me

I began a serious reflection that included careful study of U.S. and world history. When I was a teenager living near Seneca Indian reservations in western New York State I occasionally heard Seneca acquaintances utter “jokes” about how the “White man speaks with forked tongue.” We thought it funny at the time. But then I discovered how my country really was founded. There were hundreds of nations comprised of millions of human beings–yes, human beings–living throughout the land before our European ancestors arrived here in the 1600s. The U.S. government signed over 400 treaties with various Indigenous nations and violated every one of them. And over time these original peoples were systematically eliminated in what amounted to the first genuine American holocaust.

When I reread the Declaration of Independence I noted words I hadn’t been aware of before: “He [the King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Honest history reveals that the very land upon which our founding fathers began this new experiment in freedom had been taken by violence and deceit, ironically using the same diabolical methods the framers accused of those already living here.

It became obvious after extensive reading that my European ancestors did not believe that Indigenous Americans were human beings worthy of respect, but despicable, non-human creatures, worthy only of extermination. The pre-Columbus population of Indigenous in the Western Hemisphere is estimated to have been at least 100 million (8-12 million north of the Rio Grande). By 1900 this population had been reduced to about 5 percent of its former size. An Indigenous friend of mine, a Seneca man who had served the U.S. military in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and then after retiring, discovered his ancestral roots as a native American, once remarked to me: “I call the American flag ‘Old Gory,’ the red representing the blood, and the white, the bones, of my murdered ancestors.”

>When adding to our first holocaust the damage done to African cultures through forcefully seizing human beings to be slaves in order to build our early agricultural and industrial base, and the carnage from nearly 300 U.S. overt military and thousands of covert interventions in the Twentieth Century to acquire access to markets and resources on our selfish terms, we see there are actually three holocausts that have enabled the “glorious American civilization” to be what it is today. It is now estimated that Africa lost 50 million of its population to the slave trade, at least two-thirds of whom were killed resisting capture or died during the horrors of transit; an estimated 20 to 30 million people in the Third World have been killed as a result of U.S. interventions. Note that when other peoples all over the globe have attempted to emulate the spirit of our Declaration of Independence (a proclamation of self-determination), such as Vietnam explicitly did in 1945, our government not only has turned a deaf ear, but has done everything in its power short of dropping Atomic bombs to destroy their efforts to obtain independence. This is the foundation upon which we have built “America.” Quite the karma!

The founding of our Republic was conducted in secrecy by an upper class who insisted on a strong national government that could assure a successful but forceful clearing of western lands, enabling the safe settlement and economic development of previously inhabited Indigenous territory. Our Founding Fathers did not represent the common people. Some historians believe that if the Constitution itself had been subjected to a genuine vote of all the people it would have been resoundly defeated. Subsequently, what evolved is a political system run by plutocrats who perpetuate an economic system that protects the interests of those who finance their campaigns (a form of bribery). The U.S. government is a democracy in name only. Never have we had a government that seriously addresses the plight of the people, whether it be workers, minorities, women, the poor, etc. Whatever has been achieved in terms of rights and benefits for these constituencies, i.e., the people, has been struggled for against substantial repression, and the constant threat the gains will be subsequently lost. Intense pressures are applied by the selfish oligarchy which seeks ever increased profits, rarely, if ever, considering the expense to the health of the majority of people, their local cultures, and the ecology.

What the West calls capitalism is nothing like what Adam Smith had in mind with his views of decentralized networks of small entrepreneurs working in harmony with the needs and forces of others in their own communities. What we have is a savage system of centrally institutionalized greed that is unable to generalize an equitable way of life for the majority of people here in the U.S., or in the rest of the world. It requires incredible exploitation of human and other natural resources all over the globe with the forcible protection of military and paramilitary forces financed or sanctioned by governments. It thrives on its own sinister version of welfare where the public financially guarantees–through tax loopholes, subsidies, contracts, and outright bailouts–the profitable success of the major corporations and financial institutions, especially, but not exclusively, in the military-industrial complex. Additionally, our monopoly capitalism defines efficiency by totally ignoring the true costs of its production and distribution.

It conveniently forgets the huge ecological and human exhaustion costs (both being our true wealth). If these costs were included, the system would be finished in a second. The reality, upon honest examination, is that the economic system we call capitalism, now neoliberal, global capitalism, is cruelly based on a very fraudulent set of assumptions that justify massive exploitation. The reality, upon honest examination, is that our political system was founded, and has been maintained to this very day by substantive plutocracy, not democracy. So when I see the flag and think of the Declaration of Independence, instead of the United States of America, I see the United Corporations of America; I see the blood and bones of people all over the globe who have been dehumanized, then exterminated by its imperialism; and I see a symbol that represents a monstrous lie maintained by excessive, deadly force. It makes me feel sick, and ashamed. And I know that my opinions being expressed here will not be popular, even among some of my closest friends. But I cannot ignore the reality as I now understand it.

I believe we are living one of the most incredible lies in history, covered over by one of the most successful campaigns of public rhetoric, ignoring empirical reality. It is truly amazing! I hope that one day we will end our willful ignorance and be able to see our transgressions, and beg, on our knees, for forgiveness, and then wail as we begin to feel the incredible pain and anguish we have caused the world as well as our own bodies, minds, souls, and culture.

S. Brian Willson, Vietnam war veteran, renowned peace activist, human rights lawyer and award winning author, Granada, Nicaragua, 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.

***

This incisive article was published on June 29, 2022

***

Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials.

Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal.

Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind (or anything that resembled a firearm) while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.

No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations.

The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 246 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

In fact, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

Here’s what the Declaration of Independence might look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:

There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power.

Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:

All people are created equal.

All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.

Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people.

It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed.

However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.

This is exactly the state of affairs we are under suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government.

The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute tyranny over the country.

To prove this, consider the following:

The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people.

The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.

In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives.

The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.

The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them.

The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime.

The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.

The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the constitution in order to expand its own powers.

The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners.

The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”

The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.

The government has overtaxed us without our permission.

The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial.

The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.

The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.

The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government.

The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”

The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged domestic war against the people.

The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, and destroyed the lives of the people.

The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny, totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other.

The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.

Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.

An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.

We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds.

They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. They are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on God’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

In the 246 years since early Americans first declared and eventually won their independence from Great Britain, “we the people” have managed to work ourselves right back under the tyrant’s thumb.

Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making: the American Police State.

The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

“We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves.

We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and monsters.

We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers.

We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms.

We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers.

We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and corporate pirates.

And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army in the form of a militarized police.

Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the problems we are facing will not be fixed overnight: that is the grim reality with which we must contend.

Yet that does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out. What we need to do is declare our independence from the tyranny of the American police state.

*

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.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Immunization.news