Judge Andrew Napolitano interviewed Col. Douglas Macgregor about Ukraine, Israel, and the incoming Trump Administration.

The discussion started with the question, “How close are we, the US, to a hot war — whether it is regional war, WWIII, nuclear exchange?”

Col. Macgregor replied that “we are closer than we have been in many decades.”

Watch the interview below.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

Featured image: Anti-NATO protest in Chicago, 2012. Photo credit: Julie Dermansky.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

A recently aired Public Broadcasting Corporation (PBS) documentary as part of the “American Experience” series examined the history of the white supremacist coup which ousted a multiracial coalition municipal government in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898.

The coup was aimed at the complete disenfranchisement, disempowerment and dislocation of thousands of African Americans who had played a leading role in the civic and economic life of the Wilmington area.

This incident was one of a long list of white-led terrorist operations which expanded across several post-antebellum states including Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma among others between the late 1860s and the early decades of the 20th century. Within many of the former slave states, people of African descent constituted near-majorities statewide and majorities within certain municipalities, counties and regions.

Upholding the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution would place African Americans in direct competition with whites for land, agricultural production, employment, wages, commercial endeavors, education and other aspects of the society. Segregation laws on a state level which were allowed to be in complete defiance of the Reconstruction amendments and civil rights acts were on the ascendancy by the close of the 19th century. Wilmington represented the continuation of the most progressive holdovers from the Reconstruction period of the late 1860s through the elections of 1876 and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions of 1883 which essentially nullified federal civil rights law. See this.

During the last decade of the 19th century a coalition of Republicans and Populists brought together African Americans and white political forces. The movement was called “Fusionist” and began to weld significant influence in North Carolina. With Wilmington being the largest city in the state during the late 1890s, it held the potential for establishing a trend towards a more inclusive political culture.

On the sceneonradio.org website it says of the period in Wilmington that:

“In November 1898, an armed White supremacist mob—supported by most White elites in North Carolina—murdered untold Black Wilmington residents and drove the city’s elected Fusionist government from power, installing Democrats in their place. The coup in North Carolina’s then-largest city violently snuffed out some of the last flickers of multiracial democracy in post-Civil War America…. In November 1898, North Carolina Democrats won a sweeping victory at the polls – confirming the success of their campaign based on white supremacy, intimidation, and fraud. But in Wilmington, the state’s largest city, white supremacist leaders were not satisfied. This episode tells what happened on November 10, 1898, in Wilmington: a massacre of Black men, and the only successful coup d’etat in U.S. history.

The methodology utilized in Wilmington followed a similar pattern across the South and other regions of the U.S. There was the false claim of losing control of political and economic structures to African Americans.

Using this formula for analyzing racist violence against African Americans, the Colfax massacre of 1873 fits a similar pattern where political divisions over the control of the Louisiana state government led to a white supremacist coup against the ascendancy of a Reconstruction administration. See this.

Such exaggerated notions were in response to the burgeoning presence of African Americans numerically and socially. There was the proliferation of independent churches, schools, newspapers and social organizations.

These institutions were answering forcefully the racist propaganda from the then Democratic Party stalwarts and their allies within the white supremacist militias. When the fears of Black political domination did not gain the necessary resonance, it was soon advanced that there was a real threat to the safety of white women. As Ida B. Wells had already argued in the early 1890s based on developments in Memphis and later her travels throughout the South, that the myth of the sexually uncontrollable dangerous Black man was merely a false pretense for the lynchings and disempowerment of the African American people.

In reference to the triple lynching of three African American men in Memphis during July 1892, Wells continued to speak out against racist violence while condemning the false rationales under which these acts of terrorism were carried out. Due to an editorial she published while outside of Memphis in 1892, the courts ordered her arrested and the offices of the Free Speech and Headlight newspaper which Wells owned, destroyed.

The Howard Center for Investigative Journalism wrote of the situation in Memphis:

“Death threats followed, fast and furious. Four days later, a mob ransacked the office of The Free Speech and Headlight and destroyed the building that housed it. Creditors took possession of any assets left. Wells-Barnett, who was out of town at the time, never came back to Memphis. She was running away from that city, but running toward a greater calling that also was personal. “They had me an exile and threatened my life for hinting at the truth,” she wrote in ‘Crusade for Justice.’ ‘I felt that I owed it to myself and my race to tell the whole truth.’ The investigative reporter in her took Wells-Barnett to Chicago. She continued her quest to debunk the big lie about lynching and rape. In 1895, she published a seminal work, ‘The Red Record: Tabulated Statistics and Alleged Causes of Lynching in the United States.’”

Similarly in Wilmington just six years later the offices of the African American owned Daily Record were destroyed when the white terrorist group known as the “Red Shirts” staged a coup to put down the Fusionist electoral movement. Alexander Manly and his brother Frank owned the Daily Record where articles were published and circulated statewide debunking the accusations of a conspiracy to dominate whites and assault white women.

.

Source: Abayomi Azikiwe

.

According to an article on the ncpedia.org:

“The whites demanded that Manly and his newspaper cease to publish and that Manly be banned from the community. Manly escaped from Wilmington because he was mistakenly thought to be white. African Americans armed themselves and whites began to hunt and gun them down. The mob of whites included clergymen, lawyers, bankers, and merchants who all believed that they were asserting their rights as citizens. When the riot ended the next day, it was reported that twenty-five African Americans had been killed. However, it was strongly suspected that hundreds of African Americans had been killed and their bodies dumped into the river. In addition, hundreds of African Americans were banished from the city of Wilmington. This event, the Wilmington Coup, marked a turning point in North Carolina’s history because more restrictions were placed on African American voters.”

Consequently, this form of a fusionist government went down in flames. The pictorial symbol of the Wilmington coup was the image of a burned-out Daily Record building surrounded by Red Shirts brandishing their arms.

The PBS documentary examines the events of 1898 through archival records as well as the oral histories of the descendants of those involved on both sides of the struggle. This incident, like many others, has been covered up and hidden for well over a century.

Considering the political character of the incoming administration of former President Donald Trump along with numerous state governments in the U.S., even further restrictions will be placed on the research and teaching of the actual history of the country. The reasons behind the concealment and distortions of U.S. and world history stems from the refusal to accept responsibility for past and ongoing injustices. While at the same time the perpetrators of racism and social injustices are just as committed to strengthening their grip on the workers and oppressed domestically and around the world.

Lessons From the Wilmington Coup

Right-wing, racist and neo-fascist tendencies still exist in the U.S. and are prepared to use violent repression to impose their objectives of a white supremacist government. The recent November 2024 national elections illustrated clearly that propaganda and psychological warfare based upon unwarranted fears and hatred of nationally oppressed peoples, class conscious workers, women, migrants, etc., can be the lynchpin to advance a political agenda which takes the U.S. back to the atmosphere which created the Wilmington Coup of 1898.

The violent phase of the coup in 1898 was initiated even after the white supremacists had evoked racist stereotypes along with ballot stuffing to win the elections. In the U.S. on January 6, 2021, a mob instigated by the current incoming administration attempted a violent overturning of an election in which millions of people of color and workers would have been disenfranchised. Over the last four years state governments have passed legislation which placed restrictions on the ability to vote. Even though the difference within the popular vote calculations between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was less than two percent, the media has spread the belief that the Republican White House has a broad mandate to implement its right-wing agenda.

These historical convergences call for the independent organizing of African Americans and other oppressed peoples. As the Civil Rights and Black Power movements of the second half of the 20th century drew upon the mass sentiment of the workers and farmers, any renewal of the fight for liberation and social emancipation will set its own course irrespective of who is in the White House and Congress.

Watch the trailer below.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

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

The geopolitical dynamics surrounding the war in Ukraine have reached a critical juncture, marked by increasingly aggressive actions and policies.

Recently, the use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles by Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory has expanded the scope of the conflict, targeting even civilian areas. This escalation raises questions about the motives of the so-called “deep state” that allegedly orchestrates U.S. government affairs and foreign policies. Far from being limited to weakening Russia—a nation too vast and resilient to destroy—this strategy appears to be aimed at sacrificing Ukraine and destabilizing Europe, all in the context of the United States’ struggle to maintain its global empire.

A Proxy War Beyond Ukraine

At its core, the Ukraine conflict functions as a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO bloc and Russia. While officially supporting Ukraine under the banner of defending democracy and sovereignty, the U.S. has steadily encouraged actions that escalate the conflict. The deployment of advanced military technologies and the encouragement of strikes within Russia reflect a deliberate intensification of hostilities. However, the U.S. cannot realistically expect to defeat Russia outright. Instead, the strategy seems to aim at creating prolonged instability, not only in Ukraine but across Europe.

The ongoing war is devastating Ukraine, transforming the country into a battleground for larger geopolitical ambitions. Infrastructure, economy, and human lives are being obliterated, leaving little room for a stable or prosperous post-war future. This destruction is less a byproduct than a feature of U.S. policy, ensuring that Ukraine remains dependent on Western support while serving as a buffer zone against Russia.

Europe: A Pawn in the Game

The U.S.’s actions reveal a willingness to sacrifice Europe on the altar of its waning imperial dominance. By encouraging European governments to adopt increasingly confrontational stances against Russia, the U.S. has drawn its allies into a dangerous game. Europe is now facing skyrocketing energy costs, economic instability, and rising social unrest, all consequences of its alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives. European leaders appear to follow Washington’s directives unquestioningly, even at the expense of their own nations’ security and prosperity.

The possibility of a large-scale war between NATO and Russia would have catastrophic consequences for Europe, a reality that seems lost on many European leaders. With its geographical proximity to Russia, Europe would bear the brunt of such a conflict, suffering immense human and economic losses. NATO’s military capabilities, while formidable, are unlikely to secure a decisive victory against Russia, whose defense strategy is deeply entrenched and bolstered by its nuclear arsenal. Thus, any attempt to escalate the war would amount to a suicidal gambit for Europe.

The U.S. Empire’s Last Stand

The United States’ aggressive posture must be understood in the context of its declining global influence. Historically, empires have risen and fallen, and the U.S. is no exception. The unipolar moment that followed the Cold War has given way to a multipolar world, with rising powers like China, India, and Russia challenging U.S. hegemony. Faced with economic stagnation, political polarization, and a loss of credibility on the global stage, the U.S. appears to be lashing out in a desperate attempt to maintain its dominance.

By destabilizing Europe, the U.S. seeks to eliminate potential rivals while consolidating its influence. A weakened and dependent Europe would be less likely to pursue an independent foreign policy, ensuring its continued alignment with U.S. interests. This strategy mirrors historical patterns of declining empires dragging their allies and adversaries into chaos in a bid to delay the inevitable.

Europe’s Hypnotized Leadership

One of the most baffling aspects of this situation is the apparent complicity of European leaders. Despite clear evidence that their policies are harming their own populations, European governments continue to follow Washington’s lead. This behavior suggests either a profound lack of strategic foresight or an ideological commitment to the transatlantic alliance that blinds them to the risks.

The willingness of European leaders to gamble with their nations’ security and prosperity underscores the perilous nature of the current geopolitical order. Rather than acting as responsible stewards of their citizens’ welfare, they have embraced a course that could lead to widespread destruction.

The Suicidal Logic of Escalation

Expanding the war to include direct attacks on Russian territory and potentially drawing NATO into open conflict is not a path to victory but to disaster. Russia’s military strategy and vast resources make it an impossible target for complete subjugation, and any large-scale war would likely result in mutual destruction. European nations, as the immediate neighbors of Russia, would bear the heaviest costs, with their civilian populations caught in the crossfire.

The U.S. deep state’s strategy, therefore, appears not only reckless but self-defeating. While it may temporarily delay the decline of U.S. hegemony, it risks alienating allies, destabilizing entire regions, and accelerating the emergence of a multipolar world order.

Conclusion

The U.S.’s aggressive policies in Ukraine and Europe reflect the desperation of a declining empire attempting to maintain its dominance at all costs. By sacrificing Ukraine and destabilizing Europe, the U.S. aims to consolidate its influence while undermining potential rivals. However, this strategy is ultimately unsustainable and risks catastrophic consequences for all parties involved. For Europe, the choice is clear: either break free from Washington’s grip and pursue an independent course or continue down a path that leads to self-destruction. History has shown that no empire lasts forever, and the U.S.’s attempt to defy this truth will only hasten its fall.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 2016.

Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Henry Holt and Company, 2000.

Nazemroayana, Madi Darius. The Globalization of NATO. SCB Distributors, 2012.

Perkins, John. The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2016.

Tainter, Joseph A. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press,1990.

Featured image source

Brianne Dressed enrolled in a clinical trial for AstraZeneca‘s Covid vaccine in 2020 in a bid to help the pharma giant develop a vaccine that would end the pandemic.

She was among the first group of Americans to receive the then-experimental Covid shot and said she felt like she was ‘doing my bit’ and thought it would be safe.

But Ms Dressen would never return to get her second dose, suffering from such a severe reaction within an hour of her first injection that she says she is now nearly completely disabled and was left spending months contemplating suicide just to ‘escape’ the pain.

And while the physical pain is excruciating — with her body vibrating daily as though she is being electrocuted, she said — she has now been outcast by many friends and family as an anti-vaxxer. Due to the pain, she is also struggling to care for her two children, 10 and 12.

Speaking to DailyMail.com, the 43-year-old said:

‘The pain is something that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. This is the first thing I feel when I wake up in the morning and the last thing I feel when I go to sleep at night.

‘My body feels like it is being electrocuted all the time, like this jarring sharp electrical sensation that moves throughout my body, head to toe, fingers, you know.

‘There is no peace, no rest, no reprieve, the only time I get a break is when I take a whole lot of meds that allow me to sleep for a few hours — but I know that when I do this I am borrowing time from my future.’

In 2021, scientists at the National Institutes of Health diagnosed Ms Dressen with post-vaccine neuropathy — an extremely rare condition that occurs when a patient experiences tingling, numbness and weakness in their body following vaccination. 

It can happen because proteins on the surface of some viruses are similar to those on nerve cells, causing the immune system to misfire and start to attack the nervous system.

Ms Dressen, from Utah, was bedbound for months after first developing the complication because of the pain, and found herself unable to use her legs.

Now, with the help of medications, she can move again, but remains in constant pain and can’t feel anything in her legs.

Ms Dressen says she is not anti-vax, and says she was actually very much in the ‘mainstream mindset’ regarding vaccines, before her reaction.

She had helped to get face masks for the local hospital and heard of two other friends also taking part in clinical trials who had no issues.

As part of the AstraZeneca trial, Ms Dressen said she signed a consent form that stated the pharma giant would support her financially if she suffered from a serious side effect due to the vaccine. 

DailyMail.com has not reviewed this consent form and cannot confirm Ms Dressen’s claims. 

But Ms Dressen says to date the company has only sent her $590, which pales in comparison to the up to $400,000 she says she must spend annually for her medications.

In May, she sued AstraZeneca for breach of contract, and the case is now working its way through the Utah courts.

Covid vaccines are estimated to have prevented more than 3.2million deaths and 18.5million hospital admissions in the United States alone, according to estimates.

More than 270million people in the United States received a Covid vaccine, with more than 677million doses administered. 

But the AstraZeneca shot was never approved in the US because of concerns over the vaccine causing blood clots in rare cases. It was, however, approved in Europe. 

Thousands have since come forward saying they believe that Covid vaccines have left them with serious injuries that have permanently changed their lives.

The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which was set up by the US Government to assist those who say they suffered a vaccine injury, has received more than 14,000 applications from people claiming they suffered a vaccine injury.

And resulting vaccine injuries are taking a mental toll as well. The UK CV Family — which represents people who believe they were injured by Covid vaccines — found in a survey that 73 percent of its members had considered suicide because of their injury.

Many who say they have suffered injuries from vaccines also reveal how friends and family have shunned them because of the stigma around speaking up about their injuries.

Ms Dressen’s battle began within an hour of receiving the vaccine on November 4, 2020. She suffered from a tingling sensation like pins and needles in the arm that was injected with the shot.

It spread throughout her body and she was rushed to the ER four times in the following months seeking treatment. Doctors were not sure what to do, however, because the vaccine was still being trialed.

It was at this time she revealed she was losing the will to live, and turned to thoughts of suicide as a way to ease the pain.

She said:

 ‘It wasn’t like a small moment in time that I wanted to end my life, it was over several months.

‘It wasn’t like I was pacing around the house like, “I am going to die”, it was me being totally silent and not being able to move and just fantasizing about an escape.

‘It is not actually that people with these vaccine injuries want to die, we just need a break.’

AstraZeneca has accepted no responsibility for the injuries Ms Dressen suffered.

After a recent hearing for her case, Ms Dressen said she has learned ‘everything I needed to know about this company’.

Image: Ms Dressen is pictured above at a hearing where she explained her experience to officials

She said:

‘There is no interest there whatsoever to help me. 

‘They are going to fight this every step of the way and… they called my lawyers and said they would appeal the initial decision.

‘My medications are about $180,000 to $400,000 a year, we had to re-mortgage our home, I can no longer work, lots of income has been replaced with a mountain of medical bills — it has been a dramatic change in our quality of life.’ 

A spokesperson for AstraZeneca did not return a DailyMail.com request for comment.

Ms Dressen spoke to DailyMail.com ahead of the release of her book on November 26, which is titled: ‘Worth a Shot?: Secrets of the Clinical Trial Participant Who Inspired a Global Movement.’

All proceeds from sales of the book are to be donated to React19 and UKCVFamily. 

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

Featured image: Brianne Dressen, 42, is suing AstraZeneca after taking part in their Covid vaccine trial. She said their shot left her ‘permanently disabled’

---

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. 

The High Court of Kenya has struck a critical blow against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, suspending a series of highly controversial legal immunities and privileges recently awarded to it in the country. Reported locally but largely ignored by the international legacy/mainstream media, the ruling raises important questions about the power and privileges wielded by Gates and other super-wealthy philanthro-capitalists operating in developing countries.

The court order, issued by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, suspends the ‘Privileges and Immunities (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) Order, 2024’, effectively stripping the Gates organization, its directors, and agents of various legal shields awarded to them by Kenya’s government. This comes amidst growing scrutiny of the Foundation’s operations, which many observers say blur the line between altruism and influence-peddling.

The privileges, which included tax exemptions and protection from legal proceedings, had quickly sparked outrage among Kenyan legal experts and civil society after they were awarded. The Law Society of Kenya therefore challenged the move in court, asserting it violated Kenya’s Privileges and Immunities Act.

The law organization argued that such legal shields are typically reserved for diplomatic or humanitarian entities, not private foundations. In doing so, it reflected public concern that the decision to grant these types of immunities had undermined the principles of transparency and accountability and that no entity, regardless of its claimed benevolent goals, should be allowed to operate above the law.

Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi, who endorsed the immunities, has attempted to justify them by citing the Gates Foundation’s supposed contributions to combating global poverty, disease, and inequality. However, critics contend that this ignores the significant sway Gates has over governments, particularly in sectors like healthcare and agriculture, where he funds and influences key programs.

The Gates Foundation has similarly tried to defend the arrangement, claiming it aligned with international norms. But this has failed to quell the growing unease over Gates and his Kenyan activities.

An Extreme Concentration of Wealth and Power

The Kenyan court’s decision has reignited debates over the interference of super-wealthy philanthrocapitalists in the affairs of African nations. Such individuals frequently act as unaccountable power brokers, bypassing democratic processes while advancing their personal interests. The Gates Foundation has been widely accused of having a disproportionate influence on public policy in developing countries, and of prioritizing its own agenda over local needs.

The case is slated to return to court in February 2025, for further deliberations. In the meantime, not only will the Gates Foundation’s operations in Kenya almost inevitably now come under even greater scrutiny, but the broader implications of the ruling could well resonate far beyond the country’s borders.

Wherever it operates, the extreme concentration of wealth and power in the Gates Foundation presents clear challenges to national sovereignty. Moreover, the organization’s apparent ability to secure sweeping, diplomatic-style immunity raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability. At the very least, therefore, Gates would appear to be facing some uncomfortable questions in the months ahead. With his credibility rapidly evaporating, he only has himself to blame.

---

Let Us Recall Kenya: A 500,000 Petition Called for an Investigation 

“An online petition is calling on the White House to investigate Bill Gates and Melinda Gates for “crimes against humanity” and “medical malpractice”.

The petition received more than 500,000 signatures as of 11th May 2020.

 

By Muslim Mirror Web Desk

The petition accuses the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of “medical malpractice” for citing an accusation of “intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines.” The petition also quoted Bill Gates’ when talking about his interest in “reducing population growth” by means of vaccinations.

In Y2014, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Kenya conducted a study on the 5-injection, 2 yr vaccination project performed on female Kenyans aged 14-49, in a South African laboratory and concluded that “all 6 samples tested positive for the HCG antigen.”

---

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Since Wednesday, November 27, a ceasefire has been in effect between Israel and Lebanon. The proposal, developed by France and the US, calls on both Hezbollah and the Israeli army to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

The truce is initially set for a period of 60 days. During this time, Israel must withdraw behind the international border, while Hezbollah must retreat behind the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometers north of the Israeli border.

The Lebanese army will be responsible for monitoring the border in coordination with UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping force in the area, and will oversee maintaining calm in the region. Five countries, including France and the US, will supervise compliance with the agreement.

A Victory?

Hostilities began on October 8, 2023, the day after the surprise attack from Gaza against Israel. At the end of September 2024, the Israeli regime escalated its war against Lebanon. Netanyahu updated his war objectives, vowing to redraw the map of the Middle East and determined to bring hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens back to their homes in the north of the country.

These residents had fled due to Hezbollah’s rocket attacks from Lebanon. Hezbollah justified these attacks as a response to the genocide in Gaza and declared from day one that there would be an immediate ceasefire if Israel stopped its invasion of Gaza.

The Israeli government is eager to portray this temporary truce as a victory, but for many Israelis, it falls short of their expectations. The reality is that Israel needed this ceasefire.

In recent weeks, Israel has struggled with dwindling ammunition supplies. On Tuesday, November 26, Netanyahu himself stated that replenishing munitions stockpiles was one of the primary reasons for the ceasefire.

Additionally, the strain on military reservists, who have been fighting for months, is becoming unsustainable. More than 140 civilians and soldiers on the Israeli side have been killed in this conflict, which is a significant number by Israeli standards. According to Yaakov Amidror, a former national security advisor to Netanyahu, Israel “cannot afford another year of war” on this scale in the north.

In other words, the pause in fighting serves to give Israeli troops a moment of respite and allow stockpiles to be replenished. Practically speaking, it buys time for the US and other arms suppliers to deliver more weapons, which Israel will deploy at an accelerated pace.

While Hezbollah has suffered significant blows, it has not been neutralized, let alone eliminated, nor has the “redrawing of the Middle East” materialized. According to Iran expert Peyman Jafari, Hezbollah might even be more dangerous now than before.

In Lebanon, sympathy for Hezbollah has grown, as many citizens view Israeli military attacks as assaults on the country rather than on the group. According to Jafari, support for Hezbollah has also increased throughout the Middle East.

What’s Next?

Between October 7, 2023, and September 20, 2024, Israel carried out more than 8,000 attacks against Hezbollah and other armed groups in Lebanon. The past two months saw even more intense fighting, resulting in over 3,700 Lebanese deaths, including an unknown number of fighters. Around 1 million civilians, or more than a quarter of Lebanon’s population, were forced to flee their homes.

Since the Israeli military failed to neutralize Hezbollah or gain control over the area south of the Litani River — the main goal of its ground invasion — it expanded its airstrikes to nearly all of Lebanese territory, with central Beirut being a major target. The damage inflicted on the country is enormous.

Israel completely failed to capture southern Lebanon and resorted to leveraging air power to exert pressure. Lebanon, lacking air defenses and a functional national army, was unable to respond effectively.

The agreement reached is highly unbalanced. Hezbollah’s armed resistance is forced to retreat dozens of kilometers within its own territory, while the Israeli army is allowed to remain stationed right at the border.

Moreover, Israel reserves the right to launch attacks if Hezbollah violates the truce. Given Israel’s military history, finding a pretext for such actions would not be difficult.

This ceasefire is, therefore, extremely fragile. On the very first day, the Israeli army fired four times at Lebanese civilians. Israel has stated it will intervene militarily again if it deems it necessary.

Israel can now refocus its attention on Gaza, where it seems increasingly intent on colonizing parts of the territory. According to The Economist, amidst catastrophic destruction, new buildings are rising. These include large outposts for the Israeli army along newly paved roads in strategic locations. These roads divide the Gaza Strip in two and cut it off from Egypt.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to receive new arms shipments from the US. President Biden recently approved a $680 million arms deal with the Zionist state, including precision weapons. This is in addition to the approximately $20 billion in arms sales approved by Congress last week.

In April, Congress approved a total of $26 billion in additional military aid for Israel, on top of the $3.8 billion in “security assistance” that the US provides annually. The genocide must go on.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

Marc Vandepitte is a member of the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity and was an observer during the presidential elections in Venezuela. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from L’Orient Le Jour/Muntasser Abdallah

Dutch Minister of Health Acknowledges that The Pandemic Policy is a Military Operation. “The Ministry of Health Obeys NATO and NCTV”

Outraged Human, November 8, 2024

Most Censored Paper on Earth: The Lancet-Censored “Sudden Death” COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Has Been Peer-Reviewed and Published

Dr. William Makis, November 18, 2024

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 12, 2024

COVID mRNA Vaccine Injury: 5-11 Year Olds Are Dropping Dead From Heart Attacks

Dr. William Makis, November 7, 2024

Long-Range Missiles Targeting Russia – Last Minute Efforts to Stop President-Elect Trump From Taking Office? Peter Koenig

Peter Koenig, November 19, 2024

Video: The Mysterious Death of the Inventor of the PCR Test, Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis

Greg Reese, November 9, 2024

RussiaGate 2.0. (2024-25): Donald Trump and the Manchurian Candidate. Regime Change in America

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 13, 2024

UK Government Report Admits AIDS Is Surging Among Covid-Vaccinated

Hunter Fielding, November 6, 2024

5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will be a Catastrophe for Humanity

Makia Freeman, November 5, 2024

Russia’s Final Warning to NATO – You’ll Get Your War, But It’ll be Over in 15 Minutes.

Drago Bosnic, November 24, 2024

Trump’s Picks Are All Neocon Warhawks Ferociously Devoted to Israel

Mike Whitney, November 15, 2024

German Government Admits There Was No Pandemic

Baxter Dmitry, November 8, 2024

Here’s What Trump’s Peace Plan Might Look Like and Why Russia Might Agree to It

Andrew Korybko, November 7, 2024

The Next 60 Days Will be the Most Dangerous of Your Life

The Schiller Institute, November 22, 2024

Endorse Robert F. Kennedy Jr: The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking. We Call Upon its Immediate Cancellation!

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 15, 2024

Did Biden Really Authorize Long-range Strikes Deeper Within Russia? NYT Quoting “Anonymous Officials”

Drago Bosnic, November 19, 2024

The BRICS’ 16th Summit in Kazan Revisited. “Not All That Glitters Is Gold.” “BRICS Nations Follow the Same Globalist Agenda.” Peter Koenig and David Skripac

David Skripac, November 2, 2024

The Smoking Gun: Who Started the War? Was It Russia or Was It US-NATO? NATO Confirms That the Ukraine “War Started in 2014”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 27, 2024

We Are Faced with the Extraordinary Event that Washington Chose to Go to War with Russia

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, November 22, 2024

US Elections 2024: The Mechanism of Fraud. Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci, November 5, 2024

Why the United States Will Lose a War with Russia

By Mike Whitney, November 28, 2024

Most Americans continue to believe that the United States will prevail in a conventional war with Russia. But that is simply not the case. For starters, Russia’s state-of-the-art missile technology and missile defense systems are vastly superior to those produced by western weapons manufacturers.

The USDA Permits the Dangers Lurking in Animal-Based Foods. Fish and Dairy Additives, Microplastics, Improper Meat Handling…

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, November 28, 2024

At this point in history, the presence of natural hormones in cow’s milk and their effect on us seems almost minor compared to the dangers due to the over-industrialization of animal-raising today. Another pollutant of milk and dairy products that accompanies the raising of livestock industrially is recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is routinely injected in dairy cattle to increase milk production.

Ceasefire Between Israel and Hezbollah, But Which Side Won?

By Steven Sahiounie, November 28, 2024

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah went into effect at 4 am, local time, on November 27. Israel carried out intensive airstrikes in Beirut prior to the deadline killing 18 people, and by the time the deal went into effect the smell of explosives was hanging heavy the air.

Breaking: Russia May Hit Somewhere? NATO Bases?

By Peter Koenig, November 28, 2024

With NATO’s pride and incalculable arrogance, any Russian counter-attack, preventive and non-nuclear, to be sure, could trigger a NATO retribution directly on Russia, maybe Moscow. Russia would be ready with one or several ICBM Oreshnik, remote guided 10-Mach missiles, loaded with or without tactical nuclear war heads, directed at NATO bases anywhere.

Iraq: Are There Any Tears Left? Felicity Arbuthnot

By Felicity Arbuthnot, November 28, 2024

In the Inquisition-scale horrors inflicted upon Iraq over the past 21 years, the ghosts of the Western-imposed human cull of the previous 13 years flicker briefly in the light of yet another atrocity. But they always return – as they must – in a sight, a scent, a phrase or a phone call, reminders of the overwhelming sins of those in high places, as our ‘leaders’ in Washington and Whitehall bleat about their infantile ‘war on terror’ and ‘rogue states’.

Top Molecular Scientist Confirms DNA Contamination in COVID ‘Vaccines’ Integrates into Human Cells

By Frank Bergman, November 28, 2024

A leading American molecular scientist has issued an explosive warning after making an alarming discovery about the DNA contamination in Covid mRNA “vaccines.” The red alert was issued by Dr. Phillip J. Buckhaults, a professor in the Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences at the University of South Carolina.

Darya Dugina: In Belgrade, a Touching Tribute to a Noble Martyr

By Stephen Karganovic, November 28, 2024

Whether Darya Dugina was a martyr in the religious meaning of the expression is not for us to decide. But in secular terms, the gruesome circumstances that claimed the life of this remarkable young woman, who was also a beautiful human being, undoubtedly do elevate her to the rank of martyr.

US President-elect Donald Trump has promised to raise tariffs on Chinese exports by 10% until the problem of drug trafficking is resolved while also threatening to impose a 25% tariff on products from Mexico and Canada until the migration crisis is addressed. However, his tariffs are not only targeted at the US’ neighbors and China but also Europe, which will only hurt an already struggling Germany.

“Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America,” Trump said on his Truth Social network.

The former president also stated that Chinese officials have never kept their promise to combat drug trafficking, which enters the US, mainly through Mexico, “at levels never seen before.”

Trump also promised tariffs on Mexico and Canada over drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” the billionaire said. “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long-simmering problem.”

The president-elect accused thousands of people of crossing illegally into the US through its northern and southern neighbors, “bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before.”

One of the Republican’s signature promises during his presidential campaign was to combat illegal immigration to the US. In this regard, he offered to undertake a mass deportation as soon as he returns to the White House.

On November 4, during a rally in North Carolina, Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Mexican products if the government of President Claudia Sheinbaum does not prevent the entry of migrants and drugs into the US across the shared border.

In response, Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said on November 12 that Mexico could respond with tariffs against the US if the Trump administration decides to take such a measure against the Latin American country.

“If you apply a 25% tariff to me, I have to react with tariffs, and I am your main importer, along with Canada,” he declared on Radio Fórmula.

According to him, this decision would have several repercussions for the US, including inflation.

However, not only the US’s neighbors, Canada and Mexico, and longtime trade adversary, China, are facing Trump’s wrath, but also Germany, the European Union’s most important but beleaguered economy. Germany is experiencing the biggest decline in growth of any developed country, the Financial Times reported, and this situation could worsen as economists warn of the serious vulnerability of the German economy to Trump’s new tariff plans.

The German economy will grow by just 0.6% in 2025, down from the 1.2% forecast for mid-year, the paper reports, citing data from the Consensus Economics survey. Germany’s real GDP has been stagnant since the second half of 2021, and the decline in industrial production – which remains 10% below its pre-COVID-19 level in December 2019 – has never stopped.

The German economy, which has relied on a strong export-oriented industrial sector for many decades, especially in the US, is in a particularly precarious position after Trump, who had promised to impose higher tariffs on European goods, won the presidential election. The extent to which German manufacturers are dependent on the US market is illustrated by the fact that the US accounted for 10% of German exports in 2023 – the highest figure in more than two decades – and Germany’s trade surplus with the US in 2023 reached a record €63.3 billion.

However, economists warn that Germany could suffer the consequences even before the introduction of a tariff as companies will stop investing in their country due to persistent uncertainty. In fact, they warn that the largest ones could relocate even more of their production to the US.

But it is not just German exports that will suffer. Life will become more difficult for local companies, even in their home market. For example, Chinese manufacturers will divert their cut-price products to the EU if US tariffs are even higher than those of their European counterparts, resulting in local producers facing increased competition and margins being squeezed even further.

As seen from Trump’s intentions to impose tariffs, his efforts to ensure that the US continues being the world economic powerhouse against the Chinese challenge do not only target adversaries but even neighboring countries and close NATO allies.

Whether this aggressive policy will lead to inflation, as Marcelo Ebrard predicts, remains to be seen, but what is certain is that partnerships and alliances mean little to the incoming Trump administration.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

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 source

O desespero do regime de Kiev por causa da vitória republicana nos EUA parece cada vez mais claro. Os políticos em Kiev não estavam preparados para a vitória de Donald Trump, pois apostavam que os democratas triunfariam na corrida em Washington. Agora os ucranianos estão a tentar apressadamente apresentar um “Plano B”, ao mesmo tempo que mostram hostilidade aberta para com Trump.

De acordo com uma notícia recente publicada nos meios de comunicação locais ucranianos, a vitória de Trump foi uma surpresa para Zelensky e os seus apoiadores – que não acreditavam que o republicano iria realmente vencer. Agora, altos funcionários do regime estão a tentar encontrar uma forma de impedir que Trump cumpra a sua promessa eleitoral de “acabar com a guerra”.

Acredita-se que o republicano deixará de enviar armas e começará a fazer lobby para novas negociações diplomáticas entre Moscou e Kiev, o que seria extremamente prejudicial para o regime neonazista – já que durante quase três anos Zelensky tem prometido à opinião pública ucraniana e ocidental uma posição de absoluta “vitória”.

Fontes entrevistadas pelo jornal ucraniano Ukrainska Pravda afirmaram que não havia dúvidas entre políticos e responsáveis ​​sobre a vitória de Kamala Harris. O artigo menciona ainda que o chefe da equipe presidencial ucraniana, Andrey Yermak, afirmou durante uma reunião que “não há necessidade de entrar em pânico,já que Kamala vencerá”. Neste sentido, não houve preparação para um “cenário Trump”, uma vez que todos esperavam um sucesso democrata fácil.

O jornal explicou que os políticos ucranianos não tiveram tempo para preparar um “Plano B”. Estavam tão convencidos de que Trump perderia que nem sequer se preocuparam em pensar noutro caminho. Como resultado, a Ucrânia está agora sem quaisquer orientações ou projetos, não sabendo como garantir o apoio militar irrestrito lançado por Biden.

O principal receio da Ucrânia é obviamente o fim da ajuda, uma vez que a assistência é absolutamente necessária para o regime manter as suas políticas de guerra draconianas. Sem o apoio americano, não há possibilidade de a Ucrânia continuar a lutar a longo prazo. Com o seu exército à beira do colapso, Kiev só pode implorar por mais armas, dinheiro, mercenários e equipamento.

A situação torna-se ainda mais grave considerando o fato de que, além da falta de preparação da Ucrânia, há também hostilidade por parte do regime para com os apoiadores de Trump. Os chamados “MAGA” – como são chamados os “Trumpistas” – são frequentemente insultados e difamados em Kiev. Por exemplo, o jornal ucraniano informou que as suas fontes descreveram o oligarca americano Elon Musk e o filho do presidente eleito, Donald Trump Jr., como políticos que “não são amigos” de Kiev.

Obviamente, cada afirmação tem graves consequências na esfera política. A agressividade da junta de Kiev em relação ao novo presidente dos EUA só irá piorar as fricções e, com Kiev a iniciar tais crises, há poucas chances de Trump ceder na sua decisão de cortar despesas militares.

Na verdade, Zelensky não foi o único que foi enganado quanto ao resultado das eleições americanas. As principais pesquisas indicavam que Kamala Harris venceria. Muitas pessoas foram guiadas por informações falsas antes das eleições e depois acreditaram que os Democratas estavam perto da vitória.

Como resultado de tal vitória, o apoio à Ucrânia estaria salvaguardado nos próximos anos. O fato de Trump ter obtido uma vitória substancial na eleição mostra como os grandes meios de comunicação mentem deliberadamente nas suas “pesquisas de opinião”. É claro que Trump já era o favorito do povo americano, mas os jornais distorceram a realidade para induzir mais cidadãos a votarem nele – tentando assim desesperadamente “mudar o jogo”.

Na verdade, se a Ucrânia fosse verdadeiramente um país soberano, não haveria preocupação quanto ao resultado das eleições americanas. Os Estados soberanos preocupam-se apenas com as eleições nacionais, enquanto negociam livremente com quem está no poder noutro país. Contudo, as nações fracas e dependentes desesperam com qualquer movimento político no exterior, porque devem adaptar-se rapidamente às orientações de cada novo governo.

Trump certamente terá dificuldades em tentar implantar o seu plano para “acabar com a guerra”. O mais provável é que o político republicano fracasse face à pressão ocidental, cancele os seus planos anteriores e continue o apoio militar – mesmo que reduzido.

Contudo, independentemente do futuro, é inegável que Trump trabalha com uma mentalidade empresarial e pragmática, razão pela qual não faz sentido para ele continuar a gastar milhares de milhões numa guerra invencível na Ucrânia.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Zelensky and his team ‘not ready’ for Trump, 28 de November de 2024

Imagem :  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

 

This article was first published by Cuba Debate in Spanish in September 2010. (Translation by Cuba Debate).

***

 

On Thursday, Michel Chossudovsky, professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, was invited to appear on the Mesa Redonda television program. He participated along with Osvaldo Martinez, director of the Research Center on World Economics.

Of course, I listened to their debate with particular interest. Chossudovsky spoke in Spanish and showed a complete command of the issues at hand. He is scrupulous about the meaning of words, including phrases coined in English to precisely express a certain idea when they do not have equivalent terms in Spanish.

Chossudovsky said that in the United States an inescapable systemic crisis has been created, which they are trying to resolve by employing the same measures that caused it. 

He explained that there has been an impoverishment of all social groups, which affects the workers and middle class much more than the rich. 

The U.S. government is calling for austerity measures at a global level, and applying “remedies” and “prescriptions” that are the cause of the crisis, also faced with the necessity of financing military spending and bailing out banks.

He confirmed that they have been preparing for war against Iran since 2003, and are also threatening Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon and other countries in this vast region.

He energetically criticized the justification for the introduction of the so-called mini-nuke into the arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, and of the doctrine that was widely promoted prior to their introduction, in an attempt to argue that the mini-nuke is safe for civilians (safe for the surrounding civilian population, because the explosion is underground) in English he explained. 

He noted the irony of how the mini-nukes included bombs with an explosive capacity between one-third and six times that of the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.

image left: B61-12 Tactical nuclear weapon

Let us press on immediately with the synthesis of Chossudovsky’s academic address to the students and teachers at the Faculty of Economics, University of Havana:

“… I want to mention one thing that is very important […] this war is not a war that creates jobs […] It is true that the Second World War did create jobs, in Germany under the Nazi regime […]. That is simply a factual observation. […]

The same in the United States at the beginning of the Second World War, which started for them in 1941; there was job creation and that was the way out of the Great Depression under President Roosevelt. But this war (referring to a Third World War) is not of the same type; it is a high-tech war, not a war whereby military equipment is assembled or manufactured . The war in Viet Nam created jobs, as did the Korean War. This war is a war characterized by a very sophisticated weapons system, employing highly advanced scientific manpower, engineers and the like … “

“… any first year student knows that if you impose austerity measures at a national and global level —as proposed at the G-20 meetings and also under the auspices of the International Settlements Bank, which represents the central banks—, there is a sort of consensus that to solve the crisis we have to implement austerity measures, that austerity measures are not a solution, but a cause of the crisis. Cutting the budget, cutting spending, cutting credit to small and medium enterprises at the same time increases unemployment levels and reduces salaries. This is the case in most European countries.”

“Spain and Portugal have unemployment rates above 20 percent, officially; the key issue here is that the proposed solution, not only nationally, but in all countries, pronounced by the neoliberal consensus, is that we have to implement austerity measures … “

“… but the stagnation of the civilian economy caused, in a first instance, because of the transfer of wealth, not just in recent years but let’s say from the beginning of the 1980s, when the so-called era of neoliberal policies began which also led to stagnation in the civilian economy […] if we talk about the United States, these measures were implemented at the end of the Bill Clinton administration […] the Financial Services Modernization Act, but they have created a financial system that is not regulated, and that is involved, shall we say, in semi-illegal activities. In some ways it is the criminalization of the financial apparatus, and that is not just a word I’m just using, many analysts, including The Wall Street Journal are talking about the criminalization, because there was financial fraud in recent years, and those who have committed this fraud are not being punished.”

“… an economic crisis, in my opinion the worst in history, without precedent, not even the 1930s, which was a very localized crisis, not a global crisis as such, it had a dynamic in certain countries and regions of the world. “

“… the financial war is closely linked to the war in the military sector, there are even links between the World Bank and the Pentagon. […] former United States Defense ministers became presidents of the World Bank […] the new world order is run by financial manipulation mechanisms […] regime changes, destabilization of governments and military operations of various kinds […] capitalism has institutions, both civilian and military, that work together, this is a very important concept. Behind these institutions are the intellectuals, the think tanks in Washington, there are secret clubs for the elites [… ] the process of war, which now threatens humanity, is important at all levels of society.”

“… war is classified as a criminal act, the Nuremberg Convention states this […] It is the ultimate criminal act. War is a crime against peace. […] we have indications that this economic crisis led to a concentration of wealth, in a few years, and a centralization of economic power that is unprecedented in history […] this crisis is not spontaneous, as presented in the neoliberal economy, it is the result of manipulation, of planning, and, at the same time, there is a military component.

With these words, Chossudovsky concluded his address and expressed his willingness to answer questions: “…I will leave the issue of resistance and how to reverse this process for you to debate,” he said.

The students’ questions were intelligent and serious. From them I have only repeated the essential ideas.

“Moderator: I believe I convey the sentiments of all present, in thanking Dr. Michel Chossudovsky for the excellent address he has given us, which has provided us with even more awareness about the causes and consequences of the real dangers that threaten humanity … ”

“… we will proceed with the questions that the audience deems pertinent for our guest.”

“A student: … we would like to know […] your view on the optimism that has been presented in the media over the current crisis situation in Latin America, what is your opinion about the possibilities of addressing this crisis in the region … ”

“Thank you”

“Michel Chossudovsky:  The Caribbean region is identified as a region extremely rich in both oil and gas, and not just Venezuela and Colombia, the truth is that there are known reserves because the oil companies have information that is not public; but what is public is that this region is extremely rich.

“The situation in Haiti is also linked to a project of resource appropriation […] the humanitarian situation […] allows capital to gain access to mineral resources and potential oil resources in the region. […] I’m not saying that’s the only reason for the militarization of the region. The other is drug trafficking.”

“… there are geographic, geopolitical and resource objectives […] but also drug trafficking, because it is a very important source of profits for capital.”

“… there are two axes of the global drug trade, one is Afghanistan and Pakistan, which represents the heroin trade, and the other is Colombia, Peru, Bolivia. The transfer goes through Haiti and other Caribbean countries to the U.S. market. […] Afghanistan is an enormously rich country, it annually produces about $200 billion in revenues from the export of heroin, at least according to my estimates. Since the U.S. forces entered into Afghanistan, heroin production has increased 30 fold. Well, I digress.”

“The militarization of the region and operations in Ecuador, an oil power, Venezuela, an oil power, Mexico is also an oil power. These are all countries that have a strategic role in the geopolitics of the U.S. economy. ”

Fidel Castro and Michel Chossudovsky, Havana, October 2010

 

“A student: I am a student at the Faculty of Economics …”

“My question is: Is globalization, as it has been sold[ promoted] as presented by the so-called developed countries, currently viable or are there other alternatives, such as integration models?

“Thanks.”

“Michel Chossudovsky: It is certainly not viable.

Globalization, as defined by the centers of power is not viable. Perhaps it is viable for one sector, a social minority that becomes richer, but it leads to impoverishment, and that is now very well documented. It is part of a process that has affected developing countries over the past 30 years. You can see the consequences in neighboring countries, the impoverishment that exists in Brazil, Mexico, Peru, a product of that destructive model. […] There are many countries that have presented different development models, as in the case of Yugoslavia.”

“… Yugoslavia had a socialist system, a market economy, a mixed economy with a high standard of living, social services, education, and what did they do? Since the beginning of the 1980s it was completely destroyed and fragmented into many countries, half a dozen countries. Why? Because Yugoslavia represented a model, an alternative that did not suit them.”

“… we can also look at the experiences of Latin America: Chile created an alternative, but then was subjected to a military coup and a process of destabilization that was carried out by the United States intelligence services, by sabotage, by embargoes and such, because I experienced that coup.
“There are many examples: Tanzania, in Africa, Algeria, there are many countries that have tried. Indonesia for example, in the 1960s there was also a very important process […] In 1965 a military coup, once again supported by the CIA, killed more than 500,000 people in planned kilings and a military regime was imposed, which ceded to U.S. interests. ”

“… We must produce an economic model of society as alternative to global capitalism. We can do it. But all the alternatives, including the Cuban model, are the subject of sabotage, embargoes, measures of destabilization, assassinations. That is the truth. ”

“… Iraq is not a socialist country, but a country that has a certain autonomy. It is a state that does not want to be manipulated, and they do not even want to accept capitalism, is not theirs. That’s the world today, there are countries that are capitalist but are enemies of the United States, China is capitalist in a way, Russia too, but Russia’s style of capitalism does not suit their interests, and they want to militarily destabilize or destroy any attempt against the economic and geopolitical hegemony of the United States and its allies. ”

“A Professor:  Your presentation, your lecture was excellent.  I used to be scared of war, after listening to you, I´m terrified, but I´d like to ask you something.

“At present, there are still Americans who never heard about the Viet Nam War. So my question is the following: What do you think must be done to raise awareness in the U.S. in order to prevent an event that, if it occurs, will have unpredictable economic, political and social consequences?

“Michel Chossudovsky: That is our main concern. More than half of those who visit our Website are readers from the United States, and I would say that most authors are also from the U.S. The point is that we have to expose the lies of the media; we have to fight the sources of the lies, because if the American people know the truth, the power and the legitimacy of their leaders will fade overnight. What happens in the United States is that the media, television, print and the Internet are spreading a view which is largely biased.”

“…As they listen to these inquisitorial discourses, they accept what is false, they accept the lies; and once the lie becomes the truth, you cannot have any real reflection and the debate terminates. This is all part of a war propaganda that reaches all levels of society, that tries to hide the real face of war. The number of civilians killed in Iraq is 2 million, according to estimates by well-known sources, such as the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. There have been 2 million civilian deaths since they arrived in 2003. Add that to the 4 million deaths in the Congo and to one fourth of the Korean population that was killed from bombardments during the Korean War. These facts are known, but not by the public.

[…] there is censorship, but more than censorship is the manipulation of information. […] we have to fight the media, this is crucial. We have to set up anti-war networks in all municipalities across the United States, in Canada, and the whole world. We need to hold debates, gain knowledge, because we have an intelligent population, but one that is subjected to the constant pressures of conformism and from an authority that tells them the truth, which is in fact a lie.”

“…I will make an effort to give brief responses, though your questions are very forceful, so I cannot be that brief sometimes.”

“A student: I’d like to know if it is possible to achieve a technological change in favor of clean technologies to stop the current ecological crisis.”

“Michel Chossudovsky:  Yes, that is a fundamental issue for our societies, but there exists a distortion of environmental realities that yield to economic interests, which are the main actors in the destruction of the environment.”

“…the British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. There is complicity by the U.S. government, that is to say Washington, in their actions to hide what really occurred. Wildlife, all the marine species along the entire coastal region of the U.S. and beyond, is threatened. This fact has been concealed.”

“It is also important to connect this event, this environmental crisis and the war. British Petroleum is involved in the Middle East and in the military project, which is contradictory on the one hand, while also being responsible for the worst environmental crisis in the history of this continent.”

“A professor:  You made a brief analysis of the U.S. economy. […] that economy continues to define the dynamics of the world economy. […] I’d like to know if you think that this economy will continue to define the dynamics of world economy […] or if countries like China or the so-called emerging states may take over the role currently played by the United States?”

“Michel Chossudovsky: Look, about this so-called dynamics of economy, the leadership of the United States, from an economic perspective, is not based on its productive capacity […] the industrial economy has been shutting down over the past 30 years, there are no more assembly lines, production has fallen, there is a service economy, there is the issue of intellectual property control, there is an investment economy, there is an economy where most of consumer goods come from China.”

“…The U.S. economy is bigger than China’s, but even though it is bigger than China’s economy it does not produce anything, and the GDP —as we all are well aware— is the sum of added value. The fact is that a large part of U.S. GDP is the result of imports from China.

“The technique is simple. If you are going to import a shirt —and I will use more or less real prices—, a dozen high quality shirts cost $36. These figures correspond to the 1990s, since these prices are even lower nowadays. […] a nice shirt costs $3 at the factory; it is taken to the United States and it costs $30, $40 or $50. What is the resulting increase in U.S. GDP? While, $30 minus $3 equals $27 which is added to the GDP without having any kind of production […] This growth may take place without any existing production; this is how a nation state with an imperial economy works, production takes place in the colonies or semi-colonies.”

“…The fiction of this first world economy is based on military power […] this is the most important fact. The productive forces in the United States are very weak; we can witness this in the companies going bankrupt, in unemployment levels, etc.”

“A student: …I’d like to acknowledge your stance since it is unusual for us to see someone from your origins strongly criticize the capitalist system as you have done. It deserves acknowledgement.”

“According to Marxism, this is a systemic crisis, not a temporary one.”

“In your opinion, what is the real capacity of world public opinion and of the possible growing awareness among the U.S. population to avoid a nuclear conflict, if we bear in mind the strong pressure exercised by small circles of power so frequently referred to in recent times?”

“Michel Chossudovsky:  …This is a systemic crisis, although it cannot be measured using the  guidelines set out in The Capital. The Marxist methodology is useful for our understanding, since it is based on class conflicts, but today’s structure is quite different than that of the mid 19th century […] as economists, we cannot make it fit one model, we have to consider its institutional nature, the relationship among financial activities on the one hand, covert operations.”

“…The CIA is an entity in Wall Street, a major one […] it has joint ventures with a large number of financial entities. […] since the CIA can foresee events, it can operate in market speculation…”

“… Describing this systemic crisis is very important, but we have to establish the way capitalism operates, its institutional structure, its secret agencies, covert operations, both in financial markets and in the geopolitical context, the function of the military, the decisions of think tanks in Washington, the state entities, and we have to identify who the actors are as well.”

“I think that your second question shares a common element with the previous ones; the need to change public opinion. But my answer is that we need to shatter the consensus that holds up this system, which is a lie […] There are different codes of conduct in capitalist countries. There are the politically active people who usually say, ‘We are making a petition, please President Obama, stop the war in Afghanistan.” They spread that message around the Internet, ‘Please, sign our petition, we are writing a letter to Obama, etc.’ But all of this is futile because it is based on the acceptance of the consensus, on the acceptance of the president who is one of the factors, and we have to break this inquisition.”

“…People talk about the Spanish inquisition, insane from an historic point of view, but this is even more insane, statements like, ‘We are fighting against Bin Laden and you have to join us, if not, you are a terrorist.”

“A couple of weeks ago, the FBI raided and arrested anti-war activists and accused them of working with Bin Laden. This was reported in US newspapers, and it is part of this dynamic to change public opinion, it is dialectical, we need to revert and dismantle this discourse that supports and legitimizes war and this economic project, along with the lies such as, ‘The crisis is over.’”

“You read the Wall Street Journal, you read the newspaper and it says, ‘The crisis will come to an end in January 2011,’ nobody questions this statement, not even the economists. This ritual of acceptance, is based not on a lack of information but rather because everyone accepts it. We have to break this ritual of accepting the consensus that stems from political power and the financial markets.”

“A student: Sustainable development, which for me is totally incompatible with war because there has never been anything more destructive than the recent wars, not only the future one that could take place, but all the recent wars instigated by the United States.”

“…They insist on the importance of human development, of boosting the roles of local regions and territories. I’d like your opinion on this issue, how realistic is this objective for our countries?

“Michel Chossudovsky:  I agree with the real objective of sustainable development, but we have to look at the word play behind this objective. This objective has been formulated by several environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, WWF, […] I am not criticizing these organizations, but if you consider the summits held on the environment like the World Social Forum, the G-7 summits for instance, the G-20, they hardly ever talk about the impact of war on the environment. They make their presentations on city pollution, global warming, but western NGOs do not talk about war, they do not talk about the impact of war on the environment, which is significant.”

“I took part in the social summits up until 1999. As soon as I mentioned the war in Yugoslavia, they did not invite me to participate anymore. War might be discussed in a workshop or some other type of meeting, but it is not an issue addressed at debates on ‘Another world is possible,’ not at all. This sort of idea of global governance that has characterized the social movements, and I am not criticizing them because I think there are some very good people in these groups, but they have a certain dynamic and there is something about the leadership of these organizations that doesn’t fit. […] We cannot have an anti-globalization movement that only focuses on certain aspects, without taking into account the geopolitical context […] The United States and its allies…at war during a large part of this era, which we call the post-war period, that is to say, the last 50 years, are characterized by military operations, wars, interventions by the United States and its allies and all this, in my experience, has not been the subject of debate or discussions at the different world forums where they present sustainable development as a code of conduct.”

With these words, Michel Chossudovsky concluded his presentation at the University of Havana, which was warmly applauded by the students from the Faculty of Economics, their professors and other people who filled the Manuel Sanguily Hall that day.

Before I [Fidel] met with professor Chossudovsky, a coincidence occurred spontaneously. A coincidence related to both the risks of a conflict, which inevitably would lead to global nuclear war, and the need to mobilize world opinion in the face of such a dramatic danger.

Along with nuclear weapons are cyber weapons. Another product of technology which, once transferred to the military sector, threatens to become another serious problem for the world.

The U.S. Armed Forces possesses some 15,000 communication networks and 7 million computers, as reported by journalist Rosa Miriam Elizalde on the Cubadebate Website.

Rosa Miriam Elizalde also wrote:

“Four-Star General Keith Alexander, who has compared cyber attacks to weapons of mass destruction, affirmed that the United States has plans to use this new war tactic in an attack without taking into account the opinion of their allies. They could even attack allied networks without any previous warning if they consider that an attack was or could be generated from any of them.”

I ask the readers to please excuse the length of the two parts of this reflection. There was no way to make it shorter without sacrificing content.

Allow me also to express —I did not forget— that today marks the 43rd anniversary of the death of Che, and that two days ago we commemorated the 34th anniversary of brutal Yankee killings of our Cuban compatriots and other passengers aboard our civilian plane over Barbados.

Eternal glory to them all!

Fidel Castro Ruz

*

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.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

Alan Robock discusses his research into nuclear winter and considers how devastating even a small nuclear war could be for our climate and for human survival.

***

There are simply too many nuclear weapons in the world, by as much as a factor of 1,000, for anyone, anywhere, to be safe from the potential effects of even a small war.

The chance that nuclear weapons would be used by mistake, in a panic after an international incident, by a computer hacker or by a rogue leader of a nuclear nation can be eliminated only by the removal of the weapons themselves.

We were among the scientists involved in the initial research that discovered the potential for nuclear winter.

More modern and advanced climate modeling has confirmed the initial findings and shown that the effects would last for more than a decade. The reason is that smoke from nuclear conflagrations would rise as high as 25 miles into the atmosphere, where it would be protected from rain and take at least 10 years to dissipate.

“A great many reputable scientists are telling us that such a war could just end up in no victory for anyone because we would wipe out the earth as we know it.”. Ronald Reagan

Even with the reduced nuclear arsenals that the United States and Russia agreed to in 2010, we have the ability not only to set off instantaneous destruction, but also to push global temperatures below freezing, even in summer. Crops would die and starvation could kill most of humanity.

Alan Robock, see Full Text of NYT Op Ed Below

 

Alan Robock. Nuclear Winter

Whether Darya Dugina was a martyr in the religious meaning of the expression is not for us to decide. But in secular terms, the gruesome circumstances that claimed the life of this remarkable young woman, who was also a beautiful human being, undoubtedly do elevate her to the rank of martyr.

Etymologically, the martyr is a witness who boldly and at grave peril proclaims a transcendent truth or exalted reality. As an engaged intellectual of the first order in her own right, and a public figure recognisable independently of her father, Darya Dugina indeed bore witness to the truth in a perverse world that detests it and at every turn persecutes it intensely.  

In her witness, she chose the right side to be on. Unlike the wicked and slothful servant from the Parable [Matthew 25:14-30], she did not timidly bury her talent but instead invested it in her nation’s good fight [2 Timothy 4:7-8] and multiplied it manyfold. For the moral choices that she made and the generous commitment resulting in the sacrifice of her young life to sublime ideals of love of country and fidelity to her compatriots, whichever side of the battle lines they may have been on, Darya Dugina shines brightly in the gloom of our self-absorbed age.

She was a committed Orthodox Christian, of course, which defined her vision of life and understanding of her duties.

Darya Dugina’s beastly murder in August 2022, by means of a surreptitiously placed car bomb, was plotted by operatives of Ukrainian intelligence and executed by a depraved female agent they selected for this gruesome task. It is a matter of conjecture whether she or her father, philosopher Alexander Dugin, was the intended target because on the fatal night they were attending together a cultural event and at the last moment switched cars unexpectedly. It is certain however that either or both would have been considered high value targets by the killers.

Darya’s tragic death was initially minimised and cruelly mocked (The Guardian’s dismissive comment is typical) and then completely black-holed by the public opinion masters of the collective West. That was natural conduct from people whose moral rages are always cheap and selective, who are destitute of conscience, and whose actions are governed by loathsome hypocrisy. The reasons for their discretion concerning the crimes of their protégés in Kiev are neatly encapsulated in the Russian saying: Ворон ворону глаз не выклюет (crows do not pick crow’s eyes).

It is comforting, however, that admiration for this brave young woman and desire to honour her memory continue undiminished in the hearts and minds of normal people. On 6 and 7 December of this year an homage to Darya Dugina is scheduled to take place in Belgrade, Serbia, as part of a scholarly gathering under the title “The theory of Europe: Darya Dugina’s multipolar vision.”

.

.

Multidisciplinary participants in the conference will include Darya’s father, Russian philosopher, sociologist, and geopolitical thinker Dr. Alexander Dugin, and distinguished lecturers from France, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Serbia.

The moral and symbolic significance of this tribute cannot be overstated. It is a resounding declaration on the part of the Serbian organisers of where their sympathies lie in the current geopolitical confrontation. All indicators of the public mood in Serbia, without exception, confirm that this position is shared by the overwhelming majority of the Serbian people.

That leads us to the obvious question: why did hundreds of thousands of men on both sides die and sustain horrible injuries in the conflict that for almost three years has been going on in Ukraine? Darya Dugina’s  answers would be, amongst other things, to stop the Ukrainian Nazi regime’s armed forces’ shelling and killing of Russian civilians in the Donbas, to ensure full respect for the cultural identity of the majority ethnic Russian population throughout Ukraine, to finally eradicate all traces of Nazism in Ukraine almost eighty years after it was crushed in Germany, and to put an end to NATO’s aggressive expansion which threatens not just Russia but world peace as well.

We also have an essentially different answer to the same question that must urgently be publicised. Its author a few days ago was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. That answer actually is not at all false from the standpoint of Graham and the like-minded cabal for which he speaks. In its crude sincerity and unspeakable vulgarity it ought to shock the conscience of every decent person. For the cabal in question, according to Sen. Graham, the colossal conflict which has so far destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, and which, unless its escalatory trajectory is curtailed, could provoke a global catastrophe by sparking World War III, was all about – money.

For incredulous doubters, let Sen. Graham speak for himself, in his own words:

“This war is about money. People don’t talk much about it. But you know, the richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars’ worth of minerals that are rare earth minerals, very relevant to the 21st century … Ukraine’s ready to do a deal with us, not the Russians. So it’s in our interest to make sure that Russia doesn’t take over the place.”

Lindsay Graham is a complete and utter idiot in all matters pertaining to history, geography, international relations, and fundamental precepts of morality. But money is a topic that he and his good ole boys understand well. He should not therefore simply be dismissed for being the disgusting vulgarian that he is. He deserves credit, and even a measure of gratitude, for being – in his coarse style – a clownish, but in the core message he emits an unfailingly honest articulator of the true motives of the criminal political class that he represents. Whenever he is given a platform to speak, he does an enormous public service by letting the cat out of the bag.

To conclude, we have juxtaposed two contrasting cultural archetypes, personified by Darya Dugina and Lindsey Graham. Their respective responses to the unfathomable human tragedy of the conflict in Ukraine are the raw data for a far-reaching comparative socio-cultural and anthropological study.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

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: Darya Dugina (1RNK, licensed under CC BY 3.0)

---

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. 

First published on Global Research on December 22, 2022

Introductory Note 

The doctrine of peaceful coexistence was first formulated by Moscow in the wake of the 1918-1920 war against Soviet Russia.

It was presented to the Genoa Conference in April 1922.

The “unspoken” 1918-20 war against Russia (barely acknowledged by historians) was launched two months after the November 7, 1917 Revolution on January 12 1918.

It was an outright “NATO style” invasion consisting of  the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. 15,000 from France.  Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

The article below entitled Genoa Revisted: Russia and Coexistence was written by my late father Evgeny Chossudovsky in April 1972 (in commemoration of the Genoa 1922 Conference). It was published by Foreign Affairs.

Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa.Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.” (See text below)

At the height of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs article was the object of a “constructive debate” in the corridors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  According to the NYT:

Flash Forward to November 2024

The world is at a dangerous crossroads. In the post Cold War Era, East-West Dialogue has been scrapped. 

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

Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option? 

Constructive Debate and Dialogue is crucial.

Can East-West Dialogue be Restored as a Means to Avoiding a Third World War?

There is a sense of urgency. Military escalation could potentially lead humanity into nuclear war.

The first priority is to restore dialogue and diplomatic channels. 

We call upon the U.S., the member states of the European Union and the Russian Federation to jointly endorse a policy of “Peaceful Coexistence”, with a view to reaching meaningful peace negotiations in regards to the war in Ukraine. 

My father’s family left Russia in 1921 for Berlin. He was seven years old. In 1934, he departed for Scotland, where he started his studies in economics at the University of Edinburgh, the alma mater of Adam Smith.

In 1947 he joined the United Nations secretariat in Geneva. In 1972 at the time of writing of his article he was a senior official at the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and Secretary of the Trade and Development Board. 

The following article on “Peaceful Coexistence” is part of the legacy of my late father, Dr. Evgeny Chossudovsky

It is my sincere hope and commitment that the concept of “Peaceful Coexistence” between nations will ultimately prevail with a view to avoiding a Third World War.  

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 29, 2024

click to enlarge

***

 

 

Genoa Revisited: Russia and Coexistence

by Evgeny Chossudovsky

Foreign  Affairs, April 1972

Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa. Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.”

Though this rather remote event has by now been forgotten by many, the evocation of it is justified. For a study of Soviet attitudes at that Conference throws light on the origins and evolution of the notion of the peaceful coexistence between countries having different economic and social systems, a major concept of Soviet foreign policy which no serious student of international affairs can nowadays afford to ignore.

Therefore, to look at Genoa afresh from this particular angle may perhaps add to the understanding of Soviet foreign policy and economic diplomacy, including their more recent manifestations.[1]

The author was also anxious to assess the relevance of this first multilateral encounter between Soviet Russia and the Western world to current efforts, a half-century after Genoa, aimed at promoting cooperation across the dividing line. To undertake the task in these pages is not unfitting: the first issue of Foreign Affairs, published only a few months after the Conference, carried a then anonymous article by “K” entitled “Russian After Genoa and The Hague,” written in masterly fashion by the review’s first Editor, Professor Archibald Cary Coolidge. I am grateful for having the privilege, on the eve of the golden jubilee of Foreign Affairs, to revert to this early theme, even if from a different standpoint and at a more comfortable historic distance.[2] 

The Genoa Conference was convened as a result of a set of resolutions passed by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers meeting at Cannes in January 1922. The principal among these was Mr. Lloyd George’s Resolution. 

In the form in which the draft was adopted on January 6, it provided for the summoning of an Economic and Financial Conference “as an urgent and essential step towards the economic reconstruction of Central and Eastern Europe.” All European states, including the former Central Powers, were asked to attend.

Special decisions were adopted to invite Russia and the United States. Russia replied in the affirmative. Indeed, the young Soviet Republic accepted this call with eagerness and alacrity for reasons which will become apparent as we proceed. On the other hand, we are told that Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes informed the Italian Ambassador in Washington on March 8 that, since the Conference appeared to be mainly political rather than economic in character, the United States government would not be represented.[3] However, the U.S. Ambassador in Rome, R. W. Child, was appointed observer.

American oil and other business interests were represented by F. A. Vanderlip. In the opinion of Soviet historians, the U.S. refusal to take part was motivated mainly by hostility toward Soviet Russia and fear that Genoa might strengthen that country’s international position. The United States at the time was adhering firmly to the policy of economic blockade and nonrecognition of the new Bolshevik regime. On May 7, 1922, Ambassador Child wrote to the State Department that he considered his main function as observer at Genoa would be to “keep in closest possible touch with delegations so as to prevent Soviet Russia from entering any agreements by which our rights would be impaired.” 

Participants at the 1922 Genoa Conference. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

Russia was to have been represented by Lenin himself in his capacity as Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars. Lenin had closely supervised all the preparations and undoubtedly intended to go to Genoa. He stated publicly that he expected to discuss personally with Lloyd George the need for equitable trade relations between Russia and the capitalist countries.

But in naming Lenin as its chief delegate, the Soviet government entered a proviso that “should circumstances exclude the possibility of Comrade Lenin himself attending the Conference,” Georgy Vassilievich Chicherin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, the deputy head of the delegation, would be vested with all requisite powers.

In the end, public concern over Lenin’s personal safety, pressing affairs of state requiring his attention, and the deterioration of his health, made it undesirable for him to leave Moscow. However, he retained the chairmanship of the Russian delegation and directed its activity through almost daily contact. (The New York Times entitled its leader on the opening of the Conference “Lenin in Genoa!”) Chicherin serving as acting head of the delegation was aided by such outstanding Soviet diplomats and statesmen as Krassin, Litvinov, Yoffe, Vorovsky and Rudzutak, who together formed the “Bureau” of the delegation.

All eyes turned with curiosity on the People’s Commissar when he took the floor, after star performers such as Lloyd George and Barthou had made their inaugural speeches. In keeping with the diplomatic etiquette of those days, he wore tails. Issue of the Russian nobility and for some years archivist in the Tsarist Foreign Ministry, Chicherin as a young man had broken with his past and espoused the cause of revolution, ultimately siding with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Un homme genial and a diplomat of consummate professional skill, he combined wide knowledge of world affairs, sophisticated erudition and artistic sensitivity with burning faith in communism and a single-minded dedication to the defense of the interests of the Soviet state. Having spoken in excellent French for some twenty minutes, he proceeded, to the surprise and spontaneous applause of the meeting, to interpret his speech into English.

Though Chicherin had hardly looked at his notes during delivery, his statement had been most carefully prepared. Lenin himself had approved the text, had weighed each word, formulation and nuance. Chicherin’s declaration was the first made by a Soviet representative at a major international conference on the agenda of which the “Russian question” loomed large and to which the Soviet Republic had been invited. It was truly a historic moment.

Chicherin told the Conference that “whilst themselves preserving the point of view of Communist principles, the Russian delegation recognizes that in the actual period of history which permits of the parallel existence of the ancient social order and of the new order now being born, economic collaboration between the States representing the two systems of property is imperatively necessary for the general economic reconstruction.” He added that

“the Russian delegation has come here … in order to engage in practical relations with Governments and commercial and industrial circles of all countries on the basis of reciprocity, equality of rights and full recognition. The problem of world-wide economic reconstruction is, under present conditions, so immense and colossal that it can only be solved if all countries, both European and non-European, have the sincere desire to coordinate their efforts… The economic reconstruction of Russia appears as an indispensable condition of world-wide economic reconstruction.” (emphasis added)

A number of concrete offers (combined with proposals for a general limitation of armaments) accompanied this enunciation of policy, such as the readiness of the Russian government “to open its frontier consciously and voluntarily” for the creation of international traffic routes; to release for cultivation millions of acres of the most fertile land in the world; and to grant forest and mining concessions, particularly in Siberia.

Chicherin urged that collaboration should be established between the industry of the West on the one hand and the agriculture and industry of Siberia on the other, so as to enlarge the raw materials, grain and fuel base of European industry. He declared, moreover, his government’s willingness to adopt as a point of departure the old agreements with the Powers which regulated international relations, subject to some necessary modifications. Chicherin also suggested that the world economic crises could be combated by the redistribution of the existing gold reserves among all the countries in the same proportions as before the war, by means of long-term loans. Such a redistribution “should be combined with a rational redistribution of the products of industry and commercial activity, and with a distribution of fuel (naphtha, coal, etc.) according to a settled plan.” 

Such was, in essence, the first considered presentation by Soviet Russia of what came to be termed the policy of peaceful coexistence between the capitalist and socialist systems, linked with a specific program of practical action, made in an intergovernmental forum. But the genesis of the concept goes back much further.

As long ago as 1915, Lenin, in the midst of the First World War, which to him was above all a clash of rival imperialist powers, in a celebrated article entitled “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” had foreseen the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. In so doing he proceeded from an “absolute law” of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, especially during its imperialist phase.

Lenin came to the related conclusion that the “imperialist chain” might first snap at its weakest link, e.g. in a relatively backward country like Tsarist Russia with a small but concentrated and rapidly expanding capitalist sector, a desperately poor peasantry and a compact and politically conscious working class pitted against a decaying ruling elite. Though the break in the chain would set in motion a process of revolution, that might take time, possibly decades to unfold, depending on the specific conditions obtaining in each country. The socialist state, meanwhile, would have to exist in a capitalist environment, to “cohabit” with it for a more or less prolonged period, peacefully or nonpeacefully. In another article dealing with the “Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution,” published in the autumn of 1916, Lenin developed this theme further by concluding that socialism could not achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It would most probably first be established in one country, or in a few countries, “whilst the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.”

The weakest link did break, as Lenin had foreseen, in Russia, though the tide of revolution was also mounting in other parts of Europe, impelled by the desperate desire of the peoples to end the war. Indeed, at one time it looked as if a socialist upheaval was about to triumph in Germany. It is hardly surprising that Lenin, the revolutionary leader, openly hailed this prospect, though he was resolutely opposed to the manipulating and artificial pushing or “driving forward” of any revolution from the outside, since for him this was essentially an inexorable social phenomenon ultimately shaped by internal forces. As E. H. Carr has observed, “it was the action of the western Powers toward the end of the year 1918 which contributed quite as much as of the Soviet government which had forced the international situation into a revolutionary setting.”[4]

Yet, being a realist, Lenin did not omit to stress from November 1917 onwards that it would be wrong and irresponsible for the young Soviet Republic to count on revolutions in other countries. They might or might not occur at the time one wished them to happen. There was no question either, as he said again and again, of trying to “export” the Russian Revolution.

While maintaining its belief in the ultimate victory of socialism in other countries, the young Soviet Republic had, meantime, to be prepared to stand on its own feet and to defend its own interests as a state. Not only had the forces of the White Guards and the interventionists to be defeated, but steps had to be taken to conclude peace with the capitalist countries and to prepare, under certain conditions and safeguards, for cooperation with them. Exploratory moves for the resumption of trade and economic relations with the Allied and Central Powers, as well as with neutral countries, had begun immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. As early as May 1918, for instance, the Soviet government made, through the good offices of Colonel Raymond Robins (the representative of the American Red Cross in Petrograd) detailed and far-reaching offers to the United States of long-term economic relations, including the granting of concessions to private businessmen for the exploitation, subject to state control, of Russia’s vast and untapped raw material resources. These offers were reiterated a year later through William Bullitt. There was no response.

Military intrusion and economic harassment from the outside (the latter going to such lengths as “the gold blockade,” i.e. the refusal to accept gold for desperately needed imports) continued, forcing the Soviet government, as Lenin put it, to “go to greater lengths in our urgent Communist measures than would otherwise have been the case.” But the option of “peaceful cohabitation” with the capitalist world, based on normal economic, trade and diplomatic relations, was kept open nonetheless throughout this entire phase.

This emerges clearly from the writings and utterances of Lenin and the documents on Soviet foreign policy during the pre-NEP period. Indeed, one of the most incisive and farsighted definitions of the concept of peaceful coexistence dates back to the early summer of 1920 when, in a report on the foreign political situation of the Soviet Republic, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs proclaimed that

“Our slogan was and remains the same: peaceful coexistence (mirnoye sosushchestvovaniye) with other Governments whoever they might be. Reality itself has led … to the need for establishing durable relations between the Government of the peasants and workers and capitalist Governments. . . . Economic reality calls for an exchange of goods, the entering into continuing and regulated relations with the whole world, and the same economic reality demands the same of the other Governments also.”[5]

Thus, the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence has deep roots in the early history of the Russian Revolution and was most assuredly not something concocted on the spur of the moment for tactical use at Genoa.

[Our thanks to Foreign Affairs]

Click here to read the full article.

*

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.

Featured image: Interior view of the main hall of the Palazzo di San Giorgio, location of plenary meetings of the Genoa Conference of 1922. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The deadliest strike on Syria in terms of casualties was carried out by Israel on November 20, with American military complicity. Most of the dead were officers and soldiers in the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the only national army in Syria.

Israel struck the Industrial School and the western residential area near the bakery in Palmyra, the city best known for its Roman-era antiquities and a UNESCO World Heritage site in the central desert, and under the administration of President Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the UK, 82 persons were killed when the Israeli jets bombarded Palmyra after being launched from within the airspace of the illegal US military base, Al-Tanf, in eastern Syria.  Locals reported numerous ambulances transported the wounded to Tadmur National Hospital.

Al-Tanf base is an area near the Iraqi border, illegally occupied by the US military, and is approximately 218 kilometers from where Israel struck in Palmyra on Wednesday.  Earlier this month, troops from the SAA foiled an ISIS ambush that originated from the area in the vicinity of the US military base.

According to detailed reports over the last couple of years, ISIS and other Radical Islamic terrorist groups have received training inside the Al-Tanf base. They are given logistical support to carry out attacks against the SAA in the desert region.

Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria since 2011 targeting the SAA. Israel claims many of their targets in Syria are linked to Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance organization.  Following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, the strikes on Syria have intensified. Last week, Israel carried out attacks in the Homs province bordering Lebanon.

Syria and Iran have accused the US and Israel of arming and giving medical attention to ISIS while using them to attack the SAA and Hezbollah.

The US troops occupying Syria use ISIS sleeper cells when needed, and are operating out of the US base in Al Tanf. Because the US force is so small in Syria, they rely on local mercenaries the US has trained, weaponized, and paid to provide security to the illegal base.

The mercenaries are  Mugawir al-Thawra, a group of Syrian men following the same Radical Islam ideology as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Jibhat al-Nusra, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Although their paychecks are cut at the Pentagon, that doesn’t change their ideology. The US military uses what assets they have at hand, and terrorists are rebels against the central government.

In late 2015, a small force of 50 American troops arrived in northeast Syria to defeat ISIS. The US claims the US coalition defeated ISIS; however, it was the US, the SAA, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah all fighting ISIS which contributed to the defeat of ISIS. ISIS was finally defeated in early 2019.

The US chose not to partner with the SAA, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah who had the biggest fighting force on the ground against ISIS. Instead, a political decision was taken to train, weaponize, and pay a Communist separatist group in Syria, the Kurds, which has about 225,000 fighters.

The US choice to militarily and politically support a Kurdish separatist group, linked to the PKK, angered President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. The PKK is an internationally banned terrorist group which have killed over 30,000 people over three decades.  The PKK is the biggest enemy and security threat to Turkey, which shares a long border with Syria and is near the US-sponsored Kurdish militias, the SDF and YPJ.

For years, Turkey has asked the US to stop their partnership and support of the Kurdish separatists in Syria. Although Turkey and the US are members of NATO and have been close allies for decades, Washington has insisted on supporting the Kurdish separatists in Syria.

On November 21, Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, stated that the essential elements of Turkey’s policy toward Syria include purging the country of terrorist elements. He referred to the SDF and YPJ and their links to the PKK, and called for continuing the war against a “separatist terrorist organization.”

The Kurdish Communists occupy the northeastern region of Syria in what they call The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). Recently, they began conducting non-declared municipal elections in Deir Ezzor province, one more step toward declaring an independent state.

The Kurdish-occupied area is where the biggest producing oil and gas wells are in Syria, with the US military in charge of the production capacity, which they sell in Erbil, the Kurdish area in Iraq. By the US preventing Damascus from their oil, the Syrian people are left with three hours of electricity per day, and limited gasoline.

Palmyra was seized by ISIS in May 2015, and partially destroyed, before it was recaptured by the Syrian army. ISIS regained control of the city in December 2016, and three months later the SAA retook the town.

US President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of US forces from Syria in December 2018 but was prevented by following through. Again, in October 2019 he ordered the troops to come home, and again the ‘Deep State’ prevented his order from fulfillment, but the troop size was cut from 2,500 to 900. 

Presently, ISIS does not exist in Syria, other than small bands of sleeper cells that can be used as assets by the US. The US Central Command recently made a show of launching three rounds of heavy strikes on what they claimed were ISIS training camps in Syria. This was staged to demonstrate the need for US troops in Syria.

Charles Lister, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Syria and Countering Terrorism & Extremism programs at the Middle East Institute, recently wrote, “US troops are the glue holding together the only meaningful challenge to an ISIS resurgence.”

Lister makes the case for continued US military occupation in Syria. Not surprisingly, he explains the American presence is not about fighting terrorism, but instead wrote, “Our presence in a quarter of Syria’s territory creates significant geopolitical leverage for the US in the region and presents a counterweight to American adversaries. 

The threat of an ISIS resurgence only exists as an excuse to keep the US in Syria. Staged events demonstrate the danger, which is not real but provides a cover story for a political objective.

US forces played an instrumental role in training and equipping 225,000 security force partners to challenge ISIS and hold liberated territory.

According to an interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. by Tucker Carlson on November 6, Trump said, “Get them out!” referring to the US forces in Syria.

Trump tried twice to get them out, and he may view the move as part of his campaign to seek out and remove the “Deep State” who hampered his previous term in office. 

The US support of the Kurds has cost billions, and it is hard to convince Republicans that a Communist state in Syria should be on the US payroll. Trump has said he wants to end all wars. By decoupling from the Kurds in Syria, Trump can repair the US-Turkish relationship, and this will have positive benefits for the Syrian people.  

If Syrian oil is controlled by Damascus, hospitals, schools, universities, and other infrastructure can be rebuilt. The electric grid can be repaired and citizens can begin to have refrigerators that are cold and prevent food poisoning, and hospitals can depend on the constant use of medical machines such as dialysis.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Profile Newa.

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

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

---

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.

A leading American molecular scientist has issued an explosive warning after making an alarming discovery about the DNA contamination in Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

The red alert was issued by Dr. Phillip J. Buckhaults, a professor in the Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences at the University of South Carolina.

Professor Buckhaults warns that the DNA contamination found in Covid shots can integrate into the genome of normal human cells.

Buckhaults launched an investigation in response to earlier findings about DNA contamination.

He noted that previous warnings about the risks posed by the contamination were met with skepticism.

However, Buckhaults has now revealed that the traces of DNA in the Covid injections could have a devasting impact on humanity.

Fragments of DNA in the Covid mRNA “vaccines” are a byproduct of their manufacture that should have been removed before use.

Concerns about DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines emerged in early 2023.

The traces of DNA were discovered by Dr. Kevin McKernan of Medicinal Genomics, a medical research company.

The concerns raised about DNA contamination have been corroborated and amplified by a number of experts.

Among those top experts is Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo.

Ladapo demanded a halt to the Covid mRNA “vaccine” program last December over the contamination.

The top health official cited the risks of genomic integration and cancer formation.

As Slay News reported last month, Port Hedland Council in Australia voted to notify all of the country’s 537 local councils of the evidence of DNA contamination in the vaccines and associated risks.

Experts and lawmakers in Australia have just issued a chilling warning to the rest of the world as a Western Australian town has started recording an unprecedented surge in deaths among the highly Covid-vaccinated population.

The town of Port Hedland called an emergency Special Council Meeting with leading experts and local lawmakers to address the crisis.

The meeting was called by three Port Hedland Town Councillors Adrian McRae, Lorraine Butson, and Camilo Blanco.

During the meeting, Councillor McRae made the shocking revelation that funerals in the town have become overwhelmed with deaths since the Covid “vaccines” were rolled out for public use.

McRae revealed that the crisis has provoked panic in the town after officials determined that the deaths are being caused by the long-term impact of DNA contamination in the Covid mRNA injections.

Due to the staggering “sevenfold increase” in deaths, McRae revealed that the town has been forced to build a “cold body storage facility” to cope with the surge in corpses.

“What happens when someone receives billions of these SV40 fragments in a single shot?” McRae said in a statement during the meeting.

“What happens when these contaminated shots are administered multiple times as they have been to millions of Australians including Australian children?”

Officials called the emergency meeting to bring forward a motion urging the immediate suspension of Covid mRNA “vaccines” from Pfizer and Moderna.

At the end of the meeting, the council voted to ban the mRNA injections.

However, most regulators have dismissed the concerns, claiming the DNA is not dangerous.

Prof. Buckhaults disagrees, warning that the risks must not be dismissed.

Buckhaults uncovered evidence confirming that the DNA contamination is capable of integrating into the genome of human cells.

He warns that this integration can change the function of the cells, altering and harming the DNA of the Covid mRNA “vaccine” recipient and their future offspring.

Posting the results of his investigation on X, Buckhaults writes:

“The plasmid DNA that is contained within mRNA vaccines can integrate into the genome of normal cells.

“I knew this could happen, but some were unconvinced, so we took the time to prove this in the lab.

“We grow normal human epithelial stem cells in my lab.

“It’s part of our normal job (cancer research).

“They are called organoids,” he explains.

“These are not cancer cells, they are just the normal stem cells that make up the human colon.

“We ‘vaccinated’ some of these normal cells and grew them for a month and saw pieces of the plasmid DNA persisting in the genomic DNA of the ‘vaccinated’ cells.

“We detected the plasmid DNA with our qPCR protocol that was posted to X several months ago,” Buckhaults notes.

“This experiment was done mainly for the people who were paid to publicly ridicule this idea (and slander my reputation).

“Most of these people are mutually blocked now, so pass around to anyone who needs to see it.

“Maybe Dr. Paul Offit or that rude Gorsky dude would like to see it. I don’t know.

“This does not mean that the integration is happening in real vaccinated humans (those experiments are ongoing) but it does prove that the DNA can get into normal cells just fine, as I told everyone a year ago.”

.

.

Read on X

.

Other scientists have shown that the mRNA in the vaccines (i.e., the active ingredient rather than the DNA contamination) also has the capacity to integrate into the human genome.

Last year, a team from Italy found vaccine spike protein being produced in the blood of “long Covid” patients two months after vaccination.

The researchers discovered an accompanying change in their DNA that could only have come from the vaccine.

They argued that the DNA contamination in the “vaccines” is the source of the persisting spike protein and the long Covid symptoms.

Professor Buckhaults is among scientists investigating whether similar problems may arise from the DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

Featured image source

---

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

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

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

I never cease to be amazed by the pervasive belief that the US military is superior to any other on the planet. Upon what basis is this faith founded? The US has not engaged in a real war since Korea. No one in the US military has ANY experience with high-intensity conflict. —Will Schryver, military analyst

If the United States launches a nuclear “decapitation” strike on Russia that kills President Putin and his Generals, Russia has a backup system in place that will automatically retaliate. The Dead Hand system is designed to collect data from sensors scattered across Russia on radiation, heat and seismic activity confirming a nuclear strike. If the system does not receive instructions from Moscow’s Command Center with a given period of time, the system will autonomously launch 4,000 tactical and strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States ensuring the complete destruction of the country and the incineration of hundreds of millions of Americans. Moscow’s message is simple: “Even if a preemptive strike takes out our leaders, our ‘dead hand’ will still kill you all.” —Dead Hand, Planet Report

***

Most Americans continue to believe that the United States will prevail in a conventional war with Russia. But that is simply not the case. For starters, Russia’s state-of-the-art missile technology and missile defense systems are vastly superior to those produced by western weapons manufacturers. Secondly, Russia can field an army of more than 1 million battle-hardened combat troops who have experienced high-intensity warfare and are prepared to engage whatever enemy they may face in the future. Third, the United States no longer has the industrial capacity to match Russia’s impressive output of lethal weaponry, artillery shells, ammunition, and cutting-edge ballistic missiles. In short, Russian military capability far exceeds that of the US in the areas that really count: High-tech weaponry, military industrial capacity, and experienced manpower. In order to drive this overall point home, I’ve taken excerpts from the work of three military analysts who explain these matters in greater detail underscoring the dramatic shortcomings of the modern US military and the problems it is likely to encounter when faced with a more technologically advanced and formidable adversary. The first excerpt is from an article by Alex Vershinin titled The Return of Industrial Warfare:

The war in Ukraine has proven that the age of industrial warfare is still here. The massive consumption of equipment, vehicles and ammunition requires a large-scale industrial base for resupply – quantity still has a quality of its own…. The rate of ammunition and equipment consumption in Ukraine can only be sustained by a large-scale industrial base.

This reality should be a concrete warning to Western countries, who have scaled down military industrial capacity and sacrificed scale and effectiveness for efficiency. This strategy relies on flawed assumptions about the future of war, and has been influenced by both the bureaucratic culture in Western governments and the legacy of low-intensity conflicts. Currently, the West may not have the industrial capacity to fight a large-scale war….

The Capacity of the West’s Industrial Base

The winner in a prolonged war between two near-peer powers is still based on which side has the strongest industrial base. A country must either have the manufacturing capacity to build massive quantities of ammunition or have other manufacturing industries that can be rapidly converted to ammunition production. Unfortunately, the West no longer seems to have either…. In a recent war game involving US, UK and French forces, UK forces exhausted national stockpiles of critical ammunition after eight days....

Flawed Assumptions

The first key assumption about future of combat is that precision-guided weapons will reduce overall ammunition consumption by requiring only one round to destroy the target. The war in Ukraine is challenging this assumption….. The second crucial assumption is that industry can be turned on and off at will….. Unfortunately, this does not work for military purchases. There is only one customer in the US for artillery shells – the military. Once the orders drop off, the manufacturer must close production lines to cut costs to stay in business. Small businesses may close entirely. Generating new capacity is very challenging, especially as there is so little manufacturing capacity left to draw skilled workers from….. The supply chain issues are also problematic because subcomponents may be produced by a subcontractor who either goes out of business, with loss of orders or retools for other customers or who relies on parts from overseas, possibly from a hostile country….

Conclusion

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that war between peer or near-peer adversaries demands the existence of a technically advanced, mass scale, industrial-age production capability….. For the US to act as the arsenal of democracy in defence of Ukraine, there must be a major look at the manner and the scale at which the US organises its industrial base…. If competition between autocracies and democracies has really entered a military phase, then the arsenal of democracy must first radically improve its approach to the production of materiel in wartime. The Return of Industrial Warfare, Alex Vershinin, Rusi

Bottom line: The United States no longer has the industrial base or the requisite stockpiles to prevail in a prolonged war between two near-peer powers. Simply put, the US will not win an extended conventional war with Russia.

Here’s how analyst Lee Slusher summed it up in a recent post on Twitter:

…. . The US effectively had monopolies on many decisive capabilities, like precision-guided munitions, night-vision, global strike, etc. I think the absence of high-intensity conflict between the US and other nations had a lot to do with these asymmetries. There was no need for the US to apply mass when its advanced capabilities—or even just the threat of them—were sufficient to achieve political aims….. The list of nations with advanced capabilities continues to grow. At the same time, Western militaries and defense industrial bases continue to erode. The West exchanged its large standing armies for a reliance on boutique American capabilities that were once decisive but are now increasingly commonplace. This has left the West without its technological edge and without its previous military mass. Those who still believe in US military supremacy fail to realize these changes. Worse still, most of them entertain cartoonishly underrated notions about Russian military capabilities. They fail to realize Russia has both a technological edge and military mass. Th reputation the US military had was deserved for a time, but everything changes. Lee Slusher @LeeBTConsulting

Bottom Line: America’s adversaries—Russia, China, Iran—have either caught up to or surpassed the US in advanced missile technology, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), electronic warfare, cutting-edge missile defense systems etc—which is gradually increasing parity between the states while ending the period of US military supremacy. The American century is rapidly drawing to a close.

.

.

Let’s move on to military analyst Number 2, Will Schyver, who draws similar conclusions to those of Vershinin but from a slightly different angle. Check it out:

I am more convinced than ever that the US could NOT establish air superiority against Russia — not in a week; not in a year. Never. It simply could not be done. It would be a logistical power projection challenge well beyond the current capabilities of the United States military.

American air power would prove substantially inferior to the extremely potent and abundantly supplied air defenses fielded by the Russians.

Just as the majority of HIMARS-launched GMLRS rockets, HARMS missiles, ATACMS missiles, and British Storm Shadow missiles are now being shot down in Ukraine, the vast majority of US long-range precision-guided missiles would be shot down, and the US would very rapidly deplete its limited inventory of these munitions in a futile attempt to overwhelm the Russian capacity to keep shooting back.

American suppression of enemy air defenses would prove inadequate to the task of defeating extremely sophisticated, deeply layered, and highly mobile air defense radars and missiles….

the war in Ukraine has made perfectly clear that all manner of western air defense systems are inferior to even the decades-old Soviet S-300 and Buk systems that Ukraine originally deployed. And even if western systems were formidable, they simply don’t exist in anything approaching the numbers necessary to provide credible defense in broad scope and depth.

To complicate matters even further, scant US munitions inventory and insuperable production limitations would allow the US to prosecute an air war against Russia or China for only a few weeks at most.

Moreover, in a high-intensity combat scenario in either eastern Europe, the China seas, or the Persian Gulf, the maintenance demands for US aircraft would overwhelm its proximate supply. Mission-capable rates would plummet even lower than their notoriously abysmal peacetime standards.

The US would, quite literally after only a few days, see sub-10% mission-capable rates for the F-22 and F-35, and sub-25% rates for almost every other platform in the inventory. It would be a huge embarrassment for the Pentagon … but hardly a huge surprise…..

Simply put, US air power as a theater-wide undertaking could not be sustained in the context of a non-permissive regional and global battlefield against one or more peer adversaries.

In eastern Europe, Russia would savage NATO bases and supply routes. The Baltic and Black seas would effectively become Russian lakes where NATO shipping could not venture….

Many are convinced these are unfounded hysterical assertions. In my view, the simple military, mathematical, and geographic realities of the situation dictate these conclusions, and those who resist them are typically blinded by the myth of American exceptionalism and its attendant ills to such a degree that they are unable to discern things as they really are….

I am increasingly persuaded that, if the US chooses to make direct war against either Russia, China, or Iran, it will result in a war against all three simultaneously.

And that, amazingly enough, is just one of multiple hard truths that the #EmpireAtAllCosts cult, and those acquiescing to its delusional designs, ought to give more serious consideration as they continue staggering towards the abyss of a war they could never win…. Staggering Towards the Abyss, Will Schryver, Substack

There’s a lot to chew on here but, in essence, Schryver is weighing Russia’s impressive air defense capability against America’s “scant munitions inventory and insuperable production limitations”, the combination of which suggests that a US military offensive would likely peter-out before inflicting serious damage on the enemy. Once again, our military analyst infers that the United States will not win in a direct confrontation with Russia.

.

.

Finally, we’ve excerpted a longer blurb from Kit Klarenberg who is more of an investigative journalist than military analyst. In a piece titled Collapsing Empire: China and Russia Checkmate US Military, Klarenberg details, what he calls the “unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the Empire’s bloated, decaying global war machine.” If even half of what the author says is true, then we can be reasonably certain that the United States escalation with Russia is the fasttrack to a military catastrophe unlike anything the world has seen since the fall of Berlin in May, 1945. Take a look:

On July 29th, …. RAND Corporation published a landmark appraisal of the state of the Pentagon’s 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS), and current US military readiness… Its findings are stark, an unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the Empire’s bloated, decaying global war machine. In brief, the US is “not prepared” in any meaningful way for serious “competition” with its major adversaries – and vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare…. the Empire’s worldwide dominance, are judged to be at best woefully inadequate, at worst outright delusional.

From the Rand Report:

“We believe the magnitude of the threats the US faces is understated and significantly worse…In many ways, China is outpacing the US…in defense production and growth in force size and, increasingly, in force capability and is almost certain to continue to do so…[Beijing] has largely negated the US military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment. Without significant change by the US, the balance of power will continue to shift in China’s favor.”

“At minimum, the US should assume that if it enters a direct conflict involving Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, that country will benefit from economic and military aid from the others…This new alignment of nations opposed to US interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multi-theater or global war…As US adversaries are cooperating more closely together than before, the US and its allies must be prepared to confront an axis of multiple adversaries.” Commission on the National Defense, Rand

As the Commission report spells out in forensic detail, Washington would be almost completely defenceless in such a scenario, and likely defeated nigh on instantly…. It’s not just being spread too thinly across the Grand Chessboard that means the Empire’s military “lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.”…

The RAND Commission found Washington’s “defense industrial base” is completely “unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs” of the US, let alone its allies. “A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions” than is currently in place….

For decades, the US military “employed cutting-edge technology to its decisive advantage for decades.” This “assumption of uncontested technological superiority” on the Empire’s part meant Washington had “the luxury to build exquisite capabilities, with long acquisition cycles and little tolerance for failure or risk.” Those days are long over though, with China and Russia “incorporating technology at accelerating speed”….. America’s “defense industrial base” is today crumbling, riddled with a myriad of deleterious issues…

To address these problems, the Commission calls… to reindustrialise the US after years of outsourcing, offshoring and neglect. No timeframe is provided, although it would likely take decades…..

We have entered a strange, late-stage Empire era, comparable to the Soviet Union’s Glasnost, in which elements of the US imperial braintrust can see with blinding clarity Washington’s entire hegemonic global project is stumbling rapidly and irreversibly towards extinction… Collapsing Empire: China and Russia Checkmate US Military, Kit Klarenberg, Substack

Once again, we see the same criticisms reiterated over and over again: Insufficient industrial capacity, dwindling stockpiles, “insuperable production limitations”, and diminished technological superiority. When we add these to the myriad logistical problems of conducting a war in eastern Europe with an ad hoc army of inexperienced volunteers who have never seen combat, we can only conclude that the United States cannot and will not prevail in a prolonged conflict with Russia. Even so, Washington continues to fire ATACMS missiles into Russia (13 more were launched over the past two days) apparently believing that there will be no response to the provocation. Even so, NATO Command continues to entertain illusions of victory by pressing for preemptive “precision strikes” on Russian territory welcoming the prospect of a direct conflagration between NATO and Russia. And even though, both France and the UK threaten to deploy combat troops to Ukraine thinking the inexorable trajectory of the war can somehow be reversed. It’s madness.

Five centuries of primacy have produced a cadre of western elites so drunk with hubris that they are incapable of seeing what is painfully obvious to everyone else, that the imperial model of western exploitation (the ‘rules-based order’) is collapsing and that new centers of power are rapidly emerging. It appears now that these same elites are prepared to drag the world into a catastrophic Third World War to preserve their grip on power and to prevent other nations from achieving the independence and prosperity they’ve earned. Fortunately, Washington will fail in this effort just as it has failed in all its other interventions dating back to 1945. Because the United States no longer has the technology, manpower or industrial capacity needed to win a war with Russia.

It’s a whole new ballgame.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

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).  

All images in this article are from TUR

Read Part I:

The Dangers Lurking in Animal-Based Foods: Harmful Additives, Synthetic Hormones, Colorings, Antibiotics, Glyphosate

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, November 25, 2024

---

Dairy Additives

At this point in history, the presence of natural hormones in cow’s milk and their effect on us seems almost minor compared to the dangers due to the over-industrialization of animal-raising today. Another pollutant of milk and dairy products that accompanies the raising of livestock industrially is recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is routinely injected in dairy cattle to increase milk production.

For years, Monsanto (now Bayer)—perhaps the world’s wealthiest and largest agro-developer and food industry lobbyist—has marketed rBGH under the trade name Posilac. The company created a global monopoly on the manufacture and sale of this dairy additive before selling it to Eli Lilly for $300 million. Earlier,  Monsanto lobbied aggressively with the FDA and the National Dairy Council to sustain its freedom to sell Posilac to dairy farmers. Many voiced health concerns about the use of the hormone. There became such an outcry that, in 1999, the United Nations Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations, ruled unanimously on a moratorium against Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormonal milk.[31] Nevertheless, the United States didn’t adopt the ban, and rBGH remains a standard fare in the raising of dairy cows. However, many countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc, banned rBGH years ago. 

Why is there such alarm over rBGH’s use? One thoroughly investigated health concern is that a comparison between milk of cows with or without the hormone has shown that rBGH leaves more bacteria in final milk products. It also aids in preserving traces of antibiotics if any were used to treat infections that appeared following injection of the hormone.

But that’s not the main fear over the hormone’s health threats. The primary reason for the United Nation’s decision against Posilac use is that it has been linked to colon, breast, and prostate cancers. One agent that may well take part in the development of cancer and other diseases is IGF-1, a biomolecule associated with severe inflammatory illnesses, which is found in rBGH treated milk. IGF-1 levels can be as much as ten times higher in this milk than in untreated milk. Also, it appears that the IGF-1 in treated milk is more potent, because it binds more strenuously to human proteins than that in cows’ milk that didn’t receive the hormone.”[32] There is evidence that this IGF-1 molecule, and hence the rBGH that carries it, plays a major role in diabetic complications and during the early stages of diabetic nephropathy—kidney damage resulting from high protein in the urine.

Samuel Epstein, M.D., author of What’s in Your Milk, did extensive research on how the health threats of rBGH occur. He writes that traces of rBGH “are absorbed through the gut… supercharged with high levels of… IGF-1, which is [also] readily absorbed through the gut,” where “excess levels of IGF-I have been incriminated as a cause of… colon cancer.” The molecule weakens the body’s defenses since “IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.” And not only does IGF-1 appear to allow for the emergence of colon cancer from its stronghold in the gut, Epstein warns that IGF-1 can also cause breast and prostate cancers.[33]

When a cow is administered rBGH, it is followed by administration of a sulfur- based drug to prevent infection due to injection of the growth hormone. Traces of this antibiotic may be found in the milk, and these sulfur drugs may cause cancer.

Moreover, frequent antibiotic administration to animals in general tends to make bacteria drug resistant, and these bacteria often make their way into the milk. Moreover, in fighting the bacteria, which either from the hormone injection or in relation to the unhealthy conditions of the animal’s living quarters, pus forms in the cow as its body fights against the pathogenic intruders. When a dairy cow is infected with mastitis, more than 90 percent of her cells are the inflammatory cells that form pus.[34] This is par for the course and accepted by the FDA, which labels pus in milk as an accepted “additive.” After all, the FDA reasons, it is a natural by-product. With this in mind, the FDA permits 750 million somatic pus cells to be present in every liter of milk.[35] In contrast, the European Union allows for 400,000 cells per liter. 

Many antibiotics go into cattle but how does this affect our milk. As the Toronto Vegetarian Association notes, “Antibiotics, mostly penicillin, are given to cows for treatment of mastitis [an inflammation of the mammary gland]. Cows are not supposed to be milked for 48 hours after receiving penicillin. When this precaution is not followed [which is not an uncommon occurrence], the penicillin appears in the milk.”[36] Consequently, these drugs end up in the dairy products we may be consuming. When Consumers Union and the Wall Street Journal tested milk samples in the New York metropolitan area they discovered the presence of 52 different antibiotics. Eat ice cream, yogurt, and cheese toppings, and you’re also consuming antibiotics.

Fish Additives

It may seem that while there can be negative health consequences to eating fish, but consider this: fish live in oceans and lakes that are so polluted that no person in their right mind would dare drink from them.

Because fish are floating in seas of pollutants, every time we eat them, we are ingesting, along with their meat, noxious chemicals, heavy metals, and disease- bearing organisms. This is a fact that has been noted by leading physicians, such as Neal Barnard, M.D., Director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who has explained, “As a result of human pollution of aquatic environments, eating fish flesh has become a major health hazard.”[37]

In more striking terms, as Richard Schwartz points out in his article, “Troubled Waters,” the fish we eat today are little more than “a mixture of fat and protein, seasoned with toxic chemicals.” During the course of a six-month investigation, the Consumers Union found that nearly half of all fish tested from markets in New York City, Chicago, and Santa Cruz were contaminated by bacteria from human or nonhuman feces, pathogenic worms, and parasites.[38]

A number of health watch groups arrived at the conclusion that the risks of fish consumption outweigh the upsides. A National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine report found “seafood is the major source of human exposure to methylmercury,” a potent neurotoxin known to cause cognitive impairment, memory loss, and coordination difficulties. An examination of the study noted,

“Evidence suggesting that people who have suffered heart attacks can reduce their risk of future heart attacks by eating seafood is weaker than previously thought, the committee concluded. It is also not clear whether consuming seafood might reduce people’s risks for diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, or other ailments.”[39]

In tuna fish—a favorite American food—there are traces of methylmercury. Vas Aposhian, a toxicologist and professor of molecular and cell biology and pharmacology at the University of Arizona, who served as a scientific advisor on mercury issues to the FDA and EPA, reported that mercury levels in albacore tuna are so high consumers should avoid the fish completely. “[Even] eating small amounts of some fish may be unsafe.”[40]

Unlike the agribusiness-sponsored scientists whose research always seems to discover positive things about meat and dairy consumption, Aposhian resigned his advisory position in protest when the FDA and the EPA issued “a national health advisory warning that children and women of childbearing age should limit mercury intake by eating no more than six ounces [one can] of albacore tuna a week,” a warning that Dr. Aposhian criticized as “dangerously lax.” As he saw it, the food industry had exerted influence to weaken the agencies’ mercury warnings.[41]

Another of America’s favorite fish is salmon. Salmon’s popularity has grown rapidly because of its reputation for being high in omega fatty acids. However it also deserves notoriety for being one of the most polluted fish. This is due to the high burden of PCB contamination as a result of agricultural runoffs, human and livestock sewage, and industrial wastes.[42] PCBs, known carcinogens, are used as coolants in waterproofing compounds, paints, and for many other industrial purposes. These chemicals have now become all-pervasive in factory and factory farm environments.

Eating wild caught fish is not the only problem. Many are raised in fish farms, living in tanks or other enclosed areas, which poses the same risks as livestock feedlots. In fact the majority of fish sold in restaurants today come from unhealthy fish farms. This is not only done for the industry’s convenience and financial gain, but because wild fish stocks are rapidly being depleted, down as much as 90% for some species. At the current rate of wild-catch exploitation, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the world’s fish supply will be completely depleted by 2048. Fish in the depleted category are so few it is no longer feasible to try and catch them.

Adding to the problem of depletion is that much of the fresh fish caught in the world today are processed as fishmeal for pigs, chickens, and farm-raised animals. In 2024, The Fishing Daily reported “approximately half of all caught fish, ranging from 490 to 1,100 billion, are reduced to fishmeal and oil primarily utilized in farmed animal diets.”[43] The fishmeal fed to livestock is usually produced from small forage fish, including anchovies and sardines, which are near the bottom of the ocean food chain as a major food source for larger fish, ocean mammals, and seabirds. Consequently, excessive small fish removal injures the species that feed on them. There are other concerns. These smaller fish could easily be consumed directly by humans as a nutritional source, rather than shipped to farms to feed livestock. This is especially true for areas of the world where people rely on fishing for daily survival. Indeed, this is another example of the insanity of raising animals for food. 

There are obvious concerns about fish stocks collapsing, and alternative livestock feed would be an enormous help for struggling fish populations. But the problem is worse than we suspect. The scientific journal Nature reported that only 10% of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin as well as large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—were left in the sea.[44] We might wonder about the implications of such a large depletion. One thing is for sure, fewer of today’s children will have the opportunity to experience fish in their natural environments, abundant, lively, and healthy.

Similar to livestock, fish raised in aquacultures tanks are being overdosed with antibiotics. Due to the horrible environmental conditions created for aquaculture, farmed fish are far more susceptible to a variety of bacterial and parasitic diseases. To protect and preserve large aqua farms, fish raisers use vast amounts of antibiotics. According to one study, these antibiotics are not biodegradable and remain in the fishery waters for long periods of time, thereby generating the perfect conditions for new forms of pathogenic, drug-resistant pathogens to emerge.[45]

Consumers ultimately ingest the antibiotics, along with any infectious organisms and bacteria that remain in fish. An additional example of these drugs’ presence is the fungicide and dye known as malachite green. Although banned in the 1990s because of its association with cancers, genetic mutations and endocrinal disorders it has still been used illegally in fish factories. But there are other legal artificial dyes to make fish more appealing to buyers with serious health risks. One is the synthetic dye canthaxanthin that has been linked to ocular and retinal damage and defects.[46] High doses can lead potentially to aplastic anemia, a fatal blood disorder.

In three separate independent studies of 37 fish pellet samples (animal feed made from fish) used in six countries, each sample was found to have PCB contamination, and an Environmental Working Group study reported that farmed salmon—which contains 52 percent more fat than wild-caught—is perhaps the most PCB-contaminated protein sourced.[47] These fish will store PCBs in their fat and ultimately be passed to humans. An American study of fish filets sold commonly sold in grocery stores found that many had unwanted chemical additives and noted that two fish in particular had the highest levels of health-threatening chemicals, including PCBs: bluefish and rockfish.[48]

In order to raise cattle, huge amounts of land and feed crops are required. The same is true for aquaculture. What has evolved is an absurdly paradoxical cycle. Fish purveyors turn to aquaculture because they realize the ocean fish stocks are running out, but in doing so, they rely on fish taken from the seas to feed their in-house creatures—a practice that not only adds to further depletion of free stocks, but that is putting the American public at greater health risk.

Microplastics in Animal Food Products

Microplastics, tiny plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in size, have become a catastrophic environmental and health issue. These fragments, which also include nanoplastics measuring less than 1 micrometer, are the result of the breakdown of larger plastic debris or are manufactured at microscopic scales for use in products like cosmetics. Once released into the environment, these plastics persist for decades due to their resistance to natural degradation.[49]

Image source

The pathways through which microplastics enter the food chain are numerous and deeply concerning. They infiltrate aquatic ecosystems via improper waste disposal and illegal dumping, industrial runoff, and agricultural activities. Fish and other marine organisms ingest these plastics directly or indirectly through their prey. On land, microplastics contaminate soil, water sources and are often carried by airborne deposition. Livestock such as cattle, chickens, and pigs consume microplastics via contaminated feed, water or forage. Filter-feeding sea animals such shellfish are particularly vulnerable and accumulate significant amounts of microplastics due to their natural feeding methods.[50]

The extent of contamination is staggering. Studies have shown that 30 to 60 percent of fish species sampled from both oceanic and freshwater environments contain microplastics. Popularly consumed species such as cod, tuna, and haddock are among the most affected. Shellfish exhibit the highest levels of contamination. Microplastics have also been detected in the gastrointestinal tracts of cattle and poultry; there is some evidence of accumulation in muscle tissues that eventually find its way into our food system.[51]

Physically, these particles can obstruct gastrointestinal tracts leading to reduced feeding and malnutrition. Chemically, they carry hazardous substances such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which are known endocrine disruptors. Furthermore, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) adhere to microplastics thereby amplifying their toxicity. These contaminants can accumulate in the food chain, posing significant risks to animal health, longevity, and reproductive systems.[52]

Unfortunately, humans are not spared from the health consequences of microplastic contamination. Studies estimate that seafood consumers ingest up to 11,000 microplastic particles annually. They accumulate in edible seafood tissues, particularly in smaller fish and shellfish that are consumed whole. The health implications for humans include gastrointestinal distress because these toxic plastics can disrupt gut microbiota and cause inflammation. The toxicological risks are even more concerning. Over time, chemical additives leached from plastics may increase the risk of cancer, reproductive disorders, and hormonal imbalances. Moreover, nanoplastics are capable of penetrating the bloodstream; this contributes to oxidative stress, immune suppression, and other systemic effects.[53]

The pervasive presence of microplastics in the food chain underscores the urgent need for more strict regulatory action to reduce plastic pollution. Addressing this issue will require concerted efforts to improve waste management, regulate industrial waste disposal practices, and reduce the production of single-use plastics. Protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from further contamination is not only essential for environmental health but also critical for safeguarding human health and food security.

Animal Foods: You Get Far More Than You Bargained For

Millions of dollars are spent by the transnational food industry to convince us that it is healthy to eat an abundance of meat, dairy, fish and processed foods to remain healthy. Besides advertising, there is the cost of lobbying and contributions to politicians. In 2022, agriculture companies and industry groups spend a record $165 million lobbying.[54] In 2024, total campaign contributions amounted to over $130 million[55]—all to ensure that their products don’t incur further federal regulations and continue to be seen in a positive light. This, of course, means that any health risks are underplayed and hostile legislation that might better protect citizens are minimized.

Many might remember the headlines about an illness that emerged during Christmas in 1994. In the UK, 180,000 animals were infected with a disease that can be transmitted to humans who eat meat from sickened animals. One hundred and sixty-five deaths were reported. When this outbreak occurred overseas, the beef lobby rushed to assure Americans that its beef was fine.

The outbreak of Mad Cow Disease was attributed in part to “rendering,” parts of slaughtered animals being reprocessed into animal feed; a disgusting practice that turned grass eating cows into unsuspecting cannibals as well as turning herbivore animals into carnivores. The same feeding method was going great guns in the US. After the British panic and deaths, this practice was banned in the US. But this didn’t mean that a seemingly sick cow would not be led to the slaughterhouse and sold. As long as it was checked and didn’t have mad cow, it was good to go. Some state politicians were so deep in the meat industry’s pockets that laws were passed laws to stop activists from publicly talking about their fears of eating tainted meat that hadn’t been proven safe.

.

The memorial plaque to victims of CJD is located on the boundary wall of Saint Thomas’ Hospital in Lambeth facing the Riverside Walk of Prince Albert Embankment. The plaque contains an embossed representation of a Chrysanthemum, a flower traditionally placed on graves to honour the dead. The inscription reads “In loving memory of the victims of Human BSE (vCJD). Always in our thoughts. Human BSE Foundation” (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

.

Eventually, because of continual threats of mad cow disease, a ban on this practice became law in December 2004. Even though these sick or “downer” cattle are federally banned from our food supply, two major problems remain: some companies do not heed the ban, and a loophole exists that still allows young downer veal calves to be sent to slaughter. On the first issue, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) exposed the Westland Meat Co., in Riverside, California, one of the nation’s leading suppliers to the state’s school lunch program, for the illegal slaughter and sale of sick and downer cattle. This was in spite of eight on-site USDA inspectors.[56] Calves were nevertheless allowed to proceed to slaughter as long as they were “able to rise and walk after being warmed or rested.”[57] Sadly, this has led to food manufacturers using cruel and inhumane methods including beating, kicking, and the use of electric prods to get these sick animals to the kill room.

Propaganda from the meat industry doesn’t stop at downplaying the possible health hazards that are associated with its products. It also makes scientifically unsupported claims. For example, the question of whether meat has a lot or a little fat is hardly the only consideration that should occupy someone thinking about eating any meat. 

Illnesses from Improper Meat Handling

According to CDC analyses of outbreak surveillance, animal food products are responsible for approximately 48 million foodborne illnesses annually. This includes 128,000 hospitalizations and over 3,000 deaths.[58] The leading sources cover the full spectrum of the most popular meat-based sources Americans regularly consume: poultry, beef, pork and eggs. Poultry, a leading source of Campylobacter and Salmonella infections, accounts for the most deaths. The bacteria linked to meat and dairy products are extremely dangerous to those with weakened immune systems. Listeria monocyotogenes, commonly associated with deli meats and read-to-eat products, is especially dangerous to people with autoimmune conditions. In fact, Listeria bacteria can survive refrigeration and even freezing.

Once someone has experienced food poisoning, there can be recurrent physical experiences after the initial bout. The University of Maryland Medical Center made a partial list of them:

• After shigellosis, white blood cell problems and kidney problems

After E. coli infection, renal and bleeding problems

• After botulism, long hospital stays (1 to 10 months) with fatigue and difficulty breathing for 1 to 2 years or, if worse, respiratory failure
• After salmonellosis, Reiter syndrome (an arthritis-like disease) and inflammation of the heart lining
• After campylobacteriosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (a nerve disease).

In addition, another seldom presented danger of food poisoning is that physical effects often don’t manifest till years down the road. Accoding to an Associated Press article:

“It’s a dirty little secret of food poisoning: E. coli and certain other food-borne illnesses can sometimes trigger serious health problems months or years after patients survived that initial bout. Scientists only now are unraveling a legacy that has largely gone unnoticed. What they’ve spotted so far is troubling. In interviews with The Associated Press, they described high blood pressure, kidney damage, even full kidney failure striking 10 to 20 years later in people who survived severe E. coli infection as children, arthritis [coming] after a bout of salmonella or shigella, and a mysterious paralysis that can attack people who just had mild symptoms of campylobacter… For now, some of the best evidence comes from the University of Utah, which has long tracked children with E. coli. About 10% of E. coli sufferers develop a life-threatening complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, where their kidneys and other organs fail.”[59]

Furthermore, the list of bacteria contaminating milk and dairy products is similar to those associated with meat: Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria (frequently in cheese), Campylobacter, and Staphylcoccus.

Because these adverse lingering effects are so little known, people have not yet faced some of the most troubling consequences of contaminated food. Further, they may not even be aware that legal rights are suspended upon initial settlement. This means that should diseases present themselves down the road, the patient could have no additional legal recourse. The majority of people who contract a foodborne illness never figure out the actual cause of their sickness. 

Faulty Inspection Regimes

Several theories have been suggested as to why so much pathogen-infected meat appears in the animal produce Americans consume. One is that oil prices encourage greater ethanol production, a corn byproduct that increasingly is being used as cattle feed. This feed appears to make the animals’ digestive tracts even more hospitable breeding grounds for the toxic strain of E. coli bacteria. This was the opinion from Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator in the Office of Field Operations at the US Department of Agriculture.

Nevertheless, perhaps the primary obstacle for preventing the spread of foodborne bacteria, toxic E. coli in particular, is inadequate government inspection and meat-handling practices in slaughterhouses where contamination is most likely to occur. “Slaughter plants are the primary source of E. coli contamination, so the USDA should be putting more resources toward recording and tracing back the original source of contaminated meat detected in test samplings at smaller down- line processing facilities,” stated John Munsell, former owner of a Montana-based meat packing and slaughter company who testified about beef contamination at congressional hearings. Munsell owned Montana Quality Foods and got into trouble when the USDA discovered his firm’s hamburger was contaminated with E coli. He protested, however, that the meat was already contaminated before it came to his plant; and he even identified the source: ConAgra where it had passed USDA inspection. This experience soured him on meatpacking and turned him into an activist.

Other shortfalls in the safety system identified by experts include:

• Carcasses can move through slaughterhouses at a rate of up to 390 per hour, making inspection difficult.
• If meat tests positive for the bacteria, companies are allowed to cook it for sale in other products such as pizza or tacos. While thorough cooking should kill E.coli, diverting tainted meat creates an opening for cross-contamination, the transfer of germs to other meats before cooking.
• Consumer illnesses, not government or industry testing, trigger recalls for the majority beef subject to E.coli contamination. In 2024, 83.5 tones of ground beef ffhad been recalled due to possible E. coli contamination, according to the USDA.[60]

In the largest call back in US history, 143 million pounds of meat were recalled. The vexing problem was not that the weak cattle had Mad Cow disease, which was never determined, but that the USDA had not detected the likelihood that these animals were carriers, even in their enfeebled condition.[61] It was an animal rights group brought this to the nation’s attention, not USDA inspectors. The Hallmark plant was subsequently shut down, but that is not much comfort to those possibly ate the tainted meat its recall.

In January of 2015, Food Safety reported that in 2014 alone there were 94 meat recalls, and nearly half were because of undeclared allergens, while 16 were due to E. coli, Listeria, or Salmonella contamination.[62] In 2018, the JBS Tolleson beef recall amounted to 12.1 million pounds of Salmonella-contaminated beef products across 25 states.[63] CongAgra had 2.6 million pounds of canned meat products contaminated with botulinum toxin recalled in 2023 due to improper processing.[64]

Another factor that hampers livestock inspection is the speed of the “disassembly line,” which keeps being boosted by companies to increase productivity. With an average of only 1.25 inspectors per slaughterhouse, the sheer volume of animals being slaughtered daily threatens to overwhelm the inspection regime. The USDA work force hardly seems adequate to properly scrutinize the 2,850 slaughterhouses in the US that provide the billions of pounds of meat for food stores each year.  

The parasitic disease trichinosis caused buy undercooked pork is a dread illness for good reason. Trichinella spiralis larvae is first ingested in the intestinal tract, then later in active muscles—the calves, diaphragm, and tongue— which are weakened until the victim can barely move. Severe case can lead to heart inflammation, encephalitis and respiratory complications. Even non-pork eaters can pick up the illness, as this organism can get into other meats by the intentional or inadvertent mixing of pork with chopped beef in supermarkets, butcher shops, and restaurants. Despite federal oversight, and USDA guidelines for freezing pork to kill the parasite, there are still major gaps in monitoring hog farming and pork processing that have resulted in trichinosis outbreaks and recalls. In 2018, there was a trichinosis outbreak due to contaminated raw sausage resulting in the recall of 48,000 pounds of pork.

A couple of other deadly bacteria that have been detected in meats that made their way to the supermarket shelves or restaurant tables are listeria and salmonella. Listeria rarely infects humans, but when it does, it is quite lethal, with a 25% fatality rate. Once the bacteria invades a cell, it propagates by moving cell to cell, avoiding reentering the bloodstream where it might be detected by antibodies. Those most at risk are newborns, the elderly, pregnant mothers, and AIDS patients.[65] Given its lethality, special biochemical detection assays have been developed to determine its presence in commercial food products.

Salmonella is an enterobacteria often associated with food-poisoning and food-borne illnesses. It is responsible for causing typhoid and paratyphoid fevers. There is no realistic hope of wiping out the possibility of Salmonella infections. As the National Academy of Sciences states, “Reluctantly, we are forced to recognize the unfeasibility of eradicating salmonellosis at this time.” According to current CDC figures, each year there are approximately 1.35 million Salmonella poisoning annually, including 26,500 people requiring hospitalization and 420 deaths, many of them elderly or infants.[66] The symptoms of Salmonella poisoning might appear less than life-threatening: nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; however, if the bacteria enters the bloodstream of an immune-compromised individual, severe conditions may include septic shock, meningitis, endocarditis and reactive arthritis or Reiter’s Syndrome.  

It should also be stressed that the presence of one pathogenic bacteria in a meat product does not preclude a second, third, or even more pathogenic intruders in the same product. Laboratory studies have indicated that contaminated meat likely contains more than one disease-causing microbe. E. coli in cultures taken from animals, for example, is often backed up by brother germs, such as Enterbacteriaceae, and Salmonella.

Even if meat leaves the factory farms pure, it will not necessarily reach your plate that way. There is still a second line of hazards for someone eating in a restaurant or institution (such as a hospital or school cafeteria). According to the CDC, mishandling of food in such places is the major factor in outbreaks of botulism, a serious nerve toxin and form of food poisoning. The CDC identifies, among other factors that lead to food-borne illnesses, improper storage temperatures, inadequate cooking time, and poor personal hygiene of food handlers.[67]

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Notes

[31] Epstein SS, “Monsanto’s rBGH Genetically Modified Milk Ruled Unsafe by the United Nations.” https://www.animallaw.info/article/you-are-what-your-food-eats-how-regulation-factory-farm-conditions-could-improve-human

[32] Ibid.

[33] Epstein SS, What’s In Your Milk? Trafford Publishing, 2006.

[34] “Is there pus cells in milk and what are the health risks?”  GenV. February 22, 2022. https://genv.org/pus-in-milk/

[35] https://www.foodprotection.org/upl/downloads/journal-archive/dairy-food-and-environmental-sanitation-1993-volume-13-issue-2.pdf

[36] “Cow’s Milk: A Natural Choice?” Toronto Vegetarian Association, 15 Mar 2005.

[37] Schwartz RH. “Troubled Waters: The Case Against Eating Fish,” Vegetarian Voice, 2004.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Stencel C. “Consumers need better guidance to fully weigh possible benefits and risks when making seafood choices,” The National Academies, 17 Oct 2006.

[40] Lanou AJ, Sullivan P, “Something’s Fishy on Federal Dietary Committee,” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 13 Apr 2004.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Hugan X, et al., “Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects.” Environmental Research, 2006; 101: 263-274.

[43] McBride O. “Majority of wild fish capture being processed as animal feed study claims,” International Fishing News. February 8, 2024.

[44] Seaweb. “Nature cover story: only 10% of all large fish are left in global ocean.” Eurekalert, May 14, 2003.

[45] Chu WL, “Study warns excess fish farming drug use promotes resistance” Drug Researcher.com, 21 June 2006.

[46] “Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the Use of Canthaxanthin in Feed for Salmon and Trout, Laying Hens and Other Poultry,” (Brussels: European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection, 2002).

[47] “First ever US tests of farmed salmon show high levels of cancer causing PCBs,” Environmental Working Group. July 30, 2003.

[48] Hayward D, et al., “Polybrominated dipheylethers and polychlorinated biphenyls in commercially wild caught and farm-raised fish fillets in the United States.” Environmental Research, 2007; 103: 46-54.

[49] Danopoulos E, Jenner LC, Twiddy M, et al. “Microplastic contamination of seafood intended for human consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 2020

[50] Dawson AL, Santana MF, M, Miller ME, et al. “Relevance and reliability of evidence for microplastic contamination in seafood.” Environmental Pollution. 2021

[51] Prata JC, da Costa JP, Duarte AC, et al. “Worldwide contamination of fish with microplastics: A brief global overview.” Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2020.

[52] Zolotova N, Kosyreva A, Dzhalilova D, et al. “Harmful effects of the microplastic pollution on animal health: A literature review.” PeerJ. 2022

[53] Mercogliano R, Avio CG, Regoli F, et al. “Occurrence of microplastics in commercial seafood under the perspective of the human food chain.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2020

[54] McVan M. “Agribusiness spent a record-breaking $165 million on federal lobbying last year,” Investigate Midwest. February 16, 2023.

[55] “Agribusiness Lobbying” Open Secrets. 2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?ind=A

[56] Lauto PA. “Meat Company Exposed For Illegal Slaughter And Sale To Schools Of Downer Cattle,” 2013. http://www.liattorney.com/scales-of-justice/meat- company-exposed-for-illegal-slaughter-and-sale-to-schools-of-downer-cattle

[57] “Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves,” USDA, Spring 2014. (9 CFR 309.13(b)) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=0583-AD54

[58] Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, et al. “Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2011; 17(1), 7-15.

[59] Neergaard, Lauran. “Food poisoning can harm long term.” Associated Press, January 22, 2008. https://www.theledger.com/story/news/2008/01/22/food-poisoning-can-harm-long-term/25861115007/

[60] Reiner M. “Over 83 tons of ground beef recalled nationwide, illnesses reported: USDA” WKBN (Washington), November 21, 2024. 

[61] Kim V. “Undercover tape of abused cattle being slaughtered at a Chino plant raises questions about inspection process.” Los Angeles Times, 7 Feb. 2008.

[62] Zuraw L. “2.5 Million Pounds of Meat, Poultry Recalled for Pathogen Contamination in 2014,” Food Safety News, January 2015.

[63] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Outbreak of Multistate Salmonella Infections Linked to JBS Tolleson Beef Products.” CDC Investigation Reports. 2018.

[64] Food and Drug Administration. “ConAgra Brands Initiates Recall of Canned Meat Products.” FDA Recall Notices (2023).

[65] “Listeria (Listeriosis),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 4, 2013.

[66] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Salmonella Homepage.”

[67] Sours HE, Smith OG, “Outbreaks of Foodborne Disease in the United States, 1972-1978,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1980; 142:122125.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah went into effect at 4 am, local time, on November 27. Israel carried out intensive airstrikes in Beirut prior to the deadline killing 18 people, and by the time the deal went into effect the smell of explosives was hanging heavy the air.

By noon, the road leading south from Beirut was full of people anxious to return to their homes in the south, despite warnings from both Israeli and Lebanese authorities.

Cars overflowing with people, and mattresses stacked high on the roofs, were in a traffic jam going south. The Sunni Muslim majority political party, The Future Movement, had representatives in blue vests handing out sweets to cars slowly driving south, in a sign of solidarity with the mainly Shiite Muslim people of the south. 

Many of the residents will find they have no home to return to, after 14 months of Israel airstrikes on the south, and an Israeli limited ground incursion since late September which saw carpet-bombing of the south.

Lebanon has lost people and buildings, and Hezbollah has lost many top level leaders and commanders, along with perhaps half of its missile supplies. But, Israel has lost as well, and that is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed his government to accept the US brokered ceasefire deal.

Over 1,000 Israeli soldiers were injured in Lebanon, and over 120 were killed. Over 60 Merkava tanks were destroyed, and despite sending in five Army divisions, Israel could not take command of Lebanese soil in the south. They resorted to short period incursions and withdrawals, and were not able to set up secure headquarters because of the constant attacks by Hezbollah fighters, resisting the invaders.

In the days leading up to the ceasefire, Israeli media was showing Israeli soldiers walking through paths and the countryside of Kiam. However, by late afternoon the day the ceasefire began, returning residents had arrived in Kiam to find many buildings bombed by airstrikes, but no evidence the Israelis had been occupying, other than passing through.

The deal is set for 60 days of calm, in which the Israelis will withdraw from Lebanon completely, Hezbollah will move north of the Litani River, and the Lebanese Army will be the military presence in the south with 10,000 troops.

This is the same deal which was proposed at the end of the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, and the UN resolution 1701 was formed. In today’s ceasefire, the same points of the 1701 are to be met, and no new demands were added.  Hezbollah gets to keep their weapons.

In Israel, the opposition to Netanyahu have blasted the ceasefire as impotent, because Hezbollah is not disarmed. The displaced residents of the north of Israel may not quickly return home. Some are wary of the ceasefire while Hezbollah still remains an armed resistance organization.

“Withdrawing forces now will create a dynamic that will make it difficult for us, and make it easier for Hezbollah to regroup,” said Benny Gantz, the National Unity leader. “We must not do only half the job.”

 “Hezbollah still has its stockpile of tens of thousands of rockets,” added Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister. “An impressive military achievement … is being translated into a total security-diplomatic failure.”

According to Israeli TV channel 13, 61% of those polled do not think Israel won the war in Lebanon. Also, 66% of those polled support an end to the war in Gaza.

According to Sky News Arabic, Israel has lost 5 billion in the tourism sector, 48,000 companies have gone bankrupt, and military losses of $130, 000 per day because of the war in Gaza.

Israeli infrastructure has suffered from 9,000 buildings damaged or destroyed, 7,000 vehicles lost, 55,000 acres of land burned, and over 75,000 Israelis were displaced from homes in the north.

From the outset of the Israel attacks on Gaza, in the aftermath of the Hamas October 7 surprise attack, Hezbollah began missile and drone attacks across Israel in solidarity with the people of Gaza, and the need to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. In the days prior to the ceasefire deal, Hezbollah carried out an attack on Tel Aviv which saw widespread destruction in videos. Even after being so severely diminished by Israeli military efforts, Hezbollah was proven to be effective as far away as Tel Aviv, much farther than the Israeli north.

In light of military losses in Lebanon, the inability of the Israeli ground forces to take a foot-hold, and the serious damages in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu likely felt the time was right to stop the conflict and secure a ceasefire without achieving his ultimate military goals of destroying and disarming Hezbollah.

US President Joe Biden hailed the American brokered ceasefire deal. He failed to achieve a ceasefire deal in Gaza. In July, Netanyahu gave Biden his promise to agree to Biden’s ceasefire plan. But just days later, Netanyahu reneged on his promise, which caused Biden to withdraw his name from the presidential race. Biden was counting on Netanyahu’s support which would be seen as a huge political achievement by US voters who had become disgusted at the genocide in Gaza, and the American complicity.

President-elect Donald Trump is said to be pleased with the ceasefire in Lebanon, as he has successfully campaigned on a promise to end all wars. Trump won’t take office until January 20, but many are predicting he will be a supporter of Netanyahu. However, Trump values loyalty highly. In the 2020 election, Netanyahu publically supported Biden, and asked the thousands of US citizens living in Israel to vote for Biden. Trump has never forgotten that betrayal.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image: Israel and Hezbollah. (Photo: OnePixelStudio/Shutterstock)

According to Hal Turner Radio Show, Russia issued the following NOTAM Bulletin:

KAPUSTIN YAR – TONIGHT 11:00 PM EST THRU 11-30-2024.

For details see this Hal Turner Radio Show – BULLETIN: RUSSIA ISSUES NOTAM – KAPUSTIN YAR – TONIGHT 11:00 PM EST THRU 11-30-2024. 

Untypically, this warning was issued in English, basically saying that between 26 and 30 November 2024, Russia may hit again. This time one or several NATO bases – see the charts provided in the link.

.

.

It indicates that Russia may hit somewhere, probably because of what NATO has been saying, and what Sebastian Gorka said. Mr. Gorka is Donald Trump’s controversial choice for counterterrorism. Speaking for the Trump Administration, he said something to the extent, what Biden supplied to Ukraine will pale in comparison of what they [the incoming Trump Administration] will give [to Ukraine].  

That may be for purposes of [stupid] propaganda and negotiations, but can Russia take the risk?

Besides, Trump has been saying throughout his presidential campaign that he would stop weapons supply to Ukraine. Why would he change his promise now, just as Russia shows they are dead serious and mean it, by launching on 21 November 2024 a state of the art, high energy Mach-10 medium- to long-range (IRBM [inter-regional] / ICBM [intercontinental Ballistic Missile]), multi-headed missile, called Oreshnik (‘Hazel”), into Dnipro, Ukraine, to destroy a weapon-manufacturing plant and military base?

According to Mr. Putin, it was a warning and test run of their latest technology in military equipment. The west / NATO was warned 30 minutes ahead of the launching.

Western commentators called it a Russian bluff.

Oreshnik can easily be converted into an ICBM and could hit anywhere in the US and Europe. Oreshnik may be used as a non-nuclear high energy [mega-destructive and pulverizing] tactical weapon, but it could as well be equipped with one or more nuclear warheads.

Within 30 to 60 minutes, it could destroy several NATO bases around the world.

The fact that Kiev is shooting long-range western (US, UK/French) missiles deep into Russian territory, means that NATO has converted the proxy war into a direct war between NATO and Russia.

What this could mean and become is anybody’s guess.

With NATO’s pride and incalculable arrogance, any Russian counter-attack, preventive and non-nuclear, to be sure, could trigger a NATO retribution directly on Russia, maybe Moscow. Russia would be ready with one or several ICBM Oreshnik, remote guided 10-Mach missiles, loaded with or without tactical nuclear war heads, directed at NATO bases anywhere.

That would be the final escalation of WWIII that started already with the Maidan Coup in Kiev, in February 2014, by admission of Jens Stoltenberg, former Secretary-General of NATO.

As Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of RT in Global Affairs, says, the breakdown of Russia-NATO diplomatic negotiations, leading to a standoff over Ukraine, is increasingly becoming a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, raising serious concerns about the risk of nuclear escalation. See this for full article.

We can just hope this will not happen. NATO and Russia will come to their senses.

War is just the ultimate money and power-generating mechanism to kill and destroy.

But those who hope for a double whammy – by destroying and rebuilding – doubling the profit scam, maybe wrong, reconstruction capacity may be demolished for quite a while to come.

We MUST hope, pray and be convinced that as humans we can avoid war. Together we can. By spiritual connection, not even knowing who else is part of “together” around the globe.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

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.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat (2024) is an extraordinary new documentary in cinemas at the moment that looks at the events leading up to the UN Security Council meeting when musicians Abbey Lincoln and Max Roach burst in to protest the murder of the Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba.

It is a documentary that combines music, film footage from the news, musicians playing and folk heritage, interviews, quotes from academic books and articles, novels and magazines, voiceovers from the literature of the time, all into a powerful and exciting journey through the 1950s and 1960s.

The use of jazz is not merely a soundtrack but follows the lives of musicians and singers discussing contemporary social and political issues in parallel with the footage of the political shenanigans of the time.

The documentary makes much use of colourful and dynamic graphics combined with quotes from academics and creative writers. Cut into the mix is recent footage from Tesla and Apple advertisements whose modernity is a jarring contrast to the black and white world of much of the 1950s footage. It is also a reminder that the economic value of rare earth metals mined in the Congo are just as important today (in batteries, for example), as they were back then.

Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat is a long documentary, running two and a half hours. Yet the editing, music and graphics kept one engaged throughout as the story of Lumumba reached a crisis point with his execution, as the new post-colonial world clashed with the machinations of the older colonial powers desperate to retain political control.

It is also a timely and important documentary. It was commented on during the film that if Africa was shaped like a pistol then Congo would be the trigger, the hot point that could trigger revolutions all over Africa. The geopolitical history of the Congo, the talk of a United States of Africa, and the decolonisation process during the 1960s, not to mention the overall general level of radical activity and thinking, is not so well-known or talked about now.

History

The Congo has had many name changes over the years from the Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, the Republic of the Congo-Léopoldville, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Zaire, before returning to its current name the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In the 1880s the country came into the hands of King Leopold II of Belgium when he acquired it from the colonial nations of Europe and made it into his own private property. One of its most important exports was rubber and the horrendous treatment of the locals to maximise profits was made infamous by Roger Casement in his Casement Report of 1904 (Casement travelled for weeks in the upper Congo Basin to interview people throughout the region, including workers, overseers and mercenaries. He delivered a long, detailed eyewitness report to the Crown that exposed abuses: “the enslavement, mutilation, and torture of natives on the rubber plantations”.).

.

Civilian victims of mutilation by Free State authorities (Mutilated Congolese children and adults (c. 1900-1905) — in Congo Free State (present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo) Privately owned territory of Belgian King Leopold II, with numerous enslaved rubber collection/production areas in the rainforest and on plantations. Rubber production used human rights abuses against the Congolese people, including amputations for unmet quotas and other colonial offenses.)

.

By 1908 Leopold cedeed the country and it became a Belgian colony. By the 1960s the burgeoning nationalist movement was strong enough to put Patrice Lumumba of the Mouvement National Congolais into power as the first Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo.

When a mutiny broke out in the army the ensuing violence led to the former colonial powers and the UN sending in troops. However, when UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld refused to let the UN troops help the Lumumba government,  Lumumba reacted by asking for support from the Soviet Union.

Thus began the Cold War competition between the West and the East for control of the neo-colonial state.

Image: Patrice Lumumba, first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo-Léopoldville.

The jazz element of the story comes to the fore when the US State Department sends Louis Armstrong to win the hearts and minds of the people of Africa, while at the same time the government was covertly organising the overthrow of the government. The irony of American attempts to retain control by using black culture and music as an influence though hailing from a country where the colour bar was still in operation, was not lost on the audience.

The situation was forced when Mobutu, Lumumba’s chief military aide, organised a coup d’état and established a new government.

The news that Lumumba had been killed was released gradually and this eventually led to the Abbey Lincoln and Max Roach demonstration at the UN Security Council meeting in 1961.

Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat harks back to a time when radical political activity was so much more to the fore than it is now. It could be seen in the open revolt by figures such as Khruschev within the UN, Lincoln and Roach from without, and in the content and form of the jazz music of the time. To understand the power that the right combination of politics and culture can unleash, this film is a rare gem, guaranteed to send shivers down your spine.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Caoimhghin has just published his new book – Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery, which looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. It is available on Amazon (amazon.co.uk) and the info page is here. 

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

Featured image: Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat, Film poster (Licensed under Fair Use)

The IDF dramatically increased its bombing campaign in Lebanon on Tuesday in the hours preceding an expected ceasefire with Hezbollah.

Israel always does this, and it’s so gross. Normal people get a ceasefire agreement and think “Good, this means we can finally stop fighting.” Israel gets a ceasefire agreement and goes, “This means we have to hurry up and kill as many people as possible before it takes effect.”

*

The Biden administration is now pushing Ukraine to lower its minimum draft age from 25 to 18 in order to provide more cannon fodder for the war against Russia.

Polls say that both Ukrainians and Americans want this US proxy war to end, but instead of ending it Washington is pressuring Kyiv to throw teenagers into the threshing machine of an unwinnable conflict.

And we were told this war was all about protecting democracy.

.

Read on X

.

Russia keeps getting hit by Ukraine with US-supplied long-range missiles and is now saying that “retaliatory actions are being prepared.” This happens as Trump appoints virulent Russia hawk Keith Kellogg as his envoy to the conflict, adding further weight to my concerns that these soaring tensions may continue to escalate after Trump gets into office.

I’ll say right now that if all this insane brinkmanship results in Russia hitting Ukraine with a tactical nuke or something I’ll be a lot more enraged at the western power structure I live under for giving rise to that horror than I’ll be at Vladimir Putin.

*

Don’t side with the powerful. Don’t side with Israel against the Palestinians. Don’t side with the US empire against any nation it targets. Don’t side with cops against their victims. Don’t side with billionaires and politicians against the people. Don’t side with the powerful.

*

Every four years Americans get to choose between the Republican Party and the party that consistently leaves them so disgusted that they then vote for the Republican Party.

*

The way American liberals spent months trying to whip up support and enthusiasm for an administration that was committing an active genocide exposed the disdain western liberals have for non-western lives in ways that will be remembered for generations.

*

Leftist indie media figures tend to drift to the right, either by shilling for liberal establishment politics or by promoting the faux populism of the Trump faction. This happens because when your business model is largely driven by clicks and views, you have an incentive to go where the mainstream numbers are. They don’t start off thinking “I can’t wait to sell out and covertly promote the interests of the power structures I claim to oppose,” they just see their virality go up when they talk one way compared to another and start putting out the kind of content that generates more.

Independent media does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in an information environment that’s saturated in empire propaganda which is designed to herd the public into two power-serving mainstream political factions. By changing their output to align with the mainstream liberal faction or the mainstream right wing faction, indie media creators are effectively surfing on the tide of these propaganda streams to carry them into fame and fortune.

This effect is further exacerbated by the fact that people tend to become more right wing the wealthier and more well-connected they become. The idea of fighting a class war against the ruling class is suddenly a lot less appealing when you’re a millionaire with a lot of rich celebrity friends and high-level political connections, so you’ll naturally find yourself pushing vapid culture war bullshit instead and restricting your criticisms of status quo politics to a much smaller zone. This happens to align perfectly with what the empire propagandists are doing, so you’ll still get plenty of clicks and views.

This doesn’t happen to you if you actually stand for something and get into indie media for principled reasons, but if you just got into it to have a cool job or whatever then you’re just going to do the job thing with it and do what makes you money. It’s pretty easy to see who lands where on this dynamic.

*

If you’re interested in awakening and enlightenment, check out the work of Angelo DiLullo. Nobody in the English-speaking world is talking about the how-to of liberation so lucidly and skillfully and sharing helpful information so freely. He’s got an excellent YouTube channel with his videos categorized into playlists for whatever stage people are at on their awakening journey.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

Featured image is from the author

Watch this important discussion between Dr. Philip Giraldi and Judge Andrew Napolitano on the recent developments in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

.

.Outstanding Analysis

.

.

 

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

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].

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Shortly after, he was called into the office and taken back to the vaccination area. Findling said that her son then left the school building and braved the sub-zero temperatures to call his parents.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children.  

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Commentary by Dr. William Makis

Alberta Health Services will injure or kill your child, either through malice or incompetence. And as a parent, you will have no recourse.

Albertans, you need to push back on Premier Danielle Smith to not be so weak on Alberta Health Services corruption and incompetence.

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications. 

Featured image is from Albertm24/Shutterstock

*

Click the share button below 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’s Holiday Fundraiser 

Featured image source

Big Pharma’s “License to Kill”

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, November 27, 2024

Over the past 50 years, the leading pharmaceutical companies in the United States have caused the injuries and deaths of millions of Americans. This troubling reality has reached such widespread acknowledgment that iatrogenic harm—injuries and deaths caused by medical treatment and erroneous diagnoses—now ranks as the third leading cause of death.

Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy Market

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 27, 2024

Be careful who you condemn and ostracise. They just might be supplying you with a special need. While the United States security establishment deems Russia the devil incarnate helped along by aspiring, mischief-making China, that devil continues supplying the US energy market with enriched uranium.

COP29 Summit Marked by Acrimonious Debate Over Emissions and Finance

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 27, 2024

A two-weeks long annual United Nations Climate Summit in Baku, Azerbaijan has ended without addressing the concerns of the peoples of the underdeveloped and developing geopolitical regions of the world.

The Western World Retreats Deeper Into Unreality. Paul C. Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, November 27, 2024

On November 18, 2024, the US and NATO fired from Ukrainian soil missiles into Russia despite the Russian government’s clear announcement that such reckless action would initiate war between the West and Russia. 

Nukes and Medium-range Missiles for Ukraine Neo-Nazi Junta, Perfect Recipe for WW3

By Drago Bosnic, November 27, 2024

The Kiev regime is specifically asking for the American “Tomahawk” cruise missiles, which, depending on the variant, have a range of up to 2,500 km. What this means in practice is that not only would virtually the entire European part of Russia be in range, but even some major cities beyond the Ural mountains (namely Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg).

Spanish State Meteorological Agency AEMET Expands List: More Than 70 States Modify Weather

By NoGeoengineering and Peter Koenig, November 27, 2024

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), more than 70 countries have shown interest in projects aimed at increasing precipitation through artificial weather modification (MAT) as part of their water management strategy. Some of them are: United States, China, Russia, Australia, Japan, Israel, South Korea, India, United Arab Emirates, Moldova, Ukraine, Syria, Portugal, Morocco, etc.

Iran: The Road to Armageddon? Felicity Arbuthnot

By Felicity Arbuthnot, November 27, 2024

The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq’s murderous decimation, the hawks’ nest which is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and their friends.

Os meios de comunicação ocidentais começam a admitir o fracasso da Ucrânia em Kursk. De acordo com um importante jornal ocidental, Kiev está a perder terreno na região indiscutível da Rússia, com as forças russas a avançar claramente em direção à fronteira sul. Os jornalistas ocidentais acreditam que existe um esforço russo para libertar toda a região antes da tomada de posse de Donald Trump, uma vez que o novo presidente americano está alegadamente a planejar envolver-se em negociações de paz.

O Wall Street Journal (WSJ) afirmou num artigo recente que os militares ucranianos estão a recuar de Kursk, dada a elevada intensidade dos ataques russos. O jornal acredita que existe uma diretiva de Moscou para expulsar os invasores o mais rapidamente possível, razão pela qual os esforços para libertar a região estão a expandir-se, resultando em mais perdas ucranianas.

“Eles atacam o tempo todo – de manhã, de dia, de noite”, disse Geniy, um comandante de batalhão de da 47ª Brigada Mecanizada da Ucrânia a jornalistas americanos.

O WSJ acredita que a guerra se encontra atualmente numa espécie de situação de “corrida”, com ambos os lados a tentarem fortalecer as suas posições antes do final do mandato de Joe Biden. Para a Ucrânia, seria vital ocupar tanto território russo quanto possível antes de Trump chegar ao poder, a fim de aumentar o seu poder de negociação durante possíveis negociações. No mesmo sentido, os russos estariam tentando limpar a presença estrangeira no seu território indiscutível, bem como avançar nas Novas Regiões, a fim de estabelecer os seus próprios termos de paz nas conversações diplomáticas.

Obviamente, do lado da Ucrânia, não existe apenas o medo de uma negociação que favoreça a Rússia, mas também um verdadeiro desespero quanto a um possível colapso militar. Trump promete acabar com a ajuda à Ucrânia, o que significaria que Kiev seria incapaz de continuar a lutar. Perante este cenário, a única opção que resta ao regime seria escolher entre procurar negociações – caso estas sejam aceitas pela Rússia – ou lidar com uma crise militar sem precedentes, razão pela qual o objetivo actual da Ucrânia é acumular o máximo de ganhos possível durante os últimos dias do mandato de Biden.

O principal problema para a Ucrânia, contudo, é que os militares russos estão numa posição muito mais vantajosa, o que se reflete no seu sucesso nesta “corrida” atual. Neste sentido, apesar dos esforços ucranianos para acelerar as suas vitórias, os resultados estão a ser negativos para Kiev, com os russos a alcançarem vitórias significativas e a libertarem cada vez mais territórios.

Tal como em Donbass, onde aldeias e cidades estão a ser gradualmente libertadas pelos russos, em Kursk, o avanço russo está a conduzir a uma retirada massiva das tropas ucranianas. O jornal descreveu a situação na região sul da Rússia como extremamente intensa, com níveis de violência raramente vistos desde o início do conflito. Obviamente, o lado ucraniano é o mais afetado.

“Na região russa de Kursk, ao norte daqui [em Sumy], os ataques russos são tão intensos que seus soldados de infantaria às vezes pisam nos corpos de camaradas caídos, de acordo com soldados ucranianos. Bombas planadoras russas pesando uma tonelada caem nas estradas de abastecimento ucranianas. (…) A batalha pelo controle da região russa de Kursk atingiu uma intensidade raramente vista durante dois anos e meio de guerra, à medida que cada lado tenta fortalecer sua posição antes que o presidente eleito Donald Trump, que deseja que ambos os lados negociem, tome posse em janeiro”, diz o jornal.

Embora o artigo esteja correto na avaliação da situação crítica das forças de Kiev em Kursk, comete erros na sua análise do cenário mais amplo do conflito. Na verdade, os esforços russos são realmente grandes, com o objetivo tanto de expulsar os invasores de Kursk como de libertar completamente as Novas Regiões. No entanto, isto não tem nada a ver com Biden ou Trump, mas com a própria decisão da Rússia de expandir os esforços militares face à agressão constante do inimigo.

O próprio fato de estar a decorrer uma batalha em Kursk é a explicação para a impossibilidade diplomática. Desde que Kiev lançou a sua ofensiva em Kursk, Moscou deixou repetidamente claro que todas as conversações diplomáticas foram canceladas e que não há possibilidade de uma resolução não militar. Se Trump quer negociar, ou se Kiev tenta negociar após um possível fim da ajuda americana, não tem importância porque a decisão final sobre se deve ou não envolver-se na diplomacia cabe sempre ao lado que está a ganhar a guerra – o que é obviamente o lado russo.

Em vez de dar “explicações” para o fracasso militar da Ucrânia em Kursk, os meios de comunicação ocidentais deveriam simplesmente admitir que não há forma de evitar uma vitória russa e que provocar Moscou com ações contra o território internacionalmente reconhecido da Federação apenas resultará numa guerra russa ainda mais intensa.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Western media admits Ukrainian failure in Kursk, InfoBrics, 27 de Novembro de 2024.

Imagem :  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

Be careful who you condemn and ostracise.  They just might be supplying you with a special need.  While the United States security establishment deems Russia the devil incarnate helped along by aspiring, mischief-making China, that devil continues supplying the US energy market with enriched uranium.

This dependency has irked the self-sufficiency patriots in Washington, especially those keen to break Russia’s firm hold in this field.  That, more than any bleeding-heart sentimentality for Ukrainian suffering at the hands of the Russian Army, has taken precedence.  For that reason, US lawmakers sought a ban on Russian uranium that would come into effect by January 1, 2028, by which time domestic uranium enrichment and conversion is meant to have reached sustainable levels.

The May 2024 Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, signed by President Joe Biden as law H.R.1042, specifically bans unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by any Russian entity from being imported into the US. It also bars the importation of unirradiated low-enriched uranium that has been swapped for the banned uranium or otherwise obtained in circumstances designed to bypass the restrictions.

At the time, Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm struck a note of hollering triumphalism. 

“Our nation’s clean energy future will not rely on Russian imports,” she declared.  “We are making investments to build out a secure nuclear fuel supply chain here in the United States.  That means American jobs supporting the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to a clean, safe, and secure energy economy.”

This does not get away from current circumstances, which see Russia’s provision of some 27% of enrichment service purchases for US utilities.  The Russian state-owned company Rosatom is alone responsible for arranging imports of low-enriched uranium into the US market at some 3 million SWU (Separative Work Units) annually.  Alexander Uranov, who heads the Russian analytical service Atominfo Center, puts this figure into perspective: that amount would be the equivalent of the annual uranium consumption rate of 20 large reactors.

Given this reliance, some legroom has been given to those in the industry by means of import waivers.  H.R.1042 grants the Department of Energy the power to waive the ban in cases where there is no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium available to enable the continued operation of a nuclear reactor or US nuclear energy company and in cases where importing the uranium would be in the national interest.

The utility Constellation, which is the largest operator of US nuclear reactors, along with the US enrichment trader, Centrus, have received waivers.  The latter also has on its book of supply, the Russian state-owned company Tenex, its largest provider of low-enriched uranium as part of a 2011 contract.

No doubt knowing such a state of play, Moscow announced this month that it would temporarily ban the export of low-enriched uranium to the US as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 (March 9, 2022).  The decree covers imports “to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States.”

According to the Russian government, such a decision was made “on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 – a ban on the import of Russian uranium products.”  Vladimir Putin had accordingly given instructions in September “to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials”.  The Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom confirmed that the ban was a “tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities” and would not affect the delivery of Russian uranium to other countries.

In a Russian government post on Telegram, the ban is qualified.  To make matters less severe, there will be, for instance, one-time licenses issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control.  This is of cold comfort to the likes of Centrus, given that most of its revenue is derived from importing the enriched uranium before then reselling it.  On being notified by Tenex that its general license to export the uranium to the US had been rescinded, the scramble was on to seek a specific export license for remaining shipments in 2024 and those scheduled to take place in 2025.

In a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Centrus warned that any failure by Tenex “to secure export licences for our pending or future orders […] would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results in operations, and competitive position.”  While Tenex had contacted Centrus of its plans to secure the required export licenses in a timely manner, a sense of pessimism was hard to dispel as “there is no certainty whether such licenses will be issued by the Russian authorities and if issued, whether they will be issued in a timely manner.”  The sheer, sweet irony of it all.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]

Featured image is by WikiImages from Pixabay

A two-weeks long annual United Nations Climate Summit in Baku, Azerbaijan has ended without addressing the concerns of the peoples of the underdeveloped and developing geopolitical regions of the world.

Although the largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions are to be found in the imperialist states, these governments, led by the United States, are continuing to reject responsibility for its role in endangering the future of humanity and the planet.

Every year the COP summits are held in different countries ostensibly to discuss problems related to environmental degradation and policies to be implemented aimed at recorrecting the burgeoning crisis. Although declarations are issued at the summits, the problem of global warming continues as evidenced by extreme weather events across the world.

These occurrences whether they be in South Asia, East and Southern Africa, the Caribbean, Western Europe, the United Kingdom as well as South and North America are impacting billions. Tens of millions are being displaced every year while the drain on the national economies of developed and underdeveloped states remain incalculable.

The imperialist states of North America and Western Europe have consistently avoided any admission of culpability for the worsening environmental situation. What has transpired over the decades since the UN Climate Summits were initiated is that false promises of monetary compensation and assistance have been made by the industrial states while none of these pledges have been met.

This persistent failure to honor long standing agreements by the West is undergirded by the political divisions prevailing inside the U.S. and other countries. Neither of the political parties have implemented a program in the U.S. to halt and even reverse the rapidly warming of the planet.

However, with the ascendancy of the second administration of former President Donald Trump, the prevailing outlook among the MAGA Republicans is that concerns about climate change are either overblown or nonexistent. Much of this viewpoint derives from the desire of the U.S. ruling class and its allies to maintain geopolitical dominance.

Moreover, within the struggle over climate change there is the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on African Americans and other oppressed peoples. On an international level, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, drought and desertification are portrayed as natural disasters which happen to inflict suffering and instability on former colonial and neo-colonial states.

This disparate impact can explain the ongoing disagreements between the peoples of the Global South and the leading western capitalist states. Representatives of the peoples of the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the indigenous of the Western Hemisphere are demanding remuneration for any transition from fossil fuels-based economies to more environmentally sound methods of energy generation.

Many Delegates Reject Final Communique

Even the New York Times reported on the disappointment of the delegates, particularly those attending from the Global South. An article published on November 24 stated emphatically:

“As soon as the Azerbaijani hosts banged the gavel and declared the deal done, Chandni Raina, the representative from India, the world’s most populous country, tore into them, saying the process had been ‘stage managed.’  ‘It is a paltry sum,’ Ms. Raina said. ‘I am sorry to say that we cannot accept it. We seek a much higher ambition from developed countries.’ She called the agreement ‘nothing more than an optical illusion.’ Speakers from one developing country after another, from Bolivia to Nigeria to Fiji, echoed Ms. Raina’s remarks and assailed the document in furious statements. ‘Let me be crystal clear,’ said Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama’s special envoy for climate. ‘This process was chaotic, poorly managed, and a complete failure in terms of delivering the ambition required.’” 

Such statements from important states from Asia to South America, Africa and the South Pacific are reflective of the unequal distribution of economic power and resource distribution. Enormous natural wealth in the form of fossil fuels, strategic minerals and metals exists across the globe and the western-based multinational corporations and financial institutions retain control of the market value of these resources.

The enforcement of this unequal distribution and control of the land, resources and labor of the world’s peoples is carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). All of these wars which involve Washington and Wall Street are designed to seize an even greater amount of the world’s wealth.

Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Lebanon, Iran, China, Korean Peninsula, the Caribbean, Latin America are all important to the military and economic interests of imperialism. This imperative on the part of the Pentagon and NATO has driven the military expenditures which outstrip all others combined throughout the world. The environmental impact of this vast imperialist-driven military machine encompassing hundreds of bases and millions of troops and other personnel, has been cited by various research centers.

According to one source:

“Scientists and security analysts have warned for more than a decade that global warming is a potential national security concern. They project that the consequences of global warming – rising seas, powerful storms, famine and diminished access to fresh water – may make regions of the world politically unstable and prompt mass migration and refugee crises. Some worry that wars may follow. Yet with few exceptions, the U.S. military’s significant contribution to climate change has received little attention. Although the Defense Department has significantly reduced its fossil fuel consumption since the early 2000s, it remains the world’s single largest consumer of oil – and as a result, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.” 

With the U.S. and other NATO countries being given such a prominent role at COP29 and preceding summits, any language which targeted the Pentagon for its contribution to rising dangerous levels of global warming would be vetoed by Washington and its allies. Consequently, the deadlock on an effective international policy to address climate change will remain until an alliance of countries and territories can create the necessary cooperation that could achieve definable progress.

Strengthening the military within the U.S. has been a major plank of the Democratic and Republican parties. This often-repeated slogan of the politicians has never been framed within the context of the role the Pentagon plays in damaging the environment on a world scale.

The Associated Press said of the concluding document of the COP29 Summit:

“But it was not quite the agreement by consensus that these meetings usually operate with and some developing nations were livid about being ignored. COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev gaveled the deal into acceptance before any nation had a chance to speak. When they did they blasted him for being unfair to them, the deal for not being enough and the world’s rich nations for being too stingy. 

Discussions erupted surrounding whether the western industrialized countries should pay $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 or a lesser amount of $300 billion. However, it was not clear from the final declaration, or the comments made by the delegates, how much funding would actually be available for underdeveloped states.

G20 and COP29: Contradictions Replicated

During the convening of the Group of 20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on November 19, news came that the character of the disagreements in Baku threatened the ability to even issue a final declaration for COP29. There was an appeal to the G20 to urge the UN Climate Conference delegates to reach some type of agreement.

The G20 represents the wealthiest states in the world. It is second only to the G7 which encompasses the most industrialized Western European, North American capitalist states along with Japan. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement from the G20 Summit instructing the COP29 participants to come together on some accord. Guterres said that failure for COP29 was not an option.

At the COP29 gathering there were also discussions on the dangers to agricultural food production and water resources. These are key elements within any society seeking to achieve self-sufficiency and qualitative development.

Whether the G20 countries can effectively urge an agreement on the climate crisis is immaterial when the western states remain capable of dictating the terms of global financial transactions and trade. The tension and dysfunctional character of the UN Climate Summit mirrors the broader body which takes contradictory positions on important questions such as Palestine statehood and lifting the U.S. blockade against Cuba.

The solution to the climate crisis will be resolved by the people who are the most severely affected. Their combined organizational will is the only power which can halt the degradation of the earth and the destruction of its people.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

Featured image is from the author

Over the past 50 years, the leading pharmaceutical companies in the United States have caused the injuries and deaths of millions of Americans. This troubling reality has reached such widespread acknowledgment that iatrogenic harm—injuries and deaths caused by medical treatment and erroneous diagnoses—now ranks as the third leading cause of death. There is growing consensus that our federal health agencies, which are meant to protect public health, have failed to address this crisis in any meaningful way. In fact, these agencies have often undermined efforts to confront the serious flaws in our healthcare system and in fact enable systemic corruption to thrive within the industry.

Studies over the years have consistently placed iatrogenic deaths as one of the leading causes of mortality with some analyses labeling it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. However, there is increasing evidence that the actual numbers may be significantly higher than what current estimates suggest, revealing a deep and pervasive crisis within the healthcare system.

The most frequently cited research on iatrogenic deaths comes from a Johns Hopkins study, which estimated that approximately 250,000 Americans die annually due to preventable medical errors. Published in BMJ in 2016, the study highlighted systemic issues such as misdiagnoses, medication errors, and inefficiencies in healthcare systems as major contributors to these deaths.

However, an even more alarming estimate comes from the British Medical Journal and  places the figure at 400,000 deaths per year, arguing that the Johns Hopkins study failed to include broader systemic failures and unnecessary medical interventions. Both studies firmly position iatrogenic deaths as a leading cause of mortality, but neither captures the entirety of the problem.

Iatrogenic deaths encompass a wide array of causes; conservative figures include but are by no means limited to:

• Medication Errors: Accounting for an estimated 70,000 deaths annually, these errors range from incorrect prescriptions and dosages to harmful drug interactions.
• Surgical Complications: Surgical errors and postoperative complications lead to 60,000 deaths per year, including issues such as infections and unintended organ damage.
• Diagnostic Errors: Misdiagnoses and delayed diagnoses contribute to 100,000 deaths annually, often preventing timely and effective treatment.
• Nosocomial (Hospital-Acquired) Infections: These infections, often due to resistant bacteria or lapses in hygiene, result in 100,000 deaths per year.

Systemic failures such as inadequate staffing, human error, mistakes in electronic medical records, and communication breakdowns account for another 80,000 deaths annually. These numbers, while staggering, only scratch the surface.

The grim reality is that the true toll of iatrogenic deaths may far exceed even the highest estimates. The current data is largely based on hospital records, which means deaths occurring outside the hospital setting often go unreported. For example, a patient discharged after treatment may succumb to complications caused by medical errors, but such cases rarely make it into official statistics. Similarly, misdiagnoses leading to deaths at home or in long-term care facilities are often not recognized as iatrogenic.

The COVID-19 pandemic added new dimensions to iatrogenic risks. Treatments such as mechanical ventilation, poorly tested experimental vaccines and emergency use drugs like remdesivir have now been proven to cause enormous harm. Overuse of ventilators, for instance, was linked to lung injuries and ventilator-associated pneumonia, contributing to thousands of deaths globally. Remdesivir was associated with higher than expected rates of adverse effects such as kidney and liver damage. Vaccines are implicated in a wide variety of serious adverse events including myocarditis and pericarditis, thrombosis, neurological conditions, encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, Bell’s Palsy, exacerbation of autoimmune diseases, miscarriages, and very likely turbo cancers

The silent epidemic of iatrogenic deaths is a stark reminder of the fragility of even the most advanced healthcare systems. Modern medicine is riddled with preventable errors that cost hundreds of thousands of lives each year and private corporate interests exacerbate the problem.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the dysfunction within the pharmaceutical and medical fields was brought into sharp focus. The pandemic revealed the extent to which medical professionals, health organizations, and pharmaceutical companies were willing to go in order to push their interests at the cost of truth and lives. A coordinated effort of disinformation and deception, largely based on shaky and often fabricated scientific evidence, led to outcomes that were disastrous by any measure. At the heart of this crisis was an erosion of trust in the very institutions that are supposed to safeguard public health. Trust, the foundation of all human relationships—personal, professional, and public—was repeatedly broken by the American medical establishment.

Major pharmaceutical companies, particularly Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer, have long been associated with legal and ethical violations that directly impact the health and well-being of millions of people. These companies have faced lawsuits for everything from misleading marketing and price manipulation to negligent behavior and corporate corruption. While these drug and vaccine giants generate billions in profits annually, the legal consequences they face for their actions often come in the form of minor fines and rarely address any real accountability. Executives seldom face jail time, and companies are rarely forced to pay for the full extent of the damage they cause. The result is a healthcare system driven by profit at the expense of human lives.

These companies’ continued ability to operate unhindered is emblematic of the deep dysfunction within the nation’s culture of scientific deceit that has endured for over half a century. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, including the suppression of crucial information, whistleblowers who dare speak the truth are often silenced or punished. The recent revelations that the Biden administration spent $260 million to suppress information about the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines highlights Big Pharma’s financial and political power over Washington. Those who seek to expose corruption or question the status quo are met with fierce opposition, while the powerful players behind the industry continue to manipulate the narrative to suit their ambitions and goals.

The behavior of J&J, Merck, and Pfizer is not isolated. These companies are representative of a larger issue within the pharmaceutical industry—one that prioritizes profits over patient safety and fosters an environment where corporate greed thrives unchecked. They are part of a culture that consistently puts the interests of pharmaceutical executives and investors above the health and safety of the public, and the results have been catastrophic. Whether it is through the approval of dangerous drugs, misleading marketing practices, price gouging, or a refusal to acknowledge the harm caused by their products, these companies contribute to the growing number of medically induced deaths that plague the nation.

The consequences of these actions cannot be ignored. The medical industry’s failure to address iatrogenic harm should be a wake-up call for the nation. As whistleblowers and medical professionals who challenge the status quo face increasing disingenuous tactics to silence their voices, the truth remains hidden from the public eye. Until these issues are addressed, it is unlikely that meaningful change will come to our broken healthcare system.

This article examines the corruption, crimes, and lawsuits involving these three pharmaceutical behemoths in order to shed light on how their actions are representative of a larger national health crisis. By understanding the role these companies play in shaping public health, we can begin to confront the reality of the broken system they have helped create.

Johnson & Johnson

For decades, according to a Guardian article, “consumers worldwide have named the $347 billion pharmaceutical behemoth Johnson and Johnson (J&J) as one of its most trusted brands.” From its humble beginnings in the 1880s, making cotton gauze dressings and eventually band aids, baby powder and shampoo, J&J  has expanded into one of the most powerful multinational pharmaceutical and medical device companies in the world.  In 1959, it entered the world of Big Pharma as a leading player after succeeding in getting Tylenol approved as an over-the-counter drug.  Shortly thereafter J&J commenced with a flurry of acquisitions to increase its product line, which included Neutrogena, Cordis, DePuy, Janssen Pharmaceutica and Centocor.  Today, in most American home medicine cabinets one will find a popular J&J product:  Listerine, Tylenol and Benadryl, Neutrogena skin cream, Rogaine, Neosporin antibacterial ointment, or Destin to treat diaper rashes.

Image: Johnson & Johnson Headquarters in New Brunswick, New Jersey, seen 1/2006 by Henry N. Cobb from the Pei Company, built 1983. Original photo by user:ekem, English wikipedia (From the Public Domain)

During the Covid-19 pandemic, people were eager for J&J’s “one shot and you’re done” Covid-19 vaccine despite health officials’ fears it may be less effective than Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA competitors. These original fears are now known to be erroneous and unfounded.  J&J’s vaccine was effectively removed in early 2023 due to serious adverse effects, particularly thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS)—a severe blood clotting disorder—and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). These risks prompted the CDC and FDA to give high priority to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) as early as December 2021. After its vaccine’s failure, the company played no critical role in the pandemic aside from providing supply chains for the distribution of other drug companies’ products. 

More important, J&J’s reputation needs to be challenged. A 2019 report by the British intelligence firm Alva has noted that J&J’s reputation has sunk dramatically during the past years, from 9^th place among 58 major pharmaceutical firms to 57^th. Certainly, this is not a company with a clean ethical record.[1]

A review of J&J’s rap sheet over the past three decades presents a dire and contrary image that should lead us to question the company’s claims about its Covid-19 vaccine given the lucrative market the pandemic has created for the most aggressive medical corporations. 

Similar to its equally over-sized competitors Glaxo, Merck and Pfizer, J&J too has had to pay out billions of dollars over the decades for civil settlements and criminal activities. Brazil’s Public Prosecution Service conducted an investigation into J&J’s antitrust activities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for “possible improper payments in its medical device industry.”[2] This was part of an FBI bribery scheme investigation that included Siemens, General Electric and Philips acting as a larger cartel to illegally payoff government officials in return for securing contracts with Brazil’s national health programs.  The charges also include price gouging, inflating prices up to 800 percent the market price to cover bribes. 

This was not the first time J&J violated FCPA laws. In 2011, J&J was charged by the Department of Justice with conspiracy for paying off Greek doctors to advance its product sales.  The SEC also charged civil complaints. The company had to pay out a $70 million penalty for buying off officials in Greece, Poland and Romania.[3] The previous year, an executive for J&J’s subsidiary DePuy was sentenced to a year in prison for corrupt payments to physicians within the Greek national healthcare system.  

As one of the world’s leading medical device companies, J&J has faced numerous recalls for faulty products including contact lenses and hip implants  In 2013, it paid nearly $2.5 billion to compensate 8,000 recipients for its flawed hip implants  Again in 2016, another $1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs injured from this device.[4]

One particular dubious activity the company became involved with in 2008 was to launch a “phantom recall.”  When its Motrin IB caplets were discovered to not properly dissolve, it hired outside contractors to buy up store supplies in order to avoid making public declarations. No one would have known of this activity and it would have gotten past the eyes of FDA inspectors had the deception not been exposed during a Congressional investigation.

Other major J&J lawsuits and recalls for faulty products include:

2010 – $81 million settlement for misbranding its anti-epileptic drug Topamax to treat psychiatric disorders and hiring outside physicians to join its sales force to promote the drug for unapproved conditions.[5]  The following year, J&J paid $85 million for similar charges against its heart drug Natrecor

2011 – Several of its baby products were discovered to contain carcinogenic ingredients

2013 – The US Justice Department charged the company $2.2 billion in criminal fines for marking its autism and anti-psychotic drug Risperdal for unapproved uses. Forty-five states had filed civil lawsuits against J&J in the scandal.[6]

Risperdal is a horrendous drug that contributes to rapid weight gain and a condition known as gynescomastia, irregular enlarged breasts in men. Semmelweis reports that J&J’s subsidiary Janssen also had an aggressive campaign to market its use in children with behavioral challenges.  Other serious adverse effects from Risperdal reported by the FDA include diabetes mellitus, hyperprolactinaemia, somnolence, depression, anxiety, psychotic behavior, suicide and death.

The company’s legal problems over Risperdal do not appear to have ended. In October 2019, a Philadelphia jury awarded a man $8 billion in punitive damages for failing to warn that the drug could cause young men to grow breasts. Other recent suits include litigation over its blood thinner Xarelto risks of internal bleeding, and a $775 million settlement to 25,000 plaintiffs. 

Image: Johnson’s baby powder made from talc in an old tin with a shaker on top (Licensed under CC0)

2016 –  Two women were awarded $127 million in damages for the talc in its J&J Baby Powder causing ovarian cancer.  Later, over 1,000 similar cases came forward. During the trial it was discovered that J&J suspected a link between talcum and ovarian cancer back in the 1970s.  A Missouri verdict fined the company over $4 billion but it was later reduced to $2.1 billion.  A New York Times investigation into internal J&J memos uncovered evidence that the talcum powder may have contained asbestos.[7] These cases continue. In July 2019, J&J made efforts to dismiss 14,000 lawsuits over the talcum-cancer risk.

In more recent years, J&J was in the spotlight for its contribution to the deadly opioid crisis.  The company holds the patent for a unique strain of opium poppy commonly named Norman. It is the leading provider of the opioid for Purdue Pharma’s painkiller OxyContin. An Oklahoma court ordered a $465 million fine.[8] This opened the door for other states to follow suit.  To fully realize how insane the system is, the half a billion dollar civil fine was good news on Wall Street, which anticipated the verdict would be in the billions of dollars. Consequently, J&J’s stock rose 2 percent after the judge’s ruling.  And despite J&J being Purdue’s major supplier, and a major contributor in the US’s opioid epidemic, the latter was forced to file for bankruptcy due to mounting lawsuits for overdose deaths.

In April 2021, J&J again had to payout $5 billion to settle nationwide opioid lawsuits as part of a  broader $26 billion settlement involving other manufacturers and distributors. The company manufactured and supplied the active ingredients such as Duragesic (fentanyl) and Nucynta (tapentadol) for which it was busted for misleading marketing downplaying addiction risks, aggressive promotion to healthcare providers, and creating “pseudo-scientific” research to push opioids. 

Last year, the company paid out $8.9 billion to settle baby talc powder ovarian cancer claims by tens of thousands of plaintiffs. The product was found contaminated with asbestos that J&J had prior knowledge about but ignored the risks. This case followed an earlier bankruptcy maneuver that was rejected by the courts. 

Other major recalls that likely contributed to many injuries for which there is no accurate accounting include J&J’s hernia mesh products for contributing to recurrent hernias and infections; an FDA Class 1 recall on malfunctioning surgicial staples resulting in serious tissue damage and excessive bleeding; microbial contaminated Xarelto leading to uncontrollable bleeding; and, its Neutrogena and Aveeno aerosol sunscreens  contaminated with the carcinogen benzene. 

There is something more to this story that demands investigation.  If the company’s long rap sheet offers any warning, it is that we must be wary of any claims J&J publicly states about the efficacy and safety of its products.  Especially when the company’s promise is to increase the profits of its numerous shareholders. 

Merck & Co.

It may be surprising to some that the world’s second largest vaccine maker Merck was missing from the Covid vaccine cash cow. Along with the other two of the top three global vaccine makers, Glaxo and Sanofi, Merck exited the Covid vaccine arena after its candidates failed to generate sufficient neutralizing antibodies in early Phase 1 trials. Instead the company shuffled its resources to develop two new novel drugs to target SARS-CoV2 infections.[9]

Image: The offices of Merck, located in Upper Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

Merck’s legacy of lawsuits for crimes and misdemeanors goes back at least to the 1960s. In 1975, it was busted by the SEC for illegal payments to foreign government officials from “approximately” 36 nations. The scam was orchestrated through personal bank accounts with the sole purpose of advancing drug approvals through foreign nations’ regulatory medical agencies.[10]  

One of the largest scandals in modern medical history was the company’s anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx that resulted in fines above $4.8 billion for causing over a minimum 60,000 deaths from sudden heart attacks and over 120,000 serious medical injuries.[11] At its height, Vioxx was earning over $2 billion in revenues annually and it is estimated that 25 million patients were prescribed the medication. The securities class action suit against Merck alone reached $1 billion, which at the time placed it in the top 15 securities lawsuits in US corporate history. The main criminal charge was Merck’s intentional withholding of scientific data about the drug’s adverse cardiovascular side effects. 

Years after the settlement, Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, undertook his own investigation to revalidate Vioxx’s death toll. Analyzing the drug’s adverse effects over a longer time period, Unz estimated Merck may have been responsible for nearly half a million premature deaths in elderly patients, the drug’s primary target group.[12] That is roughly the same number of total civilian, military and terrorist deaths from the US’s military escapades in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan combined. 

Merck’s settlement of 47,000 pending lawsuits for personal injuries and 265 class action cases was a small pittance for the harm Vioxx left in its wake. Merck executives were never properly punished for willingly concealing the drug’s dangers in order to assure FDA approval. 

In Australia, Merck’s efforts to increase Vioxx profits employed other forms of malfeasance. The Australian government launched a class action suit against the drug maker on charges that employees allegedly schemed a fake scientific paper that was ghostwritten for a medical journal in order to put Vioxx into a positive light. Testimonies during the trial stated data was completely based upon “wishful thinking.”[13] Merck had also founded the very same peer-reviewed journal to publish its paper, Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. The journal was a fraud; it was not properly peer-reviewed and its primary purpose was to promote Vioxx on the Australian continent. 

Moreover, the class action lawsuit contained Merck emails accessed by Australian officials. The company’s internal communications allegedly ordered select employees to draft up a hit list of physicians who were critical of Vioxx. According to the documents, these physicians were targeted to be “neutralized” or “discredited.” Some, including Dr. James Fries at Sanford University’s medical school, were clinical investigators who happened to speak out about the drug’s shortcomings. One email stated, “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live…”[14]

But Merck’s troubles with the dangers of its products, falsifying data about drugs’ efficacy and safety and exaggeration of medical claims go back sixty years. In the 1960s, the FDA discovered that the drug maker’s arthritis medication Indocin had not been properly tested for efficacy and its adverse effects were completely ignored.[15]  In the 1970s, Merck’s drug dietheylstilbestrol (DES) prescribed for the prevention of miscarriages caused a flurry of vaginal cancer cases and other gynecological disorders. Merck had all along known that DES was carcinogenic based upon its own animal clinical trials. In 2007, its cholesterol drug Zetia was shown to increase liver disease. Again Merck had known about Zetia’s liver risks but withheld the clinical trial’s damning results.[16]

It would appear that Merck has managed to hijack US courts. This includes an early 2019 ruling by Trump’s corporate-friendly US Supreme Court to side with the drug maker and squash hundreds of lawsuits for failing to issue warnings that its osteoporosis drug Fosamax may contribute to debilitating bone fractures.[17] A federal court in California found that Merck committed perjury for lying in a patent infringement case against Gilead Sciences over the latter’s blockbuster Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi. The judge ruled that Merck carried out a “systematic and outrageous deception in conjunction with unethical business practices and litigation misconduct.”  It turned out that Merck’s patent claims were a sham and orchestrated by its legal division.[18]

Besides pushing through the FDA dangerous medications onto the market, the company has also found itself in the courtroom on many occasions for allegedly price-fixing, routinely defrauding and overbilling states’ Medicare and Medicaid programs, and violating the Anti-Kickback Statute. In 2006, the IRS went after Merck for owing almost $2 billion in back taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, Merck partnered with a British bank to create an offshore subsidiary in tax-friendly Bermuda to divert taxable revenue on its bestselling cholesterol drugs Zocor and Mevacor through a patent scheme. The company ran the operation for ten years before the FDA uncovered the racket.[19]

Merck is America’s leading vaccine manufacturer. Despite public perception and the ruse that vaccines are somehow safer and more effective than pharmaceutical drugs in general, it is the same industry and corporate culture that manufactures such claims. Currently Merck markets vaccines for Haemophilus B, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B (individually and in combination), human papillomavirus (Gardasil), Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR), pneumococcal, rotavirus, varicella (chickenpox) and Zoster virus (for shingles). 

On its website, the FDA assures the public that “Vaccines, as with all products regulated by the FDA, undergo a rigorous review of laboratory and clinical data to ensure the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of these products.”  However, not a single Merck vaccine has ever been tested in a scientifically viable double-blinded placebo controlled trial. In each case, the placebo in the control group was not inert, such as a sterile saline. Rather Merck tests its vaccines with the viral component against a faux placebo containing the same ingredients, including aluminum, but minus the virus. Known as a “carrier solution,” the standard scientific protocol does not designate it as a proper placebo for measuring the efficacy and disease risks of a drug. And in the case of Gardasil, the trial was statistical trickery to mask Gardasil’s adverse effects. One placebo group received the company’s proprietary adjuvant amorphous aluminum hydroxyphospate sulfate (AAHS), a known neurotoxin. The adjuvant has yet to be properly tested for safety.[20] One of the more serious risks of aluminum adjuvants is the triggering of an extreme autoimmune response, what Israeli immunologist Yehuda Schoenfeld has called “autoimmue/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.”

In 2016, the investigators in a Cochrane Database Collaboration analysis of Merck’s Gardasil were so alarmed they filed a complaint against the European Medical Agency for failing to adequately assess the vaccine’s neurological harms. 

Image: Gardasil 9 in French packaging (showing the MSD branding) (Licensed under CC0)

Robert Kennedy Jr undertook legal efforts to sue Merck over the Gardasil deception. His in-depth investigations through his Children’s Health Defense organization uncovered evidence that the vaccine increases birth defects in children conceived of HPV-vaccinated moms; miscarriages have increased 2000 percent above normal, and girls are experiencing serious reproductive complications, including infertility, at approximately ten-fold above the normal rate. During an interview on the Progressive Radio Network, Kennedy noted that there was 10 times greater risk of dying from cervical cancer among Gardasil trial participants compared to the general public. There is a 10-fold increase for ovarian failure, and 1 in 37 girls who receive the vaccine will experience an autoimmune disease after 6 months of receiving the series of injections. 

Based upon Kennedy’s documents received from Freedom of Information Act filings, during Merck’s own Gardasil clinical trials, 2.3 percent of girls and women between the ages of 9 through 26 developed a serious autoimmune disease and crippling neurological disorders within seven months of vaccination. The most frequent adverse effects were arthritis and arthropathy, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, Raynaud’s Phenomenon, rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis. He stated that according to Merck’s own statistics, girls are one hundred times more likely to experience a serious adverse effect from the vaccine than to be protected from cervical cancer. 

In an article published in the Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, researchers at the University of British Columbia wrote that ever since Gardasil was approved in 2006, Merck has engaged in an “overly aggressive marketing strategies and lobbying campaigns aimed at promoting Gardasil as a mandatory vaccine.”  One strategy Merck has employed is to take advantage of FDA loopholes to fast track its drugs.[21] 

Another scandal erupted within Merck’s vaccine business after two whistleblowers gave testimony that the mumps’ component in its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine was based on fraudulent data about it’s efficacy, and the company knowingly proceeded in order to corner the mumps vaccine market. The two Merck whistleblowers, virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed a lawsuit against Merck for being in violation of the False Claims Act. According to the charges, Merck had “falsified its mumps vaccine test results to hit an efficacy rate of 95 percent. The company achieved this by adding “animal antibodies to a blood sample to give the impression of increased antibodies.”[22] This would certainly explain why mumps outbreaks in summer camps and on college campuses are found to occur among those vaccinated. The case was settled out of trial and the plaintiffs received an undisclosed amount from their former employer. 

Merck has gained enormous political and social influence over the national perception about vaccines.  One example is Merck’s behind the scenes aggression against the film Vaxxed.  When the documentary film was officially selected to screen during the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan, we discovered in an earlier report that Merck left its fingerprints on the film’s removal and censorship. The Alfred Sloan Foundation is the festival’s largest sponsor; pro-vaccine advocate Bill Gates is also a notable contributor. One of the leading persons on the Foundation’s board of trustees was Dr. Peter Kim.  Kim happens to be the former president of Merck’s Research Laboratories who was directly responsible for the launch of Gardasil and Merck’s other vaccines for the Zoster virus and rotavirus. The film presents a harsh indictment against Dr Julie Gerberding, the former head of the CDC who allegedly coordinated the cover up of data that confirmed thimerosal’s role in the onset of autism. After managing the agency’s operations to mine sweep the data and generate new studies with public funds to suggest thimerosal’s safety, Gerberding accepted her reward from the pharmaceutical industry by becoming the head of Merck’s vaccine division. In addition, according to the whistleblowing of a senior CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson, Gerberding was allegedly responsible for destroying the CDC’s research that showed African American boys were at a substantially higher risk of becoming autistic from Merck’s MMR vaccine. Fortunately, Dr. Thompson, who was present during the order to shred documents, saved copies which he subsequently turned over to Congressman Bill Posy and an independent biologist Prof. Brian Hooker. Since then, Congress has refused to hold hearings thereby supporting the cover-up. 

Merck’s Zostavax, a shingles vaccine, has been subject to thousands of lawsuits due to its association with shingles outbreaks, injuries and autoimmune diseases rather than preventing the illness. Plaintiffs have argued that Merck failed to warn users of Zostavax’s risks. In 2020, a jury awarded $120 million in punitive damages in one case while others remain pending. 

Merck has also been involved in the nation’s opioid crisis through its subsidiary Organon, which previously marketed opioid products. In 2021, Organon spun off from Merck, thereby limiting Merck’s direct involvement as compared to litigations against larger opioid producers such as Purdue Pharma and J&J. 

Merck has faced accusations of price gouging, particularly over Medicare drug price negotiations introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act. In reversal, Merck sued the Department of Health and Human Services last year claiming that the Act violated its Fifth Amendment privileges by harming its profits and threatening future drug innovation. The case is an example of Big Pharma’s resistance to the government’s attempts to regulate drug prices.  

All told, these examples of Merck’s culture of greed, deception, political maneuvering and aggression has collectively injured countless people. Its prime directive is selling drugs; its history of crimes and misdemeanors should indicate the company holds little integrity in its commitment to prevent and treat disease. The full extent of the casualties from Merck’s drugs and vaccines may never be properly calculated. For firms such as Merck, Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, injuries and deaths are the collateral damage of getting poorly tested products on the market and as fast as possible. 

Can we really trust such a company with such a criminal reputation to be forthright about its product’s safety records? Therefore it is crucial to RFK’s efforts to rein drug and vaccine makers such as Merck for the public good. Cleaning the federal health agencies from coercive corporate interests will the entire edifice of vaccine pseudoscience and the public will realize that for decades it has been guinea pigs for extremely lucrative cash cows.

Pfizer

Whenever it is necessary to make an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional drug-based medicine, it is imperative to include the rising rate of iatraogenic injuries and deaths – medical errors – that are now the third leading cause of death in the US after cardiovascular disease and cancer. The majority of these deaths are caused by FDA approved drugs’ adverse effects and when patients are prescribed multiple medications in the absence of thorough clinical research to determine the safety of their synergistic effects.  Consequently our health agencies’ oversight and monitoring of drugs on the market is dismal and deadly.

Image: Entrance to former Pfizer World Headquarters building (1961–2023) (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Among the top pharmaceutical companies whose drugs and products have most contributed to the nation’s iatrogenic epidemic is multinational behemoth Pfizer Inc, with a current net worth of $148 billion. Pfizer is one of America’s oldest pharma firms with 300-plus drugs and vaccines commonplace in American doctors’ tool kits: Zoloft, Zantac, Viagra, Enbrel, Flagyl, Lipitor, and several antibiotics. It is also a major player in the generic drug market and more recently dominates the Covid-19 vaccine market with this mRNA gene therapy injections. In the irrational panic to quickly get a vaccine against the SARS virus to market, its Covid-19 vaccine was the first to receive emergency use authorization

Pfizer’s legacy of lawsuits goes back to the late 1950s. According to the Corporate Research Project, it “has been at the center of controversies over its drug pricing for more than 50 years.”[23] Back in 1958 it was charged by the Federal Trade Commission for price fixing and making false statements to dubiously acquire a patent for tetracycline.[24] Two years later the Justice Department filed criminal antitrust charges against Pfizer’s board chairman and president on the matter.[25] Again in 1996, the drug company paid out $408 million to settle another lawsuit for price fixing and gouging pharmacies.[26] In 2002, Pfizer was caught defrauding the federal Medicaid program for over-charging its flagship cholesterol drug Lipitor. Other similar charges include a $784 million settlement for underpaid rebates to Medicaid and $107 million fine for overcharging its epilepsy drug phenytoin sodium.[27]

The company has even stooped so low as to engage in bogus advertising. Shortly after the Second World War, Pfizer created snazzy ads for the Journal of the American Medical Association for its antibiotic line. The ads included named physicians endorsing its drugs. However, according to a Saturday Review investigation, the doctors turned out to be completely fictitious.[28]

In 2022, the company earned $12.8 billion from its Comirnaty Covid-19 vaccine, which declined to $1.7 billion in 2023 because of a huge drop in public demand because of the ever-increasing rise in serious adverse effects and deaths following vaccination. At the same time it is legally battling against hundreds of lawsuits due to its popular heartburn drug, Zantac, being contaminated with the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), an “extremely hazardous” toxin used in rocket fuel and industrial lubricants. Although the FDA erroneously claims that Zantac’s NDMA levels are low, they have still been measured to be between 3,000 and 26,000 times higher than the FDA’s safety cut-off point.[29] Another adverse effect of NDMA is hepatotoxicity leading to liver fibrosis and scarring.

According to the law firm Matthews and Associates, if the mainstream media were to honestly cover the NDMA trial underway and other Pfizer confrontations with the law, perhaps its vaccine would not be receiving such uncritical fanfare. There would be more scrutiny and warranted suspicion to question how Pfizer could have developed a truly safe and effective vaccine in such a short period of time.

After reviewing the criminal records of J&J and Merck, there is nowhere near the depth of demented ethical behavior solely to manipulate its market control as found with Pfizer. It has a reputation to outdo notorious hedge fund vulture capitalists and underworld strategies to bully governments in return for securing supplies of its products. For example, Pfizer demanded that Argentina pay the company compensation for any civil lawsuits filed against it. The government compromised and ruled that Pfizer would only pay fines for any negligence on the company’s behalf with respect to supply and distribution. But that was not agreeable to the vaccine maker. Instead it then demanded that Argentina provide its sovereign assets –bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings – as collateral to secure vaccine supplies.[30] 

In Brazil, Pfizer’s aggressive and malignant efforts failed. It demanded that the Brazilian government turn over a guaranteed fund deposited in a foreign bank account and that the government would waive its sovereign assets abroad. Pfizer also demanded that it not be held legally liable for any injuries or deaths due to its vaccine. Correctly, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called Pfizer’s demands “abuse” and rejected the deal.[31]

If this gives the impression that Pfizer is a serial predator on poorer foreign nations, Argentina and Brazil are only two examples. In 1996, the company conducted illegal experimental trials with an unapproved experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on Nigerian children without parental knowledge or consent. The case didn’t reach a US federal court until 2001 after thirty Nigerian families sued. After 100 children were given the drug as guinea pigs, “eleven children in the trial died, others suffered brain damage, were partly paralyzed or became deaf.”[31]  Nigerian medical experts ruled that Pfizer violated international law and the US federal case was eventually settled a decade later for an undisclosed amount. 

Pfizer’s dirty politics and in our opinion mafia-like activity in the Nigeria scandal, reminding us of Monsanto’s sleazy schemes, goes beyond the dangers of an experimental antibiotic. Wikileaks made available State Department cables showing that Pfizer had hired spies to dig up dirt to frame a former Nigerian attorney general in order to get the lawsuit dropped.[32] It also tried to shift the blame of the scandal on Doctors Without Borders by making a false claim that the non-profit charitable group was responsible for dispensing the antibiotic.[33]

Thanks to President Reagan’s naïve Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, vaccine makers are off the hook for being held legally accountable for vaccine adverse effects. Pfizer has demanded that other nations change their laws solely for securing maximum profits from its Covid vaccine. Pfizer’s actions are utterly parasitical. 

In 2003, after it appeared that Congress might pass a bill to permit cheaper prescription drugs in Canada for sale in the US, Pfizer attempted to change the rules of the game and demand Canadian pharmacies to order directly from Pfizer rather than wholesalers in order to dominate the market and interrupt the supply chain.[34] 

Pfizer’s track record of fines and lawsuits for violating its drug safety profiles and ethical marketing are equally damning. In 2009, it was fined $2.3 billion for what was then the largest healthcare felony settlement in US pharmaceutical history for illegally promoting its drugs, including its painkiller Bextra. $1.2 billion was just for the criminal fine; at the time, this was the largest ever imposed in the US for any issue.[35] In 2011, Pfizer was found guilty of racketeering charges for illegally marketing its anticonvulsant drug Neurontin and paid $142 million.[36] Three years later Pfizer was fined $430 million to settle criminal charges for bribing doctors to promote and prescribe the same drug.[37]

In early 2024, Pfizer settled a significant antitrust lawsuit for $93 million after being caught conspiring with Ranbaxy Laboratories to delay the market entry of generic versions of its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor. Plaintiffs accused Pfizer of using fraudulent patents and incentivizing Ranbaxy to postpone competition in order to protect Lipitor’s high price. 

In other cases it promoted its heartburn medication Protonix for unapproved uses thereby misleading physicians and healthcare providers.  The case turned into a Medicaid fraud and cost the company $784 million in fines. In 2021, Pfizer settled a class action suit for $345 million after price gouging its EpiPen, a life-saving allergy treatment by increasing the cost from $100 for a two pack to over $600.  

Now that the widespread distribution of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA Covid-19 vaccine has become ubiquitous, reports of injuries and deaths continue to escalate with new adverse reactions and the causes of death mounting in the scientific literature. China suspended the mRNA vaccines after a flurry of deaths among Norwegian elderly. The highly prestigious journal Science reported the concerns over the Pfizer vaccine’s polyethylene glycol nanoparticle and its relationship to the serious allergic reactions and cases of anaphylaxis.[38] And in a briefing released by the CDC’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee gave warning that the Pfizer vaccine trials give indication of unusual and unexpected antibody responses, cytokine storms and pathogenic priming that give rise to critical illness and death.[39] 

Therefore there is no evidence whatsoever that Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine can scientifically and consensually be ruled as safe. But as we have observed from Pfizer’s litany of criminal activities above, safety and effectiveness of a drug or product has never been a priority in the company’s executive office. 

All told, these examples of Pfizer’s culture of greed, deception, political maneuvering and disingenuous tactics have collectively injured countless people. Pfizer’s prime directive is selling drugs; its history of misdemeanors and crimes should indicate the company holds no integrity or medical ethics with a sincere commitment to prevent and treat disease. For firms such as Pfizer, injuries and deaths are the necessary collateral damage of getting poorly tested products on the market and as fast as possible. In our opinion, a black box warning should be slapped on the Pfizer logo. 

Consequently, unless we get a Robert Kennedy Jr to head the HHS, for someone of equal stature, commitment and experience, to call out these crimes of humanity, and hold those individuals and corporations accountable for the nation’s iatrogenic sourge, nothing will change. Rather, it will only worsen as we witnessed during the pandemic.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Notes

1  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/18/johnson-and-johnson-opioids-lawsuits-product-recalls

2  https://fcpablog.com/2020/07/27/johnson-johnson-discloses-new-fcpa-investigation/

3  https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-87.htm

4  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-verdict-hipimplants-idUSKBN13Q5XF

5  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-johnson-johnson-subsidiaries-pay-over-81-million-resolve-allegations-label-promotion

6  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

7  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/baby-powder-asbestos-johnson-johnson.html

8  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/health/opioids-oklahoma-johnson-fine.html

9  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/28/fact-check-merck-ends-covid-19-vaccine-work-based-immune-response/4292935001/

10 https://www.nytimes.com/1975/12/18/archives/payments-abroad-reported-by-merck-merck-in-sec-report-cites.html

11 https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/19/merck-vioxx-graham_cx_mh_0819graham.html#7279a7325698

12 https://www.theweek.co.uk/us/46535/when-half-million-americans-died-and-nobody-noticed

13 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-merck-allegations-a-fake-journal-ghostwritten-studies-vioxx-pop-songs-pr-execs-harass-reporters/

14 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-created-hit-list-to-destroy-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/

15 https://www.corp-research.org/merck

16 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/21drug.html?pagewanted=all

17 https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/01/09/514370.htm

18 https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-merck-gilead-20160608-snap-story.html

19 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115940684960776216

20 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/court-hears-gardasil-science-and-moves-forward/

21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23061593

22 https://www.biospace.com/article/merck-and-co-s-fake-mmr-trial-data-buried-even-as-measles-outbreak-shows-vaccine-surge-/

23 https://www.corp-research.org/pfizer

24 https://www.nytimes.com/1958/08/03/archives/6-concerns-cited-by-ftc-on-fixing-antibiotic-prices-charges-involve.html

25 https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1961/08/18/118047743.html?pageNumber=1

26 https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/10/business/drug-makers-settle-suit-on-price-fixing.html

27 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wyeth-and-pfizer-agree-pay-7846-million-resolve-lawsuit-alleging-wyeth-underpaid-drug-rebates

28 https://www.corp-research.org/pfizer

29 https://www.dmlawfirm.com/zantac-cancer-lawsuit-lawyer/

30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zoSSHx9QtA

31 Ibid.

32 https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/business/families-sue-pfizer-on-test-of-antibiotic.html

32 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102884.html

33 https://silview.media/2020/12/15/corruption-unltd-2-pfizer-in-nigeria-dead-kids-death-threats-and-deadly-drugs/

34 https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/pfizer-moves-to-stem-canadian-drug-imports.html

35 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617

36 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/pfizer-to-pay-142m-for-drug-fraud-1.934040

37 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/business/pfizer-to-pay-430-million-over-promoting-drug-to-doctors.html

38 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions

39 https://www.knowingthetruth.com/pathogenic-priming-what-is-it-and-why-your-life-may-depend-on-this/

Featured image: Ancient Greek painting in a vase, showing a physician (iatros) bleeding a patient (From the Public Domain)

Don’t you think it is strange that humanity faces the possibility of extinction and there is no peace movement?  

Does our insouciance extend so far that we are indifferent to our existence?  Even alternative media sites such as Simplicius downplay the threat.

On November 18, 2024, the US and NATO fired from Ukrainian soil missiles into Russia despite the Russian government’s clear announcement that such reckless action would initiate war between the West and Russia.  The Western presstitutes reported that Ukraine fired the US and UK supplied missiles, but this is a lie.  The Ukrainians are not trained to operate the missile system and do not have the capability to target them.  The missiles have to be operated by US/NATO personnel.

The missiles were intercepted by Russian air defense.  However, their firing placed the US and NATO at war with Russia.  Russia responded by demonstrating a new missile, for which the West has no counterpart or ability to deter, to completely destroy a Ukrainian military production facility. Putin’s hope was that the demonstration of the new hypersonic Russian missile would deter further attacks.  But it did not.  It is ironic that Putin’s attempt to limit conflict by confining it to Donbas gave the West the opportunity to greatly widen the war.

On November 23 and November 25, the US/NATO again fired missiles into Russia.  We are awaiting the Russian response.

Putin, a democratically elected leader with popular support unmatched by any Western leader, Trump included, is disadvantaged in his dealing with the West by his humanitarianism.  He is slow to recognize evil, and responds after the event to the Western threat to Russia’s existence  rather than in a proactive way.  All the initiative rests with the West.

It is likely that Putin has noticed that every new reckless action floated by the West as a way of aiding Ukraine was first denied and then approved. Step by step initially denied weapon system after system has been approved, including long-range missiles that Washington said would never be sent.  When they were sent, Washington said the missiles would never be permitted to be used beyond the battlefield.

Now the missiles, that would never be sent or used beyond the battlefield, have been used 3 times to strike inside Mother Russia herself.  This irresponsible, reckless action by the Biden regime and NATO has been done in the face of the clear statement by the Russian government that it means the US and NATO are at war with Russia, and it is in defiance of revised Russian military doctrine that now permits Russia to attack any country, regardless of whether it is a nuclear power, with nuclear weapons if the country attacks Russia with conventional weapons. The doctrine allows all NATO countries, including the US, to be attacked with nuclear weapons if any country allied with them, such as Ukraine, attacks Russia with conventional weapons. In the context of the conflict in Ukraine, attacking Russia means beyond the battlefield area itself.

With the three missile attacks inside Mother Russia beyond the battlefield itself, Washington and NATO have made it legal under Russian war doctrine for the West to receive a Russian nuclear attack.  As I have previously written, only an insane government in Washington would open the door to nuclear war. It is Putin’s patience with the West that is preventing nuclear war.

Putin is likely to keep his patience with the insanity of the West until Trump is in office and Putin determines whether a mutual defense treaty, denied by the insane Biden regime, is possible with the Trump regime. If not, there is no basis for Putin’s hope of avoiding a major war. Sooner or later Putin will have to move from a reactive mode to a proactive mode, if Russia is to be protected. Indeed, determined to poison the relationship for Trump, Washington could target the Kursk nuclear plant and send radioactivity over Russia or target Moscow itself. Either of these could terminate Putin’s patience.

Not many of Trump’s appointments are very promising in regard to ending the conflict. The director of the Russian Federal Security Service has said that Trump’s election “is unlikely to lead to radical changes in Washington’s foreign policy.” He expects more provocations.

The ignored question is how many more provocations will Putin accept before his humanity is overruled by his commitment to Russia?

When we witness, as we clearly do, the West pushing Putin into this decision, how can we conclude anything else but that the West is pushing the world into nuclear armageddon? According to Tass, the Russian news service, President-elect Trump has not contacted Putin. Consequently, Trump might never get his 24 hours during which to end the conflict. The world might be over by then.  I find it extraordinary that Trump has made no attempt to defuse the dangerous situation.

There are in Poland and Romania US missile bases on Russia’s border with missile systems that can fire nuclear weapons into Russia.  Putin has complained about the threat these US bases present for many years. Washington has not removed them, and Putin has  done nothing about them.  If the US and NATO continue firing missiles from Ukraine into Russia in the face of Putin’s clear warnings, Putin, if he is realistic, must recognize that the Polish and Romanian US missile bases are threats of the highest order.  Both, as the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman recently said, are on Russia’s target list for elimination.

The US response as voiced by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby  is:  “We take our Article 5 commitments to our NATO Allies incredibly seriously. It’s rock-solid, and that’s not going to change.”  In other words, if Russia protects herself from the possibility of US nuclear attack, Washington will launch WW III.  The Washington morons believe that having nuclear capable missile bases on Russia’s borders with Poland and Romania are worth a nuclear war.  Tell me this is not insanity.

Which is extreme, my fact-based warning, or the irresponsible actions of delusional people in Washington lost in their own false narratives, in their own hubris and mistaken belief in their invincibility and righteousness?

And delusion it is.  Here is Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia Caucasus Institute at the American Foreign Policy Council, proclaiming that Putin has lost the conflict with  Ukraine and faces internal overthrow. Putin’s home front is collapsing, he says. 

What are the facts?  The Ukrainian front is collapsing.  The collapse is so complete that NATO is discussing supplying Ukraine with nuclear weapons.   Putin has the strongest public support of all leaders on Earth, reelected to office for 25 years with margins that no Western leader can hope for, not even Trump. But according to Frederick Starr “Putin has already lost the war and the only question is what face-saving measures can be extracted through a settlement.”  Starr reports that Putin’s defeat is so complete that his presidency is at risk.

Next we have The Telegraph, once a reasonable English Tory newspaper,  speaking hyper-nonsense. The Telegraph reports a week after Russia demonstrates in action a new weapon system of which  the “advanced” West has not even dreamed that “Putin would be crazy to take on the West because modern weapons production in Russia is impossible without Western components.” So where did the Oreshnik missile come from?

I do not know of any Western weapon system that does not have a superior Russian counterpart.  Clearly in Ukraine the vaunted Western weapons have been easily defeated.  Indeed, driven off the field of battle. 

The “leaders” of the Western world live in belief in their own lies and propaganda.  Their propaganda has taken control of their own thinking, making them ignorant of reality. Something is seriously wrong with Western peoples that they elect to office utterly stupid people capable of destroying life of earth simply on the basis of the ignorance resulting from their self-indoctrination.

Unless Trump can survive the Deep State, rise to the challenge and make peace the victory to be achieved, the world seems doomed.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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 source

Introduction

by Peter Koenig

Key Points for Artificial Weather Modification

• Attempts by some countries to artificially modify the weather are aimed at increasing precipitation on their territory.
• Anti-hail activities are aimed at preventing farmers from losing their crops and are carried out with the permission of the authorities and under health supervision.
• Trails have nothing to do with artificially modifying the weather.
• AEMET does not participate in any project related to these activities.

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), more than 70 countries have shown interest in projects aimed at increasing precipitation through artificial weather modification (MAT) as part of their water management strategy. Some of them are: United States, China, Russia, Australia, Japan, Israel, South Korea, India, United Arab Emirates, Moldova, Ukraine, Syria, Portugal, Morocco, etc.

In all cases, these are strategies that seek to increase precipitation. It is obvious that, in situations of cloudlessness or prolonged drought, it is not possible to artificially create favorable conditions for rain.

In any case, it is difficult to draw very clear conclusions. We have the example of China, which is currently the country with the greatest MAT activity and, however, is not able to alleviate drought.

On the other hand, the anti-hail systems (using Iag combustion systems) currently used in Madrid (Cámara Agraria de Madrid) and Aragon (Consorzio Antigrandine) are also MAT activities. In France, there is an anti-hail association, advised by the University of León group, which seeks to prevent farmers from losing their crops. This group provides scientific support to the programs of the Consortium Anti-Hail of Aragon, which must always operate with the authorization of the hydrographic confederations and, where appropriate, after reporting to the regional health authorities.

All EMA projects must ensure that they do not cause harmful effects on health or the environment.

As for contrails, often linked and confused with MATs, this is a phenomenon associated with aviation. According to the latest IPCC report, they have a minimal effect on anthropogenic climate change, when compared to the effects of CO2, ozone or other greenhouse gases. The contribution of contrails to the increase in temperature in 2019, compared to pre-industrial times, is estimated to be around 0.02 ºC.

Finally, the State Meteorological Agency does not participate in any projects related to artificial weather modification.

More information about MAT is available in the 2016 article published on the AEMET blog.

An article taken from: Juan Esteban Palenzuela, territorial delegate of AEMET in the Region of Murcia and coordinator of the working group on the study of artificial weather modification.

***

Trails in the Sky? Oppose with Facts and Verified Research

Chemtrails: Disfidence Leads to Speculation

The growth and popularity of online discussions about “chemtrails” indicates a level of distrust in authorities.

Many people believe that geoengineering is already happening. An unfortunate side effect of this mistrust is that much of the material available online about geoengineering is based on broad speculation rather than research and facts.

The talk of chemtrails reflects a legitimate concern for transparency, but in reality it has the effect of promoting an opposition to geoengineering based on unfounded claims, discrediting opposition to these practices in the eyes of many.

There is much to counter with the facts and verified research we know about geoengineering; we should start there.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from NoGeoengineering

[Le texte est disponible en français, voir ci-dessous, traduction AI,

El texto esta disponible en español, vease abajo, traduccion AI

Scroll down to read the French and Spanish AI translation.

As I was writing my piece on the dangers of thermonuclear warfare, I came across some disturbing news regarding the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. The first was that the world’s most vile racketeering cartel’s Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 494, which focuses on “future-proofing the alliance and supporting Ukraine until victory”. The wording itself screams “global war”, but what’s in the document (PDF) is actually far worse. Namely, in order to achieve “victory”, NATO essentially wants to implement Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan”.

Remember, the one that the United States called “totally unfeasible”?

Well, it seems it’s not that unfeasible after all, particularly if an organization such as NATO is making this an official policy.

Click here to read the entire document 

The Kiev regime is specifically asking for the American “Tomahawk” cruise missiles, which, depending on the variant, have a range of up to 2,500 km.

What this means in practice is that not only would virtually the entire European part of Russia be in range, but even some major cities beyond the Ural mountains (namely Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg). It should be noted that the Russian military’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) are divided into three guards armies, two of which would be in range of these NATO-sourced medium-range missiles. Specifically, those are the 27th Guards Missile Army headquartered in Vladimir and the 31st Guards Missile Army headquartered in Orenburg (the third that’s not in range is the 33rd Guards Missile Army headquartered in Omsk).

Thus, for Russia, this is a matter of strategic security. In fact, one of the missiles that were eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty was precisely the land-based version of the “Tomahawk”, officially designated as the BGM-109G “Gryphon” GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile), a subsonic cruise missile with a range of 2,780 km and armed with a single W84 thermonuclear warhead (yield of up to 150 kt, or approximately 10 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb). Now, the US doesn’t operate this specific missile anymore, but has adopted a land-based variant of the “Tomahawk”. The first test of the previously banned missilewas conducted on August 18, 2019, a bit over two weeks after America unilaterally left the INF Treaty (August 2, 2019), proving it never really honored it.

Namely, it takes a lot longer than two weeks to adopt an entire missile class that was banned for over 30 years at that point. But, this is hardly surprising, as the political West is simply incapable of telling the truth and keeping its word. However, the issue in this particular case is that the fate of the world is at stake. The US and NATO are about to deliver these missiles to the Neo-Nazi junta, which is Russia’s neighbor, even though the USSR itself didn’t tolerate them in Germany, a country that’s around 1,300 km to the west of the Russian mainland. The sheer discrepancy in the strategic danger for Moscow then and now simply cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, the political West and its puppets in Kiev keep pushing. However, to make matters worse, this isn’t the end of bad news.

Namely, there are extremely disturbing reports that Washington DC is planning to transfer nuclear weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta. According to the New York Times, American and EU officials discussed “deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine”, with some of them suggesting “the return of nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union”. The infamous neoliberal mouthpiece argues that would be “an instant and enormous deterrent”, but even they admit that “such a step would be complicated and have serious implications”. However, it would be far worse, as Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and one of Moscow’s top-ranking officials, stated that this move would be “tantamount to an attack on Russia”.

Medvedev explained that this was precisely one of the main reasons for the Kremlin’s updated nuclear doctrine. He also warned that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have massive paranoid psychosis”. It’s virtually impossible to argue against this notion, as the possibility for escalation becomes a guarantee for escalation if something like this ever comes to pass. Medvedev also pointed out that such an act would be “considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence'”. And indeed, the full text of the updated document on Moscow’s nuclear doctrine confirms this.

And yet, even though President Putin formally approved lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, NATO and the Kiev regime keep launching long-range strikes deeper within Russia. The NYT says this is because Moscow is supposedly “waiting for Trump to take over” and that this is why it’s “reluctant to significantly escalate the war”. The report further states that “the escalation risk of allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with US-supplied weaponry has diminished with the election of Mr. Trump”, adding that the lame-duck Biden administration is “calculating that Putin of Russia knows he has to wait only two months for the new administration”. I’ve already argued the US believes this “good cop, bad cop” game can actually work and that it can act with impunity in the next two months.

However, if the warmongering oligarchies in Washington DC and Brussels truly believe that Russia is that naive, they should think again. Namely, the Kremlin is certainly aware of the latest statements of the officials Trump selected for his upcoming presidency. For instance, his pick for national security advisor, Mike Waltz, says that “the president-elect and Biden are unified in their approach to Ukraine” and that “US adversaries cannot play one administration off the other”. Well, it certainly seems that Washington DC is trying to play others by presenting the two administrations as enemies, indicating that Trump is not exactly as hostile to the Deep State as he would like everyone to think. This means that Moscow cannot expect there will be any significant changes regarding Ukraine.

Needless to say, it’s an extremely dangerous prospect, as the next two months might not lead to the end of escalation. Interestingly, the NYT reports that even American officials “who were briefed on the intelligence community’s assessments” said that “[medium-range] weapons will not alter the challenging situation that Kiev is currently facing”. In other words, the stated goal of these deliveries, the Neo-Nazi junta’s “victory”, cannot be achieved, but the political West will still go ahead with it.

Thus, the only logical conclusion from all this is that the deliveries of medium-range missiles and nuclear weapons are actually designed to cause an escalation with Russia regardless of the results of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. In simpler terms, all this is just pure insanity.

---

French Translation

Des armes nucléaires et des missiles de moyenne portée pour la junte néo-nazie ukrainienne, la recette parfaite pour la troisième guerre mondiale

Par Drago Bosnic

Alors que j’écrivais mon article sur les dangers de la guerre thermonucléaire , je suis tombé sur des informations inquiétantes concernant le conflit ukrainien orchestré par l’OTAN. La première est que l’Assemblée parlementaire du cartel de racket le plus vil du monde a adopté la résolution 494 , qui vise à « pérenniser l’alliance et à soutenir l’Ukraine jusqu’à la victoire ». Le texte lui-même crie à la « guerre mondiale », mais ce qui figure dans le document (PDF) est en réalité bien pire. En effet, pour obtenir la « victoire », l’OTAN veut essentiellement mettre en œuvre le « plan de victoire » de Volodymyr Zelensky .

Vous vous souvenez de celui que les États-Unis ont qualifié de « totalement irréalisable » ?

Eh bien, il semble que ce ne soit pas si impossible après tout, surtout si une organisation comme l’OTAN en fait une politique officielle.

Cliquez ici pour lire le document complet 

.

Le régime de Kiev demande notamment des missiles de croisière américains « Tomahawk », qui, selon la variante, ont une portée allant jusqu’à 2 500 km.

En pratique, cela signifie que non seulement la quasi-totalité de la partie européenne de la Russie serait à portée de missiles, mais aussi certaines grandes villes situées au-delà des montagnes de l’Oural (à savoir Tcheliabinsk et Ekaterinbourg). Il convient de noter que les forces de missiles stratégiques de l’armée russe (RVSN) sont divisées en trois armées de garde, dont deux seraient à portée de ces missiles à moyenne portée provenant de l’OTAN . Il s’agit plus précisément de la 27e armée de missiles de la garde, dont le quartier général est à Vladimir, et de la 31e armée de missiles de la garde, dont le quartier général est à Orenbourg (la troisième qui n’est pas à portée de missiles est la 33e armée de missiles de la garde, dont le quartier général est à Omsk).

Pour la Russie, il s’agit donc d’une question de sécurité stratégique. En fait, l’un des missiles éliminés par le traité FNI de 1987 était précisément la version terrestre du « Tomahawk » , officiellement désignée comme le BGM-109G « Gryphon » GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) , un missile de croisière subsonique d’une portée de 2 780 km et armé d’une seule ogive thermonucléaire W84 (rendement jusqu’à 150 kt, soit environ 10 fois plus puissant que la bombe d’Hiroshima). Aujourd’hui, les États-Unis n’utilisent plus ce missile spécifique, mais ont adopté une variante terrestre du « Tomahawk ». Le premier essai du missile auparavant interdit a eu lieu le 18 août 2019 , un peu plus de deux semaines après que les États-Unis se soient retirés unilatéralement du traité FNI (le 2 août 2019), prouvant qu’ils ne l’ont jamais vraiment respecté.

En effet, il faut bien plus que deux semaines pour adopter une classe entière de missiles, qui était interdite depuis plus de trente ans à l’époque. Mais ce n’est guère surprenant, car l’Occident politique est tout simplement incapable de dire la vérité et de tenir parole . Mais le problème dans ce cas particulier est que le sort du monde est en jeu. Les États-Unis et l’OTAN sont sur le point de livrer ces missiles à la junte néonazie, qui est le voisin de la Russie, même si l’URSS elle-même ne les tolérait pas en Allemagne, un pays situé à environ 1 300 km à l’ouest du continent russe. La différence flagrante entre le danger stratégique pour Moscou à l’époque et aujourd’hui ne peut tout simplement pas être surestimée. Malheureusement, l’Occident politique et ses marionnettes à Kiev continuent de faire pression. Mais pour couronner le tout, ce n’est pas la fin des mauvaises nouvelles.

Il y a des informations extrêmement inquiétantes selon lesquelles Washington DC prévoit de transférer des armes nucléaires à la junte néo-nazie. Selon le New York Times , des responsables américains et européens ont discuté de « la dissuasion comme garantie possible de sécurité pour l’Ukraine », certains d’entre eux suggérant « la restitution à l’Ukraine des armes nucléaires qui lui ont été confisquées après la chute de l’Union soviétique ». Le porte-parole néolibéral infâme affirme que cela constituerait « une dissuasion instantanée et énorme », mais même eux admettent qu’« une telle mesure serait compliquée et aurait de graves conséquences ». Cependant, ce serait bien pire, car Dmitri Medvedev, le vice-président du Conseil de sécurité russe et l’un des plus hauts responsables de Moscou, a déclaré que cette mesure équivaudrait à « une attaque contre la Russie » .

Medvedev a expliqué que c’était précisément l’une des principales raisons de la mise à jour de la doctrine nucléaire du Kremlin . Il a également averti que « donner des armes nucléaires à un pays en guerre avec la plus grande puissance nucléaire est tellement absurde que Biden et n’importe lequel de ses responsables qui l’envisageraient doivent être atteints d’une psychose paranoïaque massive ». Il est pratiquement impossible de contester cette idée, car la possibilité d’une escalade devient une garantie d’escalade si une telle chose se produit un jour. Medvedev a également souligné qu’un tel acte serait « considéré comme le lancement d’une attaque contre notre pays conformément au paragraphe 19 des « Principes fondamentaux de la politique d’État en matière de dissuasion nucléaire » ». Et en effet, le texte intégral du document mis à jour sur la doctrine nucléaire de Moscou le confirme .

Et pourtant, même si le président Poutine a formellement approuvé l’abaissement du seuil d’utilisation des armes nucléaires , l’OTAN et le régime de Kiev continuent de lancer des frappes à longue portée en Russie. Le NYT explique que c’est parce que Moscou « attend que Trump prenne le pouvoir » et que c’est pourquoi il est « réticent à intensifier considérablement la guerre ». Le rapport indique en outre que « le risque d’escalade consistant à permettre à l’Ukraine de frapper la Russie avec des armes fournies par les États-Unis a diminué avec l’élection de M. Trump », ajoutant que l’administration Biden, qui n’a pas encore pris ses fonctions , « calcule que Poutine de Russie sait qu’il n’a plus qu’à attendre deux mois pour la nouvelle administration ». J’ai déjà fait valoir que les États-Unis croient que ce jeu du « bon flic, mauvais flic » peut réellement fonctionner et qu’ils peuvent agir en toute impunité dans les deux prochains mois.

Mais si les oligarchies bellicistes de Washington et de Bruxelles croient vraiment que la Russie est si naïve, elles devraient y réfléchir à deux fois . En effet, le Kremlin est certainement au courant des dernières déclarations des responsables que Trump a choisis pour sa prochaine présidence. Par exemple, son conseiller à la sécurité nationale, Mike Waltz , a déclaré que « le président élu et Biden sont unis dans leur approche de l’Ukraine » et que « les adversaires américains ne peuvent pas jouer un rôle dans l’opposition entre les deux administrations ». Eh bien, il semble bien que Washington essaie de jouer le jeu des autres en présentant les deux administrations comme des ennemies, ce qui indique que Trump n’est pas aussi hostile à l’État profond qu’il voudrait le faire croire . Cela signifie que Moscou ne peut pas s’attendre à des changements significatifs concernant l’Ukraine.

Il va sans dire que cette perspective est extrêmement dangereuse, car les deux prochains mois pourraient ne pas mettre un terme à l’escalade . Il est intéressant de noter que le NYT rapporte que même les responsables américains « informés des évaluations des services de renseignement » ont déclaré que « les armes [de moyenne portée] ne changeront rien à la situation difficile à laquelle Kiev est actuellement confrontée » . En d’autres termes, l’objectif affiché de ces livraisons, la « victoire » de la junte néonazie, ne peut pas être atteint, mais l’Occident politique continuera à le faire.

La seule conclusion logique à tirer de tout cela est que les livraisons de missiles de moyenne portée et d’armes nucléaires ont en réalité pour but de provoquer une escalade avec la Russie, indépendamment des résultats du conflit ukrainien orchestré par l’OTAN. En termes plus simples, tout cela n’est que pure folie .

---

Spanish Translation

Armas nucleares y misiles de mediano alcance para Ucrania La junta neonazi, receta perfecta para la Tercera Guerra Mundial

Por Drago Bosnic

Mientras escribía mi artículo sobre los peligros de la guerra termonuclear , me encontré con algunas noticias inquietantes sobre el conflicto ucraniano orquestado por la OTAN. La primera fue que la Asamblea Parlamentaria del cártel de crimen organizado más vil del mundo adoptó la Resolución 494 , que se centra en “preparar la alianza para el futuro y apoyar a Ucrania hasta la victoria”. La redacción en sí misma grita “guerra global”, pero lo que hay en el documento (PDF) es en realidad mucho peor. Es decir, para lograr la “victoria”, la OTAN esencialmente quiere implementar el “plan de victoria” de Volodymyr Zelensky .

¿Recuerdan aquello que Estados Unidos calificó de “totalmente inviable” ?

Bueno, parece que no es tan inviable después de todo, particularmente si una organización como la OTAN hace de esto una política oficial.

Haga clic aquí para leer el documento completo 

.

El régimen de Kiev solicita específicamente los misiles de crucero estadounidenses “Tomahawk”, que, dependiendo de la variante, tienen un alcance de hasta 2.500 kilómetros.

En la práctica, esto significa que no solo prácticamente toda la parte europea de Rusia estaría dentro del alcance , sino incluso algunas ciudades importantes más allá de los montes Urales (a saber, Cheliábinsk y Ekaterimburgo). Cabe señalar que las Fuerzas de Misiles Estratégicos (RVSN) del ejército ruso están divididas en tres ejércitos de la Guardia, dos de los cuales estarían dentro del alcance de estos misiles de alcance medio de origen de la OTAN . En concreto, se trata del 27.º Ejército de Misiles de la Guardia, con sede en Vladimir, y el 31.º Ejército de Misiles de la Guardia, con sede en Oremburgo (el tercero que no está dentro del alcance es el 33.º Ejército de Misiles de la Guardia, con sede en Omsk).

Por tanto, para Rusia se trata de una cuestión de seguridad estratégica. De hecho, uno de los misiles que fueron eliminados por el Tratado INF de 1987 fue precisamente la versión terrestre del “Tomahawk” , designado oficialmente como BGM-109G “Gryphon” GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) , un misil de crucero subsónico con un alcance de 2.780 km y armado con una única ojiva termonuclear W84 (con un poder de hasta 150 kt, o aproximadamente 10 veces más potente que la bomba de Hiroshima). Ahora, Estados Unidos ya no utiliza este misil en concreto, sino que ha adoptado una variante terrestre del “Tomahawk”. La primera prueba del misil anteriormente prohibido se realizó el 18 de agosto de 2019 , poco más de dos semanas después de que Estados Unidos abandonara unilateralmente el Tratado INF (el 2 de agosto de 2019), lo que demuestra que nunca lo cumplió realmente.

En concreto, se necesitan mucho más de dos semanas para adoptar una clase completa de misiles que en ese momento estuvo prohibida durante más de 30 años. Pero esto no es sorprendente, ya que el Occidente político es simplemente incapaz de decir la verdad y cumplir con su palabra . Sin embargo, la cuestión en este caso particular es que el destino del mundo está en juego. Estados Unidos y la OTAN están a punto de entregar estos misiles a la junta neonazi, que es vecina de Rusia, a pesar de que la propia URSS no los toleraba en Alemania, un país que está a unos 1.300 kilómetros al oeste del continente ruso. La enorme discrepancia entre el peligro estratégico para Moscú entonces y ahora simplemente no se puede exagerar. Lamentablemente, el Occidente político y sus títeres en Kiev siguen presionando. Sin embargo, para empeorar las cosas, este no es el final de las malas noticias.

En concreto, hay informes extremadamente inquietantes de que Washington DC está planeando transferir armas nucleares a la junta neonazi. Según el New York Times , funcionarios estadounidenses y de la UE discutieron la “disuasión como una posible garantía de seguridad para Ucrania”, y algunos de ellos sugirieron “la devolución a Ucrania de las armas nucleares que le fueron arrebatadas después de la caída de la Unión Soviética”. El infame portavoz neoliberal argumenta que eso sería “un elemento de disuasión instantáneo y enorme”, pero incluso ellos admiten que “tal paso sería complicado y tendría graves implicaciones”. Sin embargo, sería mucho peor, ya que Dmitry Medvedev, vicepresidente del Consejo de Seguridad ruso y uno de los funcionarios de alto rango de Moscú, declaró que esta medida sería “equivalente a un ataque a Rusia” .

Medvedev explicó que precisamente esa es una de las principales razones de la actualización de la doctrina nuclear del Kremlin . También advirtió que “dar armas nucleares a un país que está en guerra con la mayor potencia nuclear es tan absurdo que Biden y cualquiera de sus funcionarios que lo estén considerando deben tener una psicosis paranoica masiva”. Es prácticamente imposible argumentar en contra de esta noción, ya que la posibilidad de una escalada se convierte en una garantía de escalada si algo así llega a suceder. Medvedev también señaló que tal acto sería “considerado como el lanzamiento de un ataque contra nuestro país de acuerdo con el párrafo 19 de los ‘Principios básicos de la política estatal sobre disuasión nuclear’”. Y de hecho, el texto completo del documento actualizado sobre la doctrina nuclear de Moscú lo confirma .

Y, sin embargo, a pesar de que el presidente Putin aprobó formalmente la reducción del umbral para el uso de armas nucleares , la OTAN y el régimen de Kiev siguen lanzando ataques de largo alcance en zonas más profundas de Rusia. El NYT dice que esto se debe a que Moscú supuestamente está “esperando a que Trump tome el poder” y que es por eso que es “reacio a intensificar significativamente la guerra”. El informe afirma además que “el riesgo de escalada de permitir que Ucrania ataque a Rusia con armamento suministrado por Estados Unidos ha disminuido con la elección del Sr. Trump”, y agrega que la administración saliente de Biden está “calculando que Putin de Rusia sabe que tiene que esperar solo dos meses para la nueva administración”. Ya he argumentado que Estados Unidos cree que este juego de “policía bueno, policía malo” realmente puede funcionar y que puede actuar con impunidad en los próximos dos meses.

Sin embargo, si las oligarquías belicistas de Washington DC y Bruselas realmente creen que Rusia es tan ingenua, deberían pensarlo dos veces . Es decir, el Kremlin seguramente está al tanto de las últimas declaraciones de los funcionarios que Trump seleccionó para su próxima presidencia. Por ejemplo, su elección para asesor de seguridad nacional, Mike Waltz , dice que “el presidente electo y Biden están unificados en su enfoque hacia Ucrania” y que “los adversarios de Estados Unidos no pueden enfrentar a una administración con la otra”. Bueno, ciertamente parece que Washington DC está tratando de jugar con los demás al presentar a las dos administraciones como enemigas, lo que indica que Trump no es exactamente tan hostil al Estado Profundo como le gustaría que todos piensen . Esto significa que Moscú no puede esperar que haya cambios significativos con respecto a Ucrania.

No hace falta decir que se trata de una perspectiva extremadamente peligrosa, ya que los próximos dos meses podrían no llevar al fin de la escalada . Curiosamente, el NYT informa de que incluso los funcionarios estadounidenses “que fueron informados de las evaluaciones de la comunidad de inteligencia” dijeron que “las armas [de mediano alcance] no cambiarán la difícil situación que Kiev enfrenta actualmente” . En otras palabras, el objetivo declarado de estas entregas, la “victoria” de la junta neonazi, no se puede lograr, pero el Occidente político seguirá adelante con él.

De todo esto, la única conclusión lógica es que los envíos de misiles de mediano alcance y armas nucleares están diseñados para provocar una escalada con Rusia, independientemente de los resultados del conflicto orquestado por la OTAN en Ucrania. En términos más sencillos, todo esto es pura locura .

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image source

The formation of the Trump administration with inexperienced “loyalists” instead of “more qualified candidates” in what must be the most “controversial” cabinet in recent US history is attributed to the president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr, Reuters wrote. Of course, the outlet describes Trump’s administration as “controversial” for the main reason in that it significantly deviates on Biden’s failed policy on Ukraine.

In preparation for his second term, Donald Trump is surrounding himself with people who think like him, the most important of those being his son. The outlet reported that Trump Jr. was behind choosing senator and future vice president JD Vance to join his father’s ticket and was also responsible for preventing former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from joining the cabinet, and thus, he exerted direct influence on the future administration.

Emerging as the most influential member of the Trump family, Trump Jr., who hosts a podcast focused on politics, may not occupy a direct position in the White House, but he will certainly influence his father’s decisions, as in the case of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro — who unlike Trump had three of his five children holding elected office. Trump seeks family trust as the key element to share in the decision-making process, which he cannot delegate to staff and advisers.

According to the report, in addition to ensuring that candidates are loyal to his father in his effort to build “the most controversial cabinet in modern US history,” Trump Jr. typically seeks figures who embrace an anti-establishment worldview, including protectionist economic policies and a reduction in military intervention and foreign aid.

But it is not as easy as it seems. Some of Trump Jr.’s nominees could face difficulties in the Senate. They include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who spread contradictory information from the Biden administration about vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic but could now be the top US health official, and Tulsi Gabbard, who could be the head of the intelligence agencies despite previously highlighting to great outrage in the West about the reality on why Russian President Vladimir Putin had valid reasons to get involved in the Ukraine conflict.

Two sources close to Trump’s son told the investigation that he does not weigh in on all personnel decisions and is not working on the transition process or at Mar-a-Lago full-time. In an interview with Fox News, Trump Jr. said his choices were “about surrounding my father with people who are both competent and loyal.”

According to analysts and critics of the future cabinet, the only question remaining is what competence means for the Trump family.

This is not the first time Trump has delegated some role to – or relied on – a member of his family. In 2016, Trump’s daughter, Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, were prominent figures in his presidential campaign, subsequent transition and throughout his first term.

Meanwhile, in a statement to Fox News on November 24, the future White House security advisor, Mike Waltz, said that Trump’s team intends to begin negotiations on a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia during the government transition.

According to Waltz, the idea is to start discussions with the Biden administration and continue after Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

He added that Trump’s opponents, who think this is an opportunity to pit one administration against another, “are mistaken” and emphasized the president-elect’s concern about the escalating conflict. The fear is due to Biden’s decision to authorize the Ukrainian military to use American-made weapons to attack Russian territory. The authorization triggered a reaction from Moscow, which gave the green light for the use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile in response to any attacks carried out with Western missiles.

Trump’s inevitable withdrawal of US support for Ukraine was one of the main fears of Washington’s Western allies. The Republican had been criticizing the Biden administration’s failed policies even before he began the presidential campaign and famously said he intended to resolve the issue within a day.

Although it is impossible for Trump to achieve this, given the people he is putting in positions of power and influence, it is understandable why Reuters ludicrously claimed that Trump is building “the most controversial cabinet in modern US history” – they are frustrated that Biden’s war on Russia will begin to wind down once the billionaire enters the White House.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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.

Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government and World War III?

By Felicity Arbuthnot, November 27, 2024

It all started on March 5, 2014: a US-sponsored fascist coalition government under the guise of democracy was installed in Ukraine. With historical foresight pertaining to the dangers of a Third World War, this article by Felicity Arbuthnot was first published on March 15, 2014 in the immediate wake of the US-sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’état.

Post-BRICS 2024: Geopolitical Challenges, Opportunities and Future Pathways

By Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke and Kester Kenn Klomegah, November 27, 2024

I would say South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS. It has hosted two of its summits. As an active member, it has what it takes to deliver despite the internal economic crises in South Africa. I think over the years, South Africa grew in confidence within the partnership, particularly when the first BRICS summit took place in Durban South Africa.

The Outcome of Romania’s Presidential Election Could Spoil the US’ Potential Escalation Plans

By Andrew Korybko, November 27, 2024

The surprise victory of populist conservative-nationalist Calin Georgescu in the first round of Romania’s presidential election gives this heterodox outsider the chance to enter into office next month. The Mainstream Media is apoplectic since he criticized Romania’s hosting of the US’ missile defense infrastructure and is against perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine.

Arrest Warrants from The Hague: The ICC, Netanyahu and Gallant

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 26, 2024

The arrest warrants, issued in accordance with the law of international armed conflict, remain the most telling aspect of the determinations.  Despite being classified as “secret”, the Chamber deemed it important to release some degree of detail on what they entail.

New Zealand Cardiologists Concede the Simple Truth: Spike Protein Generated by mRNA COVID Vaccines Is a Cardiotoxin

By Lance Johnson, November 26, 2024

At a recent cardiology meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, a striking admission was made: the spike protein generated by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is now being recognized as a cardiotoxin — a substance capable of causing direct harm to the heart.

The Ukrainian Deception and the War Against Us All

By Mark Taliano, November 26, 2024

Ukrainians are fighting and dying for the destruction of their own country. This has been the case since Washington orchestrated the violent coup against the elected Yanukovych government in 2014, and instated a nazi/genocidal ethnic nationalist infested regime, a proxy for Washington warmongers.

The Utter and Total Insanity of Western “Leadership.” Paul C. Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, November 26, 2024

If not insanity, it is the triumph of evil that the West tells Putin, whose patience is the only guarantor of avoidance of nuclear war, that NATO is considering preemptive strikes on Russia.

This incisive article by Felicity Arbuthnot was written 17 years ago on October 27, 2007.

Foreign policy lies prevail. The same neocons “are at it again”. ” We must bomb Iran”. Preemptive Nukes. 

Reminder to the crusading Armageddonists …..  “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20: 1

 

 

***
They are at it again. Remember when Milosovic was labelled “the butcher of Belgrade”, the new Hitler?

Then Saddam Hussein was “the butcher of Bagdad” and, of course the most dangerous man since Hitler – with weapons of mass destruction which could be unleashed on the world “in forty five minutes”.

Colin Powell lied to the U.N., about the danger Iraq posed to the planet;

George Bush lied to anyone who would listen;

Tony Blair lied to Parliament and aides concocted dossiers so dodgy they were laughable, yet in spite of the millions who marched, protested and knew the lies for what they were, there were millions who bought fiction as fact.

And here we go again. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (wait for “the tyrant of Tehran”) threatens the planet, is supplying weapons to Iraq’s resistance, is destabilising the region and the paradise that is occupied Iraq.

Whilst there are indeed plenty of Iranians or Iranian sympathisers in Iraq, they came in with the occupiers. Many in high places in Iraq’s corrupt, militia driven, American puppet government, speak Farsi, not Arabic.

The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq’s murderous decimation, the hawks’ nest which is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and their friends.

A glance at the AEI website lists those including:

Paul Wolfowitz (“entrepreneurship and development”),

Michael Rubin (“Arab democracy”),

Richard Perle (“defence …intelligence”),

Joshua Muravchik (“global democracy”),

John Bolton (“foreign policy”),

Lynne Cheney, whose husband, as ever, is believed a driving force behind the attack plan (“culture and education”),

Michael Ledeen (latest book: “The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest for Destruction”),

Daniell Pletka (“Vice President for foreign and defence policy studies”) who, writing in the “Wall Street Journal” (28th September 2007) referred to Iran’s “illegal nuclear weapons … Washington’s impotence” and “clear information of a link to a weapons of mass destruction programme”. This in spite of the International Atomic Energy Authority finding no indication of such programmes.

It all sounds chillingly familiar

Interestingly, an item on the Institute’s list of “Research Projects” is “Global Investment in Iran”. Surely a matter for Iran – or does the AEI already regard Iran’s oil fields and assets as their fiscal frolic zone?

Orchestration is continuing apace:

“Even as we are succeeding in Iraq” (really?)

“Iran is working against us … we will not achieve peace in the region if we ignore this threat”, writes Ledeen. Further, there are clear plans to liberate Iran’s women, Afghan style: “Since 1979, Iran has changed from a society where women could attend university and have careers, to one where they are second class citizens … sold as slaves …”. writes Diana Furchgott-Roth in the New York Sun (14th September 2007.)

There must be two Irans:

“Literacy is well over ninety percent, even in the rural areas and in 2005, more than sixty five percent of students entering university were women.

The voices that come through most strongly on the Iranian blogosphere are those of this educated, young generation.” Over sixty five percent of this country of seventy million are under thirty years old.

“I feel cold when I think about a possible war against my homeland”, wrote one blogger: “My picture of war hasn’t come from Hollywood movies, I have seen the pain, the kids tears, bloody streets …”  In a picture showing a meeting of the Tehran Photographers Association, the venue is packed with vibrantly dressed women – and one man. (See : Inside Iran, New Internationalist, March 2007: www.newint.org )

Iran is not perfect, but where is?

Britain’s Prime Minister Brown “refuses to rule out” joining the US military intervention – to decimate for “democracy” and plunder resources.

According to the Sunday Telegraph (1st October 2007), a dossier is being drawn up on Iran’s violations of International Law, as with Iraq. “Violations of International Law”? Two countries, Britain and America  have not alone violated, but torn up International Law. Yet again, who guards the guards?

Can a nation, which even invaded Grenada (which has no armed forces, main exports: bananas, nutmeg, mace; a war for nutmegs?) in 1983, totalling a psychiatric hospital (24th anniversary, 25th October) population 94.103 (1994) v. United States, population 260.713.000 (1994) because it was a “threat”, be trusted?

But the war drums are beating [THEN AN NOW]: “WE MUST bomb Iran”, is the header for Josua Muravchik’s Los Angeles Times article (19th June 2007.)

He begins with quotes straight from the Pentagon’s Iraq propaganda handbook: “…since the country’s secret nuclear programme was brought to light … the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.” Tehran has “spurned” a “string of concessions”; the UN Security Council was derelict in its duty toward the Iranian threat.

The completion of Iran’s nuclear arsenal grows closer daily, this “premier state sponsor of terrorism” could “slip nuclear material to terrorists”. The bomb Iran doesn’t have, would, of course “constitute a dire threat to Israel’s six million population”. No mention of Israel being the fifth largest nuclear power on earth, without a blink towards the non-proliferation treaty, or indeed even an admission of having such weapons.

However Iran’s non-weapons: “would spend finis to the entire non-proliferation system”. The “…global struggle” with Iran is “akin” to the forty year one with the Soviet Union and – wait for it – “a clash of civilisations”.

“The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force … by an air campaign against Tehran’s nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets…. What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy …’” is Murachik’s conclusion. “Deja vu, all over again.”

Not mentioned, anywhere, in the demented rhetoric regarding an attack on Iran,

Is the “A” word: Armageddon.

“Likely targets for saturation bombing” (that look likely to involve tactical nuclear weapons) “are the Bushehr nuclear power plant” (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present) “a uranium mining site at Saghand” (near a major city, Yazd) “the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility at Arak, the Arkedan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Enrichment Facility and Nuclear Technology Centre in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Cnetree, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility …. a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant at Lashkar Abad and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak”.(Wayne Madsen: http://www.entimesreport.com/Attack_on_Iran.html )

These were facilities, many begun after the US/UK overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected, democratic Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, after he had nationalised the country’s oil. The coup was engineered by the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore. General Norman Schwartzkopf’s father then travelled to Iran, to help train Savak, the murderous, ruthless, secret police of America’s friend, the Shah.

However, modern history aside, forget global warming.

Consider the enormity of the seemingly proposed attack, apart from the unimaginable horror of those fried and irradiated in the immediate vicinity and surrounding countries (including “allied”, troops throughout the region.).

This is a succinct description of what the explosion of just one nuclear power plant generated, Chernobyl, in 1986:

“Irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei … a definitive pre-cursor of cancer. During the nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl, the …radiation released was the equivalent of four hundred atomic bombs … Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei …” (The Radiation Poisoning of America, Amy Worthington, 9th October 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca )

The plight of the children and the Chernobyl region’s cancers twenty one years on, have become an ongoing, tragic, global health study, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residents of the Pacific islands, after the British and French nuclear tests. Chernobyl’s radiation traversed the globe within days.

In the highlands of the U.K., Wales and Cumbria, livestock straying in affected areas are still inedible and unsaleable. Chernobyl was doused from the air with fire retardant, by crews, which, in spite of protection by heavily leaded cockpit floors, reportedly, not one has survived the ravaging resultant cancers. If Chernobyl was four hundred atomic bombs, see the above list and do the maths. Don’t forget to add the “coalition’s” democratic nuclear weapons dropped on them.

Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding fathers of neo-conservatism in the United States, is gung-ho, another one reportedly urging Bush to bomb Iran. He told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You are the only one with the guts to do it.”(Sunday Times, 1st October 2007.) A holocaust by any other name …

Mohammad Mossadegh and Saddam Hussein made fatal mistakes. They nationalised their countries’ oil. Saddam Hussein finally tied the noose around his neck, when he switched Iraq’s oil revenues out of US Dollars and into Euros in 2000.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also vowed to switch from US Dollars and move to a currency “further east”.

As Iraq, is this really about a nuclear threat?

Will the millions who believed the last great lie, be fooled again? If they are not, will it make any difference, in the illegal space the US and UK Administrations inhabit?

On the ground in the Middle East (or in this case on the water) it seems not.

Here is a communication from a Landing Signals Officer* (an LSO directs carrier aircraft whilst landing) on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically vital oil routes, which is controlled by Iran.

The LSO is convinced Iran will be attacked, commenting that “… all Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished (meaning) all targets have been chosen, prioritized and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers …” Further, the LSO comments, there is deep disquiet amongst senior officers about “staging a massive attack on Iran”. However, “I have seen more than one senior Commander disappear …”; it’s weird, because everyone who has “disappeared” has questioned this mission.

How limited would the attack be?

“I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every Tomahawk, we have an inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden (with) thousands of targets. I believe no American will know when it happens, until after it happens.”The LSO ponders that discussing a secret attack is “treason” but is so concerned “something tells me to tell it anyway.”

“Yes, we are going to hit Iran big time. Whatever political discussion that is going on is window dressing … a red herring. I see what’s going on here below deck, in the hangers and weapons bay – and I have a sick feeling about how it is going to turn out.’”

Would the US Administration really endanger the Entire planet?

Here is a story told to me by Dr. Bernard Lown, one of co-founders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) during the Reagan era. http://www.ippnw.org Lown worked closely with another eminent fellow cardiac surgeon, the (then) USSR’s Yevgeny Chazov. Since physicians know no borders, they had formed a friendship, then a movement, which bridged the cold war, the Reagan “Evil Empire” (re. the Soviet Union) nonsense and within two years, had doctors and surgeons from eighty two countries spreading the word, that even cardiac arrest paled against nuclear war.

In 1995, IPPNW collectively won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since Lown travelled, lecturing, to the USSR frequently and had built trust over many years at all levels, the US State Department asked if he would engage in some unofficial diplomacy.

Relations between the two countries were far worse than most realised. After one such visit to Moscow, I met Bernard Lown in Paris. We sat in dappled Spring sun, at a pavement breakfast café – fresh squeezed orange, coffee, croissants:

“I came back two days ago and went to talk (at the State Department) of the concerns in Moscow. Afterwards, a senior official – a household name (he declined to divulge) walked me to the exit. As we neared the exit, he put his arm round my shoulders:

‘Don’t worry, Professor Lown, if there is a nuclear war, we will be the first ones to rise up and meet Jesus in the sky.’” Lown, used to the vagaries of the unwell, responded: “Tell me, does anyone else in this building feel as you do?”

“Oh yes, many of us do.”

The swathe of “household names”, from the Reagan era, are now in the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute.

The Armageddonists are back

The world should be very afraid – or should the physicians in white coats move in?

Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also senior researcher for the late John Pilger’s award-winning documentary. 

She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Associate Editor of Global Research

“Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq”. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partID=4

and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of “Baghdad” in the “Great Cities” series, for World Almanac Books (2006.)

Note

*Regarding the LSO, this came from a second, but highly trusted source, who for obvious reasons, would not divulge the name or further details of the LSO.

Please also see:

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Religious Extremists in America (Christian Zionists)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_UoHfCUBiEM

Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=220960

Military Religious Freedom Foundation http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org
Al-Bushra http://www.al-bushra.org

Christians be aware!
http://www.nwo101.com/2007/10/christians-be-aware.html

As already known, BRICS is an association of five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. South Africa joined the association in 2010. The BRICS has a significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage. All of them are members of the G20. While the group has received both praise and criticism from different corners of the world, BRICS is steadily working towards realizing its set goals, bilateral relations among them are conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality and mutual benefits.

In this exclusive interview, Associate Professor Elisée Byelongo Isheloke, Rector/Vice Chancellor of Université Espoir du Congo (UEC) and a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cape Town, who has scholarly researched some aspects of BRICS, spoke with Kester Kenn Klomegah about his observations, the existing challenges, opportunities and the future perspectives of BRICS+.

Here are the interview excerpts:

Kester Kenn Klomegah (KKK): South Africa joined BRICS in 2010, a decade ago, and so how do you assess South Africa in BRICS these years? What are its greatest contributions to the development of the group?

Elisée Byelongo Isheloke (EBI): I would say South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS. It has hosted two of its summits. As an active member, it has what it takes to deliver despite the internal economic crises in South Africa. I think over the years, South Africa grew in confidence within the partnership, particularly when the first BRICS summit took place in Durban South Africa.

In the Johannesburg 2023 BRICS summit, African presidents were invited to join leaders of BRICS and the theme evolved around Africa. In this context, South Africa regained its muscles as a BRICS member. South Africa, therefore, represents Africa well in the BRICS, in a way, and I think African countries should support it. The only thing is people want to be more involved. While the BRICS started as a partnership of political nature, now that it has embraced economic development, the voice of the people must be heard.

The major problem of South Africa is that it is not robust economically compared to its BRICS counterparts, and its economy has been performing badly since the 2008/2009 world’s economic crisis. It has been a zero growth economy ever since. If any growth, then it has been below 1%. South Africa has struggled to stabilize its economy during the past few years, and now multiple factors have exacerbated its economy but it is common to many countries across Africa.

KKK: In your previous discussion, you talk about a transition from politics to economy. How do you see BRICS influence on international issues, its collective position on the global arena?

EBI: BRICS did not transit from politics to economy as such but put emphasis on economic projects. BRICS leaders still talk global politics while experts guide the leaders on foreign policy issues. For me, I think it is a very good approach going forward. BRICS must deliver on capital-intensive infrastructure development, and the funding from the New Development Bank (BRICS) is critical in this regard. With good policies in place, this will help the SADC region and the rest of Africa. It is great that the branch of this bank operates from Johannesburg in South Africa.

Furthermore, I must say that BRICS influence on international scale is dented by minor problems in the organization. For example, the diplomatic conflict between India and China, the fact that both Russia and China wants to be in a position of favor with the United States on diplomatic ground, this is not helping its influence globally. I think BRICS must clean its home, or clean before its door, if it wants to be the balancing power in international affairs.

The other problem is the capital issue. At the moment, the BRICS do not have the muscles to outcompete the Bretton Wood Institutions, the World Bank and IMF. More investment, more capital is needed in the BRICS Bank.

In the past, there was the lack of synergy in diplomatic position as far as the BRICS is concerned. In the UN Security Council, for instance, the BRICS have to consult in order to accommodate views on issues of global importance. We know that South Africa is a member of the SADC and there is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), another SADC country, which has a plethora of problems of security and economic nature. I think that any assistance from such an organization (BRICS) would be appreciated.

Quite recently, more than 200 civilians known as the Bembe people were massacred in the eastern DRC by Ngumino and Twagineho militias. These militias are of foreign origin to the DRC. This news is not broadcasted in South Africa, if the BRICS could invest more in peace-keeping mission, maybe help the current government, perhaps it could help the failing Monusco, a UN mission in the DRC. It is such engagement that can make the BRICS shine internationally. They need a collective position on global issues. This is just one example.

KKK: In relation to economy and trade, what are your arguments about collaboration among BRICS? Do you also see China and India racing for global dominance, and Russia steadily raising its business profile on global stage?

EBI: With regard to this question, this is what I have to say. In fact, trade protectionism is only good temporarily and it works only in the short run. It is not sustainable as a policy in the long term. We know in the 17th century it was promoted in European countries but there was a time when the Laissez-faire ideology took precedence on economic isolationism. We also know that a couple of BRICS countries have a communist background (Russia and China).

What I can say is that China opened up its economy to trade, and for more than 30 years, it manage to build a robust economy (now considered the 2nd largest after the United States) with potential prospects of outperforming the United States. I think we can learn from the Chinese economic success. This does not mean one needs “to throw away the baby with the water” when it comes to the gain obtained during the socialist approach to economic development. The BRICS countries should find a way of striking a balance between the two economic systems. But frankly speaking, an open economy leaning more towards free trade is what I would recommend for an emerging economy.

Now even countries where the economy is freer like South Africa and India, we see that the major hindrance is corruption and bad governance in certain instances. If the BRICS can address these obstacles or hurdles, they will have a better chance of winning. In China, human rights abuses shouldn’t be covered up. Doing-Business with countries where dictatorship and abuses are evident should it be alright.

In addition, there will be areas where BRICS will compete, and this is healthy to any economy, but there must be more focus on what BRICS can do together to address abject poverty, growing unemployment and human rights abuses. China and India need to talk more to address their differences. The future of BRICS depends, to some considerable extent, on their good relations. The race for dominance if military is dangerous. I think they need to talk as friends and partners. The rest of the BRICS should mediate in this regard.

Many experts still question the role of BRICS members in Africa. It is important here to recall that Russia was involved in helping African countries during their struggle for independence and that was the Cold War. It lost its influence after the split of the USSR.

Currently, Russia’s foreign policy largely seeks to regain what it lost to the United States and China and other foreign players in Africa. But for our Russian partners, Africa needs sustainable development, and not military weapons and equipment. Africa is looking for foreign players to invest in infrastructure and play large part economically.

KKK: In your post-doctoral research on BRICS, and in your article to The Conversation, you mentioned what South Africa can offer or shared with other members. Is it possible to restate explicitly the kind of “beneficiation” here?

EBI: I would make known, first, that as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cape Town, my academic investigation deals with the impact of and the challenges towards mineral beneficiation policy interventions in the SADC region. This has some importance for foreign players looking opportunities to invest in mineral resources in the SADC. Having said the above, I am more than prepared to embark on a project that will help BRICS to understand the effects of BRICS partnership on mineral beneficiation in South Africa and within the Southern African Development Community.

In this connection, I think South Africa has a lot to offer to the BRICS. There must also be a consensus with other African countries. Understandably, South Africa can be an investment gateway to Africa. As the presiding head of the African Union, South Africa represents the interests of the AU in BRICS.

On beneficiation, South Africa has a tremendous experience on nuclear power that, if used for energy, could help the beneficiation industry in the country. One needs to be cautious of deviations in that regard, not that I am suggesting South Africa would deviate, but care needs to be observed by all member countries on that issue. As a pacifist, I would advise that African countries look at alternative, renewable energy sources. A gradual approach to beneficiation and a dialogue between trade partners will take the BRICS partnership to another level as far as South Africa is concerned in the BRICS.

KKK: Do you see “cooperation or competition” among its members (China, India and Russia) racing for global market?

EBI: Interestingly, I see both cooperation and competition. But I think we need more cooperation and sharing of the information. The BRICS must remember what they owe the world. Cooperation should be on all aspects of life. We hear stories of people of color being ill-treated in China for example. I think the authorities should investigate that and take appropriate actions to care for others with dignity. BRICS scientists need collaboration to come up successfully with a solution to development problems including health and advancing development technology.

Efforts by other scientists need to be taken into account. And as regards Africa, an African solution to Africa’s problem approach should not be neglected or relegated to the backyard. BRICS are partners, they can help each other but they should not replace own efforts towards security and safety. For instnace, vaccine or solutions to the pandemic or communicable diseases should not be profit-orientated particularly in Africa. In Africa, we believe in Ubuntu. I think our BRICS leaders will not do such a mistake. I am highly optimistic on that.

KKK: Generally, what would you consider as the key challenges amid geopolitical transformation or reconfiguration and the future of BRICS?

EBI: The pandemic has, indeed taken a heavy toll on the global economy. As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), Brazil, India, Russia, China, and of course, South Africa have high infections after the United States. The key challenges during the COVID-19 era are: Unpreparedness of the BRICS countries. It came as a surprise and BRICS were caught pants down in most instances. We should view the COVID-19 as an opportunity for better planning, re-engineering of our health facilities and capabilities for prevention.

Lack of financial resources. The poor countries in a dire situation. Most countries had no financial muscles to acquire new technologies and embark on raising levels of development to match with population growth especially the youth. This is an area where the BRICS Development Bank could make the stark difference if steered in the right direction.

Insufficient coordination. As for the case of South Africa, it is good that the government took the scientific approach in managing the situation. Coordination with public-private partnership could enhance the ability of the state apparatus to serve the growing population. A better coordination will therefore help not only South Africa, but all the countries.

Last but not the least, our political leaders and decision makers to propose suitable solutions, it must be done in conjunction with means that uplift the spirit as well. Faith based organizations should equally have a role to play to help the government and to provide interventions of psychological and spiritual nature. All the stakeholders must work together. This is not only for South Africa or for the BRICS, but it is also for the entire world. It is time the media grasps the opportunity to serve humanity by focusing on giving hope rather than destroying hope. A balance needs to be set in this regard as well. Media have to exhibit a more constructive role for the development of a better world. BRICS is the Future and our Future is in BRICS!

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

The surprise victory of populist conservative-nationalist Calin Georgescu in the first round of Romania’s presidential election gives this heterodox outsider the chance to enter into office next month. The Mainstream Media is apoplectic since he criticized Romania’s hosting of the US’ missile defense infrastructure and is against perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. He’s also a devout Orthodox Christian and praised some of his country’s most controversial World War II-era figures.

Interestingly, he was also the diaspora’s favorite, with the added twist being that more in Western Europe voted for him than those in Eastern Europe. This suggests that his appeal is also due to the hope that he’ll bring long-overdue accountability to his infamously corrupt country and finally help its people improve their living standards through more effective economic, financial, and developmental policies. Foreign policy is important, but local issues and economics far outweigh the former for average voters.

If Georgescu becomes President of Romania, he’s therefore much more likely to try to change his country’s internal workings than he is to radically transform its foreign policy, but it also can’t be ruled out that his potential victory could adversely affect NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. Those who voted for him dislike how Ukrainian grain flooded their domestic market to local farmers’ detriment and also aren’t pleased with the government financially supporting Ukrainian refugees.

Additionally, the latest military-strategic developments in this conflict raised worries among many about the spectre of World War III, in which case Romania would be directly involved due to its hosting of the previously mentioned US missile defense infrastructure. Their country also plays an important logistical role in arming Ukraine and its newly built “Moldova Highway” could facilitate the deployment of NATO troops there if the bloc or a “coalition of the willing” therein decides to conventionally intervene.  

Even if Romania doesn’t dispatch troops, the transit role that it could play in others’ intervention there could put a Russian target on its back, especially if this leads to direct NATO-Russian hostilities. For this reason and keeping in mind his criticism of NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, he as Supreme Commander might not approve of these plans. After all, he’s a populist conservative-nationalist who prioritizes what he sincerely believes to be national interests, which this scenario is contradictory to.

If he wins, then he’ll assume office on 21 December, which could therefore make it impossible for the US to rely on Romania in the abovementioned respect from there on out. That would be significant, provided that Georgescu has the political will to implement such a policy, since it means that the outgoing Biden Administration might thus only have less than a month to do this if it wants to. After all, even if Trump decides to “escalate to de-escalate” through such means, he too might not be able to.

There’s always the possibility that Poland might serve as the only route through which conventional NATO troops could enter Ukraine, even if it doesn’t dispatch its own, but neither the outgoing conservative-nationalist president nor his liberal-globalist rivals in the ruling coalition might allow this. The reason is that both want to appeal to Ukro-skeptical voters ahead of next year’s presidential election, the first in order to keep the second in check while the second wants to finally be unrestrained.

That’s why each have been trying to outdo the other in populist rhetoric, with the ruling coalition even going as far as to trump the former conservative-nationalist government of which the outgoing president is a part by taking an even harder line towards Ukraine. To that end, they demanded that it exhume and properly bury the Volhynia Genocide victims’ remains like it earlier did for 100,000 Wehrmacht troops, and it’s now only offering more military aid in exchange for a loan and no longer for free.

In fact, one of the Deputy Prime Ministers went as far as accusing Zelensky of wanting to provoke a Polish-Russian War in Ukraine, which powerfully signals that the ruling liberal-globalist coalition isn’t really interested in facilitating a conventional NATO intervene there and thus can’t be relied on for this. If Romania is ruled out in this respect too should Georgescu win, assume office next month, and promulgate the proposed policy, then the US might therefore be more willing to cut a deal with Russia.

Therein lies the most globally significant consequence if this populist conservative-nationalist becomes President of Romania since it could greatly limit the ways in which the US – whether under the outgoing Biden Administration or the incoming Trump one – could “escalate to de-escalate” on more of its terms. By removing the likelihood of a conventional NATO intervention, the odds might then greatly increase for Russia ending this conflict on more of its own terms instead, which could lead to a more lasting solution.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.   

Featured image is from Andrew Korybko

A OTAN continua a ignorar todos os avisos, agravando a crise de segurança com a Rússia. Recentemente, um alto funcionário da OTAN na Europa afirmou que o setor empresarial ocidental deve começar a preparar-se para um cenário de conflito com a Rússia, enfatizando como as economias dos países da OTAN devem ser estruturadas para superar os desafios que as hostilidades podem vir a causar.

O almirante holandês Rob Bauer, que serve como chefe do comitê militar da OTAN, afirmou durante um evento no think tank Centro de Política Europeia, com sede em Bruxelas, que os empresários dos países ocidentais devem começar a preparar-se para um cenário de guerra, ajustando as suas cadeias de produção para banir qualquer dependência de nações “inimigas”, como a Rússia e China.

Bauer afirma que a presença russa e chinesa nas estruturas industriais americanas e europeias é uma verdadeira dissuasão e que, numa guerra aberta, Moscou e Pequim usariam esta capacidade contra os seus inimigos. A maior ameaça atual, na opinião de Bauer, parece ser a China, uma vez que a participação russa no mercado ocidental tem sido progressivamente proibida desde 2022. Bauer acredita que a China representa uma ameaça porque, como aliada da Rússia, usaria a sua “dissuasão comercial”contra o Ocidente para apoiar o seu parceiro.

“Precisamos garantir que todos os serviços e bens cruciais possam ser entregues, não importa o que aconteça, essa é uma parte fundamental da nossa dissuasão (…) Seremos ingênuos se pensarmos que o Partido Comunista nunca usará esse poder. Os líderes empresariais na Europa e na América precisam de perceber que as decisões comerciais que tomam têm consequências estratégicas para a segurança da sua nação”, disse Bauer.

Além disso, Bauer também fez uma afirmação infundada de que já existem atos de sabotagem contra o Ocidente, especialmente na Europa. Citou exemplos como a cooperação energética entre a Rússia e a Europa, que, na sua opinião, tem sido alvo de sabotagem e “dissuasão” por parte de Moscou. Bauer também expressou preocupação com os investimentos chineses em infra-estruturas na Europa, sendo todos os projetos chineses no Ocidente uma possível ameaça à segurança econômica dos países da OTAN.

“Estamos a ver isso com o número crescente de atos de sabotagem e a Europa tem visto isso com o fornecimento de energia. Pensávamos que tínhamos um acordo com a Gazprom, mas na verdade tínhamos um acordo com o Sr. Putin e o mesmo se aplica às infra-estruturas e bens de propriedade chinesa. Na verdade, temos um acordo com o presidente chinês Xi [Jinping] (…) As empresas precisam de estar preparadas para um cenário de guerra e ajustar as suas linhas de produção e distribuição em conformidade. Porque embora possam ser os militares que vencem as batalhas, são as economias que vencem as guerras”, acrescentou.

É curioso ver este tipo de narrativa por parte de responsáveis ​​ocidentais porque é uma clara distorção dos fatos. A Rússia nunca boicotou o fornecimento de energia ao Ocidente – pelo contrário, foi o Ocidente que boicotou a Rússia. Desde 2022, Moscou tem sido alvo de diversas medidas unilaterais ilegítimas – chamadas de “sanções” no Ocidente.

Encorajados pelos EUA, os países europeus começaram a proibir a cooperação energética russa, tornando-se vítimas das suas próprias decisões. Os lucros russos foram pouco afetados, uma vez que Moscou rapidamente substituiu o mercado europeu pelo asiático, sendo a própria Europa a única prejudicada. No final, o Ocidente “sabotou-se” e a Rússia não foi responsável.

É importante lembrar que Bauer é um dos oficiais mais belicosos da OTAN, tendo uma postura abertamente agressiva contra países considerados “inimigos” pelo Ocidente. O almirante não parece ter qualquer interesse em resolver diplomaticamente os atuais conflitos, mas sim em agravá-los até às últimas consequências. Recentemente, disse numa declaração pública que a OTAN poderia ter enviado tropas para a Ucrânia, sendo as armas nucleares da Rússia a única razão para evitar tal decisão.

“Tenho a certeza absoluta de que se os russos não tivessem armas nucleares, estaríamos na Ucrânia, expulsando-os”, disse o almirante na altura.

Ao apelar ao setor empresarial para que se prepare para a guerra, Bauer está simplesmente a dizer que a escalada não irá parar tão cedo. Houve recentemente vários avisos de segurança da Rússia, principalmente em relação aos ataques “profundos” da Ucrânia com mísseis ocidentais de longo alcance. Moscou afirma que tais ataques poderiam ser vistos como uma declaração de guerra da OTAN. Agora, ao falar oficialmente de um “cenário de guerra”, Bauer está simplesmente a concordar que a OTAN está a caminhar para hostilidades diretas com a Rússia.

Se a atual crise de segurança se transformar num conflito aberto entre a Rússia e a OTAN, não faz sentido apelar à preparação por parte dos setores econômicos. Uma guerra aberta entre Moscou e o Ocidente seria certamente nuclear e não haveria nada que pudesse ser feito para evitar uma catástrofe total. Em vez de brincar com o fogo e arriscar o pior cenário, Bauer e outros responsáveis ​​da OTAN deveriam trabalhar pela paz enquanto ela ainda é possível.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : NATO official calls for economic preparation for war, InfoBrics, 26 de November de 2024.

Imagem :  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

President-elect Donald Trump named Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his nominee for Secretary of State, an abhorrent choice that shows Trump’s claim to be a peace candidate to be a complete illusion.

The New York Times reported that, since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rubio has “staked out a position as a foreign policy hawk, taking hard lines on China, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba in particular.”

Supportive of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, 2011 U.S. bombing of Libya and genocidal U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen, Rubio has further expressed unalloyed support for Israel’s war in Gaza, claiming that Hamas was to blame for Palestinian civilian deaths.^[1]

The New York Times emphasized that Rubio has been among the most outspoken senators on the need for the U.S. to be more aggressive on China.

While sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he demanded that the Biden administration block sales to Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, after it released an artificial intelligence processor chip-powered laptop.

Image: Marco Rubio with Taiwan’s anti-China President Tsai Ing-wen in June 2016. [Source: en.wikipedia.org]

Sanctioned by the Chinese government for supporting an anti-Chinese uprising in Hong Kong, Rubio introduced the “Taiwan Peace Through Strength Act” that would fast-track U.S.-Taiwan military coordination, and has called for Taiwan to increase its defense spending, which is not a majority view in Taiwan.^[2]

Zhu Junwei, a former researcher in the People’s Liberation Army and director of American research at Beijing’s Grandview Institution think tank, told the Australian Financial Review that Rubio’s appointment would “be a nightmare coming true.”

Rubio’s selection is also a nightmare for Cubans, given his stature as a leader of Miami’s anti-Castro Cuban expat community.

Falsely claiming that the Castro/Díaz-Canel regime has served as a puppet for Communist China, Iran, and most recently Russia, Rubio’s overriding priority as Secretary of State will be to achieve Washington’s long-standing goal of overthrowing Cuba’s socialist government by expanding on an already crushing embargo, and by supporting dissident movements through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other State Department-linked agencies.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio asserted on the campaign trail that his family came to the U.S. to escape persecution by Fidel Castro’s government. However, a review of government immigration records revealed that Rubio’s parents actually came to Miami in 1956 in order to escape persecution by U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista whom Castro overthrew.

Rubio’s grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia went back to Cuba after the Cuban Revolution to take a job in the Cuban Treasury Ministry, though later had a falling out with the Castro regime.

During Rubio’s 2016 presidential run, The New York Times quoted from a Havana resident living on the street where Rubio’s father grew up who gave Rubio a vigorous thumbs down when asked about him. Héctor Montiel, 66, said that, “if Marco Rubio becomes president, we’re done for. He’s against Cuba in every possible way….Rubio and these Republicans, they are still stuck in 1959.” Echoing similar sentiments, Alain Marcelo, 46, told The New York Times: “He [Rubio] wants to kill us!…Viva Fidel. Rubio’s our enemy!”

Born in 1971, Rubio was an indifferent student who played football at Tarkio College in Missouri before earning degrees from the University of Florida and the University of Miami School of Law.

Rubio’s dishonesty was evident when he claimed to be unaware of his brother-in-law Orlando Cicilia’s direction of a $75 million cocaine smuggling ring from his home in West Kendall, Florida, in the 1980s where Rubio lived as a teenager.^[3]

Image: Marco Rubio and Al Cardenas [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

Rubio’s introduction to right-wing politics came as an intern in the office of rabid anti-Cuba hawk Ileana Ros-Lehtinen after working in a law firm run by Al Cardenas, a Cuban-born kingmaker and ally of the Bush family.

Following his election to the Florida State House, Rubio became a “foot soldier” for then-Florida Governor Jeb Bush who helped him defeat Charlie Crist for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

From the beginning, Rubio’s political career was bankrolled by the billionaire Fanjul family, Cuban exiles supportive of a hard-line policy towards Cuba who owned American Sugar refining, the largest sugar-processing conglomerate in the world.

Over the years, Rubio has done many favors for the Fanjuls, including supporting large government subsidies for their business, keeping wages low, protecting them from being held accountable for abhorrent labor practices, and eviscerating environmental laws that have enabled them to pollute Florida’s Everglades.

During the first Trump administration, Rubio was said to have served as the “virtual Secretary of State for Latin America.”

In this capacity, he supported harsh sanctions and regime-change operations targeting left-wing governments in Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela among others that tried to assert control over their countries’ natural resources and place limits on multi-national corporations.

In an interview with The New York Times about Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Rubio stated:

“He’s picked a battle he can’t win. It’s just a matter of time. The only thing we don’t know is how long it will take—and whether it will be peaceful or bloody.”

In 2019, as part of an opening salvo, Rubio recognized rightist Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s leader, even though Guaidó was largely unknown to the Venezuelan population.

Guaidó is a protégé of Leopoldo López, a notorious right-wing figure with whom Rubio is also close, who triggered violent anti-government protests in Venezuela in 2014.

Journalist Anya Parampil noted that the Trump administration’s step to recognize Guaidó—whom she calls an “imperial incubator baby”—was unprecedented as never before had the U.S. offered legal recognition to a new government before an actual change in leadership had taken place.

The venality of Guaidó and members of his entourage was apparent when money for a planned uprising staged along the Colombia border—to be financed from “humanitarian aid” provided by USAID under the rubric of refugee relief—was embezzled.

Known locally as the “Bay of Piglets” in reference to the bungled CIA-directed invasion of Cuba in 1961, Operation Gideon was another foiled plot led by a former U.S. Green Beret, Jordan Goudreau, to capture and kill Maduro.

Goudreau worked for a Florida-based mercenary company called Silvercorp USA, which was contracted to oversee training and weapons procurement for Operation Gideon.

Rubio tried to legitimate right-wing insurrection by claiming that Maduro headed a criminal syndicate made up of high-ranking military and regime officials involved in a series of illicit operations, ranging from drug trafficking and money laundering to gold smuggling and widespread embezzlement of government funds.

.

Wanted poster issued as part of regime-change operation backed by Rubio. [Source: consortiumnews.com]

.

Venezuelans are afraid today that they could be the target of a U.S. military invasion, which Rubio said he would not rule out. Maduro has even requested prayers from the Pope.

Other left-leaning Latin American leaders may also need prayers. Rubio supported a violent coup attempt against Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega and Bolivian socialist leader Evo Morales, and has characterized Brazilian leader Lula da Silva as “the latest far-left leader who whitewashes the criminal nature of the Maduro narco-regime.”^[4]

Rubio’s attacks on the Biden administration for adopting a supposedly “weak foreign policy” toward “tyrants in our region” is generally a signal that he will support more aggressive regime-change operations in Latin America that could lead to war.

Hypocritically, Rubio supports the most authoritarian government in Latin America, that of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, which human-rights groups have accused of carrying out arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, and torture. Salvadoran lawyers documented thousands of cases of innocent people who were caught in the dragnet with no legal recourse as part of Bukele’s overzealous war on crime.^[5]

Rubio praised the latter for bringing security to El Salvador that could allow in his view for greater foreign investment, which is the main priority of Rubio and the class that he serves.

Filling Cabinet with Other Hawks

Trump’s selection of Rubio follows a wider pattern of his selecting war hawks despite claims of being a candidate for peace.

Image: The official portrait of Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) (From the Public Domain)

For the position of National Security Adviser, Trump has chosen Mike Waltz, a Republican from Florida, a former Green Beret known for taking a tough line on China and Iran and who has repeated Trump’s calls to allow Israel to “finish the job” in Gaza.

An early supporter of the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, Waltz was one of the few members of Congress to suggest the U.S. send “military advisers” into the country following the February 2014 U.S.-backed Maidan coup that overthrew pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, and once said he wanted to “take the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine.”

The New York Times reported that, in 2020, in the days after Mr. Trump authorized the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran, Mr. Waltz was included in a small group of Republicans invited to the White House who received a briefing on the strike.

Having served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, Waltz vehemently opposed President Biden’s withdrawal of troops from there, having stated in 2017 that

“the US should be ready to remain in Afghanistan for several generations until the very ‘idea’ of radical Islam is defeated.’”

Trump has selected Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as U.S. ambassador to the UN. Stefanik, a protégé of ultra-conservative former House Speaker Paul Ryan and former aide to George W. Bush, made a name for herself interrogating university presidents for allegedly being too soft on anti-genocide protesters whom she baselessly claimed were anti-Semitic.

Journalist Dave DeCamp described Stefanik as a “hawkish swamp monster whose political career was primed in some of the most odious neo-conservative think tanks in Washington.”

Image: Stefanik and President Donald Trump at Fort Drum in August 2018 (From the Public Domain)

Stefanik’s racist views were evident in her repeated warnings about immigrants “swarming our streets.” She has ridiculously accused the UN of being plagued by “anti-Semitic rot” while proposing blocking funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees at a time of growing desperation of the Palestinian population.

Stefanik’s views on Israel-Palestine parallel those of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Trump’s selection as U.S. ambassador to Israel, who has voiced strong support for Israel’s war on Gaza.

Newsweek reported that Huckabee’s selection led to rejoicing among Israel’s right-wing settlers and advocates of Israel’s territorial claims in the occupied West Bank, which Huckabee supports.

An evangelical Christian, Huckabee believes that God granted historic Palestine to Israel, putting him on the same wavelength as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he is close.^[6]

[Mike Huckabee promoting pro-Israel rally on Fox News.]

For years, Huckabee led paid tour group visits to Israel, which were advertised in conservative news outlets. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Huckabee said that Palestinian identity was “a political tool to try and force land away from Israel.”

In 2017, he said that he thought Israel had title deeds to Judea and Samaria, biblical terms for the West Bank that are used by far right-wing proponents of a Greater Israel like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the man currently in charge of Israeli settlements who congratulated Huckabee for his selection on X.^[7]

Huckabee is a long-standing war-hawk, having supported the Iraq War when he was governor of Arkansas. In 2007, Huckabee was named by Judicial Watch, a conservative political watchdog group, as the sixth most corrupt politician in the U.S.

Judicial Watch’s report quoted from the Associated Press, which stated that 

“[Huckabee’s] career has…been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” 

These comments do not inspire confidence in Huckabee’s leadership qualities, which fit with the debased moral standard one has come to expect from Donald Trump and other politicians in the second U.S. Gilded Age.^[8]

New Pentagon Chief Wrote Book with Fascist Sub-Theme

For Defense Secretary, Trump has nominated Fox News host Pete Hegseth, a combat veteran of the Afghan and Iraq Wars and two-time Bronze Star recipient who served as a guard at the infamous Guantánamo Bay torture house, which he defended against criticism.

Image: Pete Hegseth

Heading a Koch Brothers financed veterans organization that tried to “rally the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Hegseth successfully lobbied for the pardons of Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Major Mathew Golsteyn during Trump’s 1^st administration, and pushed support for Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, each of whom were facing charges or convictions related to war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Hegseth now running the Pentagon, there will likely be limited rules of engagement in combat zones and far fewer military prosecutions for war crimes.

In his book The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Kept Us Free(Northampton, MA: Broadside Books, 2024), Hegseth railed against efforts to expand the diversity of the U.S. military and recruit women and members of the LGBTQ+ community, which he claims has left the military “weak and effeminate.”

Trump said that Hegseth’s book “reveals the leftwing betrayal of our warriors, and how we must return our military to meritocracy, lethality, accountability, and excellence.”^[9]

However, a genuine left-wing viewpoint would not prioritize greater diversity in the U.S. military but cuts in military spending and the deployment of the military purely for defensive purposes and not to sustain the U.S. empire.

Hegseth’s book advances a fascist “betrayal narrative” that scapegoats liberals for allegedly undermining the U.S. Armed Forces and their supposedly heroic operations, which Hegseth celebrates in other books he has written.^[10]

The Nazis adopted a similar narrative in blaming liberals, Jews and pacifists for undermining the German army in World War I.^[11]

In the U.S. case, its Armed Forces have been on the front lines of imperialist wars that have resulted in countless deaths and the ruination of entire countries to the benefit of parasitical military contractors and Wall Street and oil industry billionaires who want to open up foreign countries to economic plunder—something Hegseth, of course, does not discuss.

Hegseth’s promotion of a dangerously nostalgic view of the U.S. military and its supposed past golden age while railing against liberal cultural values is a toxic brew portending disasters yet to come. One of the chapters recycles the tired conservative argument about U.S. soldiers having had their “hands tied by politicians, lawyers and ‘woke’ military leaders,” which Hegseth suggests has prevented them from achieving victory in America’s endless wars.

Hegseth wrote that

the wars never end “because we are not allowed to fight [them] properly. We do not bring the enemy to their knees until they will give up. Just look at the pressure on Israel. They need to go into Gaza and kill every member of Hamas. Politicians have their schemes. I make the argument in the book that rules of engagement need to be loosened to kill the bad guys. This is what Trump did against ISIS. We fight an enemy that does not play by the rules.”

These comments reflect an extreme right-wing view that, essentially, advocates for genocide. In another passage Hegseth echoes old colonialist tropes by writing that America’s enemies fight like “savages.”

Hegseth goes on to claim that American enemies have no regard for human life, though American military operations are known to have caused massive loss of life among foreign civilians, whose lives the military has little regard for and U.S. media rarely if ever report on.^[12]

As horrible as Hegseth is, it is unlikely that he could do much worse in his new position as General Lloyd Austin, former head of the U.S. Central Command and board member of Raytheon, a leading weapons contractor that Austin rewarded with over $10 billion in Pentagon contracts in just his first six months as Defense Secretary alone.

Hegseth interestingly wants to rename Defense Department back to its original moniker, the War Department, and implement a 10-year ban on generals working for defense contractors after retiring from the military.

New CIA Director Will Continue Business As Usual

As CIA Director, Trump has nominated John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and House member from Texas who served as a partner in a law firm with John Ashcroft, George W. Bush’s Attorney General who is infamous for his support for torture and evisceration of civil liberties in the so-called War on Terror.

Image: Ratcliffe with President Donald Trump in 2017 (From the Public Domain)

Known for his ultra-conservative voting record in Congress, Ratcliffe supported a bill, signed into law by Barack Obama, establishing greater cybersecurity cooperation between the U.S. and Israel and authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to work more with Israel on border control and maritime and aviation security.

Graduate of Notre Dame and Southern Methodist University, Ratcliffe is a supporter of sweeping government surveillance powers, having lobbied for the extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on American citizens without a warrant. 

In 2023, Ratcliffe and several other former Trump officials, including Mike Pompeo and Bill Barr, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to support the extension.

Dave DeCamp reported that Ratcliffe is known as a Trump loyalist for pushing back against unfounded allegations about Russian election interference in his role at the DNI.

Fitting a tradition of advancing disinformation to whip up the public against a foreign enemy being targeted for regime change, Ratcliffe has pushed claims about Iran allegedly hacking Trump campaign computers and plotting to kill the president-elect, charges Tehran has strongly denied.

Ratcliffe has used the allegations to call for the U.S. to join Israel in taking a harder line against Iran.

Like Rubio, Ratcliffe is also a China hawk and has called for the U.S. to prepare for a “confrontation” with Beijing.

Ratcliffe wrote in an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal in December 2020:

“If I could communicate one thing to the American people…it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom worldwide since World War II.”

Ratcliffe’s selection is a good indication of the Trump administration’s pivot to China and Iran as targets for regime change and war rather than Russia.

A New York Times report highlighted that as DNI Ratcliffe “approved selective declassifications of intelligence that aim[ed] to score political points,” and “made public assertions that contradicted professional intelligence assessments,” which does not inspire confidence that he will end the politicization of intelligence work.^[13]

Image: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speaking with attendees at The People’s Convention at Huntington Place in Detroit, Michigan. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

A wild-card appointment by Trump designed to cater to elements of his base that are anti-war is the selection of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI to replace Avril Haines.

Gabbard criticized Kamala Harris during the 2020 Democratic primaries for her hawkish foreign policies and anti-Russia obsession and gave an anti-war speech at the 2023 Rage Against the War Machine rally in Washington, D.C., warning about the dangers of nuclear war breaking out as a result of U.S. military provocations in support of Ukraine.^[14]

Abigail Spanberger (D-VI), a former CIA agent who has served three terms in Congress declared in a post on X that she was “appalled” by the selection of Gabbard, stating that “not only is [Tulsi] ill-prepared and unqualified, but she traffics in conspiracy theories and cozies up to dictators like Bashar-al Assad and Vladimir Putin.”

Notwithstanding these Neo-McCarthyite attacks, Gabbard’s appointment is encouraging compared to the others. But overall, we can expect business as usual at the CIA, Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom in spite of much hullabaloo that Trump was a victim intent on reigning in the “deep state” and spreading peace.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Jeremy Kuzmarov holds a Ph.D. in American history from Brandeis University and has taught at numerous colleges across the United States. He is regularly sought out as an expert on U.S. history and politics for radio and TV programs and co-hosts a radio show on New York Public Radio and on Progressive Radio News Network called “Left on Left.” He is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine and is the author of five books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019), The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018), and Warmonger. How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Launched the U.S. Trajectory From Bush II to Biden (Clarity Press, 2023). Besides these books, Kuzmarov has published hundreds of articles and contributed to numerous edited volumes, including one in the prestigious Oxford History of Counterinsurgency . He can be reached at [email protected] and found on substack here.

Notes

1. Rubio is also staunchly pro-NATO. Last year, he introduced a bill to prevent a future president from leaving NATO.

2. In 2020, Rubio met with Taiwan’s then vice president-elect, Lai Ching-te, a member of the Beijing-skeptic Democratic Progressive Party who is reviled in China for being a “separatist.” Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered its gratitude to Senator Rubio and former Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)., for rejecting Chinese President Xi Jinping’s proposal (or demand) that Taiwan accept “one country, two systems.” 

3. Anya Parampil, Corporate Coup: Venezuela and the End of US Empire, foreword by Jorge Arreaza (New York: OR Books, 2024), 109; Tim Elfrink, “Marco Rubio’s Ties to a Drug-Smuggling Brother-in-Law Were Closer Than Advertised,” Miami New Times, October 26, 2016. Cicilia frequently appeared with Rubio at campaign events. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison but secured early release in 2000. Michael Fisten, a former Miami-Dade homicide detective who wrote a book about the Cicilia case, told Miami New Timesthat “For anyone to argue that teens or adults living at this time in Miami didn’t know their family members were in the coke business is total horseshit. My own brother was involved in the dope business, and I knew it immediately.” Firsten continued: “There’s just no way you didn’t know. The sudden wealth, the sudden distribution of money to other family members, the new lifestyle from someone who had no real job.” Cicilia’s boss in the drug ring, Mario Tabraue, the son of a Bay of Pigs veteran, was the prototype for Al Pacino’s psychotic character, Tony Montana, in Scarface.

4. Ironically, Lula made a point of excluding Venezuela from BRICS. Rubio attackedColombian President Gustavo Petro as a “spokesperson for a criminal drug dictatorship like the one in Venezuela. In order to obtain the support of intermediaries like Maduro and Castro for ‘negotiations’ with the ELN terrorists, Petro is willing to lobby for a vile dictatorship.” 

5. Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern (D) said that there was no equivalent in Latin America to the levels of abuses taking place under Bukele, “not even during the worst years of military dictatorship.” Ilhan Omar (D-MN) wrote in a letter to President Joe Biden that President Bukele was overseeing “the militarized harassment of the legislature, a significant erosion of judicial independence, and the de facto criminalization of civil society.” According to Human Rights Watch, between March and November 2022, El Salvador’s prison population increased from 30,000 to 90,000 detainees. Mass incarceration under Bukele has aggravated historically poor conditions in detention, including extreme overcrowding, violence, and poor access to goods and services essential to rights, such as food, drinking water, and health care. Some of the few people who were released from detention reported inhumane conditions and, in some cases, torture and other forms of ill-treatment. According to Salvadoran authorities, 90 people died in custody during the state of emergency. Authorities have failed to meaningfully investigate these deaths. In some cases, detainees who died in prison did not receive access to the medication they needed, family members said. Human rights Watch wrote that “widespread human rights violations were enabled by President Bukele’s swift dismantling of democratic institutions since taking office in 2019, which has left virtually no independent government bodies that can serve as a check on the executive branch or ensure redress for victims of abuse.” 

6. When he was Governor of Arkansas in the early 2000s, Huckabee justified his support for the Iraq War by claiming that democracy takes a long time to develop among a people long oppressed by a dictator. 

7. During Huckabee’s 2015 run for president, Huckabee suggested that if a Palestinian state were to be created, it should be in neighboring countries like Egypt, Syria or Jordan, rather than within Israel’s borders. Huckabee reiterated that point during a 2015 interview on Israeli TV, in which he argued that a two-state solution was “irrational and unworkable” and said “there’s plenty of land” outside of Israel in the “rest of the world” for a Palestinian state. 

8. Trump’s selection of Steven Witkoff as a Middle East envoy is also fit for the new Gilded Age. Witkoff is owner of a real estate empire worth an estimated $500 million and advocates for lower corporate tax rates. He has been a close friend of Trump for many years. 

9. Trump said during the election campaign that, “on Day One, I will get critical race theory and transgender insanity the hell out of our U.S. armed forces.” 

10. Hegseth’s book Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes (Northampton, MA: Broadside Books, 2020) was the basis for a hit show on Fox News. There are reportsthat Hegseth has Christian themed tattoos that are adopted by some white supremacist groups. One was emblazoned with the words, “deus vult,” Latin for “God wills it.” This was a battle cry during the Christian Crusades to take back the Holy Land and slaughter Muslims. The tattoo led Hegseth to be flagged as a potential “insider threat” by a fellow service member when he served in the U.S. military. 

11. See Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam(New York: NYU Press, 1998) for comparison. 

12. For the lack of regard for civilian casualties in America’s wars, see John Tirman, The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 

13. In 2016, Ratcliffe was forced to withdraw his nomination to become director of National Intelligence after it was revealed that he had  “exaggerated” resume by claiming he was a terrorist-fighting federal prosecutor in East Texas under George W. Bush, even though court records showed no there were “no significant national security prosecutions in that jurisdiction during his tenure.” Ratcliffe also took sole credit for a major crackdown on the employment of undocumented immigrants by a poultry producer when the case was actually “a multistate, multiagency operation.” 

14. Gabbard in her speech said that “the people at the Rage Against the War Machine rally were united in one thing: They valued human life and don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust.” Gabbard further noted that she had “warned about the danger of the new Cold War during the 2020 Democratic primaries but that, sadly, things have worsened since that time, with the advent of this proxy war with Russia that could easily now turn into a direct and nuclear war.”  

Featured image: Senator Marco Rubio (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)

The slow, often grinding machinery of international law has just received a push along with the issuing of three arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court. They are for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and, rather incongruously, Hamas figure Mohammed Deif.  The last issue is somewhat odd given claims by Israel that he was killed in an airstrike in July, though Hamas has never confirmed nor denied the fate of the man also known as Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.

The issue of the warrants was the culmination of a request on May 20 by the ICC prosecutor to a Pre-Trial Chamber of the court to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and three senior Hamas officials.  Two have been withdrawn, given the confirmed killings of both Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh.

On November 21, the three-judge panel of Pre-Trial Chamber I unanimously rejected Israel’s assertion that the ICC lacked jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general and over Israeli nationals more specifically, “as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine.”  The Chamber also rejected Israel’s request that the Prosecution provide a new notification of an initiation of investigation into its authorities under the ICC Statute, given that the parameters of the investigation had not essentially changed.  Nor had Israel pursued a request for deferral of the investigation when given the chance in 2021.

The arrest warrants, issued in accordance with the law of international armed conflict, remain the most telling aspect of the determinations.  Despite being classified as “secret”, the Chamber deemed it important to release some degree of detail on what they entail.  Accordingly, it found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bore criminal responsibility as “co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”. There were also reasonable grounds to believe that both figures bore “criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

The ghoulish picture of alleged conduct is sketched with chilling detail.  The alleged crimes against humanity against the civilian population in Gaza were deemed to be widespread and systematic.  It was reasonable to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant had, with intent and knowledge, deprived the population of Gaza of such necessities to survival as food, water, medicine, medical supplies, fuel and electricity “from at least” October 8, 2023 to May 20, 2024.  This finding was easy to reach, largely because humanitarian aid had been impeded and restricted without evident military necessity or justification under international humanitarian law.  When decisions to allow or increase humanitarian aid into Gaza were made, these were conditional.

.

People line up for water in Gaza (Source)

.

The warrant for Deif, as chief commander of the military wing of Hamas (the al-Qassam Brigades) was issued because the chamber found “reasonable grounds” to believe he had allegedly been responsible for various crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence) and traditional war crimes. It remains to be seen whether that can be executed appropriately, given the likelihood that Deif is no longer alive.

International law remains a curious creature, one of mixed shape and uneven maturity. Being based on the mutual, grudging acknowledgment of conventions between countries, its success, or failure, depends on mutual observance.  ICC warrants to arrest international figures have been issued with varying results, with signatory states of the Rome Statute making their own decisions whether to execute them.  Political interests can rear a nasty head, blowing off legally minded types keen to see judicial proceedings pursued by member states.

When an ICC warrant was issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the alleged directing of attacks on civilians in Ukraine and the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation, the spectacle of such a figure being hauled off to The Hague was simply too much for countries keen to engage with the Kremlin.  Putin, for instance, was assured by Mongolia on a state visit this year that he would not be arrested, despite the country being a party to the ICC.

More caution was exercised by Putin regarding the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg in 2023, probably due to such experiences as those of former Sudanese president, Omar Al-Bashir.  Despite being the subject of ICC arrest warrants in 2009 and 2010, the defiant leader, wanted for a string of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in Darfur, tested the waters by visiting South Africa in 2015 for an African Union summit.  His presence, however, interested the judicial authorities, who ordered him to stay in South Africa while consideration was given to his potential arrest.

Bashir’s exit was prompt, leading to a ruling the following year by the South African Court of Appeal that the failure by the authorities to arrest him was unlawful.  A Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC also found that the warrant should have been executed as part of South Africa’s obligations, and the Sudanese leader could not rightly have claimed immunity from arrest during his visit.

The warrants against the Israeli figures will have some practical effects.  Gallant and Netanyahu will think twice before travelling to member states of the Rome Statute, though such states will naturally reach their own decisions on the issue.  But while it is hard to see these men being carted off to proceedings in The Hague bar exceptional circumstances, the warrants have provided a fillip for civil society groups in Israel.

The indomitable efforts of the non-profit B’Tselem organisation called the ICC efforts “a chance for us, Israelis, to realize what we should have understood long ago: that upholding a regime of supremacy, violence and oppression necessarily involves crimes and severe violation of human rights.”  Unfortunately for the starving and dying in Gaza, the pity of war will not, at least at this time, halt before any stern judicial eye, especially one cast from an international court.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected] 

At a recent cardiology meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, a striking admission was made: the spike protein generated by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is now being recognized as a cardiotoxin — a substance capable of causing direct harm to the heart. According to the cardiologist who made the admission, this toxic protein is the root cause of the alarming increase in heart-related illnesses seen in both young and old patients since the vaccine’s rollout. As cardiology waiting rooms and cardiac wards fill to capacity — especially with young patients suffering from previously rare conditions — many healthcare professionals are beginning to speak out about a growing public health crisis that the government and health authorities seem determined to ignore.

Cardiologists Have Never Seen Heart Damage Like This in Young People

The evidence of vaccine-related heart damage is overwhelming, according to various reports from within New Zealand’s hospitals. Cardiac surgeons are quietly advising patients who have undergone procedures like coronary bypass surgery to “refuse future vaccine boosters,” as their risk of further heart complications could be exacerbated.

One cardiologist noted that the rise in heart disease cases — especially in younger, previously healthy individuals — corresponds directly with the introduction of the mRNA vaccines. The surge is described as “unprecedented,” with waiting rooms across New Zealand’s hospitals increasingly full of “young patients” suffering from conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis and other heart issues previously uncommon in this demographic. As this reality becomes more widely understood, many doctors are growing increasingly concerned about the future health consequences for vaccinated individuals.

Furthermore, cancer experts such as James Royle, a UK-based oncologist, have pointed out that there has been an increase in the incidence of “aggressive, stage 4 cancers” — also known as “turbo cancers” — especially among young people. These cancers display “novel biological characteristics” that are not typically seen in the general population. Royle suggests a “causal link” between the mRNA vaccines and this disturbing trend, citing evidence of 13 bio-molecular mechanisms through which the vaccines could trigger cancer growth.

New Zealand Medical Establishment Refuses to Release Data on Heart Damage and Cancer Incidence in the Vaccinated

The official narrative promoted by Health New Zealand has long held that the vaccines are “safe and effective,” but front-line doctors are increasingly aware that the evidence does not support these claims. Despite mounting concerns, officials have been delaying the release of critical health data on the subject, claiming “patient confidentiality” as the reason.

Of course, it wasn’t long ago, when no one’s health information or medical decisions were confidential or private. Patients were routinely forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine under the duress of unlawful mandates and the threat of travel restrictions and segregation from careers and societal functions.

A recent request filed under the Official Information Act (OIA) sought to obtain data on the rise in chest pain presentations to accident and emergency departments, but the request was blocked. Dr. Guy Hatchard, a former director of the New Zealand Natural Health Society, lambasts the current medical establishment’s refusal to confront the growing evidence of vaccine harm, describing their actions as “criminal folly.” Hatchard argues that “delaying the release of health data” — especially data related to the alarming rise in heart disease and other chronic conditions — is not only unjust but detrimental to the well-being of the New Zealand public.

The ongoing culture of fear created by the New Zealand Medical Council, which has been actively prosecuting doctors who speak out against the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, must come to an end. The intimidation of medical professionals has only served to stifle open dialogue and delay the necessary response to this growing crisis.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

---

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. 

As soon as Donald Tump started talking about giving me the power [in the HHS], he asked me to do three things:

1. to root out the corruption,
2. to end the conflicts of interest in our regulatory agencies and end this corporate capture that has turned our regulatory agencies into sock puppets of the industries they’re supposed to regulate, and
3. to restore the tradition of gold standard, empirically-based, evidence-based science and medicine in our regulatory agencies.

Watch the video below.

.

Watch the video here

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

Ukrainians are fighting and dying for the destruction of their own country. This has been the case since Washington orchestrated the violent coup against the elected Yanukovych government in 2014, (1) and instated a nazi/genocidal ethnic nationalist infested regime, a proxy for Washington warmongers.

Ukraine is bleeding its humanity, its resources, and its sovereignty for transnational “war harvests”. Proxy president Zelensky is a “front” for these deep state “interests”.

.

.

Now the stakes are even higher since Washington has green-lit long-range missile strikes into Russia, and Russia has responded by deploying a hypersonic ballistic missile against Ukrainian military infrastructure. The West does not have comparable hypersonic technology, nor can it stop it.

Congressman Tom Massie of Kentucky correctly states that,

“by authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all US citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state.” (2)

Washington’s permanent state of war-mongering, its policies of international lawlessness, are increasingly a danger to us all, and, as noted by Prof. Dr. Dan Kovalik,

“the trillions of dollars the US has spent on wars in recent years, and continues to spend, could be used to meet human needs — to eradicate hunger, diseases and poverty.” All of this, he says, “makes such spending so tragic and immoral.” (3)

Which country will be the next “sacrificial lamb” as Washington pushes us towards a World War Three scenario?

.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: President Joe Biden travels to Kyiv, Ukraine Monday, February 20, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

---

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.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com.

Featured image is from Xinhua/Ting Shen

Since my strong warning yesterday of the insanity of Western leaders who are without any doubt driving the world to nuclear Armageddon, the hyper dangerous situation has further deteriorated.  While we all look forward to Thanksgiving holiday, the leadership of the Western world is setting us up for death.

The insanity of the West is so extreme as to be incomprehensible.  Not satisfied by taking the US and Europe to war with Russia by firing missiles into Russia, the NATO military committee is openly discussing preemptive missile strikes on Russia.  This is extraordinary. At the present moment it is only Putin’s patience that stands between life and death on planet Earth.  Putin is willing to tolerate the West’s provocations in the face of his clear warning until Trump assumes the presidency and indicates whether a mutual security agreement between the US and Russia is possible.

With life on earth dependent on Putin’s patience with the West, what does the West do?  The NATO Military Committee openly discusses  a preemptive attack on Russia.  To be effective, the attack would have to be nuclear.

Admiral Rob Bauer, head of the NATO military committee, said publicly that NATO has changed its attitude and is no longer the defense organization that its charter defines it to be.  It has become a first strike force.  Here are his words: 

“It is more competent not to wait, but to hit launchers in Russia in case Russia attacks us. A combination of precision strikes is needed that will disable the systems that are used to attack us, and we must strike first.”

If not insanity, it is the triumph of evil that the West tells Putin, whose patience is the only guarantor of avoidance of nuclear war, that NATO is considering preemptive strikes on Russia.

My warning yesterday and my denunciation of the Western “leaders” who have us slated for total destruction was not strong enough. We now have NATO, a puppet organization of Washington, telling Putin  to expect a first strike attack to prevent him from making good on his warning about starting a war with Russia.

For a person of my generation, such callous disregard for human life as Western “leaders” proclaim is incomprehensible. With nuclear war on the table, the task is to defuse the threat, not to inflame it.  But the insane West has chosen to inflame it.  

And the people of the West are unaware. The media lies to them and withholds real information. Those few of us who bring reality to the people barely receive enough support to keep the website operating. For our troubles we are called names and are subject to the FBI calling on us. 

Right now with the world on the cusp of destruction, what are Americans thinking about?  Will Thanksgiving be ruined by political differences between Trump supporters and Democrats?  How is my college football team doing?  Is my 12-year old daughter taking her birth control pills? Can I make my car payment next month? Is my boss going to fire me because I am a white male and used the wrong pronoun for a transgendered co-worker?  These, and such, are the concerns of Americans as their “leaders” lead them to the brink of nuclear war.

Dear readers, be assured that the Russians have noted these latest threats. Pray that Putin’s patience holds even at the risk of his own country. 

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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: Anti-NATO protest in Chicago, 2012. Photo credit: Julie Dermansky.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim‘s visit to South Korea signaled an “upgrade” in the Malaysia-South Korea bilateral relations to strategic partnership. 

According to Sputnik International, 

Ibrahim said that new areas of partnership might include artificial intelligence and digital technologies, alongside regional security, the defense industry and economic partnerships, … adding that cooperation in defense industry was especially highlighted as a “symbol of mutual trust.”

Both countries “strongly condemned the actions of the DPRK which launched a ballistic missile on October 31.” Apart from this, they also cited “several other regional and global issues” being the impetus for the interest in the elevation of bilateral relations. 

Brian Berletic of TheAltWorld noted in a 2022 article that

“Malaysia’s new prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is the product of decades of US government backing, both himself a regular associate of Washington’s regime change front, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and part of a wider US NED-funded network.”

Given PM Ibrahim’s background, this strategic cooperation between Malaysia and South Korea clearly goes beyond the security of the Korean Peninsula but even extends to America’s efforts in containing China, of which South Korea is a willing and key player.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!  

Featured image source

Belarusian media reported last week about the West’s alleged plot to destabilize and then invade their country. Existing information warfare campaigns are meant to facilitate the recruitment of more sleeper cell agents, who’ll later stage a terrorist insurgency using Ukrainian-procured arms. Mercenaries will then invade from the south, carry out drone strikes against strategic targets, and attempt to seize the capital. If they succeed, then the coup authorities will request a conventional NATO military intervention.

This summer’s Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk Region might also have emboldened the plotters.

No nuclear retaliation from Russia followed despite the threat that this NATO-backed attack posed to its territorial integrity. Likewise, they might calculate that neither Russia nor Belarus (which hosts the former’s tactical nukes) would resort to these means if they replicated that scenario in the latter, especially if the invasion also came from Ukraine instead of NATO countries like Poland. This could give the West more leverage in upcoming peace talks with Russia if it succeeds.

That might sound reasonable on paper, but in practice, it ignores the fact that Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine just entered into force and that Putin responded to Ukraine’s use of Western long-range missiles by employing the state-of-the-art hypersonic medium-range Oreshnik missile in combat. The first allows the use of nuclear weapons in response to the sort of threats that this scenario poses while the second was meant as a signal to the West that Putin is finally climbing the escalation ladder.

Taken together, the latest developments indicate that Russia’s response to an unconventional mercenary invasion of Belarus and/or a conventional Ukrainian one might be different than its response to Kursk, and this could serve as the tripwire for the Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that’s been brewing. Russia cannot afford to have its adversaries capture and hold Belarusian territory because of the national security threat that this presents and also because it would greatly undermine its negotiating position.

It might very well be that the West is aware of this and thus hopes to provoke precisely such a response from Russia with the expectation that “escalating to de-escalate” can end the conflict on better terms for their side. That would be a huge gamble since the stakes are much higher for Russia than for the West, thus reducing the chances that the former would agree to the concessions that the latter might demand, such as freezing the conflict along the existing Line of Contact without anything else in exchange.

There’s also the possibility that the West’s attempt to destabilize and invade Belarus, whether through mercenaries and/or conventional Ukrainian troops (a conventional NATO military intervention isn’t likely at this stage), is thwarted and nothing else comes of this plot. Much less likely but still impossible to rule out is that Russia asks Belarus to let one of the aforementioned invasions make enough progress to justify using tactical nukes against Ukraine to “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for Russia.

That would also be a huge gamble though since crossing the nuclear threshold might tremendously raise the stakes for the West as its leaders sincerely see it even if the primary intent is only to punish Ukraine. Nevertheless, seeing as how Putin is now finally climbing the escalation ladder and throwing some of his previous caution to the wind after feeling like his prior patience was mistaken by the West as weakness, he might be influenced by hawkish advisors into seeing that as an opportunity to flex Russia’s muscles.

In any case, regardless of whatever might happen, the fact is that it’s the West’s prerogative whether or not Belarus is destabilized and possibly also invaded. Ukraine could also “go rogue” out of desperation if it feels that the West might “sell it out” under Trump and thus wants to make a last-ditch attempt to improve its negotiating position or “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for itself, but this could greatly backfire if it fails. They both therefore bear full responsibility for what could follow.

*

 

---

APPENDIX

background briefings about this scenario over the past year and a half:

• 25 May 2023: “NATO Might Consider Belarus To Be ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ During Kiev’s Upcoming Counteroffensive”
• 1 June 2023: “The Union State Expects That The NATO-Russian Proxy War Will Expand”
• 14 June 2023: “Lukashenko Strongly Hinted That He Expects Belgorod-Like Proxy Incursions Against Belarus”
• 14 December 2023: “Belarus Is Bracing For Belgorod-Like Terrorist Incursions From Poland”
• 19 February 2024: “The Western-Backed Foreign-Based Belarusian Opposition Is Plotting Territorial Revisions”
• 21 February 2024: “Is The West Plotting A False Flag Provocation In Poland To Blame On Russia & Belarus?”
• 26 April 2024: “Analyzing Belarus’ Claim Of Recently Thwarting Drone Attacks From Lithuania”
• 30 June 2024: “Keep An Eye On Ukraine’s Military Buildup Along The Belarusian Border”
• 12 August 2024: “What’s Behind Belarus’ Military Buildup Along The Ukrainian Border?”
• 13 August 2024: “Security Threats To Belarus”
• 19 August 2024: “Ukraine Reportedly Has A Whopping 120,000 Troops Deployed Along Its Border With Belarus”
• 26 August 2024: “Ukraine Might Be Gearing Up To Attack Or Cut Off Belarus’ Southeastern City Of Gomel”
• 28 September 2024: “Belarus’ Warning About Using Nukes Probably Isn’t A Bluff (But There Might Be A Catch)”

---

 

 

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.    

Featured image: Photo © andriano_cz / Adobe Stock

Life expectancy in the United States is currently declining, making it the only developed nation with this concerning trend. Since the 1930s, there has been a dramatic 700% increase in chronic disease development, rising from 7.5% prevalence to 60% of the population having one or more chronic conditions today

In the 1800s, people ate three structured meals daily (breakfast, dinner, supper) without snacking or fasting, maintaining a simpler relationship with food than we have today

Our ancestors consumed a high-carb diet rich in saturated fats, with minimal polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), as they didn’t use vegetable oils or eat many nuts and seeds

The 1950s marked a significant shift in dietary recommendations, particularly regarding saturated fats and animal products, leading to major changes in the American diet

To optimize your health, return to simpler food principles: cook at home, source quality ingredients within your means, stay active, and prioritize happiness over strict dietary rules

*

There is profound value in looking to the past, drawing from the wisdom of our ancestors to uncover how they cultivated healthy, balanced lives and sustained their communities across generations.

While their life expectancy may not have been as long, this data is skewed by low birth survival rates, which modern Medicine has drastically improved. And did you know that the U.S. actually has a decline in life expectancy in modern times?

America is the only developed nation with a *declining* healthy life expectancy and total life expectancy!¹ We aren’t doing something right!

.

.

Since the food we eat every single day plays the biggest lever in improving our health, let’s investigate the diets of our ancestors.

The 1800s offer us a unique window into a different relationship with food — one where abundance was celebrated, meals were a source of joy, and the dinner table was the heart of family life. In an era before processed foods and modern food fears/orthorexic behavior, people maintained a simpler, more intuitive connection with their meals.

What I find most intriguing is how their approach to food differs from our modern perspective. While we often grapple with complex dietary rules and restrictions, our ancestors focused on nourishment, celebration, and making the most of available ingredients.

So, let’s step back in time and explore what graced our great-great-great-grandma’s dinner table for the month of November. The meals might inspire your own culinary adventures! I’ll share some photos from a few different vintage cookbooks, then discuss some of the consistent trends at the end!

Truthfully, they ate a very metabolically supportive diet. They ate a lot of food (calories), didn’t fast, ate high carb, consumed primarily saturated-rich fat sources and ate low PUFA, and they consumed B vitamin rich animal protein sources.

I am slightly fascinated by the farming and culinary traditions of our ancestors, so I hope you enjoy these vintage meal plans as much as I do! So, first, let’s check out meals from “What shall we eat?” published in 1868. Meals our great-great-great-grandparents could have consumed.

.

.

Next, let’s check out a meal plan from “What shall we have to eat?” published in 1893. Meals our great-great-great-grandparents, or great-great-grandparents might have consumed.

.

Isn’t it eye-opening to take a look at 1800s meal plans? No crazy diet rules, no food fear, and plenty of calories. While we don’t need to go this extreme with food prep, it’s a reminder to ditch the diet stress. Notable trends:

• Ate 3 meals/day, no intentional fasting, but also did not frequently graze/snack (instead of “breakfast, lunch, dinner” they called the meals “breakfast, dinner, supper”)
• No dietary extremes
• Did not fear carbs (ate high carb)
• Consumed mostly saturated fats, and ate relatively lower polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) (no vegetable oils, and didn’t eat much nuts and seeds)
• Consumed food that is demonized across a variety of diet camps: meat, dairy, flour, sugar, fruit, potatoes, and grains
• No processed food/food in a package

One of the biggest changes has been the TYPES of fat consumed.

.

.

The saturated fat, animal product and cholesterol fear-mongering propaganda starting in the 1950s led to a huge shift in our dietary fat. Since the 1930s, there has been a 700% increase in chronic disease development. In the 1930s, the chronic disease prevalence was 7.5%.² Today, 60% of the population has one or more chronic disease.^3,4

I’m not sharing these meal plans to suggest that you should eat exactly as they did. Instead, my goal is to help you reduce food fear and stress as you navigate the overwhelming and often confusing health space. The last thing any of us need is more stress in our lives!

Gaining perspective from the diets of our great-great-great-grandparents can be both liberating and grounding. In today’s world, where so many foods are scrutinized, this perspective can help alleviate unnecessary fear around eating.

Letting go of food fears can significantly enhance your well-being. Feel empowered to explore traditional food preparations and discover what nourishes your body best, rather than letting someone else’s anxieties dictate your choices. And to address the elephant in the room — yes, they did not have to deal with the crappy food system we all face today. OF COURSE food sourcing is important!

Our modern food system is undeniably complex and imperfect, and it does contribute to various health issues. But better options do exist, such as organic sugar or non-GMO, organic flour. Embrace the idea that there’s always a step forward you can take.

Instead of feeling overwhelmed, consider focusing on just one area of your sourcing to improve for the rest of the year — whether it’s meat, dairy, eggs, produce, or grains. Small, sustainable changes help avoid overwhelm and empower you to make a difference. Do the best you can and avoid what you personally can’t tolerate.

But instead of stressing about eating “good” and avoiding “bad” foods on a list made from some random health influencer (which will differ depending on who you follow) … Keep it simple: cook at home, source as high of quality ingredients that you can, stay active, and prioritize happiness.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Ashley Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Food Club, which specializes in seed oil free, low-PUFA eggs that are shipped to all 50 states, and Nourish Food Club, which ships 100% grass fed, vaccine-free, regeneratively raised beef and lamb, plus low-PUFA pork and chicken, A2 dairy and cheese, and traditional sourdough to all 50 states.

Armstrong is fascinated with old school agriculture practices and is focused on building a food system with small scale regenerative farms at the center. The goal is to produce food how it used to be made, before heavy chemical use and the large increase in PUFAs.

Notes

¹ WHO, GHE: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy

² American Journal of Public Health, 13 Jan 2011, 101(3):438-447

³ RAND, May 26, 2017

⁴ CDC, Chronic Disease

Featured image is from Mercola

I appeared on Outside the Beltway with John Fredericks on November 20, 2024 and walked through the likely scenario by which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, if confirmed as Secretary of HHS, would ultimately have the COVID-19 vaccines removed from human use.

.

.

.

.

It will be important that the vaccine companies, federal agencies, academia, and other interested parties be at the table to see the safety data by which policy would be drafted to expedite removal of the products. Likely if Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax executives were forced to see record injuries, disabilities, and deaths in an open session with public attendance, they would voluntarily withdraw their products before an government-issued recall.

.

Watch here

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

---

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

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

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

What’s All the Fuss About? Is Nuclear War Really That Dangerous?

By Drago Bosnic, November 26, 2024

Leaders and top-ranking officials of the most powerful NATO countries openly support long-range strikes on Russia using Western-sourced missiles, operated by American, British and other NATO personnel. This comes despite President Vladimir Putin’s crystal clear warning that Russia would consider the world’s most vile racketeering cartel a party to the conflict and that it would respond accordingly.

“In a nuclear war, the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity.” Fidel Castro

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 26, 2024

The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.

The Fake Climate Change Agenda: Global South Slams Western Input to COP29 Deal as “Optical Illusion”

By Ahmed Adel, November 25, 2024

India has opposed the agreement approved at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku to allocate $300 billion annually to poorer countries to fight climate change, calling it “an optical illusion,” while the Marshall Islands described the deal as “shameful.”

Rewriting the Script of Life. “This Is a Moment to Think Big”

By Julian Rose, November 25, 2024

Big things are happening on the world stage – but most only involve a change of emphasis, a reordering of the standard power play conducted within the deep state’s global field of influence. Don’t confuse this ‘Reset’ with the deeper change which is taking place underneath. Although they do overlap at times, they are very different happenings.

Federal Judge Upholds Florida Ban on Lab-Grown Meat

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, November 25, 2024

A Florida federal judge upheld a state ban on lab-grown meat sales, rejecting Upside Foods’ argument that their cultivated chicken should be treated like conventional poultry under federal law.

In the Fight Against Tyranny, Don’t Let Your Happiness Depend on Big Wins

By Caitlin Johnstone, November 26, 2024

Don’t bind your happiness to the success of your efforts. As Chris Hedges has said, “I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.” Do everything you can to fight back against the lies, war and tyranny of the empire, but do it for its own sake because it’s the right thing to do, not because you’ve wrapped up your sense of wellbeing in the success of failure of your fight.

Iraq Invasion – The Biggest Terrorist Attack in Modern History. “Terrorism of US-UK-NATO-Israel”

By Felicity Arbuthnot, November 26, 2024

Since terrorism’s tragedy is again in the news, it is timely to revisit perhaps one of the biggest acts of terrorism in modern history – the illegal invasion and destruction – ongoing – of Iraq.

We’re in the Second Cold War. Those thinking otherwise have probably been living under a rock. Unfortunately, that rock won’t save anyone and we know it by the change in rhetoric.

Namely, in previous decades, nuclear war was a mere hypothesis in the minds of most people, an extremely unlikely prospect that we could casually discuss, theorize on, contemplate as to how it would play out, etc. It truly is meticulous work, involving an enormous amount of moving parts and it could even be argued it’s fun, as evidenced by numerous mass media that use it as their main trope. Whether it’s a post-apocalyptic scenario, a modern war that got out of control or something along those lines, it’s quite prominent in movies, TV shows, video games, etc. Now, imagine fan favorites such as the Mad Max franchise, Fallout or Metro series, certain Call of Duty titles, etc. suddenly becoming a reality. It’s certainly a scary thought.

Well, thanks to the warmongering oligarchies in Washington DC and Brussels, this is exactly the scenario we’re facing. And if you think it’s too far-fetched or even impossible, think again.

Leaders and top-ranking officials of the most powerful NATO countries openly support long-range strikes on Russia using Western-sourced missiles, operated by American, British and other NATO personnel.

This comes despite President Vladimir Putin’s crystal clear warning that Russia would consider the world’s most vile racketeering cartel a party to the conflict and that it would respond accordingly. Worse yet, even after Moscow used a conventionally armed ICBM/IRBM in response to these NATO attacks, the political West only keeps escalating. The purpose of this text is to understand what’s at stake and that if the warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and kleptocrats have their way, the world will pay the ultimate price.

Let’s imagine that Russia decides it’s sick and tired of over three decades of NATO’s lies, deceit, crawling invasion and now nearly three years of direct attacks and total war.

The Neo-Nazi Kiev regime keeps launching these Western-sourced missiles and the Kremlin knows who’s behind it.

Do you think Russia would use thermonuclear weapons in Ukraine, a land that has belonged to it for over 1,200 years, against the people it considers ethnic Russians (even though they reject this notion)? Even if we ignore these basic facts, the answer is no, as it would be suicidal to fire a nuclear weapon at an area so close to home. The fallout could easily reach any Russian and/or Belorussian territory. Thus, it can be expected to see Moscow use more “Oreshniks” and similar missiles. However, Russia’s updated strategic doctrine also allows the use of such weapons against targets beyond NATO-occupied Ukraine.

Namely, Moscow knows exactly which NATO command centers are used to coordinate attacks on Russia’s undisputed territory and may decide to neutralize them.

Missiles such as the “Oreshnik” give it unprecedented non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities, meaning that Russia’s first retaliatory attack should not trigger NATO’s nuclear response.

However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel doesn’t have comparable weapons and could only use nuclear-tipped missiles or bombs. In response to this, the Kremlin deploys its unrivaled strategic arsenal in full force. How long do you think this would last? I’ve recently argued it would be largely over in 15 minutes. Now I’ll explain in detail how.

First, the early warning systems (composed of a plethora of land, sea, air and space-based assets) would sound an alarm and the Russian strategic nuclear-armed triad would react immediately.

Composed of Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN), Aerospace Forces (VKS) and Navy (VMF), the Russian triad could deploy at least 5,500 thermonuclear warheads, each of which is orders of magnitude more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, combined.

As of October, the RVSN has 772 warheads on over 200 RS-24 “Yars”, 340 on 46 R-36M2 “Voevoda” and 78 single-warhead RT-2PM2 “Topol-M” ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). The number of strategic HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), specifically the “Avangard” is unknown, but is usually thought to be in the dozens. The VKS operates 580 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (the Kh-102 and several advanced iterations of the Kh-55), deployed on 55 Tu-95MS and 17 Tu-160 strategic bombers, better known as missile carriers in Russian military nomenclature. And last, but certainly not least, the Navy, the most survivable element of any triad.

The VMF operates 15 SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) carrying 240 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) armed with at least 896 warheads. The grand total is 2,657 thermonuclear warheads ready to go at this very moment.

Note that this doesn’t include well over 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed on SSGNs (nuclear-powered guided missile submarines), hypersonic weapons such as the 9M723 used by the “Iskander-M”, the 9-S-7760 “Kinzhal” and numerous other missile types.

Altogether, Russia has well over 4,500 warheads ready for both strategic and battlefield use. However, it also has upwards of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement, but which could be returned to service due to NATO aggression and be installed on land-based ICBMs, IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles), SLBMs, ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles), etc.

.

Russia’s Iskander-M (© Sputnik / Sergey Orlov / Go to the mediabank)

.

Once again, this is without even considering newer Russian weapons that we know exist (RS-28 “Sarmat” ICBMs, “Avangard” HGVs, “Oreshnik” hybrid/modular IRBM/ICBM/HGVs, the “Poseidon” nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed underwater drones/torpedoes, etc) and those that we don’t know anything about (except that they exist), including experimental, as President Putin himself spoke of “weapons based on new physical principles” on many occasions. However, just to illustrate the destructive power of the new “Sarmat”, consider that it can carry a range of heavy and light MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). This includes 10-15 heavy warheads or 20+ light ones. The destructive power of heavy warheads is stated to be 750 kilotons (kt) to 1 megaton (Mt) each. Light warheads have a yield ranging from 150 kt to 450 kt, with one kiloton being equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.

Thus, 150 kt is equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT exploding at once. To put this destructive power into perspective, we can use the “Little Boy” atomic bomb which the US dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Namely, it had a yield of 15 kt and it virtually instantly killed around 100,000 people, with at least another 50,000 dying in the aftermath of the explosion. This would mean that the combined yield carried by a single RS-28 missile is up to 750 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. It should be noted that at least 50 of these are being built, as they are slated to replace the aforementioned R-36M2 “Voevoda”. That’s the equivalent of the destructive power of 37,500 Hiroshima bombs. And that’s just 50 missiles, out of well over 300 land-based ICBMs in the Russian military. However, thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world, Moscow might decide to make 100 of these, doubling that destructive power to 75,000 by 2030.

Unfortunately, some completely delusional lunatics at the Pentagon think they can launch a “decapitation strike” on Russia and “ensure” there’s no retaliation. There’s just one “tiny” problem with this – the Russian Navy. Namely, even if the world’s largest country suddenly vanished, its Navy alone could destroy much, if not most of the world. Even just half of its SSBNs, namely the now legendary eight Borei-class subs, carry 16 R-30 “Bulava” SLBMs (each missile armed with up to ten 150 kt thermonuclear MIRVs). I’ll let you do the math on that one. To top it all, the Kremlin’s nuclear triad can also be used even if the entire Russian leadership is neutralized. The system enabling this is called the “Perimeter” (known as the “Dead Hand” in NATO) and is activated automatically in case of an all-out attack on Russia. Perhaps the most dumbfounding fact is that the US military is perfectly aware of all this, but it’s still pushing for escalation.

Some of the world’s most prominent leaders, intellectuals and experts have been warning about the dangers of nuclear warfare.

Perhaps the best example of this is the message conveyed by the late Fidel Castro in an interview with renowned Professor Michel Chossudovsky.

Namely, President Castro said that “in a nuclear war the ‘collateral damage’ would be the life of all humanity”.

It doesn’t get much simpler than this and yet it’s 100% on point. What’s more, the mainstream propaganda machine is also perfectly aware of this, as evidenced by the BBC’s latest piece on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Obviously, because it’s the BBC, it cannot do even this without ludicrous lies, as they’re claiming the information came from an “anonymous Russian deserter” who supposedly revealed “war secrets”, even though this information is publicly available (if one is bothered to look for it, that is).

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

If you stand for truth, peace and justice in this world then it’s important not to make your happiness dependent on large-scale wins. 

Because the deck is stacked so heavily against truth, peace and justice, your side will experience far more losses than wins. You will watch powerlessly as your government backs genocides, starts wars, and unleashes nightmare after nightmare upon the global south. Your heroes will disappoint you. Your protest movements will fizzle. Your civil rights will erode, your speech will be marginalized, the wealthy and powerful will amass more wealth and power while the poor and the powerless grow ever more so.

I say this not as an expression of pessimism or defeatism, but because that’s simply where we’re at as a society right now. Ours is a highly controlled dystopia where minds are continuously inundated with power-serving propaganda and tyrants enact their abusive agendas without much meaningful resistance. This doesn’t mean we can’t win, it just means we can’t realistically expect many big wins in the immediate future under our current circumstances while truth has so much difficulty getting a word in edgewise.

You can let all the human suffering depress you and let all your failed attempts to stop it drag you down, or you can look to some other source for your happiness which isn’t dependent on securing large-scale wins for humanity.

For me this is a no-brainer. It does nobody any good for me to be miserable all the time, and in fact letting myself get bogged down in depression and despair would make my efforts a lot less prolific and effective. A dissident voice choosing to be unhappy just because there’s so much suffering in the world would be like a revolutionary soldier choosing to be weak and emaciated and worthless on the battlefield just because there are so many people who are starving. A happy mind is a healthy mind, a healthy mind is an effective mind, and we need our minds to be as effective as possible while we work to awaken our civilization from the lies of the empire.

So don’t bind your happiness to the success of your efforts. As Chris Hedges has said, “I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.” Do everything you can to fight back against the lies, war and tyranny of the empire, but do it for its own sake because it’s the right thing to do, not because you’ve wrapped up your sense of wellbeing in the success of failure of your fight.

Instead, find your happiness elsewhere. In your love for your fellow humans. In the jaw-dropping beauty of this miraculous planet we get to live on. In the raw enjoyment of feeling the air in your lungs and the ground beneath your feet. In being present in the senses rather than immersed in the dull repetitive chatter of the mind.

Happiness is a skill that can be learned with practice, and it is worthwhile to learn that skill. The revolution doesn’t need a bunch of despondent, burnt-out minds, it needs vibrant minds full of zest for life on this planet, who really have something to fight for. 

By not allowing yourself to be happy, you’re not helping the needful, you’re just depriving the world of that much happiness. Any joy you can allow into your life will have beneficial knock-on effects on every life you touch, and any joy you shut out will deprive them of that.

And you deserve to be happy. You do. If this feels untrue to you, the happiness is hiding just beneath that feeling. See if you can get underneath it and unhook whatever beliefs are binding you to that pointless, unhelpful fixation. You are worthy of happiness and inner peace.

Find your happiness and continue to fight ferociously, without placing too much importance on whether your efforts will succeed or fail today. All we can do is keep throwing our own little bit of sand into the gears of the machine, knowing that one day, with enough sand, the whole thing will start grinding to a halt.

There’s no good reason to waste our time on this earth depriving ourselves of happiness in the meantime.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from the author

Watch the video below, an interesting and insightful discussion between Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern.

“I need to appeal to this panel to help us save everybody’s lives. … We are literally at the threshold of a nuclear war. This is not a hyperbole, I am not here to scare you. … You’re gonna die unless we do something to stop it. … Russia has lowered its threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, including conditions that the United States have already met.” —Scott Ritter

.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Introductory Note and Update

Fidel Castro was both an incisive analyst as well a powerful voice against nuclear weapons. 

In the light of recent developments in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, we bring to the attention of our readers Fidel’s powerful October 15, 2010 statement on the dangers of nuclear war, 

Today, the dangers of military escalation in both the Middle East and Ukraine are beyond description. In the word of Fidel

“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity”

Fidel Castro’s Message to the World against Nuclear War. Calling for World Peace

“The conventional war would be lost by the US and the nuclear war is no alternative for anyone.  On the other hand, nuclear war would inevitably become global”

“I think nobody on Earth wishes the human species to disappear. 

And that is the reason why I am of the opinion that what should disappear are not just nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons.  We must provide a guarantee for peace to all peoples without distinction

“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

“It is about demanding that the world is not led into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.”

This interview was recorded at Fidel Castro’s home in Havana by Cuba Debate and Global Research on October 15, 2010

 

TRANSCRIPT

The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.

Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.

Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!

Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010

The Legacy of Fidel Castro Lives

Michel Chossudovsky, November 26, 2024

***

From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro at his home in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview.

The first part of this interview published by Global Research and Cuba Debate focuses on the dangers of nuclear war.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. We have reached a critical turning point in our history.

This interview with Fidel Castro provides an understanding of the nature of modern warfare: Were a military operation to be launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US and its allies would be unable to win a conventional war, with the possibility that this war could evolve towards a nuclear war.

The details of ongoing war preparations in relation to Iran have been withheld from the public eye.

How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will  “make the World a safer place”? 

A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in the interview is the ”Battle of Ideas”.

The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” could  change the course of World history. The  objective is to prevent the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens to destroy life on planet earth.

The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard;  people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.

The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.  

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.

Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.

This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war. 

In his October 15, 2010 message (see video below), Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:

“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons.  In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.

The interview was conducted in Spanish. It was translated into English by Global Research and Cuba Debate.

The original Spanish version as well as translation into English were published by Cuba Debate and Global Research. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 2010 

Conversations on the Dangers of Nuclear War. 11-15 October 2011

Professor Michel Chossudovsky: I am very honored to have this opportunity to exchange views concerning several fundamental issues affecting human society as a whole. I think that the notion that you have raised in your recent texts regarding the threat against Homo sapiens is fundamental.

What is that threat, the risk of a nuclear war and the threat to human beings, to Homo sapiens?

Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz: Since quite a long time –years I would say- but especially for some months now, I began to worry about the imminence of a dangerous and probable war that could very rapidly evolve towards a nuclear war.

Before that I had concentrated all my efforts on the analysis of the capitalist system in general and the methods that the imperial tyranny has imposed on humanity.  The United States applies to the world the violation of the most fundamental rights.

During the Cold War, no one spoke about war or nuclear weapons; people talked about an apparent peace, that is, between the USSR and the United States, the famous MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was guaranteed.  It seemed that the world was going to enjoy the delights of a peace that would last for an unlimited time.

.

Notice the Book by Bob Woodward entitled Obama’s Wars. Fidel had ordered a copy when it was launched, delivered to him in the UN diplomatic pouch. He had read it cover to cover when I met up with him on October 12, 2010

.

Michel Chossudovsky: … This notion of “mutual assured destruction” ended with the Cold War and after that the nuclear doctrine was redefined, because we never really thought about a nuclear war during the Cold War.  Well, obviously, there was a danger –as even Robert McNamara said at some point in time.

But, after the Cold War, particularly after September 11 [2001],  America’s nuclear doctrine started to be redefined.

Fidel Castro Ruz: You asked me when was it that we became aware of the imminent risk of a nuclear war, and that dates back to the period I talked to you about previously, barely six months ago.  One of the things that called our attention the most regarding such a war danger was the sinking of the Cheonan during a military maneuver. That was the flagship of the South Korean Navy; an extremely sophisticated vessel.  It was at the time when we found on Global Research the journalist’s report that offered a clear and truly coherent information about the sinking of the Cheonan, which could not have been the work of a submarine that had been manufactured by the USSR more than sixty years ago, using an outdated technology which did not require the sophisticated equipment that could be detected by the Cheonan, during a joint maneuver with the most modern US vessels.

The provocation against the Democratic Republic of Korea added up to our own earlier concerns about an aggression against Iran.  We had been closely following the political process in that country. We knew perfectly well what happened there during the 1950s, when Iran nationalized the assets of the British Petroleum in that country- which at the time was called the Anglo Persian Oil Company.

In my opinion, the threats against Iran became imminent in June [2010], after the adoption of Resolution 1929 on the 9th of June, 2010, when the United Nations Security Council condemned Iran for the research it is carrying out and the production of small amounts of 20 per cent enriched uranium, and accused it of being a threat to the world.  The position adopted by each and every member of the Security Council is known: 12 member States voted in favor –five of them had the right to veto; one of them abstained and 2 –Brazil and Turkey- voted against. Shortly after the Resolution was adopted –the most aggressive resolution of of them all– one US aircraft carrier, embedded in a combat unit, plus a nuclear submarine, went through the Suez Canal with the help of the Egyptian government.  Naval units from Israel joined, heading for the Persian Gulf and the seas nearby Iran.

The sanctions imposed by the United States and its NATO allies against Iran was absolutely abusive and unjust.  I cannot understand the reason why Russia and China did not veto the dangerous Resolution 1929 of the United Nations Security Council.  In my opinion this has complicated the political situation terribly and has placed the world on the brink of war.

I remember previous  Israeli attacks against the Arab nuclear research centers.  They first attacked and destroyed the one in Iraq in June 1981.  They did not ask for anyone’s permission, they did not talk to anybody; they just attacked them and the Iraqis had to endure the strikes.

In 2007 they repeated that same operation against a research center that was being built by Syria.  There is something in that episode that I really don’t quite understand:  what was not clear to me were the underlying tactics, or the reasons why Syria did not denounce the Israeli attack against that research center where, undoubtedly, they were doing something, they were working on something for which, as it is known, they were receiving some cooperation from North Korea.  That was something legal; they did not commit any violation.

I am saying this here and I am being very honest: I don’t understand why this was not denounced, because, in my opinion, that would have been important. Those are two very important antecedents.

I believe there are many reasons to think that they will try to do the same against Iran:  destroy its research centers or the power generation centers of that country.  As is known, the power generation uranium residues are the raw material to produce plutonium.

.

.

Michel Chossudovsky:  It is true that that Security Council Resolution has to some extent contributed to cancelling the program of military cooperation that Russia and China have with Iran, especially Russia cooperates with Iran in the context of the Air Defence System by supplying its S-300 System.

I remember that just after the Security Council’s decision, with the endorsement of China and Russia, the Russian minister of  Foreign Affairs said: “Well, we have approved the Resolution but that is not going to invalidate our military cooperation with Iran”. That was in June.  But a few months later, Moscow confirmed that military cooperation [with Iran] was going to be frozen, so now Iran is facing a very serious situation, because it needs Russian technology to maintain its security, namely its [S-300] air defence system.

But I think that all the threats against Russia and China are intent upon preventing the two countries from getting involved in the Iran issue. In other words, if there is a war with Iran  the other powers, which are China and Russia, aren’t going to intervene in any way; they will be freezing their military cooperation with Iran and therefore this is a way [for the US and NATO] of extending their war in the Middle East without there being a confrontation with China and Russia  and I think that this more or less is the scenario right now.

There are many types of threats directed against Russia and China. The fact that China’s borders are militarized –China’s South Sea, the Yellow Sea, the border with Afghanistan, and also the Straits of Taiwan- it is in some way a threat to dissuade China and Russia from playing the role of powers in world geopolitics, thus paving the way and even creating consensus in favour of a war with Iran which is happening under conditions where Iran’s  air defence system is being weakened.   [With the freeze of its military cooperation agreement with Russia] Iran is a “sitting duck” from the point of view of its ability to defend itself using its air defence system.

Fidel Castro Ruz:  In my modest and serene opinion  that resolution should have been vetoed.  Because, in my opinion, everything has become more complicated in several ways.

Militarily, because of what you are explaining regarding, for example, the commitment that existed and the contract that had been signed to supply Iran with the [Russian] S-300, which are very efficient anti-aircraft weapons in the first place.

There are other things regarding fuel supplies, which are very important for China, because China is the country with the highest economic growth.  Its growing economy generates greater demand for oil and gas.  Even though there are agreements with Russia for oil and gas supplies, they are also developing wind energy and other forms of renewable energy. They have enormous coal reserves;  nuclear energy will not increase much, only 5% for many years. In other words, the need for gas and oil in the Chinese economy is huge, and I cannot imagine, really, how they will be able to get all that energy, and at what price, if the country where they have important investments is destroyed by the US.  But the worst risk is the very nature of that war in Iran.  Iran is a Muslim country that has millions of trained combatants who are strongly motivated.

There are tens of millions of people who are under [military] orders,  they are being politically educated and trained, men and women alike.  There are millions of combatants trained and determined to die.  These are people who will not be intimidated and who cannot be forced to changing [their behavior]. On the other hand, there are the Afghans –they are being murdered by US drones –there are the Pakistanis, the Iraqis, who have seen one to two million compatriots die as a result of the antiterrorist war invented by Bush.  You cannot win a war against the Muslim world; that is sheer madness.

Michel Chossudovsky:  But it’s true, their conventional forces are very large,  Iran can mobilize in a single day several million troops and they are on the border with Afghanistan and Iraq, and even if there is a blitzkrieg war, the US cannot avoid a conventional war that is waged very close to its military bases in that region.

Fidel Castro Ruz: But the fact is that the US would lose that conventional war. The problem is that nobody can win a conventional war against millions of people; they would not concentrate their forces in large numbers in a single location for the Americans to kill them.

Well, I was a guerrilla fighter and I recall that I had to think seriously about how to use the forces we had and I would never have made the mistake of concentrating those forces in a single location, because the more concentrated the forces, the greater the casualties caused by weapons of mass destruction….

.

From left to right: Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon, Fidel Castro Ruz

.

Michel Chossudovsky: As you mentioned previously, a matter of utmost importance: China and Russia’s decision in the Security Council, their support of Resolution 1929, is in fact harmful to them because, first, Russia cannot export weapons, thus its main source of income is now frozen.  Iran was one of the main customers or buyers of Russian weapons, and that was an important source of hard currency earnings which supported Russia`s consumer goods economy thereby covering the needs of the population.

And, on the other hand China requires access to sources of energy as you mentioned. The fact that China and Russia have accepted the consensus in the UN Security Council, is tantamount to saying: “We accept that you kill our economy and, in some ways, our commercial agreements with a third country”.  That’s very serious because it [the UNSC Resolution] not only does harm to Iran; is also harms those two countries, and I suppose –even though I am not a politician –that there must be tremendous divisions within the leadership, both in Russia and in China, for that to happen, for Russia to accept not to use its veto power in the Security Council.

I spoke with Russian journalists, who told me that there wasn’t exactly a consensus within the government per se; it was a guideline.  But there are people in the [Russian] government with a different point of view regarding the interests of Russia and its stance in the UN Security Council.  How do you see this?

Fidel Castro Ruz: How do I see the general situation? The alternative in Iran –let me put it this way –the conventional war would be lost by the US and the nuclear war is not an alternative for anyone.

On the other hand, nuclear war would inevitably become global.  Thus the danger in my opinion exists with the current situation in Iran, bearing in mind the reasons you are presenting and many other facts; which brings me to the conclusion that the war would end up being a nuclear war.

.

Filming of Fidel’s message on October 15.2010. From left to right: Fidel Castro, TV crew, Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon

.

Michel Chossudovsky: In other words, since the US and its allies are unable to win the conventional war, they are going to use nuclear weapons, but that too would be a war they couldn’t win, because we are going to lose everything.

Fidel Castro Ruz: Everyone would be losing that war; that would be a war that everyone would lose. What would Russia gain if a nuclear war were unleashed over there? What would China gain?  What kind of war would that be? How would the world react? What effect would it have on the world economy? You explained it at the university when you spoke about the centralized defence system designed by the Pentagon.  It sounds like science fiction; it doesn’t even remotely resemble the last world war.  The other thing which is also very important is the attempt [by the Pentagon] to transform nuclear weapons into conventional tactical weapons.

Today, October 13th, I was reading about the same thing in a news dispatch stating that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drawing up strong protests about the fact that the US had just carried out subcritical nuclear tests.  They’re called subcritical, which means the use of the nuclear weapon without deploying all the energy that might be achieved with the critical mass.

It reads:  “Indignation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of a United States nuclear test.”…

 “The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that suffered a nuclear attack at the end of WW II, deplored today the nuclear test carried out by the US on September last, called sub critical because it does not unleash chain nuclear reactions.

“The test, the first of this kind in that country since 2006, took place on September 15th somewhere in Nevada, United States.  It was officially confirmed by the Department of Energy of that country, the Japan Times informed.”

What did that newspaper say?

“I deeply deplore it because I was hoping that President Barack Obama would take on the leadership in eliminating nuclear weapons”, the governor of Nagasaki, Hodo Nakamura, stated today at a press conference.

A series of news items related to that follows.

“The test has also caused several protests among the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including several survivors of the atomic bombs attacks that devastated both cities in August of 1945.

“We cannot tolerate any action of the United States that betrays President Barack Obama’s promise of moving forward to a world without nuclear arms, said Yukio Yoshioka, the deputy director of the Council for the Victims of the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb.

“The government stated that it has no intention of protesting.”  It relegates the protest to a social level and then said: “With this, the number of subcritical nuclear tests made by the United States reaches the figure of 26, since July 1997 when the first of them took place.”

Now it says:

“Washington considers that these tests do not violate the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) since they do not unleash any chain reactions, and therefore do not release any nuclear energy, and so they can be considered to be laboratory tests.”

The US says that it has to make these tests because they are necessary to maintain the “security of its nuclear arsenal”, which is the same as saying: since we have these great nuclear arsenals, we are doing this in order to ensure our security.

Michel Chossudovsky:  Let us return to the issue of the threat against Iran, because you said that the US and its allies could not win a conventional war.  That is true; but nuclear weapons could be used as an alternative to conventional warfare, and this evidently is a threat against humanity, as you have emphasized in your writings.

The reason for my concern is that after the Cold War the idea of nuclear weapons with a “humanitarian face” was developed, saying that those weapons were not really dangerous, that they do not harm civilians, and in some way the nuclear weapons label was changed.  Therefore, according to their criteria, [tactical] nuclear weapons are no different from conventional weapons, and now in the military manuals they say that tactical nuclear weapons are weapons that pose no harm to civilians.

Therefore, we might have a situation in which those who decide to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon would not be aware of the consequences that this might have for the Middle East, central Asia, but also for humanity as a whole, because they are going to say: “Well, according to our criteria, these [tactical] nuclear weapons [safe for civilians] are different from those deployed during the Cold War and so, we can use them against Iran as a weapon which does not [affect civilians and] does not threaten global security.”

How do you view that?  It’s extremely dangerous, because they themselves believe their own propaganda.  It is internal propaganda within the armed forces, within the political apparatus.

When tactical nuclear weapons were recategorized in 2002-2003, Senator Edward Kennedy said at that time that it was a way of blurring the boundary between conventional and nuclear weapons.

But that’s where we are today; we are in an era where nuclear weapons are considered to be no different from the Kalashnikov. I’m exaggerating, but somehow nuclear weapons are now part of the tool box –that’s the word they use, “tool box” –and from there you choose the type of weapon you are going to use, so the nuclear weapon could be used in the conventional war theatre, leading us to the unthinkable, a nuclear war scenario on a regional level, but also with repercussions at the global level.

Fidel Castro Ruz: I heard what you said on the Round Table [Cuban TV] program about such weapons, presumably harmless to people living in the vicinity of the areas where they are to be targeted,  the power [explosive yield] could range from one-third of the one that was used in Hiroshima up to six times the power [explosive yield] of that weapon, and today we know perfectly well the terrible damage it causes.  One single bomb instantly killed 100,000 people.  Just imagine a bomb having six times the power of that one [Hiroshima bomb], or two times that power, or an equivalent power, or 30 per cent that power.  It is absurd.

There is also what you explained at the university about the attempt to present it as a humanitarian weapon that could also be available to the troops in the theatre of operations.  So at any given moment any commander in the theatre of operations could be authorized to use that weapon as one that was more efficient than other weapons, something that would be considered his duty according to military doctrine and the training he/she received at the military academies.

Michel Chossudovsky:  In that sense, I don’t think that this nuclear weapon would be used without the approval, let’s say, of the Pentagon, namely  its centralised command structures [e.g. Strategic Command]; but I do think that it could be used without the approval of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief.  In other words, it isn’t quite the same logic as that which prevailed during the Cold War where there was the Red Telephone and…

Fidel Castro Ruz: I understand, Professor, what you are saying regarding the use of that weapon as authorized by the senior levels of the Pentagon, and it seems right to me that you should make that clarification so that you won’t be blamed for exaggerating the dangers of that weapon.

But look, after one has learned about the antagonisms and arguments between the Pentagon and the President of the United States, there are really not too many doubts about what the Pentagon decision would be if the chief of the theatre of operations  requests to use that weapon because he feels it is necessary or indispensable.

Michel Chossudovsky: There is also another element.  The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons now, as far as I know, is being undertaken by several European countries which belong to NATO.  This is the case of Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Italy and Germany.  Thus, there are plenty of these “little nuclear bombs” very close to the theatre of war, and on the other hand we also have Israel.

Now then, I don’t think that Israel is going to start a war on its own; that would be impossible in terms of strategy and decision-making.  In modern warfare, with the centralization of communications, logistics and everything else, starting a major war would be a centralized decision.  However, Israel might act if the US gives Israel the green light to launch the first attack.  That’s within the realm of possibilities, even though there are some analysts who now say that the war on Iran will start in Lebanon and Syria with a conventional border war, and then that would provide the pretext for an escalation in military operations.

Fidel Castro Ruz: Yesterday, October 13th, a crowd of people welcomed Ahmadinejad in Lebanon like a national hero of that country.  I was reading a cable about that this morning.

Besides, we also know about Israel’s concerns regarding that, given the fact that the Lebanese are people with a great fighting spirit who have three times the number of reactive missiles they had in the former conflict with Israel and Lebanon, which was a great concern for Israel because they need –as the Israeli technicians have asserted – the air force to confront that weapon.  And so, they state, they could only be attacking Iran for a number of hours, not three days, because they should be paying attention to such a danger.  That’s the reason why, from these viewpoints, every day that goes by they are more concerned, because those weapons are part of the Iranian arsenal of conventional weapons. For example, among their conventional weapons, they have hundreds of rocket launchers to fight surface warships in that area of the Caspian Sea.  We know that, from the time of the Falklands war, a surface warship can dodge one, two or three rockets.  But imagine how a large warship can protect itself against a shower of weapons of that kind.  Those are rapid vessels operated by well-trained people, because the Iranians have been training people for 30 years now and they have developed efficient conventional weapons.

You yourself know that, and you know what happened during the last World War, before the emergence of nuclear weapons.  Fifty million people died as a result of the destructive power of conventional weaponry.

A war today is not like the war that was waged in the nineteenth century, before the appearance of nuclear weapons.  And wars were already highly destructive.  Nuclear arms appeared at the very last minute, because Truman wanted to use them.  He wanted to test the Hiroshima bomb, creating the critical mass from uranium, and the other one in Nagasaki, which created a critical mass from plutonium.  The two bombs killed around 100,000 persons immediately.  We don’t know how many were wounded and affected by radiation, who died later on or suffered for long years from these effects. Besides, a nuclear war would create a nuclear winter.

I am talking to you about the dangers of a war, considering  the immediate damage it might cause.  It would be enough if we only had a limited number of them, the amount of weapons owned by one of the least mighty [nuclear] powers, India or Pakistan.  Their explosion would be sufficient to create a nuclear winter from which no human being would survive.  That would be impossible, since it would last for 8 to 10 years.  In a matter of weeks the sunlight would no longer be visible.

Mankind is less than 200,000 years old.  So far everything was normalcy.  The laws of nature were being fulfilled; the laws of life developed on planet Earth for more than 3 billion years.  Men, the Homo sapiens, the intelligent beings did not exist after 8 tenths of a million years had elapsed, according to all studies.  Two hundred years ago, everything was virtually unknown.  Today we know the laws governing the evolution of the species.  Scientists, theologians, even the most devout religious people who initially echoed the campaign launched by the great ecclesiastical institutions against the Darwinian Theory, today accept the laws of evolution as real, without it preventing their sincere practice of their religious beliefs where, quite often, people find comfort for their most heartfelt hardships.

I think nobody on Earth wishes the human species to disappear.  And that is the reason why I am of the opinion that what should disappear are not just nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons.  We must provide a guarantee for peace to all peoples without distinction, to the Iranians as well as the Israelis.  Natural resources should be distributed.  They should!  I don’t mean they will, or that it would be easy to do it.  But there would be no other alternative for humanity, in a world of limited dimensions and resources, even if all the scientific potential to create renewable sources of energy is developed. We are almost 7 billion inhabitants, and so we need to implement a demographic policy.  We need many things, and when you put them all together and you ask yourself the following question:  will human beings be capable of understanding that and overcome all those difficulties? You realize that only enthusiasm can truly lead a person to say that he or she will confront and easily resolve a problem of such proportions.

Michel Chossudovsky:  What you have just said is extremely important, when you spoke of Truman.  Truman said that Hiroshima was a military base and that there would be no harm to civilians.

This notion of collateral damage; reflects continuity in [America’s] nuclear doctrine ever since the year 1945 up until today.  That is, not at the level of reality but at the level of [military] doctrine and propaganda.  I mean, in 1945 it was said: Let’s save humanity by killing 100,000 people and deny the fact that Hiroshima was a populated city, namely that it was a military base.  But nowadays the falsehoods have become much more sophisticated, more widespread, and nuclear weapons are more advanced.  So, we are dealing with the future of humanity and the threat of a nuclear war at a global level. The lies and fiction underlying [US] political and military discourse would lead us to a Worldwide catastrophe in which politicians would be unable to make head or tails of their own lies.

Then, you said that intelligent human beings have existed for 200,000 years, but that same intelligence, which has now been incorporated in various institutions, namely the media, the intelligence services, the United Nations, happens to be what is now going to destroy us.  Because we believe our own lies, which leads us towards nuclear war, without realizing that this would be the last war, as Einstein clearly stated. A nuclear war cannot ensure the continuation of humanity; it is a threat against the world.

Fidel Castro Ruz: Those are very good words, Professor.  The collateral damage, in this case, could be humanity.

War is a crime and there is no need for any new law to describe it as such, because since Nuremberg, war has already been considered a crime, the biggest crime against humanity and peace, and the most horrible of all crimes.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  The Nuremberg texts clearly state: “War is a criminal act, it is the ultimate act of war against peace.” This part of the Nuremberg texts is often quoted. After the Second World War, the Allies wanted to use it against the conquered, and I am not saying that this is not valid, but the crimes that they committed, including the crimes committed against Germany and Japan, are never mentioned.  With a nuclear weapon, in the case of Japan.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  It is an extremely important issue for me and if we are talking about a “counter-alliance for peace”, the criminalization of war seems to me to be a fundamental aspect. I’m talking about the abolition of war; it is a criminal act that must be eliminated.

Fidel Castro Ruz –  Well, who would judge the main criminals?

Michel Chossudovsky.- The problem is that they also control the judicial system and the courts, so the judges are criminals as well. What can we do?

Fidel Castro Ruz   I say that this is part of the Battle of Ideas.

It is about demanding that the world not be spearheaded into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.

We do not know, but we presume that if man becomes aware of his own existence, that of his people, that of his loved ones, even the U.S. military leaders would be aware of the outcome; although they are taught in life to follow orders, not infrequently genocide, as in the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, because that is what they were taught in the [military] academies.

As all of this is sheer madness, no politician is exempt from the duty of conveying these truths to the people. One must believe in them, otherwise there would be nothing to fight for.        

Michel Chossudovsky .- I think what you are saying is that at the present time, the great debate in human history should focus on the danger of nuclear war that threatens the future of humanity, and that any discussion we have about basic needs or economics requires that we prevent the occurrence of war and instate global peace so that we can then plan living standards worldwide based on basic needs;  but if we do not solve the problem of war, capitalism will not survive, right?          

Fidel Castro Ruz.– No, it cannot survive, in terms of all the analysis we’ve undertaken, it cannot survive. The capitalist system and the market economy that suffocate human life, are not going to disappear overnight, but imperialism based on force, nuclear weapons and conventional weapons with modern technology, has to disappear if we want humanity to survive.

Now, there something occurring at this very moment which characterizes the Worldwide process of disinformation, and it is the following: In Chile 33 miners were trapped 700 meters underground, and the world is rejoicing at the news that 33 miners have been saved. Well, simply, what will the world do if it becomes aware that 6,877,596,300 people need to be saved, if 33 have created universal joy and all the mass media speak only of that these days, why not save the nearly 7 billion people trapped by the terrible danger of perishing in a horrible death like those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Michel Chossudovsky. -This is also, clearly, the issue of media coverage that is given to different events and the propaganda emanating from the media.

I think it was an incredible humanitarian operation that the Chileans undertook, but it is true that if there is a threat to humanity,  as you mentioned, it  should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world because human society in its totality could be the victim of a decision that has been made, even by a three-star general who is unaware of the consequences [of nuclear weapons].

But here we are talking about how the media, particularly in the West, are hiding the most serious issue that potentially affects the world today, which is the danger of nuclear war and we must take it seriously, because both Hillary Clinton and Obama have said that they have contemplated using nuclear weapon in a so-called preventive war against Iran.

Well, how do we answer? What do you say to Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama regarding their statements pertaining to the unilateral use of nuclear weapons against Iran, a country that poses no danger to anyone?      

Fidel Castro Ruz.- Yes, I know two things: What was discussed. This has been revealed recently, namely far-reaching arguments within the Security Council of the United States.  That is the value of the book written by Bob Woodward, because it revealed how all these discussions occurred. We know the positions of Biden, Hillary, Obama, and indeed in those discussions, who was firmer against the extension of the war, who was able to argue with the military, it was Obama, that is a fact.

I am writing the latest reflection, actually, about that. The only one who got there, and gave him advice, who had been an opponent because of his Republican Party membership, was Colin Powell. He reminded him that he was the President of the United States, encouraging advice.

I think we should ensure that this message reaches everybody; what we have discussed. I think many read the articles you have published in Global Research.  I think we need to disclose, and to the extent that we have these discussions and harbor the idea of disclosure. I am delighted every time you argue, reasonably, and put forth these issues, simply, in my opinion, there is a real deficit of information for the reasons you explained.

Now, we must invent. What are the ways to make all this known? At the time of the Twelve Apostles, there were 12 and no more, and they were given the task of disseminating the teachings a preacher transmitted to them. Sure, they had hundreds of years ahead of them. We, however, we do not have that. But I was looking at the list of personalities, and there are more than 20 prominent people who have been working with Global Research, prestigious people, asking the same questions, but they do not have hundreds of years, but, well, very little time.

Michel Chossudovsky. –  The antiwar movement in the United States, Canada and Europe is divided. Some people think the threat comes from Iran, others say they [the Iranians] are terrorists, and there is a lot of disinformation in the movement itself.

Besides, at the World Social Forum the issue of nuclear war is not part of the debate between people of the Left or progressives. During the Cold War there was talk of the danger of nuclear conflict, and people had this awareness.

At the last meeting held in New York on non-proliferation, under the United Nations, the emphasis was on the nuclear threat from non-state entities, from terrorists.

President Obama said that the threat comes from Al Qaeda, which has nuclear weapons.  Also, if someone reads Obama’s speeches he is suggesting that the terrorists have the ability of producing small nuclear bombs, what they call “dirty bombs”. Well, it’s a way of [distorting the issues] and shifting the emphasis.

Fidel Castro Ruz. – That is what they tell him [Obama], that is what his own people tell him and have him believe.

Look, what do I do with the reflections? They are distributed in the United Nations, they are sent to all governments, the reflections, of course, are short, to send them to all the governments, and I know there are many people who read them. The problem is whether you are telling the truth or not. Of course, when one collects all this information in relation to a particular problem because the reflections are also diluted on many issues, but I think you have to concentrate on our part, the disclosure of essentials, I cannot cover everything.

Michel Chossudovsky. – I have a question, because there is an important aspect related to the Cuban Revolution. In my opinion, the debate on the future of humanity is also part of a revolutionary discourse.  If society as a whole were to be threatened by nuclear war, it is necessary in some form, to have a revolution at the levels of ideas as well as actions against this event, [namely nuclear war].

Fidel Castro Ruz .- We have to say, I repeat,  that humanity is trapped 800 meters underground and that we must get it out, we need to do a rescue operation. That is the message we must convey to a large number of people. If  people in large numbers believe in that message, they will do what you are doing and they will support what you are supporting. It will no longer depend on who are those who say it, but on the fact that somebody [and eventually everybody] says it.

You have to figure out how you can reach the informed masses. The solution is not the newspapers. There is the Internet, Internet is cheaper, Internet is more accessible. I approached you through the Internet looking for news, not through news agencies, not through the press, not from CNN, but news through a newsletter I receive daily articles on the Internet . Over 100 pages each day.

Yesterday you were arguing that in the United States some time ago two thirds of public opinion was against the war on Iran, and today, fifty-some percent favored military action against Iran.

Michel Chossudovsky .- What happened, even in recent months, it was said: “Yes, nuclear war is very dangerous, it is a threat, but the threat comes from Iran,” and there were signs in New York City  saying: ” Say no to nuclear Iran, “and the message of these posters was to present Iran as a threat to global security, even if the threat did not exist because they do not have nuclear weapons.

Anyway, that’s the situation, and The New York Times earlier this week published a text that says, yes, political assassinations are legal.

Then, when we have a press that gives us things like that, with the distribution that they have, it is a lot of work [on our part]. We have limited capabilities to reverse this process [of media disinformation] within the limited distribution outlets of the alternative media. In addition to that, now many of these alternative media are financed by the economic establishment.            

Fidel Castro Ruz.- And yet we have to fight.

Michel Chossudovsky .- Yes, we keep struggling, but the message was what you said yesterday. That in the case of a nuclear war, the collateral damage would be humanity as a whole.

Fidel Castro Ruz.- It would be humanity, the life of humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky.-   It is true that the Internet should continue to function as an outreach tool to avoid the war.

Fidel Castro Ruz.- Well, it’s the only way we can prevent it. If we were to create world opinion, it’s like the example I mentioned: there are nearly 7 billion people trapped 800 meters underground, we use the phenomenon of Chile to disclose these things.

Michel Chossudovsky .- The comparison you make with the rescue of 33 miners, saying that there are 33 miners below ground there to be rescued, which received extensive media coverage, and you say that we have almost 7 billion people that are  800 meters underground and do not understand what is happening, but we have to rescue them, because humanity as a whole is threatened by the nuclear weapons of the United States and its allies, because they are the ones who say they intend to use them.        

Fidel Castro Ruz.- And will use them [the nuclear weapons] if there is no opposition, if there is no resistance. They are deceived; they are drugged with military superiority and modern technology and do not know what they are doing.

They do not understand the consequences; they believe that the prevailed situation can be maintained. It is impossible.

Michel Chossudovsky. – Or they believe that this is simply some sort of conventional weapon.           

Fidel Castro Ruz. – Yes, they are deluded and believe that you can still use that weapon. They believe they are in another era, they do not remember what Einstein said when he stated he did not know with what weapons World War III would be fought with, but the World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. I added there: “… there wouldn’t be anyone to handle the sticks and stones.” That is the reality; I have it written there in the short speech you suggested I develop.

Michel Chossudovsky .- The problem I see is that the use of nuclear weapons will not necessarily lead to the end of humankind from one day to the next, because the radioactive impact is cumulative.

Fidel Castro Ruz. – Repeat that, please.

Michel Chossudovsky. – The nuclear weapon has several different consequences: one is the explosion and destruction in the theater of war, which is the phenomenon of Hiroshima, and the other are the impacts of radiation which increases over time.           

Fidel Castro Ruz.- Yes, nuclear winter, as we call it. The prestigious American researcher, University of Rutgers (New Jersey) Professor Emeritus Alan Robock irrefutably showed that the outbreak of a war between two of the eight nuclear powers who possess the least amount of weapons of this kind would result in “nuclear winter”.

He disclosed that at the fore of a group of researchers who used ultra-scientific computer models.

It would be enough to have 100 strategic nuclear weapons of the 25,000 possessed by the eight powers mentioned exploding in order to create temperatures below freezing all over the planet and a long night that would last approximately eight years.  Professor Robock exclaims that it is so terrible that people are falling into a “state of denial”, not wanting to think about it; it is easier to pretend that it doesn’t exist”.  He told me that personally, at an international conference he was giving, where I had the honor of conversing with him.

Well, but I start from an assumption: If a war breaks out in Iran, it will inevitably become nuclear war and a global war. So that’s why yesterday we were saying it was not right to allow such an agreement in the Security Council, because it makes everything easier, do you see?

Such a war in Iran today would not remain confined to the local level, because the Iranians would not give in to use of force. If it remained conventional, it would be a war the United States and Europe could not win, and I argue that it would rapidly turn into a nuclear war. If the United States were to make the mistake of using tactical nuclear weapons, there would be consternation throughout the world and the US would eventually lose control of the situation.

Obama has had a heated discussion with the Pentagon about what to do in Afghanistan; imagine Obama’s situation with American and Israeli soldiers fighting against millions of Iranians. The Saudis are not going to fight in Iran, nor are the Pakistanis or any other Arab or Muslim soldiers. What could happen is that the Yanks have serious conflicts with the Pakistani tribes which they are attacking and killing with their drones,  and they know that. When you strike a blow against those tribes, first attacking and then warning the government, not saying anything beforehand;  that is one of the things that irritates the Pakistanis. There is a strong anti-American feeling there.

It’s a mistake to think that the Iranians would give up if they used tactical nuclear weapons against them, and the world really would be shocked, but then it may be too late.

Michel Chossudovsky .- They cannot win a conventional war.          

Fidel Castro Ruz .- They cannot win.

Michel Chossudovsky. – And that we can see in Iraq; in Afghanistan they can destroy an entire country, but they cannot win from a military standpoint.          

Fidel Castro Ruz. – But to destroy it [a country] at what price, at what cost to the world, at what economic costs, in the march towards catastrophe? The problems you mentioned are compounded, the American people would react, because the American people are often slow to react, but they react in the end. The American people react to casualties, the dead.

A lot of people supported the Nixon administration during the war in Vietnam, he even suggested the use of nuclear weapons in that country to Kissinger, but he dissuaded him from taking that criminal step. The United States was obliged by the American people to end the war; it had to negotiate and had to hand over the south. Iran would have to give up the oil in the area. In Vietnam what did they hand over? An expense. Ultimately, they are now back in Vietnam, buying oil, trading. In Iran they would lose many lives, and perhaps a large part of the oil facilities in the area would be destroyed.

In the present situation, is likely they would not understand our message. If war breaks out, my opinion is that they, and the world, would gain nothing. If it were solely a conventional war, which is very unlikely, they would lose irretrievably, and if it becomes a global nuclear war, humanity would lose.

Michel Chossudovsky.- Iran has conventional forces that are …significant.

Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Millions.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  Land forces, but also rockets and also Iran has the ability to defend itself.

 Fidel Castro Ruz.-   While there remains one single man with a gun, this is an enemy they will have to defeat.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  And there are several millions with guns.

 Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Millions, and they will have to sacrifice many American lives, unfortunately it would be only then that Americans would react, if they don’t react now they will react later when it will be too late; we must write, we must divulge this as much as we can.   Remember that the Christians were persecuted, they led them off to the catacombs, they killed them, they threw them to the lions, but they held on to their beliefs for centuries and later that was what they did to the Moslems, and the Moslems never yielded.

There is a real war against the Moslem world.  Why are those lessons of history being forgotten?  I have read many of the articles you wrote about the risks of that war.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  Let us return to the matter of Iran.  I believe that it is very important that world opinion comprehends the war scenario.  You clearly state that they would lose the war, the conventional war, they are losing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has more conventional forces than those of NATO in Afghanistan.

 Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Much more experienced and motivated.  They are now in conflict with those forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and one they don’t mention: the Pakistanis of the same ethnic group as those in the resistance in Afghanistan. In White House discussions,  they consider that the war is lost, that’s what the book by Bob Woodward entitled “Obama’s Wars” tells us.  Imagine the  situation if in addition to that, they append a war to liquidate whatever remains after the initial blows they inflict on Iran.

So they will be thrust into a conventional war situation that they cannot win, or they will be obliged to wage a global nuclear war, under conditions of a worldwide upheaval.  And I don’t know who can justify the type of war they have to wage; they have 450 targets marked out in Iran, and of these some, according to them, will have to be attacked with tactical nuclear warheads because of their location in mountainous areas and at the depth at which they are situated [underground].  Many Russian personnel and persons from other nationalities collaborating with them will die in that confrontation.

What will be the reaction of world opinion in the face of that blow which today is being irresponsibly promoted by the media with the backing of many Americans?

Michel Chossudovsky.-  One issue, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, they are all neighbouring countries in a certain way.  Iran shares borders with Afghanistan and with Iraq, and the United States and NATO have military facilities in the countries they occupy.  What’s going to happen? I suppose that the Iranian troops are immediately going to cross the border.

Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Well, I don’t know what tactic they’re going to use, but if one were in their place, the most advisable is to not concentrate their troops, because if the troops are concentrated they will be victims of the attack with tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, in accordance with the nature of the threat as it is being described, the best thing would be for them to use a tactic similar to ours in southern Angola when we suspected that South Africa had nuclear weapons; we created tactical groups of 1000 men with land and anti-air fire power.  Nuclear weapons could never within their reach target a large number of soldiers. Anti-air rocketry and other similar weapons was supporting our forces.  Weapons and the conditions of the terrain change and tactics must continuously change.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  Dispersed.

Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Dispersed, but not isolated men, there were around 1000 men with appropriate weapons, the terrain was sandy, wherever they got to they had to dig in and protect themselves underground, always keeping the maximum distance between components.  The enemy was never given an opportunity to aim a decisive blow against the 60,000 Cuban and Angolan soldiers in southern Angola.

What we did in that sister country is what, a thousand strong army, operating with traditional criteria, would have done.  Fine, we were not 100 000, in southern Angola there were 60,000 men, Cubans and Angolans; due to technical requirements the tactical groups were mainly made up of Cubans because they handled tanks, rockets, anti-aircraft guns, communications, but the infantry was made up of Cuban and Angolan soldiers, with great fighting spirit, who didn’t hesitate one second in confronting the white Apartheid army supported by the United States and Israel.  Who handled the numerous nuclear weapons that they had at that moment?

In the case of Iran,   we are getting news that they are digging into the ground, and when they are asked about it, they say that they are making cemeteries to bury the invaders. I don’t know if this is meant to be ironic, but I think that one would really have to dig quite a lot to protect their forces from the attack which is threatening them.

Michel Chossudovsky.-  Sure, but Iran has the possibility of mobilizing millions of troops.

Fidel Castro Ruz.-   Not just troops, but the command posts are also decisive.  In my opinion, dispersion is very important.  The attackers will try to prevent the transmission of orders.  Every combat unit must know beforehand what they have to do under different  circumstances.  The attacker will try to strike and destabilize the chain of command with its radio-electronic weapons.  All those factors must be kept in mind.  Mankind has never experienced a similar predicament.

Anyway,  Afghanistan is “a joke” and Iraq, too, when you compare them with what they are going to bump into in Iran: the weaponry, the training, the mentality, the kind of soldier…  If 31 years ago, Iranian combatants cleaned the mine fields by advancing over them, they will undoubtedly be the most fearsome adversaries that the United States has ever come across.

***

The interview was conducted in Spanish.

Our thanks and appreciation to Cuba Debate for the transcription as well as the translation from Spanish.

***

Fidel’s Message on the Dangers of Nuclear War

Recorded on the last day of the Conversations, October 15, 2010 the original Global Research/Cuba Debate video (our copyright) was removed on alleged copyright infringements alongside many other Youtube postings.

TRANSCRIPT

The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.

Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.

Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!

Fidel Castro Ruz

October 15, 2010

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute