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.
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 » .
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.
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” .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
*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.
November 27th, 2024 by Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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 Ortegaand 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.”
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.
Newsweekreported 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 1st 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.
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.
“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 Timesreport 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 ofTulsi 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.
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, toldMiami 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.
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.
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
As soon as Donald Tump started talking about giving me the power [in the HHS], he asked me to do three things:
to root out the corruption,
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
to restore the tradition of gold standard, empirically-based, evidence-based science and medicine in our regulatory agencies.
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.
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.
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.
“Joe Biden and the neo-cons in his administration have been constantly escalating war… What they’re trying to do is start a war that Donald Trump can’t stop,” warns Dore about a potential WWIII.
“The only hope we have is that Putin shows restraint, that he is the only adult in the room and that he can hold off somehow until Donald Trump becomes president,” Dore opined in an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.
Is that the only hope? One can certainly come up with many other hopes. For example, a mass mobilization by US citizenry in Washington, DC. A general strike carried out by Americans, Canadians, and Europeans repulsed by their neocon-affiliated politicians. Or that Pentagon generals speak out vociferously and publicly against such dangerous provocations against Russia. Or that people charged with inputting the coordinates for missiles targeting Russia refuse to do so.
Far-fetched? Maybe so, but isn’t that what a hope is — something far outside of the realm of a certainty?
Or is Trump the only feasible hope? And can Trump be trusted? How many promises did he fail to come through on during his first term as president?
Dore asserts that “Trump is not a warmonger” and that he “got elected on ending our foreign regime-change interventionist wars.”
Trump may very well have been elected on the basis of ending foreign interventions by the US. However, that does not exculpate him from being a warmonger.
Early in the first Trump presidency, he sent in US fighters who killed dozens of Yemeni civilians, including children. Trump was now a war criminal.
Did Trump end the US war on Syria? No. In fact, Trump said the troops would remain because “We’re keeping the [Syrian] oil.”
Did Trump seek peaceful relations with Iran? No. In fact, Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA which was designed to halt Iran’s potential for becoming a nuclear-armed state. Trump’s strategy has set the stage for further nuclear proliferation. And if that was not enough, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.
However woeful the Biden presidency has been, one ought not to forget the first Trump presidency. Trump has a track record. It seems prudent to remove the rose-colored glasses and take into consideration that track record.
But Trump was pressured by those around him. Trump had mistakenly saddled himself with warmongering neocons in his previous administration like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, etc. But is he different now?
Trump’s new for Director of national security policy in the White House,Sebastian Gorka, exhibited his diplomatic decorum by referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin as a “murderous former KGB colonel, that thug.” According to Gorka, Trump is going to threaten Putin by telling him:
“You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.”
Which serious-minded observers believe that Putin is now shaking in his pants?
Does this inspire hope in Trump?
Finally, does anyone have an iota of hope that Trump will do right in the Middle east when it comes to Israel?
*
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.
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 discussesa 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 Putinto 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
Veteran journalist and war correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot, (Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization) recalls the circumstances of the War on Iraq. (March 28, 2016)
The underlying concept is “Terrorism of US-UK-NATO-Israel”
***
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.
March 20th marked the thirteenth anniversary of an action resulting in the equivalent of a Paris, Brussels, London 7th July 2005, often multiple times daily in Iraq ever since. As for 11th September 2001, there has frequently been that death toll and heart break every several weeks, also ongoing.
America and Britain have arguably engaged in and generated the legacy of one of the longest recorded attacks of terrorism since World War Two.
There are no minutes silences or Eiffel Tower bathed in the colours of the Iraqi flag – or indeed those of the other ongoing Western engineered catastrophes, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, or for the US-UK complicity in the human carnage in Yemen, or for the forty three dead and two hundred and thirty nine injured in Beirut in November, reportedly by ISIS, the day before the Paris attack.
The Eiffel Tower did not display the Russian colours after ISIS claimed the October 2015 crash of a Russian airliner after leaving from Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport, the result they stated of a bomb they placed, killing all two hundred and twenty four passengers. ISIS mass murders in Africa are mostly ignored.
Since ISIS was spawned by the Iraq “liberation” (“Operation Iraqi Liberation” – OIL) it is worth revisiting Tony Blair’s speech to Parliament on 20th March 2003, the day of the invasion. (1)
“On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq.
“Tonight British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea.
“Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction”, said Blair.
Breathtaking. Little Britain’s “mission” was to remove from power the President of a country whose “sovereignty and territorial integrity” was guaranteed by the UN. As for “weapons of mass destruction”, probably millions of words have given the lie to their existence and to both the US and Britain’s near certainty that there were none after near ten years of exhaustive work by the UN weapons inspectors.
“ … this new world faces a new threat of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction or of extreme terrorist groups”, stated the would be Butcher of Baghdad.
“Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy.
“My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and our world.
“These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life – the terrorists delight in destroying it.”
The world, of course, faced no threat from Iraq. Even Iran, with which Iraq had fought the horrific 1980-1988 – with both the UK and the US arming both countries and profiting handsomely from the blood, heartbreak and destruction both sides of the Iran-Iraq border – stated repeatedly that Iraq posed them no threat.
As for hating “out way of life, our freedom, our democracy”, until the embargo was imposed on Iraq in August 1990, Iraq contributed £ millions to the British and US economies sending post-graduate university students to gain further degrees in the West, ensuring an educational broadness in the advantage of studying in both academic spheres.
Visiting homes of those with the money to travel it usually just minutes before the photo albums were produced showing joyful holidays in the UK, US and across Europe.
There were of course, near no Middle East allied “terrorists … destroying” entertainment venues, metro stations, commercial centres until the Iraq invasion. Attacks in Europe were near always home grown separatist groups usually feeling victims of historical injustices. Lessons are clearly never learned.
There is, however, the darkest irony in Blair’s fears that: “ threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and our world.” His and Bush’s actions have delivered just that.
Saddam Hussein and fundamentalism were two different planets and any inkling of a threat was instantly dealt with – yes, sometimes brutally, but Iraq and the region remained secular and apart from the domestic problems and criminalities common to near all nations, the streets safe and life normal. In Baghdad, until the deprivation and desperation wrought by the 1990 embargo and the 1991 bombing people did not even lock their doors.
“Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded around the world the carnage they could inflict to our economies, to our security, to world peace would be beyond our most vivid imagination”, Blair continued. Indeed. The US-UK spawned ISIS who obtained arms from the US disbanded Iraqi army, arms from the US provided and trained new Iraqi army as they fled multiple conflicts in multiple areas, leaving all behind and indeed have “obtained these weapons” which have been dropped from the air to them on multiple occasions – by the US.
Blair is also clearly clairvoyant: “My judgment as Prime Minister is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before.”
Ironically his infatuation with George W. Bush and the “dodgy dossiers” produced under his premiership to attempt to justify the legally unjustifiable, delivered exactly that of which he warned.
And here is a whopper of staggering scale:
“Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people: four million Iraqis are in exile, 60% of the population dependent on food aid, thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease, hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered.”
The result of “removing Saddam” (read: lynching Saddam) has been a blood soaked daily litany for thirteen years. The majority of Iraqis in exile fled to send money back home to keep their families and extended families during the decimating embargo which had resulted in basic food stuffs increasing in price often over eleven thousand fold.
The “thousands of children” were indeed dying “every year” – from “embargo related causes” according to the UN. The government set up a ration distribution system to try and counter the food crisis (Iraq had imported 70% of near everything.) The UN called the efficiency of the system exemplary, but the embargo prevented food and essential imports. Even soap, toothpaste and shampoo and sanitary requirements had become luxury items. Prior to the embargo, the country had free health service, food was inexpensive and plentiful and water borne diseases mostly eradicated. Between the embargo and the bombing all was destroyed.
The Kurdish complexities indeed led to displacement – but Iraq too felt threatened with the CIA and Mossad ensconced in Kurdistan, which had been given near autonomy. As for “murdered”, the “Iraq mass graves” became a catch-all mantra. The tragic majority found were from the Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 war and subsequent US encouraged uprising. Even Iraq’s part in the monstrous deaths at Halabja are thrown in to question by a 1990 Report from the US Army War College. (2)
Blair blathered on to Parliament:
“I hope the Iraqi people hear this message. We are with you. Our enemy is not you but your barbarous rulers.
“Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total.
“We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else.” Never in the field of human conflict have so many lies been told to so many by so few – to misquote Churchill.
Now to the nub of the statement: “Neither should Iraq be our only concern.
“As so often before on the courage and determination of British men and women serving our country the fate of many nations rest.” Usually, when the British and US get involved “the fate of” the people of nations lie in mass graves.
The “fate” of Iraq of course, was to be threatened, distorted and their people hung in the balance, as so many warned, including the then head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa: “If Iraq is invaded, the Gates of Hell will open.”
“President Bush and I have committed ourselves to peace in the Middle East based on a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state.” Ah, as ever about Israel. Saddam sent aid to Palestinians, displaced, bereaved, desperate and to families of those enough so to even relinquish their lives. The demonized, also secular, President Assad, of course, also supports the Palestinians.
“Dictators like Saddam. Terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, threaten the very existence of such a world.”
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda again linked together. The former never threatened the world, al-Qaeda’s offshoot ISIS, non-existent in Iraq under Saddam, now threatening the Middle East, Europe, the US, and Africa.
Blair concluded: “That is why I’ve asked our troops to go into action tonight.”
Blair was not alone making it up as he went along, singing to his pal Bush’s hymn sheet, he was also singing to that of Benjamin Netanyahu, who six months earlier (September 2002) had assured the US Congress: “If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region… The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region.” (3) It has certainly done that. The Cradle of Civilization is now a valley of tears, widows, widowers and orphans.
President Nobel Obama has commemorated the 20th March anniversary by sending more troops to Iraq and by the US bombing of Mosul University, killing around ninety people and injuring up to one hundred and fifty Including Professor Dhafer al Badrani, Dean of Computer Sciences and his wife.
According to an academic from the city:
“The whole faculty residential building were destroyed, university headquarter, girl’s dormitory, science college, central publishing center of the university, and womens education college. The university is built on very close to the Nimrud archeological entrances to the Assyrian empires (2500 B.C.) I am sure using bunker buster bombs destroyed most of these historical sites.”
It’s Genocide
In Fallujah, besieged by militias and according to another contact:
“ … bombed since 1 January 2014 by the government (armed by the USA and with US military advisers this whole time) and since August 2014 by the US Coalition”, the people are starving: “ On 17th March a husband threw himself his wife with their three children in to the river (Euphrates) from a bridge and drowned. They were desperate from hunger …” And the bodies of: “Nearly four thousand killed civilians have been taken to the hospital since January 2014.”
On 26th March 26th March forty one people were killed and one hundred and five injured at a soccer match by a suicide bomber at a stadium thirty kilometres from Baghdad.
A few days ago an Iraqi in Baghdad commented: “We only had two bombs today, people went out.”
On 27th March Tony Blair was back giving his views. (4) They broadly include invading Iraq, Syria and Libya to save Europe from ISIS, remarking of ISIS: “… This ideology is not interested in coexistence. It does not seek dialogue but dominance”, said the man who was interested in neither and enjoined a “Crusade” – an equally thousand year outdated fundamentalism.
Anyone who listens to the advice of Tony Blair who did so much to spawn the horror, genocide, destruction, insanity, barbarism and should be facing a war crimes Tribunal for his part in bringing the all about, is arguably certifiably insane.
Talking of insanity, the UN has designated 20th March as International Day of Happiness, a day founded to recognize happiness as a “fundamental human goal.” Tell that to the people of Iraq.
The terrifying true scale of modern nuclear weapons is beyond what most people can imagine.
Nuclear Weapons today are far more powerful than those used in World War II.
For example, the B83 nuclear bomb, the largest in the U.S. arsenal, is 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
This single Nuclear Weapon could destroy an entire city like Beijing, causing millions of deaths and injuries.
Video: The True Scale of Modern Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Weapons today are far more powerful than those used in World War II.
For example, the B83 nuclear bomb, the largest in the U.S. arsenal, is 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
This single Nuclear Weapon could destroy an entire city like Beijing, causing millions of deaths and injuries.
Submarine-launched missiles like the Trident II carry multiple Nuclear Weapons. Each missile can deliver up to eight warheads, each 30 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
A single Trident II could devastate a city like Moscow, resulting in over 2.8 million immediate fatalities.
China’s Dongfeng 5 missile is another example of the terrifying power of Nuclear Weapons. It can carry up to 12 warheads, each 66 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
If aimed at a city like Washington, D.C., the impact would be catastrophic, with over a million fatalities. Russia’s R-36 missile, known as the “Satan” missile, can carry multiple Nuclear Weapons with immense destructive power. Some versions can deliver a single warhead up to 20 megatons, which is over 1,300 times the Hiroshima bomb.
At the top of the list is Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat missile, nicknamed “Satan 2.” This Nuclear Weapon can carry up to 15 warheads and potentially deliver a 50-megaton bomb, causing unimaginable destruction to cities like New York.
Even though some countries may face setbacks, the existence of these Nuclear Weapons means that even a few could cause unimaginable damage.
The true scale of modern Nuclear Weapons shows that in a nuclear war, there are no winners—only devastating loss for humanity.
O Ocidente continua a intensificar a guerra com a Federação Russa. Após a autorização dos EUA para ataques profundos, noticiada pela mídia e não desmentida por Biden, uma onda de autorizações começou a se espalhar entre os demais países fornecedores de mísseis de longo alcance. A França, que se tornou um dos centros de apoio militar ao regime de Kiev, deixou claro que as forças neonazistas estão autorizadas a usar tais armas contra alvos fora da zona de conflito oficial – o que é um sinal claro de que o ponto sem retorno para o intervencionismo ocidental já foi ultrapassado.
O ministro das Relações Exteriores da França, Jean-Noel Barrot, afirmou que a Ucrânia tem luz verde para usar armas fornecidas pela França contra o território russo. Numa entrevista recente aos meios de comunicação britânicos, ele disse que Paris não tem nenhuma “linha vermelha” no seu apoio à Ucrânia e que a ajuda é absoluta e irrestrita. Neste sentido, seriam autorizados ataques contra quaisquer alvos, mesmo no território que a própria França reconhece como russo, porque alegadamente fazem parte da “logística de autodefesa” da Ucrânia.
As palavras de Barrot confirmam uma série de notícias recentes nos meios de comunicação sobre a autorização da França para tais ataques. O caso surge em meio a uma onda de “carta branca” para Kiev atacar a Rússia. Até agora, os EUA, o Reino Unido e a França forneceram à Ucrânia mísseis de longo alcance e, aparentemente, todos estes países concordaram que o seu regime proxy tem o “direito” de usar tais armas contra quaisquer alvos, incluindo regiões fora da zona de conflito.
Paris fornece à Ucrânia mísseis de cruzeiro SCALP-EG, cujo alcance (550 km) lhe permite atingir alvos dentro do território russo que não são reivindicados por Kiev. Anteriormente, essas armas eram utilizadas apenas para atacar regiões disputadas pelo regime, mas agora é apenas uma questão de tempo até que as forças ucranianas lancem tais mísseis em áreas como Kursk, Bryansk e Krasnodar – como tem acontecido nos últimos dias com os britânicos e mísseis americanos.
As consequências de tal medida são bastante claras: a França decidiu participar diretamente no conflito. Ao não impor limites à utilização das suas armas, Paris está simplesmente a tornar-se co-autora de quaisquer crimes ucranianos cometidos com armas francesas no território indiscutível da Federação Russa. Esta é uma violação grave das linhas vermelhas de Moscou e legitima respostas duras da Rússia.
É importante sublinhar que, de acordo com os termos da nova doutrina nuclear russa, Moscou pode responder nuclearmente a ataques profundos conjuntos da Ucrânia e do Ocidente. Continuando a sua política de boa vontade diplomática e tentativas de desescalar a guerra, Moscou evitou uma resposta extrema aos recentes bombardeamentos ucranianos e, em vez disso, lançou um míssil balístico convencional armado contra instalações militares na região de Dnepropetrovsk.
De acordo com a avaliação de vários especialistas militares em todo o mundo, a arma utilizada pelos russos, o recentemente anunciado míssil hipersônico com capacidade nuclear denominado “Oreshnik”, não pode ser neutralizada por nenhum sistema antibalístico atualmente disponível aos países ocidentais. Isto significa que Moscou consegue utilizar no campo de batalha uma arma impossível de ser abatida pelo lado inimigo, o que coloca os russos numa vantagem ainda maior no equilíbrio militar. Considerando que a Rússia se reserva o direito de utilizar armas nucleares, no caso de um ataque com Oreshnik com ogivas nucleares acopladas, não haveria qualquer possibilidade de Kiev impedir o sucesso operacional russo.
Por outras palavras, é a própria Rússia que está a abrandar a sua capacidade operacional e a impedir uma tragédia humanitária na Ucrânia. Por seu lado, Kiev e os países ocidentais parecem querer escalar a guerra até às últimas consequências, mesmo que isso conduza a um conflito nuclear – o que obviamente resultaria em milhões de vítimas civis. A cada gesto de boa vontade por parte da Rússia, o Ocidente responde com mais agressão e chantagem, criando uma situação de tensões extremas.
Se esta escalada continuar, uma guerra nuclear tornar-se-á inevitável. Os países ocidentais têm total responsabilidade pelo futuro do conflito, uma vez que ignoram deliberadamente as linhas vermelhas russas e, apesar dos repetidos avisos, continuam a encorajar os ataques ucranianos. Como já afirmaram as autoridades russas, a utilização destas armas fora da zona disputada altera a natureza do conflito, de uma “guerra por procuração”, para uma situação de confronto directo entre Moscou e a OTAN – considerando que são operadores da OTAN quem manuseia tais armas na Ucrânia.
Os EUA, o Reino Unido e a França estão literalmente a brincar com fogo, acreditando que permanecerão imunes às consequências da escalada que provocam. No entanto, serão certamente afetados de alguma forma pelas suas próprias ações, uma vez que Moscou deixou claro que entende tais ataques como uma declaração de guerra.
Após Olaf Scholz telefonar a Vladimir Putin (algo que nenhum líder ocidental havia feito em cerca de dois anos), sinalizando uma rara disposição ao diálogo com os russos, Vladimir Zelensky acusou o chanceler alemão de abrir a “caixa de Pandora”.
A ação de Berlim certamente não foi sem motivos. Os alemães – os grandes prejudicados pelo confronto com Moscou – perceberam que recairão sobre eles todas as consequências de um possível afastamento dos Estados Unidos da guerra na Ucrânia quando Donald Trump tomar posse.
E a ligação de Scholz para Putin (em 15/11) se deu uma semana após a eleição de Trump (em 06/11). Dois dias depois da chamada entre os dois líderes, no dia 17 foi revelado que Joe Biden autorizou a Ucrânia a utilizar os mísseis de longo alcance ATACMS contra o território russo. Em seguida, os britânicos também autorizaram o uso dos Storm Shadow por Kiev.
Os ATACMS e os Storm Shadow, finalmente, foram assim disparados desde a Ucrânia contra as regiões russas de Bryansk e Kursk em 19 de novembro.
Cutucou-se o urso com uma vara curta.
A Rússia mostrou que não está para brincadeira. No dia 21, ela revelou ao mundo o seu poderoso míssil hipersônico de médio alcance Oreshnik, que atingiu a cidade ucraniana de Dnipropetrovsk. O Oreshnik viaja a uma velocidade de Mach 10, voando nada menos do que 3 km por segundo e pode atingir qualquer capital europeia em poucos minutos.
Essa ameaça se tornou ainda mais perigosa depois que Putin anunciou uma revisão da doutrina militar russa, que agora permite o ataque a instalações militares de países que autorizem o uso de suas armas para atacar a Rússia. É precisamente o caso de EUA e Reino Unido.
Trata-se de uma escalada sem precedentes desde o início da intervenção russa na Ucrânia, há quase três anos. Levando em consideração que agora se abriu plenamente a possibilidade de um confronto direto entre Moscou e a OTAN com o bombardeio de outros países, há quem fale até mesmo no início eventual de uma 3ª Guerra Mundial. Desse ponto de vista, as tensões são comparáveis apenas à da Crise dos Mísseis de 1962.
O fato de a situação ter escalado tanto menos de duas semanas após a vitória de Trump não é coincidência. Os detentores do verdadeiro poder nos EUA, o chamado “Deep State” (Wall Street e o complexo industrial-militar) levam muito a sério as palavras do republicano sobre encerrar a guerra na Ucrânia e retomar as relações com a Rússia. É uma das coisas que eles mais temem.
E o motivo disso foi explicado com muita honestidade recentemente na MSNBC. Com a maior naturalidade do mundo, o almirante reformado James Stavridis recordou que os Estados Unidos investem cerca de 40 bilhões de dólares por ano no financiamento da guerra na Ucrânia.
“Todo esse dinheiro é pago para os contratistas de defesa dos EUA, fazendo nossa base industrial de defesa mais forte”, disse. E completou: “essa é uma alavancagem fantástica. Você investe uma pequena quantia de dinheiro e obtém um efeito enorme. É um grande negócio para os EUA.”
Mais: a manutenção da guerra na Ucrânia é fundamental para a sobrevivência do sistema imperialista apodrecido que é liderado por Washington. Há décadas que ele vem experimentando um declínio acentuado, declínio este que se mostrou ainda mais irreversível nos últimos anos, com os vexames no Afeganistão, na própria Ucrânia e na Palestina.
Esse declínio é acompanhado de um lento despertar das nações oprimidas pelo sistema imperialista, expresso atualmente nas fenomenais (porém, aparentemente, irrefreáveis) articulações entre os chamados países emergentes – dos quais a Rússia é a grande líder, junto com a China – e seus anseios por uma nova ordem mundial “multipolar”.
Já tendo perdido a mais importante disputa presidencial da história americana, o Deep State (o coração da máquina política do sistema imperialista) agora não quer perder nem um pouco de seu poder. Por isso busca uma aliança com o trumpismo, que já foi observada nas aproximações a Trump de setores empresariais teoricamente hostis ao então candidato. E agora a tentativa de aliança – uma busca por controlar os instintos mais isolacionistas e prejudiciais ao domínio dos EUA – fica nítida a partir da composição do novo governo, que está sendo montado.
A maioria dos membros do alto escalão que foram nomeados por Trump é formada por elementos vinculados ao establishment neoconservador, sejam eles próprios falcões imperialistas ou ao menos palatáveis à máquina de dominação do Estado americano. Pouquíssimos são aqueles que, como Tulsi Gabbard ou Robert Kennedy Jr., geram uma aversão do Deep State.
Mas, pelo visto, a grande burguesia americana não quer esperar o dia 20 de janeiro e pagar para ver se seus prepostos no novo governo vão trabalhar direito. Ela pressiona desde já, esticando a corda até quase o limite, para obrigar Trump a acompanhá-la por esse caminho tortuoso que a maioria nos EUA, inclusive pessoas próximas a Trump, não quer trilhar.
Em toda a história, nenhum sistema em declínio (principalmente os impérios) aceitou o seu triste destino. As grandes mudanças sempre vieram a partir de enormes convulsões políticas, sociais e econômicas. Aqueles que acreditam em um mundo multipolar harmonioso em que uma superpotência, ou mesmo um sistema inteiro, será substituída através de uma transição indolor provavelmente estão equivocados.
O mais provável, ainda que possa não vir imediatamente, é a guerra mundial. O lado positivo disso (para quem acredita que sempre há algo positivo nas desgraças) é que, diferente das duas guerras mundiais anteriores, esta não será entre potências imperialistas pela dominação do globo. A superpotência imperialista americana tem sob as suas asas as potências europeias enfraquecidas e subjugadas, suas aliadas de primeira hora na opressão dos países pobres e “emergentes”. A guerra será contra estes.
Essa é a verdadeira caixa de Pandora que pode estar se abrindo.
Obwohl sich dieser Brief insbesondere mit Fragen im Zusammenhang mit dem Eidgenössischen Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation befasst, das derzeit von der rechtsgerichteten Schweizerischen Volkspartei geführt wird, richtet sich der Brief in der Tat an den Gesamtbundesrat, der für Entscheidungen in Einstimmigkeit zuständig ist.
Der Brief befasst sich mit drei Hauptthemen:
(i) 5G-Strahlung (5..Generation der drahtlosen Mobilfunktechnologie), insbesondere DAB-plus (Digital Audio Broadcasting);
(ii) ultrahelle LED-Autolichter (LED – Light Emitting Diode); und
(iii) Chemtrails – Wettermanipulation und Vergiftung von Luft, Boden und Wasser mit gefährlichen Chemikalien und Schwermetallen.
*
5G-Strahlung ist bereits überall, trotz des einst von den Kantonen Genf und Waadt geforderten Moratoriums. 5G-Antennen säumen zu Tausenden die Schweizer Autobahnen und senden ihre ungesunden und potenziell gefährlichen elektromagnetischen Wellen (EMW) über Mobiltelefone, Internet und Computer in alle Haushalte. Und jetzt plant die SRG (Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft), unsere Häuser über DAB-plus noch stärker mit 5G-EMW zu überschwemmen.
5G ist 100-mal schneller als 4G und 6G ist 10.000-mal schneller als 5G. Das bedeutet konkret, dass 100 bzw. 10.000 stärkere EMWs in unsere Körper und Häuser geschossen werden als bei der 4G-Technologie. Bis 6G in Europa eingeführt wird, könnte unser Gehirn so geschädigt sein, dass kaum jemand den Unterschied bemerkt.
Während sich die Wissenschaft uneins ist über die möglichen Schäden, die durch 5G – und vielleicht bald auch 6G – verursacht werden, ist es sicher, dass diese Wellen den menschlichen Körper, das Gehirn und insbesondere die menschliche Zirbeldrüse angreifen – die Drüse, die uns den Wahrnehmungssinn verleiht und die Fähigkeit besitzt, spirituelle Einsichten zu wecken und die Verbindung zu einem höheren Bewusstsein zu stärken.
Die entstehende Weltordnung will keine Menschen mit funktionierender Zirbeldrüse.
Darüber hinaus kann das menschliche Gehirn durch 5G robotisiert oder transhumanisiert werden, wie Klaus Schwab vom Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) es nennt.
Will die Schweizer Regierung dies für die Einwohner der Schweiz, deren Interessen sie zu vertreten gewählt oder ernannt wurde?
*
Ultrahelle LED-Autoscheinwerfer sind sichtbarer schädlich, sie blenden extrem und schädigen allmählich das Sehvermögen der Menschen, aber sie verursachen auch viel tiefer gehende Schäden – sie greifen auch die hochsensible Zirbeldrüse an.
Darüber hinaus können LED-Scheinwerfer den Tagesrhythmus (die innere Uhr des Körpers) und den Schlaf-Rhythmus stören. Außerdem warnen prominente Psychiater vor den möglichen Auswirkungen von LED-Beleuchtung auf psychische Erkrankungen. Sehen Sie sich dies bei BBC an.
Die Risiken dieser Scheinwerfer im Straßenverkehr liegen so klar auf der Hand, dass es überrascht, dass der Bundesrat diese Gefahren und Risiken zulässt. Seit mehr als einem halben Jahrzehnt sind alle neuen Fahrzeuge mit diesen LED-Lichtern ausgestattet; es scheint keinen Weg daran vorbei zu geben.
Kamen die Anweisungen aus Brüssel?
Aus gutem Grund gibt es keine Statistiken über Unfälle, die durch diese ultrahellen, manchmal sogar bläulichen LED-Scheinwerfer verursacht wurden. Diese LED-Strahlen sind eindeutig nicht zum Wohle der Menschen gedacht und sollten sofort verboten werden.
*
Chemtrails – Es ist nicht nötig zu erklären, was sie sind. Sie, liebe Bundesräte, wissen es sehr gut. Nicht einmal der Bundesrat kann die allgegenwärtigen weißen Streifen am Himmel ignorieren.
Zur Erinnerung, meine Damen und Herren des Bundesrats, sowie an die Leser dieses Schreibens: Ihr Hauptzweck besteht darin, das Wetter zu verändern und das Klima zu beeinflussen, zusammen mit dem US-amerikanischen HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program).
Diese Wissenschaft wurde in den frühen 1940er Jahren entwickelt und seitdem so perfektioniert, dass sie extreme Wetterbedingungen, Hurrikane, Überschwemmungen, Dürren und sogar Erdbeben verursachen kann, die ganze Städte, die Landwirtschaft, die Lebensmittel und schließlich die Menschheit zerstören, sodass man den „Klimawandel“ dafür verantwortlich machen kann.
Der Klimawandel selbst ist darauf ausgelegt, die westlichen Volkswirtschaften zu zerstören, mit dem fadenscheinigen Argument, dass CO2 schlecht für die Umwelt sei, und verbietet daher schrittweise die Nutzung von Kohlenwasserstoffenergie und ersetzt sie angeblich durch erneuerbare Energien.
Sie erinnern sich vielleicht daran, dass während der ersten von den Vereinten Nationen gesponserten Weltumweltkonferenz in Rio de Janeiro im Jahr 1992, als die gesamte weltweit erzeugte Energie zu 87 % aus Öl und Gas stammte, die aufkommende Anti-CO2-Narrative die Abkehr von Kohlenwasserstoffen propagierte. Heute, mehr als 30 Jahre später, hat sich der Anteil der Kohlenwasserstoffenergie kaum verändert. Er liegt immer noch bei etwa 85 %. Weltweit machen alternative Energien weniger als 5 % aus.
Außerdem sei denjenigen, die auf eine Abwendung von CO2 drängen, ins Gedächtnis gerufen, dass es ohne CO2 kein Leben gäbe. CO2 ist lebenswichtig für Bäume und Pflanzen, die es durch einen Prozess Photosynthese genanntin Sauerstoff umwandeln, den praktisch jedes Lebewesen benötigt. Jegliche überschüssige Menge an CO2 wird automatisch von den Ozeanen der Erde absorbiert und bei Bedarf in einem vollkommen harmonischen Equilibrium wieder abgegeben.
Zur Erinnerung, liebe Bundesräte: Chemtrails enthalten Tausende hochgiftiger Nanopartikel aus Chemikalien und Schwermetallen wie Aluminium, Cadmium, Quecksilber, Zink und viele mehr. Sie vergiften die Luft die wir atmen, unseren Boden, unser Wasser und schließlich auch Tiere, Gemüse, unsere Nahrung und allenfalls unser Gehirn und unseren Körper.
Im Namen meiner Mitbürger bitte ich Sie, geehrte Bundesräte, Chemtrails und blendende LED-Scheinwerfer mit sofortiger Wirkung zu verbieten und die SRG anzuweisen, ihre Programme weiterhin über Ultrakurzwellen (UKW) statt, oder zusätzlich zu DAB-plus auszustrahlen, für diejenigen, die ihre Gesundheit vor einer immer intensiveren Flut von 5G-elektromagnetischen Wellen in ihren Häusern und Körpern schützen wollen.
Vielen Dank.
Peter Koenig
*
Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche „Teilen“ unten, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research weiter zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.
Peter Koenig ist ein geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger leitender Ökonom bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang weltweit tätig war. Er ist der Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftskrimi über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Unternehmensgier; und Co-Autor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch „When China Sneezes: Vom Coronavirus-Lockdown zur globalen politisch-wirtschaftlichen Krise“ (Clarity Press – 1. November 2020).
Peter ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist außerdem nicht ortsansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang-Instituts der Renmin-Universität in Peking.
Chief of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergey Naryshkin gave a brief interview to the National Defense magazine in which he explained how he sees the world. In his eyes, the West has been weakened even though the dollar remains the universal currency. He also said that the Global South is wary of receiving technology and investment from the West because they don’t want to pay for it with their sovereignty. They’re also skeptical of the West’s outreaches and promises of global reform.
The historic rise of the Eurasian macro-region parallels the West’s decline. Multipolar processes are more active there than anywhere else, hence why it’s targeted by the West’s divide-and-rule schemes. These will only serve to facilitate the creation of a Eurasian security architecture that can ensure stability on the supercontinent. The greatest threat right now is NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, but Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine makes it impossible to strategically defeat Russia.
The professional degradation of the Western bureaucratic class is responsible for why the West thought that it could strategically defeat Russia through Ukraine in the first place. These people are obsessed with retaining their sides’ declining hegemony at the expense of their people’s living standards.
“Only ignoramuses or scoundrels are capable of participating in such a cynical political spectacle”, Naryshkin added, scoffing at how they’ve misled people into believing that supporting Ukraine is in their interests.
The joint article that his American and British counterparts published in the Financial Times in September “is also evidence of something amiss in modern Western civilization” since they wouldn’t seek to justify their organizations’ activities in the public sphere if everything was supposedly going according to plan. The rest of his remarks touched on aspects of his institution’s history, work, and advice for future applicants. Everything that was shared above will now be analyzed in the larger context.
What can be seen is that SVR is convinced that certain global trends are irreversible, namely the West’s decline and the rise of the Eurasian macro-region, but neither has yet to culminate so there could still be some surprises along the way. Therein lies the importance of its work in obtaining privileged information about these trends, incorporating this into their analyses, and informing policymakers about the most effective way to advance Russia’s national interests in these circumstances.
His words about the creation of a Eurasian security architecture are admittedly ambitious, but their significance is that this is the long-term goal that Russia is officially aiming for, which will require plenty of work before any tangible progress is achieved. For instance, there’s still a lot of distrust between China and India in spite of their nascent rapprochement, and that’s not even to mention the distrust between India and Pakistan or even nowadays India and Bangladesh after the latter’s US-backed regime change.
There’s also the unresolved Chinese-Vietnamese maritime dispute in the South China Sea as well as lingering suspicions that Iran and Saudi Arabia have of one another in spite of spring 2023’s rapprochement. These and other issues are herculean challenges on their own, let alone when grouped altogether, but Russia has excellent relations with both countries in each pair of disputes so it’s well-positioned to either mediate or share suggestions (whether solicited or unsolicited) for resolving them.
Whereas the US wants to divide-and-rule Eurasia in order to decelerate the decline of its unipolar hegemony, Russia wants to bring everyone together in order to accelerate multipolar processes. To this end, passing along intelligence about America’s aforesaid plans to those countries that are the targets of such plots can go a long way towards foiling them and then bolstering the trust required for Russia to help politically resolve their regional disputes. This is the invaluable benefit of partnering with Russia.
Looking forward, Russia is expected continue playing an integral role in Eurasia’s gradual consolidation as a macro-regional actor in the emerging multipolar world order through its military means of defeating NATO in Ukraine and its clandestine ones as described above. No other country is playing anything similar to this role, though that’s not to say that they’re unimportant, it’s just that economic means can only do so much to accelerate these processes.
The closer that Russia coordinates its military-clandestine roles with the economic ones that China, India, and other top Global South states play, the faster that everything will unfold. The Russia-India-China (RIC) framework will therefore remain the most pivotal during this period, followed by BRICS and the SCO in equal measure, within which RIC is their core axis. If the Sino-Indo rapprochement succeeds, which Russia will encourage but won’t meddle in, then the world will radically change for the better.
*
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.
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.
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.” Their statements followed COP29’s final declaration, which includes a commitment by developed countries to allocate at least $1.3 trillion by 2035 to developing nations, less than a quarter of the amount requested by developing countries, which are most affected by extreme weather events.
According to COP29, its top priorities included achieving a new climate finance target, ensuring that all countries have the means to take much more decisive climate action, drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilient communities. However, it has been mired in controversy as richer countries are unwilling to make greater contributions to Global South countries.
In an interview with the Guardian shortly after her statement, Chandni Raina, representative of the Indian delegation, at a plenary meeting of COP29 held in Azerbaijan, called the goal’s adoption “outrageous,” adding, “This was completely a travesty of justice.”
According to The Indian Express, she said:
“India does not accept the goal proposal in its present form. The amount that is proposed to be mobilised is abysmally poor. It is a paltry sum. It is not something that will enable conducive climate action that is necessary for the survival of our country.”
“This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document,” Raina continued.
The Indian Express newspaper clarified that the objection was raised after the document was adopted.
A new agreement on financing to combat and adapt to climate change at the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan pledged $300 billion a year by 2035 from wealthier countries to the Global South. The amount satisfies Western countries that will pay but not the Global South countries that will receive it. Although Western countries argue that this amount is realistic and within their means, Global South countries highlight that this is not nearly enough.
The deal has left a bitter taste in developing countries, which see international conferences like this as the biggest opportunity to pressure Western countries, as they do not participate in meetings of the world’s largest economies, such as G7.
Yalchin Rafiyev, Azerbaijan’s deputy foreign minister and chief negotiator for COP29, hoped Baku could pressure countries to raise more money, saying it “doesn’t correspond to our fair and ambitious goal, but we will continue to engage with the parties.”
Brazil, which will host COP30 next year, contested a higher figure from a report by a special economic commission appointed by the UN Secretary-General. Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva proposed $300 billion a year until 2035, rising to $390 billion a year after 2035.
Marshall Islands climate envoy Tina Stetze called the deal “shameful.”
“It is incomprehensible that year after year we bring our stories of climate impacts to these meetings and receive only sympathy and no real action from wealthy nations,” she said in a statement. “We are not here to tell stories. We are here to save our communities.”
The least developed countries (LDC) negotiating bloc, which represents 45 nations and 1.1 billion people, said the deal made on November 24 destroyed three years of negotiations on the climate finance goal.
“This has been casually dismissed,” an LDC statement said. “Despite exhaustive efforts to collaborate with key players, our pleas were met with indifference. This outright dismissal erodes the fragile trust that underpins these negotiations and mocks the spirit of global solidarity.”
However, besides evidence in their action, Western countries also defend their lack of contributions through statements.
Switzerland’s environment minister, Albert Rösti, said it was important that the amount of climate finance was “realistic.”
“A deal with a high number that will never be realistic, that will never be paid […] will be much worse than no deal,” he said.
US President Joe Biden praised the deal as it supposedly puts the world “one significant step closer” to achieving our climate goals, while US officials emphasised that “it has been a significant lift over the past decade to meet the prior, smaller goal.” In effect, Washington is disinterested in Global South concerns.
British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the agreement was “critical” and “right.”
“It’s a deal that will drive forward the clean energy transition, which is essential for jobs and growth in Britain and for protecting us all against the worsening climate crisis,” he said, exposing that the deal was in his country’s interest and not the Global South.
In effect, officials of the US, UK, and Switzerland, among other Western officials, have defended the deal as it absolves them from taking full responsibility, while Global South countries begrudgingly regard it as an “optical illusion” and “shameful” as it is evidently just an opportunity for Western self-platitude without any real change being made.
*
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.
Americans who think themselves informed because they watch CNN, read the NY Times, and listen to NPR, regard my warnings about nuclear war as disinformation, even hysteria.They say that US government officials, such as Secretary of State Blinken and National Security advisor Jake Sullivan, are not stupid or insane.
Dear readers, you tell me how you can give permission for the US and NATO to fire missiles into Russia, especially when the Russian President has clearly stated it means the US and NATO are at war with Russia, and not be stupid and insane.That Blinken and Sullivan gave this permission in the face of Russia revising her war doctrine and permitting nuclear weapons to be used at a lower threshold indicates that the United States has a Secretary of State and National Security Advisor who are disconnected from reality.
All Americans, and perhaps the human population as a whole, might die as a result of these two utterly stupid men.Both of them represent the military/security complex and Israel.Neither is capable of thinking beyond the interest of the power and profit of the US military/security complex and Israel’s interest.The military/security complex and Israel are their only constituencies.The rest of the world is sacrificed to these two interests.
The utter stupidity of Blinken and Sullivan is matched by the American media, that sells itself for money. Yesterday one of the principal mouthpieces, the Washington Post, published what is without doubtthe most ignorant editorial in recorded history.Those who wrote it said that it is not worth stopping the march to Armageddon if Trump makes a bad deal:
“If Trump leaves Ukraine dismembered, America will look weak and dictators will be emboldened.”
Examine this loaded language from the editors of the Washington Post and wonder how America can possibly survive. For the Washington Post editors, it is more important to keep the war going on the road to Armageddon than to “look weak.”
What dictators will be emboldened?Putin, elected overwhelmingly for a quarter of century by margins that not even Trump can achieve?For the Washington Post editors, “dictators” are those who will not subject their sovereignty to Washington’s hegemony. Who are these “dictators? They are the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran, the favorite manufactured-enemies of the Israel Lobby and the American military/security complex.
Dear readers, yesterday I informed you that the new intermediate range Russian missile– created only because President Trump in his first term voided the INF Treaty that President Reagan and President Gorbachev signed, a treatythat greatly reduced the chances of nuclear war –can be used to destroy in a very few minutes all US and NATO military assets in Europe and the Middle East without the use of nuclear warheads.
Why did President Trump make this incomprehensible mistake that shows a dangerous lack of judgment?Because he was advised either by totally evil people or totally stupid people.How do we know it will be any different this time?This is what the Russian government wonders.
It is not enough that the Washington Post, whose stupidity is a danger to life on earth, regards understanding the Russian point of view as weakness, but also the Wall Street Journal joins in the push toward Armageddon.
Holman Jenkins, once a semi-intelligent person, has fed the war impulse with his acceptance on November 23 of the Biden regime’s propaganda that North Korean troops are fighting Ukrainians side-by-side with Russians.
There is no evidence that I can find that North Koreans are participating in the conflict.They are in Russia for demonstrative reasons to show that the Russian/North Korean defense pact is real.The purpose of the pact is to show the war hawks in Washington that American pressure on China with regard to Taiwan can be countered with pressure on South Korea.Those who comprise the US government are far too foolish to understand that the threat produced by their provocation of China is South Korea being overrun.
Look at America’s leaders and tremble.Senator Lindsey Graham is ready to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran.What does the fool think the consequences will be?American victory?
The United States is incapable of going to war. All of the services are demoralized by the Biden regimes DEI policies that promoted not on ability and merit, but on the basis of dark skin, female gender, and sexual perversion.
American weapon systems are so inferior to Russian ones that America vs. Russia is like stoneage people fighting a modern army. The majority of America’s extraordinary expensive F-35s are so defective that they are not operational. All America has is nuclear armed ICBMs. The question is whether Russia’s hypersonic missiles wipe them out before they can lift off.
What America and the world need is peace.Washington must repudiate the Zionist neoconservatives, give up its goal of world hegemony, accept the sovereignty of other countries, and stop sanctioning them for not submitting to Washington’s hegemony. If Washington doesn’t stop doing this, America will cease to exist.It is that simple.
Take a minute and think. Are there any intelligent, moral people anywhere in the American Establishment? There are none.That is why a leader–Donald Trump–had to be brought in from the outside.
But what can he do?His movement is immature. Most of his supporters think the battle is over with his election. The American Establishment remains in place.It is institutionalized everywhere, state, local, and federal government, in the media, the corporations, Wall Street, the banking system, the universities and law schools, the public school systems, the judiciary, and in the generations of Americans taught in universities that America as presently constituted is an evil, exploitative, racist, sexist country, and that Trump is in the way of moral progress.
Where are the resources with which Trump can renew America? The journalism schools turn out Woke journalists. The education departments turn out Woke teachers. The law schools turn out Woke lawyers. We have an educational system that produces anti-Americans who are opposed to MAGA America.
Trump has already lost his nominee for attorney general.He might lose Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard as well.His picks for Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, UN Ambassador, ambassador to Israel, and Middle East envoy are all Zionist allied with Israel, everyone of which is willing to go to war with Iran, whose government they define as evil.
Can Trump and his warmonger appointees accept Russia’s reincorporation of former territories of Russia back into Russia and zero possibility of any US/NATO missile sites on Russia’s borders, including the ones in Poland and Romania? If not, Trump has no prospect of ending the West’s participation in a conflict that the West initiated.
Will Putin accept more missiles fired into Russia while he awaits Trump’s presidency to see if Washington comes to its senses? That is Putin’s inclination given his humanitarian character, but the West is working to shut down this restraint. The West is doubling down on its missile attacks on Russia. France has joined Washington and the UK in green-lighting the use of its long-range missiles against Russia. The French foreign minister said no constraints should be placed on the use of the missiles. The French minister added that France is open to extending an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO. What is it, if not stupidity, to ignore Russia’s warning that enough is enough and to poison the situation in order to prevent the possibility that Trump can work to defuse the dangerous situation?
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the French minister’s comments are “not support for Ukraine, but rather a death knell for Ukraine.” Indeed, the death knell is being sounded for the world if nuclear war breaks out.
Such a war is possible, because Western leaders are completely lost in their own propaganda. The French foreign minister thinks that Europe’s security is at stake in Ukraine.
“Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometer, the threat gets one square kilometer closer to Europe.”
How can the French foreign minister not know that Russia has no plans for an army sufficiently large to occupy Europe? How can he not know that Russia intended its intervention in Ukraine to be confined to the Russian area of Donbas and that it is the West that is widening the war? How can the French minister not know that Russia is focused on Russia, the BRICS, the silk road and wants no distractions in Europe. A person has to be completely stupid to see in the Donbas intervention the unfolding of a plan to conquer Europe.
The situation that confronts us is that Western leaders have been made ignorant by their own propaganda and are incapable of realizing the real threat they have created — nuclear war. The New York Times reports that some US and European officials have discussed providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Could anything more irresponsible be done? How is it possible that people this dangerous can be Western leaders?
How is it possible not to be alarmed when the fate of humanity is in the hands of such utterly hawkish 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.
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.
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
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.
The World Economic Forum version is based upon the power play of a number of despotic billionaires, gathering behind them a coterie of political, corporate and technocratic ciphers having no spine and no interest in operating outside the standard field of financially rewarding slavery.
This motley cabal is going nowhere other than to a different corner of the anti-life cul-de-sac within which they permanently operate.
They are a self interested force based entirely on ‘taking’. Draining the life force of its vigour and, whether consciously or unconsciously, fixated on destruction and control.
In amongst their dark endeavours a glimmer of light occasionally seems to show itself – but this is a chimera, because where suppression, greed, control and death form the fundaments of the policies being adhered to, no emanation of light is possible.
Collective values resonating with emanations of light belong to a completely different realm.
They set their life course on cooperation, instead of division. Empathy, instead of alienation. Peace, instead of war.Nurturing, instead of stealing. Truth, instead of lies. Love, instead of hate. Justice, instead of criminality. The formation of life, as opposed to a cult of death.
You will find such light only where the values being expressed are the antithesis of the inhuman brutality adopted as the means to become ‘successful’ within the dominant corporate and billionaire-based model of the modern world.
I am not saying that there are no individuals operating within such globalist structures incapable of rising above their dark goals; there are of course, and their distinctive humanitarian qualities are to be applauded.
What I am saying is that those who have developed proper conscious awareness and who resonate with the light, must recognise that their role is to now step forward to completely rewrite the script of life; to form the vanguard of those determined to lay the foundations of a new society.
They must place the positive powers of humanity at the centre of all aspirations and goals that form the fundamental basis of human education – and indeed, human existence. Presenting a fresh blueprint for what society is all about and where it wishes to go.
This means setting in motion a reversal of the situation in which schools, universities, and career influencers teach the failed model of local, national and global conformism. A script that further exacerbates the self-destructive pattern of our misdirected collective existence.
This failed model includes religion, whose carefully controlled dogmas have been and remain the prime cause of often brutal divisions across the full spectrum of mankind.
So now, while cracks in the power money control system are widening, we have to seize the moment to set out a purposeful vision of what it is that will rise up to vanquish and ultimately completely replace the dystopian prison within which our present world has been incarcerated.
This vision can only be brought to life via an unremitting desire to realise in ourselves – and in the outside world – the manifestation of truth. A deep determination to articulate in words and deeds, that which flows out from the heart, thereby illuminating the way ahead.
A true vision cannot be mind-based. The mind is a beautiful and vital instrument, but operating on its own it turns into a calculator; pulling towards a digital, abstract and material view on how to organise life. It tricks us into following an alien and essentially reductionist form of logic, lacking spontaneous acts of generosity, warmth and inspiration. The true expressions of an unblocked life force.
The entire toxic EMF-powered instant messaging addiction is a mind creation. And mind disengaged and removed from heart leads to madness.
The Internet of Things; the Hive Mind; the ‘Digitalisation Disease’; the IT sterilisation of diverse living entities and the entire agenda of The Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Green Deal – are all a manifestation of mind cut-off and alienated from the heart and from the spiritual.
At its extreme, this takes the form of genetic engineering the human and environmental gene pool; influencing and altering the behaviour of the cells and neurons of the human brain and an obsession with robotic and transhuman life distortions.
So let us be done with this obscene cult of the mind. We humans are warm-blooded social beings, our instinct is to help each other in times of difficulty and to celebrate together in times of joy.
Love lives in our hearts and our hearts connect directly to the supreme progenitor of life.
Our grand vision, our revolution, comes to us from the life source itself, the central nucleus of all existence. Provided we feel connected-up, we know what needs to be done in order to follow and fulfill the potential gifted to us.
This is called ‘the Path of Truth.’ Or in Eastern esoteric schools ‘The Way’ (The Tao).And to determinedly follow it means to also rewrite the script of life.
There can be no woolly ‘New Age’ compromise here. The path of truth remains an internalised chimera until it is expressed in existential pragmatic actions that lay the solid foundations of a spiritually-guided new society.
The job of laying these foundations involves standing in the fullness of our heart-mind united power. Recognising that the only way out of the Minotaur’s mind labyrinth is to adhere to that deeply intuitive navigational aid which ensures every crucial decision of our lives only comes direct from Source.
One does not know the composition of ‘the way’ until it reveals itself. There is no predestined formula to follow – as is the case with our fixed education curriculum. Taking The Path of Truth involves a brush with the unknown, a stepping into the infinite.
However, there are signposts to guide us in this grand adventure. Tried and tested spiritual practices which have the vital role of nurturing the development and realisation of our innate mental, spiritual and physical potentialities.
Rewriting the script of life is the absolute prerogative of an evolving humanity, yet it can only be done by fully embracing the fact that our existence here on earth is solely for the purpose of fulfilling our mission as conduits of the Supreme Consciousness.
Above all else, it is this realisation that will lead to the complete metamorphosis of life on earth and hasten the much anticipated dawning of a deeply fulfilling age of emancipation for all animate and inanimate beings of this world and far beyond.
*
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.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer,broadcaster and international activist. He is author of the acclaimed title ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ and other works. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
As Russia makes major advances in East Ukraine and takes back over 50% of the land lost in the recent Ukraine invasion of the Kursk region, the USA, and UK have let Kiev fire long range missiles (ATACMS and Storm Shadows) into Russia.
In response, Russia has launched a medium range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, against Ukraine. Kiev has no radar to detect the Oreshnik missiles and no air defense systems that could intercept them, The New York Times reports. The medium range ballistic missile flies at a speed of Mach 10 and was used to hit a plant in Dnipro which produces missile technology. So serious a threat was the launch of this missile that Moscow warned Washington in advance in case it were mistaken for a wider (nuclear) attack on the West!
Using American and British missiles against Russian soil with both countries involved in programming and targeting those missiles is a severe provocation but nearly all seem to have been shot down by superior Russian electronic warfare defences. Therefore Initially Moscow will respond with greater attacks on Ukraine but will probably hold off on direct attacks on US and UK assets in case the new US President, in place in late January, takes a radically different approach to the war.
At the moment the West has embarked on the slippery slope to outright war with Russia, even as Kiev invades Russia and a large majority of Ukrainians want the war to end:
.
.
Troops Losses
The losses on both sides have mounted to horrific levels with Russian killed and wounded estimated at over 160,000 with Ukrainian losses at least 5 times higher which is reflected in the exchange of the dead on 17th October. Ukraine received 501 bodies, Russia received 89 bodies. If only the British and American political class were assigned to collecting the dead, their adolescent war bravado might just subside!
All in all a tragic, a futile war which could have been made unnecessary if the Minsk accords had been followed by Kiev, Germany and France or if the 2022 Istanbul agreement had not been sabotaged by London and Washington.
But now we see a defeated Ukraine proxy for western expansionism, hysterical expansion of the war, igniting of war in Korea, increasing isolation of the West in the rest of the world (at the September annual session of the UN General Assembly Zelensky’s plan for victory was backed by 30 of the 193 UN states. Brazil and China’s peace plan was backed by 110 countries)and a grave warning from the Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov that (conscious no doubt of Russian naval power in the Atlantic the proximity of Eastern Russia to Alaska and it’s modern high speed long range missiles):
I am constantly trying to convey one thesis to them – the Americans will not be able to sit it out behind the waters of the ocean, this war will affect everyone.
West Breaks Up Politically
The cracks in NATO/EU solidarity on Ukraine are daily more evident and threatening as Donald Tump and the war sceptic JD Vance come to power in Washington and Hungary and Slovakia grow ever bolder in their opposition. NATO-Hungary relations have apparently ‘hit boiling point’ as Hungary applies its veto on payments to Ukraine
Hungary ignored the NATO summit in Budapest, where its ties with Russia and China were discussed. Instead, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Szijjarto spoke at a Belarusian security conference together with Sergei Lavrov and the head of the Syrian Foreign Ministry!
There is also growing popular opposition to the Ukraine war in Bulgaria, Germany and Italy and great resentment in France, Germany and Poland of the presence of hundreds of thousands conscription age Ukrainians, most of whom are not working.
Even in London, the centre of Russophobic aggression, the media have at last started asking warmonger Starmer about the consequences of such virulent attacks and the danger of a Russian military response against Britain.
Putin’s War Plans?
The German journalist and assiduous war analyst Julian Roepke of the newspaper Bild has set out what he thinks Vladimir Putin’s war plans are for the next two years. Even if peace talks begin, it is unlikely that there will be much let up in the Russian advance.
In this map the purple and purple/white striped show Russian control by the end of 2023.
The yellow is the territory aimed for by the end of 2024 (this is behind schedule!) and the red is the aims for the end of 2026.
.
.
Röpke reports that the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ front in the South Donetsk direction is collapsing.
“The front is falling apart in the south of Donetsk Oblast. On a regional scale, we are talking about a loss of 2 to 5 kilometers per day. At this rate, Russia will need another six months to reach Dnipro Oblast”
“We can admit that our current ‘support’ is leading to Ukraine losing this war before our eyes and that the Ukrainian leadership cannot find any means or ways to stop Russia’s advance”.
Ukrainian Troop Desertions
The Economist – an avid supporter of western expansion – reported that a source in the Ukrainian General Staff told the publication that approximately every fifth Ukrainian soldier deserts from the front lines. Increasingly they are deserting not singly but in large groups. Undoubtedly connected is a report from the Institute for the Study of War in Washington that Ukraine soldiers are increasingly leaking secret information to the Russian military.
So desperate is the shortage of Ukrainian soldiers at the from lines that a new law states that first-time deserters will be allowed to return to military service unpunished. Under the bill, soldiers who have deserted the military or are absent without official leave (AWOL) will not be penalised if they choose to return to their units voluntarily. All criminal cases against them will be dropped, while their wages and social benefits will be restored.
Nothing could demonstrate how fearful the “timed out” Zelensky is of his own people and how he dare not stop the war and hold free elections.
*
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.
During Donald Trump’s first presidency, the United States came close to invading Venezuela, a fiercely independent Latin American country that has been a target of US aggression for a quarter of a century at this point. Washington DC actually had close ties with Caracas before the late Hugo Chavez took office in 1999.
The term “close ties” in this particular context should be interpreted as the US having effective (neo)colonialist control over Venezuela and brutally exploiting the country and its people. President Chavez put a stop to this, soon becoming a legend among hundreds of millions of Latin Americans and many other sovereigntists around the world. By 2002, Washington DC organized a coup against the legitimately elected government in Caracas, but the Venezuelan people pushed back and stood by their president, preventing his overthrow.
However, the imperialist hegemon to the north never forgives “non-compliance” or attempts to break the shackles of “freedom and democracy”. Chavez effectively became the new Castro, as he was subjected to numerous assassination attempts, failed coups, sanctions and other forms of pressure designed to make Venezuela’s life as difficult as possible. This didn’t change until Chavez’s untimely death in 2013 and actually escalated after President Nicolas Maduro succeeded him. Believing that he wouldn’t live up to the standards and expectations people had of Chavez, the US hoped it could easily get rid of Maduro and then regain control of Venezuela. Attempts to do so started already in 2013, but Washington DC escalated this to a boiling point by 2019, when there was talk of imminent US invasion, particularly after warmongers started pressuring Trump to “intervene”.
In 2020, the US even launched “Operation Gideon”, a coordinated insurrection involving Venezuelan CIA assets aided by Silvercorp USA, a Florida-based American private military company (PMC). The goal was to spread the conflict across the country and ultimately overthrow President Maduro. The insurrection failed miserably, with at least two US operatives arrested, along with dozens of their Venezuelan collaborators. The two were identified as Luke Denman and Airan Berry, both former US special forces operatives and were coordinated by former Green Beret Jordan Goudreau in a mission to kidnap Maduro and “liberate” Venezuela. Caracas directly pointed out that this was attempted aggression, aided by neighboring Colombia. Both the US and its South American client state denied involvement in this crawling invasion, but Venezuela reinforced the border area with Colombia.
It should be noted that in 2019, a year before the botched coup, the infamous war criminal John Bolton, in his capacity as US National Security Advisor, announced support for Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, who was proclaimed “legitimate president”. Bolton insisted that Maduro’s reelection was allegedly “illegitimate”, although it’s unclear who authorized Bolton (or the US itself for that matter) to make such statements, let alone enforce whatever he thought was “legitimate”. Luckily, the Venezuelan people pushed back once again and the (genuinely) legitimate President Maduro remained in office. Thankfully, Russia stood by Venezuela, arming the country to the teeth and preventing what was then an almost imminent US attack. Caracas was given a break for the next several years, although the US never eased up the sanctions chokehold.
However, back in July, Venezuela held a presidential election, with Maduro winning once again. Expectedly, the US attempted to disrupt it, refusing to accept the results and insisting that Maduro is “illegitimate”. Back in August, I had the honor of interviewing Serbian MP Bojan Torbica who was invited as an election observer to Caracas. His fascinating firsthand insight into the election shows that Venezuela was indeed under tremendous pressure, but still stood its ground. Expectedly, Washington DC continued whining about “illegitimacy” and “lack of freedom and democracy”, but it was too busy with its aggression against the world elsewhere. However, as the lame-duck Biden administration is running out of time to start yet another war, it’s now looking for ways to re-engage in Venezuela. Thus, the US once again became the self-styled arbiter of its presidential election.
Namely, State Secretary Antony Blinken declared that Edmundo Gonzalez retroactively “won the presidential election”. On November 19, Blinken posted that
“the Venezuelan people spoke resoundingly on July 28 and made [Gonzalez] the president-elect”, insisting that “democracy demands respect for the will of the voters”.
Hopefully, you’ve managed to catch your breath after being unable to stop laughing for the last two minutes. Still, considering that the warmongering oligarchy in Washington DC is looking to start wars with nuclear-armed superpowers such as Russia and China (simultaneously, mind you), the fact that it’s rearing its ugly head at Venezuela once again is certainly no laughing matter. It should be noted that the US, EU/NATO and other vassals and satellite states immediately rejected the results of the Venezuelan presidential election.
Blinken himself stated this back in August, insisting that Gonzalez “won by an insurmountable margin”, basing his laughable claims on a report by the Atlanta-based Carter Center. As if this wasn’t comical enough, Blinken insisted that this supposed NGO was “independent”, which is beyond ludicrous given the fact that the Carter Center is actually funded by numerous US government agencies, including the State Department itself. However, even if this weren’t the case, the idea that NGOs, particularly ones based outside of targeted countries, could arbitrarily determine the legitimacy of elections is ridiculous, to put it mildly. The reason why the Deep State is after Venezuela once again might be connected to Trump’s upcoming second presidency, as the Republicans have always been extremely hostile to both Chavez and Maduro.
For instance, Marco Rubio, the most likely candidate for Trump’s State Secretary, openly supports overthrowing Maduro. Other prominent GOP members who are after Venezuela include Elliott Abrams, who was the US Special Envoy tasked with ensuring a coup in the country precisely during the nearly fateful 2019-2021 period.
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.
President Biden authorised Ukraine to use US long-range weapons against Russia: ATACMS missiles with a range of over 300 km. Immediately the first missiles of this type were launched against targets on Russian territory. Shortly afterwards, Great Britain authorised Ukraine to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russia, Italy also participates in its production with Leonardo Company. At this point, Russia hit a Ukrainian military aerospace facility with the new hypersonic Oreshnik missile with multiple non-nuclear warheads, also capable of being armed with nuclear warheads.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that such attacks on Russia are a sign the West wants escalation, recalling that President Putin had warned Western countries how Russia’s position would change if this category of weapons with a range of 300 km was approved.
On 19 November, President Putin signed a decree ratifying the revision of Russian nuclear doctrine. These, in essence, are the key provisions:
1. Nuclear deterrence is aimed at a potential adversary, and may include individual countries and military alliances (blocs, unions) that consider Russia as a potential enemy and possess nuclear and/or other weapons of mass destruction, or have substantial general-purpose force combat capabilities.
2. Russia will also engage in nuclear deterrence against those countries that offer their territory, sea areas, airspace and resources for aggression against it. Aggression by any non-nuclear state with the involvement or support of a nuclear state will be considered a joint attack on Russia.
3. Furthermore, a nuclear response is considered possible in the event of a critical threat to Russia’s sovereignty, including through conventional weapons, including an attack on Belarus or a massive attack by warplanes, cruise missiles, drones or other aircraft crossing the Russian border.
Italy falls into the category defined in point 2: although it is a non-nuclear country adhering to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that forbids it from receiving nuclear weapons from anyone, it hosts on its territory US nuclear weapons directed against Russia, for use. Under US command, the Italian Air Force is ready. Italy and other European countries in the same situation (Germany, Belgium, Holland) therefore fall under Russian nuclear deterrence, i.e. Russian nuclear missiles are aimed at nuclear bases in Italy.
While ignoring the growing danger of nuclear war, the Biden Administration, NATO, and the European Union are escalating the conflict against Russia, with the intention of precipitating the situation before the Trump Administration can open a negotiating channel with Russia. NATO is conducting a major direct war exercise against Russia in Finland that 28 countries, including Italy, are participating under US command. The European Union will conduct a similar military exercise in Germany. The five largest EU countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Great Britain – have decided to jointly issue Defence Bonds to support the European war industry. Ursula Von der Leyen stated that the EU needs to invest EUR 500 billion over the next decade to strengthen its military forces and continue arming Ukraine.
*
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.
This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
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 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
Research from UC Davis suggests lab-grown meat production is more resource-intensive than traditional beef, requiring substantial energy and water for growth mediums and bioreactor systems
The production of lab-grown meat faces challenges with endotoxin removal, which can add up to 25 times more environmental impact and requires energy-intensive purification methods
Lab-grown meat production requires extensive cell replication, raising concerns about cellular dysregulation and health risks, while lacking essential nutrients found in conventional meat
The court’s decision could encourage other states to pass similar laws restricting lab-grown foods, setting a precedent for regulation of these products across U.S. markets
*
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida upheld a state law banning the sale and distribution of lab-grown or “cultivated” meat.1 This law, enacted by the Florida Legislature, specifically prohibits companies from selling any meat or food product developed from cultured animal cells, like those grown in bioreactors.
The case centered on Upside Foods, a company at the forefront of cultivated meat technology, which argued that its lab-grown chicken should be treated like conventional poultry under federal law. However, under Florida’s new regulations, these products are barred from markets statewide.
For Upside Foods, this means any continued efforts to distribute their products in Florida could result in criminal penalties, civil fines and stop-sale orders. With this ruling, the court’s stance signals support for traditional meat production over cell-cultured alternatives in the Sunshine State.
Upside Foods’ Challenge to State Regulation
Upside Foods petitioned the court for an injunction to stop the ban’s enforcement, claiming that Florida’s restrictions contradicted federal law, namely the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). They argued that the PPIA gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exclusive authority over poultry inspection and labeling, which should extend to their cultivated chicken products.2
Upside Foods also cited its history of marketing and distributing lab-grown chicken in major markets like Miami, claiming that the Florida ban has hampered its business plans, including partnerships with chefs and local events.
However, during the court hearing, the judge found that Upside Foods failed to show its lab-grown chicken fell under USDA definitions of “poultry” or “poultry products” as intended in federal law, making it unlikely to succeed in its argument that federal law overrides state regulations.
Federal law defines poultry products as any carcass or product made from a bird, but the judge found this definition did not clearly encompass cultivated meats developed from cells instead of whole animals. Without a precise federal standard for cultivated meats, the judge ruled that Florida’s law could stand because it does not directly contradict any federal law regarding poultry.3
In his judgment, Chief Judge Mark E. Walker observed that since the USDA has yet to issue specific standards for cell-based meats, Florida has the authority to regulate these products as it deems appropriate. This ruling suggests that, for now, individual states have discretion in deciding how or whether cultivated meats can enter their markets.
Food Safety, Labeling and Ingredient Standards at Issue
Upside Foods also argued that Florida’s ban imposed inconsistent standards regarding ingredient labeling and food safety. Under the PPIA, only the USDA sets requirements for the labeling and composition of poultry products in the U.S. However, the judge did not find the ban imposed any new ingredient standards that would conflict with federal law, as it outright prohibits lab-grown meat rather than imposing complex labeling requirements.
The court noted that without specific federal guidelines for cultivated meat, there was no basis to conclude that Florida’s ban on the product’s sale created an inconsistent or “additional” ingredient requirement. Therefore, the judge upheld that Florida’s law does not impose conditions in conflict with the PPIA’s inspection and labeling requirements, allowing the state to exclude lab-grown products from shelves without breaching federal regulations.
This case highlights the ongoing debate over whether lab-grown meat will be regulated and accepted across U.S. markets, or if states will continue setting their own standards for such products. The court’s decision sets a precedent that could embolden other states to pass similar laws restricting lab-grown foods.
“We are not surprised by the judge’s rejection of Upside’s preliminary injunction,” Florida Sen. Jay Collins told Children’s Health Defense. “The dangers of cultivated meat far outweigh any misleading environmental claims. Floridians will not be lectured by billionaires like Bill Gates on how to feed their families.”4
High Environmental Costs of Cultured Meat Production
While lab-grown meat is often hailed as a sustainable alternative, research reveals its significant environmental footprint. A recent life cycle assessment (LCA) from the University of California, Davis, examined the “cradle-to-gate” environmental impacts of animal cell-based meat (ACBM).5
The findings suggest that cultivating lab-grown meat is more resource-intensive than traditional beef production. Specifically, cultured meat production requires substantial energy and water for creating growth mediums, refining cell-culture components and managing bioreactor systems.
The process also involves high greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel depletion. When growth medium purification is factored in — a necessity for safe production — the carbon emissions for cultivated meat rise dramatically, in some cases exceeding conventional beef’s emissions.6 The environmental burden of fake meat, therefore, may be higher than previously estimated, challenging the assumption that lab-grown meat is inherently eco-friendly.
Another major challenge in cultured meat production is the removal of endotoxins, toxic byproducts from bacterial contaminants. Endotoxins pose risks to cell health, and their presence in animal cell cultures requires purification methods that are both energy-intensive and costly.
The study highlighted that removing endotoxins from growth media could add up to 25 times more environmental impact than baseline levels.7 For example, purifying the medium for cultured meat production to meet food-grade standards consumes significant energy, exacerbating the production’s carbon footprint.
Current methods for endotoxin removal rely on advanced chemical processes, which drive up both resource use and emissions. This means the environmental toll from cultured meat production offsets its perceived sustainability benefits.
Dependence on Highly Refined Growth Mediums
Lab-grown meat relies on specific nutrients, proteins and vitamins to grow cells effectively in bioreactors. These refined components are typically sourced from animal byproducts like fetal bovine serum (FBS), which poses ethical and environmental issues. While alternatives to FBS are being explored, they still require a high degree of refinement to ensure cell safety.
Purifying these materials introduces significant environmental and financial costs, given the energy and resources needed to prevent contamination. The Davis study modeled scenarios involving refined mediums, finding that production of 1 kilogram of ACBM could demand over 1,000 liters of growth medium, depending on purity needs.8
This substantial input places further strain on the environment, countering claims that cultured meat is a low-impact alternative to livestock. Further, for lab-grown meat to become a staple, the industry must scale production, which would require extensive new infrastructure and energy investment.
The Davis study estimates that an industrial-scale lab-grown meat facility would demand nearly 10 million liters of bioreactor capacity.9 This massive infrastructure expansion would require high energy inputs and specialized facilities, which further add to its environmental costs.
Meeting production demands would also necessitate scaling the supply of growth medium components, intensifying the environmental load. Additionally, maintaining clean rooms and running bioreactors on a continuous cycle for mass production would multiply these energy requirements.
Lab-Grown Meat Poses Health Risks from Cellular Dysregulation
Lab-grown meat faces health risks linked to the process of cell culture. Culturing cells for meat requires extensive replication and division, raising the possibility of cellular dysregulation, a condition observed in cancer cells. Such uncontrolled cellular changes could alter the structure or nutritional properties of the meat, with unknown implications for human health.10
While production facilities may eliminate abnormal cell lines, the rapid, repeated cell divisions needed to create lab-grown meat introduce variability and the risk of unexpected biological behaviors. These concerns remain largely unexplored, as studies have yet to fully examine the health impact of long-term consumption of lab-grown meat.
Cultured meat’s nutritional profile may also lack the diversity and quality found in conventional meat. Lab-grown meat production allows some control over fat content but fails to naturally provide essential micronutrients like vitamin B12 and iron, both vital for human health.
Attempts to artificially enrich cultured meat with these nutrients risk compromising the natural matrix that enhances nutrient bioavailability in traditional meat. Moreover, studies suggest that the growth medium’s composition could inadvertently inhibit the absorption of certain micronutrients.11 In other words, lab-grown meat could end up offering a nutritionally inferior product, lacking in essential compounds typically provided through whole animal sources.
Additionally, ethical debates persist. While lab-grown meat may use fewer animals, it still relies on animal-derived cells, negating its “cruelty-free” narrative. For consumers who value real, whole foods, lab-grown meat’s engineered origins are far from natural.
Fake Meat Is an Ultraprocessed Food Product
Fake meats are not primarily about health or environmental benefits; instead, they’re a means to phase out traditional farming and replace it with ultraprocessed, patent-controlled food products. If government and corporate entities gain control over food production through lab-grown options, they ultimately gain more control over the people.
Further, lab-grown meat products are examples of highly processed foods that come with a range of significant health risks. These ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are a disaster for your health, even if they’re “animal-free” or “plant-based.”
A study using data from the UK Biobank analyzed the cardiovascular impacts of UPFs within plant-based diets, showing that a 10% increase in plant-based UPFs raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by 5% and increased CVD mortality risk by 12%.12
Conversely, every 10% increase in consumption of minimally processed, plant-based foods was associated with a 7% reduction in CVD risk and a 13% reduction in CVD mortality. These findings suggest that the degree of food processing — rather than simply whether a food is plant-based — plays a key role in health outcomes.
Despite the growing popularity of plant-based meat alternatives, the evidence warns that their ultraprocessed nature undermines any perceived health benefits. These findings bring attention to the risks associated with other highly processed alternatives, such as lab-grown meat, which involves extensive processing methods similar to UPFs.
A Step Toward Consumer Protection Against Experimental, Ultraprocessed Foods
Florida’s ruling sets an important precedent in safeguarding consumers from the risks associated with lab-grown meats. From unknown health impacts to high environmental costs, these ultraprocessed products carry serious concerns that traditional food systems do not.
This decision stands as a critical move toward ensuring food safety, transparency and public health. By maintaining standards that favor traditional food sources, this ruling moves us closer to safeguarding the food supply against lab-grown products that remain more hype than health.
*
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.
We are inches away from a global thermonuclear war. And no, this isn’t a meaningless, overused catchphrase. Quite the contrary, it’s as serious as it gets. We have reached a historical boiling point. At no other time in human history have we been closer to the scenario of annihilation, not even during the so-called “Cuban” Missile Crisis.
How will President-elect Trump make sure on his promises to be a Peace President, resolving the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East within days of taking office? His Cabinet selections may not be all Jewish, but most of them are strong supporters of the Zionists and by association, Genocide-Netanyahu.
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russia fired back for the first time ever an intercontinental ballistic missile on Ukraine’s central-eastern city of Dnipro Thursday morning – this was the first use ever of an ICBM in war. ICBMs are the vehicles of nuclear-capable weapons.
The situation in the world is more threatening than ever before. Putin has had to make it clear that a continuation of missile attacks on Russia will result in retribution. The new missile Putin has revealed can destroy all US and NATO military forces in the West and Middle East without the use of nuclear warheads.
Today’s youth face an epidemic of obesity and nutrient deficiencies, including critical vitamins and minerals such as C, D, E, zinc, and magnesium. Obesity alone contributes to 335,000 deaths annually, accounts for over $260 billion in healthcare costs, and is linked to millions of disability-adjusted life-years lost.
A team of leading emergency pediatric medicine researchers is sounding the alarm over surging cases of heart damage in children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.” During a major study, the eminent Irish researchers analyzed the cases of dozens of children who had been hospitalized with heart-related problems.
Although this letter addresses particularly issues related to the Swiss Federal Department in charge of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication, currently held by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, the letter is, indeed, directed at the Collective Federal Council, responsible for decisions in unanimity.
The letter concerns three major topics:
(i) 5G radiation (5th Generation of wireless cellular technology), especially DAB-plus (Digital Audio Broadcasting);
ii) Ultrabright Car LED-Lights (LED – Light Emitting Diode); and
iii) Chemtrails – weather modification and poisoning air, soil and water with dangerous chemicals and heavy metals.
*
5G Radiation is already everywhere, despite the moratorium once asked for by the Cantons of Geneva and Vaud. 5G-antennas are lining the Swiss highways by the thousands, emitting their unhealthy and potentially dangerous electromagnetic waves (EMW) into all households, via cellphones, internet, computers; and now SRG (German acronym for Swiss Radio and Television Corporation), plans to further inundate our homes with 5G EMW via DAB-plus.
5G is 100 times faster than 4G, and 6G is 10,000 times faster than 5G. That means in concrete terms, 100, resp. 10,000 more powerful EMWs are shot into our bodies and homes than was the case with the 4G technology. By the time 6G will be imposed in Europe, our brains may be so damaged, that hardly anybody notices the difference.
While science is divided about the potential harm caused by 5G – and maybe soon to come 6G – it is certain that these waves are aggressing the human body, brain and especially the human Pineal Gland – the gland giving us the sense of perception, with the capacity of awakening spiritual insights and enhancing connection to higher consciousness.
The emerging World Order does not want humans with functional Pineal Glands.
In addition, through 5G, the human brain can be robotize or transhumanized, as Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum (WEF) calls it.
Does the Swiss Government want this for the inhabitants of Switzerland whose best interest they have been elected or appointed to defend?
*
Ultra-Bright LED-Carlights are more visibly damaging, they are extremely blinding and gradually damaging people’s eyesight, but going also much deeper in causing harm, they are also attacking the highly sensitive Pineal Gland.
In addition, LED-lights may interfere with circadian rhythms (the body’s internal clock) and sleep patterns. Also, prominent psychiatrists warn of the potential effects of LED lighting on mental illness. See this from BBC.
The road risks of these lights are so obvious, it is a surprise that the Federal Council allows these dangers and risks to prevail. For more than half a decade all new cars are equipped with these LED-lights; there seems to be no way around them.
Did instructions come from Brussels?
For good reasons, there are no statistics on accidents caused by these ultra-bright, at times even blueish LED-lights. These headlights are clearly not for the good of the people and should be banned immediately.
*
Chemtrails – There is no need to explain what they are.
You, Dear Federal Councilors, know it very well. Not even the Federal Council can ignore the ever-present crisscrossing of white stripes in the skies.
However, as a reminder, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Federal Council, as well as the readers of this letter, their prime purpose is modifying the weather, and geoengineering the climate, along with the US HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program).
This science has been developed in the early 1940s, and has since been perfected to the ability of causing extreme weather conditions, hurricanes, floods, droughts, even earthquakes, that destroy entire cities, agriculture, food – and finally humanity, so it can be blamed on “climate change”.
Climate Change itself is designed to destroy western economies, with the invalid argument that CO2 is bad for the environment, thus gradually banning the use of hydrocarbon energy and supposedly replacing it with renewable energy.
You may remember that during the first UN-sponsored Global Environment Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when total worldwide energy was generated to the tune of 87% from oil and gas, the emerging anti-CO2 narrative propagated departing from hydrocarbons. Today, more than 30 years later, the proportion of hydrocarbon energy use has hardly changed. It is still around 85%. Worldwide alternative energies amount to less than 5%.
Besides, those pushing for abandoning CO2 may be reminded that without CO2 there would be no life. CO2 is vital food for trees and plants which transform it by a process called photosynthesis into oxygen, required by virtually every living being. Any excess amount of CO2 is automatically absorbed by the earth’s oceans, and given off again in a perfectly harmonious balancing act when needed.
Also to refresh your memories, dear Federal Councilors, chemtrails contain thousands of highly poisonous nanoparticles of chemical and heavy metals, such as aluminum, cadmium, mercury, zinc, and many more. They are poisoning our air, soil, and water, and eventually animals, vegetables, our food, and finally our brain and bodies.
In the name of my co-citizens, I ask you, Federal Councilors, to ban, effective immediately, chemtrails, the blinding LED-car lights, and to instruct SRG to continue broadcasting their programs by ultra shortwaves (UKW), instead of, or in addition to, DAB-plus, for those who want to protect their health from an ever-more intense flood of 5G electromagnetic waves in their homes and bodies.
Thank you.
Peter Koenig
*
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.
Peter Koenigis 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.
The situation in the world is more threatening than ever before. Putin has had to make it clear that a continuation of missile attacks on Russia will result in retribution. The new missile Putin has revealed can destroy all US and NATO military forces in the West and Middle East without the use of nuclear warheads. If the US then goes nuclear, Russian nuclear forces will destroy the entirety of the West. Indeed, Steve Starr shows that the entire world will be the victim of American psychopaths.
In the face of such a warning, only totally irresponsible psychopaths would persist.The sway of psychopaths over the US and Europe means we have to be concerned that Washington will “test the waters” by expending the permissible area and distance for the ATACMs to be fired into Russia.I have been convinced that it would come to this crisis from day one of Putin’s limited military operation.Russia needed to immediately knock Ukraine out before the West could get involved. Now the West’s prestige is on the line. Putin tolerated provocations in order to avoid widening the conflict, but his patience with the West backfired as it resulted in the belief that Putin’s warnings are meaningless as “he never does anything.”
Putin has backed up as far as he can. His back is against the wall. Putin cannot accept missiles being fired into Russia by the US and NATO. At this point only psychopaths would “test the waters” which means playing with nuclear armageddon.But psychopaths are in charge.The Ukraine conflict was prepared and unleashed by US neoconservatives in the belief that it would destabilize Russia and perhaps lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation. Putin should not have let it go as far as he did before he acted. Putin was too slow to realize that Washington intends Russia’s destruction.
That a few Zionist neoconservatives can push the world to the brink in their pursuit of US hegemony indicates the failure of Western governance.The situation in the Middle East is equally dangerous.It is being driven by clearing out obstacles to Greater Israel and Washington’s desire to control oil flows and waterways.
A bad outcome seems inevitable, because the Western world is lost in the lies of its official narrative. There is no reality recognition.If you read Johnson’s Russian List, a daily collection of foreign affairs and military articles by “experts,” what you mainly see is stupidity and self-delusion.Most of the authors are supported in one way or the other by military/security grants, so there is no questioning. To tell the truth in the Western world today you must be independent.Without readers’ support of truth-telling websites, there will be no truth.
Propaganda has implanted the mistaken belief that Russia, China, and Iran are enemies that must be opposed and defeated.Yet Russia, China, and Iran have taken no hostile actions against the West.All three have accepted illegally imposed sanctions and other hostile actions without responding in kind.The Pentagon and the US military/security complex see in their image of the enemies that propaganda has created for the West a danger that must be countered by a nuclear buildup. One trillion dollars are to be spent “modernizing” nuclear weaponswhose only possible use is world destruction. No thought and no attention is given to defusing the situation.Remember, in 2016 the CIA, FBI, and Deep State turned violently on President Trump when he said he intended to defuse the situation by normalizing relations with Russia.The Establishment’s response was “Russiagate,” impeachments, indictments. Without enemies, the profits and power of the military/security complex diminish.
Now the Establishment is trying to saddle President Trump with a war with Russia as he enters office. This is the work of psychopaths.
When Americans accepted the stolen 2020 election, they accepted the reign of psychopaths who define peace as Washington’s hegemony. Any government in the way of Washington’s hegemony is defined as an enemy. They are enemies not because they threaten the US.They are enemies because they insist on their independence from Washington’s hegemony.
Americans have been deceived that Russia, China, and Iran are enemies out to get them.Belief in this lie makes the Western world blind to the fact that its leaders are evil psychopaths leading the world to Armageddon.
Tucker Carlson sees what it happening.He declares it “the most evil thing I’ve seen in my lifetime.”
*
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.
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.
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 team of leading emergency pediatric medicine researchers is sounding the alarm over surging cases of heart damage in children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
During a major study, the eminent Irish researchers analyzed the cases of dozens of children who had been hospitalized with heart-related problems.
Alarmingly, every single one of the children had been given at least one dose of a Covid mRNA vaccine before they were admitted to hospital.
The researchers were unable to find any such reports of heart damage among unvaccinated children.
The study was conducted over an 11-month period at the Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine at Tallaght Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.
The findings were published in the Official Journal of the Irish Medical Organization (IMJ)
The researchers launched their study to investigate surging reports of adolescents and young children with chest pain and diagnoses of pericarditis and myocarditis.
Pericarditis and myocarditis are forms of inflammation in and around the heart muscle, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Both disorders restrict the heart’s ability to pump blood around the body, leading to blood clots, strokes, cardiac arrest, and potentially sudden death.
The spike in cases of pericarditis and myocarditis in children started when vaccinations began for pediatric patients in Ireland.
During the study, the researchers analyzed 30 child patients, all aged between 13 and 15 years old, who had been hospitalized with pericarditis or myocarditis.
In Ireland, the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA injection was the recommended “vaccine.”
Of the group, 23 patients were male.
The study excluded patients under the age of 12 and older than the age of 15.
All of the 30 children analyzed for the study were found to have received a Covid “vaccine.”
17 were diagnosed with pericarditis or myocarditis after the second dose of the vaccine and 13 patients suffered heart damage after just one shot.
Twenty-three boys and seven girls in that age range, all Covid-vaccinated, were hospitalized with heart damage.
Their reported symptoms include shortness of breath, chest pain, heart palpitations, and dizziness.
The study comes as experts around the world continue to raise the alarm over spikes in heart damage among the Covid-vaxxed.
In October of 2022, an Israeli doctor, Dror Mevorach, informed Pfizer the company’s Covid mRNA shot was causing myocarditis in young men.
After discovering the first case, the doctor described a “gut feeling” he had that the heart ailment was a side effect of the Pfizer shot.
The Israeli Ministry of Health told Mevorach to assemble a group of doctors and study the effects of the vaccine.
Israel keeps a nationwide surveillance system administered by the ministry.
This allowed Mevorach and his group to monitor patients who had taken the Pfizer “vaccine.”
The group found skyrocketing cases of myocarditis in young men after getting the shot.
In their study, over four hundred thousand people were vaccinated and approximately half were male.
The study found that the risk of myocarditis in “adolescent” males after the second shot was over ten times higher than in “adolescent” females.
When Mevorach informed Pfizer of the study’s findings, the company ignored him for four months until the doctor published his findings in the New England Journal of Medicine.
As Slay News recently reported, another major study, this time involving 1.7 million children, found that heart damage only appeared in children who had received Covid mRNA vaccines.
Not a single unvaccinated child in the group suffered from heart-related problems.
In addition, the researchers note zero children from the entire group, vaccinated or unvaccinated, died from COVID-19.
Furthermore, the study found that Covid shots offered the children very little protection from the virus, with many becoming infected after just 14 to 15 weeks of receiving an injection.
The 1.7 million children observed in the study were between the ages of 5 to 15 and were registered with the UK’s National Healthcare System (NHS).
The study was conducted by a team of leading UK medical doctors, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and public health experts led by Oxford University’s Professor Colm D Andrews.
There is so much evidence to pull the shots off the market for children 18 and under, but no politician with the guts to actually do it.
Maybe Slovakia will be the first country in the world to ban COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. I know my fellow countrymen, we don’t quit and we don’t bend the knee. Just look at me and Alberta Health Services.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Returning home from church today (I am NOT a “Christian Zionist”), it seems increasingly obvious that human beings in thrall to the conditioning of 21st century socio-economic ideologies have failed to solve the problems of human existence on this planet.
I speak particularly of the ideology of militaristic capitalism that governs the US, the UK, and their vassals. The people behind this ideology, especially the Jewish Neocons, are on the verge of destroying most of human life so they can sit atop whatever smoldering ruins are left after they have their little triumphs. The US government and its military establishment, including NATO, are their instruments, and I see little indication that the incoming Trump administration will change much.
Divine help is needed. But “God helps those who help themselves.” It would be childish to believe that there is some “Deus ex Machina,” as it was called in Greek drama, that will sweep in from off-stage to set thing everything aright. But there arespiritual helpers.
One of the most notable in the Christian tradition is St. Michael the Archangel. With such help, human beings with faith can find the strength and insight within themselves to change the course of history. That is what we need today. The Islamic martyrs in Gaza, Lebanon, and Palestine know all this, which is why they are winning the war against the genocidal Israeli and US militaries. We can learn from their courage and confidence.
Above all, we can have faith in Jesus, considered by the Muslims as a great prophet, and who is celebrated in the Christian churches on this Sunday as Christ the King.
Here is today’s Gospel reading from John 18:
Pilate said to Jesus: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.” So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Of course, everyone who listens to Jesus’s voice still must act in the world. But the basis for action must always be to testify to the truth. People who sell out for money or status or power or animal pleasure have missed this simple prescription for a meaningful life both in this world and the next. For there is a next world where we answer for our deeds.
Thus we still need help here and now, today. We need help to see the truth and to find the strength within to stand up for it. That is why I am so deeply against the US wars today in Ukraine, the Middle East, and everywhere in the world we try to have our way by threats of violence.
Here is a prayer that gives strength:
Saint Michael the Archangel, Powerful Spirit of Truth. Take my hand and lead me to Divine Truth. Protect me from all the evil in the world. Guard me and compensate for all my weaknesses. Change, bless, and restore the consequences of all my mistakes. Carry me on the wings of your love and might to the Throne of God and pray to Him with me forever. Amen.
Happy Thanksgiving to all from the Three Sages.
*
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.
Richard C. Cook is co-founder and lead investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute. Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Space Shuttle, documenting his story in the book “Challenger Revealed.” After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” He served as an adviser to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. See his new book, Our Country, Then and Now, Clarity Press, 2023. Also see his Three Sages Substack and his American Geopolitical Institute articles at https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/category/agi/.
“Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014. Also download the Kober Press edition of The Book on the Living God here.
The recent authorization by U.S. President Joe Biden permitting Ukraine to conduct long-range missile strikes against Russian territory represents a pivotal juncture in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict. This decision has ignited intense criticism, with detractors labeling it a perilous gamble and potentially catastrophic for Ukraine’s long-term stability. The move also underscores a labyrinth of geopolitical calculations, raising the stakes for NATO’s involvement and exposing the fragility of U.S. domestic political dynamics.
Is There a Strategic Underpinning to Biden’s Actions?
One interpretation of President Biden’s directive is that it aims to deepen NATO’s entanglement in the conflict. By endorsing Ukraine’s use of advanced weaponry on Russian soil, the United States could be strategically steering the situation toward a broader confrontation—one that might compel direct NATO intervention. Such escalation might simultaneously deflect attention from pressing domestic challenges in the United States, particularly as the country edges closer to the anticipated presidential inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025.
Speculation abounds that this decision could be calibrated to undermine Trump’s return to office. The former president’s preference for diplomatic solutions and his outspoken criticism of U.S. involvement in Ukraine stand in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s hawkish approach. An intensification of the conflict, especially one involving NATO, could generate a climate of chaos—introducing logistical and legal obstacles that could complicate Trump’s reentry into the White House.
Russia’s Response: A Display of Strategic Might
In retaliation, Russia has launched its formidable Oreshnik missiles, targeting critical Ukrainian infrastructure and military installations. These precision-guided weapons, lauded for their destructive capability, vividly illustrate Russia’s capacity for overwhelming military force. The psychological and material impact of these strikes reverberates far beyond Ukraine, sending unsettling signals to NATO and European Union member states that have steadfastly supported Kyiv.
This response aligns with the principles of the Karaganov Doctrine, which advocates the application of disproportionate force to disorient adversaries and sow divisions among them. By showcasing its military supremacy, Russia aims to erode NATO’s cohesion, exploit fractures within the alliance, and reaffirm its dominance on the global stage. The Oreshnik strikes serve as a strategic maneuver designed to shake Western resolve and force a recalibration of their commitments to Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Gamble: A Double-Edged Sword
For Ukraine, the decision to execute long-range strikes on Russian targets represents a high-stakes strategy. While it highlights the growing sophistication of Ukraine’s military capabilities—largely enabled by Western aid—it simultaneously exposes the nation to heightened risks of retaliatory aggression. Ukraine’s infrastructure, already battered by the protracted conflict, risks further degradation, with its civilian population enduring immense hardship.
This aggressive approach may also strain relationships with European allies, some of whom are growing increasingly reluctant to sustain prolonged involvement in the conflict. Mounting economic burdens and domestic political pressures are testing the resolve of European governments, and any perceived misstep by Ukraine could jeopardize the fragile coalition of support that currently sustains its war effort.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The escalation in Ukraine holds far-reaching consequences for global stability. NATO’s response to Russia’s show of force will be closely scrutinized, particularly as the alliance contends with internal divisions and wavering public support for continued military aid. The European Union, already grappling with economic challenges and political discord, risks further destabilization if the conflict spills into neighboring regions.
For the United States, the implications of its interventionist approach are profound. While the Biden administration may perceive its support for Ukraine as both a moral and strategic imperative, it risks entangling the nation in an extended and potentially unmanageable conflict. Domestically, the political ramifications could be substantial, especially if the war intensifies or if Trump’s agenda successfully capitalizes on public dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy.
Conclusion: A Step Toward a Precarious Future
The authorization of long-range missile strikes by Ukraine, endorsed by President Biden, has initiated a cascade of events fraught with uncertainty and danger. While the immediate objectives may include intensifying pressure on Russia and reinforcing Western unity, the long-term consequences for Ukraine, NATO, and global stability remain deeply concerning. Furthermore, the decision highlights the interplay of international strategy and domestic political considerations in an increasingly polarized United States.
As the conflict evolves, the international community is confronted with the stark reality that miscalculation or strategic overreach could precipitate a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. Whether the result of deliberate intent or inadvertent error, this decision has inched the world closer to a precipice, with repercussions likely to extend far beyond the borders of Ukraine.
*
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.
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.
Featured image: An ATACMS missile being launched from an M270 MLRS (Licensed under the Public Domain)
For over 70 years, the USDA has shaped the dietary framework for Americans, crafting food guidelines to maintain the nation’s health. Alongside the FDA, it bears the responsibility of regulating food safety and ensuring that our diets comprise balanced proteins, fats, and carbohydrates from trustworthy sources. Yet, as we reflect on the health landscape of previous generations, a stark contrast emerges between then and now, underscoring a disturbing trajectory in public health and dietary norms.
Baby boomers and Gen X, who came of age from the 1940s through the 1960s, recall a time when childhood illnesses like measles, mumps, and chickenpox were common but typically resolved without significant complications, leaving children with lifelong immunity. Schools emphasized USDA nutritional guidelines through home economics classes, and children led active lives, fostering physical fitness. Victory gardens in backyards exemplified a cultural norm of cultivating fresh produce, and the concept of body pollution—the cumulative impact of environmental toxins on health—was largely unheard of. Obesity, autism, asthma, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, and chronic inflammatory illnesses were rare or virtually non-existent.
In stark contrast, today’s youth face an epidemic of obesity and nutrient deficiencies, including critical vitamins and minerals such as C, D, E, zinc, and magnesium. Obesity alone contributes to 335,000 deaths annually, accounts for over $260 billion in healthcare costs, and is linked to millions of disability-adjusted life-years lost. Predictions published inThe Lancetforecast a grim future: by 2050, 80% of adults and nearly 40% of youth aged 15–24 will be overweight or obese. Teenagers, increasingly unfit, struggle to participate in sports or qualify for military service. Shockingly, many of today’s children may not outlive their parents.
Equally troubling is the surge in mental health crises among the young. Teen suicide rates continue to rise, with 20% of teenagers contemplating self-harm—a phenomenon rarely, if ever, remembered by earlier generations. The proliferation of serotonin-inhibiting drugs has done little to stem the tide, pointing to deeper systemic issues.
.
The Jamie L. Whitten Building in Washington D.C. is the current USDA headquarters. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
.
A primary culprit is the denaturalization and industrial over-processing of food. Today’s diets are rife with harmful additives, excessive salt, unhealthy sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup, and a host of contaminants, including forever chemicals. microplastics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Regulatory agencies such as the USDA and FDA have repeatedly supported and protected these questionable practices, often with the backing of advisory panels riddled with conflicts of interest. Private industries, wielding immense wealth and power, dictate what Americans consume, perpetuating diets devoid of fresh, nutritious ingredients.
This crisis highlights a troubling pattern of leadership at federal health agencies, often staffed by medical professionals from prestigious institutions who have failed to enact meaningful reforms. Despite their credentials, these leaders have been unable—or unwilling—to challenge the corporate capture that dominates our food supply and undermines public health.
Enter Robert Kennedy Jr., whose unique qualifications and decades-long career as a legal scholar and activist position him as an unparalleled candidate to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Unlike his predecessors, Kennedy brings a history of identifying and combating institutional corruption, the very force at the heart of America’s health crisis. While he may lack traditional medical or academic titles, he possesses a deep understanding of the systemic issues plaguing federal health agencies and the vision to champion transformative change. His leadership could address not only the regulatory failings but also promote healthier lifestyles and stricter oversight of the nation’s food and agricultural policies.
In light of this potential, examining the dangers posed by the animal-based foods that dominate the American diet is a critical step toward understanding the broader health implications. These staples, laden with toxins and chemical residues, have far-reaching consequences for public health, as we will explore in the following discussion.
TheDangersLurkinginAnimal-BasedFoods
MeatAdditives
Forlackofabetterword,themeatsoldinthiscountry’sgrocerystoresandrestaurantsisfromanimalsso“shotup”withhormones,antibiotics,tranquilizers,preservatives, additives, and pesticides that it is almostmore pharmaceutical than nutritional. Theseaddedtoxinshavebeenlinkedtonegativelong-termeffectson health.Here’s just one example: the highly toxic organophosphates and brain damage. Human electroencephalogramsshowedthatasingleexposurecouldaltertheelectricalactivity of an infant’s brain for years and possibly cause abnormal behavior and learningpatterns.Thestudy,conductedbyHarvardMedical Schoolconcluded
“thereisadangerouspossibilitythatorganophosphatepesticideshavethepotentialfor causing long term brain damage.”
As a side note, organophosphates also decrease sex drive, impair concentration,andcausememoryloss,schizophrenia,depression,irritability and more; plus, the US Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to limit their availability to the public.[1]
Onegroup—themostegregiousinsomeways—iscoloreddyesusedtobeautify meat. Perhaps their use is the industry’s implicit acknowledgment that they would lose flocks of consumers if they tried to sell their meat in its untouched-up state, as slimy, brownish green, rotting flesh. Like morticians, meat packers artificially treat thisorganicmaterialtogiveitthecolorsoflife.Redandvioletdyesareaddedtobeef and pork, while yellow dyes are put into chicken feed to enhance the color of the chickens’ flesh.
The majority of synthetic colorings used by the food industry are coal-tar derivatives.Somedyes, even when labeled “USCertified,”meaningtheymeetminimumgovernmentstandards,havenotbeen sufficiently tested for safety, and some of these have been correlated withincreasedincidenceofcancerand reproductivedamageleadingtobirthdefects, stillbirths, and infertility in animals. Red 40 (Allura Red AC) used in processed meats such as hot dogs and sausages, has been linked to childhood hyperactivity, hives and has shown to be potentially carcinogenic in animals. Carmine, a natural dye derived from crushed bugs and also used in processed meats, is associated with a wide range of reactions including erythema, angioedema, bronchospasms, allergic bronchiolitis, etc.
Amuchmorenecessarygroupofchemicalsfromthemeatindustry’sstandpointispreservativessuchas twopetroleumderivatives:butylatedhydroxytoluene(BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BRA). They prevent the fat in meat from becoming rancid. They are found everywhere –from lard, chicken fat, butter, cream, bacon, sausage, cold cuts, milk, vegetable oils, potato chips, peanut butter, shortening, raisins, breakfast cereals, and chewing gum. Though the industry depends on them to prolong their products’ shelf life, they are hardly safe, with their toxicity being associated with skin blisters, fatigue, eye hemorrhaging, and respiratory problems.
EDTA,usedtopreventtheoxidationoffatsandoils,inlargeenough amounts can kill cells
Monosodium glutamate (MSG): a flavor enhancer that can cause the popularlytitled“Chineserestaurant syndrome”contributes to headaches, tightness in the chest, impaired concentration, and fatigue; there is also evidence that MSG, in any form,exacerbatescancer,[2] andwhenmanufacturedusingacid hydrolysis contains cancer-causing substances.[3]
Antibiotics
Overuse of antibiotics is prevalent throughout medical care and the meat and fish industries. While most of us think of antibiotics as “good” in that they can save lives from threatening harmful bacteria, we erroneously don’t think of them as dangerous to our bodies when, in fact, they are if used in excess.
Those who pay attention to the news will know that the overuse of antibiotics in both animals (cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.) and people has generated new, more resolute strains of bacteria that put up severe resistance to drugs meant to cope with them. Organisms’ ability to adapt to environmental conditions is a continuous and ongoing activity, which is why much of science is regularly organizing itself around a new “bug” or “pest” (think pesticides) to fight. This is how drug-resistant bacteria and “superbugs” come into existence in our foods.
Because antibiotics are prevalent in animal-raising, if you consume these products three times a day, as the typical American does, there is an accumulation of these toxins in your bloodstream and tissues over time. A person eating such a contaminated animal may also be consuming the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that developed in the animal, increasing a person’s risk for illness.
In one study, grocery store products in Minnesota were tested and showed resistant bacteria in meat samples, especially turkey. Consumers would be alarmed to learn that their “food” is infected with Listeria, E coli, and Salmonella, three of the most serious contaminants in inexpensive meat products over the past two decades. Not only do these bacteria withstand the antibiotics meant to suppress them, but also they often escape lax quality control processes at large factory farms. Thus, the presence of Salmonella,norovirus,botulism,andE.coli have been reported in meat products across the country in such trusted brands as Safeway, McDonalds, Walmart, and Arby’s. As a side note, sadly, children and the elderly—many of whom have struggles with nutritional deficiencies, unhealthy living environments, and heavy dosages of medications, including vaccines—are especially susceptible to these bacteria-infected meats.
Typically, when people take an antibiotic, they are bombarding themselves directly while adding to the antibiotics that have already accumulated in the body’s tissues. At the same time, the physical body’s ability to fight-off other pathogens is weakened, which then requires more powerful antibiotics. In time, through ongoing assault, the body’s system fails—it could be a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, or bacterial infection or virus that cannot be contained.
The CDC estimates that 48 million people fall ill, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases annually.[4] A report in the New England Journal of Medicine linked 18 cases of food poisoning, which claimed one life and hospitalized 11 people, to hamburger meat riddled with a drug-resistant form of Salmonella. The contaminated beef was traced to a cattle farm in South Dakota where the livestock were consuming grain that had been over treated with the antibiotic tetracycline.
The price of utilizing these antibiotics in animals to the extent that they are today in the US is extremely high. Eighty percent of all antibiotics used in the US are for farm animals.[5] Swine accounts for the highest percentage (43%) followed by cattle (41%).
Is there a problem with the vast tonnage of antibiotics used in food animals? Certainly. Perhaps this is why the FDA has been sued over its refusal to release data on antibiotic use in animals. The alarms have been sounded because the saturation of our food supply and human population with antibiotics is the primary cause for the staggering explosion in cases of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection. Approximately 1.2 million hospitalized Americans are infected by MRSA per year,[6] and colonized MRSA infections have a 36 percent mortality rate.[7]
As the numbers suggest, the hard-nosed business people that run these factory farms do not administer antibiotics to their livestock lightly, or in a careful and controlled manner. They have become beholden to these drugs for the survival of their businesses. The antibiotics are given as a regular course to stave off the disease that would otherwise be rampant in the close, unsanitary, injurious conditions in which meat and dairy animals are forced to live. If they did not dose these animals with a bumper load of pharmaceuticals, these owners would have far fewer “healthy” animals for slaughter. In the case of young cattle, however, there is a second reason for the dosing. Some animals are deprived of iron and rendered anemic in order to yield the white, pale meat preferred by those who prepare and eat veal. Being sickly, the calves are prey to all sorts of infection, which the antibiotics help to stave off.
Consequently, Americans are consuming antibiotics through their food multiple times daily, which is much higher than that found in Europe where control on drug use in animals is tighter. In addition to being using prophylactically, antibiotic drugs are also supplied when an animal comes down with a specific disease, such as, leprospirosis, parvovirus, erysipelas, E.coli infection, atropic rhinitis, gastroenteritis, C. perfringens, and pseudorabies.
One of the more notorious of the new resistant agents is Enterococci. In one study, a high percentage of Enterococci bacteria found in food products, including meat, dairy and poultry, were resistant to such common antibacterials as tetracycline (over 30% of the strains were resistant), erythromycin (over 20% resistant), and streptomycin (over 10% resistant). Even more shocking, a small 0.7%, were resistant to ciproflaxin, one of the strongest antibiotics on the market.
Things are getting so bad with the growth of antibiotic-resistant pathogens that the World Health Organization has issued a warning directive claiming that infectious diseases will soon outstrip our ability to contain them with any existing medicines. Antibiotic resistance is one big contributor to this trend, and feeding antibiotics to farm animals, which then gets into meat-eaters’ diets, plays no small part in this tendency toward developing super-resistant pathogens.
Let’s quickly note some other grim results of the overuse of drugs—antibiotic and otherwise—in animals. For one, many additives given to animals are not tested for their safety to people, since it is erroneously assumed that if the administration of antibiotics is discontinued well before the animal is slaughtered, then traces of it will not remain in the meat. Take the hormone Carbadox, used to enlarge market-bound pigs, and removed from their diet a month or so before the animals are killed; or the drug Paylean, which is given to pigs to shift their biochemistry from fat production to meat production. Neither has been evaluated for its effect on humans, which is beneficial, of course, for enterprising drug companies and the governmental regulatory bodies they control.
Most shocking of all considerations, if these antibiotics and other drugs don’t reach meat eaters through land-animal flesh, they may unknowingly be getting them from the sea. Industrial runoff and dumping enable drugs to drain into the oceans, and, due to this, catches of sea life are more toxic than ever before. So fish and other seafood may be contributing to the current antibiotic resistance we are experiencing since they can be contacting traces of antibiotics in the water that they breathe.
Unfortunately, the meat and dairy industries are not required to inform consumers which products have been treated with antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, and which have not.[8] For that matter, they don’t even have to inform us if the meat comes from factory manufactured cloning.
The first question one might ask about all this is: why is it that the government agencies that are charged with protecting our health don’t do something about this?
Believe it or not, they actually have tried. In 1977, the FDA tried to ban antibiotics in the animal industry, but their efforts were shot down by the successful lobbying of the powerful livestock and drug companies, such as the then largest manufacturer of livestock antibiotics, American Cyanamid.[9] It’s a sorry story of the government lying down to wealthy, free-spending companies, who used the same argument then as they do now, which is—as the pro-industry American Farm Bureau Federation puts it—curtailing the widespread use of antibiotics will cause a jump in the cost of meat. And we know they are not figuring in the gigantic tally of health bills run up by those suffering unnecessarily from additionalillnesses attributable to the widespread use of these chemicals. Of course they are not, because it is not in their interest to do so.
One more recent antibiotic candidate is bambermycin widely used in chicken feed. The National Broiler Council says this item poses no health risk. By the way, this is the typical response you get from industry advocates who know little about human health and how the body works. However, when they are introduced, no one knows with certainty the short or long-term health risks of these drugs. A biochemist at the National Resources Defense Council believes “all antibiotics [even the newer ones] can cause resistance to occur eventually.”[10] And one of the newer ones, chloramphenicol, even in low doses has already been shown to induce aplastic anemia in humans, a deadly disease that prevents the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow.[11]
We can now better understand why the meat industry can boast: Younolongerneedtogo tothedoctorwhenyouhaveaninfection.Justtakeabiteofoneofourproductsandyou’ll get a full spectrum of antibiotics.
Hormones
No discussion of meat safety would be complete without mentioning that at one time the FDA allowed the synthetic hormone DES (diethystilbestrol) to be used in the meat industry. DES rapidly increased the size and weight of cattle. On average, a calf weighs about 80 pounds and needs to grow to anywhere from 700-1,200 pounds for sale in just 14-16 months. In contrast, according to Homestead Organics, it takes 2-4 years for natural grass-fed cattle to go to market.[12] It may be remembered that the FDA also approved DES to be prescribed to women to reduce the risk of miscarriage and premature births. There was a 40-fold increase in rare vaginal tumors in women and girls that were exposed to this drug in utero. There was also a significant rise in breast cancer. The FDA banned the use of DES in women in 1971 and later in cattle feed in 1972 for the same reasons. However, the FDA permits the use of synthetic steroid hormones in cattle like estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone to name a few. We now know after many human trials that these very same hormones, which are prescribed to millions of women for treating menopausal symptoms, have been shown to increase the risk of certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, and dementia.
Hormones are one of the main additives used in the US for regulating breeding, and to tranquilize and promote weight gain. The downside for us, if not for the meat sellers, is that synthetic hormones can cause cancer in the recipient animals. This is not a downside for the business side of animal agriculture since it usually doesn’t affect the marketability of the meat.
One of the estrogen hormones commonly fed to livestock may increase women’s chances of contracting uterine and breast cancer, and may cause children to enter puberty prematurely. Add Raigro to this list, an estrogen-like compound; Lutalyse, a prostaglandin (often given to an entire herd so that they will ovulate at the same time), which may disrupt women’s menstrual cycles and cause pregnant women to miscarry; and, finally, the hormone androgen, which may cause liver cancer.
DDTandOtherAdditives
By cooking meat, a chef creates chemicals (HCAs) that are health hazards. This could be avoided by, for instance, eating beef raw, as is done in some cultures. But it is a terrible and potentially deadly idea due to worms, parasites, and life-threatening bacteria. Furthermore, there is nothing that can be done (short of abstention from eating meat) to guard against the chemicals that are put into it, such as food coloring, antibiotics, and hormones as well as add-ins that are introduced into livestock at the breeding phase. Throughout their existence, livestock and dairy cows are fed large amounts of chemically treated feed. To judge whether a particular meat has traces of these additives would be difficult, not only because meat is difficult to analyze, but because the government offers little help, allowing the use of over 500 chemical additives while very lightly monitoring how these chemicals are administered.
As an example of the noxious chemicals that contaminate meat, let’s look at DDT. This pesticide is so dangerous it was banned in 1972, following on the heels of Rachel Carson’s SilentSpring, which brought to public notice the cancer-causing properties and other dangers associated with this pesticide. The chemical became popular in the ’40s, and was used extensively for nearly three decades. Many people don’t know that the DDT that got into plants came not through what had been sprayed on them to kill bugs but through the soil. After plants were dosed with it every year for decades, our soil became saturated with DDT. That means that even when farmers stopped spraying the plants, its presence would remain, and for up to 2 to 15 years.[13] Next step, livestock eat the crops and concentrate the chemical; then we eat the livestock, DDT and all. DDT is extremely persistent and can still be present in crops and soil in other parts of the world in their agricultural practices and in disease-control programs.[14] This is something to be mindful of when purchasing non-organic products outside of the US.
DDT is a substance that inadvertently gets into animals through the food chain, but many other unfriendly chemicals are purposely given to livestock. The food additive sodium nitrate, used as a color fixative in most processed meats, including hot dogs, bologna, cured meats, bacon, meat spreads, sausage, and ham, is terribly detrimental to health. When ingested, nitrates form potentially cancer-causing substances called nitrosamines. While vitamin C has been found to block the formation of some nitrosamines, and some bacon producers have added vitamin C to their products to make them less of a cancer threat, about two-thirds of C’s power is lost during cooking.
And meat is not the only animal product that shows the effect of these pharmaceuticals. The chemicals fed to and sprayed on milk cows pass into their milk while those given to chickens appear in their eggs. So, with any animal product you eat, you can’t help getting a side order of drugs.
OtherMiscellaneousAdditives
One particular additive used in poultry farming is ionophores, such as monensin and salinomycin. These drugs are commonly used to control coccidiosis, a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Eimeria. They are also used to improve feed efficiency, although not to promote growth in the same way as antibiotics. Poultry farmers are supposed to allow for a withdrawal period in order for ionophore residues to be removed from the meat before it reaches consumers. Excessive exposure through chicken consumption containing high ionophore residues can pose serious health risks to humans such as cardiac arrhythmias and neurological issues due to the way ionophores affect cellular ion transport. These compounds disrupt normal ion gradients that affect muscle function and heart rhythm. Farmers are solely responsible for following the FDA guidelines for proper withdrawal periods. But this is wishful thinking when a typical large factory farm or processing facility can slaughter anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million chickens a day and the largest facilities, such as Tyson Foods, can process 2 million per day during peak production.[15]
Rather than go further down the list of health-weakening additives that go into animal products, it is important to underline the idea that the effects of toxins in animal products are not quickly evident. One doesn’t eat a slab of bacon and get sick the next day. The toxins work slowly but insidiously as Dr. Rudolph Ballentine explains. He writes that illness begins with toxicity at the cellular level. Cellular toxicity and death progresses from the organelle stage, to the cell stage, to the organ stage.
“When a great enough number of the cells that constitute an organ die, then the organ becomes diseased.”[16]
Glyphosate and Genetic Modified Feed
Glyphosate, better known as Roundup, is a widely used herbicide in genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation. The herbicide has been shown to pose significant health risks when consumed by humans either directly or indirectly through animal meat from livestock fed GM grains like soy and corn. Depending upon soil quality, temperature and microbial activity it can have life of several months and accumulate in the animal tissue, notably fat, liver and kidneys. Studies show that the meat and organs from livestock fed on GM grains with high glyphosate residues will retrain these chemicals when consumed by humans.[17]
Robert Kennedy Jr. played a pivotal role in several groundbreaking lawsuits against Monsanto, the producer of glyphosate, and its link to cancer. He helped secure landmark verdicts, including cases where juries awarded multi-million-dollar damages to plaintiffs suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after prolonged glyphosate exposure. Among the most notable victories was the case of Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after prolonged exposure to glyphosate. The jury awarded Johnson $289 million in damages (later reduced), citing that Monsanto acted with malice and failed to warn consumers of glyphosate’s carcinogenic risks. Internal company documents revealed Monsanto’s deliberate attempts to suppress scientific research and manipulate regulatory agencies. His legal efforts highlighted Monsanto’s long history of suppressing evidence and manipulating public opinion about glyphosate’s safety.[18]
In addition to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, glyphosate has been shown to contribute to gastrointestinal disorders by disrupting the gut’s microbiome leading to dysbiosis, a condition associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease and leaky gut syndrome.[19] According to Cedars-Sinai, the prevalence of IBS has been steadily increasing in American children and adolescents. It affects approximately 10-15 percent of children largely due to diet and adverse gut microbiome alterations.[20]
The herbicide also has been shown to interfere with hormone signally pathways that may disrupt normal development and reduce fertility.[21]Approximately 10 percent of American children are affected by some type of endocrine disruption, for example impacting the onset of puberty, that is certainly associated with the abundance of environmental and dietary chemical endocrine disruptors.[22] In addition, pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease has surged by 30 percent since 2020 and chronic kidney disease now affects 1 in 1,000 children. This condition too is associated with dietary toxins, glyphosate bioaccumulation, poor diets and metabolic syndromes.[23]
Similarly, animals fed on glyphosate-rich GM grains accumulate higher residues in their meat. The altered protein profiles found in GM grains can induce allergies and disrupt the gut’s flora by amplifying pathogenic bacteria.[24]
Glyphosate and GM grain-fed meat represent significant risks to human health and, therefore, highlights the urgent necessity of dietary and policy reform to improve public health. Consuming organic, non-GMO-fed animal products can mitigate exposure to glyphosate residues and their associated risks.
Pesticides…andtheLinktoOurWaterSupply
Pesticides are no small health problem. The US uses over 1 billion pounds of pesticides every year on farms, in home yards, places of business and in parks. According to the watch organization Beyond Pesticides, “UA farms used 2.6 million pounds of three neonicotinoids (neonics) on corn and soy, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid. Farma applied nearly 1.5 million pounds solely to animal feed production.”[25] It is estimated that over 100,000 people in the United States are subjected to pesticide poisoning annually—and not only farmers and farm workers, but a countless number of other individuals who unknowingly ingest pesticides in their daily diet. The most common pesticides contaminating meat and dairy are glyphosate, atrazine, dicamba, 2,4-D, neonicotinoids and bifenthrin.
So how many of these pesticides are we getting and where are they coming from?
For the average American’s daily pesticide intake is between 2.5-5.0 mg, which accumulates to over 1.8 grams every year.[26] Of this, about 4 mg are stored in fat tissue and can lead to toxicity symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, muscle aches, and fever. Meat advocates might object, since even vegetarians may be getting these deadly residues through plant foods. Consider, however, that when a cow consumes soybean and corn feed containing pesticide traces, much of the poison permanently settles in the animal’s fat tissue. The person who comes after and devours a T-bone from this cow is getting concentrated amounts of toxic residues. By contrast, if the pesticide-treated soybeans were eaten directly, the toxins would be much less concentrated.
A government report estimates that one-sixth of all meat and poultry eaten in the US contains “potentially harmful residues of animal drugs, pesticides or environmental contaminants.” The report goes on to note that of the nearly 200 known drugs and pesticides found in meat and poultry products, “42 are known to cause or are suspected of causing cancer, 20 of causing birth defects, 6 of causing mutations, 6 of causing adverse effects on the fetus, and others of causing similar toxic effects.”
These poisons also pollute the water supply through runoffs into lakes, streams, and rivers. This enormous leakage infiltrates “63% of rural America, [home to] some 39 million people, who are drinking water that may be unsafe,” according to TheNewFarmmagazine. This same water is given to the animals being readied for slaughter and consumption.
Moreover, further studies reveal that the beleaguered, pesticide-tainted, water- drinking population is spread across our country. Three-quarters of rural Western populations are quaffing this excessively contaminated beverage; 65% in the Southern and North-Central states; and 45% in the Northeast. To make matters worse, along with these pesticides are several other health-destabilizing substances such as the following:
Lindane: a noxious insecticide that affects the central nervous system
Mercury: known to cause kidney and neurological damage
Cadmium: a toxic metal associated with high blood pressure and kidney damage
Lead: known to damage the nervous system and kidneys
Nitrates: the chemical precursor of cancer-causing nitrosamines
After perusing these contaminants in our meat and dairy supply, we might suggest to federal health officials that they create a replacement food pyramid, upon which they highlight the “features” of the products they are selling. Instead of such categories as meats and dairy, they would have to add pesticides, dyes, antibiotics, and preservatives, too!
“Natural”Toxins
We should not ignore the possibility of bacteria getting in the meat and think of other contaminants.
Animals, like humans, continuously eliminate waste products from their tissues and cells to the surrounding blood. This natural process comes to an abrupt halt when the animal is slaughtered; the waste material then present remains intact, and we ingest it when eating its flesh. You might say that our bodies’ various organs of elimination—lungs, bladder, kidneys, sweat glands, and liver—should be adept at disposing of such wastes, but is it wise to add to their workload, which is already consumed with ridding our bodies of worn-out cells and the by-products of digestion? Our organs may well respond, if overloaded, by developing any of several degenerative diseases.[27]
There are known dangers of meat remaining for too long in the digestive tract; it begins to putrefy, which can cause noxious gas, headache and lethargy, among other symptoms. However, meat can also putrefy outside before it is consumed. Unlike fruits and vegetables, meat starts to degrade the moment the animal dies, and continues to degenerate during processing, packaging, and transportation to the market or butcher. After slaughter, a steer is sectioned and moved into cold storage. Some cuts may then be aged for a time to increase tenderness. The meat may be stored in a warehouse before finally being sent to a supermarket for packaging. Of course when it is refrigerated degeneration is slowed, but for parts of its processing time it is not kept cool.
It is important to note that for any of the time that the meat was left out of refrigeration, the bacteria were proliferating like mad. Each gram of sausage stored at room temperature for 20 hours has its live bacteria count increase by 70 million, each gram of beef by 650 million, and each gram of smoked ham by a whopping 700 million. The Michigan State University Department of Human Ecology once issued a warning that reheated food could contain the toxins of bacteria previously in food, and it warned that though cooking may kill the bacteria, the toxins could still be present.[28]
Even worse, some bacteria form spores that are not killed by cooking. Then, once the leftovers are set aside, the spores germinate and grow. The new bacteria may be strong enough to survive a second heating. Moreover, even if new bacteria do not grow, the toxins they release may stay around to inflict damage. Dr. Al Wagner of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service backs this notion by saying of certain bacteria, that “although cooking destroys the bacteria, the toxin produced is heat stable and may not be destroyed.”[29] Bacterial toxins left in meats can shut down the body’s immune response by affecting a cell mechanism essential to attacking threats such as viruses and bacteria.[30]
More than the dangers that face us through ingestion of animal products is an even greater danger—our inaction toward a healthier plant-based lifestyle that does not include a diet of animal products. Yes, there are very practical health reasons for putting an end to current factory farming practices, but every citizen has it within their own means to reduce their meat intake to lessen risks of dietary related illnesses.
Continued in Part 2…
*
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.
Richard Galeis the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Nullis 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]Than K, “Organophosphates: A common but deadly pesticide,” NationalGeographic(National Geographic Society), July 2013
[2]Blaylock R (ed). “The Great Cancer Lie: It is Preventable and Beatable,” BlaylockWellnessReport. October, 2008.
[3]Pommer K, “New Proteoloytic enzymes for the production of savory ingredients,” CerealFoods World, 40 (1995):745-748.
[4]FDA. “Estimates of foodborne illness in the United States.” https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/index.html
[5]“Around 160,000 tons of antibiotics are fed to farm animals annually in 2020” The World Counts. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption/foods-and-beverages/antibiotics-used-for-livestock
[6]“MRSA: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” South Carolina Department of Public Health.https://dph.sc.gov/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/insect-or-animal-borne-disease/mrsa-methicillin-resistant
[7]University of Florida. “Silent MRSA carriers have twice the mortality rate of adults without the bacteria.” UFHealth.March 29, 2021. https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-silent-mrsa-carriers-have-twice-mortality-rate-adults-without-bacteria
[8]Barnard N. “Meat Too Tough to Eat,” TheHartfordCourant, 28 Aug. 2006.
[9]“Antibiotics Can Lead to Tainted Meat,” USAToday,6 Sept. 1984.
[10]“Chloramphenicol Use by Cattlemen Said to Be Dangerous,” VegetarianTimes.September 1984: 6.
[11]Ibid.
[12]“From Field to Feeder: Beef Cattle,” HomesteadOrganics, 2003.
[13]“Pesticide Environmental Fate One Line Summary: DDT,” (Washington, DC.: US Environmental Protection Agency,1989); Augustijn-Beckers et al., “SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decisionmaking II,” Additional Properties Reviews of EnvironmentalContaminationandToxicology, 1994; Vol. 137.
[14]“Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program: DDT,” US Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm.
[15]USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).Poultry Slaughter Report 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[17]Swarthout JT, Loiseau G, Laurent S, et al. (2021). Residues of glyphosate in food and dietary exposure. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2021; 20(5): 5226–5257.
[18]Gillam C. Dewayne Johnson’s Case Against Monsanto: A Landmark Trial Over Roundup Weed Killer and Cancer. The Guardian. 2018
[19]Antoniou MN, Habib ME, Howard CV, et al. I”mpacts of dietary exposure to pesticides on faecal microbiome metabolism in adult twins.” Environmental Health, 2022; 21(1), Article 46.
[21]Schoeters G, Baeyens W, Colles A. “Glyphosate and AMPA in human urine of HBM4EU-aligned studies: Part B Adults.” Toxics, 2022; 10(10), Article 552.
[22]Kishi R. ”Environmental Chemical Exposure and Its Effects on Infants’ Reproductive Hormones”. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi, 2018; 73(3): 313–321.
[23]Małyszko J., et al. “Cognitive impairment in patients awaiting kidney and liver transplantation: A clinically relevant problem?” Brain and Behavior, 2024; 14(8), e3647.
[24] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2012-109). EFSA Journal, 2021; 19(6), e06610.
[25]“Pesticide use on crops for meat and dairy feed further threatens endangered species.” Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2022.
[26]Swarthout JT, et al. “Residues of glyphosate in food and dietary exposure.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2021; 20(5), 5226–5257.
[27]Liebstein AM, Ehmki NL. “The Case for Vegetarianism,” AmericanMercury(April 1950): 27.
[28] Fraser A, et al., “What you can’t see, can’t hurt. Your kids and you! Preventing food-borne illness in your child care center or day care home,” Michigan State University, 1995. http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins/Bulletin/PDF/E2568.pdf.
Conventional wisdom about the outgoing Biden administration’s reckless escalations in Ukraine these past few days is that things will cool down once Donald Trump takes office, but Trump’s cabinet picks aren’t really selling this idea.
While Trump did campaign on ending the war in Ukraine, the president elect has given multiple cabinet appointments to strategists who say that the way to achieve that peace is to substantially escalate aggressions against Russia. Michael Tracey has been doing a great job compiling footage of Trump’s recent cabinet picks advocating extreme measures which happen to be in perfect alignment with the nuclear brinkmanship of the demented outgoing president and his handlers.
Sebastian Gorka, who Trump has named as his next senior director for counterterrorism, is on record saying that Trump has told him he plans on saying to Putin,
“You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.”
Mike Waltz, who Trump has selected as his next national security advisor, promotes a similar vision. Waltz says Russia can be pressured to come to the negotiating table via increased energy sanctions combined with “taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine.” Biden has since removed those very “handcuffs” by authorizing Kyiv to use US-supplied long-range missiles to attack Russia.
If it seems like these remarks from Trump’s incoming administration work very nicely with the actions of the outgoing administration, then you may find it interesting that Waltz just told Fox News Sunday that the two administrations are working “hand in glove” as the presidency changes over.
“Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions, we’ve met,” Waltz said. “For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity, that they can play one administration off the other — they are wrong. We are hand in glove. We are one team with the United States in this transition.”
This would seem to be an oblique reference to Russia specifically, since that’s the only US adversary with any hope that the incoming administration might be a bit less hawkish toward it than the outgoing one, and since years of mass media coverage went into spinning narratives about Trump being a pawn of Vladimir Putin.
But Trump was never a pawn of Vladimir Putin. Contrary to the narratives of both Democrat-aligned punditry and Republican-aligned punditry while he was in office, Trump spent his entire term ramping up cold war aggressions against Russia which helped pave the way to the war and brinkmanship we are seeing in Ukraine today. Tracey recently shared an audio clip of Gorka on X Spaces back in January 2023 exuberantly boasting about the way Trump ordered the US military to kill hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria in 2018. Putin himself cited the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019 when defending his decision to hit Ukraine with a new type of intermediate-range missile the other day in response to its use of US- and UK-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia.
Other cabinet appointments who have taken extremely hawkish positions on Russia include secretary of state nomineeMarco Rubio, secretary of defense nominee Pete Hegseth, CIA director nominee John Ratcliffe, and National Security Council appointee Doug Burgum. But it’s those comments from Waltz and Gorka which I find most concerning, because they explicitly refer to escalatory strategies that Trump might employ once he takes office.
This all comes out as we get news that US and European officials recently discussed providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine under the gamble that Putin will not escalate against the west before Trump takes office. The more aligned the Trump administration’s posture toward Russia appears to be with that of the Biden administration, the less safe a gamble this appears to be.
It seems likely that the Trump administration will end the Ukraine proxy war at some point down the road in order to reallocate those resources toward preparation for war with Iran and/or China. But it is not at all clear that this will happen soon enough before soaring escalations spin out of control into the single worst-case scenario that could possibly unfold on this planet.
*
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.
[This article was first published by GR in January 2024.]
Introductory Note
Excess deaths — why is this not discussed in mainstream media? Why is this not top agenda in the Congress or Parliament?
The compilation of relevant Global Research articles focussing on several underlying causes of excess deaths was first published by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
Short Excerpts of these articles were then prepared by Global Research, followed by the video production of John Campbell.
Our thanks to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Dr. John Campbell.
—Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research, January 2, 2024
***
1. 5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity, see this.
The 5G danger can’t be overstated.
5G (5th Generation) is now being actively rolled out in many cities around the world. Simultaneously, as awareness over its horrific health and privacy impacts is rising, many places are issuing moratoriums on it or banning it, such as the entire nation of Belgium, the canton of Vaud (Switzerland) and San Francisco (USA). Radiofrequency radiation (RF or RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are being increasingly recognized as new types of pollution – environmental pollution. Here are 13 reasons exposing the 5G danger, which could turn into an unmitigated health and privacy catastrophe if enough people don’t rise up to stop it.
2. Depopulation: The New York Times Predicts Massive Population Reduction, see this.
“Fewer babies’ cries.
More abandoned homes.
Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom.”
Screenshot of the NYT article
“All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.”
And it continues,
“Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea can’t find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.”
Is it all true? It remains to be verified. Omission?
At no time does the article mention the eugenist nature of deliberate population reduction, in connection with the covid plandemic, the coerced and by many accounts poisonous – vaccination campaign, with a non-vaccine, but instead a novel, totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” which the US CDC has allowed to be applied as an “emergency measure” in these dire circumstances of a pandemic, that actually lacks all characteristics of a pandemic, but has to be pumped up to make it appear as a pandemic – with literally almost all deaths appearing from whatever causes – even car accidents – can be – and “must” be categorized as covid deaths.
3. Bill Gates Plans for New Catastrophic Contagion, see this.
“October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”3,4 involving a novel (and as of now fictional) pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” or SEERS-25 for short.
Enterovirus D685 is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes in one or more extremities.
Enteroviruses A71 and A6 are known to cause hand, foot and mouth disease,6 while poliovirus, the prototypical enterovirus, causes polio (poliomyelitis), a potentially life-threatening type of paralysis that primarily affects children under age 5. So, the virus they modeled in this simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse.
Training African Leaders to Go Along With the Narrative
Tellingly, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise focused on getting leadership in African countries involved and trained in following the script. Participants included 10 current and former Health Ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself.”
4. Israel’s Expertise in Pacifying the Palestinians Is in High Demand by Capitalist Elites as Populations Around the World Grow Restive, see this.
“As the world watches in horror Israel’s military assault on the people of Gaza, people are left to wonder why world leaders are not doing more to censure Israel and are allowing Israel to get away with mass killing.
Jeff Halper, an American-Israeli anthropologist who has written numerous books on Israeli history, has a clear answer.
He says that leaders of countries around the world are feeling more insecure as wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny capitalist elite and popular disaffection and the threat of rebellion grows.
Israel is revered precisely for its mastery of population-control techniques against the Palestinians, which many leaders want to emulate against dissident or minority groups within their own borders.
Part of Israel’s ace in the hole, according to Halper, is its development of a formidable weapons industry that allows it to supply high-tech weapons to countries around the world for the purpose of population control.
Israel is at the cutting edge in the development of surveillance satellites, weaponized and surveillance drones, Artificial Intelligence (AI) target identification systems, spyware gadgets and crowd control and cyberwarfare technologies, which it sells around the world.”
5. The WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030), see this.
“THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030.
This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.
“A group of almost one thousand medical doctors in Germany called ‘Doctors for Information’, which is supported by more than 7,000 professionals including attorneys, scientists, teachers etc., made a shocking statement during a national press conference: (1)
‘The Corona panic is a play. It’s a scam. A swindle. It’s high time we understood that we’re in the midst of a global crime.’
This large group of medical experts publishes a newspaper with circulation of 500,000 copies every week, to alert the public about the misinformation in the mainstream media about the coronavirus.”
6. Video: Excess Deaths. Analysis by John Campbell
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
[This article was first published by GR in August 2024.]
A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III, as reported by Megatron (14 August 2024).
The Kursk region of Russia is currently full of NATO weapons, troops, logistics, and more, many of them destroyed. See map, below.
Ukrainian aims to destabilize Russia with Kursk incursion. (BingMaps/Institute For The Study Of War/USA TODAY)
Video footage comes out of dozens of NATO vehicles, air defense systems, tanks and more; even if destroyed and captured by Russian forces in the Kursk Region.
The Kiev forces of about 11,600 under guidance of NATO troops have not managed to conquer the city of Kurchatov and its nuclear power plant. Apparently, President Zelensky used all of Kiev’s remaining troops, plus extra Polish (NATO) forces.
Russian General Apti Alaudinov noted that the purpose of invading the Kursk Region was to secure a strong position for upcoming negotiations with Russia. However, with Kiev’s and their western masters’ defeat, the Kiev Regime signed their own death warrant.
Kiev’s losses are more than 2,000.
General Allaudin further predicts that the Kiev Special Operation will be terminated by the end of 2024, with a total victory of the Russian Army, and the surrender of the Kiev Regime and its masters in Washington and London. (Borzzikman Aug 15, 2024)
Whether surrender by the west will actually happen, remains to be seen. It is not a habit of the west, even in terminal conditions, losing face – thus, more aggressions, perhaps of a NATO direct attack on Russia, is a possibility.
At this point, President Putin still refuses to declare war, although Russia’s territory has been invaded and Russians are killed on their territory by NATO forces. And more direct NATO attacks may be planned. For now, Washington is getting away with “murder”; literally.
Step by step, Washington and its NATO partners have been crossing one red line after the other.
First, NATO weapons in Ukraine;
then NATO troops un Ukaine;
then F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine;
then NATO soldiers commanding the sophisticated weaponry supplied by the west;
then NATO troops on Russian territories; then NATO drones and aircraft attacking Russian targets on Russian territory – and finally NATO troops attempting taking over an entire Russian district, taking Russian prisoners, killing Russians.
Airports across Russia have been constantly bombed for several weeks by NATO drones.
On August 9, 2024, Russian state media reported an explosion, followed by fire at the Russian air base in the Lipetsk region, around 280 kilometers from the border with northeastern Ukraine, as if Ukraine / NATO forces attacked the airfield, and destroyed a warehouse and several other facilities with guided aerial bombs; guided by NATO experts.
Some speculate that Kiev / NATO may have used a small tactical nuclear weapon. There is however no proof for such an aggression, and Russia remains silent.
According to Russian military, their own (Russian) offensive involved around 1,000 troops and more than two dozen armored vehicles and tanks. See this. (This page was removed by Google, saying the Moscow Times page does not exist anymore – the link is shown, to demonstrate western censoring).
The Russian army is constantly advancing in the Donbass, defending the Russian speaking population from the cowardly Azov-Nazi attacks that killed in the last 10 years about 18,000 people, most of them women and children.
Russia, on her own territory receives heavy and painful blows from NATO weapons. NATO is everywhere, with communication, logistics and NATO command.
Over 35 countries are investing hundreds of billions in tax payers’ money to supply Ukraine with weapons to carry out these deadly strikes against Russia – on Russian territory, with NATO soldiers, whom the west likes to call “foreign mercenaries”.
Some 80 years after WWII, when Russia defeated Nazi-Germany, German tanks – given to Ukraine – are again rolling through the Kursk region, where the decisive battle took place; the battle by which Russia defeated Nazi-Germany saving the West from German fascism.
But fascism today is ticking and is well alive, reminiscing the times of the 1940’s. Now neo-fascism is emanating from Ukraine, an erstwhile ally of Nazi-Germany – the Bandera’s Azov Battalions – that killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Russians during WWII.
Mr. Putin was adamant eradicating Nazism in Ukraine, making Ukraine a neutral and NATO-free country, a key condition for Peace negotiations.
Many people are still under the illusion that Russia is in a minor military conflict with Ukraine, not realizing that this proxy-war Washington-NATO against Russia is far more dangerous than the WWII situation in 1943.
NATO is attempting to gradually creating brigades in Eastern Europe, aiming at confronting Russia.
It is a game of observation, “how far can we go”, while carefully watching Russia’s reaction. The difficulties they may have, is manning the brigades with soldiers, as young Europeans are unwilling to die for western warmongers and profits of western war industries.
According to Megatron, there is a high probability that NATO may eventually intend to invade Belarus.
Did Mr. Putin and his advisers miscalculate NATO’s boldness, hoping that they will not cross from Ukraine into Russian territories, to avoid further escalation?
What now, that all the Red Lines have been crossed – and that more than once?
In a recent statement, former Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, said Russia should no longer hold back:
“From this moment, the [Kiev] Special Military operation should become openly exterritorial in nature,” Medvedev, who serves as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, argued in a post on Thursday.
“We can and should go further into what still exists as Ukraine. To Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolaev. To Kiev and further. There should be no restrictions in terms of recognized borders.” See this.
*
If President Putin is holding out for even more western / NATO aggressions on Russian territory, it may be that he has a strong response in store, one that cannot be accused as a response to a “false flag”, because what Kiev-NATO are doing on Russian territories is clearly no “false flag”, but pure provocation.
Russia has the military capacity to wipe out simultaneously western decision and military centers, as well as financial hubs, with ultra-precise, supersonic tactical nuclear weapons, keeping the loss of life to a minimum, but disabling western power structures.
*
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.
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.
Whoever thought that the Zionist-Israel war against Palestine and Lebanon was independent from the war in Ukraine may be dead-wrong. The same dark forces – call them Deep State – are at play on either side of the Med Sea.
Whoever the Deep State is or are, they have control over a lot of money, a real lot. Over 90% of the total monetary flow worldwide is under their management because they control the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is also called the Central Bank of all Central Banks, and is domiciled in Holy Switzerland, where else? The BIS is controlled by the Rothschild clan and supports the Ashkenazi Zionists.
How will President-elect Trump make sure on his promises to be a Peace President, resolving the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East within days of taking office? His Cabinet selections may not be all Jewish, but most of them are strong supporters of the Zionists and by association, Genocide-Netanyahu.
Just look at the profile of Trump’s appointee for the Defense Secretary, Mr. Pete Hegseth, a staunch Zionist-Israel supporter and Iran hater. See this assessment from a former Secretary of Defense.
Did Mr. Trump himself at some point convert to the Jewish faith? Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin called President Trump in 2019, the nation’s “first Jewish President.” However, such rumors are most likely not true, but may be fueled by Trump’s daughter Ivanka, having converted to Judaism when marrying Jewish Jared Kushner.
Trump’s appointees and his own friendship with Netanyahu do not bode well for Peace in the Middle East. But time will tell.
A few days ago, Donald Trump made a devastating statement for the cult, called Deep State, on how he will prevent WWIII and Nuclear Armageddon, by dismantling the US Deep State, drying up the Washington swamp, and by calling the current Administration a “Third World Dictatorship.” See this 3.5-minute video clip:
This happened about the same time a few days ago, as Biden reportedly authorized Kiev to launch long-range US-made ATACMS missiles deep into Russia. British Defense Secretary John Healey told Parliament immediately that
“We, as a nation and as a government, are doubling down on our support for Ukraine and are determined to do more,” and allowed Ukraine to use the UK- French made Storm Shadow long-range.
This apparently Healey justified because Russia has allegedly recruited North Korean troops to fight against Ukraine.
France and other NATO countries enhanced this support. Will Kiev be thoughtless and foolish enough to make use of this western-NATO authorization?
Apparently, they already have. CNN reports today, 21 November, that Ukraine launched a Storm Shadow missiles at targets inside Russia for the first time on Wednesday, 20 November 2024, according to a Russian military blog and Reuters, a day after Ukraine fired US-made ATACMS missiles into Russia. See this.
In turn, Thursday morning 21 November, Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at Ukraine for the first time. The missile was an attack on the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro, targeting critical infrastructure. Currently, no reports on casualties are available. See this.
*
Adding to the disaster, and according to the Washington Post, outgoing Joe Biden has reportedly decided to send anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine; a news item repeated by multiple media outlets, citing unnamed American officials. See this.
*
An imminent WWIII is in plain view. Tucker Carlson reports on “X”, in an interview with Glenn Greenwald, that “permanent” Washington, those who do not want to yield power to the newly elected President Trump, seem to decide that “Nuclear war is preferable to Donald Trump.”
Under these, not just war-mongering but war-provoking circumstances, how could Donald Trump negotiate a Peace Agreement?
First, it is against the wishes of the west, of NATO; and second, they, NATO and the Deep State, seem to do everything possible to start a major war which could be blamed on President Putin, before Trump can take office on 20 January 2025, so that they, the Dems [under command of the Deep State], can call for Martial Law and delay Trump’s Presidency indefinitely.
That is what the Globalists want. They prefer nuclear war to Trump becoming President, and risk the globalist-dream with all its anti-human agendas being demolished. This seems ever more evident as days move forward. And it fits the conclusion of the Tucker Carlson–Glenn Greenwald interview above.
To get back to the link between Ukraine and the Middle East wars, let us compare this with what the former leader of the Ashkenazi Jews, Rabbi Schneerson, said in 1994.
.
.
Notice the last sentence: “NATO is Khazaria in Drag”, meaning NATO is Khazaria in disguise.
If we want to get out of the dual larger Zionist-Khazaria in Ukraine, cum the larger Israel in the Middle East, absorbing up to half or one-third of all Middle East and the corresponding hydrocarbon resources, We, the People must act now; first by spreading the connecting dots worldwide without delay; and second, by lobbying the Trump Administration not just for Peace, but for Peace and an independent, sovereign Ukraine; not a Ukraine privatized by BlackRock.
BlackRock has already privatized at least a third, probably more, of Ukraine’s rich agricultural land, plus much of Ukraine’s natural resources, against a BlackRock-managed Fund for Reconstruction.
BlackRock is behind the Kazarian Empire and Zionist-Israel.
Unconfirmed rumors have it that Mr. Trump has asked or may ask Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, to become the next Secretary of the Treasury. There is nothing like the fox guarding the hen house. That would be the beginning of privatization in the United States.
These are dangerous and vulnerable times of clandestine happenings and agreements which, once set in motion then in stone, are hard to get out of.
We the People, MUST stay alert, awake and aware to prevent the Dual Empire to emerge and to become suddenly the flagship of the Global One World Government.
*
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.
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.
US ranking military officers are expressing readiness for nuclear war with Russia.They are making policy statements that the Russians are taking seriously.
I suspect that the Russians are on hair-trigger. For 17 years they have experienced increasing hostility and provocative actions byWashington and NATO.Every one of their protests and warnings have been ignored.In the face of such determination for war, it is becoming impossible for Putin to see a peaceful outcome.
.
.
*
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.
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.
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
There’s an old saying, “Fool around and find out.” On November 19, Ukraine fired six US-made missiles at a target located on Russian soil. On November 20, Ukraine fired up to a dozen British-made Storm Shadow cruise missiles against a target on Russian soil. On November 21, Russia fired a new intermediate-range missile against a target of Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine and its American and British allies fooled around.
And now they have found out: if you attack Mother Russia, you will pay a heavy price.
In the early morning hours of November 21, Russia launched a missile which struck the Yuzmash factory in the Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk. Hours after this missile, which was fired from the Russian missile test range in Kapustin Yar, struck its target, Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared on Russian television, where he announced that the missile fired by Russia, which both the media and western intelligence had classified as an experimental modification of the RS-26 missile, which had been mothballed by Russia in 2017, was, in fact, a completely new weapon known as the “Oreshnik,” which in Russian means “hazelnut.” Putin noted that the missile was still in its testing phase, and that the combat launch against Ukraine was part of the test, which was, in his words, “successful.”
Putin declared that the missile, which flew to its target at more than ten times the speed of sound, was invincible.
“Modern air defense systems that exist in the world, and anti-missile defenses created by the Americans in Europe, can’t intercept such missiles,” Putin said.
Putin said the Oreshnik was developed in response to the planned deployment by the United States of the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile, itself an intermediate-range missile. The Oreshnik was designed to “mirror” US and NATO capabilities.
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.
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
We are currently at a dangerous crossroads in our history. The dangers of nuclear war are real
Nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. A budget of 1.3 trillion dollars which is slated to increase to 2 trillion in 2030 has been allocated to nuclear weapons.
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran and Russia is contemplated. Politicians are totally ignorant. They think that they can win a nuclear war.
The following message by Fidel Castro against Nuclear War was recorded 14 years ago on October 15, 2010:
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
Below is the full text of this brief and forceful message as well the video recording.
This important message was based on Fidel Castro’s analysis and understanding of the dangers of military escalation including US threats to use nuclear weapons on a pre-emptive basis.
It was recorded at his home on the last day of our meetings in October 2010 by Cuba Debate and Global Research.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 8, 2024
FIDEL’S HISTORIC MESSAGE ON THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR WAR (Transcript below)
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.
Fidel Castro and Michel Chossudovsky, Havana, October 2010
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 following pictures were taken after the filming of Fidel’s speech against Nuclear war, October 15, 2010 . Below is a Toast to World Peace.
Left to Right. Fidel Castro, Film Crew, Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon
“So this is not about whether or not to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia using these weapons, but about deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not…It will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries, are at war with Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very nature of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us.” – President Vladmir Putin (September 12, 2024)
For the first time during the war, Ukraine fired the U.S. designed and manufactured Supersonic tactical missiles, designed as part of the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), deep into Russian territory. [2]
Russia appears to have reciprocated. According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russia fired back for the first time ever an intercontinental ballistic missile on Ukraine’s central-eastern city of Dnipro Thursday morning – this was the first use ever of an ICBM in war. ICBMs are the vehicles of nuclear-capable weapons. [3]
President Vladmir Putin has furthermore stressed that the use of ATACMS missiles would require intelligence from U.S. and European (NATO) satellites, and also NATO servicemen making flight assignments to the missile systems. In other words Ukraine, its army and its leader Zelensky is kind of a dummy playing animated roles of heroism and valour while the mechanics and the targeting is done by the NATO. [4]
President Biden changed his position, allowing U.S. weapons to be used inside Russia. With Putin’s comments on the record, this means either the Russian President is “bluffing” or Biden wants NATO being involved in this war. Biden, or the neocon pulling his puppet strings, wants to start World War III!
The repercussions a global conflict involving nuclear weapons – sooner or later – would mean increased poverty, destruction, and most likely the extinction of the human species. Why is the retiring Democratic Government so determined to play with radioactive fire?
We plan to investigate this, and a lot of the issues around it on the Global Ressearch News Hour, beginning with Scott Ritter. The former U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Officer has frequently butted heads with White House Officials, particularly in criticizing the claim of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to be used on Americans or any friendly target. Today he is a figure in the peace movement, and making statements in defence of the “Bad Guys” that U.S. politicians and their various flunkies at home and abroad denounce on a regular basis. Scott will spend most of the show correcting widespread misconceptions about the war in Ukraine, the what and why of allowing long-range weapons to be used on Russian people, and about Operation Dawn, a major effort to stop this war before it gets to the point of Armageddon.
In the remaining few minutes, Ken Stone comes on to join us and talk about the 70th NATO annual Parliamentary assembly which is playing out this weekend in Montreal, Quebec. He will discuss the counter-summit put on by the Canada-Wide Peace and Justice Network, and also speak of supporting a demonstration for peace in Place du Canada, both of which supports #CanadaOutOfNATO.
More general information, including the list of sponsors, is located at the website of the Canada-Wide Peace and Justice Network: https://peaceandjusticenetwork.ca/
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. He also co-authored the book Covering Ukraine: The Scott Ritter Interviews Through the Eyes of Ania K. Scott is also a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Ken Stone is a long time antiwar, anti-racism, environmental and labour activist, and resident in Hamilton. He is also Treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War. He currently coordinates the Canada-Wide Peace and Justice Network.
Pjotr Sauer (Nov. 19, 2024), ‘Ukraine fires US-made Atacms missiles into Russia after ban lifted by Biden’, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/putin-warns-us-over-using-long-range-missiles-by-signing-new-nuclear-doctrine-ukraine
“So this is not about whether or not to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia using these weapons, but about deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not…it will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries, are at war with Russia.
And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very nature of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us.” – President Vladmir Putin (September 12, 2024)
***
We are inches away from a global thermonuclear war. And no, this isn’t a meaningless, overused catchphrase. Quite the contrary, it’s as serious as it gets. We have reached a historical boiling point. At no other time in human history have we been closer to the scenario of annihilation, not even during the so-called “Cuban” Missile Crisis. It should really be called “Turkish” or something along those lines. And it’s important to note that we’re not digressing from the topic by mentioning this.
Namely, the mainstream propaganda machine just loves maintaining its narratives that essentially whitewash the political West and denigrate the actual world. This is why the fact that the United States initiated the “Cuban” Missile Crisis by deploying nuclear-tipped missiles in Italy and Turkey back in 1961 (although some sources claim it was as early as 1959) is ever so “conveniently” forgotten. The USSR waited a full year (at the very least) to respond by placing its own missiles in Cuba.
Thus, it’s perfectly clear who initiated that confrontation. And yet, as previously mentioned, modern historiography remembers the event as the “Cuban” Missile Crisis, sending a subliminal message that it was initiated by the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why is this important? Because the same people are now telling us that Russia “escalated” the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict by “firing missiles at a democratic Ukraine”, once again “forgetting” to mention the preceding events.
So, how did the “evil Kremlin”, led by the “crazy, bloodthirsty tyrant Putin”, respond to this? Well, not with nukes, as we’re still here, even though the doctrine allows it.
And while ICBMs normally carry thermonuclear warheads, this one was conventionally armed. To better understand what sort of weapon this is, we have to go back a decade or so, specifically to the RS-26 “Rubezh” program that was supposed to deter NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe and the post-Soviet space.
Namely, the RS-26 was envisaged as the successor to the formidable RSD-10 “Pioneer” IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) (image left). Essentially a shortened version of the three-stage RS-24 “Yars” ICBM, with one stage removed (and some other modifications), the RS-26 had a shorter range, but was no less deadly. In fact, it carried more powerful warheads than the “Pioneer” (at least four 300 kt instead of the latter’s three 150 kt ones), while also being more accurate and impossible to intercept.
This enabled it to target even massive underground command centers or any other high-priority targets across NATO-occupied Europe. However, there was a (geo)political problem with the RS-26. Namely, it was made at a time when the INF Treaty was still in force (banning all missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km). So, for the RS-26 to formally comply with this, it had to have a range greater than 5,500 km. Otherwise, it would violate the INF Treaty and be designated as an IRBM.
To avoid this, it was designed to achieve a maximum range of 5,800 km, just enough to be designated as an ICBM. However, this created another problem, as it affected the New START treaty. Namely, this would force Russia to reduce the number of its, so to speak, “purebred” ICBMs such as “Yars”, R-36M2 “Voevoda” and RS-28 “Sarmat”. As a result, in 2011, the program was postponed for a period after 2027, with most resources diverted to the development of Russia’s new hypersonic weapons.
But, on April 12 this year, Moscow tested an “unnamed ICBM”. To this day, the Russian military is yet to publicly reveal the exact type of the missile launched that day. At the time, I argued that the missile was actually the RS-26, as it had striking similarities with the previously mentioned RS-24 that the “Rubezh” was actually based on, including the way it conducted wobbling maneuvers designed to confuse NATO’s ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, making it virtually impossible to intercept.
For seven months, no news came through about this “mysterious ICBM”. Until the early hours of November 21, that is. Initially, the Russian military didn’t reveal what missile it was, letting NATO contemplate what to do next. However, the “mysterious ICBM” was soon not only uncovered, but actually named – “Oreshnik” (“Hazel” in Russian). However, solid information about the missile is extremely scant, fueling all sorts of speculation, wild guessing and outright misinformation.
For instance, the Pentagon insists the missile that hit Dnepropetrovsk was fired from Kapustin Yar, a testing site in the Astrakhan oblast (region) in southern Russia, located over 1000 km to the east. This distance is too short for an ICBM, raising questions about the veracity of the US military’s claims. Then, videos from Kazakhstan emerged, specifically over the city of Satbayev, which is 1,500 km to the east of Kapustin Yar. Even more interestingly, some 450 km to the southeast lies Sary Shagan.
This place is home to one of the largest and most important missile test sites in the former Soviet Union, with the Russian military still using it extensively, including during the aforementioned April 12 test. It’s simply impossible to see “Oreshnik” fly over Satbayev if it was fired from Kapustin Yar to Dnepropetrovsk. However, it’s certainly possible that the missile was fired from Sary Shagan. Still, NATO doesn’t want to reveal that it flew nearly 2,400 km before hitting its targets with pinpoint precision.
Even more interestingly, videos over Satbayev also show that the missile is wobbling and maneuvering just like the “mysterious ICBM” tested on April 12, further reinforcing the notion that the “Oreshnik” could actually be a conventionally armed “Rubezh”. In addition, its maximum range exceeds 5,000 km, which puts virtually all of Europe in range. And indeed, it makes little sense to get a completely new missile if you have the “Rubezh”, as it’s already a largely finished product.
Technically speaking, there are several possibilities when it comes to the “Oreshnik”. First, it doesn’t even have to be a regular missile and could be some sort of MaRV (maneuverable reentry vehicle), MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle), HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle), etc. or perhaps even a hybrid, with the “Rubezh” being the primary missile carrier. The “Rubezh” itself can already carry the “Avangard”, so if the “Oreshnik” is an HGV, it shouldn’t be a problem for the “Rubezh” to deploy it.
Another possibility is that the “Oreshnik” is a completely new missile(not necessarily ballistic, but likely a more advanced hypersonic, maneuvering weapon) that has its own MIRV/MaRV/HGV warheads. There are no definite claims about this at present, simply because very little is publicly known about it. However, personally, I am more inclined to believe that the “Oreshnik” is a conventionally armed HGV that can be carried by nuclear-capable ICBM/IRBMs like the RS-26 “Rubezh”.
The reason is quite simple, because why would someone make something completely new when they already have a finished project that can immediately go into production (the “Rubezh” uses the same production lines as the “Yars”)? This reinforces the notion that the RS-26 is a highly modular design which can be equipped with various types of warheads, including conventional ones. It also harkens back to President Putin’s vision of Russia’s strategic preemptive strike capabilities.
Video
One more thing that should be noted about the “Oreshnik” is that it was certainly an overkill against the Neo-Nazi junta.
In terms of the functioning of the missile’s warhead, the available footage shows at least 30 smaller projectiles divided into five groups (six in each). The lack of visible detonations (although at least one was seen) suggests these are probably advanced kinetic penetrators capable of annihilating heavily defended and dug-in positions.
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.
O presidente Biden autorizou a Ucrânia a usar armas de longo alcance dos EUA contra a Rússia: mísseis ATACMS com alcance de mais de 300 km. Imediatamente, os primeiros mísseis desse tipo foram lançados contra alvos em território russo. Pouco tempo depois, a Grã-Bretanha autorizou a Ucrânia a usar mísseis Storm Shadows de longo alcance contra a Rússia, cuja produção também conta com a participação da Itália, com a Leonardo. Nesse momento, a Rússia atingiu uma instalação aeroespacial militar ucraniana com o novo míssil hipersônico Oreshnik com várias ogivas não nucleares, que também pode ser armado com ogivas nucleares. O ministro das Relações Exteriores da Rússia, Lavrov, declarou que esses ataques contra a Rússia são um sinal de que o Ocidente quer uma escalada, lembrando que o presidente Putin havia alertado os países ocidentais sobre como a posição da Rússia mudaria se essa categoria de armas com alcance de 300 km fosse aprovada.
Em 19 de novembro, o presidente Putin assinou um decreto ratificando a revisão da doutrina nuclear russa. Estas são, em resumo, as principais disposições:
1. “A dissuasão nuclear tem como objetivo um adversário em potencial, que pode incluir países individuais e alianças militares (blocos, uniões) que consideram a Rússia um inimigo em potencial e possuem armas nucleares e/ou outras armas de destruição em massa, ou têm capacidades de combate substanciais de forças de uso geral.”
2) “A Rússia também se envolverá em dissuasão nuclear contra os países que oferecerem seu território, áreas marítimas, espaço aéreo e recursos para agressão contra ela. A agressão por qualquer estado não nuclear, mas com o envolvimento ou apoio de um estado nuclear, será considerada um ataque conjunto à Rússia.”
3. “Além disso, uma resposta nuclear é considerada possível no caso de uma ameaça crítica à soberania da Rússia, inclusive com armas convencionais, incluindo um ataque à Bielorrússia ou um ataque maciço por aviões de guerra, mísseis de cruzeiro, drones ou outras aeronaves que cruzem a fronteira russa.”
A Itália se enquadra na categoria definida no ponto 2: embora seja um país não nuclear que adere ao Tratado de Não Proliferação, que a proíbe de receber armas nucleares de qualquer pessoa, ela hospeda em seu território armas nucleares dos EUA direcionadas contra a Rússia, para cujo uso, sob o comando dos EUA, a Força Aérea Italiana está pronta. A Itália e outros países europeus na mesma situação (Alemanha, Bélgica, Holanda), portanto, estão sob a dissuasão nuclear russa, ou seja, os mísseis nucleares russos são direcionados para bases nucleares na Itália.
Ignorando o perigo crescente de uma guerra nuclear, o governo Biden, a OTAN e a União Europeia estão aumentando a escalada contra a Rússia com a intenção de precipitar a situação antes que o governo Trump possa abrir um canal de negociação com a Rússia. A OTAN está realizando um grande exercício de guerra direta contra a Rússia na Finlândia, do qual 28 países, incluindo a Itália, estão participando sob o comando dos EUA. A União Europeia realizará um exercício militar semelhante na Alemanha. Os cinco maiores países da UE – França, Alemanha, Itália, Espanha e Grã-Bretanha – decidiram emitir conjuntamente Títulos de Defesa para apoiar o setor bélico europeu. Ursula Von der Leyen declarou que a UE precisa investir 500 bilhões de euros na próxima década para fortalecer suas forças militares e continuar armando a Ucrânia.
Manlio Dinucci
Breve resumo da análise da imprensa internacional do Grandangolo na sexta-feira, 22 de Novembro de 2024, no canal de TV italiano Byoblu:
Il presidente Biden ha autorizzato l’Ucraina a usare armi statunitensi a lungo raggio contro la Russia: sono i missili ATACMS con gittata di oltre 300 km. Immediatamente i primi missili di questo tipo sono stati lanciati contro obiettivi in territorio russo. Poco dopo la Gran Bretagna ha autorizzato l’Ucraina a usare contro la Russia missili Storm Shadows a lungo raggio, alla cui produzione partecipa anche l’Italia con la Leonardo. A questo punto la Russia ha colpito un impianto aerospaziale militare ucraino con il nuovo missile ipersonico Oreshnik a testate multiple non-nucleari, armabile anche di testate nucleari. Il ministro degli Esteri russo Lavrov ha dichiarato che tali attacchi contro la Russia sono il segno che l’Occidente vuole l’escalation, ricordando che il presidente Putin aveva avvertito i Paesi occidentali di come la posizione della Russia sarebbe cambiata se fosse stata approvata questa categoria di armi con gittata di 300 km.
ll 19 novembre il presidente Putin ha firmato un decreto che ratifica la revisione della dottrina nucleare russa. Queste, in sintesi, sono le disposizioni chiave:
1. “La deterrenza nucleare è rivolta a un potenziale avversario, che può comprendere singoli Paesi e alleanze militari (blocchi, unioni) che considerano la Russia come un potenziale nemico e che possiedono armi nucleari e/o altre armi di distruzione di massa, o che hanno sostanziali capacità di combattimento di forze di impiego generale.”
2. “La Russia si impegnerà anche nella deterrenza nucleare contro quei Paesi che offrono il loro territorio, le zone marittime, lo spazio aereo e le risorse per un’aggressione contro di essa. L’aggressione da parte di qualsiasi Stato non nucleare, ma con il coinvolgimento o il sostegno di uno Stato nucleare, sarà considerata un attacco congiunto alla Russia.”
3. “Inoltre, una risposta nucleare è considerata possibile in caso di minaccia critica alla sovranità della Russia, anche con armi convenzionali, tra cui un attacco alla Bielorussia o un attacco massiccio di aerei da guerra, missili da crociera, droni o altri velivoli che attraversano il confine russo.”
L’Italia rientra nella categoria definita al punto 2: pur essendo un Paese non-nucleare aderente al Trattato di non-proliferazione che le proibisce di ricevere da chicchessia armi nucleari, ospita sul proprio territorio armi nucleari statunitensi dirette contro la Russia, al cui uso sotto comando statunitense è pronta l’Aeronautica italiana .L’Italia e altri paesi europei nella stessa situazione (Germania, Belgio, Olanda) rientrano quindi nella deterrenza nucleare russa, ossia missili nucleari russi vengono puntati sulle basi nucleari in Italia.
Ignorando il crescente pericolo di guerra nucleare, l’Amministrazione Biden, la NATO e l’Unione Europea intensificano la escalation contro la Russia, con l’intento di far precipitare la situazione prima che l’Amministrazione Trump possa aprire un canale negoziale con la Russia. La NATO sta conducendo in Finlandia una grande esercitazione di guerra diretta contro la Russia cui partecipano sotto comando USA 28 Paesi tra cui l’Italia. L’Unione Europea condurrà una analoga esercitazione militare in Germania. I cinque maggiori Paesi dell’Unione Europea – Francia, Germania, Italia, Spagna e Gran Bretagna – hanno deciso di emettere congiuntamente Obbligazioni della Difesa per sostenere l’industria bellica europea. Ursula Von der Leyen ha dichiarato che la UE ha bisogno di investire 500 miliardi di euro nel prossimo decennio per potenziare le sue forze militari e continuare ad armare l’Ucraina.
Donald Trump, em seu discurso de vitória, disse: “Eles disseram: Ele iniciará uma guerra. Eu nunca comecei uma guerra. Pretendo acabar com as guerras. Vou governar com um lema simples: promessas feitas, promessas cumpridas. Nós cumpriremos nossas promessas”. Assim, Trump confirma oficialmente as linhas de política externa que ele havia dito que seguiria desde seu primeiro mandato em 2016: “Quero dizer à comunidade mundial que, embora sempre coloquemos os interesses dos Estados Unidos em primeiro lugar, lidaremos de forma justa com todos – todos os povos e todas as outras nações. Buscaremos um terreno comum, não hostilidade; parceria, não conflito”.
O que acontecerá agora? Sua eleição certamente cria uma situação aberta a mudanças em relação àquela que teria sido criada se Kamala Harris tivesse se tornado presidente na esteira de Biden.
No entanto, é preciso ver quais serão essas mudanças. Pode ser possível, por exemplo, abrir negociações com Moscou para acabar com a guerra dos EUA/OTAN contra a Rússia por meio da Ucrânia. Entretanto, isso não significaria que os EUA renunciariam ao uso da força militar para manter sua posição de dominância perdida. Isso é confirmado pelas nomeações para cargos importantes no novo governo Trump.
Elon Musk chefiará o Departamento de Eficiência Governamental. Musk declarou que ajudará o presidente a cortar US$ 2 trilhões do orçamento federal. Entretanto, parece impossível que ele corte os enormes e crescentes gastos militares. A empresa de foguetes de Musk, a SpaceX, coloca em órbita a maioria dos satélites do Pentágono. Elon Musk, o homem mais rico do mundo, recebeu mais de US$ 15 bilhões em contratos governamentais em dez anos, especialmente com a NASA e o Pentágono.
Para chefiar o Pentágono, Trump escolheu Pete Hegseth, âncora da Fox News e veterano das guerras no Iraque e no Afeganistão. Ele também serviu no Exército na Baía de Guantánamo, em Cuba. Trump elogiou a experiência de Pete Hegseth da seguinte forma: “Pete é duro, inteligente e um verdadeiro crente no America First. Com Pete no comando, os inimigos dos Estados Unidos estão avisados: nossas forças armadas serão grandes novamente e os Estados Unidos nunca recuarão”. Como assessor de segurança nacional, Trump escolheu Mike Waltz. Ex-oficial das Forças Especiais e membro dos comitês da Câmara que supervisionam Serviços Armados, Inteligência e Relações Exteriores, Waltz é um dos maiores críticos da China no Congresso.
Como Secretário de Estado, Trump escolheu Marco Rubio, Vice-Presidente do Comitê de Inteligência do Senado, que tem uma postura hawkish na política externa, especialmente em relação à China, Irã, Venezuela e Cuba. Rubio também expressou total apoio dos EUA à guerra de Israel em Gaza. Ele chegou a pedir uma investigação dos funcionários federais que pediram um cessar-fogo em Gaza, acusando-os de insubordinação. O apoio dos EUA a Israel também foi reforçado pela nomeação de Mike Huckabee, ex-governador do Arkansas, como embaixador dos EUA em Israel. Huckabee declarou publicamente que “não existe palestino” e afirmou que “toda a Cisjordânia pertence a Israel”.
Manlio Dinucci
Breve resumo da análise da imprensa internacional do Grandangolo na sexta-feira, 15 de Novembro de 2024, no canal de TV italiano Byoblu:
A crise ucraniana está a atingir um ponto crítico, com uma grande possibilidade de guerra nuclear, mas mesmo assim o regime de Kiev continua a tomar medidas para prolongar o conflito até às suas últimas consequências. Recentemente, foi relatado que o governo neonazista pedirá mais uma vez aos EUA um pacote militar que inclua mísseis de cruzeiro avançados. Esta parece ser mais uma medida desesperada para alcançar resultados militares significativos no meio de tantas derrotas recentes.
O jornal Politico noticiou em 21 de Novembro que as autoridades ucranianas estão a pedir aos seus parceiros americanos que lhes enviem mísseis Tomahawk, bem como que autorizem a sua utilização em alvos russos “profundos”. Estes mísseis têm um alcance maior do que o sistema ATACMS, que já está a ser utilizado pelos ucranianos contra alvos civis na Rússia. Segundo o Politico, os ucranianos não consideram o ATACMS suficiente para atingir os seus objetivos militares.
Eles afirmam que precisam de equipamentos com maior alcance, capazes de atingir alvos distantes da fronteira. Neste sentido, os militares locais acreditam que os ATACMS não são totalmente apropriados e que os mísseis de cruzeiro seriam de grande valor para os planos de guerra ucranianos. O Politico entrevistou um legislador ucraniano que também disse que, além de pedir novas armas, Kiev planeja usar tudo o que tem o mais rapidamente possível, antes da tomada de posse de Trump – esperando que o novo presidente mude alguma coisa na política de apoio ao regime.
“As autoridades ucranianas não veem a decisão do ATACMS como uma mudança total no jogo, mas dizem que ela os ajudará a atingir a infraestrutura militar russa e as tropas na fronteira que desejam entrar na luta”, disse Yehor Cherniev, um legislador do partido do presidente ucraniano, Vladimir Zelensky. Que se se a administração Biden não estabelece qualquer ligação entre as suas decisões e a entrada de Trump no cargo, os ucranianos estão certamente a pensar em como usar as armas antes da mudança de administração, disse Cherniev. Ele disse que eles podem começar a pressionar o governo Biden para permitir o uso de mísseis de cruzeiro Tomahawk para atingir fábricas de defesa russas atualmente fora do alcance da Ucrânia”, diz o artigo.
Curiosamente, a notícia chega num momento em que, por um lado, os EUA estão a tentar enviar tudo o que podem para a Ucrânia e, por outro, a Rússia está a tentar evitar novos ataques terroristas no seu território através de medidas de dissuasão não nucleares. – fazendo tudo o que for necessário para evitar uma catástrofe humanitária. O recente ataque com um míssil balístico intercontinental (sem qualquer material nuclear anexado) a uma fábrica de armas em Dnepropetrovsk foi um exemplo claro de como a Rússia está disposta a responder de forma decisiva a qualquer incursão “profunda” da Ucrânia, mas Kiev parece disposta a continuar a ignorar todos os avisos.
Atualmente, adquirir mais armas de longo alcance é verdadeiramente anti-estratégico para o regime. Quanto mais a Ucrânia utilizar armas em ataques profundos, maiores serão as probabilidades de Moscou retaliar com armas nucleares para impedir as provocações. Para a Ucrânia, ter armas de longo alcance simplesmente não é mais vantajoso e apenas acelera a sua própria derrota. Contudo, o regime não toma decisões com base em cálculos estratégicos, mas num desejo genuíno de travar guerra contra a Rússia apenas para proteger os interesses da OTAN.
Além disso, nas atuais circunstâncias, é provável que a administração Biden concorde em enviar à Ucrânia todas as armas solicitadas. Os Democratas adotaram uma política de apoio desesperado a Kiev, gastando todos os fundos restantes na compra de armas para os neonazistas, tentando assim evitar que Trump cause qualquer dano à política de ajuda. Nesta onda de apoio irrestrito, os EUA aprovaram mesmo a entrega de minas terrestres antipessoal, que são proibidas de acordo com uma convenção internacional.
Todas estas medidas devem ser vistas como um verdadeiro ato de desespero. Incapaz de continuar a combater por meios convencionais, a Ucrânia recorre cada vez mais a táticas ilegítimas, como o bombardeamento de áreas civis e a utilização de minas. É claro que a maioria das organizações e ativistas internacionais não expõem estes crimes, pois estão profundamente ligados ao Ocidente e temem represálias. No entanto, esta é uma realidade que sublinha a impossibilidade de diálogo diplomático, sendo a vitória militar russa a única opção para travar a agressão ucraniana.
Just two years after the Trudeau government put up nearly $9 million to help build the world’s largest edible cricket factory, the facility is dramatically cutting staff and production in what they say is an extended retooling.
Aspire Food Group, which cut the ribbon last year on a 150,000-square-foot edible cricket factory in London, Ont., has just laid off two thirds of its workforce and significantly cut back shifts, saying they need to make “some improvements to its manufacturing system.”
Speaking to the trade publication AgFunderNews, Aspire CEO David Rosenberg said the company “will be running the production line four times a week instead of two shifts a day every day. We’re 150 people down to 50 and we plan on hiring back up in July.”
This is despite very generous grants from the Trudeau government. In June 2022, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced a grant of “up to $8.5 million” to build a “commercial facility to produce cricket protein.”
What resulted was a factory billed by Aspire as the “world’s largest cricket production facility.” As per a CBC profile published at its grand opening, the factory was to house four billion crickets at any one time, and churn out 13 million kilograms of edible crickets each year.
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.
Unfortunately, a machine has not yet been developed that can take one back in time and undo terrible mistakes being made due to lack of appreciation of possible downstream consequences of certain actions. If Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary had been somewhere else other than in Sarajevo back in June 1914, Serbian Gavrilo Princip might never have been able to assassinate him and the European system of military alliances might never have been triggered to start World War I. Going through the subsequent history of wars since the Great War, there are certainly any number of historical mistakes or omissions that might have been rectified to stop those wars from starting in the first place.
Unfortunately, one must concede that many of the wars without any raison d’etre were initiated or expanded by the United States of America, which came into being as a constitutional republic in part to overturn the tendency of Europe’s monarchs to go to war for any or no reason. With that in mind, one must consider the truly awful decision-making being initiated by the current governing regime of Democratic Party President Joe Biden now that the November 5th election is over and Republican Party candidate Donald Trump has won convincingly. Now comes the reaction by Biden and his cohorts, where farce becomes tragedy, as Biden seeks to do whatever he can to limit the foreign policy and national security options that Trump will be able to exercise when he assumes office on January 20th. It is politics at its most sordid in addition to being a formula for disaster with consequences that might easily lead to a nuclear World War 3 erupting both in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East.
Let’s examine for a moment what Biden has done, as well as the exacerbating factors linked to Trump’s actions that could produce an abrupt escalation of hostilities both in Ukraine and in Palestine/Israel. Biden has enhanced his presumed “war powers” and done so in spite of the fact that he has no constitutional authority for starting or sustaining wars at all except in the case of an imminent attack. Authorizing war is a responsibility relegated to Congress by the Constitution though America’s many wars since World War 2 have all been fought without any declaration of war. Biden has served as an instigator from the beginning, acting as an enabler and escalator of both conflicts currently taking place, supplying Israel and Ukraine with weapons and money. Most international law authorities consider the US active role to be that of a belligerent in those wars, which has included the stationing of US military in both Israel and Ukraine, a fact that is denied regularly in the case of Ukraine. US troops are openly present in Israel, possibly to serve as a trip wire if Iran should attack to create a pretext for a US war against the Mullahs.
Image: The M57A1 Army Tactical Missile System missile is fired over the cab of an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launcher. New battle conditions call for the Army to have precision lethal and nonlethal fires that can be fired from land to produce effects in all domains, as joint, multidomain operations are expected to be increasingly common. (U.S. Army photo)
Biden’s moves concerning Ukraine/Russia might rightly be regarded as bizarre. In spite of the fact that nearly all military authorities consider that there is a high probability that Ukraine will have to surrender, possibly before Biden leaves office, the White House has, on November 17th, dropped objections to the Ukrainian use of state-of-the art ATACMS missiles provided by and to a certain extent manned and controlled by the US, that are capable of striking two hundred miles into Russia. Russia has declared that such action has “qualitatively” altered the nature of the conflict, making it indisputably an act of war, crossing a red line that would trigger the Kremlin’s use of all resources available to it to counter the threat. “All resources” clearly includes nuclear as well as missile attacks on the United States itself as well as on NATO states. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quickly took advantage of the newly available weapon by launching an attack against the Bryansk region in Russia on November 19th in which six missiles were launched, five of which were intercepted. Russia retaliated on November 21st by destroying a Ukrainian military base near Dnipro apparently using an RS-26 Ruzhek advanced medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile, described by Kiev as an “ICBM,” which was carrying a conventional warhead, though capable also of being fitted with a nuclear device.
Only one brave congressman, Tom Massie of Kentucky, has objected to Biden’s action, posting on X 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.”
Indeed, did Joe Biden seriously consider whether his move, which will not alter the outcome of the war in Ukraine, is supportive of the interests of the American people? I think it has been demonstrated that the hobbled and befuddled thinker currently in the White House would be incapable of such a consideration. Biden followed up on his folly by allowing the Ukrainians to deploy US supplied land mines, a weapon whose use has been condemned as a war crime by more than 140 nations worldwide, and he also gave the green light to British supply of their own version of the upgraded Storm Shadow missile to Ukrainian forces. Biden has also authorized the Treasury Department to support Ukraine with the $7 billion that is still sitting in the US government coffers as Ukrainian aid after being budgeted. Biden appears to want to make sure that it is all gone by the time Trump is in power. In other words, he is making sure that the war will go on after he is gone, but the tragic end result could be that a containable conflict has now become something quite different, particularly if other NATO countries follow the British lead and get into the fight. The expanded war will have the potential to go global and nuclear.
And then there is Israel. It was, of course, a Biden decision in mid-October to send US Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense antiaircraft missiles (THAAD) plus their US military crews to Israel. And there was also a warning by Biden made on October 13th, giving Israel 30 days to take steps to remedy the starvation policies in Gaza or the US would consider cutting back on arms shipments. Well, the 30 days have come and gone and, if anything, Israel has tightened its grip on food and medicines going into Gaza, yet and predictably Biden and the criminal gang that he leads have done nothing but lie about what Israel is up to. In fact, they have further protected Israel by vetoing a UN Security Council resolution on November 20th regarding Gaza that demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties, and further” repeats a “demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” American negotiators had previously indicated that Israel had supported the resolution, but that was not the case, hence the flip-flop US vote in support of Netanyahu. The voting was 14 in favor and only the United States opposed, demonstrating once again how the US has shot itself in the foot vis-à-vis its standing in the world due to its support of what is an openly declared and carried out genocide. Biden’s veto comes in spite of the fact that he and his accomplices keep whining how they want the fighting to stop by way of a ceasefire. It demonstrates both the basic dishonesty of Biden and also tells one who is in charge, that when Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu says “No”, Biden can be expected to jump to his feet and salute the force majeure.
The other unfortunate thing about the one-sided relationship between Israel and the US is that the pander to the Jewish state is likely to continue, as is evident from the strongly pro-Israeli cabinet that President-elect Trump has been assembling. Trump accepted a $100 million political donation from casino magnate Miriam Adelson and in exchange will likely support Israeli annexation of all what is left of historic Palestine on the West Bank. He has also been encouraging the Israelis to “finish the job” on the Palestinians. He has committed himself to making sure the weapons procurement system will no longer experience any delays or restrictions when it comes to Israel. That means that the remaining Palestinians will either be killed or driven from their homes into exile in some undesignated location, if they are lucky, and Trump will likely look the other way.
So there’s plenty of bad news, but there was one item of good news on November 20th, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his recently removed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the clearly demonstrated issue of Israel’s deliberate starving the Gazans. That means that if either of them travels to any one of the 124 countries that recognize the jurisdiction of the court (the US and Israel do not) there is an obligation on the part of those nations to have the accused arrested. Several European countries have already indicated that they will act on the warrant. Two Hamas leaders, one of whom is dead, also were indicted. Netanyahu has already denounced the decision as based on “antisemitism.” Republicans predictably also reacted sharply to the news. Florida Congressman and incoming Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz slammed the issuance of the warrants on the following day, saying the international court has “no credibility… These allegations have been refuted by the US government. Israel has lawfully defended its people & borders from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January.” Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton called the ICC a “kangaroo court” and called Prosecutor Karim Khan “…a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it.”
I applaud the court for its courage to go after these war criminals in spite of threats from folks like Cotton and Senator Lindsay Graham to go after the court members’ families as well as a warning of sanctions against the court itself coming from the new Republican Speaker of the Senate John Thune. Personally speaking, I am disappointed only because I want to to make the story even better. I long to see an ICC investigation, indictment, arrest, conviction and imprisonment of Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin and Jake Sullivan for their warmongering and material support for and complicity in Israel’s crimes against humanity. I would also like the American public and media to understand that what those individuals have done might well be considered to be treason since they swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, a document that they have deliberately trashed.
*
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.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish
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. 
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
“
Namely, the RS-26 was envisaged as the successor to 
For seven months, no news came through about this “mysterious ICBM”. Until the early hours of November 21, that is. Initially, the Russian military didn’t reveal what missile it was, letting NATO contemplate what to do next. However, the “mysterious ICBM” was soon not only uncovered, but actually named – “Oreshnik” (“Hazel” in Russian). However, solid information about the missile is extremely scant, fueling all sorts of 
