Ukraine is now desperate to embroil Poland in a hot war with Russia.
Polish President Duda revealed on Monday that his country has already spent a whopping 3.3% of its GDP on providing military, humanitarian, and other forms of support to Ukraine over the past two and a half years, which works out to approximately $25 billion thus far. He then added that it also gave almost 400 tanks thus far too. This was followed the day after by Zelensky demanding even more and suggesting that Poland was still holding back from giving all that it really could.
“Today, the Polish side’s attention to our defense capabilities has slightly decreased. I mean, Poland probably gave what it could, and there are probably some things that remain in Poland today. I am raising one question… There is a specific question: we really need your MiGs, your airplanes.”
He then speculated that
“Poland … hesitates to be alone with [shooting Russian missiles]. It wants the support of other countries in NATO. I think this would lead to a positive decision by Romania.”
Polish Defense Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz responded to Zelensky by clarifying in comments to the publicly financed Polish Press Agency that
“The Polish government, both our government and our predecessors, have donated billions of dollars in equipment to Ukraine. That’s all we were able to donate. But the security of the Polish state is always my highest priority and all decisions we make in this matter are made through the prism of the security of the Polish state.”
He then segued into responding to Zelensky’s appeal that Poland intercept Russian missiles over Ukraine by saying that
“No country will make such decisions individually. I have not seen any supporters of making this decision in NATO. I am not surprised that President Zelensky will appeal for this because this is his role. But our role is to make decisions in line with the interests of the Polish state. And that is what we are making today.”
Several factors are therefore at play with regard to Zelensky’s latest demands. First, he’s trying to correct perceptions of their lopsided partnership via “megaphone diplomacy” in the hopes that the optics of demanding more arms despite the enormous amount thereof that Poland confirmed that it already gave Ukraine will come off as some sort of power flex. Second, the innuendo is that Poland should sacrifice more of its sovereignty by participating in the EU’s planned military union in order to boost production.
And finally, he obviously wants to pressure Poland to lobby NATO more on Ukraine’s behalf in order to reach an agreement for permitting it to intercept Russian missiles across the border. Nevertheless, Kosiniak-Kamysz’s response shows that Zelensky is surprisingly meeting some resistance from Tusk’s German-backed liberal-globalist government. His positive reference to the previous conservative-nationalist government and repeated reaffirmation of state interests sends a very powerful message.
It seems that there are still influential conservative-nationalists within Poland’s permanent military bureaucracy, which is a part of its “deep state”, who have some red lines in terms of how far they’ll go in support of Ukraine. The existence of these figures can be intuited by Kosiniak-Kamysz’s abovementioned words that contradicted the expected approach of Tusk’s team. They don’t want to sacrifice Poland’s minimum defense needs nor provoke a war with Russia and then risk being hung out to dry by NATO.
In other words, they’ve maxed out their military support for Ukraine, though that doesn’t mean that Poland will abandon it. Its “deep state” – both the liberal-globalist faction represented by Tusk and the (very imperfect) conservative-nationalist one represented by the former government – hate Russia more than they love Poland so they’ll remain embroiled in this proxy war till it’s finally over. Accordingly, they’ll probably still find some way to continue helping Ukraine, even if it’s less than before.
That said, the fact that Poland has already pretty much given Ukraine everything that it could and isn’t going to unilaterally risk sparking World War III by intercepting Russian missiles across the border bodes ill for Kiev at precisely the moment when it needs as much support as possible. Its invasion of Kursk failed to decelerate the pace of Russia’s advance in Donbass, which has actually accelerated since then, and the impending capture of Pokrovsk could reshape the conflict’s dynamics as explained here.
That’s precisely why Zelensky is so hellbent on Poland intercepting Russian missiles over Ukraine despite the risk of World War III breaking out since he expects that the resultant crisis would lead to Moscow engaging in a series of concessions for the sake of peace. NATO doesn’t share his views though no matter how much its propagandists mock Putin for his tepid response to every red line that Ukraine has crossed thus far otherwise they’d have already approved this and Zelensky wouldn’t have to beg for it.
The abovementioned insight regarding NATO’s continued reluctance to escalate tensions with Russia via direct involvement in their proxy war also suggests that it might not conventionally intervene if Ukraine provokes Belarus into carrying out cross-border attacks out of self-defense. That scenario was touched upon here when warning about Kiev’s possible plans to attack or cut off its northern neighbor’s southeastern city of Gomel, which might be partially predicated on prompting the intervention scenario.
NATO is unlikely to commence a conventional intervention unless Poland agrees to play a leading role, but its “deep state” still seems scared that their country might be hung out to dry judging by Zelensky and Kosiniak-Kamysz’s remarks about why it doesn’t want to intercept Russian missiles across the border. Poland therefore might not lobby for either scenario despite Ukraine’s demand, and it could also possibly refuse to play such a role even if NATO suggested it and offered Article 5 guarantees.
Of course, it can’t be ruled out that Poland’s “deep state” dynamics might change, thus resulting in the formulation of completely different policies. There’s no indication that this might soon happen with its military part, however, which is the most important one in this respect. After all, Kosiniak-Kamysz’s remarks came as a surprise precisely because they contradicted expectations. If its “deep state’s” military dynamics remain the same, then Ukraine shouldn’t count on Poland trying to “rescue” it from Russia.
*
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.
Unit 601 of the IDF’s Combat Engineering Corps is clearing a vast swath of land across central Gaza splitting the 25-mile-long territory into two parts.
The so-called Netzarim corridor (Highway 749)—which crosses Gaza from east to west—will provide faster transport for IDF troops operating in the area and will also function as vital part of Israel’s security cordon separating the north from the south. There is no doubt that military outposts will be established along the corridor as well as in locations along the western coast.
The aim of these actions is to protect the development of new settlements that will be built north of the corridor.
In short, the Israeli government is using its war on Hamas to divert attention from its real objective which is the expansion of the Jewish state on Palestinian land.
Not surprisingly, Israel’s activities in the north have resulted in mass evacuations that have intensified the suffering of the traumatized population. According to the Palestinian Chronicle:
The United Nations announced on Tuesday that Israel issued three fresh evacuation orders for over 19 neighborhoods in the north of Gaza and Deir Al-Balah, bringing the number of massive evacuation orders to 16 in August alone, which leaves only 11 percent of the Gaza Strip untouched by the evacuation orders.
As we noted earlier, the Palestinians are being driven from the north to make room for new settlements that will be built sometime in the near future. The Netzarim corridor serves as a critical buffer zone separating these new colonies from potential attack by Palestinian militants. Israel intends to maintain control over Gaza by putting restrictions on movement and by designating areas where Palestinians can gather. In other words, Palestinians will be refugees in their own country. This is an excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
Gaza’s population, which stood at over 2 million before the start of the genocide, is now crammed into an area that is just 41 square kilometers, or 11 percent of Gaza’s total area, with the remaining 89 percent being placed on evacuation orders by the Israeli Defense Forces.
The United Nations warned, “The area is lacking critical infrastructure and basic services, while aid provision is limited due to access and security issues. The severe overcrowding, with a density of 30,000 to 34,000 individuals per square kilometer has exacerbated the dire shortage of essential resources such as water, sanitation and hygiene supplies, health services, protection and shelter.” UN forced to suspend food distribution as Israel places 89 percent of Gaza under evacuation orders,World Socialist Web Site
This is Netanyahu’s plan in a nutshell:
Shrink the Gaza concentration camp to a mere 11 percent of its original size.
Transfer the population to the designated location.
Partition the territory to allow for settlement activity and the expropriation of gas reserves off the coast.
🧵A news piece that aired on Israeli Channel 14 yesterday reveals that Israel is vigorously working not just on a security zone around the whole of Gaza Strip, but also on a completely leveled buffer zone south of Gaza City, a latitudinal highway, splitting the strip into 2 parts pic.twitter.com/s4DLO3OzY6
Surprisingly, an article posted Wednesday at CNN confirms our analysis and admits that Israel’s postwar plans involve “cutting the strip in two” and maintaining a permanent “operational foothold in the area”. And while the author does not verify our theory on settlement development, readers can draw their own conclusions. Israel would never put so much money and effort into an operation that didn’t extend the borders of the Israeli state. Here’s CNN:
A satellite image from March 6 reveals that the east-west road, which has been under construction for weeks, now stretches from the Gaza-Israeli border area across the entire roughly 6.5-kilometer-wide strip, dividing northern Gaza, including Gaza City, from the south of the enclave….
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN they were using the route to “establish (an) operational foothold in the area”and allow “the passage of forces as well as logistical equipment.”…
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plan, obtained by CNN, to his security cabinet on February 23 for a post-Hamas future for Gaza, including the “complete demilitarization” of the enclave, and the overhaul of its security, civil administration and education systems. Palestinians living in Gaza fear Israel’s post-war security plans will further restrict their freedom of movement… Israeli road splitting Gaza in two has reached the Mediterranean coast, satellite imagery show,CNN
Keep in mind, that these developments are taking place while Israeli diplomats are currently conducting ceasefire negotiations in Cairo. Why would Hamas agree to a deal with Israel when Israel is in the process of seizing more Palestinian land and tightening the occupation?
They won’t, which means the bloodbath will continue for the foreseeable future. Hamas has no other choice. Here’s an excerpt from a post by author Anthony Lowenstein:
…. Israel’s goal in Gaza is long-term occupation and the building of small settlements, slowly building into something far more substantial. The editor of @haaretzcom outlines the grim state of play:
“The public discourse in Israel is focused on the hostages and their fate, but Netanyahu considers them to be a media nuisance, a battering ram by his political opponents, and a distraction from the goal: A prolonged occupation of the Gaza Strip, or – as he has repeatedly declared since the outbreak of the war – “Israeli security control. “Control of the Philadephi route and the “security corridor” along the border allows Israel to surround Gaza’s land borders and isolate it from Egypt. Control of the Netzarim road route in practice divides northern Gaza, where few Palestinian remain with destroyed homes and infrastructures, from the southern part of the coastal enclave, overflowing with refugees from the entire Strip.
“In practice, a long-term arrangement for “the day after” is being drawn up. Israel will control the northern Gaza Strip and drive out the 300,000 Palestinian still there. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, the war’s ideologue, proposes starving them to death, or exiling them, as a lever with which to defeat Hamas. The Israeli right envisions a Jewish settlement of the area, with vast real estate potential of convenient topography, a sea view, and proximity to central Israel.
“The 57-year experience of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem indicates that this is a long process that requires a lot of patience and diplomatic maneuvering capability. No large Jewish city will be built in Gaza tomorrow, but progress will be made acre by acre, mobile home by mobile home, outpost by outpost – just like in Hebron, Elon Moreh, and Gilad Farm. “The southern Gaza Strip will be left for Hamas, which will have to care for the destitute residents under Israeli siege, even after the international community loses interest in the story and moves on to other crises. Netanyahu believes with certainty that, after the U.S. elections, the influence of pro-Palestinian demonstrators on American politics will wane, even if Vice President Kamala Harris wins.” Haaretz
Like many other analysts, I totally misread Israel’s intentions in Gaza. After obliterating one city after another from north to south, I assumed that Netanyahu had a plan for breaching the Rafah Crossing and driving two million Palestinians into the Sinai Desert. I can see now I was wrong; that is not the plan. It might have been the original strategy, but Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi preemptively deployed a sizable part of his army to the border to prevent Israel from executing its ethnic cleansing plan. Check out the headlines:
Images show barbed wire, expanded fortifications on Sinai side of border, with Cairo fearing that Gazans could seek shelter from IDF operation by attempting to cross into Egypt
So, maybe, Netanyahu scrapped his original ethnic cleansing plan in order to avoid a full-blown conflagration with Egypt? We don’t know for sure. But what we do know is that Israel’s endgame for Gaza is now in full view. The area north of the corridor will be occupied by Israeli settlers committed to the Zionist ideal while the native population will be left to languish in grinding poverty in makeshift tent cities cut off from the outside world.
*
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.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Background: The association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines and myocarditis/pericarditis in the Japanese population has not been systematically investigated. This study was aimed at clarifying the association between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and myocarditis/pericarditis as well as influencing factors by using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.
Methods: Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) for the association between the vaccines and myocarditis/pericarditis were calculated using data from the database (April 2004-December 2023). Age, sex, onset time, and outcomes in symptomatic patients were evaluated.
Results: The total number of reports was 880,999 (myocarditis: 1846; pericarditis: 761). The adverse events associated with the vaccines included myocarditis (919 cases) and pericarditis (321 cases), with the ROR [95 % CIs] being significant for both (myocarditis: 30.51 [27.82-33.45], pericarditis: 21.99 [19.03-25.40]). Furthermore, the ROR [95 % CIs] of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 15.64 [14.15-17.28] and 54.23 [48.13-61.10], respectively, for myocarditis, and 15.78 [13.52-18.42] and 27.03 [21.58-33.87], respectively, for pericarditis. Furthermore, most cases were ≤30 years or male. The period from vaccination to onset was ≤8 days, corresponding to early failure type based on analysis using the Weibull distribution. Outcomes were recovery or remission for most cases; however, they were severe or caused death in some cases.
Conclusion: In the Japanese population, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was significantly associated with the onset of myocarditis/pericarditis. The influencing factors included age of ≤30 years and male. Furthermore, although most adverse events occurred early after vaccination, overall outcomes were good.
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.
Keisuke Takada, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan; Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Kazuaki Taguchi, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan. Electronic address: [email protected].
Masaru Samura, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan; Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan; Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Teikyo Heisei University, 4-21-2 Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo, 164-8530, Japan.
Yuki Igarashi, Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Yuko Okamoto, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Yuki Enoki, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Koji Tanikawa, Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama General Hospital, 2201-5 Kuroganecho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 225-0025, Japan.
Kazuaki Matsumoto, Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan.
Featured image: A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)
Japan has issued an apology to its citizens for the disastrous consequences of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and has launched far-reaching scientific inquiries and criminal investigations to establish the truth and punish the perpetrators.
.
.
VIDEO. ANALYSIS OF NANOBOTS
The globalist elite and Big Pharma are panicking, terrified of what the Japanese are finding, and they are doing everything they can to discredit these investigations, including ordering the mainstream media to initiate a total media blackout of any news coming out of Japan.
But we are not going to allow the elite to succeed in gaslighting the public any longer. Japan are uncovering crimes against humanity and the whole world needs to hear this information.
A new Japanese study published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research suggest that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain unauthorized “animated worm-like” entities, invisible to the human eye, that swim, wriggle, and assemble themselves into complex structures.
As the Dr. Young Mi Lee and Dr. Daniel Broudy from Okinawa Christian University explain, these worm-like entities are responsible for causing clots inside millions of human bodies around the world since the mRNA roll out.
Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study
Authors
Young Mi Lee, MDPracticing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Daniel Broudy, PhDProfessor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University
Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory “bench science” aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions. From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures. As time progressed during incubation, simple one- and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time. Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables..
Author Biographies
.
Young Mi Lee, MD, Practicing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Young Mi Lee, MD, is a practicing physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, and is also a reproductive endocrinologist; because of her work over the last three years she has become an expert in stereomicroscopy and in the microbiology of incubated COVID-19 injectables, especially, Pfizer and Moderna
Daniel Broudy, PhD, Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University
Daniel Broudy holds a doctorate in applied psycholinguistics from the School of Communication and Creative Arts at Deakin University. He is a professor of applied linguistics at Okinawa Christian University. His research integrates research in cognitive linguistics, developmental and social psychology, semiotics, and communication theory as an effort to describe the ways in which centers of power organize campaigns of persuasion and engineer consent for policies and actions across cultures. His work appears with Palgrave, Macmillan, Westminster University Press, Opole University Press, the University Press of Wrocław, Peter Lang, Media Theory, Ethical Space: The International Journal of Ethics, Peace News, Truthout, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Fast Capitalism, Propaganda in Focus, and System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.
Dr. Young Mi Lee and Dr. Daniel Broudy isolated vaccine vials for three weeks, then examined them under 400 times magnification and found what they describe as “undisclosed additional engineered components” … also known as nanotechnology.
As Lee and Broudy observed, when the nanotechnology is energized it creates “discs, chains, spirals, tubes, and right-angle structures.”
What are these nanorobots and why would Pfizer and Big Pharma want to secretly inject thousands of billions of them into unsuspecting human beings?
And when exactly does the nanotechnology “energize”, you ask?
Lee and Broudy were astonished to find the “additional engineered components” energize when they are placed near cellphones or computers.
These are nanobots that communicate with a central database, the IP of which cannot be traced to a location or a single computer.
Evidence is now emerging that the elite have implemented their plan – without our consent – to turn the human race into a vast battery reserve to be harvested in secret.
Unfortunately for the elite, this secret has been blown wide open by researchers in Japan and around the world. We are onto them and their is a plan in place to serve them with the justice they so richly deserve.
The Japanese study concludes that the smart microscopic components are part of the global elite’s “long-planned well-funded Internet of Bodies,” which was described as a kind of “synthetic global central nervous system”turning humans into controllable “Biohybrid Magnetic Robots.”
They also demanded the labels “vaccine” and “safe and effective” be removed because the concoction injected into billions of people around the world is not a vaccine nor safe and effective.
The more we learn about the so-called vaccines, the more we understand that “safe and effective” is perhaps the biggest of the Big Lies the elite ever told.
The mainstream media are desperate to convince you this is just a conspiracy theory, but we have the evidence for you in black and white.
A patent granted to Bill Gates awarded the self-appointed world health czar the “exclusive rights” to computerize human bodies and use them as local wireless networks.
Microsoft was awarded US Patent 6,754,472, which is titled: Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body.
Which really should be science fiction, if you stop to think about it. Did anybody consult you about whether you are willing to hand over to Bill Gates the exclusive rights to your body?
The elite always tell us their plans, but nobody wants to take them at their word.
It’s called Revelation of the Method, a subliminal psychological warfare tool that serves as a clever and occult way of demoralizing the masses and increasing the powers of the elites who rule over us.
It’s time we start taking these totalitarian criminals and psychopaths at their word.
*
GLOBAL RESEARCH EDITOR’S NOTE
It is important to read the Abstract of the IJVPTR Study and address the complexities, without jumping to conclusions as outlined in Baxter Dmitry’s article.
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.
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People’s Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Featured image is from TPV
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
(Originally published December 3, 2023)
“They’re not asking for anything else; they just want the gift of life. If it’s there and it’s possible please give it. I don’t want to die, God help me.”
– Sheila Lewis at the NCI in Ottawa on May 17, 2023. She was not allowed an organ transplant on the grounds of her choice to not take the COVID-19 vaccine. She died three months later. [1]
Approximately four years ago, as of this date, was when signs began to arise of some sort of nasty illness erupting in China. [2]
Not big news at the time. The general public then had no idea this illness would escalate beyond China into a full blown “pandemic” that authorities at the World Health Organization (WHO) would need drastic measures, including lockdowns, social distancing and even withholding rights of organization, and an aggressive vaccination approach to retain it.
Now, four years after the worst seems to be over – the WHO Director-General stated that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern – and life seems to be getting back to normal, albeit with the economic and social repercussions still evident in the wake of the COVID-19 storm.
We find however two events marking the anniversary of the beginning these changes to the planetary crisis.
One is the Final Report completed earlier this week by the National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19. Commissioners tabled their full report after listening to and questioning sworn testimonials from over 300 witnesses in eight different cities across Canada. The Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada was the product of over a year of work, and was forged as the culmination of a full citizens report. According to the authors, literally thousands of volunteers were active in making these hearings possible. [3]
The other timely indication is the rise of mainstream media coverage of illnesses around the globe, and the threat of another pandemic on the horizon. If this is a replay of history, we can seemingly look forward to a “doubling-down” on masking, restrictions and a massive new threat as a divided public could soon emerge into a civil war among those desperate to “protect our children” while the Vaccination program, Digital IDs etc are going to be implemented “by hook or by crook.”
This episode of the Global Research News Hour will focus on the three Dickensian ghosts of Pandemic Past, Pandemic present and Pandemics yet to come.
In our first half hour, we highlight the recent Final Report of the NCI and interview NCI Commissioner Kenneth Drysdale about its content and its prospects for the future.
In our second half hour, James Corbett joins us once again to talk about the pandemic horrors arising and also talks about the draft Pandemic Agreement tabled in October and what the signing of this agreement by the WHO could mean for the future of public health and for democracy in Canada and around the world.
Kenneth Drysdale, FEC and P.Eng is an executive engineer with over 40 years of experience as a Professional Engineer, which includes 29 years experience in the development and management of national and regional engineering businesses. Ken is currently retired from full time practice as a consulting engineer, but continues to be active in the area of forensic engineering, investigations, preparation of expert reports and expert testimony at trial, arbitrations, and mediations. He has testified as expert witness at trials in Manitoba and Ontario. He has acted as the arbitrator and mediator in disputes.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Global Research:So, as we see in the press, there have been a series of article coming out in the mainstream press mentioning a new pandemic definitely coming. And now, we’re seeing upsetting news from China that has prompted masking and distancing in China. Again, it looks like a respiratory illness not from a novel virus, but from, you know, clusters of overlapping common viruses. And this could be a replay of four years ago, although this time the health care enforcers, if I could put it that way, will be prepared, you know, for the few people who dissent from the standard advice of the WHO. But the new pandemic sort of treaty comes out in May of 2024, or it’s supposed to. I’m wondering, James, what you think about this. Is this the next step in the plans to establish the power grab of the WHO? Is this something you’ve been expecting? Or is it just a seasonal flu being embellished?
James Corbett: It really could be both, actually. And in fact, I will add to this mix, that as we are recording the latest headlines are, “UK detects its first human case of swine flu strain.” So, apparently, there is even more fuel for this fire that’s developing even as we are talking right now. And I think people can probably intuit that regardless of what you think about what happened over the past few years, the ground work has been laid, at least in the psyche and the consciousness of the public to understand and expect that there will be massive response to any future pandemic threats.
And as much as people may poo-poo the craziness of the past few years and the masking and the lockdowns, it is interesting to speculate what might happen if there was a truly, as opposed to not quite – a nothing virus, I won’t say it that way, but at least a very, very small event in terms of mortality. If there was a truly bubonic plague-level taking out one quarter of the population type of illness going around, the way people would be clamouring for the very rules and restrictions that they were protesting against in the previous few years.
And you have to at least imagine that if there were people in positions of power and authority who seek to profit in every sense, monetarily and just through power grabs from that type of fear, that at the very least, they would be playing into that, if not actively seeking to create such strains. But at any rate, we don’t even have to go there.
And the way that I understand this entire topic, because I have been researching very carefully over the past 16 years now, the topic of false flag terrorism, I do see the parallels between the War on Terror, and the new biosecurity state that’s coming into view with the pandemic preparedness that the United Nations, for example, was talking about after their latest general assembly. And having a political call that we must have some sort of new agreements from the World Health Organization to help us prepare for this. And oh, lo and behold, they are working on just such an agreement that they won’t really let us see until it has passed, presumably, at next year’s World Health Assembly in Geneva in May of 2024. And I think the way to understand this is that throughout, for example, the 1990s, it wasn’t just that Osama Bin Laden suddenly appeared all overnight. There was a gradual buildup of events that took place in an escalating cycle. And in the American domestic response context we could see, for example, Waco, and then the OKC bombing, preparing the public for these psychologically-jarring, very large-scale terror events.
And on the international scale, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole introducing the sort of – the idea to the public. We saw, for example, in the wake of the OKC bombing, the introduction of the Crime Omnibus bill that Joe Biden now likes to brag that he essentially – he really kind of wrote the Patriot Act, because that was just an extension of the Crime Omnibus bill that they tried to pass in the wake of the OKC bombing. All of this infrastructure was being laid beforehand.
And interestingly enough, it wasn’t even simply 9/11 that caused the actual pulling of the trigger on the entire Homeland Security state and the actual institution of the Patriot Act. It was the anthrax attacks which were literally, directly targeting Congress at the exact time that they were deliberating on the Patriot Act and whatever provisions might be slipped into there. And then, the anthrax attacks happened, caused this massive panic, the shutdown of Congress. They decided to pass the Patriot Act right away in an overnight session, panic, emergency.
And now, there’s a new law of the land, and entirely new paradigm of governance. We are looking at a potentially very similar trajectory. We saw the buildup of events from the swine flu of 2009, Zika, the Ebola scare of 2014, et cetera. Escalating throughout the 2010’s into the Covid scare of the past few years. And now, we are on the cusp of potentially another scare which might cause the actual political impetus and even the public to get on board with the idea of the World Health Organization swooping in to save the day with their brand new pandemic agreement.
GR: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I can’t help but notice that another aspect of it that was being planned for was the fact that climate change would somehow be motivating this or, you know, resulting in the transfer of more of these – the virus from animals to humans or something like that. And this is right now during the latest COP28, you know, summary —
JC: Exactly. Exactly right. And in fact, that’s an incredibly important thing to underline, because one of the pieces that is being embedded, or at least, from what we’ve seen is being embedded in the new pandemic agreement that they’re working on behind closed doors is this concept of One Health, in which it will not simply be about human health.
It’s not just that the World Health Organization is going to steward over the entirety of the human population and let’s trust our health to their assessment. No, it’s One Health, as in, it’s not just human health, it’s animal health, climate/environment health, is all related. And thus, essentially the entire world and all of its resources come under the jurisdiction of the World Health Organization. Though, it is incredibly important.
And one of the things that they stress is zoonotic transfer from animal species to human species. And this is happening because we’re encroaching on protected areas and because of climate change, et cetera, et cetera. So now, all of this starts to become essentially, as has been pointed out, for example by the Club of Rome in their 1991 publication on the first global revolution where they said that they were looking for a way to unite humanity behind the concept of humanity itself being the enemy, and global warming fit the bill, because it is a human – presumably, at least according to the theory – is a human-generated problem and it requires this global governmental solution. And that’s exactly what we seemed to be facing with this.
GR: Yeah. Well, maybe you could bring us up to speed on the changes that the WHO has planned, I mean, for those who, you know, are maybe up-to-date. I mean, there’s the creation of the document aimed at the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to the future pandemic. They tabled a recent draft in October, okay, where you say it’s all been discussed behind closed doors, nobody can see. Could you just highlight a few of the concerns – just a few – of the concerns you are raising about this not-quite-a-treaty document that, in combination with changes to the international health regulations, could see the sovereignty of states and individual’s health threatened even more than they already are.
JC: There are certainly aspects of power grab, money grab to this from the big pharmaceutical companies that could stand to benefit from the types of changes that are coming into view.
There is also the setting up of genomic data transfers of not just pandemic pathogens of international concern, but potential pathogenic problems, which essentially opens up a Pandora’s box of countries potentially being somehow – at least through this treaty – legally obligated to start sharing various genetic data in ways that are not very well explained, at least in the draft documents that we’ve seen so far. They also raised, for the first time in a legal document, the concept of ‘infodemic,’ which they give some sort of cursory definition to. But essentially, the question on the table is: what to do in the light of future pandemic or emergency situations when people are spreading false information on the internet.
And we know what that looks like, because well, for I mean, myself, I had my YouTube channel with nearly 600,000 subscribers that I’d built up over 14 years taken out at the flip of a switch because it was, of course, in contravention of World Health Organization mandates and remits or whatever gobbledeegook garbage language that YouTube used to censor masses of people back during the previous scare. We can only imagine they are now looking at actually instituting some teeth in that, so that the World Health Organization itself can really come in and censor people.
There are many, many other concerns, but the most concerning to me is the fact that they are no longer calling it an ‘agreement’ or ‘instrument’ or other legal body, blah blah blah, whatever they were – gobbledeegook mouthful of a phrase they were using to describe this document before.
They are calling it specifically a “pandemic agreement,” but very specifically in Article 21 of the draft that they released on October 31st – boo, Halloween – they have specifically a reference to the creation of a “Conference of the Parties,” which for people who do not know, the C-O-P – COP – is used in the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s used in the Biological – Treaty, Warfare Treaty, et cetera, et cetera. All of these various UN branches and agreements have their C-O-P, their Conference of the Parties, which is essentially set up like a type of government, which will not just operate and institute a single set of laws. It will continue to operate and meet year after year after year to try to develop and continue adding teeth to whatever agreement that they sign in May 2024.
So, even if the pandemic agreement that will undoubtedly get rubber stamped in May 2024 unless we make that politically unfeasible, even if that agreement was fine on its face and didn’t actually institute any of this, the Conference of the Parties that will meet every year thereafter, could add all of these things to the agreement.
And guess what? There is exactly zero political accountability or insight into this process whatsoever. In the exact same way that Canadians, for example, have exactly zero say over the Conference of the Parties at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, you don’t get to elect whatever representative the Canadian government decides to send over there. And you have absolutely no say on whatever they decide in those agreements. But then, they start to become the rule of the law – the law of the land in Canada.
How did that happen? It’s because, essentially, this is a great sovereignty takeover that is happening right under our eyes and they are attempting to do the exact same thing with the World Health Organization.
GR: Wow. I know that – yeah, it sounds like you’ve got sort of a mini-state within the state that is basically saying, ‘Okay, whatever you guys decide, this is what the rules are going to be.’ At least in health. I know that there’s an article, WION reports that Kate Bingham, the chairperson of the UK’s Disease X, could turn out to be the UK’s vaccine task force from May-December 2020 said that she believed that Disease X could turn out to be considerably more perilous than Covid-19. You also mentioned in your last – in our last interview that Bill Gates said that Covid-19 was a Pandemic I, and we are facing Pandemic II, like World War II, you know? It will be more demanding that everyone get vaccinated, I imagine. Do you see the health enforcers clamping down on vaccines at a time when fewer and fewer people are bothering to go based on what – the data they are seeing?
JC: I think that what the past few years has exposed is that the fact that we should not be listening unquestioningly to what we are told is ‘the science,’ while excluding all of those medical professionals, including very degreed, very credentialed, people who have had entire careers in the medical field who have never once been question, but now are toxic and cannot be interviewed or mentioned in mainstream media because they dared to question the pronouncements of the past few years. And we find out, oh, wait, they were right.
There are serious health concerns with what is masquerading as a vaccine which is actually this mRNA injection, et cetera. There is a lot of people who have woken up to that reality.
The only way I think that they can continue to push forward with this agenda is to double down. And the only way to really double down is to create or generate or play up or whatever it is some sense of not just a renewed crisis, but an actually escalating crisis. ‘This is going to be worse than what we saw with that Covid thing. You thought that was bad? Wait until you see this.’ And unfortunately, we are talking about the people who have been working in that murky world of biological weapons that we were talking about in our previous conversation with David Kelly who, presumably, would know a thing or two about what Disease X might look like.
And for the people in the audience who don’t know about this, there has been talk for years now about war gaming and planning. There have been disease exercises run by these various organizations and foundations, et cetera, on Clade X and other such things, which is an imaginary potential future pandemic of some sort of respiratory virus or something along those lines that will spread around the world. They have been war gaming out that situation for many situation for many years now.
And one would expect that, well, when you start at the least when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well, at least in this situation, whatever develops, whether natural or some sort of man-made thing, whether released on purpose or accidentally escaping from some – one of these Class 5 biological containment facilities or whatever the case may be, at any rate, they will try to hammer that problem down because they see it as the nail. And the hammer that they have is all of this infrastructure that they are putting into place right now for the biosecurity state which will almost inevitably involve some sort of mandatory vaccinations – “vaccinations” – once again talking about this new – I guess we can’t call it experimental anymore because it’s the human population that’s being experimented on, the mRNA injections, and other such novel ideas for really rearranging people and their natural biological processes. Playing with the code of life, the “software of life,” as even Moderna and other companies have called it.
And who is spearheading all of this and being the front man for it? Of course, it’s Bill Gates, the man who took over the software of the computer world 30 years ago and is now going to try to transform the software of life itself.
GR: Yeah, well that leads me to my final question for you and I hope you will address it. The idea of how we actually prepare for Pandemic II and the WHO legislation coming down the pike.
JC: Unfortunately, this is one of those problems which there is no half-hearted solution. There may be a number of stop-gap political measures that can be made that might lesson the impact of this. But as we have seen, no matter what sort of legal instruments or documents or pieces of paper people might have like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they think protects their fundamental rights, those can all and will all be discarded in the sense – in the perceived sense of a crisis, whether real or imaginary.
And so, what really, truly needs to happen is a fundamental transformation of not the political system itself but our understanding of our individual human sovereignty, our medical freedom. We have the right to make our decisions for our own bodies. And that decision may be: I perceive there is a real risk, I’m going to mask up, I’m going to take the mRNA, whatever that position is, it is again up to and incumbent on each individual to make that decision for themselves. And no presumed, self-described health authority has the right to mandate that on anyone. Until that fundamental transformation of human consciousness takes place, I don’t think there will be some sort of solution from within the political system as it is being woven around us.
Because as I said, for example, you have zero input into the UNFCC process, you will have zero input into this World Health Organization process that is going on. So, I would say that the first order of political sorts of things that we can do to start to generate this consciousness in the public sphere, is to create and put momentum behind an effort to start by withdrawing Canada and every other nation from the World Health Organization itself.
Just as a start, just to say, “No.” Our health sovereignty as a nation does not rely on whatever the World Health Organization is saying. That organization may exist, and it may have its recommendations and we may follow those recommendations, maybe we won’t. But we will not sign our countries sovereignty over to this organization and put ourselves beholden to them. That would be the first step.
The second step, of course, would be to withdraw from the United Nations and all of these other global government nascent bodies that breach national sovereignty. And then, people can start working on taking the next level down from, ‘Well, we don’t need this international government. Why do we need the national government to dictate to all of the provinces, for example, so we can bring it down to the provincial level. And from the provincial level, eventually maybe we can get to actual individual sovereignty. But until we start reversing exactly going in the opposite direction of this trend towards global consolidation of power, and moving it down towards the individual. Until that momentum starts to shift, I don’t think we’ll have a real solution here.
GR: Fantastic. James Corbett, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and understanding with our listeners. We really appreciate it.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19 (November 28, 2023),’Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada’; https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/
Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was in response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A First Strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America.
The article below first published in February 2006 addresses US Military Doctrine focussing among other issues on the integration of nuclear and conventional warfare. This is absolutely fundamental.
“Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).
In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.
None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, tactical nuclear weapons and mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners. (quoted from article below)
The stated objective is to:
“ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added
The DJNO states that the:
“use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible” (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets.
…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander [e.g. USCENTCOM Four Star General] to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (emphasis added)
Currently, under the Biden presidency, Commander General Michael E. Kurilla is Chief of Staff for U.S. Central Command. (image right)
I should mention that the results of this research were subsequently integrated into my book entitled Towards A World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, Global Research Publishers, 2011.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity. Our objective is “Building Awareness” by informing people Worldwide. We have taken the decision that as of September 1 2024, readers will be able to download the pdf version of my book free of charge.
Having carefully reviewed US military doctrine for more than 20 years, I can confirm that under the Biden Administration, preemptive nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is “on the table”.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (2006 study), a nuclear attack against Iran is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
My research suggests that nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. You do not allocate 2000 billion dollars to nuclear weapons, without contemplating their use.
How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars? Why is there poverty in America?
Truth is a Powerful and Peaceful Weapon, which is the object of Google and Facebook censorship.
Nuclear War Threatens the Future of Humanity. No mainstream media analysis. The imminent dangers of nuclear war are the object of censorship.
Say No to Joe Biden’s Two Trillion Dollars Nuclear Weapons Program. That Budget must be cancelled.
SAY YES TO WORLD PEACE
Please forward this article, post it on your blog. Spread the word. Initiate a campaign against nuclear war.
[the title of the 2006 article has been changed, no other changes have been made]
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 30, 2024
***
Nuclear War Is “On the Table”
Build Awareness
by Michel Chossudovsky
February 2006
It Started with Harry Truman
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan …
[We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.
Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …
The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”
Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman
“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).
[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America’s new nuclear doctrine is based on “a mix of strike capabilities”. The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon’s planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman “was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”, today’s “mini-nukes” are heralded as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.
The Dangerous Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
The Pentagon’s Toolbox
Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force” , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals.
In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the war theater.
None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners.
The stated objective is to:
“ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13) emphasis added
The New Nuclear Doctrine turns Concepts and Realities Upside Down
It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use in the battlefield will ensure “minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation”.
The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as “safe for civilians” constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant “green light” criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.
“The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems …” (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of “self-defense”, it calls for “anticipatory action” using nuclear weapons against a “rogue enemy” which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, emphasis added)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
“The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” … (NSPD 17) [National Security Presidential Directives]
Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
“use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible”
The implications of this “integration” are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval.
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
“Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.
…Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms.” Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (emphasis added)
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )
We are no longer dealing with “the risk” associated with “an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch” as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these “smaller” tactical nuclear weapons have been “reclassified” by the Pentagon as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”, thereby “minimizing the risk of collateral damage”, there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become “part of the tool box”, used in conventional war theaters.
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in “a state of readiness” since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a “contingency plan”, which “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM’s mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations “using nuclear or conventional weapons” in compliance with the Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a “joint strike operation” under unified Command and Control.
“The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today’s adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044…. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies….
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy–preemptively, if necessary–“time-urgent targets” anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration’s preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).
CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’
‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats — Iran, North Korea — proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’ (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
“deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities”. (Ibrahim Karagul, “The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran”, (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD 35 ,
What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched This retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).
Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as “a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead.” It was used in the Iraqi war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that … the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to “contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives.” .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel’s arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. “Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs,” Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization (May 2004).
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in “the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines.” (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines “that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a “second-strike” deterrent.” (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)
Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known
Israel’s participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan’s Western frontier would be affected..
The Role of Western Europe
Several Western European countries, officially considered as “non-nuclear states”, possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.
The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.
As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is [was] a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):
“arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria”
With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power “has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries.” (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)
While these “non-nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of “double standards” by the IAEA and the “international community” is a understatement.
Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power
Among the five “non-nuclear states” “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.
While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile.
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France’s nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France’s nukes should be used in the form of “more focused attacks” against countries, which were “considering” the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored “War on Terrorism”. He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:
Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against “fanatical terrorists,” nevertheless “the leaders of states which used terrorist means against us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to a firm, appropriate response on our side…”.(Ibid)
Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ”rogue states” and “terrorist non-state organizations”.
The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .
Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration’s National Security doctrine.
1. Iran’s alleged possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran’s alleged support to “Islamic terrorists”.
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.
The “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” statement is used to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”, –i.e. countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran is identified as a State sponsor of so-called “non-State terrorist organizations”. The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a nuclear threat. Terrorist non-state organizations are presented as a “nuclear power”.
“The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world.” (2006 Quadrennial Defense Review ),
In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear warheads are not considered “nuclear powers”.
In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic terrorist nexus, has been highlighted ad nauseam, on a daily basis by the Western media.
In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East and providing support to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as the “a central banker for terrorism”, not withstanding the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda has been supported and financed from its inception in the early 1980s by none other than the CIA. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).
“It’s not just Iran’s nuclear program but also their support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism,” (Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)
“Second 9/11”: Cheney’s “Contingency Plan”
While the “threat” of Iran’s alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. This “contingency plan” to attack Iran uses the pretext of a “Second 9/11” which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a “state of readiness”.
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005, emphasis added)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a “state of readiness”?
Cheney’s proposed “contingency plan” does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
“At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system…. (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that “an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents” (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney’s “contingency plan” to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command’s (USCENTCOM) theater strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World’s oil and gas reserves.
The “war on terrorism” and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the “Battle for Middle East Oil”. How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as “uncivilized”, denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into “Islamic terrorism”. Western governments are now accusing Iran of “exporting terrorism to the West” In the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. “We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region.””You can never say never in any of these situations.” (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized, casually identified with “Islamic terrorists”, who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the “civilized World” with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America’s humanitarian “nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable.”
The World is at a Critical Crossroads
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments [2006], Western European governments –including the so-called “non-nuclear states” which possess nuclear weapons– have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon’s planned aerial attacks on Iran involve “scenarios” using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the “integration” of “defensive” and “offensive” operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in “a state of readiness.”
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”. “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
What can be done?
The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the “reasonable demands” of the “international community”. These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, “expressing concern over Iran’s nuclear program”, seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe.
Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
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
Annex A
Five basic types of US Military Plans:
• Campaign Plan (CAMPLAN): A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (e.g., campaign plan for Iraq incorporating a number of subordinate specific plans).
• Operations Plan (OPLAN): A completed plan required when there is compelling national interest, when a specific threat exists, and/or when the nature of the contingency requires detailed planning (e.g., North Korea). OPLANs contains all formatted annexes (see below), and Time Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD), a database containing units to be deployed, routing of deploying units, movement data of forces, personnel, logistics and transportation requirements. An OPLAN can be used as a basis for development of an Operations Order (OPORD).
• Operations Plan in Concept Form Only (CONPLAN): An operations plan in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling national interest contingencies than for OPLANs and for unspecific threats. A CONPLAN requires expansion or alteration to convert into an OPLAN or OPORD. It normally includes a statement of Strategic Concept and annexes A-D and K (see below). CONPLANs that do have TPFDDs are usually developed because of international agreement or treaties.
• Functional plans (FUNCPLAN): An operations plan involving the conduct of military operations in a peacetime or non-hostile environment (e.g., disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug, or peacekeeping operations).
• Theater Security Cooperation and Theater Engagement Plans (TSCPs and TEPs): Day-to-day plans to set the initial conditions for future military action in terms of multinational capabilities, U.S. military access, coalition interoperability, and intelligence
January 8: The Nuclear Posture Review is officially published.
June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 14, “Nuclear Weapons Planning Guidance.”
September 14: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
September 17: White House issues the National Security Strategy of the United States. The document publicly formulates a more proactive preemption doctrine
December 10: White House issues “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the unclassified version of National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17. The wording in NSPD 17 of using “potentially nuclear weapons” is replaced with “all of our options.”
December 16: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 23, “National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense.”
2003
January 10: President Bush signs Change 2 to the Unified Command Plan (UCP), which assigns four emerging missions to STRATCOM: missile defense, global strike, information operations, and global C4ISR. (Command and Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Sensors and Reconnaissance). The directive identifies global strike as “a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives.”
March: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues “Nuclear Posture Review: Implementation Plan, DOD Implementation of the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review Report to Congress.”
June 4: STRATCOM issues CONPLAN 8022-02, Strategic Concept draft.
June: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 28, “United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, Safety, and Security.” The guidance “provides direction on various nuclear issues, to include security.”
October 1: OPLAN (Operation Plan) 8044, the first strategic plan not using the name SIOP, is put into effect by STRATCOM.
November: The first CONPLAN 8022 (Global Strike) is completed by STRATCOM.
2004
April 19: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues NUWEP (Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy). The document states in part: “U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”
May 24: Air Combat Command publishes Global Strike CONOPS.
May: White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, “Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization,” which authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
July 8: STRATCOM commander General E. Cartwright informs Congress that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “just signed the Interim Global Strike Alert Order, which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability.” The Alert Order directs the Air Force and Navy to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect on selected strike platforms including long-range bombers and strategic submarines.
August 17: STRATCOM publishes Global Strike Interim Capability Operations Order (OPORD).
October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 01 becomes effective. According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers, “STRATCOM has revised our strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies.” (emphasis added)
January 10: CJCS issues Global Strike Joint Integrating Concept, Version 1.
March 1: President Bush signs Unified Command Plan 2004.
October 1: OPLAN 8044 Revision 02 is put into effect by STRATCOM. According to the Pentagon, this was a “major revamping” of the U.S. strategic war plan which, among other issues, included the “integration of conventional strike options into [the] OPLAN.”
2006
Early 2006: CJCS is scheduled to publish updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12). However, this and three other Joint Pub nuclear documents were cancelled.
February 6: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld released the Quadrennial Defense Review.
This carefully researched article by John Steinbach on Israel’s nuclear arsenal was first published by Global Research in March 2002.
“Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.” Seymour Hersh(1)
“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.” Ariel Sharon(2) (right image)
Introduction
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publically recognized as such.
Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored.
Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.
The Israeli nuclear program represents a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation and, with India and Pakistan, is a potential nuclear flashpoint.(prospects of meaningful non-proliferation are a delusion so long as the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining their arsenals,) Citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace with justice in the Middle East, and nuclear disarmament have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli nuclear program.
Birth of the Israeli Bomb
The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, “the father of the Israeli bomb,” who in 1952 established the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.
It was France, however, which provided the bulk of early nuclear assistance to Israel culminating in construction of Dimona, a heavy water moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert.
Israel had been an active participant in the French Nuclear weapons program from its inception, providing critical technical expertise, and the Israeli nuclear program can be seen as an extension of this earlier collaboration. Dimona went on line in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. Despite various Israeli claims that Dimona was “a manganese plant, or a textile factory,” the extreme security measures employed told a far different story. In 1967, Israel shot down one of their own Mirage fighters that approached too close to Dimona and in 1973 shot down a Lybian civilian airliner which strayed off course, killing 104.(3)
There is substantial credible speculation that Israel may have exploded at least one, and perhaps several, nuclear devices in the mid 1960s in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that it participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria.(4) By the time of the “Yom Kippur War” in 1973, Israel possessed an arsenal of perhaps several dozen deliverable atomic bombs and went on full nuclear alert.(5)
Possessing advanced nuclear technology and “world class” nuclear scientists, Israel was confronted early with a major problem- how to obtain the necessary uranium. Israel’s own uranium source was the phosphate deposits in the Negev, totally inadequate to meet the need of a rapidly expanding program. The short term answer was to mount commando raids in France and Britain to successfully hijack uranium shipments and, in 1968, to collaborate with West Germany in diverting 200 tons of yellowcake (uranium oxide).(6)
These clandestine acquisitions of uranium for Dimona were subsequently covered up by the various countries involved. There was also an allegation that a U.S. corporation called Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) diverted hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium to Israel from the mid-50s to the mid-60s.
Despite an FBI and CIA investigation, and Congressional hearings, no one was ever prosecuted, although most other investigators believed the diversion had occurred(7)(8). In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa in a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel supplied the technology and expertise for the “Apartheid Bomb,” while South Africa provided the uranium.
South Africa and the United States
In 1977, the Soviet Union warned the U.S. that satellite photos indicated South Africa was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari Desert but the Apartheid regime backed down under pressure.
On September 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa but, because of Israel’s apparent involvement, the report was quickly “whitewashed” by a carefully selected scientific panel kept in the dark about important details.
Later it was learned through Israeli sources that there were actually three carefully guarded tests of miniaturized Israeli nuclear artillery shells. The Israeli/South African collaboration did not end with the bomb testing, but continued until the fall of Apartheid, especially with the developing and testing of medium range missiles and advanced artillery. In addition to uranium and test facilities, South Africa provided Israel with large amounts of investment capital, while Israel provided a major trade outlet to enable the Apartheid state avoid international economic sanctions.(9)
Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear program) “was possible only because (emphasis in original) of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S..”(10)
From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the “Atoms for Peace Program.” Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.(11) In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons(a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel.(12) And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor.(13) Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated to the present.
The Vanunu Revelations
Following the 1973 war, Israel intensified its nuclear program while continuing its policy of deliberate “nuclear opaqueness.” Until the mid-1980s, most intelligence estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal were on the order of two dozen but the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight. A leftist supporter of Palestine, Vanunu believed that it was his duty to humanity to expose Israel’s nuclear program to the world. He smuggled dozens of photos and valuable scientific data out of Israel and in 1986 his story was published in the London Sunday Times.
Rigorous scientific scrutiny of the Vanunu revelations led to the disclosure that Israel possessed as many as 200 highly sophisticated, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs. His information indicated that the Dimona reactor’s capacity had been expanded several fold and that Israel was producing enough plutonium to make ten to twelve bombs per year. A senior U.S. intelligence analyst said of the Vanunu data,”The scope of this is much more extensive than we thought. This is an enormous operation.”(14)
Just prior to publication of his information Vanunu was lured to Rome by a Mossad “Mata Hari,” was beaten, drugged and kidnapped to Israel and, following a campaign of disinformation and vilification in the Israeli press, convicted of “treason” by a secret security court and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served over 11 years in solitary confinement in a 6 by 9 foot cell. After a year of modified release into the general population(he was not permitted contact with Arabs), Vanunu recently has been returned to solitary and faces more than 3 years further imprisonment. Predictably, The Vanunu revelations were largely ignored by the world press, especially in the United States, and Israel continues to enjoy a relatively free ride regarding its nuclear status. (15)
Israel’s Arsenal of Mass Destruction
Today, [2003] estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500.
Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow, cruise missiles, land mines (In the 1980s Israel planted nuclear land mines along the Golan Heights(17)), and artillery shells with a range of 45 miles(18).
In June, 2000 an Israeli submarine launched a cruise missile which hit a target 950 miles away, making Israel only the third nation after the U.S. and Russia with that capability. Israel will deploy 3 of these virtually impregnable submarines, each carrying 4 cruise missiles.(19)
The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”
Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official,
“There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.”)(20)
The same report described F-16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice. In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an “ethno bomb; “In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus… The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.” Dedi Zucker, a leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying, “Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied.”(21)
Israeli Nuclear Strategy
In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a “weapon of last resort,” to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation, and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still believe that to be the case.
Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; “The Samson Option is no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel.”(22) Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union (and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War) One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current [2002] Israeli Prime Minister
“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”(23)
(In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel’s security influence to stretch from “Mauritania to Afghanistan.”)
In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992,
“…we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us.”(24)
According to Israel Shahak,
“The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is.”
and
“Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states…. Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East…, without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones.”(25)
Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence” or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel’s perceived advantage, such as to protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare.(26)
In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called “nonconventional compellence” and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; “acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed.”(27)
From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes,
“What would prevent Israel… from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?”(28)
Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its nuclear threat.
Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel’s favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests.
As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote “We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'”(29) During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel.
The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time,
“If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and…we will have to draw very serious conclusions…”(30)
Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said
“If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large… To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid.”(31)
Since then Israel’s nuclear arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.
Regional and International Implications
Largely unknown to the world, the Middle East nearly exploded in all out war on February 22, 2001. According to the London Sunday Times and DEBKAfile, Israel went on high missile alert after receiving news from the U.S. of movement by 6 Iraqi armored divisions stationed along the Syrian border, and of launch preparations of surface to surface missiles.
DEBKAfile, an Israeli based “counter-terrorism” information service, claims that the Iraqi missiles were deliberately taken to the highest alert level in order to test the U.S. and Israeli response. Despite an immediate attack by 42 U.S. and British war planes, the Iraqis suffered little apparent damage.(32) The Israelis have warned Iraq that they are prepared to use neutron bombs in a preemptive attack against Iraqi missiles.
The Israeli nuclear arsenal has profound implications for the future of peace in the Middle East, and indeed, for the entire planet.
It is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East,”Israel’s insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests.”(34)
According to Seymour Hersh,
“the size and sophistication of Israel’s nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.”(35)
General Amnon Shahak-Lipkin, former Israeli Chief of Staff is quoted
“It is never possible to talk to Iraq about no matter what; It is never possible to talk to Iran about no matter what. Certainly about nuclearization. With Syria we cannot really talk either.”(36)
Ze’ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said,
“Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons… is day dreaming,”(37) and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, “The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states.”(38)
As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak,
“The prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some some of the delerious Israeli Army generals, seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons…cannot be precluded. …while israeli jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right.”(39)
The Arab states, long aware of Israel’s nuclear program, bitterly resent its coercive intent, and perceive its existence as the paramount threat to peace in the region, requiring their own weapons of mass destruction.
During a future Middle Eastern war (a distinct possibility given the ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Quibya in 1953, to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and beyond) the possible Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be discounted. According to Shahak, “In Israeli terminology, the launching of missiles on to Israeli territory is regarded as ‘nonconventional’ regardless of whether they are equipped with explosives or poison gas.”(40) (Which requires a “nonconventional” response, a perhaps unique exception being the Iraqi SCUD attacks during the Gulf War.)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns,
“Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.”(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel’s current President said “The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional.”(42)
Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard’s spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war.
In the words of Mark Gaffney,
“… if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration.” (44)
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.
Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
Notes
1. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York,1991, Random House, p. 319 (A brilliant and prophetic work with much original research)2
2. Mark Gaffney, Dimona, The Third Temple:The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation, Brattleboro, VT, 1989, Amana Books, p. 165 (Excellent progressive analysis of the Israeli nuclear program)
3. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr, The Third Temple Holy of Holies; Israel’s Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College Sept 1999 <www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr,htm (Perhaps the best single condensed history of the Israeli nuclear program)
4. Hersch, op.cit., p. 131
5. Gaffney, op.cit., p. 63
6. Gaffney, op. cit. pp 68 – 69
7. Hersh, op.cit., pp. 242-257
8. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, pps. 65-66 (An alternative discussion of the NUMEC affair)
9. Barbara Rogers & Zdenek Cervenka, The Nuclear Axis: The Secret Collaboration Between West Germany and South Africa, New York, 1978, Times Books, p. 325-328 (the definitive history of the Apartheid Bomb)
10. Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34
11. Peter Hounam, Woman From Mossad: The Torment of Mordechai Vanunu, London, 1999, Vision Paperbacks, pp. 155-168 (The most complete and up to date account of the Vanunu story, it includes fascenating speculation that Israel may have a second hidden Dimona type reactor)
12. Hersh, op. cit., 1989, p. 213
13. ibid, p.198-200
14. ibid, pp. 3-17
15. Hounman, op. cit. 1999, pp 189-203
16. Hersh, 1989. pp.199-200
17. ibid, p. 312
18. John Pike and Federation of American Scientists, Israel Special Weapons Guide Website, 2001, Web Address http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/index.html (An invaluable internet resource)
19. Usi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi, Fears of New Arms Race as Israel Tests Cruise Missiles, June 18, 2000, London Sunday Times
20. Usi Mahnaimi, Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare October 4, 1998, London Sunday Times
21. Usi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin, Israel Planning “Ethnic” bomb as Saddam Caves In, November 15, 1998, London Sunday Times
22. Hersh, op.cit., 1991, p. 319
23. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p. 163
24. Israel Shahak, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, London, 1997,Pluto Press, p. 40 (An absolute “must read” for any Middle East or anti-nuclear activist)
25 ibid, p.2
26. ibid, p.43
27. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p 131
28. “Israel & the US: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons?” Robert W. Tucker, Novenber 1975 pp41-42
29. London Sunday Times, October 12, 1986
30. Gaffney, op. cit. 1989. p. 147
31. ibid, p. 153
32. DEBKAfile, February 23, 2001 WWW.debka.com
33. Uzi Mahnaimi and Tom Walker, London Sunday Times, February 25, 2001
34. Shahak, op. cit., p150
35. Hersh, op.cit., p. 319
36. Shahak, op. cit., p34
37. ibid, p. 149
38. ibid, p. 153
39. ibid, pp. 37-38
40. ibid, pp 39-40
41. Hersh, op. cit., p. 19
42. Aronson, Geoffrey, “Hidden Agenda: US-Israeli Relations and the Nuclear Question,” Middle East Journal, (Autumn 1992), 619-630.
The Palianytsia is more of a psychological weapon than a tactical one due to its envisaged role in reshaping perceptions and getting America to lift its restrictions on using the ATACMS to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Defense Minister Umerov was also quoted as writing on Facebook that “This once again proves that for victory, we need long-range capabilities and the lifting of restrictions on strikes on the enemy’s military facilities.” Palianytsia’s range is equivalent to the ATACMS’.
Therein lies the reason behind the media hype over this new weapon.
Although Kiev claims that it was an entirely indigenous creation, it’s difficult to believe that NATO countries didn’t contribute to it. More than likely, Western military-technical specialists participated in its production, though this might have been done without their political leadership being aware. The goal appears to have been to pressure them into lifting restrictions by Ukraine on the use of their weapons after this fait accompli.
Chinese Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs Li strongly implied as much after he warned earlier this week that Western “super hawks” and members of the military-industrial complex are behind the push for letting Ukraine use their weapons to hit deep inside of Russian territory.
About that scenario, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also chimed in and accused Zelensky of “blackmailing” the West, which he said would amount to “playing with fire” if they end up going through with it.
The US still doesn’t let Ukraine strike targets deep inside of Russia, even though the precedent is for it to always give Kiev whatever it demands after some time. This delay is attributable both to a desire to control escalation with Russia and to simple pragmatism. After all, if the best weapons were given and deployed right away (after training was completed of course) but didn’t make much of a difference, then there’d be nothing better to give them once they ran out and defeat would soon follow.
It therefore makes sense to start small and exercise restraint before scaling up and easing restrictions. As regards the Palianytsia, while it might have an important tactical purpose if its claimed range is accurate, its real significance is to justify the easing of those aforesaid restrictions on the use of American arms. Ukraine wants policymakers and the public to believe that the Palianytsia was already used and Russia didn’t “overreact” like some expected, so it also won’t “overreact” if ATACMS restrictions are soon lifted.
While this ploy might prove successful, two of the implied points contained within the preceding narrative are counterproductive to Ukraine’s soft power cause. For example, some might question the need for more American arms and financing if Ukraine is already able to supposedly create long-range missiles on its own without any help like it claims just happened. There’s also the question of why the lifting of restrictions is so urgent if Ukraine is winning like it also claims is the case too.
If its military-industrial complex is carrying on just fine without any Western support and its invasion of Kursk has truly been the game-changer that some have presented it as being, then it follows that foreign aid could be curtailed and there’s no reason to risk an escalation with Russia by easing restrictions. Neither is obviously true, but the fact that Ukraine is still pushing this narrative shows how much more desperate it’s becoming as well as the importance of elite and public opinion on this sensitive issue.
The Palianytsia is therefore more of a psychological weapon than a tactical one due to its envisaged role in reshaping perceptions and getting America to lift its restrictions on using the ATACMS to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Even if it succeeds, however, that probably won’t change the military-strategic dynamics of this conflict in Kiev’s favor since Russia continues to gradually gain ground in Donbass, and its impending capture of Pokrovsk could lead to a chain reaction of victories in the coming future.
*
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.
Featured image is a cropped version of the image within the text
Há provas crescentes de que a Ucrânia está a cooperar diretamente com a expansão do terrorismo no continente africano. Recentemente, uma fonte local de um país africano revelou à imprensa russa alguns detalhes sobre o envolvimento da Ucrânia no fortalecimento de grupos extremistas em África, especialmente na região do Sahel. Parece cada vez mais claro que o Ocidente Coletivo e o regime de Kiev vêem África como um novo front anti-Rússia, investindo em militantes salafistas radicais para defender os interesses da OTAN na região.
Um informante de um meio de comunicação russo na África disse que a Embaixada da Ucrânia na Costa do Marfim está a ser usada como centro de apoio a grupos terroristas tuaregues que lutam nos países do Sahel. Segundo informações, reuniões entre jihadistas e autoridades ucranianas, incluindo diplomatas, militares e agentes de inteligência, estão ocorrendo dentro das instalações diplomáticas. Nas reuniões, foram discutidos planos de cooperação conjunta entre Kiev e os tuaregues, incluindo mecanismos de apoio e financiamento, bem como a formação de jihadistas por soldados ucranianos.
Um fato interessante revelado pela fonte é que os combatentes tuaregues estão supostamente a ir para a Ucrânia para serem treinados pelas forças especiais de Kiev. Aparentemente, há um amplo intercâmbio militar entre ucranianos e tuaregues, com comandos ucranianos em solo africano também envolvidos em hostilidades contra forças estatais locais e o Grupo PMC Wagner russo. O objetivo desta cooperação militar é aumentar as capacidades de combate tanto dos ucranianos como dos tuaregues, com as forças anti-russas a trocarem experiências em diferentes cenários militares.
“Os rebeldes tuaregues visitaram a Costa do Marfim antes de receberem formação na Ucrânia. Lá, eles provavelmente se reuniram com oficiais do GUR e planejaram como os grupos sairiam para o treinamento”, disse a fonte a jornalistas russos.
Aparentemente, o tema começou a suscitar preocupações às autoridades da Costa do Marfim, que teriam lançado uma investigação sobre o caso. Ainda não há muitas informações disponíveis sobre o tema, pois certamente o assunto está sendo investigado em sigilo para evitar vazamentos de dados estratégicos. No entanto, se as autoridades da Costa do Marfim confirmarem esta suspeita, é provável que a crise diplomática entre a Ucrânia e os países africanos se agrave ainda mais, podendo levar ao encerramento de embaixadas e à expulsão de diplomatas.
Desde o ataque terrorista tuaregue às forças do Grupo Wagner no Mali, no início de Agosto, o envolvimento da Ucrânia no apoio a estas milícias extremistas têm estado no centro das atenções de vários países africanos. Mali, Níger e Burkina Faso, além de cortarem relações diplomáticas com a Ucrânia, pediram ao Conselho de Segurança da ONU uma investigação aprofundada sobre os crimes de Kiev em África. De acordo com a declaração conjunta dos três estados, a ONU deve “tomar medidas apropriadas contra estas ações subversivas que fortalecem os grupos terroristas em África e constituem uma manifestação do envolvimento de patrocinadores estatais estrangeiros na expansão do terrorismo na região”.
Recorde-se que, além destes casos recentes, desde 2022, algumas autoridades africanas têm relatado a presença de armas ocidentais nas mãos de terroristas locais. Acredita-se que parte das armas enviadas para a Ucrânia sejam redirecionadas para a África, abastecendo milícias jihadistas locais. Embora seja real, a mera corrupção dos funcionários ucranianos não parece suficiente para explicar este fenômeno. Parece haver uma intenção real por parte dos agentes ocidentais e ucranianos de armar grupos terroristas no Sahel, sendo esta questão não apenas o resultado da corrupção.
Há uma explicação muito simples para a intenção do Ocidente de cooperar com os tuaregues e outros jihadistas africanos. Nos últimos anos, tem havido uma onda de revoluções soberanistas na África, especialmente na região do Sahel – que é considerada por muitos especialistas como o “Heartland Africano” devido aos seus recursos naturais e geografia estratégica. A França tem sido historicamente o país “responsável” pelo combate ao terrorismo em África, mas Paris nunca pareceu realmente eficiente nesta tarefa.
A França nunca abandonou as suas práticas coloniais, procurando sempre preservar a subserviência dos países africanos. Para tal, Paris tem cooperado historicamente com grupos terroristas, uma vez que prejudicam o desenvolvimento nacional dos estados da antiga “Françafrique”. Após as revoluções, algumas nações do Sahel terminaram a cooperação de segurança com a França e contrataram o Grupo PMC Wagner para combater terroristas – levando os países ocidentais a reagir, transformando o Sahel num novo campo de batalha por procuração anti-Rússia.
O envolvimento da Ucrânia nas hostilidades do Sahel é óbvio, mas este é apenas o primeiro tema a ser investigado. O regime de Kiev é apenas um representante e não tem soberania suficiente para agir sozinho em qualquer ação relevante. Se a Ucrânia apoia os tuaregues, então os patrocinadores ocidentais de Kiev certamente autorizaram estas manobras. Depois de esclarecido o envolvimento da Ucrânia, é necessário investigar a participação dos países ocidentais no apoio aos jihadistas – principalmente a França e os EUA, que são os estados mais interessados em minar a cooperação entre África e a Rússia.
August 29th, 2024 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) urges journalists and officials to exercise heightened scrutiny and skepticism regarding reports suggesting Iranian influence over pro-Palestine protests. Earlier this summer, several newspapers and Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre shared conspiracy theories about Iranian control over pro-Palestine student encampments based on a report by XPOZ, an Israeli cyber-security company. According to a new analysis by CJPME’s Media Accountability Project, however, XPOZ is a highly partisan source with suspect and opaque research methods, and should not be cited by journalists.
“Irresponsible media reports treating XPOZ as a credible source have given fuel to those who want to falsely portray student activists as agents of Iran. This is a conspiracy theory,” said Jason Toney, Director of Media Advocacy for CJPME. “To be clear, there is no evidence that Iran is behind protests in Canada, period. Anyone who has worked with pro-Palestine activists around Canada knows the suggestion that Iran is funding protests is beyond outlandish,” Toney added.
The XPOZ report was first covered in an article by UK-based Iran International under the outlandish headline, “Iran masterminded anti-Israel protest in Canadian university,” and subsequently by the National Post which claimed that “anti-Israel protests at McGill University were boosted by a social media influence campaign with potential ties to Iran.” The latter article was shared by Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre as a supposed example of “foreign interference.” This has led many commentators to refer to alleged Iranian influence in pro-Palestine protests as a proven fact, continuing a trend of columnists alleging – without any evidence whatsoever – that the protests are funded and/or directed by Iran.
However, CJPME’s analysis found serious methodological and contextual issues that call into question the findings by XPOZ. These include a refusal to publicly release the report, a lack of transparency about its data, potential bias and conflict of interest due to the XPOZ’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence services, and an apparent selection bias in its social media analysis. CJPME strongly recommends that journalists, columnists, and editors refrain from citing XPOZ due to these serious issues. Further, CJPME recommends that Canadians reject false conspiracy theories that defame and attempt to minimize pro-Palestine protests.
*
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.
According to The New York Times, Washington and London collaborated with the Ukrainians in the invasion of Kursk, allowing for better execution of border operations, while American officials have expressed their skepticism that Ukraine will be able to hold onto the territory it captured from Russia. Yet, despite this incredulity, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims that Russia has not been deterred from expanding its military operations in Ukraine into Sumy Oblast.
The US and the UK have provided Ukraine with satellite images and other information about the Kursk region following the invasion by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the US newspaper reported.
“Within days of the offensive, the United States and Britain provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other information about the Kursk region,” the article said, citing two sources, who explained that this was “to enable commanders to better monitor the movement of Russian reinforcements that could attack Ukrainian troops or cut off their likely retreat to Ukraine.”
On August 6, Ukrainian troops launched an attack on the Kursk region of Russia. The invasion marked Ukraine’s most significant aggression against Russia since February 2022. Commenting on the attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ukraine had carried out another large-scale provocation by indiscriminately firing at civilian targets and that the enemy would have an adequate response.
Understanding the power of the Russian military and its abilities, American officials, according to the New York Times, are not convinced that Ukraine intends to hold its position in Russia for long.
“Ukrainian forces have not been digging the kind of extensive trenches necessary to protect soldiers and equipment from enemy fire, if Russia musters enough firepower to repel the attack. They have not been laying minefields to slow down a counterattack, nor have they constructed barriers to slow down Russian tanks,” the outlet reported.
“What the war has shown us so far is that the way to slow a military down is through ‘defence in depth,’” said Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in reference to the strategy of using multiple layers of defensive positioning. “If they are not defending territory with a mixture of trenches and mines, it is going to be virtually impossible to hold territory.”
Yet, despite Washington expressing its skepticism that Ukraine can hold onto captured Russian territory and claiming it was not informed about the Kiev regime’s plans before its incursion into Kursk on August 6, even going as far as saying it took no part in the operation, the New York Times has exposed this as another American lie.
This was also pointed out by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said on August 27 that US involvement in Ukraine’s ongoing incursion into the Kursk region is “an obvious fact.”
“Washington’s course of escalation is becoming increasingly provocative,” the deputy minister said, adding that the impression is that US officials believe they have permission to do anything.
“The impression is that [US] colleagues have thrown away the remnants of common sense and believe everything is allowed for them. Their clientele in Kiev follows similar approaches. The consequences can be much more severe than what they are already experiencing. They know where and in what areas we are responding in practical terms,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Russia has already reported that Western weapons, including British tanks and US rocket systems, were used by Ukraine in Kursk, whilst the Kiev regime has confirmed the use of US Himars missiles to destroy bridges in the region.
Yet, despite warnings that the Ukrainian military will not be able to hold onto positions captured in Kursk, Zelensky delusionally said at a press conference on August 24 that the operation in Kursk has helped prevent the Russian army from occupying Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast and its regional centre, the city of Sumy.
“We have stopped a Russian operation in the north (of Ukraine), (we have done) a preventive strike, and we have accomplished this task. We have prevented the encirclement of part of Sumy Oblast,” Zelensky claimed.
Rather, there was no indication that Russia was about to launch an operation in Sumy Oblast, which is why the Ukrainian military captured many settlements with very little resistance. Instead, the Ukrainian invasion has only incentivised the Kremlin to expand its operations from just Eastern Ukraine into Sumy Oblast to create a safety zone so Russian civilians can no longer be targeted once Ukrainian forces have been pushed back over the border. It appears that only Zelensky, and not even the Americans, have faith that this operation will achieve its goals.
*
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.
On August 28, I listed some of the electoral procedures Democrats are putting in place in order to steal the November presidential election:
Minneapolis has designated those who entered the US illegally “justice impacted individuals” and put them into a protected class which apparently includes the right to vote.
The DNC has filed a lawsuit against the Georgia Election Board to block the rule that requires counties to ensure the accuracy of the votes prior to certification. If you remember, this was a question in the 2020 election when Georgia and other states’ votes were certified without authentication.
In Wayne County, Michigan, the 19th most populous county in the US (there are 3,244 counties in the US) which includes Detroit, Warren, and Dearborn, 98% of the poll watchers appointed to oversee the 2024 presidential vote are Democrats.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ban against ballot drop boxes that allow fraudulent ballots to enter the vote count. Here is the NBC News headline: “Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns ruling that barred most ballot drop boxes”
The Biden regime provides “immigrant-invaders” with federal ID cards when they enter. In blue jurisdictions immigrant-invaders are registered to vote when they apply for a driver’s license. The Democrats can then vote the registrations.
Thus the presstitute false news report from the Democrat New Republic that “Kamala Harris is inspiring many new voters to register.”
This is the way that the ruling establishment will explain the sudden increase in ballot numbers from illegal alien votes. These votes might be accounted for by illegal aliens voting or by Democrats stuffing drop boxes with the automatic registrations of illegals that puts “immigrant-invaders” on voting lists when they are issued driving licenses.
As Republican poll watchers have been eliminated from such populous areas as Wayne County Michigan, there is no check on illegal alien voting.
Newsweek reports that “Kamala Harris Overtakes Donald Trump in New Poll.”
This particular poll comes from the Florida Atlantic University Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab. If memory serves, this is the left-wing university, financed by the insouciant Florida government and taxpayers, that has caused so much trouble for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.
Ask yourselves how in less than one month Kamala Harris went from the most disapproved of American politicians to being the front runner in a presidential election and such an inspiring candidate that the voting rolls are bulging with new voters for Kamala.
The answer is that it is all a media and establishment orchestration to create the impression in the limited minds of insouciant Americans that as Kamala is leading, the election wasn’t stolen.
As Republicans and American citizens are apparently incapable of acknowledging reality, they have taken no effective steps to protect the integrity of US elections.
Theft it is, and theft it will be.
And no one will do anything about it.
*
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: Voting signs in Spanish, English, and Chinese show the way to the polling station. Photo by Tim Brown/Source
Two weeks ago, I was prompted to write “Censorship on Steroids: Truthteller Alert,” in response to unprecedented internet censorship, co-timed with increasing persecution of highly visible truthtellers.
Nearly a decade ago, I wrote a Global Research article entitled “A History of America’s War on Whistleblowers and Journalists Since 9/11.”
The “planetary controllers” know that the masses are finally waking up like never before, increasingly aware and angry over the powerbrokers perpetuating their forever crime spree against both humanity and children with total impunity.
Thus, to save themselves, Western governments have declared war against the truth and all truthtellers.
People on this earth are now realizing that those occupying Western government offices of power are demanding World War III be ignited on two active warfronts in Ukraine and the Middle East, with an imminent third theater of operations in Pacific Asia. And, for the first time in humans’ history, all three fronts of this global war will be fought between rivaling nuclear powers.
With bankers’ wars ruling our planet for centuries, at will, the moneychanger controllers have been creating and financing both sides to every global conflict through divide and rule deception as their M.O.
This presentation is twofold, providing cursory glimpses into both the recently stepped up high-profile arrests and attacks against a handful of the most visible truthtellers as well as the coordinated global assault against internet users expressing their free speech rights, also increasingly arrested on bogus charges of “hate speech” and/or antisemitism crimes.
With the recent political unrest and riots in the United Kingdom, the Kier Starmer government is arresting internet users for simply criticizing the foreign invaders and their rising crime rates.
Those British citizens exercising their human right to peaceful assembly protest are beaten and imprisoned by police while crimes committed by those invaders from other nations go virtually unpunished. The two-tiered (in)justice system, driven by DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and identity politics mandates, means that free speech is now a crime under emerging hate speech law increasingly applied across all Western nations toward critics of Israel’s genocide or of foreign asylum seekers.
Even more appalling is the top cop in Britain threatens to extradite internet users in other countries critical of Britain.
EU minister Thierry Breton even made written threats of lawfare to Elon Musk prior to his interview with the leading US presidential candidate, former President Trump, claiming certain topics were off limits as misinformation or potential hate speech. Next month’s UN Summit of the Future agenda per its documents is implementing the infamous Agenda 2030, which is the globalist NWO model, outlining global limits on free speech. These are all clear signs of total tyranny against both private citizens online in their own homes as well as public citizens and former presidents.
The entrepreneurial Russian founder of the internet platform app Telegram, Pavel Durov, who stands out as a stalwart protector of our privacy and freedom, as of August 24th is now locked away in a French jailcell. Upon arrival at Paris-Le Bourget Airport, Durov was detained.The French government arrested him as part of a preliminary investigation for Telegram platform’s insufficient moderation, its encryption tools, alleged lack of police cooperation rendering him bogusly “complicit in drug trafficking, pedophilia offenses and fraud.” These charges are simply a groundless, over-the-top cover for Durov’s vehement protection of free speech. Moreover, the core reason for arrest is related to Iran hackers disclosing on Telegram sensitive classified Israeli documents revealed on August 21st by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled:
After Iran Steals Sensitive Israeli Data, Israel Tries to Censor the Internet
During a recent trip to America, Pavel brought along his Telegram engineer who was approached by US intelligence services attempting to recruit him to secretly install backdoor to spy on the privacy data of all Telegram users.
Unlike other hi-tech entrepreneurial sellouts like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who sells users’ private data while working directly in collusion with the Big Brother 1984 Orwellian government in Washington to collect surveillance data on every citizen to be unconstitutionally used against us, Durov stood up to this oppression steadfastly preserving our individual human rights and civil liberties that guarantee freedom of speech.
Pavel Durov was granted multiple citizenship status in other countries including France in the West because he is painfully cognizant of his own homeland Russia’s even longer track record cracking down on citizens’ free speech. As a holdout for freedom, Pavel apparently has replaced the now free Julian Assange, released in June after 11-years of cruel US-UK bondage,
Durov becoming the newest martyred upholder of our lost human rights.
We who still value our civil liberties now vanishing so rapidly amidst today’s one-world government power grab, plunging humanity into neo-feudal enslavement, must push back with all our collective might against this dystopian slaughter of both our disappearing freedoms as well as our very lives, “since we are all Palestinians”.
The arrest of Pavel Durov followed just four days after British independent journalist Richard Medhurst’s announcement that he was just arrested and detained for 24-hours at London’s Heathrow Airport under UK’s Terrorism Act. With a Syrian mother and British father, both awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1988 for their work as UN Peacekeepers, this young journalist with 321,000 subscribers on YouTube has been critical of the Palestinian genocide by the criminal state of Israel. Richard extensively covered the Julian Assange extradition case in London. During the recent psyops of “right-wing” riots in the United Kingdom, the Starmer government used the timing to grab Medhurst at the airport on totally bogus charges to send the message for other prominent truthtellers to keep their mouth shut.
At exactly the same time, the UK’s Starmer government went after outspoken dissident reporter Richard Medhurst, after the US Department of Justice obtained a search and seizure warrant, on August 19th the DoJ’s weaponized FBI raided the upstate New York home of former weapons inspector-journalist-analyst Scott Ritter seeking evidence of collaborating with demonized Cold War enemy Russia. A month or so earlier, the US State Department confiscated Scott Ritter’s passport pulling him off a plane headed to a media conference in St. Petersburg, Russia.
All these blatant, unlawful crimes being executed against high-profile truthtellers are a threat to the treasonous governments of the West that have all abandoned their constitutional republics.
Then let’s not forget the case of Reiner Fuellmich, the German attorney that led the Corona Investigative Committee compiling overwhelming criminal evidence exposing the Covid-19 pandemic debacle.
[A shorten version of a longer article by Joachim Hagopian]
*
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.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century.
Strategic deterrence is one of the most important aspects of any global power’s/superpower’s security architecture. Countries such as Russia and the US have the world’s largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons, meaning that their ability to inflict untold damage on anyone is absolutely unparalleled.
One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor. Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.
An in-depth analysis of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, has highlighted Indian efforts and proposed role in peace mediation process between Russia and Ukraine.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort” have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
At 4:45 am., local time, Sunday August 25, Israel began a series of 50 preemptive airstrikes over villages in the south of Lebanon resulting in civilian casualties and injuries. According to Israel, they had information that Hezbollah was planning a massive attack on Israel using 6,000 missiles. Israel claimed to have hit missile launchers and weapon storages.
The actual reasons for this arrest have nothing to do with the allegation in the charge sheet and they are bound to resonate with partisans of freedom everywhere. Firstly, it is Durov’s resolute and principled refusal to share on demand with security agencies information that would compromise the privacy of Telegram users.
In an earlier article, I explained what distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism. However, the fundamental difficulty lies in the habitual association of the state in Western Asia with the Jews. Should we view those who inhabit and govern Israel as Jews or have they become something else — namely, Israelis?
We are only manipulated to the degree to which we allow ourselves to be. Pull back a few paces from the insanity and you can find yourself in a quiet reflective place having absolutely nothing to do with the relentless razzamataz of the globalist construct.
At this point of time, in particular, it is really important to take such a step on a daily basis. Because the chaos being imposed by the central control system is directly absorbed by our three dimensional five senses, and at that moment is taken to be the sum total of all that is.
But when one draws back and quietens the mind, the centre of attention shifts to the inner heart zone. From here one is able to calmly and rationally assess whatever it is that is troubling one.
Only in this way can one discern the difference between the superficial/fake and the true.
Within today’s highly volatile information field the brain is loaded with a thousand different – and largely contradictory – streams of information which it is incapable of discerning or ordering without first putting them through the filter of an always discerning heart-centred awareness.All meditation practices follow the same principle.
This is not what the chaos imposers want us to do, of course. They want us to suffer endless bouts of agitation, stress, fear, anger and ultimately despair. They want to overload our brain cells to the point where our attempt to make sense of what is designed to make no sense, drives large segments of the population to drink, drugs, pharmaceutical sedatives and a lingering form of depression.
This mass sedated state of mankind is worth billions of dollars to Big Pharma and Big Alcohol – and quite obviously supports the general dumbing-down agenda of the deep state.
But there is more to it than this.
The desire to confuse, corrupt and kill-off mankind does not have its origins within the fundamental evolutionary process of sentient and empathic human beings. It should not be confused with the mix of typical ‘hard knocks’ we all have to contend with in the struggle to keep moving ahead.
No, these malevolent actions are essential components of once covert, but now overt, satanic practices based upon an anti-life precept closely related to that of psychopaths and those we call megalomaniacs.
As we go about our daily business struggling to maintain some form of basic equilibrium, it does not occur to most that this nefarious torture regime has its roots in the work of a small but powerful cult which basically despises sentient mankind.
If we clearly understood this, we would realise that trying to use rational thought procedures to explain the deliberately imposed irrational and chaotic, is a worse than useless task.
Their chaos is deliberate and designed to elicit panicked public calls for ‘order’; the imposition of which will be uncompromising. ‘Order Out of Chaos’ leads to totalitarian lockdown.
Those ‘only half’ human, or non-human dictators who we witness today manifesting their seemingly infinite need to torture, control and destroy, are getting their dark energies from what Robert Monroe, the late US researcher involved in the study of human consciousness, termed ‘loosh’.
What is loosh?
Loosh is that form of vibratory energy manifest by emotional expressions, both positive and negative. Both emotionally expressed love and hate will give off loosh.
But in the context of this article I refer to the vibrations given-off by fear, anxiety, anger and despair as providing a form of emotional food for the anti-life forces that show no emotion, no empathy and no interest in the victims of their vampiric full spectrum dominance agenda.
It is profoundly shocking to suddenly recognise that the deeply sick satanic behaviour patterns that emanate from the exponents of loosh mining, have been adopted by very public icons at the top end of the music business, professional sport, global banking and related corporate empires, scientific institutions, politics, religion and increasingly psychotic multi billionaires seeking to exert their domination over all aspects of planetary life.
Within the many thousands of secret society founded Masonic lodges that proliferate North America and Europe, the leading figureheads ritually worship demonic overlords who in turn appear to bestow upon them a form of dark Astral power.
This crosses over with paedophiles, child sacrificers and traffickers. It is no longer simply a source of speculation that deeply evil acts of utter degradation are performed by those who seek highest office in the top suite of New World Order pyramid. And from there, down the ladder to aspiring young leaders of the Schwab ‘sell your soul school for future fascists’.
It is a big – but entirely necessary brain stretch – to grasp the fact that these are the forces setting the agenda of almost all types of planetary activities, right down to the seemingly superficial details of everyday life.
Here’s an example of what I mean. When you hear that your telephone landline is going to be phased out in 2025 and that only a digital connection will then be available, you might think “Damn! These companies are at it again, always cost cutting the quality and giving us the cheaper version so as to increase their profits.”
But while such an explanation touches on a perennial superficial truth, the real reason hides in the shadows, manipulated by the anti-life cult’s overriding ambitions to wrest control over our ability to electronically communicate with some degree of privacy –and to thereby steal reams of personal data at the ping of a ‘smart’ EMF button. Data that can then be used to trap one into complying with the increasingly nefarious demands of the surveillance state.
The sequence goes further: loss of landline means ‘must go digital and Wi-Fi’. Going digital and Wi-Fi instantly connects one up with the global microwave radiation transmission tower and satellite emitting EMF frequency bands that operate through mobile and smart phones at 3,4 and 5G power outputs.
An increasingly vast labyrinth of intersecting wireless wave-forms create ‘electro smog’ which interrupt the natural circadian rhythms of the atmosphere and magnetosphere – as well as distorting the 7.83 hertz Schumann Resonance – known as ‘the earth’s heart beat’.
This is the resonance field which keeps balance within the earth’s electromagnetic low vibratory energy field, tapped into by bees, insects, birds and plants, and indeed, by our own instinct of natural inner and outer balance.
Human health is not unaffected. On goes the cell phone – and immediately pulses of non-ironising radiation are activated which pass through the human temple and into the soft brain tissue, with potentially lasting consequences according to British radiation expert Barry Trower and other leading EMF specialist researchers.
All the while, those manning the digital and cybernetic control centres of the planet are alert to orders coming down from secret service operatives, to put an algorithmic tab on the communications made by ‘too effective’ dissidents, so their ‘offensive’ material can be traced and expunged.
If this fails to elicit the desired silencing, they have the option of setting up a reverse messaging system which, unbeknown to the receiver, sends a digital electronic message directly into the neocortex of the supposed renegade, with the tacit objective of destabilising his/her thoughts and emotions. This can, of course, be done to anyone – and no doubt is.
A vast ‘hive mind’ is thus brought into being, where carefully chosen thought and nervous system controlling pulses can be directed from a central digital control hub to wherever deemed necessary, to block the rise of creative and spiritual energies essential for a sane society and the greater positive evolution of mankind.
Such pulses will not do the desired job to those who are spiritually aware. Such individuals remain immune.
5G/6G have the capacity to carry such mass invasiveness even further. To establish a virtual reality high-tech ‘smart’ environment which overlays the natural world which is our home. This is where the vastly popular digital Wi-Fi ‘convenience culture’ ultimately takes us.
So, how is this explained by your friendly regional telecommunications corporation?
“Hello, we are making a few small changes that will help you achieve higher quality tele-communications and save on old landline rental charges. We care about our customers and want to offer the best possible convenience advantages available today. Thank you for your attention”
Sincerely, Teledeception plc.
Unthinkingly accepting what are sold as ‘convenient improvements’ to one’s daily life – can have big consequences. So next time you nonchalantly reach into your back pocket to pull out your mobile phone, know who it is you are supporting and what it is that you are killing-off.
Counteracting Chaos
One of the first steps to take in countering cult imposed chaos, is to check one’s taken for granted unquestioned habits, in order to see if they may be a contributory factor.
Disruption by chaos, as I said at the beginning, can be eradicated by stepping back into a quiet space, to which I will now add – and reviewing one’s contribution to further supporting the source of disruption.
“Still shopping at the hypermarket?” Yes, I support corporate agribusiness.
“Still watching television?” Yes, I support mainstream fake news, the streaming of political dogma and general entertainment shows.
“Still playing with your EMF gismos and laptop?” Yes, I support crap soap opera movies, Net Flix distractions and war game apps.
“Still proud to troll around the multifarious features of your latest smartphone?” Yes, I support all smartphone technology that is taking over my life.
“Still searching for the highest interest rates at your chosen global banking institution?” Yes, of course, need to get the best rate going, even though I realise I may be supporting the global vampiring of the earth’s resources and profits of the war and weapons industry.
“Still going against the call of your soul by trying to ignore your addiction to the convenience culture slavery agenda?” Err, well, never thought about that. But it’s a soulless world and I need to operate in it in order to bring in sufficient income to maintain my life style.
You get it, of course. How many of these fundamental hurdles have you actually crossed? Only one or two – maybe none? Be honest.
Do you consider yourself to be fighting injustice or supporting it?
Are you true to yourself – your real self – or are you still essentially embracing the chaos that provides a fertile base for the hypocritical life so ubiquitously manifesting today?
These are the admittedly brutal ‘in the mirror’ questions that we must ask ourselves and demand answers to. Answers in the form of actions that will end any further support of the chaos – and turn into a commitment to illuminate and live by truth.
There is no other way of supporting the deep change that must be brought about. It all starts with us, and we need to act bravely and conscientiously and to lead by example.
If one is not able to set the necessary example, how can one expect others to?
Words unattached to actions have become empty and ultimately meaningless. Yet much of social media chat and smart-messaging is just that – an empty shell, and echo chamber that distracts from facing-up to reality and making a solid stand for the emancipation and regeneration of Life.
The crisis now at our door presents the best and most meaningful challenge that mankind has ever faced. It quite simply drives us to dig deep and unlock that hidden power within.
Dark manifestations are not just the domain of a satanic cult. They also emanate from our own seemingly locked-in behaviour patterns and are a reflection of the long term accumulated repression of our deeper instincts. It is well known that energetic natural and creative instincts not given expression, turn into their opposites and subsequently manifest as destructive powers.
The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul.
By repressing or ignoring the voice of soul/ heart wisdom, we enter the same territory as that of our dark-side oppressors. We too become loosh to fuel their malevolent attacks on human kind.
The longer we leave this battle ground uncontested, the longer the satanists will prevail and the longer will we suffer the repercussions of our passivity – which is, in fact, a form of soul suicide.
No, dear friends, dare not entertain such a concept. Let us draw our symbolic golden swords and turn to face our oppressors head-on.
At this highly auspicious moment, a previously latent power will rise up in us that transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary. That turns the timid silent witness into courageous spiritual warrior.
It is such heroic acts that will finally
We all have it in us to render such a service to humanity and to thus honour that Supreme Consciousness which entrusted us to take responsibility for perpetuating the momentum of creation.
*
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 organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of four books of which the latest ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a clarion call to resist the despotic New World Order takeover of our lives. Do visit his website for further information www.julianrose.info
While Russian long-range precision strike weapons are raining down on the entire territory under the Neo-Nazi junta’s control, there are still those who insist that the latter “can win” and that “everyone” should ensure “Ukraine’s victory” no matter the cost. One would certainly respect such optimism and self-confidence in peacetime. However, in war, this gets a lot of people killed.
Despite being perfectly aware of this, many in the EU/NATO still want war with Russia. This is particularly true in countries with endemic and/or truly pathological Russophobia, with some of the most prominent examples being the United Kingdom, Baltic states and Poland. In all these regions there’s an irrational hatred for all things Russian, particularly among the political elites who are simply poised to wage war despite being aware that the results would be catastrophic.
What was supposed to be NATO’s third most powerful member (had it ever joined) turned into a virtual junkyard of the latest Western military equipment. And yet, it seems there are several other nations in NATO that would want this horribly unflattering role as well. Namely, Poland is the “logical” choice for many, although most of those people don’t seem to understand the gravity of the current situation. This includes many Poles who are refusing to assess the consequences.
High-ranking NATO officials have already announced a number of major moves that can only be described as extremely hostile toward Russia. The annual NATO summit in Washington DC back in July was a clear indicator of that. Apart from the regular weapons shipments to the Neo-Nazi junta, particularly air defense systems, the much-touted F-16s are in the spotlight again. The Netherlands, Denmark and the United States jointly announced that the deliveries of these US-made jets are ongoing. The Dutch F-16 are of particular concern, as they’re also nuclear-capable. However, while this could certainly lead to an uncontrollable escalation, the moves of some individual member states are a real danger to global peace. As previously mentioned, the situation with Poland is particularly concerning, as some of its top-ranking military officers are calling for an all-out war.
Although he didn’t really mention any specific country, it’s only logical to presume he was talking about war with Russia. Such provocative statements accomplish nothing, and yet, here we are. However, not everyone in the Polish top brass thinks this way. Namely, on July 22, Major General Leon Komornicki, former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, gave an interview to the Polish-language WNP, slamming the very idea that the Neo-Nazi junta can “defeat Russia”, calling it a mistake. In doing so, General Komornicki offered a rather unique perspective, one that’s not only fresh and unexpected, but also the only one that makes some sense.
General Komornicki questioned NATO’s readiness to come to its members’ aid in case there was a wider war and pointed out that if Russia were to strike, Poland would face defeat. This surprisingly lucid and honest admission is quite rare in Poland nowadays. The country has either been under the rule of openly Russophobic nationalist governments that don’t like to work with Brussels or equally Russophobic, but Brussels-friendly administrations that don’t like to work with anyone outside the European Union and NATO, meaning there are no real differences.
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.
On August 15, 2024, the United Nations reported that over 40,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, have been killed by Israel since the start of the October 7, 2023, war. The United Nations further reported that Israel is violating a multitude of international laws. Nevertheless, as reported by CBS News the same month, the Biden Administration has just sent another $20 billion in military aid to this criminal government.
The USA is the world’s only remaining superpower and doesn’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks. But the rest of the world does care.
As reported by CBS News, over 140 of the 193 United Nations member countries support and recognize a separate Palestinian nation.
Spain, Ireland, and Norway joined in that recognition last May. Even France has announced that it’s open to the idea.
The only reason why Palestine isn’t a U.N. member state is because the US uses its veto power to block the resolution. Russia, the UK, China, and France also have this veto power.
The US has used its veto power 45 times over the years to block any resolutions critical of Israel. But some countries have begun carrying out their own sanctions against Israel. If enough countries join in, this could lead to Israel’s destruction.
Image: President Gustavo Petro Urrego of Colombia addresses the UN General Assembly (Photo credit: UN)
The fossil fuel that takes care of most of Israel’s energy needs is coal. Israel’s largest supplier of coal is Colombia. As explained here and here, earlier this month, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro made good on the threat he made last June and signed a decree banning the sale of coal to Israel until it ends its genocidal assault on Gaza.
South Africa, Israel’s second-largest supplier of coal, is being urged to do the same, which is a possibility. As reported here, it was South Africa that brought Israel up on charges of genocide before the International Court of Justice earlier this year. One thing is certain: without a reliable power grid, Israel’s dark deeds may literally cause them to wind up in the dark.
Last May, Turkey announced that it will stop all trade with Israel until the war with Hamas ends, as reported here and here. Turkey is the world’s seventh largest food producer and Israel’s fourth largest trading partner.
Israel relies on Turkey for food and construction materials. Because both countries are very close to each other, Israel can get what it needs quickly. More than 300 kosher-certified markets operate throughout Turkey to serve Israel’s needs, so this will also hurt businesses in Turkey. But for Israel, it will be worse. Prices will go up due to higher transportation costs. If the war with Hamas lasts long enough, trade relations between Israel and Turkey may never be restored. Turkey’s trade embargo “is one of the most sweeping steps taken by any country to oppose Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.”
A huge part of Israel’s economy is tourism. Every year millions of people, many of them on religious pilgrimages, visit the Holy Land’s plethora of historical and religious sites, such as Jerusalem’s Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Masada, etc. There are also beautiful beach resorts, the Dead Sea, museums, and much more. But since the Hamas war, foreign tourism, especially Christian pilgrimage, has grinded to a halt. COVID-19 restrictions also did severe damage to Israel’s tourism industry and depleted its financial reserves. But combined with this war, much of the tourism industry may go out of business, as well as a lot of other businesses.
As reported here,here, and here, since the war began, some 46,000 Israeli businesses have shut down. By the end of the year, as many as 60,000 businesses might close shop. Israel’s labor force has been severely depleted because a lot of it is now fighting in the Israeli army.
There are also no longer any Palestinians to supply cheap labor. Nearly 85,000 Palestinians worked in the construction industry alone. This, combined with many foreign construction workers leaving the country, has caused many building sites to totally shut down. Because of this, Israel is sending thousands of their troops home so they can go back to their old jobs. Lack of consumer spending due to the constriction of Israel’s economy has also badly affected cafes and restaurants.
If that isn’t bad enough, the high-tech sector, one of the bulwarks of Israel’s economy, is giving up on Israel.
“Almost 70% of local Israeli startup companies have taken legal or financial steps toward relocation, including withdrawing cash reserves, moving headquarters outside Israel, and relocating employees or conducting layoffs.”
The Israeli government’s reaction to all of this economic chaos that they have caused is to double down and be more determined than ever to keep doing what they’re doing. For example, right now the US is negotiating with Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire. As explained here, here, and here, Israel won’t agree to Hamas’ demand for a permanent ceasefire, which isn’t surprising.
Image: Ron Dermer (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
As explained in my previous article, most of the Israeli government believe they are God’s “chosen people” and that Palestine is theirs by divine right.
Their attitude is: How dare the Palestinians resist us? We’re going to dominate and oppress them forever. For example, earlier this year, The Times of Israel reported that Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister, Ron Dermer, arrogantly declared that “even if Israel is forced to fight alone. Even if the entire world turns on Israel, including the United States, we’re going to fight until the battle’s won.” Two cognitive biases describe this kind of crazy: the backfire effect and congnitive dissonance. Meaning, when deeply held beliefs, especially prejudices, are contradicted by facts, the resulting anxiety causes the person to stubbornly double down in their desperate need to hold onto them.
Of course, the United States could easily put Dermer’s idiotic declaration to the test by doing what protesters the world over are demanding: stop supplying Israel with weapons. In other words, a total arms embargo. But the US wouldn’t even have to do that. As reported here, all the US would have to do is what President Ronald Reagan did back in 1982 when Israel started bombing civilian targets in Lebanon. Reagan ordered Israel’s then Prime Minister to stop bombing Lebanon. Israel immediately cooperated. President Biden could easily do the same, and Dermer’s bluff would be called even if he wasn’t bluffing. Most of the fanatics in the Israeli government would realize that they won’t be able to get away with their war crimes if we don’t back them up. And we have to stop backing them up, folks.
Israel has broken all the rules of war. They have destroyed hospitals, schools, and denied humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza.
Last July, the Lancet, one of the world’s most respected peer review journals, estimated that the secondary effects of the carnage Israel has carried out in Gaza—starvation, disease, poor sanitation, etc.—could result in up to 186,000 deaths within this month.
Last July, Israel’s Parliament (Knesset) introduced a bill that declared the UN’s main relief organization for Palestinians a terrorist organization. This has never happened in the history of the United Nations. Last May, CNN did a scathing expose on the terrible abuse and torture Palestinian prisoners are being subjected to in Israeli prison camps, such as being blindfolded, strapped down, forced to wear diapers, and in some cases having their limbs amputated because their restraints were too tight.
And here is the cherry on the sundae. Last December, the New York Times reported that “Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened,” which they code named “Jericho Wall.” Wow! This isn’t some fringe conspiracy theory website making this claim. This is the New York Times, folks.
So, why didn’t Israel do something to prevent it? Because the claim was that the Israeli military considered the plan “too difficult for Hamas to carry out.” Why do I not believe that? Probably because it reminds me of 911 under President George W. Bush, who’s administration, as reported by Business Insider, was warned “no fewer than 40 separate times that a major attack by Al Qaeda was on the horizon.”
And because 911 did happen, it allowed Bush and his cronies to pass the unpatriotic Patriot Act, create the totally useless Department of Homeland Security, which includes those airport molesters called the TSA, and allow them to wage useless illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, that’s why Israel did nothing. It was their perfect excuse to carry out an ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but that’s how I see it, folks.
So, why doesn’t Biden do what Reagan did? Order Israel to end the war. There is no need to negotiate anything. Perhaps the military industrial complex has become too powerful. As explained here, here, and here, the US is the largest exporter of weapons in the world. War is big business, and it makes big money for a few at the top at the expense of the rest of us. Or perhaps the political will just isn’t there due to massive corruption. As reported by Business Insider, key members of Congress own stock in the companies of these death merchants. War makes them money, so why derail the ghoulish gravy train? But derail it we must.
It’s doubtful that Biden will do anything about Israel during his remaining time in office except maybe negotiate a temporary ceasefire. If Trump wins, he will certainly do nothing. He has said as much. Don’t forget, it was Trump who moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to illegally occupy Jerusalem. As for Kamala Harris, there is a chance that she might do what other presidents have done: end the conflict. And no matter what Trump supporters say, Harris is only the Vice President. She has no power to do anything now. But she didn’t attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, and she isn’t cheerleading Israel, and I see that as a hopeful sign.
In the meantime, Israel has now launched preemptive air strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, claiming, as always, that it’s just defending itself. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn, New York, that I’d like to sell you: cheap. You put up a toll booth, charge a dollar, and you’ll be a billionaire in less than a month. Really. It’s a steal. You can’t miss.
*
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.
Michael J. Talmo has been a professional writer for over 40 years and is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties. He has also produced three music videos: The Masker Mash, COVID Vaccine Man, and The Corona Globalists.
Geopolitics is an approach to politics that stresses the features imposed on foreign policy by geographical location, environment, and natural resources. Geopolitics as a discipline contributes to the emphasis on continuity in contemporary political realism.
The focal idea of geopolitics is that those who control the Eurasian landmass (Heartland) dominate global politics. Regarding this idea, Ukraine has always been a significant part of Heartland. Therefore, many great powers have been fighting to impose their control over the territory of contemporary Ukraine (or part of it) from the Middle Ages up to today (for instance, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Sweden, Vikings, Ottoman Empire). Nevertheless, Ukraine up to 1923 (the creation of the USSR) was just a geographical notion but not a political-administrative subject.
The pre-2014 Ukraine was a country covering a huge territory of East Europe from the Carpathian Mt. in the west to the Donets River in the east being bounded by the Black Sea in the south. The neighbors were and still are Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, and Romania. After the dissolution of the USSR after Cold War 1.0, an independent (Greater) Ukraine took necessary measures in order to as possible as reduce its economic dependence on Russia as well as on other ex-Soviet republics.
For instance, such measures included an agreement to import the oil from Iran instead of from Russia. However, the exploitation of natural/mineral resources has been neglected while heavy industry, including iron and steel production, machinery, and transport production followed by aircraft, chemicals, and consumer goods, became an industrial priority. In essence, the food and textile industries are very important while grain is of crucial agricultural and export importance in the Ukrainian economy. However, in general, Ukrainian agriculture became very much damaged because of the 1986 nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl as the large cultivating area became contaminated.
Regarding politics, it is surely true that any Russophobic political regime in Kiev will continue to enjoy the U.S. financial, political, and military support no matter the results of the U.S. presidential elections this year in November.
The question can be only of which intensity but not yes or no for the very reason that a political administration of the U.S. is overwhelmingly controlled by the Deep State that means at least concerning American foreign policy (especially regarding Israel) no matter from which out of two parties the President is or which party is having the majority in Congress (Republicans or Democrats). Such position in regard to both Russia and Ukraine can be explained by the need for the U.S. to support Ukraine for any price in the long term for at least clear geopolitical reasons as many years ago a Polish-American notorious Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that unquestionable fact is that without the territory of (Soviet) Ukraine, any form of Russia simply cannot be an empire or, in other words, if Ukraine became subordinated to the Russian crucial influence or annexed by Moscow, Russia will in such case become once again an empire.
However, another reason for the American Russophobic policy in Ukraine is of a more global nature as Washington wants to fight any newly emerged (or potential) new world order in international relations led by Russia or/and China (for instance, formed around the framework of the BRICS+ countries or so). In order words, for American policymakers, any division of interest zones from the global perspective will harm America’s dominant position (enjoyed after the end of the Cold War 1.0) in international politics as well as the economy for the very reason that it would reduce the global market for American products and financial investments.
Therefore, such geopolitical, economic, and financial interests of the U.S. are driving American policy in Ukraine to arm and train Ukrainian military and paramilitary troops in order to win the war against Russia (which, in fact, according to many authors, a putschist pro-Western regime in Kiev started in 2014 during and after the Euro-Maidan Revolution). Officially, the U.S. Army is not involved in the conflict but in fact, Ukrainian soldiers are fighting for different interests and benefits of the American administration and companies. Obviously, Washington is waging a proxy war against Russia on the territory of (Soviet) Ukraine but not for the reason that the Russian Special Military Operation (since the end of February 2022) threatened any kind of American national security but oppositely as the U.S. directly threatened the security of the Russian Federation, the existence of the Russian culture and above all of ethnic Russians in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine (including Crimea too). For the American administration, it is obvious that the return of Ukraine within the framework of the Russian predominant influence would, actually, mean the beginning of the displacement of the U.S. and its Western partners (the so-called Collective West) firstly from the biggest portion of Eurasia, and then probably from many countries of the Global South (predominantly from Africa). In this context, it can be said that the Ukrainian military and paramilitary detachments are fighting for the continuation of the post-Cold War 1.0 hegemonic position of the U.S. in global politics.
It is not hidden that many experts in international relations connect U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia to the very specific economic interests of different Western international, multinational, and financial companies. Nevertheless, the economy of Ukraine already after 2014 was put into the hands of Western companies and, consequently, it is why the Collective West, led by the United States, is not ready to peacefully hand over certain territories to Russia which historically belonged to Russia and being settled by Russian majority population. It is estimated, for instance, that around half of all arable land in Ukraine was sold to Western companies before 2022. Western sources openly claim that the conflict in Ukraine is a battle for very rich natural/mineral resources that this East European country possesses but, they can be out of Western exploitation as a huge part of them is already under Russian control (in the Donbas region, for example).
The question is: How are natural resources (probably crucially?) important in the current war between NATO and Russia on the soil of (Soviet) Ukraine?It can probably be understood from the fact that being aware of the bare reality that the existence of a client (East European) political regime depends mainly on the support (in a variety of forms) by the foreign (Western) powers, the officials of the Ukrainian authorities since 2014 invoked the argument of significant reserves of rare minerals in order to secure the constant support of Western bosses even officially claiming that some 5% all the global reserves of critical raw materials are located in (pre-2014) Ukraine. They claim, for instance, that around 500.000 tons of lithium reserves are located in the Donbas region. Ukraine is one of the top 10 producers of titanium, iron, kaolin, manganese, zirconium, and graphite. According to relevant Western sources, (pre-2014) Ukraine has about 20.000 deposits of 116 different mineral resources, of which only 3.055 deposits were active before 2022, or only about 15% out of all. In other words, if Western companies want to exploit such natural resources their governments must support the Kiev regime in the war against the Russian minority in East Ukraine and Russia herself.
According to some estimations, the territory of Ukraine before 2014 (Soviet territory) possess circa up to 20% of the world’s reserves of all titanium ores. It must be noted that titanium ore is necessary for the aerospace, medical, automotive, and shipbuilding industries from a global perspective. In addition to having at least 500.000 discovered reserves of lithium needed for the production of car batteries (in fact, lithium reserves are larger), Ukraine is among the top 5 global producers of gallium, which is necessary for producing semiconductors. The territory of pre-2014 Ukraine had large reserves of beryllium, which is used for the production of atomic energy, aerospace, military, and electronics industries.
Additionally, Ukraine has significant reserves of zirconium and apatite, which are needed for the production of atomic energy. In other words, according to some statistics, Ukraine ranks third in the world in terms of zirconium oxide reserves, just behind South Africa and Australia having also some 20% of the world’s graphite reserves. Ukraine has significant reserves of non-ferrous metals: copper (fourth place in Europe), lead (fifth place), zinc (sixth place) and silver (ninth place). Finally, Ukraine has significant reserves of nickel and cobalt as well.
Why Ukrainian natural resources are important to the Collective West which is supporting and financing the Ukrainian-NATO war against Russians and Russia from 2014 onward?It can be understood from the very facts that
1) today China controls up to 90% of the world’s total production of rare earth minerals, from extraction to processing, and
2) the EU imports 40% of all critical minerals exactly from China.
Taking into consideration Ukraine’s rare natural/mineral reserves, Ukraine can greatly help Western economies to gain a greater level of independence from both China and Russia in the field of energy.
Nevertheless, in the first place out of all other natural/mineral resources in Ukraine, titanium is mostly interesting for U.S. policymakers regarding the current military conflict in the country.
It has to be stressed that the largest deposits of titanium ore in Ukraine are still under the control of the Kiev regime. Significantly, Ukraine has huge reserves of titanium (second place in the world) while at the same time, the U.S. is forced to import around 90% of titanium for its economic purposes.Titanium is unavoidable in the aerospace industry and the production of commuting aircraft, and therefore, as an example, American Boeing provides up to 30% of its needs for titanium from Russia (in 2021, Russia was the world’s second exporter of titanium after China), but mainly processing ore from Ukraine and after February 2022 (the beginning of the Special Military Operation-SMO) from Africa and Asia. However, during Russian SMO, some of the most important mineral deposits in East Ukraine came under Moscow’s control.
The Donbas region is of prime importance regarding Ukrainian mineral and other natural resources and, therefore, is primarily well known for its huge coal reserves, which is why it is estimated that Russia currently controls 80% of Ukraine’s coal production. In the part of the Zaporozhie area that is annexed to Russia, there is one of the largest iron mines in former (Soviet territory) Ukraine. The Sea of Azov has significant oil and gas reserves. Both Zaporozhie and Donetsk areas possess two of the three largest lithium deposits in former Ukraine, which have not been exploited so far. However, the crucial point is that Russia would be among the top global producers of lithium having control of the Donetsk and Zaporozhie areas and their lithium reserves. Therefore, many Western experts linked the future of Europe’s energy question with the Ukrainian re-capture of Donbas for the very reason that this region possesses some of the largest lithium (and other) deposits in Europe.
In conclusion, the case of Ukraine makes clear that the issue of the exploitation of rare metals is, in fact, of a geopolitical nature, backed by the real fear of the Collective West of losing global economic-political dominance. Consequently, to get exploitation of several critical natural/mineral resources, the Collective West is ready to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian (mobilized by force) soldier.
*
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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
An in-depth analysis of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, has highlighted Indian efforts and proposed role in peace mediation process between Russia and Ukraine.
Modi’s official visit to Kiev on August 23 was the first for an Indian head of government since the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and Ukraine in 1992. While the significance of this cannot be underestimated, it also exposed a few controversial questions. Some experts interpreted the official visit, though as friendly and symbolic, it was also considered as a combined attempt to solidify India’s economic diplomacy after a series of corporate agreements were reached after the deliberations and their joint talks over peace mediation. Modi and Zelenskyy have agreed to often-suggested ‘peace summit’ – several of such high-powered meetings have already been held since Russia began its ‘special military operation’ in neighbouring Ukraine.
For some reasons in the first place, India’s proposal on hosting second peace summit explicitly shows the importance it attaches within the context of its bilateral relations with Russia. India and Russia have had cordial relations dating back to Soviet times, and that has been described lately as ‘friendly’ and, in terms of economic benefits, referred to as highly appreciable as bilateral trade statistics vividly show in ministerial documents. During one official visit, Modi was photographed giving President Vladimir Putin a warm embrace, both have a long-running relationship. India’s bilateral trade with Russia stood at $65.6 billion in FY24, up 33 per cent year-on-year, and nearly 5.5 times higher than the pre-pandemic trade of $10.1 billion. The bilateral trade has increased especially since 2022 with Indian fuel importers snapping up discounted Russian crude despite repeated criticism by Western nations.
Image: Ukrainian President Zelensky’s meeting with India’s PM Modi (Source)
On the opposite side with Ukraine, Modi’s support was seen as a factor that could bolster efforts toward peace negotiations. At the same, the Indian leader took the opportunity to strengthen his country’s economic cooperation in Ukraine, possibly in the wider region. Modi and Zelenskyy discussed at length Ukraine’s peace formula, which prioritizes territorial integrity and the withdrawal of Russian troops, according to the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
With devastating consequences arising from more than two-year conflict, Modi passionately urged for early resolution of Ukraine conflict in August phone conversation with Russia’s Putin.
“Reiterated India’s firm commitment to support an early, abiding and peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Modi said in a post on X, describing the conversation.
Modi shared “insights” from his visit to Ukraine with Putin and “underlined the importance of dialogue and diplomacy as well as sincere and practical engagement between all stakeholders” to find peace, the Indian foreign ministry said in a statement.
“We are on the side of peace,” Modi added. “Personally, as a friend, if there is any role that I can play, I would very much like to play that role toward peace.”
Modi and Zelenskyy spent two and a half hours behind closed doors before they signed cooperation agreements in the spheres of agriculture, medicine, and culture. The joint statement said both countries agreed on the importance of closer dialogue to “ensure a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
Since Russia-Ukraine conflict began in February 2022, China and India (BRICS), have all along avoided condemning Russia’s invasion and instead have been urging Moscow and Kyiv to resolve the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. Analysts earlier argued Modi’s neutral stance, as it is the case with Brazil, China and South Africa. One Ukrainian analyst said the outcome of Modi’s first visit was modest, as that was just “the beginning of a complex dialogue between India, Ukraine and Europe.” If India were to support Ukraine’s approach to a peace settlement, it could enhance Kyiv’s chances of gaining more backing from other countries in the “Global South” where “India remains China’s main competitor for influence.”
Reports show that ongoing negotiations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Switzerland regarding the second summit on peace shared on social media. In addition to India and South Africa as BRICS members, China also has historically warm ties with Russia.
South Africa has attempted at peace resolution, and that was followed by China. Sergey Lavrov underestimated South Africa (BRICS chair in 2023), saying that the African peace initiative which consisted of ten (10) elements, was not well-formulated on paper. Similarly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:
“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions.”
As far back in May 2024, President Xi Jinping “clearly articulated that the Chinese side will support the convention of an international conference which will reflect the interests of both Russia and Ukraine equally and will be based on a large number of ideas and initiatives.”
For the discussions here, it is necessary to consider carefully, in the context the China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) that could play important role in resolving the Russia-Ukraine crisis and possibly many others around the world. In the first place, China prominently places “cooperation” as the key component in its foreign policy, as oppose to Russia that is confrontational and yet talk about multipolar – in fact ‘multipolar’ in its basic sense means inclusive and integrated approach to global developments including conflict resolutions.
According to China’s concept, its Global Security Initiative principally aims at eliminating the root causes of international conflicts, improve global security governance, encourage joint international efforts to bring more stability and certainty to a volatile and changing era, and promote durable peace and development in the world.
The concept is guided by six commitments or pillars, which are
(i) pursuing common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security;
(ii) respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries;
(iii) adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;
(iv) taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously;
(v) peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation; and
(vi) maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.
Gleaning from these core principles, it’s safe to say that the Global Security Initiative could and probably would become a catalyst for the world to chart a new path to building sustainable peace, stability and development. The Global Security Initiative was first proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference on April 21, 2022.
Late August 2024, China reiterated the call for more support for its Ukraine peace plan created with Brazil. Both as BRICS members have endorsed a comprehensive peace plan for Ukraine, after rounds of diplomacy consultations with Indonesia and South Africa to support the proposed plan. It is important to remind that China and Russia were absent from first peace summit hosted in Geneva, Switzerland in June. Russia was not invited while China chose not to attend.
Despite that, Chinese Envoy Li Hui has insisted on dialogue for conflict resolution, adding that “important global forces in promoting world peace” share similar positions on diplomacy and dialogue with China.
“They have maintained communication with both Russia and Ukraine and stay committed to a political settlement to the crisis through dialogue and negotiation,” said Li, China’s special envoy for Eurasian affairs.
Within the unfolding geopolitical context, BRICS in their declaration on 23 August, 2023, in Sandton, South Africa, underlined the fact that BRICS is ready, “as sovereign states cooperate to maintain peace and security” and further against actions that are “incompatible with the principles of democracy and multilateral system” in this modern world.
The declaration also re-affirmed their collective stand “on strengthening cooperation on issues of common interests within BRICS” and yet China, India and South Africa, through their previous efforts, could not find common interest to establishing relative, better still sustainable peace between Russia and Ukraine. The entire saga of settling the Ukrainian problem is now reaching a very critical point, even BRICS unable to find an acceptable promising solution on their BRICS association’s platform. In any case, the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues threatening global security, largely influencing the world economy.
Absolutely there is no need taking quotes to support the arguments in the article here, but it is necessary to reiterate that the Joint Statement of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Relations meeting on 1 June 2023 and the 13th Meeting of BRICS National Security Advisors and High Representatives on National Security held on 25 July 2023, stated (Point 12 in the 94-Point Declaration) categorically noted:
“We are concerned about ongoing conflicts in many parts of the world. We stress our commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes through dialogue and inclusive consultations in a coordinated and cooperative manner and support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises.”
Interestingly BRICS members especially South Africa, China and India have made several practical steps without any substantial results. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has, in fact several times, clarified that BRICS is an informal association which comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. At the beginning of this year, as agreed at the XV BRICS Summit in South Africa, five countries – Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became full-fledged members. At this point, experts have asking the level its committed role as collective BRICS in the mediation process and within the basic principles adhered by the global multipolarity. Russia has held the BRICS presidency since January 1, 2024.
*
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.
A significant and sensitive issue that needs careful understanding is that of covert regime change and destabilization operations. According to research conducted by Lindsay A. O’Rourke, Professor of Political Science of Boston University, USA, there were 64 covert interventions for regime change by the USA during 1947-89. If the same trends continued in the later period, there would be over 100 such attempts by now, during the post-World War 2 period. At times some close allies of the USA have collaborated in such operations to a lesser or greater extent.
Of course there have been similar efforts by other countries too, particularly other big powers, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union their capacity as well as the inclination for this has decreased considerably. However in the case of the USA both the capacity and the inclination have been maintained right up to this day.
Some regime change attempts of the last decade that have attracted more attention have been in the context of such important countries as Ukraine (2014), Pakistan (2022) and Bangladesh (2024), the first mentioned being the most harmful historically. My estimate is that the chain of tragic events initiated by the Ukraine regime change has, directly as well as by indirect impacts, already led to over a million deaths.
Of course not all regime change covert operations are successful. Among the covert operations examined in the research of Lindsay O’Rourke 39 out of 64 efforts (over 60%) failed in securing regime change. The USA officially supported authoritarian forces in 44 out of these 64 cases while democracy was promoted only to the extent it benefited US interests.
What can be asserted confidently is that whether the regime change objective was achieved in any country or not, the country and its people were definitely harmed, often in very serious ways, and democracy was definitely harmed too, as covert operations certainly violate the basic spirit of democracy.
In addition often it is left or left of center forces/governments as well as working classes which are harmed the most in such covert operations (although sometimes covert regime change operations are also directed against right-wing nationalist regimes which insist on following independent policies in some important respects, including their foreign policy).
Left and democratic as well as working class forces in world suffered a big setback with the impeachment of Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, the imprisonment of front-line Presidential candidate Lula da Silva in 2018 and the loss of PT (Workers Party) in 2018 elections.
Dilma Rousseff receiving the presidential sash from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 1 January 2011. (Licensed under CC BY 3.0 br)
A recent study has confirmed widespread allegations appearing time and again in Brazil and elsewhere that the USA played an important part in these events through its highly opportunistic use of anti-corruption movement, involving also illegal actions directed against these leaders and their political party.
This study is titled ‘Anti- Corruption and Imperialist Blind Spots—the Role of the US in Brazil’s Long Coup’ and is authored by Brian Mier, Bryan Pitts, Sean T. Mitchell, Rafael R. Ioris and Kathy Swart. This has been published in Latin American Perspectives.
A comprehensive examination of the evidence available, contained in US government statements, English language media accounts and hacked telegram chats among Brazilian prosecutors indicates that the US was widely involved in the ‘long coup’ that removed the left from power in Brazil in 2016 and secured the elections for the far right in 2018.
The leading role in this was played by an anti-corruption movement called Lava Jato or Operation Car Wash. This movement was preceded by big gatherings which educated and trained potential participants in those kinds of ‘anti-corruption’ activities which could target public sector companies and political leaders and could secure international cooperation, particularly US cooperation.
Brazil had discovered new big oil deposits and this may have instigated foreign attempts to harm its public sector oil and petroleum interests, to pave the way for higher private sector role. President Rousseff’s efforts to cut private bank profits may have been another reason for targeting her. A bigger reason may have been the strong role played by the governments of Lula and later Rousseff in protecting trade interests of developing countries, as well as their refusal to toe the US line in developing relations with countries like Iran, China and Russia. The independent stand taken on Palestine may also have irked the USA. Obama’s personal dislike for Lula may have been an aggravating factor too, as also the general hostility to any left government.
As the study by Brian Mier et al tells us, in June 2019, the evidence on US interference via Lava Jato was already so strong that the PT leader in Congress, Paulo Pimenta was able to provide a dossier full of information. It included names of US prosecutors, public statements by government officials, proof of parallel meetings and events, official schedules, proof of informal violation in collaboration of national sovereignty laws and US officials in Brazil getting unrestricted knowledge of government authorities.
In 2020 Intercept journalists published Telegram communications which revealed that the Lava Jato team had repeated secret meetings with 17 (US) FBI agents bypassing national laws and regulations.
On the day that leading Presidential candidate Lula was arrested in 2018, a prominent leader of Lava Jato was heard commenting—this is a gift from the CIA.
While leading US media kept quiet about the US role in all this, the leaders of Lava Jato were given very good coverage to boost their image and present them as great heroes.
Adding up all the evidence, this study concluded,
“Over the past one decade, continuing evidence has emerged that clearly demonstrates that the US government, particularly the Department of Justice, under both Obama and Trump, played a key role in supporting Lava Jato’s politically motivated witch-hunt against the PT.”
Further this study states,
“The US has long used invasions, insurgencies and economic blockades to advance its interests in Latin America. Today it has added the tool of anticorruption to its arsenal.”
All this is deeply disturbing. Firstly, this shows that the US has not lost any of its willingness to illegally oust those democratically elected governments which have been much appreciated for their role in reducing poverty and injustice.
The PT government had big contributions in reducing poverty and inequalities, but these gains were rapidly rolled back within a few years of their ouster (now of course PT and Lula are back), with the income share going to the bottom 50% diminishing significantly and the income share going to the top 1% getting boosted in a big way. What should serve as a lesson to other developing countries is how the USA operatives (using local collaborators) could achieve a government change and the imprisonment of highly popular leaders of the ruling party even in a leading country. The legal and other aspects of anti-corruption international agreements were used to strengthen this capacity and this study quotes documents regarding use of anti-corruption movements to destabilize US competitors and enemies.
Another very disturbing aspect is how a very opportunistic use was made of the anti-corruption rhetoric in a way that good leaders were turned into targets for corrupt practices while racketeers got celebrated as heroes. Thus while opposing corruption in sincere and honest ways must be a very important aspect of any democracy, caution should be exercised clearly regarding opportunistic used of any anti-corruption movements.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University has written recently,
“Covert regime change operations are blatantly illegal under international law (notably the Doctrine of Non-Intervention, as expressed for example in the UN General Assembly Resolution 2025, 1970), and constitute perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, as they profoundly destabilize nations, and often lead to wars and other civil disorders.”
Professor Sachs has written this in an article published in Common Dreams (and elsewhere) in mid- August 2024, titled ‘Accusations of US regime-change operations in Pakistan and Bangladesh warrant UN attention’. In this article he has written that there is very strong evidence of US role in toppling of the government of Imran Khan in Pakistan in 2022 and the likelihood of something very similar in the overthrow of the government of Bangladesh led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina more recently in 2024. The two main leaders have themselves alleged such involvement of US role. Prof. Sachs writes,
“Their grave accusations against the US, as reported in the world media, should be investigated by the UN, since if true, the US actions would constitute a fundamental threat to world peace ad regional stability in South Asia.”
Keeping in view all these happenings in the region, it would be advisable for other countries of the region, particularly India, to be more cautious in the coming days.
*
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.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Strategic deterrence is one of the most important aspects of any global power’s/superpower’s security architecture. Countries such as Russia and the US have the world’s largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons, meaning that their ability to inflict untold damage on anyone is absolutely unparalleled.
However, despite this, not even such superpowers should focus entirely on the military part of their doctrine, but on maintaining normal communication with other nuclear-armed states and ensuring that the world at least doesn’t get destroyed because of some trivial miscalculation.
America is the only country on Earth that has a plan to wage a simultaneous nuclear war with three nuclear-armed states – Russia, China and North Korea. Back in March, the US government adopted a new nuclear strategy that addresses this possibility, pushing for a more “decisive” response by the Pentagon. This extremely important document is updated approximately every four years, meaning that its changes are highly classified. According to The New York Times, this new strategy is “the first to examine in detail whether the United States is prepared to respond to nuclear crises that break out simultaneously or sequentially, with a combination of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons”. This was previously underscored by Pranay Vaddi, Special Presidential Assistant and Senior Director for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC).
Vaddi and other high-ranking US officials, particularly those from the NSC, have publicly discussed the strategy changes, with Vaddi stating back in June that the plan underscores “the necessity to deter Russia, China and North Korea”, all at the same time. Another important change is also the fact that Moscow isn’t considered the sole strategic threat to the US, as this now applies to China as well. And while Russia’s strategic arsenal, the world’s most powerful, is still considered the primary threat to America, for the very first time, the strategy places significant emphasis on China. The US military projects that Beijing’s nuclear arsenal could grow from around 500 warheads to 1,500 by 2035, which is still a long way to go, as well as an effort that will require enormous investment in the military and a massive change in China’s nuclear/strategic doctrine, as Beijing would be tripling its current thermonuclear arsenal.
What’s more, in doing so, China would also be switching from a highly defensive strategic posture to an offensive one. However, despite this growing arsenal, it still remains a fraction of the stockpiles held by Washington DC and Moscow. In comparison, according to the latest data by the Federation of American Scientists, the US is in possession of exactly 5,044 warheads, 1,419 of which are deployed, while Russia has 5,580, with 1,549 deployed. In other words, both superpowers already have the number of deployed warheads that China’s entire arsenal is expected to reach no sooner than 2035, while it will still be three to four times smaller overall. However, the US is determined to push Beijing into a Cold War-like competition regardless. China’s minimalistic approach to strategic deterrence seems to be “too pacifist” for the US, which is why it’s doing everything in its power to push Beijing into an arms race.
The treaty limits deployed warheads to 1,550 in both countries, which is why more than 70% of their arsenals are effectively dormant. This is bound to change in less than a year and a half, when there will be no restrictions on the deployment of strategic weapons. Simultaneously, the US also keeps antagonizing North Korea, pushing it to enter a direct military alliance with Russia, resulting in the effective unification of their strategic arsenals, as an attack on one would now legally be considered an attack on both.
The results of such developments are very well known. We can read them in history books. However, there’s a very important distinction between then and now. Namely, the tripwire alliances of our age are all nuclear-armed, meaning that a potential global confrontation could be over in mere hours. It’s precisely thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world that around 950 million Americans, Canadians and Europeans are the target of the strategic arsenals of that same world. Because of its propensity to attack and destroy countries, groups of countries and even entire global regions, the political West has brought this upon itself, as much (if not most) of the world simply doesn’t want to take any risk by trusting the US/NATO. The only way to make sure that the political West is kept in check is to arm yourself with the most destructive weapons ever devised and aim them at Washington DC, Brussels, London, etc.
*
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
A bizarre geopolitical thesis in the Indian media last week characterised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent 7-hour trip to Ukraine via Poland as part of an effort “to plug a missing link — Central Europe — in India’s European policy.” Per this thesis, PM’s trip signified an Indian “push” into Central / Eastern Europe “disentangling New Delhi’s engagement with the region from its relationship with Russia.”
This bizarre thesis, by implication, carries the imprimatur of Modi government but External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s cerebral mind never publicly vented such a stream of consciousness. Funnily enough, coaching academies who prepare candidates for the upcoming Civil Services Examination have also jumped into the fray with tutorials on the pernicious thesis!
Since the exponent of this thesis is a well-known senior journalist, Indian press lost no time to savour the exotica that sounded out of the ordinary. Whereas, the absurdity of the thesis should have been apparent at first glance to any erudite mind.
To delve into modern European history, Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not really interchangeable as geopolitical constructs. Central Europe is more of a geographical expression, as the region is culturally very diverse — even while sharing some historical and cultural similarities — whose “strategic awakening” actually begins only with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
The region broadly refers to the swathe of Europe that was historically part of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires comprisingpresent-day Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia.
But Eastern Europe has been a sub-region of the European continent even with a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic connotations. Itincludes present-day Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Romania plus the Balkans, the Baltic states and the Caucasus.
Geographically speaking, the region is defined by the Ural Mountains (in Russia) in the east while the western boundary remains nebulous, without any definite edges. (Hence the “German Question” in European history.) Eastern Europe is a significant part of European culture through millennia but distinguishable by the traditions of the Slavs and Greeks who are followers of Eastern Christianity where Eastern Orthodox forms the largest body.
Of course, the Iron Curtain gave Eastern Europe an entirely new redefinition. Indeed, redefinition has been a constant feature of Eastern European countries. Thus, the rubric Warsaw Pact came to be associated with Poland, but even then, the Visegrad Group didn’t fly — the politico-military alliance that Poland sought to create in 1991 with the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary as a counterweight to the Old Europeans’ hegemony in the European Union. The Visegrad Group lost traction once Poland and Hungary elected national-conservative governments while the Czech Republic and Slovakia continued as liberal democracies.
The paradox is, when the Visegrad alliance finally split, it was over the four countries’ divergent reactions to Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine in 2022. While Poland and the Czech Republic adhered firmly to the US-led NATO strategy to wage a proxy war against Russia, Slovakia and Hungary remain ambivalent and increasingly question the raison d’état of the war and have lately begun opposing the war.
Thus, when Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán as the chairman of the rotating EU presidency floated a peace plan recently in consultation with Donald Trump to end the Ukraine war, the EU promptly disowned it (at US behest, of course.)
On the other hand, Slovakian PM Robert Fico who survived an assassination attempt in May due to his refusal to back the Kiev regime stands shoulder to shoulder with Orbán. Incidentally, there is a school of thought that the needle of suspicion in the assassination attempt on Fico in May points to Ukraine’s military intelligence. So much for a common Eastern European stance on Ukraine war– or Russia for that matter!
In fact, both Orbán and Fico advocate good relations and resumption of beneficial ties with Russia. They thoroughly disapprove the EU’s sanctions against Russia. Such being the state of play, how could Modi government have been so incredibly foolish as to imagine that India’s route to European engagement lies through Kiev and/or disengagement from Russia? Evidently, it is a lie.
The problem is not that India’s stance on Ukraine hinders the expansion of economic relations with Europe but the absence of an imaginative, robust economic diplomacy in a long-term perspective.
Although EU is India’s largest trading partner, accounting for €124 billion worth of trade in goods in 2023 (or 12.2% of total Indian trade), trade negotiations with EU have been dragging on for well over a decade. The EU’s stated objective is “to work towards a sound, transparent, open, non-discriminatory and predictable regulatory and business environment for European companies trading with or investing in India.”
But Delhi is in no hurry as trade is growing impressively (by almost 90% in the last decade) and trade in services between the EU and India reached €50.8 billion in 2023, up from €30.4 billion in 2020 — and, most important, the balance of trade remains in India’s favour.
In reality, without waiting for the Ukraine war to end, Delhi can take a look at China’s strategy to enter the European market through the East European gateway. China created a platform with Central and Eastern European countries known as the “14+1.” Hungary, Slovakia and Poland are important partners for China in this framework.
Orbán has been embracing Chinese investments despite the EU’s call for “derisking” while Fico is set to visit China. And the most interesting part is that it’s not just the pair of leaders currently viewed as the EU’s pro-Russian wild cards who are playing this game. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, a tough critic of Moscow’s war against Ukraine, also just concluded a state visit hosted by his counterpart Xi Jinping in China.
Indeed, China continues to be on a charm offensive in Central and Eastern Europe. A new study from the European Think Tank Network on China says Hungary is an “outlier” regarding national measures on derisking from China. The report says that “Orbán’s government takes pride in attracting a growing number of Chinese investors to the country.”
Indeed, Hungary is becoming Europe’s electric vehicle hub – by courting Chinese carmakers. Fico is attracted to Orbán’s route and plans to conclude a strategic partnership agreement with China during his planned visit in fall. Now, don’t Hungary, Slovakia and Poland know that China and Russia have a quasi-alliance today, which is at an all-time level and only strengthening by the day because of the fallouts of Ukraine war such as western sanctions?
Our media pundits are clueless about Eastern Europe. Yet they are advocating India’s disengagement from Russia as a prerequisite of warm relations with that region! Why are they doing this? Such perverted logic only promotes American interests to erode India-Russia partnership and thereby erode the country’s strategic autonomy.
Going forward, it’s too really to tell now as to what form Ukraine takes as it emerges from this war. Ukraine has unresolved nationality questions. And territories in western Ukraine previously belonged to Poland (which was of course compensated with territories of defeated Germany) and Hungary before World War 2.
Poland says the 1943-44 massacre of some 100,000 Poles by Ukrainian nationalists was genocide. And today, the crux of the matter, from Russian perspective too, is that Ukraine’s identity as a sovereign state itself is built around the same neo-Nazi organisations that collaborated with Hitler’s occupation army to massacre Poles. Truly, this is a can of worms. India has no good reason to meddle with it.
*
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.
Featured image:Poland’s government announced last year the discovery of a mass burial pit in Ukraine containing remains of ethnic Poles murdered by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists in waves of World War 2 massacres. (Source: Indian Punchline)
A resposta da Alemanha à pandemia de COVID-19 foi baseada em objetivos políticos, e o governo implementou contramedidas que muitas vezes contradiziam evidências científicas e a opinião dos próprios cientistas do governo, de acordo com documentos vazados por um ex-funcionário da agência de saúde pública da Alemanha, o Instituto Robert Koch (RKI).
Um denunciante não identificado divulgou os “Arquivos RKI” para a jornalista investigativa Aya Velázquez, que em 23 de julho publicou os arquivos não editados — totalizando 3.865 páginas — na íntegra no Substack.
O RKI é o equivalente alemão aos Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças dos EUA.
De acordo com o jornal alemão Schwäbische Zeitung, os Arquivos do RKI “contêm detalhes explosivos” sobre “vacinações infantis e ‘resistência da população’” e mostram “que o RKI tinha uma visão muito mais diferenciada da política do Coronavírus do que os responsáveis pela política e a maioria da mídia levaram a população a acreditar”.
“Um denunciante, um ex-funcionário do RKI, abordou-me e passou-me o conjunto de dados” por razões de “consciência”, escreveu Velázquez no Substack.
Outras revelações incluem evidências de que os legisladores estavam mirando e “cutucando” crianças, e o conhecimento por parte dos legisladores e cientistas de que as vacinas contra a COVID-19 eram ineficazes e levavam a eventos adversos graves.
Apesar desse conhecimento — e por razões políticas — autoridades governamentais adotaram medidas recompensando os vacinados e punindo os não vacinados.
Os arquivos do RKI também revelam que os formuladores de políticas e cientistas tentaram ignorar publicamente as evidências de uma “curva de achatamento” no início da pandemia, e as evidências de que máscaras e testes em massa não seriam úteis para prevenir a infecção.
Embora alguns tenham questionado a legitimidade dos documentos contidos nos Arquivos RKI, o Instituto Robert Koch, em um anúncio feito pelo programa de notícias alemão Tagesschau abordando a publicação de documentos não redigidos, não confirmou ou negou a legitimidade dos próprios documentos ou de seus conteúdos:
“O Instituto Robert Koch criticou a publicação de atas não redigidas da equipe de crise do RKI sobre a pandemia de COVID. O RKI condena expressamente a publicação ilegal de dados pessoais e segredos comerciais e empresariais de terceiros nesses conjuntos de dados e, em particular, qualquer violação de direitos de terceiros.”
Outros meios de comunicação alemães, incluindo os jornais de grande circulação Bild e Zeit, também noticiaram a divulgação dos arquivos.
‘Evidências claras de que o público em geral foi deliberadamente enganado’
A “vacinação generalizada de crianças” e as políticas que proíbem os não vacinados de muitos espaços públicos — para as quais o RKI “forneceu suposta legitimidade científica” — não foram baseadas em “considerações racionais e científicas”, mas em “decisões políticas”, escreveu Velázquez.
Stefan Homburg, Ph.D., professor de finanças públicas na Universidade de Hannover, na Alemanha, fazia parte de uma equipe que trabalhou com o denunciante para liberar os Arquivos RKI não editados. Ele disse ao The Defender que os documentos mostram que as decisões foram tomadas “exclusivamente por políticos” e que “RKI não apoiou essas medidas”.
“Agora temos evidências claras de que o público em geral foi deliberadamente enganado”, disse a advogada holandesa Meike Terhorst ao The Defender. “Os políticos tomaram as decisões, não as autoridades de saúde.”
O Dr. Christof Plothe, membro do comitê diretor do Conselho Mundial de Saúde, disse ao The Defender que os arquivos “mostram que nunca foi a ciência que iniciou o uso ineficaz e prejudicial de máscaras, o distanciamento social traumatizante e os lockdowns, ou que introduziu uma nova terapia genética rotulada como ‘vacina’… Foram os políticos que exigiram as medidas”.
O Ministro Federal da Saúde da Alemanha, Karl Lauterbach, da era da pandemia, figura com destaque nos documentos. Plothe disse que Lauterbach “nunca trabalhou com pacientes e é um lobista puro da Pharma ”.
O toxicologista alemão Helmut Sterz, anteriormente pesquisador de grandes empresas farmacêuticas — incluindo a Pfizer — disse ao The Defender que os documentos mostram que as decisões sobre a pandemia “foram tomadas por aqueles que são responsáveis pela criação desta ‘pandemia’” e que “verdadeiros especialistas ‘desapareceram’ do debate público”.
“As medidas às quais o povo alemão foi submetido, além de mandatos de máscaras e regras de distanciamento social, [incluem] um ‘lockdown dos não vacinados’ que proibiu as pessoas de [locais públicos] … A vacinação obrigatória foi imposta a membros militares e a todas as pessoas que trabalham no setor de saúde”, disse Plothe.
Documentos revelam discussões da UE para ‘pular os testes de Fase 3’ da vacina da Pfizer
“Normalmente, você planeja de 12 a 18 meses a partir do início da Fase I. A EMA e a Pfizer estão considerando se devem pular os testes da Fase III e ir direto para o uso amplo. Se os reguladores decidirem isso, então pode ser mais rápido do que 12 a 18 meses”, diz o documento.
A ata de uma reunião do RKI de 27 de abril de 2020 afirma: “Haverá várias vacinas que foram desenvolvidas e testadas em um processo rápido. Dados relevantes serão coletados somente após o marketing.”
De acordo com a revista médica alemã Aertzeblatt, documentos do RKI de janeiro e fevereiro de 2021, após as primeiras vacinas contra a COVID-19 terem sido introduzidas e administradas, revelam discussões questionando a eficácia da vacina AstraZeneca contra a COVID-19, afirmando que ela era “menos perfeita” e que sua “ecologia precisa ser discutida”.
Um documento de 29 de janeiro de 2021 (página 135), por exemplo, afirma que “o STIKO [Comitê Permanente de Vacinação do RKI] recomenda a vacina apenas para pessoas com menos de 65 anos, pois há falta de evidências para pessoas com mais de 65 anos, intervalos de confiança muito amplos, muito incerto, pois há duas vacinas de RNA altamente eficazes disponíveis”.
De acordo com a revista alemã Tichys Einblick, os documentos mostram que já no início de 2021, “o RKI sabia sobre os efeitos colaterais sérios das vacinas, por exemplo, da AstraZeneca. No entanto, logo depois, praticamente todos os principais políticos importantes foram vacinados publicamente com precisamente esta injeção.”
Essas admissões ocorreram apesar da retórica pública da época afirmar que as vacinas protegeriam contra a propagação e a infecção da COVID-19.
Documentos do RKI de 12 e 15 de março de 2021 fizeram referência à identificação de eventos adversos graves após a vacinação da AstraZeneca contra a COVID-19 na Dinamarca, Holanda e Áustria, e um documento de 9 de abril de 2021 discute uma alta taxa de casos de trombose associados à vacina da AstraZeneca, principalmente em homens.
Por sua vez, um documento de 23 de abril de 2021 faz referência a seis casos de trombose cerebral relacionados à vacina Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) contra a COVID-19 nos EUA, mas não propõe mudanças nas recomendações de vacinação da Alemanha.
“É particularmente ruim que o RKI tenha reconhecido muitos ferimentos de vacina causados pela AstraZeneca, mas não tenha alertado o público”, disse Homburg. “A pressão política constante também é notável.”
‘Deve ser legal ser vacinado’
Os Arquivos RKI também revelaram esforços por parte do governo alemão e das autoridades de saúde pública do país para atingir especificamente crianças com restrições da COVID-19 — esforços que foram marcados por interferência política:
Um documento do RKI de 19 de maio de 2021 afirma: “Mesmo que a STIKO não recomende a vacinação para crianças, [o então Ministro da Saúde Jens] Spahn ainda está planejando um programa de vacinação infantil”.
Um documento de 21 de maio de 2021 afirma que, embora as associações pediátricas “estejam relutantes em vacinar crianças… Os políticos já estão preparando campanhas de vacinação para vacinar as faixas etárias relevantes”.
Um documento do RKI de 14 de julho de 2021 revela discussões sobre um “desafio de vacinação de influenciadores no YouTube” e “desenvolvimento de material para grupos-alvo mais jovens”, que “seriam abordados com mais humor” — até mesmo reações e efeitos colaterais da vacina. “Deve ser legal ser vacinado”, afirmou o documento.
A ata de uma reunião do RKI de 15 de dezembro de 2021 revela que o Ministério da Saúde da Alemanha estava “considerando a vacinação de reforço de crianças, embora não haja recomendação e, em alguns casos, nenhuma aprovação para isso”.
Tais medidas foram promovidas apesar do conhecimento inicial de que as crianças não foram significativamente afetadas pela COVID-19. Um documento do RKI de 26 de fevereiro de 2020 referiu-se a dados da China descobrindo que 2% dos casos eram em crianças, enquanto um documento de 30 de novembro de 2020 sugeriu que os ambientes escolares provavelmente não contribuiriam significativamente para a disseminação do vírus, mas que o fechamento das escolas “exacerbaria” a situação.
E uma reunião do RKI em 4 de dezembro de 2020, examinando dados de vários países, concluiu que a reabertura de escolas não levou a uma disseminação significativamente maior do vírus.
‘Os vacinados devem receber algum tipo de privilégio’
Apesar dessas descobertas, houve pressão política para recompensar os vacinados e punir os não vacinados, de acordo com os arquivos do RKI.
Um documento de 5 de novembro de 2021 disse que a retórica da mídia sobre “uma pandemia de não vacinados” “não era correta do ponto de vista científico”, porque “toda a população está contribuindo” para novas ondas de infecção.
No entanto, as autoridades decidiram continuar culpando os não vacinados pela disseminação da COVID-19, porque isso serviria “como um apelo a todos aqueles que não foram vacinados para que se vacinem”, de acordo com o documento.
O documento também observou que Spahn “fala da [pandemia dos não vacinados] em todas as coletivas de imprensa… então não pode ser corrigido”. O documento contém um reconhecimento, no entanto, de que “deve-se ter muito cuidado com a declaração de que as vacinas protegem contra qualquer infecção (mesmo assintomática)” porque “conforme o tempo entre as vacinações aumenta”, a infecção se torna mais provável.
Um documento do RKI de 10 de maio de 2021 continha uma determinação de que dizer a verdade ao público “causaria grande confusão”, enquanto manter as recomendações de vacinação existentes serviria “para salvar [a] vacina”.
Em vez disso, um documento de 7 de janeiro de 2022 declarou que “os vacinados devem receber privilégios de algum tipo”, incluindo menos restrições de viagem, e que esse era um objetivo desejado pelo Ministério da Saúde alemão, ao mesmo tempo em que pedia mais “testes dos não vacinados após a entrada” no país.
Da mesma forma, um documento de 10 de março de 2021 sugeriu que a vacinação contra a COVID-19 deveria ser promovida ao público como um meio de “poder participar novamente da vida social”, para pessoas que estavam cansadas de “proibições e restrições”.
No entanto, um documento do RKI de 4 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu que os vacinados deveriam continuar a cumprir as “medidas de higiene”, enquanto um documento de 30 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu que os vacinados ainda deveriam usar máscaras, “pois ainda há risco de transmissão”.
As autoridades alemãs queriam “evitar chamar a atenção” para o achatamento da curva
Os arquivos do RKI revelam ainda que, no início da pandemia da COVID-19, houve pressão política para manter as restrições, apesar do “achatamento da curva”.
Um documento de 25 de março de 2020 admitiu que “a curva está se estabilizando lentamente”, mas disse: “Devemos evitar chamar a atenção para isso em nossas comunicações externas, para incentivar o cumprimento das medidas”.
Um documento de 18 de novembro de 2020 contém uma admissão de que as doenças respiratórias estavam “bem abaixo” do nível do ano anterior, com uma tendência de queda. Da mesma forma, um documento de 30 de novembro de 2020 afirma que as doenças respiratórias gerais estavam “bem abaixo dos anos anteriores”. Um documento de 27 de janeiro de 2021 afirma que uma política “sem COVID” não é viável.
E de acordo com um documento de 25 de fevereiro de 2022, o RKI foi impedido de rebaixar sua avaliação geral de risco da COVID-19 de “muito alto” para “alto”, mesmo depois que os sintomas, em sua maioria leves, da onda Ômicron foram evidentes, devido à intervenção de Lauterbach e do Ministério da Saúde alemão.
Uso de máscaras pelo público em geral é considerado “problemático” — mas imposto mesmo assim
Os arquivos do RKI também contêm reconhecimentos de que as políticas de uso de máscaras e testes foram ineficazes para limitar a disseminação da COVID-19, mas foram adotadas por razões políticas:
Um documento de 27 de janeiro de 2020 afirma que o uso de máscaras “não faz sentido” para pessoas assintomáticas, pois não há evidências de que seria uma “medida preventiva útil para a população em geral”.
Um documento de 23 de outubro de 2020 declarou que as máscaras FFP2 (semelhantes às máscaras N95) seriam “mal utilizadas” pelo público e não ofereceriam proteção, mas, em vez disso, poderiam incutir uma falsa sensação de segurança nas pessoas. “Os danos das máscaras FFP2 podem superar os benefícios”, afirma o documento.
Um documento de 30 de outubro de 2020 diz: “As máscaras FFP2 não têm valor agregado se não forem ajustadas e usadas corretamente” e são inúteis fora da “saúde e segurança ocupacional”.
Um documento de 13 de janeiro de 2021 afirma que as máscaras FFP2 “podem levar a problemas de saúde para pessoas com condições preexistentes e, portanto, devem permanecer uma decisão individual” e que “uma exigência geral de máscara FFP2 não é considerada sensata”.
Um documento de 18 de janeiro de 2021 não encontrou “nenhuma base técnica para recomendar máscaras FFP2 para a população”, observando o risco de “efeitos colaterais indesejáveis”.
No entanto, em 2 de julho de 2021, os documentos do RKI continham sugestões, baseadas na Academia Americana de Pediatria, para o uso geral de máscaras para crianças de 2 anos ou mais e que “O uso de máscaras deve ser mantido… mesmo em baixas incidências e deve ser entendido como manutenção de medidas básicas”.
Documentos do RKI também questionaram os testes em massa para COVID-19. Um documento de 3 de fevereiro de 2020 declarou que resultados positivos de PCR após a recuperação “não significam necessariamente infecciosidade”, enquanto um documento de 29 de julho de 2020 concluiu que os testes para COVID-19 eram ineficazes, mas um “desejo político” de testes tinha que ser “atendido”.
Da mesma forma, um documento do RKI de 16 de dezembro de 2020 sugeriu a suspensão de procedimentos eletivos (operações planejadas), devido à “pressão dos governos estaduais”.
New research presented at the Federal Reserve’s annual research conference in Kansas City, Wyoming, found weaknesses in US Treasuries, once labelled a “safe haven” for securities. This is devastating news for the US as unsustainable debt and the weaponisation of the US dollar are now catching up and negatively affecting the American economy.
The study determined that the bonds are a “little different from the debt issued by the likes of Germany, Britain, France, or even big corporations,” Reuters reported on August 23. According to the article, the study found that the US government has enjoyed an “exorbitant privilege” of borrowing heavily from the global market despite growing gaps in the federal budget.
“In response to COVID, US Treasury investors seem to have shifted to the risky debt model when pricing Treasuries,” Reuters wrote.
The researchers found that investors did not stockpile Treasury bonds, which would have increased their volume, but rather reduced prices, as they did with bonds from other countries.
“In the risky debt regime, valuations will respond to government spending shocks, which may involve large yield changes in bond markets,” the researchers explained.
“In this environment, large-scale asset purchases by central banks in response to a large government spending increase have undesirable public finance implications,” they wrote. “These purchases, which provide temporary price support, destroy value for taxpayers but subsidise bondholders” and may also encourage governments to overestimate their true fiscal capacity.
“Policymakers, including central banks, should internalise this shift when assessing whether bond markets are functioning properly,” the authors concluded.
This is an unsurprising outcome considering that four decades ago, the US national debt hovered around $907 billion, while today, according to the US Treasury Department, it exceeds that amount dozens of times over, reaching over $35 trillion.
In September 2022 alone, US President Joe Biden approved nearly $4.8 trillion in loans, including $1.85 trillion for the American Bailout and $370 billion for the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Rising interest rates over the past year and a half have compounded the situation, increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
In fact, interest payments on the national debt are expected to be the fastest-growing part of the federal budget over the next three decades, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Thus, by 2032, payments are expected to triple to $1.4 trillion, and by 2053, interest payments are expected to rise to $5.4 trillion. To put that in perspective, that will be more than the US spends on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other mandatory and discretionary spending programs.
Biden is set to hold the record for increasing the country’s public debt among all American leaders, and by the end of his term, the debt is expected to reach $36.3 trillion specifically. Since the start of the Biden administration, US debt has increased by $7.3 trillion, surpassing the $35 trillion mark for the first time in history in July.
Between January 2021 and July 2024, the average increase in US debt was 0.026% per day. If these rates continue, the US public debt will grow by another $1.3 trillion by the end of Biden’s term. Thus, by the end of the Democrat’s four-year term, the amount could increase by a record $8.6 trillion.
So far, Biden’s predecessor, former President Donald Trump, who is trying to return to the White House, is the record holder for the increase in the US indicator. During the Republican term, the debt grew by almost $7.8 trillion. However, more than half of this increase occurred in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. The third worst result was under Barack Obama when the US debt grew by $5.7 trillion in his first term.
The last time the country saw a president reduce the indicator was more than 100 years ago when Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) reduced the country’s debt by almost a third.
According to polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies and published on August 25, 46% of Americans believe the economy is in a worse state than in January 2021, when Trump left the White House, compared to 33% who said it has improved. In effect, Americans feel the economy’s decline as the cost-of-living crisis deepens.
This is coupled with the fact that US Treasuries are no longer a safe bet, showing that the US is far from being the global economic hegemon it once was. Yet, despite this reality, the US continues to use its economy as a weapon against countries outside of its control.
As a Professor of Political Economy Glenn Diesen highlighted in his response to the Reuters article,
“It appears that fiscal irresponsibility, unsustainable debt, weaponisation of the US dollar, and legalisation of theft reduce demand for US Treasuries.”
*
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.
At 4:45 am., local time, Sunday August 25, Israel began a series of 50 preemptive airstrikes over villages in the south of Lebanon resulting in civilian casualties and injuries.
According to Israel, they had information that Hezbollah was planning a massive attack on Israel using 6,000 missiles. Israel claimed to have hit missile launchers and weapon storages.
At 5:00 am. Hezbollah responded with 320 missiles and tens of drones. The large number of missiles rendered the sophisticated “Iron Dome” Israeli air defense system ineffective. The exact extent of the damages in Israel is not known, but there were significant losses.
One missile fired by the Lebanese resistance group, Hezbollah, made a direct hit on the Davoura, an Israeli military boat. The ship was sunk with one dead and five injured.
The drones all hit targets successfully and none were shot down. The GPS system in Israel was rendered useless by an unknown source simultaneously as the attack commenced. Some experts have pondered if the GPS system was scrambled to coordinate with the operation.
Israeli settlers have used social media sites, such as Telegram, to post videos of damages homes and burning buildings as a result of the attack.
According to the manager of Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, over 50 airlines have cancelled flights.
The US Embassy in Lebanon has emailed its citizens to leave Lebanon; however, to make evacuation plans which do not depend on the American government. According to the manager of the Rafik Hariri airport in Beirut, as of 2:00 pm. the airport was still functioning. Netanyahu has said if he decides to open a full scale war on Lebanon, the Israeli air force will destroy the airport.
Israeli media had advised Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to inform the public as to what Hezbollah has hit prior to 6:00 pm., at which time Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a televised speech. The Netanyahu government did not admit that the 8200 division of the Israeli Defense Forces based in the suburbs of Tel Aviv was hit, but Nasrallah said according to their sources on the ground, the 8200 division was hit. This unit is comparable the United States’ National Security Agency, and is the largest single unit of Israel’s Defense Forces carrying out intelligence, information technology, offensive and defensive cyber security operations.
AFP news agency posted videos of houses severely damaged in Acre, in northern Israel, 19 kilometers from the Lebanon border.
The Israeli media, Walla, reported that Israel had informed the US prior to the attack; however, the New York Times reported that an American official said there was no prior warning of the attack on the south of Lebanon.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered to Haaretz newspaper on August 25 a scathing attack on Netanyahu and his two right-wing ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who he referred to as criminals. Olmert said Netanyahu does not want to free the hostages in an agreement, and does not seek to stop the military operation in Gaza.
Netanyahu ordered members of his cabinet from the Likud party and MPs to remain silent and refrain from media interviews, according to Haaretz.
The Mayor Tel Aviv announced they have prepared 240 bunkers to be used as shelters.
Hezbollah released the names of Israeli military bases hit by missiles and drones. They are: Meron Air Base, Naffesef, Zatoon, and Zaoura. Bases in the occupied Golan Heights hit are: Keela, UF, Youdon, Ramot, and Neftali.
Hezbollah released an official statement at 6:50 am., reporting the amount of missiles and drones used in what was described as the ‘first wave’. The attack on military targets in Israel was announced in retaliation for the Israeli assassination of Foud Shukr, a high ranking Hezbollah operative killed in Beirut on July 30.
Image is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, met with his cabinet and placed phone calls to the friends of Lebanon to discuss ways to decrease tensions between Hezbollah and Israel.
Civil leaders of the settlements in the north of Israel, have said they have cut off all communication with the Netanyahu government until a solution to the conflict can be found. They are furious and accuse the government of only protecting the central cities such as Tel Aviv.
The families gathered at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv and said,
“This seems to be the last opportunity. Either there will be a deal, or we will descend into escalation.”
“Since early July, a deal has been ready for signing, but Netanyahu’s new conditions, particularly the Philadelphi Route, are blocking it.”
The mother of a hostage said, “It’s not the Philadelphi Route but a Philadelphi spin,” referring to the demands of Netanyahu, which experts see as a tool to avoid any ceasefire deal.
The families have consistently demanded their government place a priority on the lives of its citizens.
On August 24, Netanyahu said that a ceasefire in Gaza was not on his list of priorities.
On August 25, an Israeli delegation arrived in Cairo for ongoing ceasefire negotiations, just hours after the attack on Lebanon and the retaliatory strike on Israel. At midnight of August 26, the negotiations collapsed without success. Hamas reminded negotiators that it had agreed to the July 2 proposal drafted by the US.
Hezbollah has said they will cease all attacks on Israel if a ceasefire is agreed upon. US President Joe Biden had a commitment from Netanyahu to a ceasefire in July, but then Netanyahu reneged on his promise. Recently, Israel has proposed to pull back one kilometer from the Philadelphia Corridor in Gaza, but the Hamas side is asking for a full Israeli withdrawal as the terms to a deal.
The US has sent air craft carriers, destroyers, submarines and various military assets to the region in an effort to pressure the Lebanese resistance group from retaliating against Israel’s assassination of Shukr, but Hezbollah ignored the threats.
*
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 seems that over two hundred years after the Revolution, in France the Liberté part of its celebrated slogan has not really stuck.
On Saturday 24 August, Russian social media platform entrepreneur Pavel Durov was arrested by the French police at Le Bourget airport near Paris on trumped-up charges. The French authorities went about it in a sneaky third-world manner that does them no honour. They waited for Durov’s plane to enter French air space before issuing the arrest warrant. In it Durov was charged with a slew of “ham sandwich” offences, including such absurdities as “promotion of terrorism, paedophilia, fraud, drug trafficking, organised crime, and cyberbullying”. As soon as Durov departed the plane, he was surrounded and led off by police agents.
The actual reasons for this arrest have nothing to do with the allegation in the charge sheet and they are bound to resonate with partisans of freedom everywhere. Firstly, it is Durov’s resolute and principled refusal to share on demand with security agencies information that would compromise the privacy of Telegram users. Durov’s firm position in this regard collided directly with legislation which obligates social platforms operating on European Union territory to do precisely that.
Secondly, the same legislation requires social media platforms to institute a humiliating system of what euphemistically is called “monitoring.” This amounts to directed censorship of opinions expressed by users in their Telegram posts. Durov wanted none of it. But in the EU, platform management is under orders to engage in this odious practice on behalf of and according to the directives of the totalitarian EU political elite. The firm rejection by Durov of that invasive demand, as we just saw, had dire consequences for his personal liberty.
All collective West based social platforms have willingly succumbed to these unethical demands and have more or less meekly agreed to act as extensions for their countries’ security services, to the detriment of users’ privacy.
Tucker Carlson a few months ago performed a huge public service by broadcasting an immensely informative interview with the thirty nine year-old Russian Wunderkind, recorded at Durov’s office in the United Arab Emirates.
The fascinating interview unveils the portrait of an enormously gifted, focused, eloquent, engagingly modest, and above all supremely principled person. Durov and his equally accomplished brother were the driving force behind VK, the Russian version of Facebook characterised by a much greater degree of sophistication, and later on of the Telegram social media platform which, at last count, had a global following of over nine hundred million users. But the key takeaway that emerged from Tucker Carlson’s interview, and it was with providential timing to counteract the deluge of media calumnies that is sure to follow Durov’s arrest, is something entirely different. It is the glaring contrast between the Russian genius, unmoved by the temptations of wealth and fame, and the avarice, vanity and emptiness of his Western counterparts who have been trying to compete with him in the same line of work.
With all that being said, like many members of the Russian intelligentsia, from A. Herzen in the 19th century on to the present day, Pavel Durov fell prey to his compatriots’ standard infantile misperception of where the grass is greener. At an earlier stage of his career he sadly failed to strike a reasonable balance between his passionate and laudable commitment to freedom and privacy and the conscientious fulfillment of his patriotic duties which, in their broad sweep, override fidelity to narrower principles, no matter how fundamental in their significance. Had he acted more flexibly then, and in the interview with Tucker Carlson the circumstances of that episode are fully revealed, he would not have turned into a stateless global nomad and most likely would not have fallen into the trap so treacherously sprung on him in Paris.
The legal situation arising from the detention of Pavel Durov, with the preposterous charges concocted against him and the harrowing possibility of twenty years’ imprisonment, is tailor made for maître Jacques Vergès but, unfortunately, he is no longer with us. One hopes that Durov will secure competent and uncorrupted representation and that his legal counsel shall grasp the self-evident fact that the case against him in its entirety is political, with criminal elements maliciously contrived and grafted on for propaganda effect.
The Assange case now having been settled, Pavel Durov is certain to become the new global privacy and freedom of expression icon. Freedom loving people world-wide will mobilise to show support in order to extract him from the clutches of the pathetic Macron regime and its overseas “partners” who, from the background, are undoubtedly pulling the strings. That is well and good. But one simply wishes that once and for all liberty would triumph. Icons are uplifting, but we could easily do with one fewer if that were the price that we should have to pay in order to secure the freedom to which Pavel so admirably dedicated his passionate idealism and irrepressible creativity.
*
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.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Pavel Durov at the TechCrunch conference in Berlin, 2013 (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
Rethinking Srebrenica
By Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
Prominent academic and author Dr Michel Chossudovsky warned that the so-called war on terrorism is a front to propagate America’s global hegemony and create a New World Order.
Dr Chossudovsky said terrorism is made in the US and that terrorists are not the product of the Muslim world.
According to him, the US global war on terrorism was used to enact anti-terrorism laws that demonised Muslims in the Western world and created Islamophobia.
Elaborating on his argument, Dr Chossudovsky said that NATO was responsible for recruiting members of the Islamic state while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria”.
Dr Chossudovsky, who is also the founder of the Centre for Research and Globalisation, further emphasised that the global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity.
Echoing Dr Chossudovsky’s arguments, Malaysia’s prominent political scientist, Islamic reformist and activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that the US has always manipulated religion to further its global hegemony on sovereign states.
*
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 “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
A recent protest against a lithium mining project broke out in Serbia, with demonstrators filling the streets of capital Belgrade. They reportedly obstructed the tracks at two railway stations in the city, and briefly halted traffic on a major highway.
While Serbian government believes that the mine is an opportunity for economic development, protesters say it would cause pollution on the Jadar Valley.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic told reporters that although the main protest was done democratically, the blockage of traffic on the highway amounted to “terror of the minority over the majority.”
“It is part of the hybrid approach” designed to topple the government, Vucic said, adding that he had been tipped off by Russian intelligence services that a “mass unrest and a coup” were being prepared in Serbia by unspecified Western powers that wish to oust him from power.
Analysts said that under the environmental protection slogans are probably subversive activities by the West, in an attempt to stage a coup d’état in Serbia and install pro-American opposition forces in power.
And this protest, similar to the previous ones, was ostensibly spontaneous, organized by Serbian citizens and ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organizations), but in reality the influence of a few Western countries including the US was lurking behind the scenes, analysts noted.
Protestors obstruct traffic on the highway during a rally against plans to start mining lithium in Serbia, in Belgrade, Serbia, on August 10, 2024. Photo: IC
Whitewashed ‘Color Revolution’?
Earlier this month, tens of thousands took to the streets in Belgrade against a government-approved lithium mining project in western Serbia’s Jadar Valley. It is a cooperative project between the Serbian government and Rio Tinto, a British-Australian multinational metals and mining corporation.
The protest, which Western media outlets described as “one of the biggest in recent years” in the country, was allegedly organized by the country’s ENGOs and environmentalists concerned about the project’s potential impact on the environment.
According to Western media, the protest seemed reasonable and reflected public sentiment, as many mainstream Western news outlets shone the spotlight on a protester named Zlatko Kokanovic in their stories, introducing him as an individual who loves environmental protection.
In a Reuters story on August 9, for instance, Kokanovic was described as “a 48-year-old Serbian farmer” and “a father of five.” An Associated Press (AP) story on the same day used a similar description, calling Kokanovic a 48-year-old farmer who has five children. Another individual, Marijana Petkovic, has also been frequently covered in some stories as a “local resident” or “neighbor” of a villager close to Jadar Valley.
However, the two names above are president and key member of the ENGO “Ne damo Jadar” respectively, a main initiator of the protest, the Global Times found. In a story published by Belgrade-based newspaper Danas, Kokanovic “called on all citizens of Serbia to come to the protest in Belgrade.”
Rather than making their roles in the protest public, some Western media outlets seemingly preferred to carefully portray them as ordinary citizens who are purely passionate about environmental protection and who happened to participate in the demonstration. Clearly, they made every effort to depict this riot as a spontaneous act by the Serbian people based on their will.
But various signs have indicated that, as Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said on August 11, this was no ordinary protest but rather “part of Western-backed ‘hybrid’ warfare” against his government. “We knew everything in detail,” AP cited Vucic as saying. “You think you have surprised someone… we have always been restrained, without violence we ensured order in the country, without a problem.”
According to a TASS article published on August 10, Vucic told the media that Moscow had warned Belgrade of preparations for mass riots initiated by representatives of Western countries.
“Today, we received official information from the Russian Federation,” said Vucic.
He added that the information was provided through formal channels, and the Security and Information Agency – Serbia’s intelligence body – was responsible for that.
The TASS article also noted that, Serbian newspaper Vecernje Novosti earlier reported that members of Serbia’s opposition were ready to take advantage of the pro-Western protests in Belgrade planned for August 10, “to seize the presidential palace, eliminate the head of state, and launch a similar scenario as in Ukraine.”
It has obviously gone far beyond just a simple environmental protest. In an interview with news agency RIA Novosti, Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin implied that the nature of the protest was a color revolution and foreign interference.
“The lithium protests are not so much about the environment. Their goal is to overthrow the government,” said Vulin, according to a Sputnik article on August 12.
Connections with US
Some of the ENGOs involved in the protests against the lithium mining project actually have connections with the US, although such connections are not well known to the public, the Global Times discovered.
Ekoloski Ustanak, or “Ecological Uprising,” for instance, is one of the most active organizations engaged in the protests against the lithium-mining project. Early in June, Ecological Uprising reportedly “called for mobilization” of Serbia’s opposition parties, civic environmental organizations, and activists “for a joint front” against the project, according to local media reports.
The biggest funders of environmentalist groups are “certainly, from the United States of America,” Serbian President of the National Assembly Ana Brnabic once said in January 2022, according to website Balkan Green Energy News.
Mass protests were organized by the Ecological Uprising and other groups to demonstrate against the same lithium mine in December, 2021, Balkan Green Energy News reported.
“I lack words to describe the hypocrisy of foreigners that finance these organizations and these foreigners,” Brnabic criticized.
She listed some of the biggest US funders – the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, the Open Society Foundations, the NED, and Edge Funders Alliance. Some on the list are disreputable veterans of inciting color revolutions.
“The infiltration of American influence in Serbia is often evident in environmental protection matters. By providing support to environmental organizations at a relatively low cost, the US is able to achieve significant results efficiently. The so-called NGOs that represent American interests can take a moral high ground in shaping agendas and garnering support from local pro-American factions,” Ju Weiwei, deputy director of the Central and Eastern Europe Office, Institute of European Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times.
An anonymous scholar who has conducted multiple research trips to Serbia told the Global Times that American support for opposition forces is almost an “open secret.”
Attacking Chinese Projects
For the ENGOs in Serbia, Chinese observers may be more familiar with Tvrdjava (“Fortress”), a health and environmental NGO that hyped the “carcinogenic Chinese-owned steel company” rumor in late 2021.
A Reuters report in November 2021 cited data obtained by Tvrdjava, alleging that Smederevo Steelworks in central Serbia caused more pollution, after being purchased by China’s HeSteel Group (HBIS) in 2016. Tvrdjava said that “the municipality (Smederevo) of around 100,000 people reported 6,866 cancer cases in 2019, up from 1,738 in 2011.”
Chinese media outlets later refuted the accusation, and provided solid data proving that China’s takeover didn’t increase, but largely decreased, the pollution emitted by Smederevo Steelwork.
It’s worth noting that, Tvrdjava, “as Reuters mentioned, is found to have a connection with the USAID,” the Xinhua News Agency reported in January 2022. The Washington-based agency has a bad reputation of interfering in other countries’ internal affairs under the White House’s instructions, said Xinhua.
The US’ “white gloves” have long been colluding with some Serbian NGOs, in defaming China and Chinese-invested projects. “NED-backed Serbian NGOs coordinated with CNN’s Serbia branch to fabricate China-related fake news, slandering projects undertaken by the Chinese side and hyping up so-called environmental protection, labor, and corruption issues,” pointed out a report released by Chinese Foreign Ministry on August 9.
The NED’s website showed it funded various Serbian NGOs in 2021. With the NED’s backing, some recipient organizations were found slandering Chinese-invested companies and projects in Serbia.
The “Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia” was one of the recipients on NED’s list, receiving $59,000 in 2021. In a report it released in 2022 that specifically attacked China-Serbia relations, the “committee” groundlessly accused Chinese employers of “inhumane and humiliating treatment.”
All these tricks just expose that, the US is dissatisfied with the significant practical investment and cooperation between China and Serbia. As a result, they have allegedly influenced some local opposition forces to oppose Chinese investment in Serbia and undermine the projects involving China, Ju said.
Ju, who had been in Serbia before for field research, discovered that some individuals, despite knowing the lack of evidence in their lawsuits, persisted in suing Chinese companies under the guise of environmental concerns. He noted that it is not ruled out that there may be support from other foreign forces behind this.
This tactic, commonly employed by American-backed NGOs, aims to disrupt Chinese companies under the pretext of human rights and labor issues, tarnishing their reputation in the process, said Ju.
However, due to the current Serbian government’s commitment to an independent foreign policy and stable diplomatic ties with the EU, China, Russia, and other nations, along with Chinese companies’ adherence to legal and ethical business practices, these attempts to tarnish our reputation are unlikely to succeed. It is evident that Chinese companies and the Chinese economy have greatly enhanced the quality of life for the local population, the expert stressed.
*
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 option to use bunker buster bombs against Iran is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran has stockpiled Weapons of Mass destruction in so-called bunkers, as conveyed in the video.
Could food shortages be looming? If it seems like the US, blessed with abundant natural resources, could never suffer a food shortage, think again.Did you know that while the US is the world’s largest food exporter, in 2023 the US imported more food than we exported?
During the recent presidential elections in Venezuela we saw an outstanding example of electoral warfare, in which the media played a major role. In this article, we list some striking elements the mainstream media covered up.
On Wednesday drones struck the far away town of Kotelnich in Russia’s Kirov Oblast. Regional Governor Alexander Sokolov said that two inbound drones were intercepted by air defenses, while a third “fell” and a blaze subsequently erupted near the Zenit oil facility.
Over a million doses of polio vaccine have been shipped to Israel in preparation for a mass vaccination campaign in Gaza. The vaccines are an emergency response to the first confirmed case of polio reported in Gaza last month.
Trump and Kennedy agree on all “major issues”, like on the Ukraine-Russia war, on censorship, on the laws that Democrats have taken out to kick both Trump and Kennedy off the ballot in major states, and many more topics.
Modern Israel attracts much attention from analysts and the public but our ability to understand it is hindered by ideology, prejudice, and myth. Many tread carefully when discussing Israel lest they be accused of antisemitism. In an earlier article, I explained what distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism. However, the fundamental difficulty lies in the habitual association of the state in Western Asia with the Jews. Should we view those who inhabit and govern Israel as Jews or have they become something else — namely, Israelis?
The “nature versus nurture” debate over the relative influence of inherited traits versus environmental conditions on humans is older than many realize. It can be traced through different stages of the biblical narrative. Angry at the Israelites’ worship of the golden calf, God was ready to destroy them all and start anew with Moses. Nature was to blame, as God despaired that these “stiff-necked people” could be re-educated.
In another biblical story, however, the Israelites were sent to wander in the wilderness for forty years to be reformatted before being allowed to enter the Land of Canaan. In this case, the emphasis was on nurture over nature, with the hope that the experience of benefiting from boundless generosity—such as the manna and the protective clouds of glory—would change them. This may have been the first known attempt at social engineering, even though the success was only variable.
The contemporary history of the Jews presents a more daring case of such re-education. For centuries, Jewish ideals have stressed mercy, modesty, and beneficence. The abhorrence of violence is so ingrained that in many Jewish communities, knives, which could be tools of murder, must be removed from the table before reciting the grace after a meal. Blessing and violence are deemed incompatible.
After centuries of being educated to strive for moral perfection, some Jews — initially a tiny minority — adopted a unusual role as colonial settlers—a role historically associated with European Christian civilization.
Mostly atheists and agnostics, Zionist pioneers in Palestine concluded that “God does not exist, but He promised us this land.”
They conveniently instrumentalized biblical commandments, such as “You shall clear out the Land and settle in it, for I have given you the Land to occupy it.” The settlers embraced a literal and materialistic reading of the Bible abandoning the interpretative tradition developed in rabbinic Judaism. Jewish tradition reads the biblical verses that mention violence allegorically: the sword and the bow used by Jacob the Patriarch against his enemies become symbols of obedience to divine commandments and good deeds. Tradition locates Jewish heroism in the house of study, not on the battlefield. But Zionists rejected this tradition as that of “exilic weaklings.”
Naturally, like in other locations such as India, America, or Algeria, most inhabitants of Palestine—Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike—resented the Zionists who began colonizing Palestine in the late 19th century. Resistance emerged, and generations of Israelis grew up fighting against it. Palestinians came to be perceived as a constant source of danger. Educated in the spirit of military courage, moral superiority, and self-righteousness, the Israeli came to disdain and replace the Jew. The murder of Jacob De Haan, a Jewish anti-Zionist lawyer, by members of a Zionist militia in 1924 marked not only the onset of organized political terrorism in Palestine but also the affirmation of a new national identity.
Ideals of martial valour were not only inculcated through the educational system but, more powerfully, were induced by the predicament of all colonial settlements: suppressing resistance from the colonized. Generation after generation of Israelis have participated in the violent “pacification of the natives,” forcing them to submit to discrimination, dispossession, and ethnic cleansing.
The daily news of brutalities perpetrated by the Israeli military in Gaza underscores the success of the Zionist transformation of the Jew. The massive support that these acts receive from Israeli society at large strongly confirms this. The recent debate in the Israeli parliament when some Knesset members asserted the legitimacy of gang raping Palestinian detainees by Israeli soldiers reveals profound dehumanization—that is, the denial of full humanity in others, along with the cruelty and suffering that accompany it. But this also threatens the humanity of the soldier.
To mitigate this, the soldier must keep a distance from his victim. This is achieved through the industrialization of murder, which began with gas chambers and carpet bombing and continued with targeted assassinations by missiles and kamikaze drones. World-renowned Israeli scientists and engineers, assisted by major American corporations, have made a qualitative advance in streamlining remote violence. In Gaza, artificial intelligence (AI) now determines targets and to destroys them. This points to an abdication not only of their ancestors’ moral values but of humanity altogether.
The Israelis’ war on Gaza confirms a triumph of nurture over nature, all the while demonstrating that technological progress does not equate to progress in humanity. In fact, it normalizes amorality, which most Western governments accept because, in their view, it is Jews who commit these atrocities, whether qualified as mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Few realize that a century of living by the sword has transformed the Jew into a ruthless Israeli. Thus, one can better understand Israel as a state and a society when it is no longer regarded as “the Jewish state”, a nebulous concept that only blurs our vision and obscures reality. Only then can the world judge Israel on merit like any other state.
*
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.
Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université of Montréal. His publications include over 300 articles and a few books: Science between Superpowers, A Threat from Within: a Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, What is Modern Israel?, Demodernization: A Future in the Past and Judaïsme, islam et modernité. He did consulting work for, inter alia, OECD, NATO, UNESCO and the World Bank. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.yakovrabkin.ca
Suddenly, the fact that food is making us sick, really sick, has gained a lot of attention.
When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced he would suspend his presidential campaign and campaign for President Trump on August 23, both he and Donald Trump spoke about the need to improve the food supply to regain America’s health.
The same week, Tucker Carlson interviewed the sister-brother team of Casey and Calley Means, coauthors of the #1 New York Times bestseller Good Energy:The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health.Their thesis, borne out by thousands of medical research studies, is that food can make us very healthy or very sick.The grocery store choices many Americans have made have led us to unprecedented levels of diabetes, obesity and other metabolic and neurologic diseases that prematurely weaken and age us, our organs and our arteries.
There is a whole lot wrong with our available food.
Chemical fertilizers have led to abusing the soil, and consequently soils became depleted of micronutrients.Unsurprisingly, foods grown in them are now lacking those nutrients.
Pesticides and herbicides harm humans, as well as bugs and weeds.
Some experts say we need to take supplements now because we can’t get what we need from our foods anymore.
We are practically living on overprocessed junk made of sugar, salt, wheat and seed oils.
And that is just the start.The problem could have been predicted.Food companies grew bigger and bigger, until they achieved virtual monopolies.In order to compete, they had to use the cheapest ingredients.When the few companies left standing banded together, we got industry capture of the agencies that regulated their businesses, turning regulation on its head.
Consolidation in the Meat Industry
Then the regulators issued rules that advantaged the big guys, and disadvantaged the small guys.But it was the small guys who were producing the highest quality food, in most cases.Most of them had to sell out and find something else to do.It simply became uneconomic to be a farmer.
The farmers and ranchers that were left often became the equivalent of serfs on their own land.
When profitability determines which companies succeed and which fail, cutting corners is a necessity for American businesses–unless you have a niche food business, or are able to sell direct to consumers.This simple fact inevitably led to a race to the bottom for quality.
Look at the world’s 5 largest food companies.Their sales are enormous, but should we really be consuming their products?
Perhaps the regulators could have avoided the debasement of the food supply.But they didn’t.
If it seems like the US, blessed with abundant natural resources, could never suffer a food shortage, think again.Did you know that while the US is the world’s largest food exporter, in 2023 the US imported more food than we exported?
Cows are under attack, allegedly because their belching methane contributes to climate change.Holland has said it must get rid of 30-50% of its cows.Ireland and Canada are also preparing to reduce the number of their cows, using the same justification.
In the US, the number of cows being raised has gradually lessened, so that now we have the same number of cows that were being raised in 1951–but the population has increased by 125% since then.We have more than double the people, but the same number of cows.What!?Much of our beef comes from Brazil.
Pigs and chickens are now mostly raised indoors.Their industries are already consolidated to the max.But cows and other ungulates graze for most of their life, and so the beef industry has been unable to be consolidated in the same way.
But consolidation is happening instead in the slaughterhouses, because you cannot process beef without a USDA inspector in a USDA-approved facility–and the number of these facilities has been dropping, as have the number of cows they can handle.Four companies now process over 80% of US beef.And that is how the ranchers are being squeezed.
Meanwhile, efforts are afoot to reduce available farmland for both planting crops and grazing animals.Bill Gates is now the #1 owner of US farmland, much of which lies fallow.Solar farms are covering land that used to grow crops–a practice recently outlawed in Italy.Plans are afoot to impose new restrictions on how land that is under conservation easements can be used.
Brave New Food
That isn’t all.The World Economic Forum, along with many governments and multinational agencies, wants to redesign our food supply.So-called plant-based meats, lab-grown meats, “synbio” products, insect protein and other totally new foods are to replace much of the real meat people enjoy–potentially leading to even greater consolidation of food production.This would allow “rewilding” of grazing areas, allowing them to return to their natural state and, it is claimed, this would be kinder to the planet.But would it?
Much of the land used for grazing is unsuitable for growing crops or for other purposes.The manure of the animals grazing on it replenishes soil nutrients and contributes to the soil microbiome and plant growth.“Rewilding” may in fact lead to loss of what topsoil is there and desertification of many grazing areas.
Of course, transitioning the food supply to mostly foods coming from factories is a crazy idea, because how can you make a major change in what people eat and expect it to be good for them?What micronutrients are you missing?What will the new chemicals, or newly designed proteins, or even computer-designed DNA (that will inevitably be present in these novel foods) do to us over time?What will companies be feeding the insects they farm, when food production is governed by ever cheaper inputs?
It gets worse.Real food production, by gardeners and small farmers or homesteaders, is decentralized.It cannot be controlled.Until the last 150 years, almost everyone fed themselves from food they caught, gathered or grew.
But if food comes mainly from factories, access can be cut off.Supply chains can break down.You can be priced out of buying it.Or it could make you sick, and it might take years or generations before the source of the problem is identified.How long has it taken us to figure out that overprocessed foods are a slow poison?
There are some very big problems brewing in the food realm. Whether we like it or not, powerful forces are moving us into the Great Reset, threatening our diet in new ways, ways that most of us never dreamed of.
Identifying the Problems and Solutions
But we can get on top of what is happening, learn what we need to, and we can resist.That’s why Door to Freedom and Children’s Health Defensehave unpacked all of these problems, and identified possible solutions.
During a jam-packed two-day online symposium, you will learn about all facets of the attack on food, and how to resist.This is an entirely free event, with a fantastic lineup of speakers and topics.Grab a pad and pencil, because you will definitely want to take notes!
TheAttack on Food and Farmers, and How to Fight Back premieres on September 6 and 7. It will remain on our channels for later viewing and sharing as well.By the end of Day 2, you will know what actions to take, both in your own backyard, and in the halls of your legislatures to create a healthier, tastier, safer and more secure food supply.
See below for a summary and for the complete program.
*
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. Meryl Nass is aNational Merit Scholar. She has entered MIT before completing high school; BS Biology 1974, MD 1980, Board Certified in Internal Medicine 1986. She has practiced medicine for 41 years. Traveled to over 50 countries, has 2 children, single parent. She was the first person in the world to study an epidemic and show it was due to biological warfare.
During the recent presidential elections in Venezuela we saw an outstanding example of electoral warfare, in which the media played a major role. In this article, we list some striking elements the mainstream media covered up.
*
If you believe the media, this election was between good and evil. The incumbent president Nicolas Maduro was portrayed as a devil incarnate, while the main rival candidate Edmundo Gonzalez was characterized as a good grandpa and Maria Corina Machado, the strong woman behind him, as a pop star.
The truth is a little more sinister. Between 1981 and 1983, González was the number two at the Venezuelan embassy in El Salvador. He reported directly to Ambassador Leopoldo Castillo, who was educated at the infamous School of the Americas.[1]
González was involved in Operation Condor, a CIA operation linked to the assassination of religious leaders and other civilians in El Salvador. Documents released by the CIA in 2009 show that he was recruited by the intelligence agency to form paramilitary groups and death squads, from his position as an official at the Venezuelan embassy in San Salvador.
From that embassy, these death squads were deployed against religious and social leaders. During the years that Castillo and González were in charge of the embassy in El Salvador, an estimated 13,194 civilians were murdered by death squads supported and guided by the US.
González was still active as an adviser to the CIA when six Jesuit priests and two university officials were murdered by death squads on November 16, 1989.
Hip Pop Star
González is the puppet of Maria Corina Machado, the de facto figurehead and strong woman of the far-right opposition. The mainstream media portray Machado as a trendy and popular pop star who was denied the opportunity of running in the elections by the left-wing government.
However, the media do not explain why she was not allowed to participate in the elections. Like González, she signed a declaration in 2002 that approved the coup against the democratically elected president Hugo Chávez. Unlike other opposition candidates, Machado has openly received money from the NED, a CIA front organization.
She has also consistently defended the economic blockade against Venezuela and repeatedly called for military intervention against her home country.
In 2014, Machado led a campaign of violent street protests and road blockades (guarimbas) targeting infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, universities and the metro, killing 43 civilians and members of the security services.
In recent years, Machado has been partly responsible for the corruption scheme in which self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guáido participated, which led to the divestment of state-owned companies abroad worth no less than 34 billion dollars.
No European country would tolerate this and someone with a track record like that would very probably be behind bars in western countries.
George W. Bush welcoming Machado to the Oval Office on 31 May 2005. (From the Public Domain)
Another thing the media conspicuously conceal is that Machado was personally received by President Bush Jr. at the White House in 2005, and that two days after the recent election, the far-right opposition met with a top Biden adviser to map out the strategy for the near future. Nor does the media mention that Machado called on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2018 for military intervention in Venezuela.
These are reports that expose Machado’s true nature and do not fit the mainstream media’s framing. And so, they are omitted.
Nice People
A striking contrast: the loudest voices from abroad in defense of democracy in Venezuela advocated coups elsewhere in the past or are of a questionable character. Annoying, and that is why they are not referred to in the mainstream media. A few examples.
One of the most active defenders of Machado and Co is Elon Musk, the personification of the financial and technological aristocracy that dominates the world. He is the man who actively supports Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and who fanned the flames of the far-right anti-immigrant riots in the UK.
Through X, which he owns, Musk accused the Maduro government of “major electoral fraud.” Musk himself did so by using fake news.[2] It was Musk who supported the far-right coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected president, Evo Morales, in 2019. He later wrote through X: “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”
It is telling that this coup instigator wants to “save democracy” in Venezuela.
Musk was in good company. Another coup lover who felt the need to denounce the “mega-election fraud” was none other than Pedro Carmona. That name may not ring a bell, but it was Carmona who was appointed interim president in Venezuela by the military after the 2002 coup.
The mainstream media reported that Mireya Moscoso, former president of Panama, called for Edmundo González Urrutia to be recognized as the elected president of Venezuela. What the media failed to mention is that at the end of her term she pardonedLuis Posada Carriles, the Osama Bin Laden of Latin America. Carriles was responsible for, among other things, shooting down a Cuban passenger plane.
A little investigative journalism reveals that none of what took place before, during and after the elections was coincidental or happening out of the blue. The maneuvers of the far-right opposition followed a carefully drafted script from the US, the most important parts of which were even published online in advance. The script was written by a US expert in regime change and disinformation.
This script indicates, among other things, that the economic sanctions must be used in a skillful way. That the opposition must be united under the impetus of the US. That an attempt must be made to infiltrate the national electoral council. That the opposition itself must come up with results before the electoral council announces the official result. That the pressure on Venezuela is best done by countries in the region instead of the US. The script further assumes, or suggests, that there will (or should) be riots and that in that case the army should be put under pressure.
None of that is reflected in the mainstream media. According to their reporting, the elections took place without foreign interference and the actions and activities of the opposition before and after July 28 were spontaneous.
They ‘forget’ to mention that the US has been trying to manipulate electoral processes in ‘unruly’ countries for decades, often successfully, through covert CIA organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It is apparently not necessary to mention that.
Polls
In the run-up to the elections, polls by Datanálisis, Delphos, Consultores 21 and ORC Consultores gave the far-right opposition candidate a lead over Maduro of 20 to 30 percentage points. These polls were eagerly taken up by the mainstream media. These reports had already convinced Venezuelans and citizens in other countries that Maduro could not win unless he committed fraud.
What the media failed to mention is that these polling agencies are often nothing more than camouflaged ideological war machines and that links to the CIA or its front organizations are never far away. The same media failed to mention that polls from other agencies such as Hinterlaces, Paramétrica and Ámbito gave Maduro an advantage over the rival candidate González.
The same goes for the exit polls. The Edison Research poll was eagerly mentioned. It foretold opposition candidate González 65 percent and Maduro 31 percent of the vote. The media failed to mention that this agency is linked to the CIA and they were silent about the exit polls of the prestigious Hinterlaces agency, which at noon had Maduro at 54.6 percent and González at 42.8 percent (very close to the official result).
Another ‘forgotten’ aspect of the recent elections is the destabilization attempts from abroad. Two days before the elections, an armed commando attempted to sabotage a large power station. The attack was thwarted, but if it had succeeded, seven provinces in the west of the country would have been without electricity for days. As a result, electronic voting would not have been possible in those provinces.
In addition, on election day there was a massive cyberattack from Colombia and the US against government institutions, including the National Electoral Council. This attack delayed the counting of votes for hours and gave the opposition the opportunity to come up with their own results before the official results were available.
In a ‘friendly’ country, such sabotage of an electoral procedure would be front-page news. In a country like Venezuela, they are not even mentioned.
‘Peaceful’ Protest
The day after the elections, civil protests (cacerolas) took place in many cities in Venezuela. These protests were heavily covered by the mainstream media, which kept ‘forgetting’ to mention that the protests were quickly overshadowed by a wave of violence, which was apparently well-organized and, as we saw above, were part of a pre-established script.
Across the country, 12 universities, 28 schools, 37 health centers, 11 metro stations, 10 Maduro party secretariats, two city halls, a ministry, and 10 National Electoral Council buildings were attacked. 38 buses were set on fire and 27 monuments and statues were destroyed, as well as a sewage treatment plant. Two soldiers were killed and 141 soldiers and police officers were wounded in the attacks.
Not a word about all this in the mainstream media. Anyone who knows a little bit about recent Venezuelan history knows that this was essentially a repeat of the violent guarimbas of 2014 and 2017, with the intention of causing a general uprising. That obvious observation apparently escaped the media completely. And that brings us to the next point.
Context and History
Western media generally ignore context or history. The dominant analyses in the mainstream media reduce the recent elections in Venezuela to a battle between the incumbent Maduro government and the opposition. They fail to mention that Venezuela has been in Washington’s line of fire for 25 years.
They are silent about the fact that the US has pulled out all the stops to sabotage this leftist project. This includes two coups, an assassination attempt on the president, murderous street blockades, a lockout of the oil bosses, diplomatic isolation and the recognition of an unelected president. All examples of hybrid warfare.
The media also ‘forget’ to mention that all countries in the region taking a leftist course over the past twenty years have faced attempts at destabilization and regime change, ranging from military coups, lawfare, institutional coups to attempted color revolutions.
What the media also ignore is that the US has been trying to strangle Venezuela economically for years.According to the Washington Post, the amount of more than 900 sanctions against the country has contributed to an economic contraction three times larger than the contraction caused by the Great Depression in the United States.
With these sanctions, Washington is trying to exhaust the population and thereby blackmail the citizens electorally. It is hoped that Venezuelans will turn away from the current government expecting that the US will stop its economic strangulation if Maduro is no longer president.
In other words, Venezuela is not a ‘normal’ country, it is a country at war, without bombs falling. In such a context, it is particularly difficult to hold elections in a sovereign manner. If you leave out that war context, you distort the true nature of the whole event and arrive at simplistic conclusions
*
The mainstream media’s coverage of the presidential election was biased and anything but subtle. Even before the election, the Western mainstream media and Venezuelan commercial media had unconditionally sided with the far-right opposition. After the election, this was no different, of course.
If you zoom out a little, you will see that these presidential elections are about the clash between, on the one hand, a left-wing social project that, through trial and error, strives for better living conditions for the lower classes of the population, and, on the other hand, the Venezuelan oligarchy and upper-class, represented by the far right and supported and coached by the US and far-right and reactionary forces in the region.
The reporting on the recent election shows which side our mainstream media is on. When you look at who owns this media, this should come as no surprise.
*
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.
Marc Vandepitte is a member of the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity and was an observer during the presidential elections in Venezuela. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] The School of the Americas was a US-run training school for Latin American military personnel. The school became notorious for training and educating torturers, dictators, and organizing massacres in the Western Hemisphere.
[2]For example, he sent around a tweet of a supposed selfie of CNE officials showing computer screens showing that the opposition had won. In reality, these were employees of Mercal Aragua, an institution that has nothing to do with the elections. He also sent around a photo of supposed theft of ballots, while it was actually theft of air conditioning units.
A new wave of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia has damaged and set alight several more oil depots and energy facilities, one location notably which lies very deep into Russian territory.
On Wednesday drones struck the far away town of Kotelnich in Russia’s Kirov Oblast. Regional Governor Alexander Sokolovsaid that two inbound drones were intercepted by air defenses, while a third “fell” and a blaze subsequently erupted near the Zenit oil facility.
This clearly is one of the deepest drone strikes into Russia of the entire war, given Kotelnich lies some 1,500 km (930 miles) northeast of the border with Ukraine. It is likely a record distance.
The governor has since said the situation is “under control” and that there were no casualties as a result of the attack.
Russia’s defense ministry in a statement noted other overnight drone attacks as well, including shoot-downs of eight drones over the Voronezh Oblast and four over Rostov Oblast.
However, a depot in Rostov’s Kamensky district was apparently struck and caught fire, resulting in emergency crews seeking to extinguish it.
Another Russian oil depot in Rostov region on fire after it was targeted by Ukrainian kamikaze UAVs, this time in Kamensky district. pic.twitter.com/ydrJcKZM3f
At least three tanks are burning at the oil depot, the Baza Telegram channel – seen as close to Russian security services – indicated. Videos showed large blazes overnight.
Already, a large fire has been raging in the city of Proletarsk in Rostov region going all the way back to August 18, which lies some 200km from the Ukrainian border.
Earlier in the war, a number of drones on a few occasions had reached near the capital of Moscow which lies some 500km from the closest Ukrainian border point. Since then these drones have been reaching deeper and deeper, and often because of their small size and low flight can evade Russian radar and anti-air systems. They are now hitting targets over 1,000km away, and this is likely with the help of NATO advisers and technology.
This morning, Ukrainian forces successfully conducted one of the deepest drone attacks of the war, striking a Russian oil depot in Kirov Oblast over 1100km from Ukraine.
It has been a strategy of Ukraine’s to systematically target Russian oil facilities, seeking to disrupt the industry and put a dent in crucial funding of Moscow’s war machine. But this has only resulted in stepped-up retaliatory efforts to degrade Ukraine’s national energy grid.
*
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.
“Internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials, and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability… Not surprisingly these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes, and many users who expressed disapproved views about the pandemic or COVID–19 vaccines were ‘deplatformed’ or otherwise injured.”—Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting in Murthy v. Missouri
Zuckerberg’s confession comes in the wake of a series of court rulings that turn a blind eye to the government’s technofascism.
In a 2-1 decision in Children’s Health Defense v. Meta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit brought by Children’s Health Defense against Meta Platforms for restricting CHD’s posts, fundraising, and advertising on Facebook following communications between Meta and federal government officials.
In a unanimous decision in the combined cases of NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the states could pass laws to prohibit censorship by Big Tech companies on social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.
And in a 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri , the Supreme Court sidestepped a challenge to the federal government’s efforts to coerce social media companies into censoring users’ First Amendment expression.
Image is from ABC News
Welcome to the age of technocensorship.
On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak.
In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.
By “censor,” we’re referring to concerted efforts by the government to muzzle, silence and altogether eradicate any speech that runs afoul of the government’s own approved narrative.
This is political correctness taken to its most chilling and oppressive extreme.
Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.
The government is not protecting us from “dangerous” disinformation campaigns. It is laying the groundwork to insulate us from “dangerous” ideas that might cause us to think for ourselves and, in so doing, challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.
Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but it’s a dubious distinction at best when they are marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates.
As Philip Hamburger and Jenin Younes write for The Wall Street Journal:
Nothing good can come from allowing the government to sidestep the Constitution.
The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.
In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.
Eventually, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.
Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.
Watch and learn.
We should all be alarmed when any individual or group—prominent or not—is censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.
Given what we know about the government’s tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.
Here’s the point: you don’t have to like or agree with anyone who has been muzzled or made to disappear online because of their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship is dangerously naïve, because whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now willeventually be used against you by tyrants of your own making.
The glaring fallacy that always lies at the heart of pro-censorship sentiments is the gullible, delusional belief that censorship powers will be deployed only to suppress views one dislikes, but never one’s own views… Facebook is not some benevolent, kind, compassionate parent or a subversive, radical actor who is going to police our discourse in order to protect the weak and marginalized or serve as a noble check on mischief by the powerful. They are almost always going to do exactly the opposite: protect the powerful from those who seek to undermine elite institutions and reject their orthodoxies. Tech giants, like all corporations, are required by law to have one overriding objective: maximizing shareholder value. They are always going to use their power to appease those they perceive wield the greatest political and economic power.
Be warned: it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.
Eventually, as Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.
Seventy-plus years after Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 depicted a fictional world in which books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled, we find ourselves navigating an eerily similar reality.
*
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.
On August 12, 1949, the four Geneva Conventions were adopted, laying the basis of a normative standard in international humanitarian law. As Balthasar Staehelin, personal envoy of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) president to China, stated at an anniversary event at the Swiss Embassy in Beijing,
“In the past 75 years, the four Geneva Conventions have been fundamental in protecting persons affected by armed conflict, and international humanitarian law remains as relevant today for contemporary armed conflicts, as sit was 75 years ago.”
The very first Geneva Convention, inspired by the activism of Swiss businessman Henry Dunant and the International Committee for the Relief of Wounded Combatants, was adopted as far back as 1864. The instrument was intended to protect the vulnerable and wounded members of armed forces, and those responsible for their care. Three revisions and expansive updates followed: 1906, 1929 and 1949.
The Fourth Convention saw a legal revolution, crucial for offering protection for civilians, described by international jurist Hersch Lauterpacht as covering “entirely new ground not touched by the Hague Conventions”. It was also inspired in its novelty by recognising “certain minimum obligations of humane treatment even in armed conflicts which are not of an international character and even if the parties to the conflict, which may not be states, are not parties to the Convention”.
Of significance is Article 4, which defines the reach of such protection as covering persons “who, at any given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”
In humanitarian law, the gulf between observance and violation can be vast. In 2023, the United Nations recorded the deaths of 33,443 civilians in armed conflict. This constituted a 72% increase on those from 2022. Joyce Msuya, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, cited conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, the Sahel, Somalia, Syria and Ukraine.
In her May address to the UN Security Council, Msuya noted more than 2,300 instances of violence and other forms of interference against those working in the medical field, along with patients, associated facilities, equipment and transport. By mid-year, a staggering 110 million individuals had been displaced due to the prevalence of conflicts, instances of persecution, violence and human rights breaches. These are the numbers of the invisible in speedy news cycles and flashy bulletins.
The gloomy figures keep coming and are bound to mesmerise. The ICRC makes an assessment that the numbers of armed conflicts globally hovers around 120, involving 60 states and 120 non-state entities. The post-Cold War environment has seen fertile grounds for this increase in number. Since 2000, non-international armed conflicts have burgeoned from under 30 to approximately 100.
The field is also characterised by a grand paradox, something that did not go unnoticed in comments made by the President of the ICRC, Mirjana Spoljaric Egger. States, she argues, must interpret and apply international humanitarian law to genuinely protect civilians. This is not as odd as it sounds, given that laws regarding war and conflict are in place, not so much to abolish the conflict but to give it a patina of restraint. Behind drafting such rules is a dark fatalism about human tendencies, and it does not look pretty. Such laws should not become “a tool to justify death, endless suffering and devastation.”
It is ironic that institutions such as war, in being placed in a realm of normative rules and regulations, can risk becoming more palatable, an egregious state of affairs to be tolerated rather than abandoned.
The crude mix of power politics will always see mischievous conduct and commentary on the applications of international humanitarian law. Derogations will be justified; selective readings made. A paper from the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations delivered in Geneva on July 15, 1999, for instance, observed that Israel “refuses to accept the de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem and has committed serious violations of every relative provision of the Convention.” UN resolutions condemning Israeli violations of the Fourth Convention had been many, and the occupation was “unique because of the multiplicity and intensity of Israel’s grave breaches, and serious violations” of the Convention, causing the Palestinian civilian population enormous suffering and representing “systematic and even institutionalized violations of international law.”
A facsimile of the signature-and-seals page of the 1864 Geneva Convention, which established humane rules of war (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
With full throated brutality, these breaches have merely increased with their intensity since October 7, with the attacks by Hamas being used as the pretext to inflict forms of suffering that would have made the drafters of the Conventions blanch. Instead of seeing the Geneva Conventions as more relevant than ever, insidious naysaying about their continued applicability can be found.
Mukesh Kapila, a former UN official and currently professor emeritus in global health and humanitarian affairs at the University of Manchester, is an example of this unfortunate flourishing, erroneously claiming that the current “new-style warriors were unknown when the Geneva Conventions emerged over a century ago.” He uses that irritatingly bureaucratic term “whole-of-society conflicts” – the very same the Fourth Convention was intended to address – as if it were novel, featuring “unarmed, non-uniformed combatants,” belligerents not at the “physical frontlines,” directing drones or unleashing “destructive computer viruses”. Such a reading is almost dotty in missing the point.
Thankfully, Ellen Policinski, a legal advisor for the ICRC, notes the trend with caustic salience, and turns her nose up at it. Conflicts and circumstances in war presented as lacking “historical antecedents” were exactly those that international humanitarian law, “including the Geneva Conventions,” were intended to regulate. The Second World War offered the expansive, bloody template for the drafters, from genocide to the use of human shields, sexual warfare and mass starvation. And those behind the documents, being a gaggle of soldiers, diplomats and humanitarians, acknowledged “the horrific realities of war which have not fundamentally changed.”
Better, it would seem, a world with the Geneva Conventions than one without them. To regard derogations from their text as a sign of irrelevance and inapplicability would be tantamount to claiming that any domestic law punishing murder was inconsequential and obsolete for not preventing homicide. What is needed, Policinski reminds us, “is not more or different rules” but “better respect for existing rules, something all states have a stake in.”
*
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]
Featured image: A Red Cross poster from the First World War (From the Public Domain)
The 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) concluded its Third Plenary Session in Beijing from July 15 to 18, 2024. One of its principal objectives was studying the issue of further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese Modernization.
The CPC unanimously decided to call upon the Chinese People to unite behind President Xi Jinping, striving with collective wisdom and strength towards building China into a modern socialist country on all fronts, through a process of Chinese Modernization.
This comes at a time when much of the western world is falling apart by mostly self-ignited and auto-propelled conflicts and proxy-wars, “sanctioning” countries left and right, those which do not conform to the hegemon’s wishes.
While the West is self-destructing, China is “modernizing” and opening-up its outlook and activities to the rest of the world; one could say as a helping hand to seek global harmony and peace, while at home unifying behind a stable and economically sound China.
The Central Committee (CC) also stressed that the reform mechanism must remain committed to the Fathers of Revolution, i.e., to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and the implementation of President Xi Jinping’s thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era.
The Belt and Road Initiative – This philosophy is already in the process of being implemented. In fact, the outlook, opening-up and peaceful inclusion of the rest of the world, had already started in 2013 with President Xi’s Initiative of the Belt and Road (BRI).
The BRI, so far, has signed over 200 cooperation agreements with more than 150 countries and 30 international organizations. It spans the globe with at least six nation-connecting transportation infrastructure schemes, via land, sea, and air, through Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
*
In concrete, President Xi, on behalf of the Central Committee, confirmed the work of the Political Bureau since the second plenary session of the 20th CC.
Essentially the act of Modernizing and Opening-up includes,
at home:
Implementation of the “Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy”, meaning promoting and deepening economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological advancement, under law-based self-governance.
Supporting broad and country-wide security and high-quality development.
Ensuring people’s wellbeing, social stability, protecting the environment; as well as further development of national defense and the armed forces.
Advancing work related to Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan; and
internationally:
Pursuing international diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.
Direct Diplomacy– Under the latter, what comes to mind is Chinese mediating conflict resolution between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that led to the establishment of diplomatic relations of the two countries in March 2023.
BRICS and Global South – Another Chinese initiative in cooperation with Russia is the expansion of the BRICS to the currently BRICS+5, which is expected to be further enlarged by perhaps five to ten nations, during the upcoming BRICS summit, hosted by Russia during their next summit in Kazan in October 2024.
BRICS under the leadership of China and Russia will soon engulf most of the Global South which comprises some 70% of the world population.
This is part of China’s Modernization with a national, as well as international, and peaceful platform. Modernization is also aiming at de-dollarized currencies, for example, a common BRICS trading currency, strengthening the Global South, gradually moving it away from the fangs of the western dollarized economy.
The western dollarized monetary system has become a worldwide Ponzi-scheme, that over the past few decades has grown to become a power-grabbing system, able to strangle and penalize countries seeking their sovereign self-rule, rather than submission to the western hegemonic powers.
These moves of modernization and opening-up – with Chinese characteristics – are peaceful, non-aggressive and non-expansive, with each partner within the Global South and within the BRICS, maintaining her own sovereign autonomy, and their own sovereign monetary system.
Market economy – the steady advance of modernization will lead China into a high-standard market economy, while maintaining democracy in a strong socialist culture.
The expansion of the market economy will concentrate on the BRICS / Global South, as well as the ASEAN nations, in particular the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade agreement, comprising fifteen countries (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam), accounting for nearly 30% (2.3 billion) of the world’s population (8.1 billion), and almost 30% (US$ 29.7 trillion) of the World’s GDP (2024 world GDP projected at US$ 105 trillion).
The RCEP is expected to be the world’s largest free trade agreement by 2030.
Public versus Private Sector Development – the CC also concluded, as part of China’s modernization, to consolidate and develop the public sector, but equally and unswervingly encourage, support, and guide the development of the non-public sector, i.e., the private sector.
Economic entities under all forms of ownership must have equal access to factors of production in accordance with the law, compete in the market on equal footing, to be protected by law as equals, thus enabling entities under different forms of ownership to complement each other and to develop side by side. The concept is to unify national markets and refine the systems underpinning the market economy.
The reform process includes assessing implementation of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025), leading smoothly to the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030).
The Reform Process is expected to be completed when the People’s Republic of China celebrates its 80th anniversary in 2029.
The new era has already begun. It will continue building China into a modern socialist country by the middle of the century; a China advancing peacefully into higher level of long-term governance at home, and providing diplomatic assistance internationally for those nations or societies that want to benefit from China’s aura and experience of peaceful development and coexistence.
*
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.
An abridged version of this article was published by Global Times.
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 non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. He is also Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Global Research is a month away from our 23rd founding anniversary.
To say we are truly grateful is an understatement. We appreciate every one of you for your unbending support over the last 22 years.
As we embark on another year in fearless truth-telling, we hope you will still stick around and continue to promote peace and justice through courageous reporting and rapid dissemination of GR news and analyses.
Forward the daily Global Research Newsletter and/or your favorite Global Research articles to your family, friends, and respective communities;
Use the various instruments of online posting and social media to “spread the word.” Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our articles’ pages for starters. Help keep our articles circulating;
Moreover, if you have the capacity to help us meet our operational costs, you may click on the links below to become a member or make a donation. We sincerely appreciate your generosity.
What was a rumored for days has happened over the weekend. On 24 August 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has endorsed Donald Trump for President without giving up his own aspiration for the White House. Those are his words.
He will support the candidacy of former President Trump, withdrawing his own candidacy from swing-states. Trump and Kennedy have a common agenda in many ways; among them, stopping endless immigration through southern borders from where in the Biden years some 20 million illegal immigrants as outlined in RFK Jr. Speech, from all over the world have entered the US, mostly male in military age.
Trump and Kennedy agree on all “major issues”, like on the Ukraine-Russia war, on censorship, on the laws that Democrats have taken out to kick both Trump and Kennedy off the ballot in major states, and many more topics.
Kennedy also talked about children’s health, their chronic diseases – and that he and Trump would protect American Children; after all, they are the future of the Great Homeland, the US of A.
RFK Jr. pledged that together with Donald Trump,they would bring back the wellbeing of children, reduce child obesity, the risk of diabetes apparent already at young ages, as well as providing children with a healthy education.
RFK’s speech was “brilliant” according to many analysts. Some say it was politically the best speech they have heard in a long time.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. got an unbelievable reaction from Republicans at the Trump rally in Glendale, Arizona. Had he given the same speech in support of Kamala Harris, most analysts said he would have been politely received, told what to do – or even booed, because he officially left the party in October 2023.
See this great reception from Trump supporters in Glendale, Arizona.
And here, listen to the full speech including transcript:
True, the speech was great. Politically. RFK Jr. is the founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) – and therefore the wellbeing of children is a high priority for Kennedy.
But how great was the speech from an ethical point of view?
Is the wellbeing of children not a universal objective? Not just in the United States, but all over the world, including in Gaza?
Children in Gaza
Robert Kennedy did not mention with one word, the slaughtered children in Gaza, the ongoing genocide – the Zionist-Israeli forces killing foremost children and women, blowing them up, into pieces of unrecognizable flesh, decapitating them…
RFK Jr. did not explain why he to this day supports the Zionist-Israeli war against Palestine, maybe under the absurd pretext of “Israeli self-defense”?
Of course, the unquestioned support of Zionist-Israel is also something Kennedy and Trump have in common.
Their indiscriminate support of a continuous Zionist-Israeli genocide in Gaza, and on Palestine in general, on the nonstop killing and torturing often to death of Palestinians, prisoners or not prisoners – there are no limits.
Both Kennedy and Trump support Netanyahu and his murderous clan, leading Israel into unspeakable atrocities.
No matter how great this RFK Jr. speech may have been politically, and how clever the timing and the support of Trump, while not giving up his own hopes for a move into the White House… How can one ignore this other reality?
Both Kennedy and Trump know of course, why they do not rescind from supporting the Zionist-Israeli slaughter.
Most likely because they believe, or know, they would lose the Zionist votes – and those votes that have in one way or another been bought by Zionists… in other words, by doing so, they admit, both of them, that they know who is calling the shots in Washington.
Remember Netanyahu’s recent speech in the US Congress – filled to the brim, to the last seat – with 56 standing ovations for a murderer? How could anyone forget?
Trump and Kennedy know without Zionist support, no candidate would make it to the White House. Really?
For this political ambition, making it to the White House, and all the goodies they attach to it, they are literally selling their soul, burning ethics to ashes. This is heavy, but true.
The great act would be if these tow heavy weights, Kennedy and Trump, they are political heavy weights – would stand up – together – against this Zionist massacre – and all those that may follow, if this Zionist onslaught is not stopped.
No matter whether they lose political clout – their voice, their combined voice, a testimony to ethics, could make a difference. It could awaken a lot of people to a reality they do not want to see.
And who knows? As common people are waking up, rather than killing their chances at the White House – Trump and Kennedy may enhance their chances for their bold and ethical stance for the People and for justice of Palestine.
*
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.
Although the United Kingdom formally left the European Union in January 2020 and agreed to make payments—the so-called “divorce bill”—to the tune of about £39 billion, London has reportedly failed to meet its commitments, raising greater doubt that the debt can be paid by the originally agreed 2057 deadline, which has now been extended to 2065. Yet, despite failing to meet payments and debt continuing to mount, Britain prioritises Ukraine instead of alleviating the suffering citizens who are struggling to overcome a cost-of-living crisis.
Payment disagreements first emerged in July 2021, when London rejected the European bloc’s estimate of a total bill of £40.8 billion, with the British insisting that the figure was between £35 billion and £39 billion. The disagreement on differing amounts could be a reason why Downing Street has failed to meet its payment commitments, in addition to the priority given to Ukraine aid.
It is recalled that John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said in March:
“Taxpayers will be shocked by the billions going to the global quangocracy. The exchequer is pumping huge amounts of cash into major organisations worldwide, which often don’t have British interests at heart. Yet, the public and even many politicians are kept in the dark. Ministers should be honest and transparent about our funding for these organisations.”
All these months later, it appears that Britons are still kept in the dark about the truth behind the true details of the “divorce bill.”
Last month, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that Britain’s national debt had reached its highest level since 1962, with the June figures exceeding the peak reached during the coronavirus pandemic. The debt situation is expected to worsen as the newly elected Labour government is pressured to spend more on some public services and to meet the election promises not to raise income tax, corporation tax or VAT rates. Due to this, many economists expect borrowing, and therefore debt, to increase, thus making it even more difficult for London to meet its financial commitments to the “divorce bill.”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, said the latest figures were a “clear reminder” of the “worst economic inheritance” since the Second World War.
For his part, Dennis Tatarkov, senior economist at KPMG UK, said:
“The new chancellor faces the daunting task of funding the new government’s agenda while maintaining public finances on a sustainable footing.”
“A combination of high levels of spending and weak growth prospects will present uncomfortable choices – deciding between even more borrowing or substantially raising taxes if spending levels are to be maintained,” he added.
The situation is set to worsen for Britain because the larger the national debt, the more interest needs to be paid, meaning that the country is stuck in a cycle that it cannot break out of. If Britain must use more money to pay its debts, it means it has less to spend on the public services it borrowed to fund in the first place.
As Britain struggles to finance its public services at a time when poverty continues to rise sharply, it becomes more difficult to meet its payments to the EU, which is a much lower priority for Downing Street. However, this has a knock-on effect, too, as EU economies are also in a financial downward spiral and struggling with their own debt and cost-of-living crisis. The Europeans expect Britain to meet its commitments so they can alleviate their own issues.
Yet, despite spiraling into deeper debt and citizens suffering economically, British and European leaders continue to prioritise support for Ukraine. Britain alone has spent £12.5 billion on Ukraine in just two and a half years, about a third of what was owed to the “divorce bill.” At the same time, the EU has spent $155 billion in aid on Ukraine as of February 2024, meaning that it would be much higher today. This alone epitomises how the UK and EU are placing greater priority on the vain attempt to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
However, it is due to the very fact that the UK and EU are desperate to deliver Russia a defeat that London’s failure to meet its financial commitments to the “divorce bill” has not become amajor issue in their relations, at least in the public sphere. So long as they continue attempting to defeat Russia through their Ukrainian proxy, the EU will not create a public spat with London, while Britons and Europeans alike will remain in the dark, as John O’Connell termed it, about the true terms of the “divorce bill” and Britain’s actual financial commitments to it.
*
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.
Following the visit of India’s Prime Minister to Ukraine, there is ongoing discussion about whether India will be involved more actively in peace efforts, perhaps even in a peace summit.
In a report titled ‘After Zelensky proposes peace summit in India, New Delhi examines possibility’ The Indian Express reported on August 26,
“Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has told Prime Minister Narendra Modi that India can be a possible venue for a peace summit, and New Delhi is examining the offer to bring together the warring parties of Russia and Ukraine, The Indian Express has learnt. At a media briefing for visiting Indian journalists in Kyiv on August 23, Zelenskyy said he told Prime Minister Modi that the peace summit could be hosted in India…Modi on August 23 conveyed to Zalenskyy that that both Ukraine and Russia should sit together without wasting time to end the ongoing war and that India was ready to play an ‘active role’ to restore peace in the region.”
Thus there appear to be two quite different proposals on the table. One is for a peace summit, as mentioned by the Ukrainian President. As one peace summit was recently held in mid-June in Switzerland, one would imagine that what is being proposed is something on a similar pattern, even if not exactly a follow-up of this. The second proposal, as mentioned by the Indian Prime Minister is for the leaders of the two sides to sit together for meaningful talks, a meeting which can be facilitated and hosted by India.
The second proposal of meaningful talks between two sides being hosted by India in a rather quiet way is eminently reasonable. Surely only something good is most likely to emerge if senior leaders of both sides can engage in discussing various aspects of clinching peace over a period of three days or so, perhaps a week, to start with, and if India can provide conducive conditions for this.
As this writer has been arguing persistently, the best way forward for the two sides is to agree to immediate ceasefire on the basis of the existing lines of control while all the other contentious issues including territorial ones can be resolved later in the course of prolonged peace negotiations. This way further loss of human lives can stop immediately and big reconstruction and rehabilitation work can start.
Anyway, all this is for the leaders of the two sides to decide. However as the mediating and hosting party, the Indian government should try to ensure that at least some meeting ground is agreed upon by both sides before their representatives come over to India for talks.
If there is at least some progress, India can also agree to host the next round of talks, if a request for this is received from the two sides.
In this rather quiet way, India can help to take forward the peace process.
On the other hand, the other proposal of a peace summit on the lines of the June peace summit in Switzerland should be firmly rejected by India, particularly if this is seen as a follow-up of the summit in Switzerland. This was a very expensive summit which failed to achieve anything significant. With Russia not invited, it was a very strange peace summit to start with and its limited possibilities were narrowed down further as it unfolded.
This is not to say that issues like food trade and safety of nuclear plants taken up by it were not important, these are certainly important but everything at the summit was one-sided. Proposals and decisions to be meaningful have to be discussed and advanced from the perspective of both sides.
Russia was not present. China also was not present. Other important countries like India, Brazil, Mexico and Saudi Arabia did not sign the joint communique that emerged at the end of the summit.
Switzerland did not exactly live up to its reputation of neutrality by hosting this summit. Indonesian President-elect Prabowo Subianto voiced the feelings of a lot of people when he said — many countries feel that in a peace summit all sides should be present, particularly Russia in this context. India’s diplomat Pavan Kapoor said that India could not sign the joint communique because “only those options acceptable to both parties can lead to abiding peace.”
Saudi foreign minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said,
“it is essential to emphasize that any credible process will need Russia’s participation.”
Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote on X that the summit’s “conclusions are already predetermined”.
Hence the Swiss Peace summit can by no means be considered as a model to be followed, and it will certainly not be advisable for India or any other country to organize a follow-up of this.
Clearly the basic task ahead is for Russia and Ukraine to have a number of meetings to repair their relations on the basis of the understanding that it is inherently more beneficial for the two neighbors to have a relationship based on friendship and cooperation. The war should end as soon as possible, and end on a note of friendship, and not frozen conflict. This understanding has to on both sides, and any third party like India can only facilitate the further peace process in various ways.
*
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.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071, Planet in Peril and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
I’m old enough to remember that, until approximately four years ago, the mandate to obtain informed consent from the patient by the medical system was sacrosanct.
“Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient’s right to direct what happens to their body.
Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient’s understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent “in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record.” The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient’s understanding of elements 1 through 4.”
So, you tell me: does genetically modifying mosquitoes and then releasing them by the millions into the environment to fly around “vaccinating” people unbeknownst to them qualify as “informed consent”?
“Researchers in Japan have transformed mosquitoes into vaccine-carrying syringes by genetically engineering the insects to express the vaccine for leishmaniasis–a parasitic disease transmitted by the sandfly–in their saliva. According to a study in Insect Molecular Biology, mice bitten by these mosquitoes produced antibodies against the parasite. It’s not yet clear whether the immune response was strong enough to protect against infection.
“Following bites, protective immune responses are induced, just like a conventional vaccination but with no pain and no cost,” said lead researcher Shigeto Yoshida, from the Jichi Medical University in JapanYoshida, in a press release from the journal. “What’s more continuous exposure to bites will maintain high levels of protective immunity, through natural boosting, for a life time. So the insect shifts from being a pest to being beneficial.””
You see, Bill Gates loves you and wants you to be happy; that’s why he’s manipulating the blueprint of life to turn insects into needles.
According to the CDC, moving from the theoretical to practical, “over 1 billion mosquitoes have been released” in various parts of the world, which it has deemed safe and effective despite a lack of any long-term evidence about what it might do to human health, much less the environment.
“GM mosquitoes have been successfully used in parts of Brazil, the Cayman Islands, Panama, and India to control Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. Since 2019, over 1 billion mosquitoes have been released… [initiative of Bill Gates]
The EPA evaluated the potential risk of releasing GM mosquitoes into communities and determined that there is no risk to people, animals, or the environment.”
Megalomaniacs playing God seemingly have no appreciation — or at least don’t care — about the deeply interwoven web that is nature. You fuck with the genetic makeup of mosquitoes, and you open a pandora’s box that might never be closed.
“Believe it or not, mosquitoes are pollinators. In fact, mosquitoes’ primary food source is flower nectar, not blood. Just like bees or butterflies, mosquitoes transfer pollen from flower to flower as they feed on nectar, fertilizing plants and allowing them to form seeds and reproduce. It’s only when a female mosquito lays eggs does she seek a blood meal for the protein. Males feed only on flower nectar and never bite.
Beyond pollination, mosquitoes are part of the food web, serving as important prey in both winged adult and aquatic larval form for a lot of other wildlife from dragonflies and turtles to bats and birds—including hummingbirds, which rely on small flying insects and spiders as a primary food source.”
*
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 author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Since Niger and Mali exposed that Ukraine, a nation heavily reliant on the United States for military and economic support, is supporting terrorism in the Sahel, this has starkly exposed the contradictions inherent in AFRICOM’s mission on the African continent. AFRICOM was established under the premise of combating terrorism and ensuring stability in Africa. However, if a U.S.-backed government is actively aiding terrorist groups in the Sahel, it suggests that AFRICOM’s role may not be as straightforward as it claims. Instead, it could be seen as part of a broader strategy that perpetuates instability and conflict in Africa, thereby justifying its continued presence and expanding influence under the guise of fighting terrorism.
This scenario would lend credence to the belief that AFRICOM’s true purpose is not to eliminate terrorism but rather to maintain a perpetual state of conflict and dependency on the continent. By fostering instability, AFRICOM ensures that African states remain reliant on U.S. military support, which aligns with the strategic interests of the U.S. and its European and other allies in securing access to Africa’s vast natural resources.
The purpose of AFRICOM is to make African militaries so integrated and dependent on US technologies and support as to make them easy to control and direct towards imperial interests whether that be by standing up, standing down, committing assassinations, committing coups, protecting coups, among other atrocities. Africans become the face of U.S. imperialism on the continent to protect against unwanted scrutiny while still maintaining U.S. access to African resources.
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.
Featured image: U.S. Army Africa 1st Lt. Salvatore Buzzurro, Africa Contingency Operations Training & Assistance program military mentor, gives a Sierra Leone Armed Forces Soldiers advice on movement techniques. The SL Army has been training with the ACOTA program for two years, and this is the fifth company prepping for their peacekeeping mission in another country. Photo by U.S. Army Africa.
August 27th, 2024 by Union of Concerned Scientists
Introduction
The video below produced in 2006 by the Union of Concerned Scientists in collaboration with the Pentagon reveals the consequence of the use of a Nuclear Earth Penetration Bomb in an attack on Iran.
This is an important video production, carefully documented by the UCS.
I should mention that the option to use bunker buster bombs against Iran is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran has stockpiled Weapons of Mass destruction in so-called bunkers, as conveyed in the video.
Implied in the video-montage is that Iran constitutes a WMD threat, when in fact there is no evidence to that effect.
The Nuclear Earth Penetrating Bomb (NEPB) should be distinguished from the so-called tactical nuclear weapons (mini-nukes) which are low yield.
“The simulation in the Flash Animation pertains to a one megaton bunker buster thermonuclear bomb with an explosive capacity of 60 times a Hiroshima bomb. Its use would result in millions of deaths and radioactive fallout extending eastwards into Pakistan and India.
The earth penetrating technology is similar. The explosive capacity of the B61-11 and 12 series which are deployed in Western Europe have an explosive capacity from one third to 12 times a Hiroshima bomb.
“the B61-11 has several “available yields”, ranging from “low yields” of less than one kiloton, to mid-range and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb. In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several “available yields”.
What is contemplated for theater use [against Iran] is the “low yield” 10 kt bomb, two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb”.
In the simulation based on a model of the Pentagon pertaining to the RNEP (image below) “more than three million would be killed and more than thirty five million people would be exposed by cancer causing radiation.”
B61-11 and 12 low yield bunker buster bombs
The UCS (based on the Pentagon Model) also examined the likely impacts of the use of the low yield B61-11 and 12 bombs (which is deployed in the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands)
The B61-11 and 12 series are contemplated for use in the conventional war theater. According to the Simulation of a B61-11 attack on Iran:
“this would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East – Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq” (UCS)
Does a Two Trillion dollars ($2000 billion) budget allocated to the development of nuclear weapons not suggest that America is intent upon using nuclear weapons?
B61-12 (right)
How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?
A nuclear attack against Iran is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history.
The use of the low Yield B61-11 and 12 so-called mini-nukes (tactical nuclear weapons) which are CATEGORIZED AS CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS WOULD ALSO precipitate WWIII
This is an important video and it’s real.
AND WE MUST CONFRONT OUR GOVERNMENTS AND PREVENT IT FROM OCCURRING
Michel Chossudovsky, August 27, 2024
Video: The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to be Used against Iran
Text and Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The simulation in the Flash Animation pertains to a one megaton bunker buster thermonuclear bomb with an explosive capacity of 60 times a Hiroshima bomb.
Military documents distinguish between the NEP as in the case of the simulation, and the “mini-nuke” which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or 60 times a Hiroshima bomb.
In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon is contemplating the launching of punitive bombings using “mini-nukes” or tactical thermonuclear weapons. While the “guidelines” do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US and/or Israeli nuclear arsenal, as envisaged in the simulation, Pentagon “scenarios” in the Middle East tend to favor the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb with a yield of 10 kt.
This distinction between mini-nukes and larger NEPs is in many regard misleading. In practice there is no dividing line.
We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several “available yields”, ranging from “low yields” of less than one kiloton, to mid-range and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb. In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several “available yields”.
What is contemplated for theater use is the “low yield” 10 kt bomb, two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.The impacts in terms of deaths and radioactive fallout would be less dramatic than that contemplated in the simulation. It would nonetheless result in the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children
“The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. … Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. … Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area “ (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson,Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).
According to GlobalSecurity.org , the use of the B61-11 against North Korea would result in extensive radioactive fallout over nearby countries, thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust.
“… In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth,… But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm )
If it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East – Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:
“The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout.”(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )
At present, the B61-11 is slated for use in war theaters together with conventional weapons. (Congressional Report“ Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, Congressional Research Service March 2005). (Other versions of the B61, namely mod 3, 4, 7 and 10, which are part of the US arsenal, involve nuclear bunker buster bombs with a lower yield to that of B61-11).
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
Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of the leading neocon architects of the Greater Middle East and North Africa Project launched by the US after September 11, 2001, wrote a propaganda article titled “The Perils of Isolationism” in the Foreign Affairs magazine dated August 20, 2024.
In the article that marketed the dangers of the US withdrawing from the world stage against Russia and China to the American public, the US is described as a state that brings peace, tranquility and security to the world.
Interestingly, there is not a single line in the article about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Image is from the Public Domain
Rice, who served as National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush during the US’s most aggressive period in 2003, said in one of her articles, “We will change the borders of 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa.”
I consider the only correct paragraph in Rice’s unnecessarily long (15-page) article in Foreign Affairs to be the following:
“The United States is now a different country; exhausted by eighty years of international leadership, some of it successful and celebrated, some dismissed as failures. The American people are different, too; they have less faith in their institutions and the viability of the American dream. Years of divisive rhetoric, Internet echo chambers, and ignorance of the complexities of history even among the best-educated young have left Americans with a fragmented sense of common values. Our elite cultural institutions are responsible in these areas. They have rewarded those who destroyed the United States and ridiculed those who praised its virtues. To address Americans’ lack of faith in their institutions and in each other, schools and colleges must change their curricula to offer a more balanced view of U.S. history. These and other institutions must foster healthy debate, encouraging competing ideas rather than creating a climate that reinforces existing views.’’
A Regressive U.S. and the Never-ending Wars
With 248 years of recorded history, the United States is in rapid decline. The pains of moving away from the dollar-based global economic system and establishing a new multipolar world order are increasing geopolitical tensions everywhere at global, continental and regional levels. The US and its integral part, the EU, continue to seek and provoke adventures far beyond their capabilities and power for the continuation of the global hegemony led by the US, sending the message that they will not allow a new order.
Canadian economist and author Professor Michel Chossudovsky said in the spring of 2011:
“The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The US and its allies have launched a military adventure that threatens the future of humanity. The ultimate goal is the conquest of the world under the guise of “human rights” and “Western democracy”… The hegemonic project of the US in the post-9/11 period is the globalization of the war that the US-NATO military machine has spread to all regions of the world with its emphasis on covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and “regime change.”
Many of the methods Chossudovsky wrote about have been implemented by the US to date, but despite all the wars, conspiracies, government changes, military coups and color revolutions, economic blockades and sanctions, the US cannot achieve the ultimate goal.
For example, the number of countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war that started on February 24, 2022 is around 40 out of 193 UN member states. The majority are EU members, and the rest are American vassal states such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and Japan. This means that the overwhelming majority of the world does not comply with the US. The US cannot be a game changer, especially with the endless wars it has started after 2001 and the death, chaos and deprivation it has brought to the continents. It is stirring up and provoking countries with colorful coups through institutions and individuals purchased with irresponsible printed dollars, but it is not getting results. If the US had been successful, there would be no Ukraine-Russia war today, nor would there be an Israel-Gaza war. The fact that the US unconditionally stands by Israel, which commits genocide, in the Gaza War that is taking place today, and that Netanyahu received a 3-minute standing ovation in the US Congress show that Washington can never be a honest broker and cannot set up games anymore. In short, US initiatives make headlines on the first day, but the initiative in question is forgotten a week later.
A Disappearing State Ukraine
2.5 years have passed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, which was provoked through Ukraine’s NATO membership for US geopolitics and rimland consolidation, on February 24, 2022. Ukraine, which has the entire media and propaganda power of the West, the open support of the EU and NATO, against Russia, whose depth, especially its manpower and defense industry resources are incomparably vast, is now an exhausted state. Its economic power has regressed to a level incomparable to that of before the war. Its demographic power has been severely damaged. Although Ukraine’s suicide attack on a historically significant settlement like Kursk was aimed at preventing losses in the Donbas region and diverting Russia’s attention from there, Russia did not shift forces from strategic Donbas for Kursk. Russia is gaining on the Donbas front every passing day. If the war is not stopped, the possibility of Ukraine losing the Odessa port and being completely cut off from the sea may even come to the fore.
Ukrainian troops prepare to fight Russian forces in Donbass (Source: Indian Punchline)
The USA’s Success in EU and NATO
On the other hand, the most successful front in this war is the weakening of the EU through Ukraine and Russia War, making it completely dependent on the US for defense, and transforming NATO into a 32-member structure with the exaggerated Russian threat. NATO has not only expanded, but also its defense budgets have been increased excessively due to the war. Thus, military sea/air/land transportation corridors and new bases that will surround Russia from the North Sea, Adriatic, Aegean, Baltic, and Black Sea with American military equipment have been implemented. Furthermore, the US has decided to place medium-range nuclear missiles in German territory, which is a semi-colony, in 2026, which is an extremely dangerous and provocative picture. The US side, which was able to establish a balance in nuclear and conventional deterrence in the Cold War, no longer knows any limits in nuclear provocation.
The US Nuclear Strategy document leaked to the press last week revealed the nuclear armament targeting China. Let’s add the hostility towards Russia created in the public opinion of the US and the EU to these provocative successes of the US. For example, rumors that Russia will turn towards Poland and the Baltic states after Ukraine are frequently spread by the Western media these days. However, Russia’s capacity is limited. This perception of threat can be created despite the fact that the Baltic Sea has turned into a NATO lake and there is no direct land connection to Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast. The main reason for this is of course to be able to sell weapons of the US military industry through the war created in Europe and to keep the the hostility against Russia alive, to be able to maintain political and military pressures, and to keep NATO’s raison d’être alive. There is no other country in NATO and the EU that questions the Russian threat created by the US, other than Hungary and Slovakia. UK is unable to act outside the US. The situation of France, which produced great military leaders and strategic thinkers such as Charles De Gaulle and Andre Beaufre, is deplorable.
The situation of Germany, the economic locomotive of the EU, is worse than a colony. Its industry and economy are in decline. Even the oldest and most prestigious shipyard in Germany, such as Meyer, which was founded in 1795, is on the verge of bankruptcy and the government is launching a rescue operation.
The situation of Türkiye is complicated. Thanks to Article 19 of the Montreux Convention, we are able to maintain our active neutrality, but due to the economic pressures of the US and the West, we continue to make concessions in every field. On August 14, the American USS Wasp amphibious assault ship, whose primary duty is to protect Israel in the Gaza War, and our TCG Anadolu amphibious assault ship and TCG Gökova frigate were able to conduct transition training in the Mediterranean.
We learn about this activity from American sources. While the government is doing this, the opposition remains silent. In other words, in defiance of Atatürk, we have been dragged into a situation close to the cooperation of Damat Ferit of the Istanbul Government and the American Mandates of the Sivas Congress during the armistice period (1919-20).
However, in the period between the two world wars, which is very similar to today’s conjuncture, that is, during Atatürk’s time, Türkiye was very careful in its balance policy while its military, economic and demographic power was very weak. In August 1935, our Minister of Foreign Affairs Tevfik Rüştü Aras summarized the situation due to the increasing Italian fascism and threat as follows:
“In our opinion, the French-English friendship on one side of Europe, the Turkish-Soviet friendship on the other side and the good relations between them constitute the main basis of European peace. All other combinations are being worked around this.”
The Biggest Danger Is the US Vassals
In the current conjuncture, the best scenario for the US is that a new war will break out in Europe when the last Ukrainian soldier dies and the war is over. Undoubtedly, this war will be caused by the irresponsible vassals of the US, which never wants a direct conflict with Russia and pats them on the back.
Countries such as Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany and the U.K. are open to all kinds of scenarios. Moldova can also be added to this list. The sworn mandate holders and imperialist vassals in Türkiye are also ready for the tasks given.
However, we also need to mention a great risk. As long as these weak and vassal states are not controlled by the US and are not told to stop, they can act irrationally and illogically and directly start a Russia-US conflict.
It should not be forgotten that world military history is full of surprises. In a conjuncture where Russia’s interior is being hit with American and British weapons, a provocative attack is being carried out in Kursk under the hidden command of NATO forces, and F16 fighter jets are being given to Ukraine, how Russia will respond to the US and its friends is at least as uncertain and risky as the reaction Iran will show to Israel after the killing of the Hamas leader. What if this response eliminates the conventional escalation ladder to the point of a nuclear escalation?
While the US continues to arm Ukraine with a $60 billion sale last month and Israel with a $20 billion sale last week, Russia is arming and most likely training its ally Iran. Does the US making a rational judgment before unleashing its vassals on Russia? We don’t know.
However, one week before the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, Biden’s National Security Advisor Sullivan wrote, “We are living the best peaceful period in history in the Middle East.” How much can we trust the US? How many USs are there in the US? Is the US a state that can control itself?
The Situation in the Indo-Pacific Is Complicated
The West’s intrigues are ahead of its political, military and economic power on the Indo-Pacific front. The direct participation of the American ambassador in protests in Bangladesh, as in Ukraine in 2014, summarizes everything. (If Americans say democracy is coming, we should be very careful.) It is not sustainable for this poor country, which is adjacent to the Myanmar-China Econonmic Corridor in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, to surrender to a pro-American government with freely printed American dollars. Because this country is squeezed between India and Myanmar and has no chance of implementing American geopolitics in this geography. On the other hand, the signal flare of a colorful coup in Indonesia has started with street protests.
In fact, the scenario experienced in all underdeveloped or developing countries is repeating itself. In states where governments drowning in corruption act uncontrollably and ignore the people in order to maintain their positions, the US sees this weakness very well and evaluates it and presses the button when necessary in a way that will benefit itself. However, these colorful moves do not bring permanent results. These states are faced with the choice of either chaos and civil war under the guidance of the US or living in peace alongside Asian powers.
As long as the unity of China, Russia and India within the BRICS and SCO continues, it is no longer possible for the Anglo-Saxons to be the game changers in the Asian geography, especially in Central Asia. As long as the big three stand firm and solidarity is achieved, such attempts at a color revolution will not gain a character other than being temporary.
New Order Has Been Established
The war between Russia and Ukraine is actually a war between the US and those who say no to the Western hegemony led by the Anglo-Saxons. This conflict is not regional but global. Global balance centers have now been established. While those on the side of the US are states that were occupied by the US after 1945 and vassalized in the US sphere of influence, there is China and Russia at another pole. The third pole is India and the majority of the non-aligned states of the Cold War period, called the Global South. In this process, we see that the other two poles are trying to establish a balance against the US and its vassals through organizations such as BRICS and the SCO against the US pole.
The War of Transportation Corridors
The transport corridors connecting Europe, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Basin in Asia, especially China’s Belt and Road Initiative, are shaping the geopolitical future.The US wants to render the transportation corridors that will challenge its hegemony dysfunctional through color revolutions, civil wars and regional conflicts.
Today, the China-Europe northern corridor via Ukraine has become dysfunctional. Every kind of provocation continues to damage the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) via Pakistan, the Myanmar-China Corridor via Bangladesh, and also the Iran-China oil pipelines and transportation lines. In the meantime, serious mistakes and unexpected events also come its way. For example, the Red Sea-Mediterranean passage leg, which is indirectly outside of their control, has become dysfunctional with the Gaza war.
American Military Alliances Are Spreading
The US believes that if it prevents economic integration and political unity in the Asian continent, it will also prevent military structures. It is currently unlikely that the SCO and BRICS will turn into a military alliance system. However, the US is progressing very quickly in the Indo-Pacific region in terms of military structure and cooperation with its own vassals and allies. The transition of Japan and South Korea to a joint command structure, the establishment of the AUKUS alliance with Australia and England, and the provision of nuclear attack submarines to Australia after 2026; the total American military presence in Japan and the USA reaching 100 thousand, the agreement reached with the Philippines for new military bases, and the moves to increase military cooperation between the Philippines, Australia, Japan, and Canada are recent examples. (The recent collision of the Philippines with Chinese Coast Guard ships in Sabina Shoal was a provocative move. Because the television and news teams of important Western news agencies were also on the Philippine ships.)
Israel’s initiation of the Gaza War by drawing the USA to its side with a great fait accompli is a link in the process of the fragmentation of Asia. In this case, the USA, by postponing its Indo-Pacific priorities, will help Israel. Because it is known that a leadership that does not come to Israel’s side during the election period will not have a chance to win in the election. The 3-minute standing ovation given to Netanyahu in Congress is an expression of this situation. However, the process backfired. While Israel was looking for an easy victory, the war was prolonged. The Yemeni Houthis cut off the Red Sea maritime trade route. The US and its allies could not fully control this route.
The US’s Mediterranean Vision
It goes without saying that even if the US does not have the power, it will try every way to establish a puppet Kurdistan state in northern Iraq and Syria, to influence the government and opposition in Türkiye and to disintegrate the secular and nation-state structure.
The real reason for the tragedy in Gaza is that the US killed Arab nationalism in the region, especially after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and succeeded in disintegrating the Arab States. The Arabs who moved away from nationalism were divided and weakened again by the U.S-NATO and Israel through Islamization and religion.
The US tried the successful model it applied to the Arabs for the Turks. However, despite all the Islamist parties that came to power with the support of the West after 1980, plots, provocations and moves such as the FETÖ (CIA backed Fetullah Gulen Islamist Organization) coup attempt, the Turkish people have persistently not given up their nationalist and secular identity. Although the attempts to transform Turkish nationalism into American Turanism (Pan Turkism) were partially successful after the 1970s, they could not create a permanent effect.
However, as long as Türkiye remains in NATO, it will continue to remain in the sphere of influence of US geopolitics. It will not be possible for it to have the final say. We saw this in the acceptance of Finland and Sweden into NATO. While burying our soldiers martyred by the terrorist PKK, the Turkish Grand National Assembly approved the US request without a single dissenting opinion. Sweden was made a NATO member. The US wants a divided Mediterranean. The US wants absolute control of the Suez Canal, the Turkish Straits and the Aegean Sea Passages. The US wants a puppet Kurdistan (Second Israel) covering the lands of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkiye. However, it is not powerful enough to do it.
The Iran Factor
Iran’s resistance to the US with its anti-imperialist identity in the region is very valuable for global and continental balances. Iran is a very critical country that controls both Basra, the Caspian and the Central Asian basin.
Just like Türkiye, it is at the center of the continents and basins. It is indispensable in both maritime and continental approaches of global dominance theses. If its natural resource wealth is added to this, its geopolitical importance emerges. Iran’s surrender to Anglo-Saxon hegemony provides the greatest support in the siege of Turkiye and Russia. Therefore, both Turkiye and Russia should always maintain good relations with Iran. Within this framework, Iran’s presence in Russia’s North-South Transit corridor is important for the continuation of stable relations between the two states. In recent months, Armenia’s exit from Russia’s sphere of influence and approaching the West to the extent of conducting joint military exercises with the US; Turkiye’s casting a shadow on relations by making comments at the highest level that belittle Azerbaijan, its efforts to normalize relations with Armenia upon the request of the US, while Azerbaijan could not obtain concessions from Yerevan for a peace agreement, and most importantly, the removal of the Zangezur Corridor from the agenda do not serve Turkish geopolitics. They serve the US’s Balkanization of the Caucasus. In this context, Putin’s visit to Azerbaijan is extremely important. It is a great message to Turkiye, which says two states and one nation. I hope Turkiye, which is approaching Armenia under US pressure, has received this message.
Lessons for Turkiye
Ankara should act in line with the difficulties and losses it has experienced in the last 22 years. A puppet Kurdish state cannot be allowed in the south. Türkiye cannot be allowed to be divided through discussions on a new constitution and the concept of being Turkish. The Caucasus Wall (set by Western powers), which Atatürk said “its formation will be our destruction” 104 years ago, cannot be allowed in the South Caucasus.
We cannotallow to be cut off from the Aegean and the Mediterranean through the EU’s Seville map. It is unacceptable to allow the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to be dragged into a new Annan Plan scandal through attempts at refederation talks.
It is unacceptable for NATO to use our sovereign rights, primarily the implementation of Article 19 of the Montreux Convention in the Black Sea, as a tool for American geopolitics. Again, as exemplified by the joint training of our navy in the Mediterranean and the American warships that came to the aid of Israel, which committed genocide in Gaza, through our NATO membership, an impersonal and unprincipled security policy cannot be allowed.
It seems that Ankara is paying the price of being drawn into the financial traps of the US and the EU in the last 22 years, and of shifting from a production economy and statism to a neoliberal consumer economy that has been rampant with full privatization, corruption, and hostility towards nature and the public, with geopolitical concessions.
Future generations can restore economic losses but geopolitical losses can only be recovered through war. The primary duty of governments is to protect geopolitical interests without fighting.
*
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.
Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.
The war against Russia has entered a new and more dangerous phase with the incursion of Ukrainian forces into the Russian region of Kursk. The New York Times calls it “the largest foreign incursion into Russia since World War II,” that is, since Russia was invaded by Nazi Germany and its allies, with Italy at the forefront.
The political media mainstream presents it as a brilliant strategic move by Kyiv to ease the growing Russian pressure on the Donbas front. It therefore hides the heavy losses that Ukrainian forces are suffering from Russian forces in Kursk, in terms of armoured vehicles and men.
The incursion of Ukrainian forces into this Russian region was planned and organized by the US-NATO commands with a much broader strategic purpose. They concentrated the attack in a border area manned only by young conscripts and border guards, who could not withstand the sudden onslaught of tanks and artillery. The rapid conquest of about 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory, the capture of over 300 conscripts, the destruction of three important bridges with US missiles, and the increasing drone attacks deep into the Moscow region, aim at a goal that is not simply territorial: spreading in Russia mistrust in the ability of the Government and President Putin himself to ensure the security of the country, thus weakening the internal resistance front.
This is happening at a time when the US and NATO are stepping up the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons close to Russian territory and a “secret nuclear strategy” is coming to light: in a classified document – reported by the New York Times – “President Biden has ordered US forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear clashes with Russia, China and North Korea.”
Italy’s participation in this catastrophic war strategy is far greater than expected. The incursion into the Russian territory of Kursk involved Italian armoured vehicles, which the government donated to Kyiv and crew training. This is confirmed by the video of the destruction of one of these armoured vehicles by Russian forces in Kursk. Italy is also participating in the preparation for nuclear war. In violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it not only deploys US nuclear bombs on its territory and prepares to use them, but through Leonardo, it builds nuclear missiles for the French arsenal.
*
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).
Fabricated mass delusions are fueling the current state of permanent, Western-perpetrated global warfare.
In fact, Western intelligence agencies are tasked with making sure we do not know the truth. Former CIA Director William J. Casey even admitted, ”We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” (1)
How can there be freedom and democracy in the West when people have no clue what is really happening and who are the real perpetrators? It is fake freedom and fake democracy.
Our hearts and souls are being impoverished through fabricated ignorance as Western governments and their agencies impoverish, mass-slaughter, and kill globally, thanks to our tax dollars.
The reality is that Western governments are complicit in committing genocide in Palestine because it could not happen without our billions and our bombs and our political/economic support. The ICJ has made it clear that Israel is an apartheid state, the walls are illegal, the segregation is illegal, the occupations are illegal.
Furthermore, the court has reaffirmed that, “freedom from foreign military occupation, racial segregation and apartheid is absolutely non-negotiable.” (2)
Last week alone, the U.S sent billions of dollars worth of weaponry to Israel to fortify the on-going genocide to which the US and its allies are accomplices. (3)
Apartheid and genocide define not only Israel, but also the West, and yet political rhetoric from the West would have us believe otherwise.
The Western-perpetrated mass-slaughter, impoverishment, and degradation of humanity in its long war against peace continues globally. In Ukraine, Western governments are supporting not only nazism, but also what is basically a NATO invasion of Russia at this very moment. (4)
Meanwhile, Empire’s “New Middle East” (5) continues to be a disaster for real freedom and democracy in Syria and beyond.
Chemical weapons accusations against Syria were as fake as the WMD accusations against Iraq, and as President Assad and the Syrian government continue to represent civilisation and international law and justice in Syria, Washington’s illegal occupation, its theft of Syrian resources, its illegal support for internationally proscribed terrorist groups continues to impose the opposite. In fact, Washington is now using the Western-orchestrated resurgence of ISIS (which Washington supports covertly and overtly) as a fake pretext to continue its illegal, impoverishing, terrorist-supporting occupation. (6)
Who benefits from permanent warfare based on mass-deception? Certain segments of Western economies benefit but Western populations overall are being “thirdworldized”, a word coined by Prof. Chossudovsky to describe the dictatorship of predatory “neoliberal” economic models.
All of this recalls the allegory of Plato’s cave where shackled prisoners believe the shadows on the wall as representative of reality and reject the truth as told by the released prisoner who has seen the outside world as it is.
If fabricated ignorance prevails, the NWO promises to be far more totalitarian, far less interested in even the pretense of democracy and freedom – at home or abroad.
COVID lockdowns and mandated experimental gene therapy drugs, neither safe nor effective, were a preview of what is to come.
Will we embrace the truth or continue to be dazzled and enslaved by political spectacles and empty rhetoric about freedom and democracy?
*
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.
Russia today is taking another pivotal moment in its history, (with a series of many landmark issues) under its presidency of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), referred to as informal association, consistently forging collaborative relations with developing countries. With geopolitical situation heightening, spotifying challenges predominately remain on the association’s track. But the evolving developments are positive and promising, particularly increasing number of countries expressing the desire to join BRICS. It shows an interesting and indelible sign which reflects the necessity for the world’s re-configuration. This factor indicates the urgent yawning action for a multifaceted change, a new global architecture embracing geopolitics, the economy and security as well as socio-cultural and humanitarian spheres.
Noticeably, Latin American countries and also in Asian and African regions are carving to join BRICS. There are many reasons including the sovereign desire by like-minded countries to deepen their cooperation with BRICS with a proper sense of respect. In addition, BRICS follows an open-door vision, and stronly committed to the fact that the principles governing this format – mutual respect, balance of interests and a consensus-based approach – are very appealing. In the former Soviet space, Belarus and Azerbaijan have recently expressed their sanonymized interest to leverage unto BRICS platform.
“Azerbaijan has filed an official application for joining BRICS,” Azerbaijan’s news agency quoted Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Aykhan Hajizada. Baku’s intention to join BRICS was reflected in a joint declaration on strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and China, which was signed on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Astana in early July.
Apart from that, Azerbaijani parliament speaker, Sakhiba Gafarova, said at a plenary session of the 10th BRICS Parliamentary Forum in St. Petersburg on July 11 that her country wanted to be a full-fledged BRICS member.
Image: Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. (photo: Courtesy photo / www.kremlin.ru.)
Russia and Belarus have formed a Union State.
Late July, and even long before that, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has publicly reiterated that Minsk had been invited to the BRICS summit, due in Kazan in October. Lukashenko, who has announced his resignation in 2025, irreversibly promised Belarus ascension into BRICS.
In this regard, Lukashenko instructed the Foreign Ministry to draw up a plan of Belarusian participation and bilateral meetings on that platform. That however, Belarus sees BRICS as a basis for economic development and is ready to join integration processes within the framework of the informal association. “We are interested in getting involved in integration processes in that space. BRICS is another footing to help us maintain balance and economic stability,” BelTA agency quoted Lukashenko as emphatically asserted.
Belarus and Azerbaijan are former Soviet republics, with common historical background despite the stark indications of disparity in approach to current politics and economic development, much still remains uniquely common in cultural practice and in the society. Undoubtedly, both the older and current generations have comprehensive understanding of Soviet history and culture. Therefore, Belarus and Azerbaijan governments and their state institutions such as the cabinet, legislative and judiciary, would endorse aligning to BRICS, and contribute towards shaping a new post-Soviet space within the framework of emerging new geopolitical reality.
As the majority of countries around the world face new, modern-day challenges, so it has become necessary to create conditions to combat Western and European threats to political and economic stability. The need to amplify their collective voices or positions in strengthening partnerships as illustrated by BRICS agenda which is very broad. The agenda is in line with the general motto adopted by Russia’s BRICS chairmanship, relating to the widest range of issues, including politics, security, economy, finance and on education, sports and humanitarian ties.
China and India Factors
While China and India have historically warm multiple ties with Russia, and even from Soviet times, both as BRICS members maintain closer economic partnerships with the Western world. China has comparatively more presence than India in Belarus and Azerbaijan, but future prospects exist for extensive collaborating through BRICS.
Within its calculated strategy, China has a large footprint in the region, thanks to its Belt and Road Initiative. But that aside, Belarus and Azerbaijan can still secure economic partnerships and harness their modern technology and scientific innovations. Furthermore, public-private partnerships are crucial mechanism for mobilizing the necessary resources and expertise for development.
In terms of influence and economic presence, China is indiscriminately deepening its trading and investment relations across the entire former Soviet region, and the Eurasian Economic Union, using its own version of – not confrontation – but it deemed acceptable as ‘mutual cooperation’ and polycentricity. The 29th meeting between prime ministers of Russia and China (BRICS stalwart supporters of multi-polarity) reviewed economic cooperation, took cognizance of the huge untapped economic potentials generally in the Eurasian region, and specifically in the Russian Federation.
On August 21-22, Chinese Premier Li Qiang visited Minsk and held talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko which resulted sign agreements on investment and on a free trade area in the services sector. In addition Belarus would host an industrial zone for China’s new quality productive forces concept based on technologies, innovations and high-quality human potential. This reflects the absolute possibility for Chinese technologies to enter the Belarusian market in large numbers as the core mid-term task for the two countries’ governments, until 2030. The new agreement will enable Belarus to increase exports of its services to China by at least 12%-15% within the next five years, while investment in Belarus will grow by at least 30%, according to reports.
India has good relations in Belarus and Azerbaijan. India’s interest included science & technology cooperation. It continues, at present time, seeking investment and resources through Belarusian route for developing smart cities, improving the manufacturing sector and increasing skill development especially in the pharmaceutical industry. China and India are both active in Russia. Mutual trade between Russia and China is developing successfully, and the two governments are working well towards this, Russian President Vladimir Putin has noted in Kremlin reports. According to the government office, bilateral trade blossomed up to $240.1 billion in June 2024.
Russia’s BRICS Diplomacy
For now, though, after years of declining Russia’s influence in many parts of the world, Moscow is steadily rising up. And at least, being a member of BRICS plays much supportive role. Russia’s presidency of the association has witnessed stern position against increasingly Western ‘domineering powers’ in recent years, and more recently pressurizing countries to back sanctions against Russia for its ‘special military operations’ in neighbouring Ukraine. Several BRICS documents and communiques contained anti-Western positions, mostly against United States’ hegemony and neo-colonial character. As an association of states, BRICS is guided in its efforts by the principles of mutual respect and consensus, which rules out any attempts to dictate one’s will or impose any totalitarian administrative and oversight practices. Reiterating here that BRICS offers a good opportunity for discussing international matters, including the emergence of a new world order with better justice for all, and making efforts to strengthen cooperation between BRICS and the countries of the Global South and East, while enhancing their international role.
BRICS under Russia’s 2024 directorship has advanced steps to introduce its currency and a financial settlement and payment system platforms primarily targeting de-dollarization process. Coordinated by the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) which was established in 2015, these existing measures would, most probably, lead to drastic reduction in the use and over-dependence of the dollar as world-wide currency. In the economic sphere, the BRICS countries have been discussing ways to promote sustainable development, to support the multilateral trading system, and to improve the global financial architecture.
In spite of the above, Vice Chairman of BRICS Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sameep Shastri, and several state officials have indicated that BRICS member states are no longer attaching much importance to the dollar, one single currency, and are now successfully using national currencies. This, in the first step, underscored the assertions that Western countries are the strongest economies in the world. Therefore in the ultimate analysis, the economic power is steadily, or rather rapidly, shifting from the West to the Global South.
Challenges and Future Prospects
According to authentic estimates, more than 30 countries have applied to join BRICS, which now includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE — and in a collective pursuit of an uncomfortable non-aligned policy. Experts have, however, pointed to strong relations beyond ‘non-alignment’ and beyond the confines of BRICS. As many countries express desire to join BRICS, to incorporate their unique non-aligned political and economic values, so also in parallel dimension are challenges and, worse the competitiveness by key Western players and multinational organizations such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. BRICS is simply anti-Western association and has it own principles. The question over Belarus and Azerbaijan here also brings into focus Eurasian regional security. We know that Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001, following the collapse of the Soviet era. Now the SCO, being the successor to the Shanghai Five including China and Russia. In June 2017, it expanded to eight states, with India and Pakistan. Iran joined the group in July 2023, and Belarus in July 2024. Several countries are engaged as observers or dialogue partners.
Image: Ilham Aliyev (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
With China, Iran, India and Russia in BRICS, they share the same security interest. Moreso, Azarbaijan and Belarus becoming BRICS members will fortify the SCO operations in the region. Our analytical studies further show unfolding remarkable opportunities with BRICS member countries for the next new members such as Azerbaijan and Belarus. Azerbaijan has an observer status according to Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizada. Azerbaijan will probably become a full member of the SCO in a little while, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said during his meeting with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev on July 3 in Astana.
The floodgates for new members have since been opened: The association now includes the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two of the world’s biggest oil producers, and accounts for well over a quarter of the world’s GDP. Azerbaijan is also an oil producer in the region, and it could also serve as a smooth conduit for Russia to access global markets.
Judging from the above discussion, and subsequent findings from several reports also offer logical implications if Azerbaijan and Belarus are accepted into BRICS. It provides solid conditions for building up common capabilities and approaches in the fight for economic power. This may likely entice Armenia and Kazakhstan also to take similar steps to become members of BRICS, whose economic benefits are enormous. For some reasons, BRICS could be a counterweight against U.S. economic hegemony in the global economic system.
BRICS, which traces its name to a Goldman Sachs report in 2001, has long struggled to find an economic or geopolitical purpose, as its member countries have little in common besides being large and non-Western. The BRICS association was created in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa joining in 2011. On January 1, 2024, Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia became full members of the group. Russia is chairing the association this year. The main event, presentation of outstanding practical results, 2024 for BRICS during the summit on October 22-24, with a planned venue in Kazan, the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan.
*
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.
Seventy-seven years after India broke free from British rule and became truly independent by following a non-aligned policy, Britain has humiliatingly achieved vassalage status by becoming completely dependent on US policy despite being a former Great Power. Instead, the former colony is now experiencing great global influence, and even within Britain itself, when we consider former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is of Indian stock.
Following the dismantling of the British Empire in the 20th century, London had hoped to maintain indirect control and influence over its former colonies, including India, just as France did over large swathes of Western Africa. However, the UK was not successful in this endeavour. Instead, the former “Jewel in the Crown” of the British Empire expelled all British influence over the country’s governance, with newly independent India becoming an important member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
In line with New Delhi’s longheld Non-Aligned policy, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposed on August 17 at the third virtual Voice of the Global South Summit to create a human-centred “Global Development Compact” for the Global South to facilitate trade, technology sharing, and financing on favourable terms. India occupies a crucial position within the Global South, and its active participation in cooperation is significant in promoting cooperation among developing countries, such as through the BRICS formation, among others.
Due to frustration over India forging its independent path with Global South countries and losing global hegemony, particularly over its former colony, the United Kingdom supports separatist forces within the South Asian country. Britain’s support for separatist forces is only set to increase after the Labour Party won a landslide victory in a parliamentary election earlier this year, bringing to power Keir Starmer, whose centre-left party openly backs separatism in Jammu and Kashmir and promotes Khalistan, a movement seeking to create an independent homeland for Sikhs by establishing an ethnoreligious sovereign state in northwest India.
The 2024 Labour election manifesto promised to seek a “new strategic partnership with India, including a free trade agreement, as well as deepening cooperation in areas like security, education, technology and climate change,” and Starmer stressed at the India Global Forum: “What my Labour government will seek with India is a relationship based on our shared values of democracy and aspiration,” but in action, London has only continued its hostile and condescending policies towards New Delhi.
A vital issue for the UK is that India demonstrated its commitment to its independent path by refusing to join the anti-Russia camp and instead deepened its ties with the Eastern European country. Russian crude accounted for a record 44% of India’s total imports in July, reaching 2.07 million barrels per day, 4.2% higher than in June and 12% higher than a year ago. Based on Chinese customs data, this figure surpassed China’s July oil imports from Russia of 1.76 million bpd via pipelines and shipping.
India’s access to cheap Russian energy has significantly contributed to the reason why India, as a former colony that had $45 billion looted by Britain and thus impoverished and crippled the country when it achieved independence in 1947, has overtaken the UK as the world’s fifth largest economy. India is expected to also overtake Japan and Germany in 2027 to become the third largest economy, while the UK is expected to slip down to 10th place by 2050.
In effect, what this data shows is that India is thriving while Britain, which had the advantage of building its economy off the back of looted tens of billions of dollars, is in terminal decline. Of course, India has a long path to bring the per capita GDP to current Western standards, but extreme poverty is rapidly declining, standing at under 3% of the population, whilst the opposite is true in the UK, where absolute poverty has seen the biggest rise in 30 years, standing at 18%.
India’s rising economy follows its growing global influence. In comparison, Britain’s global influence has declined as Global South countries are no longer willing to deal with British chauvinism, exceptionalism, and hypocrisy. The so-called Global Britain initiative has failed, whilst European, Asian, African, and Latin American countries are desperate to build trade relations with India, identifying the huge potential of the country’s rapidly growing Middle Class and booming industry.
More importantly, due to Britain’s terminal decline and inability to exert its influence abroad, the country has capitulated to Washington’s policies, which often run contrary to the interests of Britons. London frames its servitude to Washington as one of cooperating on pan-Anglo interests, and although this may appear true in the case of AUKUS, it does raise the question of what interests the UK has in the Asia-Pacific region beyond economic.
It is obviously the imposition of US hegemony over the region, but this does not boost the credibility and image of Britain’s global image, and rather just damages it as it is now exposed to be nothing more than a vassal of Washington rather than an independent and mature state, just as India has become after overcoming significant British-created challenges at its independence.
*
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.
Due to a single case of eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), four towns in New England are now subject to “voluntary” lockdowns for the foreseeable future, at least until the onset of winter.
“Four Massachusetts towns — Douglas, Oxford, Sutton and Webster — have enacted a voluntary evening lockdown in an attempt to curb the spread of a potentially deadly mosquito-borne disease.
The decision comes after the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) confirmed the first human case of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) since 2020in Worcester County.
On Wednesday, the Oxford Board of Health voted to support the recommendation for people to remain indoors after 6:00 p.m., effective immediately, through Sept. 30, according to a public health advisory shared with Fox News Digital.
Starting on Oct. 1, the recommendation is to remain indoors after 5:00 p.m. until the first hard frost.”
The lockdowns are being marketed as “voluntary” — until, of course, you get into the fine print.
Continuing:
“The lockdowns are considered recommendations, and there will be no enforcement if residents do not comply, the town spokesperson said.
“We want to educate our residents about EEE and the seriousness of the illness and make them aware of the risk,” the statement continued.
“However, if they want to use town fields outside these recommendations, they will have to show proof of insurance and sign an indemnification form.””
So, “voluntary” apparently means that if you want to use public lands, you need to sign a waiver and provide proof of insurance to the Public Health™ overseers — which really stretches the term to its limit.
All of this over a lone case of an infection that the CDC admits causes a “few cases” annually.
“Eastern equine encephalitis virus is spread to people by the bite of an infected mosquito.
Only a few cases are reported in the United States each year. Most cases occur in eastern or Gulf Coast states.
Although rare, eastern equine encephalitis is very serious. Approximately 30% of people with eastern equine encephalitis die, and many survivors have ongoing neurologic problems. Symptoms of eastern equine encephalitis can include fever, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, behavioral changes, and drowsiness.
There are no vaccines to prevent or medicines to treat eastern equine encephalitis.
You can reduce your risk of infection with eastern equine encephalitis virus by preventing mosquito bites.”
*
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 author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
The Ukraine War is at a crossroads. It is entering a new phase. Military and political strategies on both sides are in flux. Both Ukraine and Russia have opened new fronts and offensives—Ukraine in the northern Kursk border region and Russia in the Kharkov and central Donbass area of Donetsk. Further new fronts are likely.
It is estimated that Russia’s total forces in Ukraine ranges today, late summer 2024, are between 600,000 (per Ukraine) and 700,000 (per Russia Ministry of Defense). Ukraine’s total available forces are around 350,000. Behind these numbers, however, both sides are mobilizing further additional forces not yet committed to the line of combat. Ukraine is hurriedly recruiting and training another 150,000 while Russia reportedly has another 400,000 in its total armed forces located elsewhere in Russia. Russia additionally plans to have an army of 1.4 million by year end which suggests additional combat reserves of perhaps 300,000 in addition to its 700,000 combat brigades now in Ukraine.
So Russia today has a roughly 2 to 1 numerical superiority in both combat troops in Ukraine as well as potential reserves. What a Russian force of 700,000 in Ukraine today—and even 1 million by year end—means is that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) is simply not a sufficient force to conquer all of Ukraine. Nor was it ever intended to be when Russia in February 2022 entered Ukraine with an SMO combat force of less than 100,000.
With combat forces even at 1m by year end, short of an unlikely total collapse of Ukraine’s army, the SMO is not sufficient to take Kiev or Odessa; and it’s certainly not sufficient to invade NATO as some war hawks in the west like to argue in order to justify more direct NATO involvement in the war.
By way of historical comparison, it took the Soviet Union a 13 million man army to push the Nazis out of its territory; at least a third or 4 million of which were engaged in its southern Ukrainian front alone.
While Russia has a clear, albeit not overwhelming edge, in combat forces in Ukraine today, military success is not just a function of absolute numbers but of how well forces can be concentrated at a given front to enable a numerical advantage for a time over one’s adversary. Other factors play a tactical role as well—like the element of surprise, the quantity and quality of reserves that can be marshalled at critical points and times in the conflict, the mobility of one’s forces to be quickly deployed, and the ability to deceive one’s opponent as to where, when and how much force will be concentrated.
While important, and even at times decisive, these latter factors (reserves, surprise, mobility, etc.) are nonetheless secondary; concentration of force is always the primary military tactic. And so far we have seen both Ukraine and Russia concentrate their respective forces, albeit in different fronts separated by hundreds of kilometers. The question is which front is strategically the more important.
The Key Strategic Event of 2024
The key event of the war this summer 2024 is Russia’s concentration of numerically and qualitatively superior forces in the central Donbass area. Russia has enjoyed a numerical advantage in combat forces in the Donbass as well as in air superiority and missile-artillery forces for at least the past year since the collapse of Ukraine’s summer 2023 offensive. This Russian advantage and superiority in Donbass has been further increased this summer 2024 as result of Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass this summer of some of its own best brigades. Ukraine sent these best brigades from the Donbass to the north Kursk border region to participate on August 6 in Ukraine’s invasion of Russia’s Kursk territory. That shift of Ukraine forces left its Donbass front weakly defended. In contrast, Russia has not shifted any of its forces from Donbass to the Kursk front but has increased its forces in Donbass. This event is perhaps the single most important strategic shift in the war this summer 2024.
Which front and offensive—Ukraine’s Kursk or Russia’s Donbass—is more important for the eventual outcome of the war will likely be decided in the coming months, and definitely before year end 2024.
In the battles now underway in these two fronts—Kursk and Donbass— we may in effect be witnessing the beginning of the endgame of the war in Ukraine.
As result of Ukraine’s withdrawals of some of its best brigades from the Donbass, Russian forces are now having increasing success on that front taking village after village and driving west toward the key Ukraine strongholds of Pokrovsk in central Donbass, as well as toward Slavyansk in northern Donbass. Should Russia take Pokrovsk and Slavyansk, the war in eastern Ukraine will be effectively over—at least in those former provinces Lughansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhie and Kherson in eastern Ukraine. The line of combat will almost certainly then move quickly far to the west to the Dnipr river.
In contrast, it’s difficult to see what strategically Ukraine hopes to achieve by its penetration into Russia’s Kursk province. Will it turn the tide of the war in favor of Ukraine? That is highly unlikely given Russia’s continuing advantage in combat forces, weapons and air superiority. Which raises the question: what were Ukraine’s motives and objectives for its Kursk offensive and can it attain them?
Launched on August 6, 2024 Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has had some initial success. Ukraine initially concentrated numerically superior forces at the Kursk border (as it had earlier in the summer at the Kharkov border southeast of Kursk).
In the run up to its August Kursk offensive, Ukraine publicly announced its troop concentrations opposite Kursk and north of Kharkov city were strictly defensive moves to prepare for expected Russia invasions from the north which were being rumored to be imminent throughout the spring 2024. In hindsight, however, Ukraine’s announcement that its forces at the Kharkov and Kursk borders were strictly defensive appears to have been a military deception. Ukraine’s military recently revealed that Ukraine had been preparing back in June for an offensive into Russia at Kursk.
The question then arises: what were Ukraine’s motives and objectives moving troops from the Donbass and other areas of Ukraine (also from the Belarus-Ukraine border) and concentrating them on its northern Kharkov and Kursk border. If it was not for defense against a new Russian offensive in the north but to launch an offensive of its own, what were (and are) Ukraine’s objectives?
In preparation for it Kursk offensive this August, Ukraine transferred combat brigades from all over Ukraine and concentrated them at the Kursk border in July—including many of its best brigades in Donbass as well as some of its 95,000 in defensive positions at the Kharkov border. Ukraine reportedly even moved troops from its Belarus border to Kursk, enabled apparently by an agreement with Belarus to reduce their respective forces from the Belarus-Ukraine border (an agreement that reportedly has been recently rescinded). Finally, Ukraine also rushed some of its new drafted recruits with minimal training to its Kursk region in preparation for the Kursk offensive as well.
In short, Ukraine moved up to a third of its total brigades to the Kursk region. That is probably around 150,000, perhaps half of which are actual combat brigades. A reduced force was left at Vovchansk and a seriously depleted force in the Donbass. In addition, some Ukraine brigades reportedly have returned to the Belarus border since the August offensive.
With an amassed combat force of around 70,000 Ukraine easily overwhelmed Russia’s thinly guarded Kursk border which was manned with border guards and other untested units—even though Ukraine invaded Kursk initially with 12,000 or so. Since August 6 it has brought up and concentrated at least another 60,000 or so.
This perhaps suggests Ukraine is not finished with crossing the border into Russia elsewhere along the northern border. Some analysts suggest Ukraine plans to open another offensive further northwest of Kursk in what’s called the Bryansk border region. Or alternatively just southwest of Kursk in the Belgorod border. There is even some rumor of another offensive in the far southwest of Zaporozhie province by Ukraine, targeting the taking of the Zaporozhie nuclear power plant currently under Russian control. Where Ukraine might marshall such additional combat forces is debatable, however.
In response, Russia initially brought in special forces and marines to check Ukraine’s advance which has slowed significantly. And reportedly mechanized forces are en route to the Kursk front from other locations in Russia. The Kursk pocket has now become perhaps the most intense killing field of the war to date.
What the Kursk and other possible Ukraine offensives and fronts suggests is that Ukraine is desperate to get Russia to shift its superior and increasingly effective forces from the Donbass in order to slow Russia’s accelerating advances there. But so far it appears Russia has not done so.
Russia’s Kharkov-Vovchansk Offensive
There’s another parallel story here: Before Ukraine’s August offensive into Kursk, Russian forces in early May had entered Ukraine’s Kharkov province near the Ukrainian border city of Vovchansk located just 25miles north of Ukraine’s second largest city of Kharkov. That Russian offensive was launched with a small force of only 15-20,000 even though Russia knew Ukraine had concentrated 95,000 troops in a defensive line just south of the border. The result was predictable: the Russian offensive into Kharkov became quickly bogged down and a stalemate resulted there around the city of Vovchansk, at least until very recently.
A second parallel question therefore arises: why did Russia cross the border near Kharkov-Vovchansk with such an insufficient concentration of forces, facing off against what it knew were reportedly 95,000 Ukrainian troops dug in defensive positions? Clearly the objective could not have been to take Kharkov city. So then what was it?
Russia’s Donbass Offensive
The most important strategic military development this summer 2024 in the war is not Ukraine’s invasion at Kursk. It is that to enable its Kursk offensive Ukraine has left its Donbass front seriously weakened. So weak in fact that Russia’s offensive in the Donbass is intensifying almost daily with growing success.
Image: A Ukrainian soldier adds wood to a fire to stave off the bitter cold, Bakhmut, Donbass (File photo)
There are three directions in which Russia is driving west in the Donbass. The most important is the central Donbass where Russia is virtually at the gates of the strategic hub Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk. Pokrovsk is a railway and road intersection that feeds Ukraine forces most of its weapons and supplies to central and southern Donbass. If it falls to Russia supplies to most of its forces in central Donbass are at great risk. Equally important, west of Pokrovsk there are few lines and fortifications for Ukraine defense operations. The road is open to the Dnipr river to the far west, the next natural line of defense by Ukraine. But the Dnipr represents the loss of all of Donetsk province and its complete liberation by Russia.
Just further north of Pokrovsk lies a similarly strategic city of Slavyansk and its neighboring largest city of Kramatorsk. Slavyansk is the analog in terms of Ukraine logistical support for the northern Donbass. If it too falls so to does all of the remainder of northern Donetsk and Lughansk province. Russian advances have also begun in this region, through Siversk and Izyum.
In short, if Pokrovsk and Slavyansk fall to Russia it’s game over in the Donbass front to Ukraine. Russia advances suggest this is likely before the US November elections or soon after. The point is Ukraine’s withdrawal of some of its best forces from Donbass, to its Kursk front, as no doubt accelerated Russia’s gains now underway in the Donbass. And if Donbass falls, Ukraine has no choice but to exit its positions further south at the Zaporozhie border as well, or else be encircled there.
The events in recent months in Donbass thus raises yet a third strategic question: Has Ukraine effectively decided to sacrifice the Donbass in order to launch its Kursk offensive?
Military analysts on both sides seem uncertain as to why Ukraine and Russia have made the decisions they have at this critical juncture of the war in summer 2024—Russia last May in Kharkov, Ukraine this summer in Donbass and Kursk, and Russia’s decision to hold firm to its offensive in Donbass.
So what are some of the possible explanations being bandied about by analysts trying to explain these objectives of these two offensives—Ukraine in Kursk and Russia in Kharkov-Donbass?
Some Unanswered Strategic Questions:
Let’s summarize these strategic questions and offer some possible answers.
Question 1. Why Did Ukraine Invade Kursk, what are its possible objectives, and can it attain those objectives:
Military analysts are all over the map with speculation as to why Ukraine invaded Kursk. Some say the objective was seize the Russian nuclear power plant located just south of the city of Kursk and less than 100 miles from the border. By seizing the plant Ukraine would then use it as a blackmail piece in negotiations with Russia.
Another objective raised is that Ukraine intends to use the territory captured as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia, which it appears several third party countries have been trying to arrange—albeit thus far without success.
In terms of military tactics, still another speculation goes, the Ukrainian invasion was intended to force Russia to transfer brigades from its Donbass front to Kursk, and thereby slow down Russia’s advances in the Donbass that appear to be accelerating.
Yet another speculation is Ukraine intended to create a ‘buffer’ zone along the border before Russia launched its own offensive into Ukraine in the region. That suggests the Ukrainian invasion was to pre-empt Russia opening an offensive front of its own along the northern border.
Another view is that the true objective of Ukraine’s offensive has been to make Putin appear weak to Russian elites and public who are now demanding a more aggressive Russian response to the invasion. The Kursk offensive, according to this view, is to provoke Russia to a more extreme aggressive response that would enable Zelensky to receive more lethal military aid from NATO—like US Storm Shadow and US ATACMS missiles and missile carrying F-16s—and NATO permission to use them to attack deep inside Russia.
It is possible that a little of all the above are motivations for Ukraine’s offensive: So far as seizing the Kursk nuclear plant is concerned, if that were the objective it has been neutralized and Ukraine has virtually no chance of reaching the Kursk plant any longer now that massive Russian defenses now block its path.
The explanation that the Kursk offensive’s objective is to force Russia to move military units from Donbass to Kursk has also apparently failed to date. Russia has sufficient reserves elsewhere in Russia proper and is moving those to the Kursk front.
The speculation that Zelensky authorized the Kursk offensive as a ‘land for land’ bargaining chip in future negotiations is also negated by recent events since August 6: Putin has publicly stated there will be no negotiations with Ukraine so long as its forces remain on Russian territory, whether in Kursk or Donbass.
The idea of Ukraine obtaining a buffer has never been convincing. Why would Ukraine deplete its military resources elsewhere and risk losing more territory (Donbass) in order to protect territory (North Border) it hadn’t even lost yet?
It seems therefore that the most likely objective of the Ukraine Kursk offensive was, and remains, political: to provoke Russia into an extreme response in order for Ukraine to restore fading western support for Ukraine to continue the war. Zelensky needs Russia to escalate to remain in power in Ukraine. Throughout NATO, support is waning for providing military arms and ammunition. The west further believes that funding Ukraine’s war and economy is settled, provided by the seized $300 billion of Russian assets. However, Western Media almost daily has become increasingly critical of the war, recognizing it cannot be won. Zelensky thus needs to show Ukraine still has the ability to fight and NATO needs to provide even more weaponry because Russia is escalating the war! Zelensky realizes he needs more direct NATO troop involvement—not just weaponry. Currently NATO is participating in ground operations with technicians operating advanced NATO weapons, mercenaries, as well as senior NATO officers and war planners on the ground. It will need even more. It can’t impress NATO to provide more by losses in the Donbass. It might convince NATO war hawks by offensives into Russia like Kursk.
2. Has Ukraine effectively decided to sacrifice Donbass?
Evidence on the ground strongly suggests Ukraine may have decided to sacrifice territory in the Donbass and perhaps the entire region altogether. Its Donbass defense was beginning to crack well before the Kursk offensive, ever since loss of the strategic Donbass city of Avdeyevka earlier this year. Now losses there are accelerating after Ukraine pulled some of its best brigades from Donbass and moved them to Kursk.
For Ukraine, the northern Kursk front is strategically more important than Donbass. Its bargaining position in eventual future negotiations with Russia and western support in general was weakening so long as it was losing Donbass. Seizing Russian territory in the north might shore up that loss of support and strengthen its position. In short, protecting Kharkov city and Ukraine territory outside Russia’s four provinces in the east is strategically more important to Ukraine than holding on to the Donbass. Ukraine can’t hold onto the Donbass in the end and NATO and Ukraine both knows it. Opinion in the west increasingly suggests Ukraine should agree to give it Donbass and the four provinces. But Ukraine cannot simply retreat in the Donbass and give it up without appearing weak and even about to lose the war. That would accelerate NATO withdrawal of support. Zelensky therefore needed another success elsewhere if Ukraine was inevitably about to lose Donbass. Thus the Kursk offensive.
3. Why did Russia invade Kharkov region with an insufficient force?
Russia crossed over the border early last May in the Kharkov region but not to capture the large Ukraine city of Kharkov. That would take perhaps a Russian offensive force of at least half a million. Russia obviously knew, moreover, that a large Ukrainian force of up to 95,000 per reports was concentrated between the border and Kharkov city itself barely 50 miles away to the south. So why then did Russian open that front with only 15-20,000 troops? The only possible explanation is Russia entered Kharkov with an insufficient force to get Ukraine to withdraw forces from the Donbass to protect Kharkov, which it did. Otherwise the explanation for throwing a force of 15,000 at 90,000 was military folly. And there’s no evidence throughout the war Russia has been militarily foolish in its offensive force deployments.
4. Did Russia get caught by surprise by the Kursk invasion?
It has to be admitted Russia was clearly caught off guard by Ukraine’s Kursk offensive. It might have been misled by Ukraine’s deception that its amassing of forces on the Ukraine side of the Kursk border in the summer was strictly defensive, designed to confront Russia should it have itself invaded at that location. It is also possible Russia may have viewed US/NATO limitations to date on Ukraine’s use of ATACMS and cruise missiles to attack deep inside Russia as evidence Ukraine was not allowed by NATO/US to escalate attacks directly into Russia. Before August 6 Ukraine’s attacking inside Russia was limited to Ukrainian drones. Russia may have interpreted these NATO limits meant Ukraine would not be given the ‘green light’ to cross the Russian border with large ground forces. This—combined with Russia misreading Ukraine’s concentration of forces on its side of the border as only defensive—may have led Russia to erroneously assume Ukraine would not mount an offensive into Kursk.
5. Are we witnessing the growing importance of reserves in the war?
As the war now has passed its two and a half year mark, it is clearly beginning to wear on both sides in terms of men and materiel. The availability of sufficient reserves is therefore beginning to play a relatively more important role as the war has continued. Not just reserves in the sense of the number of available combat troops but their combat experience, training, and availability of weapons and ammunition are becoming an increasingly critical factor in the conduct of the war. This is often the case in war as the conflict becomes protracted, except when one side has an overwhelming force advantage of the other. That may have been the case in US wars in Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Panama, and elsewhere. But it wasn’t in Viet Nam and it isn’t in Ukraine. Here Russia’s longer term advantage in reserves has begun to show.
It is true Russia in refusing to move reserves from Donbass has had to commit reserves from elsewhere in Russia but it has such reserves. Ukraine does not. The Kursk offensive shows Ukraine has probably committed most of its remaining reserves to that front. And it had to move brigades from Belarus, Kharkov and Donbass for the Kursk offensive—and to cut short training of new drafted recruits. Ukraine is approaching the end of its human reserves and cannot get an increase in weapons and ammunition from NATO that it requires if the war intensifies, as it is now, in both Kursk and Donbass. NATO has arrange continued funding for Ukraine throughout 2025 by seizing Russia’s $300B assets in G7 banks that were frozen at the outset of the war. NATO’s provision of weapons is slowing, moreover, as NATO inventories are drying up; it can no longer accelerate the delivery of weapons to Ukraine as it did in 2022-23. Nor politically does NATO have the will to provide soldiers on the ground directly into Ukraine, although it is building the largest military and air base in NATO now in eastern Romania within tens of miles from Odessa where it already has stationed thousands of French and US airborne troops. If NATO does intervene ever on the ground it will mostly like be to prevent Russia seizure of the critical Ukraine seaport of Odessa, without which even a rump state of Ukraine in the west cannot be sustained.
5. What are Russia’s strategic options with regard to the Kursk invasion? Its Donbass Offensive?
Russian strategy will not change much in the Donbass. It will continue to advance, likely even more rapidly. Ukraine’s forces in Donbass may even collapse there before year end, with Ukraine retreating west to the Dnipr river and thus abandoning any hold on territory that comprises Russia’s four provinces. As for the Kursk front, Russia will most likely seal off the currently occupying Ukrainian force, bring up new Russian armored division, artillery and air forces and continue to batter those Ukrainian forces in the pocket until they weaken and retreat of their own accord. That will likely happen soon after the US November elections. Ukraine will try to hold on to Kursk to try to ensure further US support before Biden leaves office next January. The odds are significant, however, it will not be able to succeed in that.
Political Consequences of the Kursk-Donbass Offensives
Public opinion in Russia has strengthened Putin’s hand in the war as a consequence of the two offensives. His problem now is not ensuring Russian public opinion continues to support his government and the SMO but that growing segments of Russian opinion and Russian media are now demanding he take even more aggressive military action in response to the Kursk invasion.
Putin’s challenge now is to not fall for Ukraine’s Kursk provocation, abandon the SMO and escalate the conflict to an even more intensive and wider war invading that would require a much larger military force than the SMO and falling into the NATO war hawks trap to use a Russian escalation as an excuse to get NATO even more directly involved on the ground in the war than it already is.
Zelensky clearly wants to maneuver events into that direction—i.e. a more direct Russia-NATO conflict. That’s perhaps the major rationale behind the Kursk offensive. But Putin ultimately wants some kind of negotiated settlement, albeit on Russia’s two terms announced earlier this summer. He will therefore likely wait until the outcome of US elections to determine whether abandoning the SMO for a larger conflict is necessary. Zelensky and Ukraine leadership is desperate and reckless; Putin is calculating and typically factors in the bigger political picture.
For the moment, however, Putin’s conditions for beginning negotiations announced a couple months ago—i.e. Ukraine leave the four provinces and agree to neutrality—is off the table. Scuttling the possibility of negotiations (that China was trying to arrange last July) may have also been part of the objective of Ukraine’s Kursk offensive. Ukraine and Zelensky have a long track record of feigning interest in negotiations as a cover for an escalation planned. Ukraine diplomatic maneuvers in Beijing in July and in Qatar in August are evidence Ukraine has no intention of seriously negotiating anything. Quite the contrary. Although nothing is imminent, US and Russia may continue exploring the possibility of negotiations through back channels, as they have in recent months, but it’s clear there will be no negotiations of any kind until after the US elections at earlies and more likely not until the Biden administration ends next January 20, 2025.
Throughout the summer opinion has been growing among NATO elites and western media that Ukraine cannot hold onto the Donbass or even the four provinces annexed in 2022 by Russia. Russia’s continuing successes in the Donbass offensive further confirm that view, and solidify it should Russia take Pokrovsk next month. Conversely, NATO elite opinion may shift further toward allowing Ukraine to attack inside Russia using ATACMS, cruise missiles, and even F-16s to enable Ukraine to hold onto the Kursk territory as Ukraine losses the Donbass. The test of this NATO elites’ shift will be evident should US allow in coming weeks further shipments of UK storm shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine. Losing the Donbass logically means rolling the military dice even further in Kursk and the northern border.
Russian tanks in the Donbas after crossing the Siverskyi Donets with pontoon bridges, April 2022 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
US neocons and war hawks will attempt to create further escalation in the Ukraine war between now and January 2025 in order to make it extremely difficult for any new US president elected in November to reduce US/NATO commitments to Ukraine, let alone withdraw.
Should Harris win in November, the Biden administration policies toward the war will almost certainly continue. Harris will be malleable to the foreign policy/neocon establishment who have been running US foreign policy and wars since at least 2001 and perhaps even earlier since the late 1990s. Should Trump win—and the Deep State allow him to actually take office in January without a major US constitutional crisis (which is more likely than not)—it is unlikely that Trump will be able to end the Ukraine war in the short run after taking office January 20. Even with Trump in office, the war will therefore continue well into 2025. The only factor that may expedite an earlier end to the war is if Russia debilitates Ukraine military resources to such an extent that those forces effectively collapse in both the Donbass and Kursk fronts.
Russia has never intended to ‘conquer’ all of Ukraine, including Kiev. Putin’s SMO has always been to drive Ukrainian forces out of the Russian speaking provinces and then ensure some kind of neutrality by what’s left of a Ukrainian state.
But before that can happen Russia will need to conclusively drive Ukraine back across the border from Kursk and take the strategic Donbass cities of Pokrovsk and Slavyansk. Only then is Endgame apparent. Only then will Ukraine forces retreat back to whatever remains of Ukraine. Only then will US/NATO decide to cut losses and abandon the ‘Ukraine Project’ altogether.
*
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. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Residential building in Avdiivka city (Donetsk region of Ukraine) after Russian shelling and airstrikes on the city on 17 March 2023 (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed
By Jack Rasmus
Publisher: Lexington Books (February 28, 2019)
Hardcover: 146 pages
ISBN-10: 1498582842
ISBN-13: 978-1498582841
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed describes how US federal governments, often in cooperation with the largest US private banks, introduced and expanded central banking functions from 1781 through the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Based on an analysis of the evolution of the US banking system – from pre-1781, through the 1787 US Constitutional Convention, Congressional debates on Hamilton’s reports to Congress, the rise and fall of the 1st and 2nd Banks of the United States, and through the long period of the National Banking System form 1862-1913, the book shows how central banking in the US evolved out of the private banking system, and how following the financial crash of 1907 big New York banks pushed through Congress the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, creating a central bank which they then managed for their interests.
In an interview uploaded onto the YouTube channel of Le Figaro in April 2024, General François Lecointre, the former Chief of Defence Staff of France, made controversial remarks which were interpreted by many as meaning that he desired the recolonisation of Africa.
.
.
Lecointre appeared to suggest that France needed to invade and militarily reconquer its old colonial territories including those from which France has recently been unceremoniously ejected. In doing so, he was in fact alluding to a long-held geopolitical concept known as “Eurafrica.”
This idea, which has found expression in Herman Sorgel’s “Atlantropa” and in Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa Movement, is one in which the destinies of the continents of Europe and Africa have been inextricably interwoven.
In earlier years, Eurafrica, which was developed during the age of the colonisation of the African continent by European powers, was explicitly paternalistic and exploitative in its exposition. But even in more recent times, its theoretical enunciations through terms such as “partnership” do not hide its extractivist raison d’etre: That Europe requires untrammelled access to Africa’s mineral resources. This has been the demonstrable modus operandi of Eurafrica’s institutionalised application: Via France-Afrique, the device through which France managed its shadow empire in post-independence Francophone Africa, and also through the workings of the European Union. For unknown to many Eurafrica lay at the very heart of the creation of the European Economic project in the 1950s. Indeed, the Eurafrica-based relationship between the EU and African states persists to this day, a state of affairs which from the European perspective is threatened by resource-starved China’s expanding presence on the African continent.
During his interview General Lecointre said the following:
We must return and help these African countries. Rebuilding state structures, restoring administrations, and fostering development are all crucial steps.
Many interpreted the word “return” as a direct reference to the recent expulsions of the French military from the Sahelian states of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, implying that a resurrection of French power could only be achieved in the foreseeable future by military force. Further, his use of the word “help,” despite its link to fostering development did not strike critics as being predicated on philanthropic motives. Instead, his language, given a paternalistic import, was suggestive of the sort which has been used in the context of an enduring concept which fuses the destinies of Europe and Africa in a political and economic union.
The original concept of Eurafrica was a political project through which African colonies would be merged prior to the process of European integration. The resultant entity would serve as a counterweight to competing continental blocs in the Americas and Asia. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the man who created and led the Pan-European Movement, believed European technical advancement and “high culture” would merge with the “primitive” vitalism of Africa to create a geopolitical power bloc. Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote that “Africa has become our closest neighbour and its destiny a part of our own destiny.” He also argued that “the future of Africa depends on what Europe makes of it.” It is therefore not difficult to see Lecointre’s choice of words as forming a continuum of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s approach of the twinning of destinies in an enterprise combining a latter day insistence on a sphere of influence with a modern Mission civilisatrice.
However, what Lecointre did not specifically address was the underlying motivation for returning to Africa, which of course is about France regaining and maintaining access to a continent which is abundant in crucial raw materials. It is important therefore to explain France’s two-tier application of Eurafrica as a national endeavour and as part of a supra-national enterprise. This refers respectively to France’s relations with its former colonies through France-Afrique, as well as the relationship between the European Union and Africa. In the post war years, Eurafrica was a central tenet of France’s foreign policy strategy aimed at reconciling French efforts in integrating with Europe while maintaining a hold on its African empire. This strategy was clear to one American analyst who stated in the early 1950s that France envisioned an economic link between Europe and Africa “with Paris in control.”
France-Afrique, an expression coined by Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire in 1955, formed the basis through which France’s extraction model was perfected. The Communaute Francaiseensured that France maintained access to a range of natural resources produced by its former colonies including oil, bauxite, tin and uranium. France was able to maintain control of what was a shadow empire in the areas of economics, security and culture. These would be strengthened over the decades through various formal and informal agreements. A key feature of the economic stranglehold France had over most of Africa’s Francophone states was through monetary union. The creation of two sets of currencies, the Communauté Financière Africaine in West Africa and the Coopération Financière en Afrique centrale in Central Africa, each set of which France is responsible for printing, provided a formidable device for controlling a collection of satrapies.
The CFA has been referred to as a “colonial currency” not only because of the restrictive terms under which it operates, but also because of its effect of stultifying the economic development of participant nations. For instance, the pegging of the currencies to the French Franc in yesteryears and today to the Euro is for African states a debilitating arrangement given the strength of both Franc and Euro. Right from the outset of the creation of CFA in 1945, its overvaluation in French colonies meant that while African countries had the purchasing power to buy products from metropolitan France, they were restricted in their ability to export. But they were for the most part purchasing products processed from the raw materials they had sold. France at the same time was granted special access to vital raw materials from its colonies in regard to which it had a right of first offer. This arrangement was extremely helpful in reviving the French economy which had been devastated during the Second World War. French control of CFA would also enable it to access raw materials in Africa in its own currency, in the process bypassing the US dollar which had become the de facto world reserve currency.
The CFA system is also an affront to the sovereignty of African subscriber states who do not participate in the process through which monetary policies are decided. The free transferability of the regional currencies was not part of an equal bargain since each nation was for many decades obliged to deposit at least 50 per cent of their foreign exchange reserves with the French treasury, a rule which has been abrogated in West Africa but still applies to the Central African CFA zone. Free transferability also negatively impacts on African nations tied to the monetary system because French individuals and companies who invest in these countries can just as easily divest and repatriate their profits.
Although President Franklin Roosevelt was strident in his insistence that the European powers break up their empires after the end of the Second World War, his successors did not oppose the neocolonial features of France-Afrique because it served as a bulwark against the spread of communism in the Cold War era. France was careful to deploy French military forces in each of the countries and it employed economic leverage against recalcitrant political leaders.
The man who “enforced” French hegemony among its former colonies was Jacques Foccart. Known as President Charles de Gaulle’s Monsieur Afrique, Foccart was the co-founder of Service d’Action Civique (SAC), a Gaullist militia that specialised in undertaking covert operations in Francophone Africa. He was also influential in the conduct of clandestine operations undertaken by the French foreign intelligence service, once admitting that the French secret service was responsible for assassinating Felix-Roland Moumie, the Cameroonian Marxist leader in Geneva, while the French state was orchestrating a “dirty war” in that country.
Foccart oversaw “Operation Persil” after President Sekou Toure of Guinea refused to join Communaute Francaise, famously declaring that Guineans would prefer “freedom in poverty to riches in slavery.” Toure proceeded to create a central bank and a new currency. In retaliation, France withdrew its civil servants and technical staff during which equipment was destroyed. Then Foccart ordered the SDECE (Service de documentation extérieure et de contre-espionnage) to sabotage the Guinean economy by covertly flooding the country with fake currency. Operation Persil ultimately failed.
In July 1973, President Francois Tombalbaye of Chad led a demonstration in the capital city Fort-Lamy (later N’DJamena in protest against what he alleged to be French interference in the internal affairs of his country. Foccart was reported to have told friends that he intended to “save” Chad and predicted that Tombalbaye’s government would not survive beyond December 1973. He was assassinated in 1975 during a coup d’etat. But France-Afrique, later pejoratively spelt as Franceafrique, because of its inherent neocolonial basis, weakened over the course of time because of France’s growing commitment to the European Economic project, and the deaths of key figures such as Foccart.
The key tenets of Eurafrica nonetheless survived in France’s relationship with most of its former colonies and persists in the European Union’s relationship with the African continent. For as the Swedish professors Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson explained in their book Eurafrica: the Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism, the foundation of the original European community of states which evolved into the European Union, was predicated on the principles theorised by Coudenhove-Kalergi. Key to this was the extractivist relations between a group of integrated European nations and the African continent. The rationale for European integration was, Coudenhove-Kalergi effectively argued, to exploit Africa as efficiently as possible. “Africa,” he said, “could provide Europe with raw materials for its industry, nutrition for its population, land for its overpopulation, labour for its unemployed, and markets for its products.” The unity of Europe as a precondition to the effective exploitation of the African continent was explicitly articulated by French Prime Minister Guy Mollet when he met with US President Dwight Eisenhower in February 1952. Mollet stated that he wanted Africa to be integrated into the European project through French and German capital, Italian labour, American and German machinery and French administrative expertise.
Both academics have thus challenged what they refer to as the Immaculate Conception narrative of the EU’s founding. This holds that tired of cyclical wars often centred on the rivalry between France and Germany, a group of Western European states grouped together to form an economic association of states which would “unite for peace, freedom and democracy.”
But there were clues that the creation first of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, and then of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Commission (EURATOM) in 1957 were not simply a peace project. For instance, at the time of the EEC’s establishment in 1957, a headline in the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed the development to be a “First step towards Eurafrica”.
There were many other similarly worded headlines. One, a short dispatch from Rome by a correspondent for the International News Service (INS) which was published in The Rockland County Journal News on March 26th, 1957, reflected Kalergi’s twin idea of a union with Africa being predicated on mineral resource exploitation and the formation of a geopolitical bloc able to hold its own against rival continental power blocs. Titled “Signing of Unity Treaties Seen Step Toward Eurafrica”, the writer reflected the former by stating “…the pacts contain the seeds of an even bigger dream, a ‘Eur-Africa’ pooling of European and African marketing and political schemes”, and the latter which noted that “one aim of the two pacts is to raise the level of manufacturing methods in all of the nations in all so that ‘Little Europe’ and its 160,000,000 population will be able to compete on equal terms with the United States and Russia.”
As Jean-Michel de Lattre wrote in Politique etrangere in 1955: “It is in Africa that Europe will be made”.
France and its vast colonial empire in Africa would be central to this. In an article written 5 years earlier in the May 16th edition of the Edmonton Journal, which was titled “French Idea Of Eurafrica”, George W. Herald expounded on the meaning of Eurafrica. It meant, he wrote, “that the French would like to link colonial Africa to the forthcoming Federation of Europe.” And given that France controlled most of these colonies, Herald continued, “If that area and a federated Europe could be welded into one supra-national community, they say, unprecedented new vistas would be opened to future generations.”
He stressed that geological experts had asserted that the “mineral wealth buried south and west of the Sahara is virtually inexhaustible.” These he informed his readers included gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, iron ore, phosphate and sulphur. It was also clear that at this stage France was not at all keen to pursue a course of decolonisation and was actively opposing independence movements in Tunisia and Morocco. It also did not appear to Herald to be enthusiastic about embarking on what he termed a “share-the-wealth” programme with other European states. The reluctance to embark on decolonisation and the unwillingness to give up the primacy of French access to the mineral wealth of her African colonies of course went against the key tenets of Eurafrica established by Coudenhove-Kalergi including that which insisted that those European states such as Germany which had been dispossessed of its African colonies would be granted access to African resources in order to solidify the unity of a future European Union. France of course relented by granting its colonies independence under the stringent condition of joining the Communaute Francaise.
In an era of decolonisation, the purveyors of Eurafrica needed to portray the concept as being one which was far removed from the naked exploitation of Africa as had been the motive behind the division of the continent at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. The members of the Common Market, as the EEC was often referred, were quite conscious of the colonial backdrop to their formation and were at pains to explain that the relationship with Africa was not the story of a one way street of exploitation which socialist and communist ideologues were often keen to assert. Thus, in July 1962 it was announced in Brussels that associated African states would receive $1,000 million in development aid which would double the amount that they had received since its inception in 1957. The overall package which included guarantees related to price stabilisation for African raw materials and unrestricted, tariff-free access for African products to the Common Market one newspaper reported had “great political significance in counteracting communist propaganda that (the Common Market) is an instrument of neocolonialism.”
While as mentioned earlier, the burdens associated with increased integration in the European project weakened France-Afrique, the European Community, as it then was styled, nonetheless continued to plot an economic path that bound it to Africa and also to other nations which today are referred to as the “Global South” in preference to the previous designation of “Third World”.
First, was the Yaoundé Convention of 1963, which was signed between the EEC and the Associated African States and Madagascar. A second Yaoundé Convention was signed in 1969 which included Mauritius, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Prior to this in 1966, the military government of Nigeria signed an agreement with the EEC which granted it the status of an Associate Member State. And building up on this the Lome Conventions of 1975 and 1979 were signed with the ACP Group consisting of African, Caribbean and Pacific states.
All these agreements reflected the extractivist model, with the Lome Convention aiming to transform the economies of the African and other states into “quasi-industrialised” ones. Although the combined agreements signed in Yaoundé and Lome were essentially dismantled following American claims that the provisions were incompatible with those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU, Hansen and Jonsson remind, continues to aggressively exploit minerals on the African continent including the oilfields of Libya, the goldmines of Ghana, and the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of Africa’s most minerally endowed countries.
The idea of Eurafrica is being brought back to public consciousness because of the rise of China as an economic power and an increasingly multipolar world. Although European trade and investment far outstrips that of China in Africa, the EU has been rattled by the challenges posed to its access to African raw materials by raw material-hungry China’s increasing presence on the continent. This has been magnified by the increased animus between resource-rich Russia and the EU which has imposed an extraordinary range of sanctions on the country over its conflict with Ukraine.
The European Commission’s Raw Materials Initiative launched in 2011 was a response to what is perceived as the threat posed by China, a country on which it was heavily dependent on rare earth minerals, lithium and magnesium. The idea behind this is to create a list every three years of designated Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) which are utilised in energy transition and digital technologies. This enables an assessment to be made of those which are at risk of short supply or of disruption in the supply chain. The European Critical Raw Materials Act came into force in May 2024. The Act acknowledges that the EU “will never be self-sufficient in supplying such raw materials and will continue to rely on imports for a majority of its consumption.”
Given the drift of geopolitical currents, it has been clear for some time to many political and economic analysts that the historical criticality of the EU’s relationship with Africa needed to be re-emphasised. This was reflected in the headline of an article inThe Economist in September 2018 which was titled “The rebirth of Eurafrica” (“Why Europe should focus on its growing interdependence with Africa” in its online edition). 2018 also saw the launching of the Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Development and Jobs and in the following year, the European Commission stressed that Africa was the EU’s global priority. Under the new president, Ursula von der Leyen, a policy paper titled “Comprehensive Strategy with Africa” was presented. Using words which resonated with past enunciations of Eurafrica, Josep Borrell, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said “A part of Europe’s future is at stake in Africa. To face our modern challenges, we need a strong Africa, and Africa needs a strong Europe.”
Yet, despite these positively expressed sentiments, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pledged commitment to launching “a Marshall Plan for Africa,” the aura of an exploitative motive remains. For example, in 2021 when speaking of the need for the EU to become “a more active global player” in formulating a strategy to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), von der Leyen remarked that “It doesn’t make sense for the EU to build that perfect road between a Chinese-financed copper mine and a Chinese-financed harbour.”
Her words, Peo Hansen, argues encapsulate the Eurafrican mentality and expose that “agency, sovereignty and autonomy are alien to the EU concept of Africa.” It is such attitudes particularly those predicated on the exploitative mechanism of Franceafrique which have caused the military regimes in Sahelian West Africa to boot out the French. It is also the reason many African states have been turning to China and Russia, both presently building BRICS as an alternative to the EU and other Western institutions which they assert are not respectful to the specific needs and interests of Africans.
Eurafrica in both its theory and application is the antithesis of the spirit of multipolarity in which, in contrast to the hegemonic and neocolonial models of the EU and Bretton Woods institutions, is predicated on an equal partnership and respect for national sovereignty.
It is also worth noting that the EU has often not lived up to its concept as a peace project. For while the EU has succeeded in keeping the peace as far as wars among its member states are concerned, it chose to be silent and inert while the Algerian war raged. Oil and gas rich Algeria was at the time of the uprising of the Front de libération nationale (FLN) considered to be part of Metropolitan France, but no voices were raised in Brussels over the widespread atrocities including massacres and torture committed by the French armed forces. What is more, French state-sponsored terrorism was brought to European soil by “La Main Rouge” (The Red Hand), a terror group which was actually a covert arm of the French state. Under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Red Hand assassinated several key Algerian figures in the FLN, as well as West German arms dealers suspected of supplying weapons and munitions to the FLN.
The EU has also served to give cover to the illegal military adventures embarked upon by NATO, a military organisation to which most of its member states belong. This has included the destruction of the Libyan state which was led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The voices of independent spirited political leaders such as the Austrian Bruno Kreisky and the German Willy Brandt, both of whom Peo Hansen noted “spoke in the name of Europe,” are virtually non-existent.
This clarification of the colonial origins of the EU and its fundamentally extractivist relationship with the African continent needs to be correctly understood by Africa’s political leaders and the policymakers who have uniformly pursued the resource rental model as the default basis of running their economies. Contentment with an arrangement in which African states possess no ambition further than selling their minerals and raw materials to developed countries and supra-national entities such as the EU only serve to relegate them to the permanent state of unequal partners. It not only places limits on their ability to exercise economic statecraft, but it also sets a perpetual barrier on maximising national prosperity. There cannot be a future in leasing mining rights to their resources when they would be infinitely better off by extracting their resources and developing such resources into products that can then be sold on the world market under a single currency regime.
Eurafrica would be a much sounder concept if it were shorn of its neocolonial trappings. But for Africa and Europe to operate in genuine equal partnership, much of the onus in achieving this state of affairs will be on Africans who must embark on a quest to transform their consumer orientated, resource-based economies into productive ones by developing for themselves industrial base economies.
A note:
The origins of the EU are both fascinating and multifaceted. But the official narrative of it being guided to birth by the efforts of Robert Shuman whose plan was inspired by the ideas of Jean Monnet is incomplete. The bringing to fruition of the dream of a federated Europe owed a great deal to the covert efforts of the United States through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its precursor the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) both of which funded the post war European Movement. This has been backed up by scholarly research. The United States believed that a united Europe would serve as a bulwark to the spread of communism and provide a means for rehabilitating the successor state to Nazi Germany. It was envisaged as a means through which the United States could control Europe in an age of US global domination.
However, despite its foundational association with the idea of Eurafrica, the claim that it was purposefully set up to engineer the genocide of white Europe is one without any basis in fact. While Coudenhove-Kalergi, himself of mixed European and Japanese descent, predicted the development of a Eurasian-Negroid race with an appearance similar to that of the Ancient Egyptians, this was not an integral component of his specific project to unite Europe in a mission to exploit Africa. That Eurafrica was not a concept inexorably attached to racial interbreeding is clear from the fact that the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley incorporated his own vision of Eurafrica as part of his “Third Position.” At its inception, the Common Market acted with stealth and decisiveness in ensuring that Muslim Arab Algerians, as mentioned earlier then citizens of a country considered as Metropolitan France, did not have the same rights as other citizens in the European Economic Community.
*
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.
Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He has an interest in both history and geopolitics. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
It’s painful, punishing and horrific. You might be tempted not to bear witness and shut off all means of communication and, if you are a believer, to simply focus on prayer, and if you are not a believer, to become hardened and cynical, and live in the safe zone where your good fortune has planted you for no apparent reason.
Or you might torture yourself by dwelling on and sharing every detail of every massacre, every image of a dismembered child or of scenes so inhumane, so catastrophic, so depraved, they cause your brain to want to freeze. Or you might become hopelessly outraged, take yourself off on a suicidal mission of revenge, or protest in the streets where you know you will be met with repression.
At any given time these past months since Toufan al Aqsa on Oct 7, 2023, a multitude of these tendencies have been raging in our hearts simultaneously, buffeting us helplessly this way or that the minute we open our eyes each morning wondering if it is over. No matter the siren call of cowardice, failing to bear witness one way or another to both the horror and the truth is not an option.
So, here are a few tips on how to be present in this nightmare, awake and conscionable:
1. Disabuse yourself of any lingering illusions related to the United States’ government policy in the Middle East, its so-called “values,” and its key corporate media discussion forums like the Sunday morning shows (ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union and Fox News Sunday), which speak primarily in the voice of government officials. You can safely tune them all out and filter US pronouncements through Al Mayadeen’s or other trusted media discussion forums that consistently thread their way through the maze of US doublespeak. If you are American, join the Uncommitted National Movement to put pressure on Kamala Harris in key swing states, including Michigan.
2. Understand that the international regime as represented by UNSC has no credibility. It is dominated by the US-centralized empire — i.e., the extensive political, economic, military, and cultural influence that the United States exerts globally. Historically, the US has vetoed numerous resolutions that called for Israel to adhere to international laws, recognize Palestinian statehood, or halt settlement activities in occupied territories. The US continues to veto a framework for peace in Palestine by blocking resolutions that criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza or call for measures to protect Palestinian civilians, most recently blocking a resolution for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, blocking another that called for “humanitarian pauses,” and another that condemned violence against civilians and called for adherence to humanitarian law.
3. Whereas there are no indications that the international regime will be transformed soon, there are indications that the dynamic between Arab Gulf countries and Iran is evolving. Iran is expanding its influence in the Middle East and has become a direct challenge to the power and influence of the United States in Gulf countries that now realize the strategy of the US to maintain Israel’s chokehold on Palestinians has failed. It is the US and Israel that now pose a threat to the security of the Gulf states and the whole region.
4. Be aware that, in the same way that the accusation of antisemitism has lost its potency for being falsely used on a large scale by Zionists, the accusation of terrorism has also lost its integrity for the same reason. Journalist Jonathan Cook writes on Facebook: “Israel just keeps widening the circle of ‘terrorists’: from Hamas to the entire Palestinian people, to the United Nations, to the International Court of Justice, to the International Criminal Court. The question you should be asking yourself is: How long before I’m declared a terrorist?”
5. Have faith in the axis of resistance. Their cause is just and they are proving themselves on the battle field beyond measure. As Caitlin Johnstone writes in Caitlin’s Newsletter,
“October 7 was entirely a response to generations of abuse against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel, so the correct response to it would have been to heal those abuses in a way that is agreeable to the Palestinians. This would likely include ceding large amounts of land, the payment of very extensive reparations from Israel (and ideally from its wealthy western allies as well), eliminating all unjust laws and apartheid systems, a comprehensive push to purge society of the toxins of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, the right of Palestinians in exile to return to their homeland, and the negotiation of a peace agreement which yields so much that even the most hardline factions in Palestinian society would be compelled to agree with it.”
6. Pray for Israel to implode from within as well as without before it destroys the world.
In short, as you bear witness to the horror, keep firmly in mind the end of all the illusions and misconceptions that you might have accumulated over decades of US and Zionist PR, and put all your faith in the resistance.
*
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 author’s blogsite.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher, and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The late US President John F. Kennedy is not alive today to voice his opinion on the Israeli war on Gaza, but we know he would stand with the Palestinians, not the Israeli government.
While yet a young senator, Kennedy in July 1957 delivered a famous speech where he voiced his opposition to then President Eisenhower’s military and political support for French colonialism, and called on the US administration to support the fight for freedom and independence in Algeria.
The situation in Gaza, the Occupied West Bank, and Occupied East Jerusalem today is very similar to the events that marked the end of French rule in Algeria.
“The most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile – it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent,” Kennedy said. “Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free.”
“The time has come for the United States to face the harsh realities of the situation and to fulfill its responsibilities as the leader of the free world – in the UN, in NATO, in the administration of our aid programs and in the exercise of our diplomacy – in shaping a course toward political independence for Algeria”.
On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany signed the act of military surrender to the Allies. The next day, 5,000 Algerians marched in celebration of the end of WW2. About 134,000 Algerians had fought alongside the US and allied forces to defeat Germany, with 18,000 deaths among the Algerian veterans. They were also carrying banners as they marched calling for an end to French occupation. The French occupation forces opened fire on the marchers, and in retaliation to the deaths, 102 French settlers were killed.
During the next two weeks, the French forces along with French settlers massacred about 45,000 Algerians. The French air force bombed towns and villages thought to be sympathetic to the cause of freedom and an end of French occupation, with French settlers hunting down Algerians and hanging them.
The French authorities and the French settlers had dehumanized the Algerians and referred to them as animals, which morally justified their killing of thousands of human beings. The massacre of 45,000 Algerians in May 1945 secured another nine years of occupation, but it served to strengthen the Algerian’s resolve to fight for an end of French occupation.
On November 1, 1954, the war of liberation began in earnest. It took eight years for Algeria to win its independence over France; in what British historian Alistair Horne dubbed “a savage war of peace”.
The Algerian people paid for their freedom with 1.5 million lives, which was 20% of the population.
As France was seeking to maintain its brutal military occupation of Algeria, then US President John F. Kennedy clearly voiced his belief that French rule over Algeria was not sustainable in the long term, condemned colonialism, and openly rooted for Algeria’s independence. Kennedy was voicing a core American value held dearly today, and one fought for by countless Americans since 1776. The US stance in the 60’s played an important role in the success of Algeria’s liberation struggle.
Israeli military leaders have said it would be impossible to crush the Palestinian desire for freedom and the will to resist occupation in every possible way just by killing Hamas fighters in Gaza. The Israeli right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deluded in thinking the colony of Israel will be secure if the resistance group is degraded.
The Israeli colonial government seeks to strengthen its grip over the occupied Palestinians by showing them there are no legal consequences to the Israeli genocide, apartheid and atrocities carried out against the Palestinians. Because Israel has complete impunity, and the international community is impotent to stop them.
Israel ordered the Gazans to move south to Rafah, which was designated as a safe zone. Then the military said that Hamas is in Rafah and started an aerial and ground assault on the safe zone killing thousands of civilians, mainly women and children.
Experts have said the Israeli plan is to de-populate Gaza, so that the armed resistance can never return.Some feel the ultimate plan is to force any surviving in Gaza into the desert of Egypt, and then turn the Israeli military on the Occupied West Bank and repeat the Gaza operation there. Many analysts feel the Israeli end game is to annex all of the Palestinians lands which would forever close the hopes of the two-State solution.
Israel will make sure to complete this plan unless the US will intervene to make the genocide stop. But, US President Joe Biden has seemingly abdicated the Oval Office, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is operating on auto-pilot. The days of JFK and the moral high ground of America’s commitment to freedom and independence are dead and buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
According to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, on January 23, 2024, a lasting end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only come through a two-State solution. His statement came in response to Israel’s leaders’ clear and repeated rejection of a two-State solution. The UN meeting was attended by 60 representatives.
Stéphane Séjourné, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, said France would support a new effort on a peace process to result in the two-State solution. He added that Israel is not to decide the future government of Palestine.
Ahmed Attaf, Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Community Abroad of Algeria, called for a new international peace conference based on the two-State solution. He warned that Israel is seeking to expand their colonial presence, referring to Israeli plans to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and lamented that Israel’s occupation of Palestine has held the Middle East hostage.
Riyad Al-Maliki, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine, said that Israeli leaders “do not see our people as an empirical and political reality to coexist with, but as a demographic threat to get rid of through death, displacement or subjugation”.
He warned that either the Palestinians achieve their freedom, which results in peace and security in the region, or that freedom is denied and the region remains in constant armed conflict.
“Israel should no longer entertain the illusion that there is somehow a third path whereby it can choose continued occupation and colonialism and apartheid and somehow still achieve regional peace and security,” said Al-Maliki.
Through the US presidential terms of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barak Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden there were no attempts to pursue two-State solution negotiations. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received repeated standing ovations when he addressed the US Congress. The US lacks credibility as a peace broker, and there is no leader similar to JFK waiting in the wings.
*
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.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Palestinian families walk through destroyed neighbourhoods in Gaza City on 24 November 2023 as the temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli army takes effect (MEE/Mohammed al-Hajjar)
At the time when Prime Minister Tony Blair brought in the Terrorism Act 2000 — note that this was before 9/11 – I was working in the Royal Courts of Justice. As I remember the lawyers were buzzing about it, worried about its vague and sloppy language, and its overt authoritarianism and capacity for abuse.
There was general incredulity that Blair, who is himself a lawyer, as of course is his wife, and his Home Secretary Jack Straw, who is also a lawyer and a former adviser of Barbara Castle, one of the most revered figures in modern Labour history, would bring in a law like that.
Looking back and thinking of those days, it’s amazing how naive we were.
Here we are and this terrible law is now being used against journalists, and is being used in a way which violates fundamental human rights.
The terrible thing is that it was at precisely this same time that the Blair government was bringing into law – with wide support from within the legal community — the Human Rights Act 1998, which embedded the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into U.K. law (the Human Rights Act 1998 was signed into law in 1998 but only came into force on Oct. 2, 2000).
At the time everyone in the legal world assumed that it was the Human Rights Act 1998 that was by far the more important Act, and which would be far more consequential than the Terrorism Act 2000.
Indeed I distinctly remember all sorts of assurances floating around that there was no need to worry because the Terrorism Act 2000 would be restricted and its loose wording interpreted by reference to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998.
In reality what has happened is the opposite. Far from the Human Rights Act 1998 mitigating the effect of the Terrorism Act 2000, it is the Terrorism Act 2000 which is prevailing over the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 – as the Medhurst case shows.
None of this would be happening were it not for a radical change in the whole legal and political culture in the U.K., which has taken place since these two Acts were brought into law.
I don’t want to romanticise the past, but the shift towards authoritarianism, and the ongoing repression of free speech and journalism, which has taken place since 2000, still seems to me astonishing and at some level inexplicable.
The cases brought against Julian Assange and former British diplomat Craig Murray (imprisoned for his journalism on a contempt of court conviction) and the misuse of the Terrorism Act 2000 to harass journalists, including Murray, illustrate this.
What illustrates it even more is that all of this is happening practically without protest. The media here in the U.K. are currently maintaining a stony silence about the Medhurst arrest, whereas if anything like that had happened in 2000 or before there would have been outrage.
It is this sharp authoritarian turn in British legal and political culture — and the lack of any pushback against it — which shocks me. Its origins are obviously in the U.S., but the extent to which it is now sweeping the entire West, is astonishing.
I have heard that in Germany things are even worse, with people like former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis prevented from entering the country.
Here in Britain we are throwing away the liberties people once fought for, for example in the 18th century Wilkes Case. Moreover we are doing it without a murmur. Liberty is dying in silence.
On the specifics of the Medhurst case, I would say two things:
1. I think the objective is to intimidate and silence Medhurst, and to get Google to de-platform his YT channel, rather than to prosecute him. Even allowing for the current climate I cannot believe that the U.K. authorities are going to bring a prosecution.
If they do something like that then things are even darker than I supposed. Having said that, assuming I am right, acting to intimidate and silence a journalist, thereby depriving him of his livelihood, is already appalling enough.
2. It’s clear from Medhurst’s account that the police were acting under instructions and under tight supervision. Based on what he says, it looks as if the police were constantly checking and getting instructions throughout the entire period of his detention and arrest.
It would be interesting to know from whom, and what the chain of command was. Perhaps in better times we will find out.
*
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 must be stated at the outset that regardless of anything else, if one of the great powers follows world dominance as a central precept of its policy then it is only a matter of time before this would bring the world very close to World War 3 or nuclear war or a war involving other weapons of mass destruction. It does not matter if such a ruinous policy is adopted by the USA or China or Russia or any other emerging great power, the result will be the same.
In recent years the most obstinate and non-rational pursuit of such a destructive policy has been seen in the context of the USA. This highly dangerous policy, often identified with the aim that no foreign power should be allowed to emerge or remain in such a strong position that it can now or in future threaten worldwide US supremacy and dominance, used initially to be identified with the neo-conservatives, but now this has been mainstreamed as the policy of the greater part of the US establishment, or at least those sections of it who appear to call all the shots in decision-making. In pursuit of this policy, all the time efforts are being made to weaken those with the potential to emerge as rivals, by bleeding them in various ways, by planning for their disintegration and by dividing them, by isolating them, by imposing sanctions on them, and above all by making them fight proxy wars, and by assisting the proxy fighters in many ways so that they can inflict the maximum damage on rivals and potential rivals.
If USA is the leading power of world dominance now, China too can strive for this position after some years if its economic, technological and military power continues to grow at a fast pace. While it continues to show signs of undue although restrained aggression at several levels, it must first meet the challenge posed by the number one power seeking to maintain dominance and in the process trying to encircle China in various ways.
The bigger reality is that as long as any great power or emerging great power is guided by the ambition of world dominance, a huge danger of this escalating into a world war or nuclear weapons war will remain. So in these times of weapons of mass destruction, the quest of dominance by any great power is inherently a huge risk for all life on earth.
However this risk can increase or decrease at various times depending on the extent of responsibility exercised by the leadership of the great powers. What is deeply worrying today is that we are either already in the middle of the highest risk situation ever, or else appear to be fast moving towards such a situation.
The earlier highest risk situation is often considered to be of the days of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. However the crisis was being handled at the topmost level by two world leaders, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, who were very responsible leaders and were committed to peace ( even though some of their aides were not).
Hence they sorted out the crisis before it could blow up into a nuclear war. Unfortunately such responsible leadership is increasingly missing today in the country—USA– which has been on a very aggressive quest for dominance regardless of consequences. Millions of people have already been killed in the course of this quest in entirely avoidable wars and proxy wars. In addition some of the leaders closely allied to the USA, particularly Netanyahu of Israel and Zalensky of Ukraine, have frequently behaved in no less irresponsible ways while escalating conflicts with their very narrow vision and aims.
How the Ukraine war has been escalating towards possibly a much bigger tragedy was recently captured very competently in a comment by Thomas Palley (August 23, 2024) titled ‘Ukraine’s Hiroshima moment is drawing closer’. Thomas Palley is a senior American economist who served as the Chief Economist for the US China Economic and Security Review Commission. He has written,
“Conditions in Ukraine increasingly give Russia military and geopolitical cause to use tactical nuclear weapons. Though Russia will use them, the US and NATO are implicated in the process. They are in the grip of neocon madness which casually dismisses potentially catastrophic consequences and blocks all off-ramps.”
USA/NATO have been crossing one red-line after another regarding supplying more and more advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti- aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles, long-range HIMARS rockets, longer-range ATACMs and F-16 jets. In addition, Palley noted
“the US has provided satellite information, while under-cover advisers have assisted long-range missile attacks deep inside Russia which include attacking the Kersch bridge, Russian naval vessels at sea, naval yards in Crimea and in Novorossiysk, Russia’s high altitude AWACS defense system, and an attack on Russia’s anti-ballistic missile defense system.”
Palley asserts,
“Many neo-con supporters have casually talked of ‘Putin’s nuclear bluff’. The reality is– it is threat of nuclear retaliation by the USA that is a bluff. No sane US politician or general would risk thermo-nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine.”
As for the possibilities of an early settlement Palley notes,
“The problem is peace cannot get a hearing. Ukraine’s flawed democracy is suspended, the Azov extremists are in control, and any Ukrainian opposing the war faces imprisonment or worse.”
At the same time, neo-con thinking prevails over rational voices speaking for peace in the USA.
As though things were not bad enough earlier, the Kursk invasion has further increased the possibilities of what increasingly looks like a much wider and bigger confrontation between Russia on the one hand and the USA/NATO on the other hand, even though some of the NATO members are reluctant to join an offensive confrontation against Russia.
In fact the USA has consistently pursued hostile policies towards Russia since the start of the 21st century, highlighted by steady eastward expansion of NATO, promoting hostile regimes in countries close to Russia, equipping them withweapons most likely to be used against Russia, attempts of regime change and disintegration aimed at Russia, assisting/instigating a coup in Ukraine followed by constant support for forces ( including neo-Nazis forces) hostile to Russia, sabotaging of efforts to stop Russia-Ukraine war at an early stage.
At what stage this can lead to an open confrontation between USA/NATO has been the most worrying issue for some time now.
This, however, is only one of the two theatres of war which today can escalate into a world war. The other such war is of course the one in the middle-east. While almost every day since October 7 2023 has been a day of great distress, the second big crisis of the possibility of huge escalation (after the first one in the first half of April which could be contained) started developing on July 30-31 with two assassinations, and since then the world has been on the edge regarding what sort of retaliation will come from Iran and Hezbollah. Even after the much bigger clash between Israel and Hezbollah on August 25, at the time of writing this on August 25 the threat of retaliation from Iran still remains. The bigger clash of August 25 between Hezbollah and Israel has also left behind scars that will not heal easily or soon.
A temporary containment of the escalating crisis was obtained by ongoing negotiations for Gaza ceasefire. With Mr. Netanyahu not really wanting peace and hardliners now being in the forefront of Hamas too, chances of both sides agreeing to permanent ceasefire are very slim. If talks break down, the likely Iranian retaliation can escalate the situation further, but in addition there are possibilities also of other sources of escalation which should not be ignored. If Israel-Iran and/or Israel-Hezbollah wars break out then the USA too can be drawn in more directly, while Russia can provide high-tech support to Iran and China can provide some kind of support too. Hence another theatre of possible confrontation between great powers emerges, and the two wars can get linked up too in some ways.
Even without the USA getting drawn in, an over-pressed Israel under Netanyahu can resort to the use of one or more tactical nuclear weapons. Iran can be aggressively motivated to speed up greatly its quest for developing its own nuclear weapons.
Hence the possibilities of actual use of nuclear weapons and of World War 3 are developing like never before seen in recent decades. The United Nations has not been particularly active to prevent this, while some of the most powerful word leaders have been behaving in very irrational and reckless ways.Hence it is extremely important to make every possible effort to raise the level of peace efforts much beyond the existing levels.
The reason why peace efforts are generally not able to rise to the level of actually being able to prevent such dangerous escalations is that these are seen mainly as fire-fighting operations, while the need is for continuing peace work which can provide a strong foundation, a strong base for peace efforts to prevail over the war-mongering.
Hence once we get past the present dangers somehow, we should not fall back into complacency and should work very sincerely and with continuity to strengthen peace movements and all forces of peace all over the world, and most particularly in the leading conflict zones.
*
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.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Man over Machine. 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
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
日本語の序文のテキスト.
“A NATO invasion of nuclear Russia is currently underway, and the world is unaware that it is in World War III”. Has President Putin’s Patience Reached Its Limits?
Towards A Worldwide Monkeypox Pandemic? Big Money behind “Fake Science”
There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic
France – The Satanic Olympics. The Macron Government Belongs to a Diabolical Cult
The Israeli Terrorist State. Craig Murray
FDA Confesses: Zero Scientific Evidence of “Monkeypox Virus” or Contagion… Not Even a “Genome” Found by Anyone… Anywhere
The Brave New World of 2030: ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll be Happy.’
The Future – How They Will Control All of Us. Is “The Deep State” Preparing for Another “Plandemic”
French Olympics Closing – Dystopian Apocalypse Now?
Vladimir Putin and Klaus Schwab “Go Way Back”. Does Putin Support the Covid Vaccine?
Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid “Vaccine”. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
Predictive Programming, Symbolism, and Ideological Subversion at Olympic Games Opening Ceremonies
“Something’s Coming, We Don’t Know What It Is” … But It Is Going to be Bad. Edward Curtin
The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”: Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”
Planned NATO-Kiev Assassination of Putin and Defense Minister Belousov: How NATO and Neo-Nazi Junta Lunatics Nearly Blew Up the World
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. Both the Lockdown and the “Vaccine” Have No Scientific Basis
America’s Perpetual War: Six Questions
COVID Roundup: New Zealand Codifies Forced Injections in Martial Law ‘Pandemic Plan’
It’s the End of the World As We Know It. The American-NATO Rush Toward Nuclear War with Russia. Scott Ritter
Iran to Hit Israel Hard with Smart Power
In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as “flexible and allow for changes in the situation”:
The insentient anti-life power play will only be stopped in its tracks by an awakened mankind, able and willing to give full expression to the call of heart and soul.
“
Rethinking Srebrenica
Trump and Kennedy agree on all “major issues”, like on the Ukraine-Russia war, on censorship, on the laws that Democrats have taken out to kick both Trump and Kennedy off the ballot in major states, and many more topics.
Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed
