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

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

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

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

***

The G7 Summit under the Italian presidency, organized by the Meloni Government in Puglia, proclaimed as its priority “the defence of the international system based on the force of law”, declaring that “the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine has undermined its principles and has unleashed growing instability, visible in the various crisis hotspots.”

This was declared by the G7, where six members (United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) are NATO major powers, they exploded the war in Ukraine against Russia, and Japan, NATO’s major partner in East Asia against China, was added to.

The idyllic staging with which this Summit was presented cannot hide the fact that it is a war summit.

The United States signed a 10-year military pact with Ukraine, and the G7 granted a $50 billion loan to help it buy more weapons, a loan will be repaid using interest accrued on $300 billion in Russian assets mostly deposited in European banks and frozen. The defence ministers of the 6 G7 countries belonging to NATO have simultaneously decided to provide Ukraine with further significant military aid and to allocate 43 billion dollars a year to continue fuelling the war in the heart of Europe.

In the G7’s sights, there is not only Russia but the entire BRICS organization, this year under the Russian presidency, which has expanded from 5 to 10 members and is further developing: there are over 30 countries that want to join it. Already today the gross domestic product of the BRICS exceeds that of the G7 and the forecasts for 2024-2029 indicate an economic growth of the BRICS, particularly China, of 44% compared to 21% of the G7. Not being able to prevent the development of the BRICS with economic instruments, the G7 tries to maintain its dominance with military instruments.

Pope Francis was invited to the G7 in Puglia to give a semblance of peace to this war summit.

Here Pope Francis met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, without saying a word about the fact that he is persecuting the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, from which the Ukrainian church has carried out a schism, functional to the war against everything Russian.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Attribution: European Union

The Way to a New Palestine

June 20th, 2024 by Peter Koenig

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

[This is an update as of 27 May 2024 to an interview given to the Iranian Qods News Agency some seven days ago – see full text below.]

The update reflects on yet the most horrendous Zionist-Israel attack in Gaza; more vile, more atrocious than whatever happened before which was already unbearable – targeting women and children, maiming them, burning them, beheading them, tearing them apart by firebombs put into the little food Gazans received, horror to no end. 

However, what surpasses the past is yet a more horrifying level of carnage carried out by Zionist-Israel via the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). In the middle of night, when people were trying to sleep in their refugee tent cities around and in Rafah – more than a million people crowded together at the border to Egypt, in by the far most densely populated place on earth (less than 2 sqm / person), Netanyahu ordered what might well be the final bombing of Rafah – the final slaughter. 

Even Western media report more than 60 people killed by a single airstrike – in reality, there are probably hundreds if not thousands perishing in the flames. And the bombing, shooting, beheading continues, mercilessly.

See this 15-second video clip of a man carrying a three-year old boy 

Click here to watch the video

No words.

Or was this beyond description vicious firebombing attack on innocent families sleeping in refugee tents a diabolical ritual? See this.

Netanyahu’s end game. 

Question is, whose endgame is it?

From the reaction of the world, and judging from what 99% of the world’s population or more, want to see, this may well be – and hopefully is – the reemergence of Palestine, on their territory – and without the illegal, brutal and, yes, diabolical Leviathan settlement, called Israel. 

*

This is the original interview with Iran’s Qods News Agency.

First, my sincerest condolences and personal regrets and deeply felt sorrow for the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, and Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian and other political personalities killed in a helicopter accident, where all nine occupants died.

Both, President Raisi and Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian were strong supporters and committed defenders of Palestine and of Palestinian rights.

Investigations will, no doubt, reveal the truth of the helicopter disaster.

*

Qods News Agency (QNA): What are the impacts of campus protests on US policies? 

Peter Koenig (PK): It is important to know that most of these student protests around the Western world were financed by the Soros Open Society Foundation. The very Soros, the master behind the notorious and criminal Woke agenda. 

In the protests of most US universities, it is not difficult to see that there is outside interference, when you look at the tent encampments, all the same uniform tents in the key US universities. In many cases it was reported (for example by RT News), that as much as a third, maybe even more, of the students protesting in top universities campuses, were not even students of these universities, or were not students at all – they were paid quite considerable sums of money to protest, to disrupt first US, later also European universities. 

Later, there may have been a “copy-cat” impact at work, meaning that students of lesser-known universities also protested.

At first sight, the impact was great. However, at the time when they started, already a vast majority of people around the world were in support of Palestine and vividly against the ferocious atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza. 

So, the protests had little meaning for the anti-Israel movement, because the anti-Israel movement was already so far advanced worldwide that students’ contributions were marginal. The timing was strategically chosen to make media waves with little real impact on the ground.

Why would Mr. Soros, an ultra-Zionist do a thing like that?

Certainly not because he attempts to betray Israel, but rather because he knows — and this was part of the plan — that these universities, such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, and other Ivy League learning institutes, would crack down hard on peacefully protesting students, with police violence in riot gear and if necessary, military enforcement. It seems, the latter was not needed.

This is precisely what happened in the US as well as in Europe. This leaves the universities’ image as spotless supporters of Israel – and they know that they will continue getting their millions of endowment money from their billionaire sponsors, including Soros.

It is well-known and an old tactic to create a conflict: You support both sides or even three or more sides – it is called “dancing on several weddings at once”. The effect is confusion and division.

That is what the US does best. Including during WWII, they were supporting Hitler with money from the FED, Rockefeller’s standard Oil petrol, IBM’s initial computing machines… and many more – to help Germany fight against the Soviet Union. At the same time, the USSR was supposedly an ally of the US along with the UK and France – against Hitler’s Nazi Regime. – Divide to conquer.

QNA: Why does Israel continue the war on Gaza despite failing to achieve its goals?

PK: Zionist-Israel descends into barbarism, because there is no other way for unhumans to fight for their illegality. Especially when they see the end of their worldwide support is advancing fast. Like a dying wild beast, the Zionist Israel Defense Forces (IDF), thrash around themselves to bring down as much infrastructure and as many people as possible. 

Israel was never legal. The current state of Israel is based on the illegal so-called Balfour Declaration – which was a letter sent on 2 November 1917 by the then Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to the Jewish community leader Lord Rothschild, a Zionist. Rothschild and his Zionist clan pressured the Brits into “proposing” the establishment of a State of Israel in Palestine.

Palestine was an Ottoman colony, but after WWI and with the Peace Agreements of WWI, all colonies were “freed”, in the sense that they became autonomous, sovereign countries and were no longer under the protectorate of any country. The UK “ignored” that rule of the WWI Peace Accords and pretended that Palestine was a UK protectorate and could be disposed of as they wish. 

Therefore, the Balfour letter, or Balfour Declaration, was illegal in the first place. Uncontested illegality was followed until and including the 1948 UK proposal to the then brand new 52-member strong United Nations, dominated by the Zionist controlled Western world: The establishment of Israel in the sovereign territory of Palestine was illegal. The UN accepted it.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Zionist-Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. Then US President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. The rest of the Western world, gradually followed by most of the UN’s 193 member nations followed suit, recognizing Israel as an autonomous state – even though any true statesman knowing the history, must also know about Israel’s illegality as of this day.

 The Zionist Jews, for over 100 years had a plan for Greater Israel – engulfing about half to two-thirds of the Middle East with all its energy riches. Here is a tentative map – one of many – of how the new and Greater Israel of the “Chosen People” might look like. 

As of November 2023, Israel is recognized as an independent state by 163 of the 193 UN members, including all G7 countries. Even the State of Palestine recognized Israel as part of the Oslo Accords in 1993. However, the Oslo Accords of 1993, well-intentioned by Norway, was a fraud, as Israel never intended to accept them.

This background is necessary to understand that Zionist Israel will not give up its plan of a Greater Israel, which would make it the second most important state in the world in terms of energy resources. A Greater Israel could coerce and subdue countries, as the world still depends to 85% of all energy resources on hydrocarbons, primarily oil and gas. 

As long as Israel has the west’s support in words, money and weaponry, predominantly from the US and Europe, they will not let go of their genocide agenda, killing or expulsing the last Palestinian from the Palestine homeland.

They will not achieve it. But with the Western “leaders” – most of them graduates of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL), Zionist-Israel is fighting on. Eventually to their detriment.

QNA: What are the implications of student protests on policies of the West?

PK: In one word: NONE. The west does not care about student protests. Or any other protests for that matter. The West is colonized by Zionism, by the “Chosen People”, and has no regard and respect for human rights, nor for ethics, nor for dissident voices and lives. 

Already in 2011, there is this infamous saying by former (late) Israeli PM Ariel Sharon in an Israeli Cabinet argument, to his Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres,

“Don’t worry about American pressure, we control America.”

This is even more valid today. Meanwhile the self-assumed Zionist-Israel supremacy has expanded all over the Western world, with tentacles far into the Global South. A vivid example is Argentina’s new President Javier Milei.

QNA: In your opinion, what would be the future of Palestine and the war on Gaza?

PK: As mentioned before, Zionist-Israel will not achieve their objective, not of a Greater Israel, nor of surviving as Israel as we know her.

The sad question is how long will the fight and merciless killing go on until Israel is defeated, due to lack of support, due to her own self-destruction. Violence will never bring Peace, but violence is self-destructive. This is also true for the Western self-styled unipolar hegemon, the US. Just look at the history of the Roman Empire, eventually it succumbed to internal forces. 

The way this genocide is carried out feels like an “addiction” for power and grandeur – the ultimate vision of Greater Israel – for the all controlling “Chosen People”. 

PM Netanyahu and his clan have sealed their fate with the horrors of genocide, of killing the Gazan population by bombs, machine guns snipers and ultimately famine – with the latest horror- atrocity – killing starving Gazan inhabitants by placing bombs in the little food they receive, killing or maiming them when they open their food cans and containers.

This crime will not go unpunished. Israel may disappear. Palestine may recreate itself within its original borders of before 1948.

The sad question is: On the way to the end – which is unavoidable – how many more Palestinians may perish? Bringing about an end to Zionist-Israel genocide is of utmost urgency.

Live New Palestine!

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world, including for about 4 years in Palestine. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

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

Featured image: The Givati Brigade in eastern Rafah (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

A conferência de “paz” organizada pelo regime de Kiev na Suíça chegou ao fim. Como esperado, nenhuma proposta concreta foi alcançada. O evento serviu apenas como uma forma da OTAN e o seu regime proxy reafirmarem unilateralmente os seus interesses. A falta de participação russa tornou a conferência uma verdadeira perda de tempo, completamente incapaz de estabelecer uma verdadeira agenda de paz.

Qualquer negociação diplomática exige obviamente a presença de pelo menos duas partes interessadas em resolver uma questão específica. Seja numa relação comercial ou numa conversa de paz para pôr termo a um conflito militar, é impossível conduzir a diplomacia apenas com um dos lados. Isto seria suficiente para considerar o encontro entre Zelensky e os seus apoiantes na Suíça completamente inútil. Contudo, é também necessário lembrar que, em caso de guerra, não é apenas a presença de ambos os lados que importa, mas, sobretudo, a presença do lado vencedor.

De um ponto de vista realista, apenas o lado vencedor pode pôr fim a uma guerra. São os termos estabelecidos pelo país vencedor que garantem o fim das hostilidades num conflito. O lado perdedor só pode aceitar os termos da paz, podendo, no máximo, solicitar algumas mudanças específicas que não alterem as reivindicações principais. Foi assim que as guerras terminaram ao longo da história – e não será diferente na atual guerra por procuração da OTAN com a Rússia através da Ucrânia.

Com Kiev à beira do colapso militar total, incapaz de tomar medidas de mobilização eficazes e perdendo território progressivamente, a derrota ucraniana é apenas uma questão de tempo. A coisa mais racional e estratégica a fazer seria retomar as negociações de paz e aceitar os termos russos, evitando assim novas perdas de vidas e de território. No entanto, o regime ucraniano não tem soberania real, sendo simplesmente um proxy da OTAN forçado a lutar “até ao último homem”. Assim, em vez de realmente pensar na paz, Zelensky decidiu organizar um evento de propaganda onde os líderes ocidentais reforçaram o seu apoio irrestrito à guerra.

Na verdade, o evento não serviu apenas para consolidar a posição pró-guerra da Ucrânia e da OTAN. A cimeira também foi marcada por vários discursos de ódio e ameaças reais contra a Rússia. Por exemplo, o presidente polaco Andrzej Duda apelou à “descolonização” da Rússia, defendendo abertamente a divisão da Federação Russa em múltiplos etno-estados. Segundo Duda, os mais de 190 povos que vivem em território russo são mantidos à força através de métodos coloniais, e a sua “libertação” só é possível através do fim da Rússia como país.

“A Rússia continua a ser o maior império colonial do mundo, que, ao contrário das potências europeias, nunca passou pelo processo de descolonização e nunca foi capaz de lidar com os demónios do seu passado (…) Como membro da comunidade internacional, nós finalmente tenho que dizer – não há [espaço] para o colonialismo no mundo moderno”, disse Duda.

Esta não é a primeira vez que países da OTAN ameaçam trabalhar no sentido do desmantelamento do território da Rússia. Anteriormente, a primeira-ministra da Estônia, Kaja Kallas, já tinha admitido que o principal objetivo da aliança atlântica é “dividir” a Rússia em dezenas de “pequenas nações”. Estas ameaças parecem tornar-se cada vez mais frequentes, o que mostra como a paz entre o Ocidente e a Rússia parece, infelizmente, longe de ser alcançada.

Por seu lado, porém, Moscou fez todo o possível para evitar o prolongamento da guerra e para alcançar um cessar-fogo definitivo. Um dia antes da conferência de Zelensky na Suíça, o presidente russo, Vladimir Putin, apresentou ao Ocidente e a Kiev uma proposta concreta de paz. Os principais termos foram o reconhecimento das quatro Novas Regiões e da Crimeia como parte da Federação Russa e o compromisso da Ucrânia com a desmilitarização. Putin exigiu uma promessa formal de Kiev de não procurar aderir à OTAN. Se estes termos fossem cumpridos, o fim das hostilidades seria imediato.

Dado que a OTAN não conseguiu abrir uma nova frente para continuar a sua guerra por procuração contra a Rússia, a Ucrânia não está autorizada a aceitar quaisquer termos de paz. Assim, Zelensky rejeitou a proposta e preferiu continuar com o seu plano de realizar uma “conferência de paz” completamente inútil. Em diversas declarações, as autoridades russas deixaram claro que as próximas novas propostas de paz de Moscou mostrarão condições mais desfavoráveis ​​para a Ucrânia. Espera-se que, dada a insistência na guerra e também as recentes ameaças de uma conspiração contra a própria integridade territorial da Rússia, Moscou atualize os seus interesses estratégicos e territoriais, estabelecendo o objetivo de libertar mais áreas atualmente sob controle ucraniano, bem como exigindo mais garantias da OTAN.

No final, a guerra realmente poderia ter terminado na semana passada. A OTAN só teria que permitir que Zelensky aceitasse os termos da Rússia. Então o lado vencedor estabeleceria a paz, como sempre aconteceu na história das guerras. Mas, infelizmente, o lado perdedor no conflito atual é o mais belicoso, determinado a prolongar as hostilidades apesar das perdas que sofre.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Zelensky’s “peace summit” ends without any effective result, while Russia offers concrete peace, InfoBrics, 17 de junco de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

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

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

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

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

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

***

There’s always much to tell about the struggle and more to add our efforts to.

June 19th “Juneteenth”, a US holiday since 2021, it marks the emancipation on this day in 1865 of enslaved Black Americans.

Celebrating their freedom, we strive to support all those still struggling for justice, everywhere — including Nepal.

Thus my launch of JUSTICE STORIES. For children ages 12-15, in English, this history of two extraordinary Nepali women is now available.

Contact me, the author, or order directly from Nepal.

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.


Justice Stories

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

Publisher: Sangri-La Books

Reviews

“Stories passed down to us through oral traditions find a new medium through this book by Dr. Barbara Nimri Aziz. The author has preserved the essence of storytelling, seamlessly weaving the lives of two remarkable Nepali women into a pattern that includes the whole world. These women will inspire not only girls in Nepal but anyone who believes in justice.” – Manaslu Gurung

“The long hidden, genuine truth of the struggle for justice waged by two brave ladies, Nepal’s Yogmaya and Durga Devi, will now be exposed internationally, even to the young generation, with this grand effort by a capable, experienced researcher, Dr. Barbara  Nimri Aziz.” — Sukanya Waiba

“This is a captivating book that weaves together the lives of two ferocious and understudied Nepali leaders. By making accessible their legal, spiritual and cultural activism, Barbara Nimri Aziz is a cheerleader for bravery in young women and girls.”
– Sabrina Singh

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

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

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

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

***

The European Union (EU) is introducing tariffs on the import of Chinese electric cars because, as seen with the imposition of the boomeranged US-led sanctions against Russia, the bloc fully follows the policy of Washington, which is satisfied with the trade war against China. However, just like the sanctions against Russia, an economic war against China will only leave the EU weaker.

Following Washington’s introduction of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars, Brussels decided to introduce different tariff rates depending on the car model and manufacturer. The EU had a customs duty of 10% but is now massively increasing them, in some cases, to 50%. This is a bizarre move since it will only cause more damage to the bloc and can only be explained as Brussels loyally following the policy of Washington, which wants an economic war against China.

It remains to be seen how the major EU countries, primarily Germany, France, and Italy, will react to such a move by Brussels, because China’s response will surely follow. China’s response will not be hasty, nor will it be massive at first, but there certainly will be a response.

Beijing will likely initiate proceedings before the World Trade Organization because these tariffs are actually protectionist measures that are not allowed under WTO rules. It will also be likely that Beijing will introduce countermeasures in sectors in which the EU significantly exports to China – primarily the processing and food industry.

China is also thinking about customs clearance of pig imports from the EU. Such measures will be slowly introduced one after the other as the trade conflict develops, but it remains to be seen how long the EU will be able to withstand such economic pressure, especially in the context of the bloc’s economic decline following the introduction of sanctions on Russia, which have backfired.

The Chinese have developed electric cars that are more than competitive with European and other manufacturers, and this is what worries the entire Western world, which has no answer to such a development. This is similar to when it was once claimed that the Chinese would not develop good mobile phones, but Huawei and other Chinese manufacturers are now global brands.

Something similar is happening now in the automotive industry.

Although China is not interested in an economic conflict with the EU, the Asian country will be forced to respond and it will be the EU suffering the most. In fact, China has already ordered an anti-dumping investigation due to the import of pork from the EU.

The fact that the EU has resorted to protectionism and is trying to protect its market from competition says more about the blocs supposed economic liberalism than anything else. China is an increasingly important partner of the EU, and this attempt to halt the expansion of Chinese electric cars with protectionist measures rather than agreement or cooperation shows once again that Western liberalism is nothing more than a defence of the old Western world order.

By producing electric cars, China threatens the European automotive industry with its solvency, but tariffs cannot be introduced because one’s economy is not competitive – except in the case when someone attacks the market with products using dumping measures, which is not the situation with China.

Beijing has expressed strong dissatisfaction and opposes the EU’s plan to introduce temporary tariffs on the import of Chinese electric vehicles, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced, noting that the EU ignored the facts and rules of the WTO by politicising economic and trade issues.

“China urges the EU to immediately correct its bad moves, implement the important consensuses reached during the recent China-France-EU trilateral meeting, and resolve economic and trade disagreements through dialogue,” said a spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce.

The spokesperson added that China will take all necessary measures to defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.

According to the think tank Rhodium Group, Europe is the main destination for Chinese Electric Vehicle exports, with the value of EU imports of electric cars from China standing at $11.5 billion in 2023, up from just $1.6 billion in 2020. The EU is afraid that its industry will be swamped by China’s rapid rise in the sector, but by adopting such an aggressive policy, the bloc will inevitably suffer since it relies on Chinese-dominated supply chains to achieve its climate targets.

“Beijing is likely to use both carrots and sticks to build opposition to the Commission’s case, in the hopes that a sufficiently large group of (EU) member states… emerges in order to block permanent duties,” analysts at Rhodium Group said in a recent research paper.

The EU must decide by November whether to adopt the tariffs permanently, with the time until then one of probable intense negotiations between Beijing and Brussels. However, by then, the damage could already be done, and it will inevitably be the EU feeling these effects, and not China.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

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

***

13 year old Noah Tate Foley received 1st HPV Gardasil Vaccine May 7, 2018 

Noah was just 13 when the HPV vaccine took his short life.

Noah Tate Foley received his first and only Gardasil injection on May 7, 2018, just two days after his 11th birthday.

Noah enjoyed hunting and fishing with his dad, playing games with his younger sister, building Legos, and playing his drum set. He loved school and was active in his church. Most of all, Noah loved his family and treasured the times they spent together.

Prior to the Gardasil shot, Noah had no autoimmune diseases and no autonomic issues. He was extremely healthy, having received a clean bill of health during a medical check-up.

Roughly two weeks after the Gardasil shot, Noah experienced fevers that reached as high as 102.9 degrees. His symptoms continued and one week later, his blood was checked to rule out Mononucleosis or other causes for the ongoing fevers. Testing revealed no “cause” for his fevers, which came and went throughout the summer of 2018.

On October 10, 2018, Noah went to the emergency room at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. After examination and blood tests, Noah’s mother, Kelli Foley, was informed that her son’s inflammatory markers were elevated, possibly due to a viral infection. Noah was then referred to the Duke University Infectious Disease department, where blood work revealed that Noah’s white blood cell count had tripled in two weeks.

For months, Noah endured countless doctor visits and testing, including a CT scan and biopsy of a swollen lymph node.

Kelli Foley recalled the 35 days between the discovery of the swollen lymph node and a report that ruled out cancer as “long and torturous.” Still, the family had no answers to the underlying cause of Noah’s health issues.

On May 7, 2019, Noah had an appointment for weight loss where the records state:

“Over the past year, [Noah] has had a rough year. He was in his usual state of good health per Mother until he went for his 11-year-old vaccine and well child check-up. After that he continues to have fevers and fatigue. He has been seen by multiple specialists over the past 7 months – starting in October 2018. He has had one lymph node removed from his neck as well as CT scan (neck/abdomen) and MRI to evaluate what inflammatory process may be occurring. He has continued to have fatigue and not feel like himself. It has been noted that over the past year he has lost 20lb despite continued good vertical height growth and continued to eat fairly well…”

Noah’s weight was 69 pounds, his BMI was in the 4th percentile at 14.79, and his inflammatory markers remained elevated.

At a May 21, 2019 pediatric gastroenterology consultation, the assessment discussed an “autoimmune or inflammatory process.”

On the afternoon of September 29, 2020, Noah’s left leg went numb. While his mother rushed him to the emergency room, Noah’s face and tongue went numb. By the time he arrived at the ER, Noah vomited, and by 6:00 p.m., he was completely non-responsive. Noah was transported to Duke University Medical Hospital, where his condition rapidly declined.

On September 30, 2020, Noah was almost completely brain dead. On October 8, 2020, Noah passed away four hours after his breathing tube was removed. He was 13 years old.

According to the Foley’s lawsuit allegations, Noah died of encephalitis caused by an autoimmune/autoinflammatory dysregulation process, which was caused-in-fact by the Gardasil vaccination received in 2018.

“Our faith is very strong, which is why I know that despite the pain our family continues to feel in Noah’s absence, we won’t let his death be in vain.” Kelli Foley says. “We will fight for him in getting justice against Merck for what they did to him.”

“I lost my fishing and hunting buddy, and my daughter lost her best friend,” says Cliff Foley. “They say time heals all wounds, but losing your son is something you never really heal from. Every day, we feel the loss, and it doesn’t get any easier.”

*

Below is an excerpt from an article by The Defender, First Gardasil Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Alleging HPV Vaccine Caused 13-Year-Old’s Death.

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, this week filed their first wrongful death suit against Merck, alleging the drugmaker’s Gardasil HPV vaccine caused the death of 13-year-old Noah Tate Foley.

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, this week filed a wrongful death suit against Merck alleging the drugmaker’s Gardasil HPV vaccine caused the death of 13-year-old Noah Tate Foley.

The civil action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of Noah’s parents, Clifton and Kelli Foley, alleges Noah died Oct. 8, 2020, of encephalitis caused by an autoimmune/autoinflammatory dysregulation process directly related to the Gardasil injection he received in 2018.

The lawsuit also alleges the vaccine caused autonomic, neurological, heterogeneous autoimmune disease and a constellation of adverse symptoms, complications, injuries and other adverse events, which led to Noah’s wrongful death.

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel

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

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

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

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

***

The “peace” conference organized by the Kiev regime in Switzerland has come to an end. As expected, no concrete proposals were reached. The event served only as a way for NATO and its proxy regime to unilaterally reaffirm their interests. The lack of Russian participation made the conference a real waste of time, completely incapable of establishing a real peace agenda.

Any diplomatic negotiation obviously requires the presence of at least two parties interested in resolving a specific issue. Whether in a trade relationship or in a peace talk to stop a military conflict, it is impossible to conduct diplomacy with only one side. This would be enough to consider the meeting between Zelensky and his supporters in Switzerland truly useless. However, it is also necessary to remind that, in the case of a war, it is not only the presence of both sides that matters, but, above all, the presence of the winning side.

From a realistic point of view, only the winning side can end a war. It is the terms set out by the winning country that ensure the end of hostilities in a conflict. The losing side can only accept the terms of peace, with the possibility at most of requesting some specific changes that do not alter the main demands. This is how wars have ended throughout history – and it will be no different in the current NATO proxy war with Russia through Ukraine.

With Kiev on the verge of total military collapse, incapable of taking effective mobilization measures and progressively losing territory, Ukrainian defeat is only a matter of time. The most rational and strategic thing to do would be to resume peace negotiations and accept Russian terms, thus avoiding further loss of lives and territory. However, the Ukrainian regime has no actual sovereignty, being simply a NATO proxy forced to fight “to the last man.” So, instead of really thinking about peace, Zelensky decided to organize a propaganda event where Western leaders reinforced their unrestricted support for war.

In fact, the event did not only serve to consolidate Ukraine and NATO’s pro-war stance. The summit was also marked by several hate speeches and real threats against Russia. For example, Polish President Andrzej Duda called for the “decolonization” of Russia, openly advocating the division of the Russian Federation into multiple ethno-states. According to Duda, the more than 190 peoples living on Russian territory are held by force through colonial methods, and their “liberation” is possible only through the end of Russia as a country.

“Russia remains the largest colonial empire in the world, which, unlike European powers, has never undergone the process of decolonization and has never been able to deal with demons of its past (…) As a member of the international community, we have to finally say – there is no [space] for colonialism in the modern world,” Duda said.

This is not the first time that NATO countries have threatened to work towards the dismantling of Russia’s territory. Earlier, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas had already admitted that the main goal of the Atlantic alliance is to “break” Russia into dozens of “small nations”. These threats seem to be becoming more and more frequent, which shows how peace between the West and Russia seems unfortunately far from being achieved.

For its part, however, Moscow has done everything possible to avoid prolonging the war and to reach a definitive ceasefire. A day before Zelensky’s conference in Switzerland, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the West and Kiev a concrete peace proposal. The main terms were the recognition of the four New Regions and Crimea as part of the Russian Federation and Ukraine’s commitment to demilitarization. Putin demanded a formal promise from Kiev not to seek NATO membership. If these terms were met, the end of hostilities would be immediate.

Since NATO has failed to open a new front to continue its proxy war against Russia, Ukraine is not allowed to accept any peace terms. So Zelensky rejected the proposal and preferred to continue with his plan to hold a completely futile “peace conference.” In several statements, Russian officials have made it clear that Moscow’s upcoming new peace proposals will show conditions that are more unfavorable to Ukraine. It is expected that, given the insistence on war and also the recent threats of a conspiracy against Russia’s own territorial integrity, Moscow will update its strategic and territorial interests, establishing the goal of liberating more areas currently under Ukrainian control, as well as demanding more guarantees from NATO.

In the end, the war really could have ended last week. NATO had only to allow Zelensky to accept Russia’s terms. Then the winning side would establish peace, as has always happened in the history of wars. But, unfortunately, the losing side in the current conflict is the most bellicose one, resolute to prolong hostilities despite the losses it has suffered.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

What Would Happen If This Event of 41 Years Ago Happened Today?

June 19th, 2024 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

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

***

On the night of September 25-26, 1983, the siren blared at 0:15 local time at the Soviet missile defense center near Moscow. The early warning system reported the launch of a US intercontinental ballistic missile.

The officer on duty, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, only had a few minutes to assess the situation. In line with the logic of deterrence in force at the time – “Whoever shoots first, dies second!” – the Soviet leadership had less than half an hour to unleash a devastating counterattack.

Petrov analyzed the situation and after two minutes reported a false alarm to the military command due to a computer error. While he was still on the phone, the system indicated a second missile launch, followed shortly afterwards by a third, fourth and fifth alarm. Despite everything, Stanislav Petrov held his nerve and stuck to his decision.

After more minutes of extreme tension no missiles hit Russia. Petrov had been right. It had indeed been a false alarm attributed to an unusual constellation of sun and satellite system over a US military base. The Soviet defense system had misinterpreted this configuration as a missile launch.

The danger of the Cold War was reduced by efforts to defuse tension and build trust. Undoubtedly the atmosphere contributed to Petrov’s confidence that it was a false alarm.

What would happen today when tensions are off the chart and the Kremlin’s trust in the West is completely destroyed?

Western leaders desperately need to understand that nuclear war can be initiated accidentally as well as intentionally and that the destruction of trust means we are only one false alarm away from Armageddon.

In a world of nuclear weapons, mutual trust and mutual respect are essential to survival. That this basic fact is neglected proves that the leadership of the Western world is recklessly incompetent.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from teleSUR


WWIII ScenarioTowards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Those who learned or vaguely remember what they were taught in school in those deliberately boring hours devoted to the subject called “History” may be forgiven for their confusion at the progressive transformation of core myths from the mid-20th century.

Among those are the bundle of fabrications that constitute the history of the “good war”. The 20th century can be called the American Century not only because of US aspirations to global dominion after 1945 but because it was the US propaganda ministry — in privatized USA aka known as “Hollywood”—which has successfully written the history of the two world wars and propagated it like the Bible, also in foreign parts. During the recent commemorations of the June 1944 “Normandy landings”, executed by an amphibious force comprising mainly members of the Anglo-American armed forces, the constellation of honoured guests was instructive in ways that no textbook could be.

Decades of make-believe have persuaded those susceptible to Western mass media that the Second World War, a designation these hostilities acquired after the capitulations of 1945, was fought by the Anglo-American Empire, the Allies, for democracy and freedom against fascism in Germany and Italy (and as an afterthought in Japan).

It has also persuaded millions that this war, in which the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – NSDAP regime in Germany and the older government of British agent Benito Mussolini’s Partido Nazionale Fascista (the origin of the generic term) were subdued, was ultimately won by the heroic efforts of the largest amphibious assault action in history, the so-called Normandy landings. Never mind for the moment that since the 1960s the purpose of the war has been utterly redefined as the defence of some segment of European Jewry.

Image: António de Oliveira Salazar portrait (by Manuel Alves San Payo) – Lisboa (From the Public Domain)

undefined

To illustrate how this propaganda has expanded with each year further from the events themselves, there were posters hanging in Porto this year advertising an exhibition to commemorate military action in which Portugal was in no way involved. (How the regime of the Bourbon-Anjou pretender, successors to the Caudillo de Espana por la gracio de Dios and usurper of republican government in Madrid, remember 1944 may be worth comment, too. Veterans of the 250th “Azul” division were most unlikely in attendance.)

The head of the Portuguese government of that day, Dr Antonio Salazar Oliveira, carefully avoided any overt participation in the international aggression.

Instead he exported grain to feed the Wehrmacht instead of his own compatriots and under pressure of his liege lords in London, leased airfields and harbours in the Azores to the Americans. Perhaps Dr Salazar also understood that the Atlantic Charter also protected him from the ultimate enemy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Each year since the demise of the Soviet Union the government of the Russian Federation, for some twenty years led by President Vladimir Putin, has politely requested, then objected that the commemoration reflect the facts of the 1944 and not the political preferences of those in attendance. If the Normandy commemoration serves to recall the efforts of the forces invading France to defeat the German NSDAP regime, then the French government itself could not claim honours there any more than the representatives of Germany who soon became regular guests.

After all half of France was willingly occupied by Germany while the other half, governed from Vichy collaborated.

In other words, if taken at their word, the celebrants before the altars on Omaha Beach, could insist that Paris be treated just like Russia would have Kiev treated today.

If the war was against fascism in Europe, as the propagandists in the West have proclaimed for decades, then Germany and France both constituted fascist states whose leaders at such a mass must – at the least—repeat acts of contrition, if not ritual surrender.

That at least would be consistent with the anniversary memorials. It would be consistent with the “living history” model of historical re-enactment so beloved in Anglo-American “Disney-culture”. In fact, in a generous interpretation of the Second World War it was a great battle against truculent fascism. Obsequious fascists like those in Madrid or Lisbon were conspicuously spared. Then in 1949 both were lovingly absorbed into NATO, a precedent that should not be overlooked.

Instead not only is France celebrated as an Anglo-American ally—which it was not during that great war (assuming for the purposes of argument the official rationale)—but the ostensible main enemy, evil Germany has been elevated to the status of ally as if it had waged war against itself.

In fact that would conform to the perverse logic by which Koreans invaded Korea in 1950 and Vietnamese invaded Vietnam, while Chinese are poised today to invade China. Already the absurdity and patent insincerity of the commemoration becomes evident. With further interpretative generosity, the Normandy exhibition is a demonstration by its producers that the thousands who died there constitute multiple Christ figures whose “sacrifice” vicariously saved the fascists of France and Germany from damnation. Given the fanaticism with which Latin hypocrisy is practiced in the West, both in and out of church, there are no doubt Faithful to adhere to such a construction. After all the Latin Church has innumerable monuments to its “martyrs” who died fighting communism.

No Red Army units crossed the Manche to wade onto the coast of cows and Calvados. Confining the celebrations to the memory of battles actually fought by those who actually bore arms there (and their descendants) could legitimately be limited to British and American imperial forces and perhaps the few exile French allowed along for the ride. However the Normandy prostrations, especially after 1989, became a stage for historical revisionism.

The Russian Federation rightly objects to this deliberate distortion of the war record and its mass medial – hysterical propagation.

This year the Russian government complained that after years of ignoring the primary role of the Soviet Union and Red Army in defeating the NSDAP regime, the western allies added insult to injury by receiving the tee shirt-clad Führer in Kiev, whose party and regime openly celebrate Nazi paramilitary and regular armed forces as national heroes.

The harbinger of this affront was the ovation given to a Ukrainian Waffen SS veteran in the Canadian House of Commons last year. He was honoured in the House as a courageous legacy fighter against Russia.

undefined

Members of the French Resistance and the US 82nd Airborne division during the Battle of Normandy in 1944. (From the Public Domain)

Joseph Stalin insisted that the French (de Gaulle’s French and by implication the French Communists who constituted the bulk of the Résistance) share in acceptance of the capitulation in Karlshorst (Berlin) in May 1945. (Only enormous diplomatic pressure prevented Dwight Eisenhower’s anti-communist armies from accepting a separate surrender by the German High Command a few months earlier.)

Then the Soviet Union sincerely or pragmatically lent its Western allies the benefit of a doubt, presuming perhaps that there was still enough of a Left in the West to keep Britain and the US within civilized boundaries.  

Since 1989, despite the havoc wreaked upon the dissolving Soviet Union by Western powers, the Russian government has diplomatically avoided stating the obvious in the real revision. Politely speaking the Western “allies” could be accused of foreign policy narcissism as rabid as the narcissism of their popular culture. Having fed on decades of their own mythology they suffer political obesity and hence are incapable of seeing that their story of the Second World War is sociopathic vanity. Hollywood has so permeated their consciousness that they genuinely believe they won the war. The late Ronald Reagan, B-grade film actor that he was, once actually claimed in an interview to have been among US troops that liberated concentration camps in Poland. Aside from the fact that he had never served in combat, the arch anti-communist neither knew nor cared that the Red Army and not the US Army liberated the camps in Poland. His errors (like those of his successors) were dismissed like so many other senile remarks from American gerontocrats, without a wall on which to stand.

Far more plausible and consistent is another explanation. It is also far more obvious and less tortuous to recognize.

Namely after 80 years, the Anglo-American Empire has openly repudiated its own mythology. Finally after nearly a century, the West is admitting that the Second World War was the war of the London-New York- Rome – Tokyo – Paris Axis against the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party.

The true allies were the Soviet Union and the nascent People’s Republic.

At Normandy this year the successors to Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis—properly the Anti-Comintern Pact powers—and the children of the collaborators in industrial-strength mass murder from the Rhine to the Dnieper join those high commissioners of banks and hedge funds who have sponsored them since 1917 in the comprehensive war against communism and any other form of national and popular development at odds with the British, American and French Empires—and the caste who own them all.

As they celebrated on the beaches their invasion of France—a last ditch effort to stop the Red Army from reaching the Rhine—they prepare for the next great war against Russia and China, against humanity itself.

*

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

This article was originally published on Seek Truth from Facts Foundation.

Dr. T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company A, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division when landing. During the initial landing two-thirds of Company E became casualties. (From the Public Domain)

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

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

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

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

***

In the current epoch, America stands on the precipice of a profound socio-cultural collapse, driven by divisive zealotry, ideological polarization, and a departure from the meritocratic values that once propelled the nation forward.

The true architects of societal wisdom—the elders who historically guided younger generations through life’s complexities—have been marginalized. In their place, ideologues wield influence, lacking the sagacity essential for balanced governance and cultural cohesion. This shift represents a broader loss of wisdom in American culture, supplanted by biases and prejudice.

Throughout history, the longevity of elders was synonymous with wisdom.

These venerable figures served as pillars of knowledge, shaping the moral and intellectual fabric of communities.

Education was a collective endeavor, deeply rooted in family, tribe, and community. Today, however, a significant portion of society, particularly the younger generations, has severed ties with this historical legacy. The socio-psychological implications of this shift are alarming. Driven by primal instincts and disconnected from those embodying true wisdom, the youth now navigate life with lowered standards of knowledge, evident in the degraded state of our esteemed educational and social institutions.

The erosion of America’s social foundation and cultural fabric, driven by divisive policies and tribal polarization has not occurred in isolation.

Throughout history, many great minds have emphasized the importance of wisdom—both civic and spiritual—and critical thinking for a productive and sustainable society. At the same time they have warned against the dangers posed by conceited bureaucrats and administrators who promote rigid lawful dogmas over genuine knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, today more than ever before, there is an urgent demand to restore the wisdom of our elders as central figures to critique the self-destructive trajectory that has been underway for over four decades and to propose a path forward.

Throughout history, philosophers and deep thinkers have recognized the pivotal cultural role of elders by emphasizing their unique capacity to embody wisdom and guide younger generations towards a healthy and cohesive societal structure. Aristotle notably emphasized the importance of elders in the context of governance and education. He viewed elders as repositories of phronesis or “practical wisdom”, gained through a lifetime of experiences and moral deliberation.

Such practical wisdom is essential for making sound judgments and decisions that contribute to communal well-being by transmitting to younger generations the legacy of ethical values and civic virtues. Similarly Plato in his The Republic, and Stoics such as Seneca and Epictetus after him, envisioned a loose hierarchical society where elders, owing to their accumulated knowledge and wisdom, occupied positions of respect and authority.

Plato’s ideal city-state placed great emphasis on the intergenerational transmission of knowledge with elders serving as mentors and guardians of moral and intellectual development. By imparting their insights into justice, moral etiquette, and the human condition, elders were crucial for shaping society’s ethical framework and fostering a harmonious community life. For the Stoics, aging was not simply the final life episode of physical decline but an opportunity for spiritual and philosophical growth. For example, Seneca regarded elders as exemplars of resilience and moral fortitude, whose stewardship was indispensable for navigating the complexities of human existence with equanimity and integrity. Unlike our own times, wisdom was not solely a repository of knowledge to be forgotten in dusty libraries or buried on the Internet, but a lived, embodied understanding of life’s knottiness, which was imparted through close, personal mentorship.

Today, many young people have distanced themselves from this historical inheritance and the wisdom embodied by their elders.

Acting more on primal biological instincts, a faux sense of individuality, and immediate gratification, they lack the critical thinking skills and depth of understanding that comes from long-term experience and reflection. This disconnect reflects a broader cultural shift away from valuing accumulated wisdom and have replaced it with superficial valorization of novelty and youthful folly. The result is a generation ill-equipped to navigate the sophisticated challenges and prone to pontifical manipulation and shallow thinking. The disconnection from spiritual and ethical values from their parental generations’ blind embrace of radical secular materialism has further compounded this crisis. They have left, including many Boomer parents, a vacuum where a sense of purpose and moral clarity should otherwise reside.

John Dewey, a prominent philosopher and educational reformer, viewed wisdom as a dynamic process of practical and reflective intelligence that integrates knowledge with ethics and social purpose. Like the Stoics, Dewey regarded wisdom not simply as a collection of facts but the skill of inquiring and reflecting deliberately in the context of cultivating a more expansive principled awareness. He would likely have profound concerns about the degradation of American education in the 21st century, especially regarding the decline in academic standards, the lack of critical thought, student-driven curricula, and the censorship or rewriting of classic literature based on inflexible doctrines.

Our contemporary education system increasingly prioritizes administrative conformity and ideological alignment over intellectual rigor. The standards of knowledge in our most esteemed institutions have been greatly lowered with a focus on bureaucratic expansion and billion dollar endowments rather than genuine learning. Some elementary schools are even proposing the elimination of essential subjects like math, which reflects the troubling trend towards the collective dumbing down of society. History, once a means of understanding complex narratives and lessons, is being re-envisioned into textbooks that fit privileged racial and gender narratives thereby losing their objectivity and educational value. Dewey would vehemently oppose today’s perverse woke and pseudo-patriotic censorship disguised as historical revisionism. Because he treasured intellectual freedom, education should expose students to a wide diversity of ideas, perspectives, and cultural heritages. Literature should foster empathy and understanding about multiple worldviews in order to grapple with the difficult ethical issues that our unbridled postmodern technocracy has stirred up. But such values are being shredded by the new generation of militant crusaders who intend to brainwash younger generations with woke prejudices and regressive draconian diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI policies.

Dewey was a staunch advocate for progressive education that emphasized active learning and the integration of knowledge with practical experience. He believed that education should prepare individuals to be active and informed citizens capable of participating in a democratic society. Dewey, as well as Jean Jacques Rousseau before him, would undoubtedly be deeply troubled by the intellectual decline among students today and their inability to engage in meaningful civic dialogue with others. Voltaire, for example, championed the cause of reason, free thought, and civil liberties. His work targeted the dogmas and oppressive structures of his time, advocating for a society where intellectual freedom and rational debate could flourish. Voltaire’s famous dictum, “Écrasez l’infâme” (“Crush the infamous”), encapsulated his disdain for tyranny and superstition, or collective self-deception; it underscores his belief in the power of reason and critical inquiry to uplift humanity and prevent societal stagnation or collapse. The deficiency in reason and wisdom now manifests in noticeably destructive ways, from poor decision-making to increased susceptibility to manipulation by tyrannical corporate oligarchs who easily buy their way into the nation’s policy making. 

Not only education but also the ideals of young adults has been on a steady gradual decline for over half a century.

The youth movements of the 1960s and early 1970s left a legacy of constructive accomplishments that continue to resonate today. These movements, often driven by a passionate commitment to social justice, anti-war efforts and civil rights, significantly advanced the causes of equality, freedom, and human dignity. The Civil Rights Movement, spearheaded by young activists, dismantled institutionalized racism and paved the way for landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Similarly, the anti-Vietnam War protests not only hastened the end of U.S. involvement in the war but also fostered a broader skepticism of governmental authority and militarism, laying the groundwork for a more informed and critical citizenry.

Comparing the moral values of the Baby Boomer generation with today’s younger generations reveals a complex interplay of ideals and behaviors.

The Boomers, born in the aftermath of World War II, grew up in a period of relative stability and economic prosperity, which imbued them with a sense of optimistic idealism and a belief in collective action for a higher moral ground. Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development highlights this era’s emphasis on generativity and caring for the community as essential components of identity formation. According to Erikson, the Boomers’ formative years were marked by a sense of purpose and direction, with societal structures encouraging them to contribute positively to the community and work towards a greater good. This generativity, which Erikson understood as a universal human desire, was the antidote to developmental stagnation and is crucial for young adults to develop their sense of responsibility and commitment to social causes.

iGen (book) - Wikipedia

In contrast, Millennials and Gen Z are frequently characterized by a more self-serving individualism and emotional volatility. The pervasive influence of digital technology and social media has created a culture of immediacy and self-promotion, often at the expense of deeper, communal values. This shift can be partly attributed to the economic instability and uncertainty these younger generations have faced, including the 2008 financial crisis and the current gig economy, which have fostered a survivalist mentality. In her book iGen, Jean Twenge scrutinizes these younger generations for their lack of critical thinking skills and immaturity. Twenge argues that the constant exposure to digital media and the pressures of social validation have led to a decline in deep, analytical thinking and an increase in superficial, emotionally driven responses. She highlights how the emphasis on immediate gratification and individual success have overshadowed the development of resilience and critical reasonings.

The parents of Boomers, often referred to as the Great Generation, emphasized hard work, discipline, and sacrifice, values that were almost canonized in rebuilding and sustaining American society and the economy after the war. The national collective consciousness was shaped by shared hardship and the triumph of overcoming adversity. In contrast, contemporary parenting emphasizes self-esteem, individual expression and emotional well-being, often at the expense of psychic resilience and communal responsibility. This shift reflects broader societal changes including increased affluence and a focus on personal fulfillment over collective duty.

In addition, the spiritual ideals that emerged in the 1960s played a crucial role in fueling the activism of the era. The countercultural movements embraced various spiritual philosophies, from Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism to the human potential movement, which sought to transcend materialism and connect with deeper existential truths. It gave rise to investigating natural medical therapies outside conventional pharmaceutical-based medicine. Today’s holistic medical movement can largely trace its legacy to the 1960s adventurous idealism. These spiritual currents played a role in the anti-war and human rights movements; it provided a moral and ethical framework that emphasized compassion, fellowship and interconnectedness, and a rejection of material excess.

In contrast, today’s cultural landscape is marked by a decline in traditional religious affiliation and a rise in atheism and scientific materialism. According to Pew Research Center, there has been a notable increase in the number of Americans identifying as religiously unaffiliated, particularly among younger generations. This shift has led to a more secular worldview, where scientific reasoning and a mechanist regard for empirical evidence are over-valued and spiritual or religious beliefs are tossed in the historical dustbin. While this has fostered a more rational and evidence-based approach to many aspects of life, it has also contributed to a sense of spiritual disconnection, psychological isolation and purposelessness, existential angst and a lack of cohesive moral vision.

We might look at the power of cinema to capture the zeitgeist of its era. Earlier films’ predictions of future societal crises is a testament to the visionary capabilities of filmmakers. Several Hollywood films from the mid-20th century have not only entertained but also presciently warned of institutional corruption, societal collapse, and the erosion of ethical values that have come to define the 21st century. Paddy Chayefsky’s Network (1976), Arthur Hiller’s The Hospital (1971), Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) and Barry Lyndon (1975), Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men (1957), and the 1962 adaptation of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird serve as poignant cinematic forewarnings, their narratives increasingly relevant as today’s realities unfold.

Network is perhaps one of the most striking examples of cinema’s prophetic voice. Paddy Chayefsky’s dark satire of the television industry encapsulates the media’s descent into sensationalism and profit-driven content. The character of Howard Beale, portrayed by Peter Finch, becomes the mouthpiece for public outrage by famously declaring, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” This outburst reflects a deep-seated disillusionment with the media’s role in society; its a sentiment that resonates powerfully today as trust in mainstream news outlets wanes and infotainment overshadows substantive reporting. Chayefsky foresaw a media landscape where corporate interests eclipse journalistic integrity, a scenario that has materialized in the age of 24-hour news cycles, social media echo chambers and Orwellian newspeak.

Cancel culture, characterized by the public shaming and ostracism of individuals or works deemed offensive or politically incorrect, poses a significant threat to these films. Network, with its scathing critique of the media’s descent into sensationalism and the psyop of fake propaganda, could easily offend modern sensibilities by exposing the manipulative tactics of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the New York Times, PBS and the rest of legacy media. Its raw portrayal of public disillusionment is too confrontational in an era where dissenting voices are often silenced to maintain a veneer of social harmony.

Arthur Hiller’s The Hospital delves into the bureaucratic dysfunction and moral decay within our healthcare system. The movie’s theme has only become more pertinent in the face of the pharmaceutical industry’s total capture of our federal health agencies. It prefigures the modern healthcare system’s failures exacerbated by private favoritism such as Obamacare and the pharmaceutical industry’s influence into every aspect of our lives. George C. Scott’s portrayal of Dr. Herbert Bock highlights the frustration and helplessness of medical professionals who are devoted to the moral integrity of the Hippocratic Oath while being ensnared in a capitalized establishment that prioritizes cost-saving efficiency and profit over patient care. The film’s satirical examination of institutional incompetence and corruption echoes the modern critiques of the world’s Anthony Faucis and Bill Gates who have weaponized medicine through global institutions such as the World Health Organization. Phony doctors heading the HHS, CDC, FDA and NIAID masquerade as phony representatives of science. The repressive medical regime, controlled by compromised executives and scientists, administrative bloat and pharmaceutical profiteering undermine compassionate healthcare itself. With its unvarnished look at the healthcare system’s bureaucratic inefficiencies and ethical compromises, The Hospital today is too critical of an industry that has become synonymous with corporate interests. Following the Covid-19 pandemic as healthcare debates are highly polarized, such a candid portrayal could provoke backlash from those seeking to protect the industry’s image and profitability. 

Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb remains a seminal work about the darkly comic absurdities of Cold War-era lunacy and the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation. The film’s portrayal of inept and paranoid leaders making catastrophic decisions in a high-stakes geopolitical game is eerily relevant today with neoconservative warmongers such as Anthony Blinken, Lloyd Austen and Jake Sullivan in the current Biden administration, and Mike Pompeo and John Bolton during the Trump years, who seem determined to launch the West into a third world war. The character of General Buck Turgidson, again played by George C. Scott, embodies the dangerous hubris and bellicosity that can lead to global disaster, a reminder of the ongoing risks posed by nuclear proliferation and international brinkmanship with NATO’s game of chicken against Russia’s far superior military. If released today, Dr. Strangelove and its satirical take on Cold War politics would be deemed too provocative given the current geopolitical climate. The film’s dark humor and portrayal of nuclear brinkmanship might be seen as trivializing serious issues, potentially leading to its censorship in a society increasingly wary of anything that might appear to undermine national security concerns and the beating war drums against Russia, China and Iran.

In Barry Lyndon, Kubrick shifts his focus to the personal ambition and social climbing of an 18th-century rogue. The titular character’s relentless pursuit of wealth and status, often through morally dubious means, mirrors the modern-day narratives of the Wall Street billionaire class and Silicon Valley’s dystopian technocrats. The film’s depiction of the corrupting influence of power and the superficiality of social success resonates with contemporary critiques of economic inequality and the moral compromises often required for material advancement. Its depiction of superficiality and corruption is an attack on the modern-day equivalents of its protagonist such as the multinational banks and Blackrock, and would prompt calls for the film’s suppression by those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.

Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men explores the dynamics of justice and the influence of personal biases within the jury system. The film’s examination of how prejudice and preconceived notions can cloud judgment is an accurate portrayal of today’s polarized society. The narrative underscores the importance of critical thinking, empathy, and the courage to stand against majority opinion. Today Critical Race Theory and the divisive rhetoric of figures like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X Kendi, and Nikole Hannah-Jones illustrate how personal biases distort objective judgment and justice and feed a socially driven mob mentality. Twelve Angry Men challenges the popular Black-and-White narratives promoted by both sides of the political spectrum. In a society deeply divided by ideological red lines, the film’s exploration of justice and empathy might be censored for failing to conform to simplistic moral binaries.

To Kill a Mockingbird | Summary, Characters, Book, & Facts | Britannica

Finally, the 1962 film adaptation of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, directed by Robert Mulligan, remains a powerful commentary on racial injustice and moral integrity. Gregory Peck’s portrayal of Atticus Finch as a principled lawyer defending an innocent black man accused of rape highlights the enduring struggles against racism and the importance of standing up for what is right even in the face of societal opposition. Now that both the inquisitional Right and Left seek to ban books and stifle free speech, Finch’s principles are more relevant than ever. His character stands as a beacon of ethical steadfastness and a reminder of the importance of defending fundamental rights and freedoms. Despite its longstanding status as a classic, critical race activists have targeted the film’s perspective and treatment of racial issues, arguing that it centers on a white savior narrative. It is no surprise therefore that in our age of heightened irrational sensitivity towards personal representation and identity politics that To Kill a Mockingbird has been a special target for censorship.

These films collectively offer a rich tapestry of insights into the systemic issues that plague America’s culture. They highlight the dangers of unchecked institutional power, the moral compromises that erode societal values, and the humanitarian need for individuals to uphold principles of justice, integrity, and critical thought. As we navigate the chaotic waters of the 21st century, the lessons embedded in these cinematic works serve as vital reminders of the past’s foresight and the ongoing need to address the fundamental flaws within our institutions.

Yet, in our climate of cancel culture, corporate capture of government, and pervasive virtue signaling, if directed today these films would face censorship and banning. To Kill A Mockingbird continues to be one of the most censored books in the United States. Woke liberals decry the banning of multi-gender and sexually explicit books to twelve year olds but simultaneously turn around and ban Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, and Dr. Seuss. The reasons for this suppression lie in both the Left’s and Right’s unflinching examination of uncomfortable truths and their unwillingness to engage in civil discourse due to the systemic avarice that pervades all sides of the political aisle. 

All of this proves that America has turned its back on the very essence of art. In an enlightened society that prides itself on being liberal and open-minded, art, cinema or otherwise, should not be censored because it embodies constitutional free speech and expression. This principle enshrined in the First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to express their thoughts and emotions. There are two major reasons why art should remain uncensored:

First, art serves as a vital platform for the exploration and expression of diverse perspectives. It acts as a mirror reflecting the intricacies of the human experience, offering insights into different cultures, histories, and social challenges. By allowing unfettered artistic expression, society fosters a vibrant, dynamic cultural landscape where dialogue and understanding can flourish. Censorship, on the other hand, stifles this exchange of ideas and ultimately leads to intellectual stagnation and cultural homogenization. 

Second, art has the power to challenge and provoke by encouraging concerted introspection. Truly revolutionary art critiques frozen established standards and forces us to reconsider our beliefs and assumptions. In doing so, art becomes a catalyst for social change and personal growth. The Italian Renaissance, the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s and 30s, the Mexican Muralism Movement, the German Bauhaus and the American Beat Generation were each artistic revolutions that inspired radical cultural change by daring and defying the existing norms and by advocating new ways of thinking.

Yet today’s contemporary movements such as cancel culture, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory and the DEI movement, while naively well-intentioned in their unrealistic goals to advance genuine social justice and equality, have contrarily become adversaries of artistic expression in their efforts to silence dissenting voices and ban works of art, such as historical statues and literature they find disagreeable. Their folly only further catapults us towards George Orwell’s portrayal of a society where language is controlled, history is rewritten, and independent thought is persecuted. Orwell’s 1984 clearly echoes current concerns about the US government’s systematic indoctrination, which is cheered on by the minions of wokeism and postmodern revisionism who ignorantly erode objective knowledge and deplore wisdom. But neither should the Christian Right be left off the hook for a similar belligerent ignorance.

As a consequence, American history is being rewritten to align with competing dogmas while sacrificing objectivity for partisan narratives. In the past, parents trusted school curriculums and the quality of educators implicitly. The quintessential “little red schoolhouse” and its dedicated teachers were cornerstones of individual knowledge and civic communal harmony. Now this trust has eroded as indoctrinated parents, students and young woke teachers exert undue influence over class curriculums and school boards. The acquiescence of educational bureaucracies to these pressures has widened the chasm between traditional educational values and contemporary practices, leaving parents justifiably outraged. When movements like BLM and DEI advocate for the removal of certain books and artworks from public discourse, they inadvertently adopt the tactics of censorship that they ostensibly oppose, and they deprive society of the opportunity to engage with challenging concepts and ideas.

Peel away the public veneer and the hysterical rants of Right and Left alike and we discover Friedrich Nietzsche’s Letzter Mensch or “the last man”: a passive, complacent individual who seeks comfort, security and conformity over excellence and critical engagement. The “last man” in Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a pathetic creature. Over the decades we witness such postmodern golems endlessly occupying the White House, the halls of Congress, and across the mainstream media networks and talk shows. Nietzsche’s disdain for this bureaucratic and sheepish mediocrity and his call for the cultivation of individual greatness resonate with our need to resist ideological homogenization and instead promote critical, independent thinking.

The “last man” is characterized by a desire for comfort, security, and to avoid existential risks. These people exemplify a life immersed in pleasure and satisfaction in mundane superficialities. They are content with a life devoid of deeper meaning.  They represent the ultimate outcome of a society that values artificial equality and self-indulgence over excellence and authentic empathy. In brief, the Letzter Mensch is spiritually empty and the ultimate product of America’s current trajectory towards an unfulfilling and rotting existence.

The dangers of a collective mindset controlled by a powerful elite, as warned by philosopher Hannah Arendt, are evident today. This elite manipulates societal structures and narratives to serve their interests, operating with impunity and undermining democratic values and accountability. The resulting control poses significant dangers to individual freedoms and threaten the very foundations of a democratic society.

When a society, culture, or nation faces the suppression or eradication of wisdom—both civic and spiritual—its foundational integrity is profoundly undermined. Civic wisdom encompasses the collective knowledge and principles guiding political and social institutions, fostering an environment where justice, equity and democratic values prevail. Spiritual wisdom, on the other hand, nurtures the moral and ethical dimensions of a community by providing a deeper sense of purpose and interconnectedness among individuals. The absence of these forms of wisdom, that has been embodied by wise elders for millennia, precipitates a series of detrimental consequences that ripple through the fabric of society.

The suppression of civic wisdom erodes the pillars of democracy and good governance. When suppressed, a culture of ignorance and apathy takes root. Without civic wisdom, the rise of an authoritarian regime exploits the uninformed masses. The absence of civic wisdom also results in a lack of accountability and transparency in government that fosters corruption and injustice. 

The eradication of spiritual wisdom disrupts a nation’s moral compass. Spiritual wisdom, whether religious or philosophical, which may or may not be informed by science, instills values such as compassion, integrity, and respect for life. When spiritual wisdom is marginalized, an ethical relativism symbolized by either “being woke” or “being godly” prevails. Wokeism is simply an inversion of fundamentalist Christianity and repressive religious dogmas and vice versa. Both utterly lack any semblance of wisdom. The shared sense of purpose and belonging that spiritual wisdom provides is replaced by existential nihilism and self-cherishing individualism. Our nation’s “spiritual blackout”, in the words of Cornel West, exacerbates social problems including crime, substance abuse, and mental health issues.

Our nation as a whole increasingly suffers in its international standing. Nations that suppress wisdom more often than not engage in policies that isolate them from the global community.

We simply need to look at the rise of the BRICS bloc, which has upwards to fifty new national applications, and how the US’s and its Western allies’ adversarial avarice towards the international “other” is contributing to their own economic stagnation and diplomatic conflicts. Internally, Western nations will experience rising social unrest and division as marginalized groups seek to reclaim their voices and rights. Three decades of unwise and foolish American leadership based upon dismal domestic and foreign decision-making continues to exacerbate poverty, mental health, inequality, and environmental degradation.

The United States must face the chant of the funeral march. It is unmoored from its historical foundations that was once integral to the republic’s and constitution’s inception. The collective mindset, exploited by a wealthy elite, faces no accountability and perpetuates a cycle of disenfranchisement and cultural fragmentation.

To restore America’s social foundation and cultural fabric, it is imperative to reintegrate civic and spiritual wisdom into public life by honoring the insights of the elders. Spiritual teachings from diverse traditions emphasize compassion, justice, and the interconnectedness of all life, offering a counterbalance to the materialism and individualism that dominate contemporary culture. Embracing these values will help foster a society that prioritizes the common good and the well-being of all its members. By embracing the lessons of the past and rejecting the divisive ideologies of the present, we can rebuild a society grounded in knowledge and higher truths that embrace both the best of science and the true beauty of the human spirit.

*

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

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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

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

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

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

***

NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, although claiming he would not comment on France’s ongoing domestic crisis, said that “I strongly believe it is in the interest of France, and all the allies, to keep NATO strong, because we live in a more dangerous world.”

France is right now facing a political crisis – maybe the wildest one in decades, as Arnaud Bertrand, businessman and commentator, writes.

French President Emmanuel Macron dissolved his country’s parliament and decided to gamble on a snap election, as a reaction against the rise of the so-called “far-right.” The problem is that the populist party National Rally (Rassemblement National), formerly known as the National Front, is projected to win 31.5 percent of the vote, which is over twice the 14.7 percent projected for Macron’s Renaissance party.

Bardella, who is the president of the National Rally’s party since 2022, and also currently a member of the European Parliament, and who is a likely next Prime Minister for France, has pledged to maintain Paris within NATO at least as long as the conflict in Ukraine keeps going: “The proposal we’ve always advocated … did not factor in war… You don’t change treaties in wartime.” Hence, Stoltenberg “warning”.

There is of course a catch in such a commitment: for one thing, Ukraine has never declared war against Russia to this day.  In fact, on April, retired general Igor Romanenko, a former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that doing so would go against Ukraine’s interests: “If we went to a state of war, then assistance for weapons and equipment would cease not only from the United States, but also from most of the allies.”

This could be just a legal technicality, but it does make it hard to draw the line about when exactly a “war” ended or started. For instance, Ukraine has been bombing the Donbass region since 2014. Even with a Russian de facto victory, Kyiv could just claim Crimea and Donbass indefinitely, and all the Ukrainian far-right militias can make sure that some sort of low-level or frozen conflict (with provocations and terror attacks) goes on for many years. On the other hand, this very ambiguity may give room to a hypothetical National Rally presidency in future France to deem that the war in Ukraine is “over” whenever it sees fit – and then proceed to withdraw from NATO. One should bear in mind that Bardella has only made this caveat with regards to an ongoing “war” in the Eastern European country. Other than that, he does claim that leaving NATO has always been his party’s proposal. As recently as 2022, French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen (who is a member of Bardella’s party) promised to pull France out of NATO’s military command structure. One should also keep in mind that France did withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance’s integrated military structure in 1966, albeit not completely leaving the NATO Treaty, and even expelled all of its units and headquarters on French territory back then. The country’s  “estrangement” from the Atlantic organization only ended in 2009 with then President Nicolas Sarkozy, which means it took no less than 43 years for France to change its course.

Today’s French Fifth Republic is a semi-presidentialism system, in which the French President (the executive Head of State) has more powers with regards to foreign policy, also being the commander-in-chief of the French Armed Forces. The Prime Minister, in turn, being the head of government, mostly occupies oneself with domestic issues. Of course, a National Rally government, if politically successful, could pave the way for a future National Rally presidency. Moreover, the French government, led by its Prime Minister, controls the budget and could therefore hamper military aid to Ukraine in a number of ways – this, by the way, would be a very popular measure in France,  considering that just recently, in March 2023, Macron imposed a very unpopular bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 years old by unusually invoking a special constitutional powers and basically shunning parliament.

Even former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in his recent interview, has described Macron’s latest decision to dissolve the parliament as a “major risk for the country.” He added that the “endless enlargement of Europe towards Ukraine” is a mistake against which he “warned”: “I even dared to make a comparison, and I was widely criticized for, asserting that Ukraine risked becoming, for President Macron, what Turkey had been for President Chirac… Enlargement towards Ukraine is a contradiction, [it takes place] while the Balkan countries, which are European, have been waiting for so long.”

In France, the President names the Prime Minister, but in practice is forced to make a choice that would be able to get the support of a majority in the assembly, because the French National Assembly can dismiss the Prime Minister government.

Therefore, Macron has indeed placed himself in a very difficult and risky position. He has vowed to remain in the presidency regardless of the results of parliamentary elections (on July 7) he himself convoked. He thus might have to name a far-right government, depending on the results. Such results are to come a few days before the NATO summit in Washington, which Macron is of course expected to attend. In such a scenario, he would arrive there in a completely demoralized position.

Marine Le Pen’s 2022 proposal (to leave NATO) was just following the steps of Charles de Gaulle. Le Pen (who is the “far-right” most famous politician in France) is, truth be told, basically a Republican conservative. She supports left-wing economic policies, is pro-abortion, and is a vocal critic of the current “open-borders” migration policy.

For years, the “far-right” label has been the most feared political weapon in Europe and, more broadly, in the West. Far from being merely an accurate description of (very real) neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi groups, it has long been an umbrella concept that also includes all sorts of hardline nationalists and populists. On different occasions, this bogeyman enlarged concept (weaponized by both the left and the right) has served the purpose of setting up Establishment centrist coalitions everywhere.

Today’s mainstreamization of the so-called “far-right” thus serves justice – in a way. At the same time, it also opens the way for the rehabilitation of real Fascists – as long  as they remain loyal to the European bloc and to the Atlantic alliance, as I wrote before. Part of the European center-right and conservative Establishment did hope to make good use of a co-opted and domesticated “far-right” – as seen with the Meloni-Von der Leyen political Alliance. The ongoing French situation brings back the specter of a rising NATO sceptic (and EU sceptic) political alternative and basically short-circuits the system.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

After years of struggling to produce a book on the Russian-Ukraine conflict, I am pleased to announce the release of my latest book.

I am pleased to announce, together with my collaborator and co-author, the publication on our new book, Covering Ukraine:

The Scott Ritter Interviews Through the Eyes of Ania K, published by Clarity Press.

This book is the byproduct of a collaboration dating back more than two years, to the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine in February 2022. It was then, shortly after the conflict began, that I received an email from Ania, requesting that I appear as a guest on her podcast, Through the Eyes of Ania K, to discuss the Russian actions and what they meant for the people of not only Russia and Ukraine, but all of Europe. I was, at the time, in high demand as a guest on podcasts that specialized in geopolitical analysis, making me busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. My inclination was to politely turn down the request, as I had done all-too-frequently at that hectic time. But something in the way Ania framed her request caused me to change my mind, and I agreed to do what I thought would be a “one-off” experience.

Fortunately, I was wrong, and here we are, nearly two and a half years later, continuing our interview-based dialogue on a regular basis.

My editor at Clarity Press, Diana Collier, had been pressuring me for some time to write a book about NATO, and more specifically what the future of NATO would be considering the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. I had originally committed to do such a book, with a delivery date of August 2022, but quickly reconsidered when confronted with the reality of NATO’s massive support to Ukraine became clear. I withdrew from the project in August, warning Diana that whatever book we published would quickly be overcome by events, making it outdated before it even left the printing press. Sure enough, in September 2022 Ukraine launched a major offensive, Russia mobilized, a referendum was held in the so-called “new territories” resulting in their being absorbed by Russia, and the nature of the conflict was fundamentally changed.

Pulling the book was the right decision.

As the war in Ukraine reaches its climactic conclusion, the NATO book remains very much a viable project. However, it is one which realistically won’t reach fruition until the Spring/Summer of 2025. Ever the practical editor, Diana kept pressuring me for an interim project, noting (correctly) that there was a big appetite for books on the Ukraine conflict. By this time, however, the calendar had advanced to the summer of 2023, and I was heavily engaged in my Waging Peace project involving extensive travel to Russia. Time, as they say, was at a premium, made even more so by my notoriously poor time management skills, which had me burning the candle at both ends week in and week out.

There simply was no time for me to write a book.

I came up with an alternative approach—rather than me write the book, what if I simply sat down for an extended interview and used the transcript produced by that effort as the basis of a manuscript suitable for publication? This wasn’t exactly a new idea—in 2002, William Rivers Pitt, an American journalist, interviewed me over the course of several days, providing material which he then shaped into War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, which was published in the summer of 2002 by Context Books. The book did quite well, with domestic sales being driven by the fervent anti-war demonstrations being organized in opposition to the pending US-led invasion of Iraq. The book was also published in several languages, leading to book tours in Japan, France, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

Based upon this experience, I convinced my skeptical editor that this approach could work well regarding the Ukraine conflict. The next question, of course, was who would serve as the “new” William Rivers Pitt, who had tragically died of a heart attack at the age of 51 in September 2022. While I wrestled with that question, the issue of time availability again raised its ugly head—even an interview-based book required a significant time commitment, and time was a commodity in short supply. One of the reasons was that I had committed to an intensive schedule of podcasts—my own, and those of other podcasters with whom I had established a rapport over time.

One of these was Ania K.

It was in the middle of one of Ania K’s podcasts, as I struggled to answer her provocative, soul-searching questions, that I had an epiphany: why reinvent the wheel? Ania and I had, over the course of our work, produced hours of material which could be crafted into an interview-based book that was both timely and comprehensive in its coverage of the conflict.

The rest is history.

Ania and I announce the publication of our new book, Covering Ukriane

It is my pleasure to be able, in collaboration with Ania K and Clarity Press, to bring this book to the public. I believe it to be an important and relevant contribution to the literature of the Russian-Ukraine conflict, one which provides unique perspective based upon an innovative approach to telling the story (each chapter is based upon a question Ania K asked during her podcast; at the end of each chapter, there is a QR code which will take the reader to the actual interview itself. This isn’t just a book—it’s a multi-media presentation!)

*

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


COVERING UKRAINE: The Scott Ritter Interviews Through the Eyes Of Ania K

By Scott Ritter

Covering Ukraine: The Scott Ritter interviews through the Eyes Of Ania K. is a unique and timely addition to the literature on the conflict in Ukraine. It offers a fresh look at complex problems that will empower and entertain the reader with new insights and sharp analysis of a war few understand—which as such is doomed to continue in perpetuity, the living manifestation of the age-old adage, “You can’t solve a problem if you do not first properly define what the problem is.”

In this book, Ania K. and I embark on a journey to properly define the problems manifest in the Ukraine conflict, and together, we struggle to find a solution.

Click here to purchase from Clarity Press, Inc.

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.

First published on October 11, 2023

*** 

Author’s Introductory Note 

Early Saturday October 7, 2023, Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm.” On that same day, Netanyahu confirmed a so-called “State of Readiness For War.” A complete blockade on the Gaza Strip was initiated on October 9, 2023 consisting in blocking and obstructing the importation of food, water, fuel, and essential commodities to 2.3 million Palestinians. It’s an outright crime against humanity. It’s genocide. 

Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack”?

Was it a “False Flag” Attack by a faction within Hamas (supported by Mossad and US intelligence) which was intent upon justifying Netanyahu’s all out war against Palestine? That Hamas faction was co-opted and bribed by Mossad.

In the words of Netanyahu: 

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, …this is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

(Benjamin Netanyahu, statement to his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

At this stage we have scanty evidence regarding who was behind the Hamas attack. False flag agendas are carefully planned intelligence operations. 

The following article, which is of relevance to the Hamas Al Aqsa Storm attack, examines the logic of a “false flag agenda” formulated in 1962 by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff as a means to justify an invasion and all-out war against Cuba. 

The fundamental premise of Operation Northwoods was to trigger civilian deaths in the U.S. as a justification for military intervention (“on humanitarian grounds”). That same diabolical “false flag” premise largely characterizes Netanyahu’s all-out war against Palestine. 

Operation Northwoods was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the support of US intelligence. The logic of this false flag plan was

to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba”. 

“Casualty Lists Would Cause a Helpful Wave of Indignation”.

President John F. Kennedy refused to carry out “Operation Northwoods.” That happened a year before his assassination in November 1963.

The secret documents pertaining to Operation Northwoods were declassified more than 15 years ago.

Read them carefully. Netanyahu’s war on the People of Palestine is a “copy and paste” of “Operation Northwoods.”

While the implementation of Operation Northwoods was shelved, its fundamental (diabolical) premise of using civilian deaths (described by the Pentagon as a “massive casualty producing event”) as a justification for military intervention (“on humanitarian grounds”) remains of utmost relevance.

This article was first published in 2016.

We are solidarity with the People of Palestine.

It is crucial that the False Flag led by Israeli intelligence be recognized.

The false flag is using Israeli civilian deaths as a means to wage genocide against the People of Palestine.

Michel Chossudovsky, October 11, 2023, June 19, 2024 

***

The Pentagon’s Secret “Operation Northwoods”(1962)

Directed Against Cuba.

“Casualty Lists Would Cause a Helpful Wave of Indignation”

by Michel Chossudovsky

Under a secret 1962 US Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled Operation Northwoods, civilians in the Cuban community in Miami were to be killed as part of a covert operation. The objective was to trigger a “helpful wave of indignation in US newspapers”.

The killings and “acts of terrorism” were then to be blamed on the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

The objective of this sinister plan –which Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and  President J. F. Kennedy– refused to carry out, was to drum up public support for a  war against Cuba.

“In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and,“casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” 

…. The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford. (U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba – ABC News emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted (See Operation Northwoods, See also National Security Archive, 30 April 2001)

It was a false flag operation: kill civilians in US cities and blame it on the communist government of Fidel Castro with a view to providing a pretext to invade Cuba on humanitarian grounds.

Do the terror attacks in Brussels and Paris have a similar logic?  Civilian death used to buttress support for the implementation of police state measures against ISIS, an illusive enemy based in Raqqa, northern Syria?

 

 

The Northwoods 1962 document was titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”. 

“The Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

These proposals – part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, 

developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),”

faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.” (National Security Archives, pdf, emphasis added)

(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdfTo access all the declassified documents of Operation Northwoods click here

The underlying premise still prevails under the US sponsored war on terrorism.

While the implementation of Operation Northwoods was shelved, its fundamental (diabolical) premise of using civilian deaths (described by the Pentagon as a “massive casualty producing event”) as a justification for military intervention (“on humanitarian grounds”) or the implementation of far-reaching police state measures is still of utmost relevance.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu’s “False Flag” Is a “Copy and Paste”: The Pentagon’s Secret “Operation Northwoods”(1962) Directed Against Cuba. “Casualty Lists Would Cause a Helpful Wave of Indignation”

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

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

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

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

***

It should be understood that this was not a “Hamas Plan” (at the political level).

It was a carefully planned Israeli-US False Flag Intelligence Operation which was intent to deliberately result in Israeli casualties.

This in turn would provide a justification on fake humanitarian grounds to carry out a genocide against the People of Palestine

The evidence confirms that the Genocide had been carefully planned well in advance by Israeli Intelligence, in liaison with US-NATO.

This article documents the fact that Israel’s IDF as well as its Intel had advanced knowledge of the Hamas’ plan, which indelibly points to a “False Flag” by Israeli Intelligence. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 19, 2024

See:

False Flag Operation, The Lie becomes the Truth: “Israel is the Victim of Palestinian Aggression”. According to the ICC, “There Never Was A Genocide”.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and International Criminal Court, June 19, 2024

 

Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let It Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?

By Philip Giraldi and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 01, 2024

 

Netanyahu’s “False Flag” Is a “Copy and Paste”: The Pentagon’s Secret “Operation Northwoods”(1962) Directed Against Cuba. “Casualty Lists Would Cause a Helpful Wave of Indignation”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 19, 2024

 

 

***

 

The Israeli army and intelligence services had detailed knowledge of Hamas’s plan to attack Israel and take captives weeks before the 7 October attack, a newly surfaced document reveals.

A report by Israel’s Kan News says the report, titled “Detailed End-to-End Raid Training”, was compiled by the Israeli army’s Gaza Division, distributed on 19 September 2023, and was known to top intelligence officials.

The document went through Hamas’s intentions and described in detail the series of exercises conducted by the Palestinian group’s elite units.

Kan says the exercises included simulated raids on military posts and kibbutzim, the kidnapping of soldiers and civilians, as well as how to keep the captives once they had entered the Gaza Strip.

The document even reportedly included “the number of civilians and soldiers that Hamas planned to kidnap”.

“Security sources told Kan News that the document was known to the intelligence leadership, at the very least in the Gaza Division,” the news agency’s report says.

Kan adds that Israeli intelligence officials monitored Hamas’s exercises in Gaza and documented the steps the group was planning to take after taking over military posts and entering Israeli territory.

“Israeli intelligence officials who monitored the exercise detailed in the document the next steps after breaching into Israel and taking over the posts, determining that the instruction is to hand over the captured soldiers to the company commanders,” it said. “The expected number of hostages, it states, is between 200 and 250 people.”

Hamas’s attack on Israel killed more than 1,100 people and saw some 250 others taken captive. Israel’s subsequent war on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 37,000 Palestinians, destroyed much of the enclave’s civilian infrastructure, and led to high-level accusations of genocide.

It is believed that flawed perceptions within Israel’s security establishment, as well as possible negligence by senior officials, were the main reasons why the Gaza Division’s warnings were not acted upon.

Israel constructed a new, sophisticated security barrier two years prior to Hamas’s attack, which, along with the Gaza Division’s knowledge of the Palestinian movement’s plan, were expected to make such an attack improbable.

The barrier failed on 7 October, highlighting what Israel’s Jerusalem Post called “a significant intelligence and security oversight”.

Findings from this failure are expected to be presented to the Israeli army’s chief of staff in the coming weeks, as public pressure in the country remains high to learn more about the military’s failure during the Hamas attack.

Israel’s High Court issued an interim order on Sunday instructing State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman to suspend his investigation into the Israeli army and the Shin Bet security agency’s failures on 7 October.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son, Yair, lashed out at the court, claiming “treason” may have taken place leading up to 7 October and that his father was kept in the dark.

*

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

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

***

Judge Napolitano: How is it that American Middle East foreign policy has been managed by American Jews? This seems to happen no matter who the president is, or which party controls Congress.

Philip Giraldi: This is particularly evident ever since 9/11. As I recall, we had a group of American Jews who were largely in control of the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, etc.) who did everything they could to start a war with Iraq and the reason was not because Iraq had WMD, as Scott Ritter would confirm, but rather because Saddam Hussein was supporting the Palestinians. And when the Israelis were arresting Palestinians, Saddam Hussein would support the families of those people who were arrested. They were very angry about this.

Watch the interview below.

*

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

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

June 19th, 2024 by Global Research News

“The Train Has Left the Station and No One Can Stop It”. Europe Will be at War with Russia. Serbia’s President A. Vucic

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 13, 2024

Psychiatrist of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Commits Suicide

Michael K. Smith, June 7, 2024

Bombshell: Japan’s Former Minister of Internal Affairs Apologizes to the Unvaccinated: ‘You Were Right, Vaccines Are Killing Millions of Our Loved Ones’

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, June 11, 2024

Video: Bill Gates Caught Telling Inner Circle ‘Global Famine’ Will Make Elites ‘God-Like’

The People’s Voice, June 11, 2024

Israel Lobby’s Control Over America Grows Ever Stronger

Philip Giraldi, June 16, 2024

Video: Douglas Macgregor Reveals Russia Just Sent Dangerous Signal, EU Panic, Americans Are Afraid

Douglas Macgregor, June 14, 2024

Up to Half a Million NATO Soldiers Waiting to Enter Ukraine. “Offensive Oriented”, Preparing for “A Large Confrontation”. Drago Bosnic

Drago Bosnic, June 18, 2024

German Government Admits There Was No Pandemic

Baxter Dmitry, June 11, 2024

The Decline of the West. The G7 “War Summit”. Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci, June 17, 2024

The Madness of War. Another Cuban Missile Crisis? USA and France Court Global War. Rodney Atkinson

Rodney Atkinson, June 13, 2024

Pomegranate and Cancer: Recent Research on Punica Granatum (Pomegranate) and Ellagic Acid

Dr. William Makis, June 14, 2024

Saudi Arabia Breaks US Global Power?

Karsten Riise, June 14, 2024

What Makes All Vaccines So Dangerous?

A Midwestern Doctor, June 14, 2024

Russia Overtakes Japan as World’s Fourth Largest Economy

Drago Bosnic, June 13, 2024

It’s Clear the COVID Vaccines Are Unsafe. Dr. Clare Craig’s Testimony to UK’s People’s Vaccine Inquiry

Dr. Clare Craig, June 13, 2024

ICC Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin for “Kidnapping Ukrainian Children”, Russia Accused of “Genocide-like Deportation” at the Switzerland Peace Conference

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 18, 2024

President of Serbia: We Will Have World War Within 3 to 4 Months

Hal Turner, June 13, 2024

Acting As If It Weren’t Really So. “Ignorance of What is Really Going On…” “The Nightmare Which is Approaching”. Edward Curtin

Edward Curtin, June 16, 2024

End of the EU Dream: Disengagement from Reality. America’s War against Europe

Barış Hasan, June 13, 2024

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 15, 2024

When the Lie Becomes the Truth: “Israel Is the Victim of Palestinian Aggression”. According to the ICC, “There Is No Genocide”.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and International Criminal Court, June 19, 2024

There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”. It’s an ongoing genocide, an absolute slaughter, coupled with atrocities. It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.

100 Recent Cases of Sudden and Unexpected Death. The Silent Epidemic No One Wants to Talk About

By Dr. William Makis, June 18, 2024

First important thing to note is that the number of sudden and unexpected deaths of children increases as you go higher in age. Why? The older you go, the more compliance there was. And University & College vaccine mandates. There are almost double the sudden deaths of children ages 16 to 19, compared to children 12 to 15. That is worth noting.

The American Amnesia — US War Policy

By Chaitanya Davé, June 18, 2024

The Vietnam War was one of the greatest blunders of American Foreign Policy. It spanned five presidencies. More than 58,000 young Americans lost their lives. Major parts of Vietnam were laid waste. 

The United States Is the Main Obstacle to Peace in Palestine

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, June 18, 2024

As Hamas pointed out, Israel has not publicly accepted the terms of the latest U.S. cease-fire proposal, so it has only the word of U.S. officials that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has privately agreed to it.

Is a New Cuban Missile Crisis Brewing Over Ukraine? Dangers of Nuclear War. John J. Mearsheimer

By Steven Sahiounie, June 18, 2024

On June 12, three Russian ships and a nuclear-powered submarine arrived in Havana, Cuba. Having crossed the Atlantic, the ships performed maneuvers designed to enhance military capability, and have remained in Cuba through June 17. Recently, President Vladimir Putin made a threat to supply unspecified countries with weapons capable of striking Kiev’s Western allies.

Fractious Arenas: Netanyahu Dissolves the War Cabinet

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 18, 2024

The departure of Benny Gantz from the Israeli war cabinet, which had served as a checking forum against the conventional security cabinet, presented a perfect opportunity for those who felt his presence stifling. 

‘D-day’ and WWII Examples of the Fake Reality Offered Up by U.S. Corporate TV News Programming

By Jay Janson, June 17, 2024

It is agonisingly sad to imagine those, who got killed on D-day following orders to wade forward into the firing line of German gun emplacements, but living in true reality would mean knowing that the Russians, (who were not invited to the D-day celebrations), had, at great human cost, already defeated Germany the year before D-day, during the cataclysmic battles of Stalingrad [2] and Kursk in February and August of 1943, and were by D-day 1944 pushing toward Berlin liberating Nazi concentration camps on the way.

The American Amnesia — US War Policy

June 18th, 2024 by Chaitanya Davé

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

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

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

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

***

In 1953, at British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s urging, the Eisenhower administration carried out a coup overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and replaced him with a puppet named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1979, the people of Iran overthrew him. Ever since then, Iran has become our arch enemy. Was the coup a wise policy? 

The Korean War lasted for three years from July 1950 till July 1953. In its wake, a staggering number of military men and civilians lost their lives. American casualties were 142,091 with 33,629 killed.

The casualties also included more than a million Chinese, and hundreds of thousands of North and South Koreans. South Korea was shattered while the North Korean countryside was laid waste. Millions of South Koreans were made fugitive and hundreds of thousands fled to North Korea. Half of Korea’s industry was destroyed while hundreds of thousands of its homes were demolished. 

The war ended in a stalemate. 

So, were the enormous costs in men and materials worth the price? Perhaps that question should be asked to the American, Chinese and Korean families of dead and injured. 

Our great Five Star General, General Omar Bradley best described this war thus,

“Frankly, a great military disaster, the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy.”

If he were alive today, he would perhaps have said the same thing about our past wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Vietnam War was one of the greatest blunders of American Foreign Policy. It spanned five presidencies. More than 58,000 young Americans lost their lives. Major parts of Vietnam were laid waste. 

In this horrible war, millions of Vietnamese civilians and military personnel were killed and injured. Four million Vietnamese were terribly sickened by Agent Orange that we had sprayed. As a result, 500,000 babies were born with birth defects. 

By the time the massive bombing of Cambodia stopped, hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were killed and injured.

Hundreds of thousands were sickened by Agent Orange. Four to six million land mines were dropped.

Today, there are about 40,000 plus people who are amputees as a result of land mines exploding on them. The polite people of Cambodia had done no harm to us. 

In our war with Iraq in 1991, as per International Commission of Inquiry, 150,000 civilians were killed including 100,000 post war deaths. As per UN reports, 500,000 children died due to the brutal sanctions that we had insisted upon. It was also a major environmental disaster. The Bush (Sr.) administration had rejected every negotiation or compromise that were offered. It was a war that the United States badly wanted. Iraq’s infrastructure and major civilian facilities were destroyed. Unbearable death and destruction was brought on the country. What harm had Iraqi people done to us? What crime had they committed? 

The Second Iraq War of 2003 was waged on the basis of ‘false’ information. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda. It was nothing short of a catastrophe. We lost more than 4,000 of our young men and women. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people were killed.

Some reports put the figure at more than 1.5 million civilians killed. Millions were made refugees. The whole country was laid waste by our horrible bombing. Why did we bring such terrible death and destruction on Iraqi people who had done us no harm? Is it fair that hundreds of thousands of civilians including our own young men die in order to quench our thirst to dominate other countries’ resources and people? 

According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, the true cost of the Iraq war will ultimately cost our country some $3 trillion.

Our children and grandchildren will be paying for it. This immoral war was totally funded by borrowing. Our national debt at that time soared from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in 2008 (before the financial crisis); as per Stiglitz, at least a quarter of that increase was directly attributable to the war. 

As seen from above, our gains from this war were none except some lucrative contracts for our already rich oil companies. 

The US-Afghanistan War lasted just short of 20 years.

This foolish war was financed by borrowed money! As per Los Angeles times (August 17, 2021), the number of American service members killed in this war were 2,448. While U.S. contractors killed numbered 3,846. Afghan national military and police killed were 66,000.

Allied NATO soldiers killed were 1,144. Afghan civilians killed were 47,245 while Taliban and opposition fighters killed numbered 51,191 and aid workers killed were 444 and journalists killed were 72. All this carnage happened due to foolish policies of George Bush Jr., Dick Cheney and their cronies. How much suffering hundreds of thousands of relatives of the dead must have suffered while George Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney are playing golf in America, unpunished and unperturbed. The great irony is that all American presidents especially since World War-II commit crimes against humanity with impunity and get away with it!

As per Brown University (Sept. 1, 2021), America’s criminal and foolish war on terror that lasted 20 years post 9/11, cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and 900,000 innocent lives. 

In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan with 20,000 British and Indian troops, toppled the Afghan leader and installed Shah Shuja who was driven from power decades earlier.

Within three years, their situation became hopeless. They desperately managed to negotiate a treaty to withdraw. On January 6, 1842, 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians–who had followed the British Army to Kabul–began their withdrawal from Kabul to Jalalabad. Many died in brutally cold weather. The remaining thousands were attacked at the mountain pass by the Afghans. The retreat became a massacre. One week later, just one man, a British army surgeon, bloody and exhausted, riding a wretched pony, managed his escape to Jalalabad and survived to tell the gruesome story. Ultimately, the British withdrew from Afghanistan altogether in disgrace. The Soviets too were badly bruised there a few years after their 1979 invasion. But learning nothing from history, we invaded Afghanistan in 2001. 

It is obvious that our elected leaders in Washington seem to learn nothing from history that coups, invasions and wars are not a good policy. It is not only uncivilized but is criminal. On the long run, they work against our own national interests. Wars bring unbearable suffering as thousands of our young men lose their lives or are badly injured inflicting agonizing misery on them and their families. At the same time, the victim countries’ civilian populations are decimated. Besides this enormous human suffering, these wars cost staggering amounts of capital and resources. When are we going to heed the lessons of history, one wonders. 

When some 37.9 million Americans (11.5%) live below the poverty line and when our national debt has surpassed $34 trillion (apnews.com-Jan. 2, 2024), how can we afford such wars? Trillions of dollars that are squandered in these unnecessary wars can be so well spent in helping our fellow Americans who are desperate for help. But do our corrupt politicians care for American people? No. They only care for their re-election and power. 

If humanity is to survive, it should be recognized that the greatness of a nation is measured neither by its military might nor by its ‘victories’ in its immoral wars waged on weaker nations but by its compassion and care for its own poor masses and by its benevolence to the destitute people of the world.

*

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

Chaitanya Davé is an engineer and a businessman. He has authored three books: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: A Shocking Record of US Crimes since 1776-2007, COLLAPSE: Civilization on the Brink-2010, CAPITALISM’S MARCH OF DESTRUCTION: Replacing it with People and Nature-Friendly Economy. Author of many articles on politics, history, and the environment. Founder/President of a non-profit charity foundation helping the poor villagers of India, Nepal, Haiti, USA-homeless and other poor countries. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

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

***

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump took advantage of a campaign event to slam Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who continues to receive tens of billions of dollars whenever he visits Washington. Zelensky is evidently worried by the prospect of Trump returning to the White House as it will all but effectively force the Kiev regime to negotiate with Moscow.

The former president at the Turning People’s Convention Point Action in Detroit described Zelensky as “maybe the greatest salesman of any politician that has ever lived” and criticised the Biden administration for “wasting” billions of dollars

“I think Zelensky is maybe greatest salesman of any politician that’s ever lived... Every time he comes to our country he walks away with $60 billion,” Trump said at the event.

After repeating that Zelensky is “the greatest salesman of all time,” Trump added:

“Here’s now the beauty. He just left four days ago with $60 billion and he gets home and announces that he needs another $60 billion. It never ends. I will have that settled prior to take the White House as president-elect.”

According to Trump, military aid to Ukraine resulted in a shortage of ammunition for the US Army, all due to Biden’s “generosity.”

On June 13, Biden and Zelensky signed a bilateral security agreement for the next 10 years, in which Washington committed to supplying weapons and ammunition to Kiev. The American president during a press conference in Italy with Zelensky said the goal of the bilateral agreement is to “strengthen Ukraine’s credible defence and deterrence capabilities for the long term.”

He added that the collective efforts by the G7 show that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot wait us out, he cannot divide us, and we’ll be with Ukraine until they prevail this war.”

Once again, Biden is making a promise that he cannot possibly keep since he will have to not only overcome Trump in November’s election, but somehow manage to find tens of billions of dollars every year just to maintain the current situation – Russia’s methodical destruction of Ukraine’s armed forces whilst slowly advancing and liberating more territory – let alone even more resources to have a chance of reversing the situation.

Zelensky at the joint press conference was quizzed on what he would do if the next US president does not follow through with this agreement. He delusionally suggested that if Americans support Ukraine, so will the American president. 

“If the people are with us, any leader will be with us in this struggle,” he said.

However, Trump previously stated that he would withhold defence assistance to Ukraine if he wins this year’s presidential election, after claiming Russia would not have launched its special military operation in 2022 had he won a second term in office. It is recalled that Trump had previously also promised to end the war in “one day” and accused Biden of not being capable of dealing with world leaders.

“We have a man that has no clue what’s happening,” he said about Biden at the time, adding that Putin was “sharp” and at the top of his game.

According to the latest survey by Reuters/Ipsos, Trump leads Biden by two points in the lead up to the general election, with 61% of respondents saying their vote will not be impacted by Trump’s conviction last month. More telling is the fact that in the seven crucial swing states that will likely decide the election—Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—all which Biden won narrowly in 2020 except for North Carolina, polls consistently show Trump leads Biden, with the current president alarmingly losing a significant portion of the Black and Latino vote.

This points to the very real scenario that the billionaire could be returning to the White House in January 2025, something that will doom Ukraine, especially after Zelensky said that Trump risks being a “loser president” if he imposes a bad peace deal as it would end the US as a global “player.” This is obviously a ridiculous notion as the US will continue being a major global player, even in a multipolar system, and its status will certainly not be determined by the war in Ukraine.

Undoubtedly Biden’s failure to make Russia capitulate through the Ukraine proxy has dealt a blow to Washington’s prestige, but the North American country has not ceased to be a great power. By Zelensky making such entitled and antagonistic statements, Trump will only be more determined to end the syphoning of tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars to a futile war effort.

Such a scenario will force the Kiev regime to open negotiations with Moscow as the Ukrainian military is already suffering from a lack of weapons and manpower, something that will only worsen if Trump ends all aid. Even if Biden prevails in the upcoming election, it is doubtful that such a level of support can be maintained for another four years despite the promises made.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

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

***

Apr. 26, 2024 – Harrisburg, PA – 16 year old Justin Johnson, 10th grade student at Central Dauphin High School, suffered cardiac arrest and died.

 

 

Apr. 19, 2024 – 19 year old Anna Oyler was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease and Acute Myeloid Leukemia in July 2023.

 

 

Apr. 18, 2024 – Spain – 17 year old Gymnast Maria Herranz Gomez – Spanish World Champion Gymnast died within 24 hours due to Meningitis.

 

 

Apr. 7, 2024 – Turkey – 18 year old Zumra Dalkilic, a young actress died suddenly of a cardiac arrest.

 

Image

 

Apr. 3, 2024 – Penn State – 19 year old Vivian Cristine Spendley died suddenly on April 3, 2024 from a ruptured brain aneurysm. She was a 1st year Penn State student inspeech language pathology.

 

 

Mar. 30, 2024 – Canada – 18 year old Harrison Gilks was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma in 2020, was in remission in 2022 but it returned in June 2022.

Mar. 30, 2024 – 19 year old Antonia Burstein died suddenly.

Mar. 29, 2024 – Clarksville, TN – 17 year old Cameryn “Cam” Ward, Rossvie High School senior basketball player was playing basketball with friends and teammates when he had a medical emergency and died suddenly on March 29, 2024.

Mar. 19, 2024 – 16 year old Ethan Moshaugen, hockey player and golf player, died from spontaneous aortic dissection.

Mar. 16, 2024 – UK 17 year old Raphael Pryor died suddenly on sports pitch while playing an old version of soccer.

Click here to read all cases.

My Take…

First important thing to note is that the number of sudden and unexpected deaths of children increases as you go higher in age. Why?

The older you go, the more compliance there was. And University & College vaccine mandates.

There are almost double the sudden deaths of children ages 16 to 19, compared to children 12 to 15. That is worth noting.

Here are some characteristics of these recent 100 deaths in children ages 16-19.

37 were athletes:

  • 9 soccer players
  • 4 football players
  • 4 athletes unspecified
  • 3 basketball players
  • 3 gymnasts
  • 3 runners
  • 3 swimmers (including 1 lifeguard)
  • 2 hockey players
  • 2 volleyball
  • 1 tennis
  • 1 MMA
  • 1 ballet
  • 1 Army Cadet

7 were going to University and 4 were studying a healthcare program

Causes of death:

  • 18 cardiac arrests
  • 12 died from cancer
  • 7 died from infection
  • 3 died from aneurysm
  • 3 died from blood clots
  • 2 died from seizures
  • 2 had transplant complications
  • 2 died in their sleep
  • 1 died from dissection

Activities when sudden death occurred

  • 8 died at home
  • 3 died playing basketball
  • 2 died playing soccer
  • 2 died running
  • 2 died in their sleep
  • 1 died in fishing competition
  • 1 died doing MMA
  • 1 died at school
  • 1 died playing tennis
  • 1 died swimming

Cancer deaths are in 2nd place. This is worse than ages 12-15. 

Infection deaths are in 3rd place. Far too many and worse than ages 12-15. 

Almost 40% of sudden deaths in ages 16-19 are athletes.

Soccer is the deadliest sport in this age group, then football, basketball and running.

Notice the 2 deaths from transplant complications.

Conclusion: Children ages 16-19 are dying from destroyed immune systems => leads to infection deaths and cancer deaths. Both are far too high in this age group than expected, and will get worse over time.

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

On June 13, Hamas responded to persistent needling by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the U.S. proposal for a pause in the Israeli massacre in Gaza. The group said it has “dealt positively… with the latest proposal and all proposals to reach a cease-fire agreement.” Hamas added, by contrast, that, “while Blinken continues to talk about ‘Israel’s approval of the latest proposal, we have not heard any Israeli official voicing approval.”

The full details of the U.S. proposal have yet to be made public, but the pause in Israeli attacks and release of hostages in the first phase would reportedly lead to further negotiations for a more lasting cease-fire and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in the second phase. But there is no guarantee that the second round of negotiations would succeed.

As former Israeli Labor Party prime minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio on June 3rd,

“How do you think [Gaza military commander] Sinwar will react when he is told: but be quick, because we still have to kill you, after you return all the hostages?”

Meanwhile, as Hamas pointed out, Israel has not publicly accepted the terms of the latest U.S. cease-fire proposal, so it has only the word of U.S. officials that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has privately agreed to it. In public, Netanyahu still insists that he is committed to the complete destruction of Hamas and its governing authority in Gaza, and has actually stepped up Israel’s vicious attacks in central and southern Gaza.

The basic disagreement that President Joe Biden and Secretary Blinken’s smoke and mirrors cannot hide is that Hamas, like every Palestinian, wants a real end to the genocide, while the Israeli and U.S. governments do not.

Biden or Netanyahu could end the slaughter very quickly if they wanted to—Netanyahu by agreeing to a permanent cease-fire, or Biden by ending or suspending U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel. Israel could not carry out this war without U.S. military and diplomatic support. But Biden refuses to use his leverage, even though he has admitted in an interview that it was “reasonable” to conclude that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political benefit.

The U.S. is still sending weapons to Israel to continue the massacre in violation of a cease-fire order by the International Court of Justice. Bipartisan U.S. leaders have invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on July 24, even as the International Criminal Court reviews a request by its chief prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder.

The United States seems determined to share Israel’s self-inflicted isolation from voices calling for peace from all over the world, including large majorities of countries in the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

But perhaps this is appropriate, as the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for that isolation. By its decades of unconditional support for Israel, and by using its UN Security Council veto dozens of times to shield Israel from international accountability, the United States has enabled successive Israeli governments to pursue flagrantly criminal policies and to thumb their noses at the growing outrage of people and countries across the world.

This pattern of U.S. support for Israel goes all the way back to its founding, when Zionist leaders in Palestine unleashed a well-planned operation to seize much more territory than the UN allocated to their new state in its partition plan, which the Palestinians and neighboring countries already firmly opposed.

The massacres, the bulldozed villages and the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 to a million people in the Nakba have been meticulously documented, despite an extraordinary propaganda campaign to persuade two generations of Israelis, Americans and Europeans that they never happened.

The U.S. was the first country to grant Israel de facto recognition on May 14, 1948, and played a leading role in the 1949 UN votes to recognize the new state of Israel within its illegally seized borders. President Eisenhower had the wisdom to oppose Britain, France and Israel in their war to capture the Suez Canal in 1956, but Israel’s seizure of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 1967 persuaded U.S. leaders that it could be a valuable military ally in the Middle East.

Unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s illegal occupation and annexation of more and more territory over the past 57 years has corrupted Israeli politics and encouraged increasingly extreme and racist Israeli governments to keep expanding their genocidal territorial ambitions. Netanyahu’s Likud party and government now fully embrace their Greater Israel plan to annex all of occupied Palestine and parts of other countries, wherever and whenever new opportunities for expansion present themselves.

Israel’s de facto expansion has been facilitated by the United States’ monopoly over mediation between Israel and Palestine, which it has aggressively staked out and defended against the UN and other countries. The irreconcilable contradiction between the U.S.’s conflicting roles as Israel’s most powerful military ally and the principal mediator between Israel and Palestine is obvious to the whole world.

But as we see even in the midst of the genocide in Gaza, the rest of the world and the UN have failed to break this U.S. monopoly and establish legitimate, impartial mediation by the UN or neutral countries that respect the lives of Palestinians and their human and civil rights.

Qatar mediated a temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November 2023, but it has since been upstaged by U.S. moves to prolong the massacre through deceptive proposals, cynical posturing and Security Council vetoes. The U.S. consistently vetoes all but its own proposals on Israel and Palestine in the UN Security Council, even when its own proposals are deliberately meaningless, ineffective or counterproductive.

The UN General Assembly is united in support of Palestine, voting almost unanimously year after year to demand an end to the Israeli occupation. A hundred and forty-four countries have recognized Palestine as a country, and only the U.S. veto denies it full UN membership. The Israeli genocide in Gaza has even shamed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) into suspending their ingrained pro-Western bias and pursuing cases against Israel.

One way that the nations of the world could come together to apply greater pressure on Israel to end its assault on Gaza would be a “Uniting for Peace” resolution in the UN General Assembly. This is a measure the General Assembly can take when the Security Council is prevented from acting to restore peace and security by the veto of a permanent member.

Israel has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore cease-fire resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council, and an order by the ICJ, but a Uniting for Peace resolution could impose penalties on Israel for its actions, such as an arms embargo or an economic boycott. If the United States still insists on continuing its complicity in Israel’s international crimes, the General Assembly could take action against the U.S. too.

A General Assembly resolution would change the terms of the international debate and shift the focus back from Biden and Blinken’s diversionary tactics to the urgency of enforcing the lasting cease-fire that the whole world is calling for.

It is time for the United Nations and neutral countries to push Israel’s U.S. partner in genocide to the side, and for legitimate international authorities and mediators to take responsibility for enforcing international law, ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine and bringing peace to the Middle East.

*

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

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. Marines and IDF soldiers in joint maneuver Intrepid Maven, Feb. 28, 2023. Photo: US Marines

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

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

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

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

***

The United States has joined 12 other nations in signing a World Economic Forum (WEF) agreement that seeks to engineer global famine by destroying the agriculture industry.

According to the agreement, which was drawn up by the WEF and the United Nations (UN), food production is causing “global warming” and must be eliminated.

To “save the planet” from “climate change,” globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the world.

The WEF agreement sets targets for how much farmland each nation must eliminate in order to comply.

Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed the pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms.

Announced earlier this year by the WEF’s Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:

  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Brazil
  • Burkina Faso
  • Chile
  • Czech Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Germany
  • Panama
  • Peru
  • Spain
  • The United States
  • Uruguay.

Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil, and the USA.

This is the goal of the globalists.

And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way.

As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says:

“I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”

“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub.

She is saying that farming is destroying the planet.

Hence, their demand to shut down farms.

Without farms, you have no food.

And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”

The depopulation agenda is no longer even a secret.

They are bragging about it.

And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING.

So they are attacking food and shutting it down.

John Kerry said in a statement:

“Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term.

“Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience.

“We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge.”

Cows and chickens to be replaced by crickets and insect larvae

Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets.

Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable – and only available to wealthy elites – due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches.

As journalist Leo Hohmann explains:

“We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork, and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, mealworms, crickets, etc.

“The U.N., World Economic Forum, and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada, and in the Netherlands, where mealworms, crickets, and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.”

Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:

“There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine, and plagues.

“Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?

In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:

“Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels…

“According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing ‘severe food insecurity’…”

*

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

Featured image is from NA

How Legitimate Are Western Leaders?

June 18th, 2024 by Drago Bosnic

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

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

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

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

***

Legitimacy in countries that are “democracies” (formally, at least) comes from the support of the masses. Logically, one would expect that the ruling parties and/or coalitions would have the most support. However, as everything in the political West has essentially turned on its head, particularly in recent times, the very concept of “democratic” rule now seems to have lost its meaning.

While the mainstream propaganda machine likes to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a “dictator”, despite his approval rating hovering around 85-90%, they fail to explain how it is possible that so many EU/NATO “leaders” have had negative public approval for years, but are still in power.

In fact, some of them have public (dis)approval so bad that it’s nearly the exact opposite of Putin’s. The standing of Western politicians in their own countries is so negative that even the mainstream propaganda machine doesn’t dare to deny it.

The pompously announced 50th G7 summit, held in southern Italy last week, turned out to be a complete disaster.

The host, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, used her “stellar” approval rating of -10% to threaten Russia, stating that if it refuses to submit, it will be “forced” to do so. How exactly does Meloni plan to do that is yet to be revealed. Either way, Moscow must be trembling in fear. However, interestingly enough, the Italian PM’s public approval was the highest (or should we say, the least atrocious) among G7 nations. The highly unpopular German government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz is on the verge of collapse, as the ruling coalition is faced with the possibility of snap elections in a similar manner such as those in France and the United Kingdom. Olaf Scholz himself has a public approval rating of a “whopping” -51%. However, he’s not even the worst, as British PM Rishi Sunak “bested” him with -54%.

US President Joe Biden allegedly has -18.5%, while Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and his Japanese counterpart Fumio Kishida stand at -38% and -40%, respectively.

French President Emmanuel Macron is a bit “better” (or, once again, a bit less of a disaster), with a public approval rating of -31%.

In other words, not a single G7 “leader” has a positive ranking among their own electorate.

This was also quite apparent during the recent EU elections, in which nearly all G7 ruling governments lost. This served as a litmus test of how they would do at the polls on a national level, leaving the European Union in a sort of political limbo. In fact, it’s highly questionable whether these governments can even be considered legitimate, given their sheer unpopularity, both at home and abroad. However, this situation is hardly new, as the collective West has been facing political instability for years, even before the special military operation (SMO).

Rishi Sunak is the third British PM in less than two years and given his ratings, the coming general election is virtually guaranteed to give the UK a fourth one.

The string of unpopular PMs and governments have made the political situation in the island country effectively unsustainable.

However, this doesn’t stop its politicians from making threats they can’t fulfill without being wiped off the map. The mainstream propaganda machine is even calling this year’s G7 summit a “parade of lame ducks”, with PM Sunak “hobbling at the head”. French President Emmanuel Macron’s situation is a tiny bit less disastrous, as the snap election slated for July will not include a presidential run, but it may leave Macron with a PM from the rival National Rally (formerly known as the National Front), further eroding his already disastrous public approval. He’s also infamous for threatening Russia with direct NATO involvement.

The G7 summit also included discussions on illegally transferring stolen Russian forex reserves to the endemically corrupt Neo-Nazi junta, effectively also making it the world’s largest convention of thieves. This has been in the making for quite some time and is already leaving the political West with consequences, as many countries in the world are looking for alternatives. Realizing that their assets aren’t safe in the political West, they’re joining BRICS+, as it provides a certain level of security from NATO aggression against the world. This stands in stark contrast to the G7’s proclaimed support for maintaining the so-called “rules-based world order“, a dying remnant of Western (neo)colonialism. The G7 insists that the SMO supposedly “undermined” so-called “international law” and “unleashed growing instability, visible in the various crisis hotspots”. However, Russia is simply dismantling a highly exploitative system.

And while the political West is now regularly organizing laughable “peace summits” (that are anything but) in Switzerland, this year’s G7 gathering proved to be an unadulterated war conference, where another $50 billion a year in so-called “military aid” was promised to the Kiev regime. In other words, this illegitimate “parade of lame ducks” decided to take more money from their own taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet and give it to one of the world’s most corrupt regimes so it could continue waging a losing war by sending endless waves of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians to die pointlessly while fighting a virtually invincible military superpower next door. Worse yet (for NATO), despite the scandalous theft of its forex reserves, this resurgent superpower just overtook all G7 countries but the US in terms of economic output, resulting in further increases in its already massive military might.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image: Attribution: European Union

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

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

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

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

***

Middle East Eye has obtained a copy of Hamas’ response to a ceasefire proposal made by Israel, in which the Palestinian group calls for an end to the blockade on Gaza. 

According to amendments submitted to Egyptian and Qatari mediators earlier this week, Hamas demanded an end to the debilitating 17-year-long siege on Gaza which would allow the free movement of people and goods into the territory.

According to other amendments, Hamas demanded that Israeli forces fully withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip in the first phase of the ceasefire, including the Rafah crossing and the so-called Philadelphi Corridor, which runs along the border between the strip and Egypt.

In addition, Hamas demanded that Russia, China and Turkey also act as guarantors that Israel would stop the fighting. The initial proposal backed by Israel and the US listed Egypt, Qatar and the US as guarantors.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had said on Wednesday that the Palestinian group had made numerous amendments to the US-backed ceasefire plan, some of which he deemed unworkable.

The three-phase plan had envisioned a full Israeli withdrawal only after an initial six-week truce during which the pullout was to be negotiated.

The key point of contention for Hamas was that the second phase and a transition to a permanent ceasefire be guaranteed, something which Israel has refused to accept.

***

Here is the full text of the reply by Hamas:

General Principles for an Agreement Between the Israeli Side and the Palestinian Side in Gaza on the Exchange of Detainees and Prisoners and Restoring a Sustainable Calm

The Palestinian response to the Israeli response to the 6 May 2024 proposal:

This framework’s purpose is the release of all civilian and military Israeli detainees in the Gaza Strip whether living or not regardless of the date and duration of detention, in exchange for a number that will be agreed upon of prisoners in Israeli jails, and restoring a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the reconstruction of Gaza and lifting of the siege, including the opening of all border crossings, and facilitating movement of people and transfer goods without restrictions.

The framework agreement is made of three stages which are interconnected, subject to the following:

The First stage (42 days):

1. Temporary cessation of military operations by both parties and the withdrawal of Israeli forces eastwards away from densely populated areas along the borders in all areas of the Gaza Strip including the Philadelphi Corridor and Gaza valley (Netzarim axis and Kuwait roundabout) as specified below.

2. Temporary cessation of all aviation (military and surveillance) in the Gaza Strip for 10 hours daily, and for 12 hours daily on days in which detainees and prisoners are exchanged. 

3. Return of the internally displaced to their places of residence and the withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor Gaza valley (Netzarim axis and Kuwait roundabout):

a. On day 3 (after the release of three [Israeli] detainees), Israeli forces will completely withdraw from the Rafah crossing, the whole of the Philadelphi Corridor, and al-Rasheed Road eastwards to Salah al-Din Road, and all military sites and installations in the area shall be dismantled. This withdrawal shall be completed before day 7. And the commencement of return of internally displaced people to their places of residence (without carrying arms while returning), the freedom of movement of the population in all areas of the Gaza Strip, and the entry of humanitarian aid through al-Rasheed Road from day 1 without restrictions.

b. On day 22, Israeli forces will withdraw from the central Gaza Strip (especially Netzarim axis and Kuwait roundabout axis) eastwards of Salah al-Din Road to an area along the border, and all military sites and installations in the area shall be dismantled. Return of internally displaced people to their places of residence shall continue (without carrying arms while returning), especially from southern to northern Gaza Strip, and the freedom of movement of the population in all areas of the Gaza Strip shall be guaranteed.

c. Starting from day 1, the entry of increased and adequate humanitarian aid and relief and fuel (600 trucks daily to include 50 trucks of fuel, 300 of which to the north), including fuel necessary for the operation of the power plant, trade and civilian equipment necessary to remove rubble, and the rehabilitation and operation of hospitals, medical centers and bakeries in all areas of the Gaza Strip, and the continuation of the above mentioned throughout all stages of the agreement.

4. Exchange of detainees and prisoners:

During this first stage Hamas shall release 32 of the Israeli detainees (living and human remains) who are women (civilians and soldiers), children (under 19 years who are not soldiers), elderly (above 50 years) and ill and wounded civilians, in exchange for a number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centers, according to the following:

a. Hamas will release all living Israeli civilian women and children (under 19 years who are not soldiers), in exchange for Israel releasing 30 children and women for each Israeli that will be released, according to lists to be provided by Hamas based on precedence of their imprisonment.

b. Hamas will release all living Israeli elderly (over 50 years), ill and wounded civilians, in exchange for Israel releasing 30 elderly (over 50 years) and ill prisoners for each Israeli that will be released, according to lists provided by Hamas based on the precedence of their imprisonment.

c. Hamas will release all living women soldiers, in exchange for Israel releasing 50 prisoners in Israeli prisons for each Israeli that will be released (30 serving life sentences, 20 other sentences), according to lists provided by Hamas.

5. The mechanism for exchange of detainees and prisoners between the two sides during Stage 1:

a. By day 3, Hamas will release three Israeli civilian detainees, ensuring that they are Israeli civilian female detainees as much as possible. On day 7, Hamas will release three Israeli civilian detainees, ensuring that they are Israeli civilian female detainees as much as possible. After that, Hamas will release three Israeli detainees every seven days, starting with women (civilians and soldiers as much as possible) and all living detainees (males and females) to be released. This will take place before releasing the human remains. In exchange, Israel will release the agreed upon number of prisoners in Israeli prisons for each of the Israeli detainees released, this must be done simultaneously and on the same day, according to the lists provided by Hamas. During week 6, Hamas will release the remaining detainees (males and females) included in this stage, subject to the release of the agreed upon number of prisoners in Israeli prisons simultaneously and on the same day according to lists provided by Hamas.

b. By day 7, Hamas will provide information on the number of Israeli detainees that will be released during this stage, provided that Israel provides sufficient information to Hamas and relevant international bodies about the Palestinian prisoners and detainees from the Gaza Strip, especially those detained after 7 October 2023.

c. On day 22, Israel will release all prisoners from the Shalit deal that were re-detained.

d. In the event that the number of Israeli detainees to be released during this stage does not reach 32, the difference will be completed through the release of a corresponding number of human remains from the same categories for this stage. In exchange, Israel will release all women and children (under 19 years) and ill and elderly (over 50 years) who were detained from the Gaza Strip after 7 October 2023. This must be done on Week 5 of this stage. The standards and keys of prisoner exchange for this stage shall apply to the two [Israeli] detainees Hisham El-Sayed and Avera Mangisto – if they are alive.

e. The exchange process is linked to the extent of adherence to the terms of the agreement including the cessation of military operations by both sides, the withdrawal of Israeli forces along the border, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing, the return of internally displaced and entry of humanitarian aid.

6. The released Palestinian prisoners will not be rearrested based on the same charges they were previously arrested on, and the Israeli side will not return the released Palestinian prisoners to serve their remaining sentence time. The released Palestinian prisoners will not be required to sign any document as a condition to their release. All the required legal action must be taken to ensure all of the above. The conditions of prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention camps shall return to what they were before October 7, 2023, including those who were arrested after this date.

7. The keys on the exchange of detainees and prisoners in Stage 1 mentioned above shall not be considered as a basis for the exchange keys in Stage 2.

8. No later than day 16, indirect negotiations between the two sides shall begin to agree on keys for the exchange of remaining detainees and prisoners (soldiers and remaining men), and this should be concluded and agreed upon before the end of week 5 of this stage.

9. The UN and its agencies (including Unrwa) and other organizations will undertake their work in providing humanitarian services in all areas of the Gaza Strip. This shall continue throughout all phases of the agreement.

10. Infrastructure (electricity, water, sanitation, telecommunications and roads) shall be rehabilitated in all areas of the Gaza Strip and necessary equipment for civil defence and municipalities to remove the rubble and debris shall enter the Strip. This shall continue throughout all phases of the agreement.

11. Necessary supplies and equipment to accommodate and shelter displaced people who lost their homes during the war (at least 60,000 temporary houses – caravans – and 200,000 tents) shall be allowed into Gaza. 

12. An agreed number (no less than 50 daily) of wounded military personnel should be allowed to travel across the Rafah crossing to receive medical treatment. The number of travellers, sick and wounded through the Rafah crossing will also be increased, restrictions on travel will be removed, and the movement of goods and trade will return from the first day of this stage.

13. The necessary arrangements and planning shall be initiated for the comprehensive reconstruction of homes, civil facilities and infrastructure destroyed by war, as well as the compensation for those affected, under the supervision of a number of countries and organisations including Egypt, Qatar and the United Nations.

14. All procedures in this stage including the temporary cessation of military operations by both sides, aid and shelter effort, withdrawal of forces, etc., will continue in stage 2 until sustainable calm (cessation of military operations and hostilities permanently) is announced and comes into effect. Negotiations will continue with the guarantee of the mediators until the two parties reach an agreement on the keys of exchange of prisoners and detainees in Stage 2.

The Second stage (42 days):

15. Announce restoration of a sustainable calm (cessation of military operations and hostilities permanently) and its commencement prior to the exchange of detainees and prisoners between the two sides – all remaining Israeli detainees who are living men (civilians and soldiers) – in exchange for a number of prisoners in Israeli jails and detention centers to be agreed upon, and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

The Third stage (42 days):

16. The exchange of all human remains between the two sides after locating and identifying them.

17. The commencement of the implementation of the plan for reconstruction of the Gaza Strip for the duration of 3-5 years including houses, civilian facilities and civilian infrastructure and the support of all those affected under the supervision of a number of countries and organisations including Egypt, Qatar and the UN.

18. Ending the full blockade on the Gaza Strip, including opening of the border crossings, especially Rafah crossing, facilitating movement of people and transfer of goods, and providing electricity around the clock in all areas of the Gaza Strip.

Guarantors of the agreement:

Qatar, Egypt, the US, the UN, Turkey, Russia, and China

*

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

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

***

Will the U.S. be involved with negotiating with the Russians to bring peace to Ukraine, as did Kennedy in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?

On June 12, three Russian ships and a nuclear-powered submarine arrived in Havana, Cuba. Having crossed the Atlantic, the ships performed maneuvers designed to enhance military capability, and have remained in Cuba through June 17.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin made a threat to supply unspecified countries with weapons capable of striking Kiev’s Western allies.

The Kazan nuclear-powered submarine is capable of firing Kalibr cruise missiles, which have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers and can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Along for the ride are the Frigate Admiral Gorshkov, which is carrying new hypersonic Zircon missiles that are nuclear-capable, the Akademik Pashin refueling tanker, and Nikolay Chiker tugboat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Zircon as a potent weapon capable of penetrating any existing antimissile defenses by flying nine times faster than the speed of sound at a range of more than 1,000km (more than 620 miles).
While the visit to Cuba is not seen as a military threat to the U.S., and none of the vessels carry a nuclear war-head, it has brought back memories of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis involving the U.S. and Russia in Cuba.

Cuba is Russia’s most important partner in the Western Hemisphere from a geopolitical point of view, and both are critical of the U.S. sanctions imposed on each other, and the enlargement of NATO. Havana also backed Russia’s right to “self-defense” against NATO following its 2022 military operation in Ukraine.

In 1959, an uprising called the “26th of July Movement” led to the communist rule under the leadership of Fidel Castro in Cuba.
In April 1961, a group of 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Castro invaded Cuba supported by artillery, mortars, tanks aircrafts and naval ships, all of which was provided and financed by the U.S.. This was one of a series of ‘regime change’ operations carried out by the U.S. which failed, such as the 2011 U.S.-NATO attack on Syria.

This incident came to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Early 1961 saw the American Jupiter missiles being deployed in Turkey and mid-April saw the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This had the USSR worried as it saw the U.S. planning something big.

Nikita Khrushchev of the USSR and Castro held a clandestine meeting in July 1962, and Khrushchev agreed to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy was informed of the plans, and was advised to carry out an airstrike and invasion of Cuba, but he disregarded that advice and instead negotiated a deal which saw the USSR shelving its plans to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba in exchange for an American assurance that Cuba would not be invaded.

The U.S. policy of increased NATO membership from 1992 onwards has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. In 1990, the U.S. gave assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand, but U.S. President Bill Clinton broke that promise, and we are faced with the realization that it was the U.S. which provoked Putin to the February 2022 military operation in Ukraine in response to the threat of imminent NATO membership.

It took the negotiating skills of Kennedy to avert war in 1962, but today the U.S. is led by President Joe Biden who is against ceasefire negotiations in both Ukraine and in Gaza. Biden is a war-time President, who directly participates in both battlefields with funds, weapons, intelligence and the propaganda cranked out in Washington, which invented a narrative that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine and recreate a Soviet Empire.

In 2014, John J. Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor and one of the leading proponents of restraint in American foreign policy, explained why the Ukraine crisis is the west’s fault, and how it has provoked Putin.

On March 1, 2022 Mearsheimer was interviewed and said he still blames the U.S. for the crisis in Ukraine.

“He is not going to conquer all of Ukraine,” Mearsheimer said, of Putin.

Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand NATO eastward, has increased the likelihood of a nuclear war, and prompted Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine. Mearsheimer maintains his position that the U.S. is at fault for provoking him.

“I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat,” said Mearsheimer.

The three-prong U.S. strategy in Washington includes EU expansion, NATO expansion, and turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.

“When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States,” said Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer correctly projected that Russia did not seek to occupy Kiev, but would take Donbass.

“This is great-power politics, and what the Russians want is a regime in Kiev that is attuned to Russian interests. It may be ultimately that the Russians would be willing to live with a neutral Ukraine, and that it won’t be necessary for Moscow to have any meaningful control over the government in Kiev. It may be that they just want a regime that is neutral and not pro-American,” said Mearsheimer.

“The Ukrainians have a vested interest in paying serious attention to what the Russians want from them. They run a grave risk if they alienate the Russians in a fundamental way. If Russia thinks that Ukraine presents an existential threat to Russia because it is aligning with the United States and its West European allies, this is going to cause an enormous amount of damage to Ukraine. That of course is exactly what’s happening now. So my argument is: the strategically wise strategy for Ukraine is to break off its close relations with the West, especially with the United States, and try to accommodate the Russians. If there had been no decision to move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine,” said Mearsheimer.

In March 2024, Mearsheimer was interviewed and said he considers “ridiculous” the idea that Ukraine will be able to take the offensive in 2024 or 2025.

“The real danger is that the Ukrainians are going to be defeated by the Russians over the course of this year and next year. That, I think, is the more likely outcome—that the Russians will just roll back the Ukrainians. The idea that Ukraine is going to launch some offensive in 2025 and turn the tide is delusional,” said Mearsheimer.

What if the war goes badly for Ukraine, and it faces being a dysfunctional state?

Mearsheimer fears the U.S. and NATO will be so humiliated they will attempt to intervene to rescue Ukraine, and this could lead to a nuclear exchange.

Mearsheimer predicts that the Russians will conquer more territory, perhaps “the four oblasts west of the four oblasts they control now or have annexed so far. And they may even take a bit more. And I think there would be nothing we could do to prevent that.”

In the end, the U.S. will be involved with negotiating with the Russians to bring peace to Ukraine, as did Kennedy in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy would not allow Soviet missiles on the U.S. border off Florida, and Putin will not allow NATO missiles on the Russian border in Ukraine.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

G7: O declínio do Império Americano Ocidental

June 18th, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

A cúpula do G7 sob a presidência italiana, organizada pelo governo Meloni na Puglia, proclama como sua prioridade “a defesa do sistema internacional baseado na força da lei”, declarando que “a guerra de agressão da Rússia contra a Ucrânia minou seus princípios e desencadeou uma crescente instabilidade, visível nos vários focos de crise”. Essa declaração é feita pelo G7, do qual 6 membros (EUA, Canadá, Grã-Bretanha, França, Alemanha e Itália) são as principais potências da OTAN, que deflagrou a guerra na Ucrânia contra a Rússia, à qual se soma o Japão, o principal parceiro da OTAN no Leste Asiático contra a China. A encenação idílica com a qual essa cúpula é apresentada não pode esconder o fato de que ela é, na verdade, uma cúpula de guerra. Os EUA assinaram um pacto militar de 10 anos com a Ucrânia, que está recebendo um empréstimo de US$ 50 bilhões do G7 para ajudá-la a comprar mais armas, um empréstimo que será pago com os juros acumulados sobre os US$ 300 bilhões de ativos russos congelados, a maioria depositada em bancos europeus. Ao mesmo tempo, os ministros da defesa dos 6 países do G7 da OTAN concordaram em fornecer à Ucrânia mais ajuda militar maciça e em alocar US$ 43 bilhões por ano para continuar alimentando a guerra no coração da Europa.

Na mira do G7 não está apenas a Rússia, mas toda a organização BRICS, este ano sob a presidência russa, ampliada de 5 para 10 membros e em desenvolvimento: mais de 30 países querem se juntar a ela. Já hoje, o produto interno bruto do BRICS excede o do G7 e as previsões para 2024-2029 indicam um crescimento econômico do BRICS, devido principalmente à China, de 44% em comparação com 21% do G7. Incapaz de impedir o desenvolvimento dos BRICS com instrumentos econômicos, o G7 procura manter o domínio com instrumentos de guerra.

O Papa Francisco foi convidado para o G7 na Apúlia para dar uma aparência de paz a essa cúpula bélica. Lá, o papa Francisco se reuniu com o presidente ucraniano Volodymyr Zelensky, sem dizer uma palavra sobre o fato de que ele está perseguindo a Igreja Ortodoxa Russa na Ucrânia, da qual a Igreja Ucraniana realizou um cisma, funcional para a guerra contra todas as coisas russas.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo em italiano :

G7: Il Declino dell’Impero Americano d’Occidente

Tradução : Mondialisation.ca com DeepL

VIDEO (italiano) :

*

 

 

ICC Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin for “Kidnapping Ukrainian Children”, Russia Accused of “Genocide-like Deportation” at the Switzerland Peace Conference

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 18, 2024

Starting in 2014, thousands of Donbass families including children were provided safe haven in Russia, as part of a humanitarian initiative under the auspices of  Moscow’s Ministry of Emergency Situations. Russian families have welcomed them and provided assistance. Many of the children who were provided safe haven in Russia are orphans whose parents were killed by the Azov Battalion.

The Failure of Switzerland’s Burgenstock “War-Peace Conference”, Russia Not Invited

By Peter Koenig, June 18, 2024

From the get-go, way back in the planning stage, the Swiss-sponsored Burgenstock Conference on Ukraine (15 and 16 June), was a failure. Why? Because there was no willingness by the “neutral” Swiss Government to invite Russia, the key partner for real Peace Talks, to the negotiating table.

Up to Half a Million NATO Soldiers Waiting to Enter Ukraine. “Offensive Oriented”, Preparing for “a Large Confrontation”. Drago Bosnic

By Drago Bosnic, June 18, 2024

Quoting a senior NATO official, the Defense Post reports that “[the alliance] countries have comfortably exceeded a target of placing 300,000 troops on high-readiness”. The mainstream propaganda machine insists these forces are there to allegedly “stave off any potential Russian attack”.

Child Deaths in VAERS — Much Higher Than Reported!

By Dr. William Makis, June 18, 2024

I have been able to confirm a lot of these deaths myself. Here are 182 post COVID-19 vaccine CHILD DEATHSs with “Age” left BLANK. It’s actually shocking how many VAERS reports of CHILD DEATHS there are, that don’t have the child’s age entered in the proper location.

St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) 2024: Marking the Rise of the Global South Century and Decline of Western Economies

By George Eliason, June 17, 2024

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual event bringing together global leaders, policymakers, and influential business figures, took place in St. Petersburg, Russia from June 5th to 8th, 2024. Attendees representing 130 countries and roughly 3 billion people worldwide attended. This year, SPIEF’s theme was “The Foundations of a Multipolar World – The Formation of New Areas of Growth.”

When the Lie Becomes the “Truth”

By Mark Taliano, June 17, 2024

How long did it take for “alternate” or legacy media journalists to finally acknowledge that there are no “moderate rebels” in Syria and that the West and its agencies support al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and beyond?

D-Day 2024. Diana Johnstone

By Diana Johnstone, June 17, 2024

Ceremonies were held last week commemorating the 80th anniversary of Operation Overlord, the Anglo-American landing on the beaches of Normandy that took place on June 6, 1944, known as D-Day.  For the very first time, the Russians were ostentatiously not invited to take part in the ceremonies. 

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

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

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

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

***

From the get-go, way back in the planning stage, the Swiss-sponsored Burgenstock Conference on Ukraine (15 and 16 June), was a failure.

Why? Because there was no willingness by the “neutral” Swiss Government to invite Russia, the key partner for real Peace Talks, to the negotiating table.

This is not the first time that Russia was snubbed. Before and during the WEF Davos-circus in January 2024, a similar “peace” meeting was held, without Russia. Of course, it led to nothing – other than new condemnations and packages of sanctions against Russia. 

The usual. The WEF-crowd feels they have superior powers, so they can do whatever their rules tell them to do. Maybe they are not noticing that their power is gradually slipping away, like sand through a fist.

undefined

Group photo of attendees of the summit (Licensed under OGL 3). Click here for an enlarged view

In the case of the June 15/16 Conference, Switzerland eventually admitted that they acted on the behest of Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, yes, the guy jetting around the western world begging for war billions; the man, who calls himself still President of Ukraine, even though his mandate expired more than three weeks ago. He canceled elections and simply stayed on. And the western world accepts him – Zelenskyy, the warrior-in-chief.

Was it that the Swiss listened to this green-yellow T-shirted [proxy] dictator, or were they squeezed by the unelected European Commissioner or even their bosses in Washington?

Obeying these days is part of the rules-based order. Down the drain with sovereignty and neutrality, let alone democracy. 

The so-called Peace Conference, really was a War Conference, as much of the talk was how to get more weapons and money to Ukraine to kill more people on both sides of the front. For example, Kamala Harris, representing President Biden, showed up with a half-a-billion dollar “gift”, or “loan”(?) for Mr. Zelenskyy.

“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

This is a quote from a 1935 speech and short book by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler discusses how business interests commercially benefit from warfare.

*

Even in the forefront of the Burgenstock summit, some of the more prominent mainstream Swiss and international news media, dared asking why spending all this effort and taxpayer’s money for naught, if Russia is not at the table. To no avail. They had to pull it through.

Originally some 160 delegations of countries and organizations were invited. In the end only slightly more than 90 showed up with about 52 heads of state. And among the most important ones of these “heads of state”, the more influential ones, left already in the evening of the first day, including Emmanuel Macron, Kamala Harris and Olaf Scholz. 

Either their time was too precious to waste the entire weekend on the Burgenstock, or they did not want to make commitments they could not refuse – or both. In any case, it shed light on what the conference really was — a congregation of a bunch of politically anti-Russia-aligned blah-blahers, who love listening to themselves and feeling important.

Also, in the forefront of the meeting, several influential leaders, including Brazil’s President Lula da Silva and Saudi’s de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman – and others – said that they would not attend the Swiss event, since nothing constructive could come of it, without the main player, Russia, being at the table.  

Earlier, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, told the Swiss right to the face, that they are untrustworthy. An understatement.

The conference proceeded along divided lines; journalists as well as participants with an ever louder crescendo questioning the absence of Russia.

According to the NYT (15 June 2024), the star of the show, President Volodymyr Zelensky, had this to say as an explanation for Russia’s absence:

“There is no Russia here. Why? Because if Russia was interested in peace, there would be no war.”

That is a simple answer, far from reality, and far from the truth. It leaves out all the history on how the war was orchestrated by the west, with the preparations of the Maidan Coup on 22 February 2014. 

Remember Victoria Nuland, then Deputy Secretary of State in Charge of European affairs, in an overheard telephone conversation with the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, saying something to the extent of

“F*ck the EU! We have spent 5 billion dollars during the last ten years to prepare this Coup”.

This coup was to bring Ukraine – arguably the resources-richest country in Europe, other than Russia, closer to Europe and ready to become a NATO base – one step further to Moscow. An outright provocation for Russia, one that President Putin from the moment of the Coup said – NATO would be a Red Line, not to cross.

NATO’s Secretary Stoltenberg himself, repeated in the past few months on several occasions that the war started with the Maidan Coup in 2014, thereby admitting that the west was the aggressor and “villain”, not Russia.

Russia’s intervention – not an invasion – was to salvage the Russian population of the Donbass area, which since 2014 was bombarded and attacked by Kiev’s Nazi Azov battalions, killing by February 2022, at least 14,000 people, of whom 70% were women and children.

These Russian-dominated provinces were not “annexed” as the West likes to say. They had their referenda and asked the Kremlin to be incorporated into the Russian Federation. Mr. Putin at first did not accept their request. But when he saw what happened in the eight years since the Coup, he reconsidered and accepted their demand.

Nazi-Kiev is following the same principles as does Nazi Zionist Israel – targeting children and women. The former are the next generation; the latter are the bearers of the next generation.

You may bet, this history and Azov-targeting was not discussed during the War Conference on the Burgenstock.

Maybe in the corridors by some of the more alert attendants, who still have a memory of historic events – and can add up cause and effect. 

According to RT of 16 June 2024, 12 countries attending the Swiss Summit on Ukraine have refused to sign the final communiqué. This is based on RIA Novosti’s report of Sunday evening.

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said earlier on Sunday that any meaningful progress toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict would require Russia’s participation.

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer predicted that not all attendees would sign the declaration, because “it’s a question of the specific choice of words.” He was right. Now we know that the wording is anything but neutral. Many countries did not want to commit to propaganda.

According to the RIA Novosti list, Armenia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the UAE are among the states that did not sign the declaration, as well as four organizations, including the UN and OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). The 79 nations that did sign the joined declaration, include, Hungary, Serbia, Argentina, Türkiye, and Georgia, as well as four international bodies, joined Ukraine in endorsing the document.

The consensus of Hungary with the final report is a surprise knowing how President Orban made himself known as propagating abandoning the weapon and financial support for Ukraine, to stop the bloodshed. See this for more details.

See also this – just in: “Zelensky’s ‘peace conference’ will go down in history, but not in the way you might think.”

The final document was largely blaming Russia for causing “large-scale human suffering and destruction” and “creating risks and crises with global repercussions.”

It further calls for Ukraine’s territorial integrity “within internationally recognized borders” to be respected – specifically, the restoration of Ukrainian control over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, as well as access to sea ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. 

As an unreported comment, it must be said that Russia took control of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, because the plant’s safety was at stake for lack of appropriate maintenance. In addition, it is well documented that Ukraine sabotaging the plant, thereby poisoning the surroundings, including Russian territory, with highly toxic nuclear radiation. 

Was this ever mentioned during the Burgenstock sham event?

The final Conference Communiqué also demands the release of all prisoners of war through a “complete exchange,” and the return of “deported and unlawfully displaced” Ukrainian children.

On the “unlawfully [Alleged] deported 20,000 children from Ukraine”, Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau, a prime scholar of Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL), said in a distorted lie-based propaganda showcase-interview that Russia must be held accountable for this genocide-like deportation of Ukrainian children.

Ukraine is also known as a major world hub for human trafficking, with focus on children. Could it be that the Russian “deported” children were saved by Russia from trafficking and abuse? How else could Russia have “stolen” 20,000 children from their parents? Think about it.

“Genocide-like Deportation of Ukrainian Children”

See this (first minute) with Trudeau who supports the Neo-Nazi regime

“Russia kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian kids, its genocide, it’s pure colonialism”

And then see where these children were sent. 

To an “Oppressive Deportation Camp” 

\\

Human Trafficking 

Ukraine is also known as a major world hub for human trafficking, with focus on children. Could it be that the Russian “deported” children were saved by Russia from trafficking and abuse? How else could Russia have “stolen” 20,000 children from their parents? Think about it.

Worldwide human trafficking, the bulk of which are children and women, is estimated at US$150 billion by the UN and the International Labor Office (ILO), competing with drug-trafficking and approaching the war racket. This figure is exceeded by a dark, unreported shadow number. See this for the human trafficking racket, almost competing with the War Racket. 

Early in the Conference, Swiss President Madame Viola Amherd, host of the conference, predicted that a follow-up conference may be necessary at which Russia should be present. For good reasons, she did not say that Switzerland should again host it.

Stay tuned. Remember, Mr. Putin has offered and invited many times to sit down at the negotiating table with ALL concerned parties. So far to no avail.   

Pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia propaganda will continue, until the time comes, when President Putin’s patience reaches a breaking point. 

Let us not even speculate what that could mean for the global west, notably Europe, especially if and when Macron and other NATO warrior-heads decide not only to send fighter jets to Ukraine, but also troops, and God forbid – nukes.

*

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

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

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

Featured image: Logo of the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, 15–16 June 2024 (From the Public Domain)

Video: Regenerative Agriculture. James Corbett

June 18th, 2024 by James Corbett

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

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

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

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

***

We all know the problem of The Future of Food.

So, who’s ready for the solution?

Today on #SolutionsWatch, James examines regenerative agriculture, one of the solutions that is already being used to wean us off the industrialized factory farming system and back toward a healthy relationship with our food . . . and with the earth itself.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

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

***

When Russia launched its special military operation (SMO) on February 24, 2022, it became the active part of the Kremlin’s strategic counteroffensive against crawling NATO aggression.

At the time, President Vladimir Putin made it clear that anyone foolish enough to get directly involved would be met with consequences they’ve never experienced in their entire history. And indeed, nobody dared to get into a direct confrontation with Moscow. This forced the political West to find workarounds in order to provide indirect support for its favorite Neo-Nazi puppets. However, what started out with batches of ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) and MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems) ended up with heavy armor and even nuclear-capable fighter jets. In other words, NATO keeps probing Russia, testing its patience and willingness not to escalate the already highly volatile situation.

And yet, in recent months, the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel has become more brazen than ever before. Its advanced ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) systems are being actively used for target acquisition and guidance of Western weapons delivered to the Kiev regime forces.

Luckily, through the use of its advanced SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and world-class electronic warfare (EW), Russia is able to negate most of the advantages that the Neo-Nazi junta is getting in this way.

All this is making NATO leaders quite nervous, as they believe that Russia’s victory would have disastrous consequences for the collective West’s geopolitical standing. This is going so far that the mainstream propaganda machine is now openly advocating for NATO and Neo-Nazi junta-sponsored terrorist attacks across Russia (public schools included).

However, that’s not the end of it. Despite troubles in meeting their recruitment goals, countries of the political West are looking to accumulate large concentrations of troops along Russia’s borders. Estimates vary significantly, but at this very moment, there could be up to half a million NATO soldiers stationed in Eastern Europe alone, heavily armed and maintaining high battle readiness. According to Western military sources, there are no less than 300,000 troops stationed along the borders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Quoting a senior NATO official, the Defense Post reports that “[the alliance] countries have comfortably exceeded a target of placing 300,000 troops on high-readiness”. The mainstream propaganda machine insists these forces are there to allegedly “stave off any potential Russian attack”. However, their composition tells a different story.

Namely, NATO forces in Eastern Europe rely on the same offensive-oriented approach that the belligerent alliance usually uses in its aggression against the world.

This means that there’s a significant focus on air superiority and rapid deployment of frontline troops, particularly airborne and special forces. It’s certainly a challenge to coordinate a dozen or so different countries in the region, particularly as they have highly diverging foreign policy frameworks. Namely, while the endemically Russophobic EU/NATO member states such as the Baltic republics and Poland are far more committed, others such as Slovakia and Hungary aren’t as thrilled to get into a confrontation with Russia. There are also those who don’t belong to either category, such as Romania, where the political leadership is decisively pro-EU/NATO, but the population is generally more ambivalent.

Interestingly, the belligerent alliance itself also admits that its forces in the area are offensive-oriented, albeit indirectly. Namely, NATO commanders are complaining that “the alliance faces shortfalls in key weaponry such as air defenses and longer-range missiles”, insisting there are “capability gaps” and “things that we don’t have enough of as an alliance at the moment and we need to tackle”. And while the lack of missiles is not exactly true (as evidenced by constant ATACMS deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta), the complaint about SAM systems holds, as many of those have been delivered to the Kiev regime forces and haven’t proven to be very effective, despite all the war propaganda. Losses of “Patriot” SAMs and similar NATO-sourced air defense systems led to more “begmanding” from Volodymyr Zelensky and his entourage (although it was all futile for the most part).

However, once again, the admission that NATO forces lack enough SAM systems suggests that they are offensive-oriented. One of the most prominent Russian military experts, Konstantin Sivkov, also argues that these troops are there to get directly involved in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. According to his assessment, the delivery of F-16s will serve as a cover for NATO air incursions, followed by land forces. Sivkov believes that at least five countries will take part in the operation and that they’ve already assembled 500,000 soldiers for this purpose. According to his estimates, this incursion could take place as early as August-September. Sivkov’s stellar career in the military (specifically the Soviet Navy), as well as the numerous positions he still holds in various domestic and international scientific institutions, imply that his warning should be taken very seriously.

Another clear indicator that the political West is preparing for a large-scale confrontation is the fact that the US House passed a bill automatically registering men aged 18-26 for the draft. And while American congressmen are insisting this measure serves “only to cut down on bureaucratic red tape and help US citizens avoid unnecessary legal issues”, the timing is far too peculiar. The draft, while mandatory, hasn’t been invoked in over half a century, particularly after the crushing defeat Vietnam inflicted on American occupation forces. This clearly indicates that the political West is becoming desperate to prevent Russia’s victory. However, as former US Army Colonel Douglas McGregor warned repeatedly, this will be met with a swift response from Russia, as its unrivaled hypersonic missiles will rain down and obliterate any large NATO troop concentrations.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image source

Fractious Arenas: Netanyahu Dissolves the War Cabinet

June 18th, 2024 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

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

***

You could almost sense the smacking of lips, accompanied by the rubbing of hands.  The departure of Benny Gantz from the Israeli war cabinet, which had served as a checking forum against the conventional security cabinet, presented a perfect opportunity for those who felt his presence stifling.  In these febrile times, Gantz, the leader of the opposition National Unity party, passes as a moderate centrist and had been one of its three voting members, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

The resignation was prompted by Netanyahu’s tardy attitude towards formulating a plan to end the war in Gaza.  Gantz had given him till June 8 to come up with something satisfactory, “a plan of action” that would include the normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia and creating “an international civilian governance mechanism in Gaza”. 

“Unfortunately,” stated Gantz, “Netanyahu is preventing us from achieving real victory. So we are leaving the unity government.  With a heavy but full heart.”

According to Gantz, he joined the emergency coalition “because we knew it was a bad government.  The people of Israel, the fighters, the commanders, the families of the murdered, the casualties and the hostages needed unity and support like they needed air to breathe.”

In his resignation letter, Gantz musters praise for his own role and that of his party. 

“After the October 7 disaster, we set up together the emergency government.  Our joining was not under question at that difficult time… Our entrance contributed several achievements to the government… national unity and conveying a clear message to the international community as well as to our enemies.”

If the message had been one of a savage campaign littered with Palestinian corpses, the infliction of conditions of famine, the crushing of the Gaza strip, not to mention ignoring  political realities, then it was certainly conveyed.  If any moderate influence had been exerted on the part of Gantz and his colleagues, it was a statue yet to escape its marble confines.  Much of what he has proposed are distinctions without much difference.  He envisages the return of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, the destruction and substitution of the organisation in Gaza, the return of residents of the north displaced from their homes and fortifying the US-led effort against Iran.

undefined

Secretary Antony J. Blinken meets with Israel’s War Cabinet in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 9, 2024. (Official State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/Public Domain)

Fellow National Unity minister Gadi Eisenkot, who also resigned, explained that the cabinet led by Netanyahu was prevented from “making key decisions, which were needed to realize the war’s goals and improve Israel’s strategic position.”

Israel watchers speculated on the significance of the move.  The Gantz gambit could well stimulate an early conclusion to the conflict.  On the other hand, his bluff could be called, enabling the hard right of the coalition to entrench themselves.

Shalom Lipner, non-resident senior fellow for Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, suggested that the resignation placed the PM “at the complete mercy of his right-wing and religious fellow travellers who – in the absence of Gantz’s fig leaf – will steer policy in a direction that is anathema to the Biden administration and puts Israel’s essential ties with the United States at risk.”   A bitter Israel Harel, writing in Haaretz, wondered what improvements might be made by Gantz’s departure.  Would it, for instance, encourage Netanyahu to behave more responsibly in the face of pressure from the likes of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir?  Or weaken Hezbollah’s will?  Or “frighten Yahya Sinwar into giving up the life insurance the hostages are providing him?”

At first instance, Netanyahu urged Gantz to reconsider.

“Israel is in an existential war on multiple fronts,” the Israeli PM wrote on X.  “Benny, this is not the time to abandon the campaign – this is the time to join forces.”

On June 16, Netanyahu confirmed that the ship had sailed.  The six-member war cabinet, described by opposition leader Yair Lapid as a “shameful arena for settling scores, fighting and discussions that lead nowhere”, had outlived its fractious usefulness. 

“The cabinet was in the coalition agreement with Gantz at his request,” the PM is said to have told the Security Cabinet.  “As soon as Gantz left – there was no need for a cabinet anymore.” 

In its place, stated a spokesperson from the prime minister’s office, the security cabinet will simply meet with greater regularity, with Netanyahu holding ad hoc “security consultations” when needed.

Abolishing the war cabinet does serve one purpose. It prevents such nationalist demagogues as Ben-Gvir of Otzma Yehudit and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionist Party from adding their troubling names to the outfit.  Ben-Gvir had insisted on his addition, arguing that it was time to bring in ministers who “warned in real-time against the conception and viewpoint that everyone today accepts was wrong.”  He also argued against the secrecy of the war as prosecuted.

Both men, who have urged on even greater slaughter in Gaza and the eviction of Palestinians living there, remain members of the broader security cabinet.  And they have made no secret about their mixture of delight and loathing at Gantz’s departure.  “There is no less stately act than resigning from a government in time of war,” Smotrich haughtily declared.

For the moment, the scene is set for a war to go even more badly than it already has.  As Gaza starves and continues to be levelled, Israel’s politicians will be circling in anticipation of an election date.  Netanyahu’s primary goal till then, as it has been for some years: survive.

*

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

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

Featured image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet in Tel Aviv, Israel, 22 March 2024 (From the Public Domain)

Child Deaths in VAERS — Much Higher Than Reported!

June 18th, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

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

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

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

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

***

Below is an excerpt from a report by Dr. Michael Nevradakis of the Children’s Health Defense, entitled “Number of Children Who Died After COVID Shots Much Higher Than VAERS Reports Indicate, Analyst Says.”

Fetal deaths and miscarriages, sudden cardiac arrest, sudden death and suicides — these are some of the causes of death listed in reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on children who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Yet, these reports do not count toward the total number of child deaths listed in VAERS data because the victims’ ages are officially listed as “unknown,” according to VAERS analyst Albert Benavides.

Benavides reviewed the data for his website, VAERSAware.com, and provided links to many of these “unknown age” child death reports on his site.

VAERS data as of May 31 lists 197 child deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.

However, Benavides told The Defender, “There are approximately 418 properly documented deaths in children below age 18. There are an additional approximate 120 kid deaths where the summary narrative states ‘child, infant, neonate, baby.’”

Benavides identified these “unknown age” reports using an algorithm and “manual intervention.”

Click here to read the full article.

*

My Take…

I have been able to confirm a lot of these deaths myself.

Here are 182 post COVID-19 vaccine CHILD DEATHSs with “Age” left BLANK.

It’s actually shocking how many VAERS reports of CHILD DEATHS there are, that don’t have the child’s age entered in the proper location.

WHO VigiAccess reports over 200,000 Pediatric Adverse Events after taking a COVID-19 Vaccine:

Child Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccine in the literature: (at least 4 child deaths in peer-reviewed papers with autopsy)

Example of death one day after Pfizer mRNA jab:

VAERS 1769327: “A 12-year old male patient received Pfizer mRNA on Aug. 19, 2021. The patient experienced unknown cause of death on Aug. 20, 2021, cardiac arrest.

Image

Example of death 2 days after Pfizer mRNA jab with AUTOPSY confirming: 

VAERS 1859260: “A 12 year old male received second dose of Pfizer mRNA. It was reported that the patient passed away shortly after his second coronavirus vaccination. An autopsy was performed. “A 12 year old boy dies, two days after being inoculated for the secon dtime. Initial evidence suggests that death could be related to vaccination. According to the preliminary autopsy protocol, experts from “PRIVACY” considered the death likely to be due to vaccination.”

Image

Australia – 9 Child Deaths in TGA Database

Conclusion 

538 Child Deaths in VAERS.

9 Child Deaths in Australian TGA

>200,000 Pediatric COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries in WHO VigiAccess.

Health Canada, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer (CPHO) (Dr.Theresa Tam), Alberta Health Services, all claim “0 CHILD DEATHS” after COVID-19 Vaccination.

How many child deaths are “too many”?

How many dead children is it going to take to get these COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine products taken off the market?

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The survey carried out by the QR company for the group Voto Latino – which promotes Biden’s re-election candidacy – confirms the decline in the support of the Hispanic community for the Democratic candidate, who, however, remains ahead in voting intention within that group over his rival, the Republican Donald Trump. Beyond the Latino vote, the former president leads Biden in the polls despite facing criminal charges, which he says are politically motivated.

According to the survey, reported by the newspaper El País, Biden would obtain 59% of the votes of Latinos in the states of Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Texas and Pennsylvania, while Trump would reach 39% of support.

However, support for the current president and Democratic candidate falls to 47% when respondents can choose among other presidential candidates beyond Trump, such as the so-called anti-establishment independent Robert F. Kennedy, who obtains 12% of the support. He is followed by African American activist Cornel West, with 3%; and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein, 2%, while 1% say they don’t know who they would vote for.

In this scenario, Trump is less affected than Biden, and his voting intention falls to only 34%.

“What we are seeing is not a significant shift to the right among Latino voters. Instead, there are many who are frustrated with a two-party system and are seriously considering voting for a third party,” said Voto Latino president María Teresa Kumar, according to El País.

According to the outlet, younger people and within the Latino electorate are the most inclined to turn their backs on Biden and consider other options, a radical change considering the overwhelming Democratic favouritism among Hispanics in recent decades.

The reason for this loss of support, Kumar explained to El País, is the advantage that Trump has over Biden in the perception of management of the economy, an issue that will be decisive in these elections, in a context of increasing cost of living and inflation. Voters say in the poll that the economy will be their main issue when choosing a candidate.

“’It is impossible to exaggerate the impact of inflation and the economy on the Hispanic electorate,’ says the survey. More than 35% of young Latinos claim to have applied for government aid in the last year and 52% admit to having had to postpone the purchase of a house or a car,” said the article.

The note also points out another problem for the Democratic campaign: the potential absenteeism of Latino voters, an electorate that is made up of millions of citizens and that is key for whoever seeks to prevail in the elections. According to the study, only 37% of Hispanics said they were enthusiastic about voting, a feeling that is greater among Republicans than Democrats, a party that has also recently registered a sharp drop-in support among other groups, such as young people, Arab-Americans and progressives due to the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s military operation in Gaza, according to several recent polls.

A CBS/YouGov poll found that 81% of respondents said the economy would be a major factor affecting their vote, making it the No. 1 issue, with inflation following with 75% and democracy with 74%. The same poll also found that the majority of potential voters in the US said that Trump’s criminal conviction was not a factor in how they would vote in November’s election.

Trump became the first current or former US president in history to be convicted of a crime after a jury on May 30 found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records, with the billionaire accusing the charges of being a politically motivated “witch hunt” that sought to hinder his chances of winning November’s race.

It is unsurprising that the majority of Americans place such little importance on the criminal charges when Biden’s economic policies, including the wasted tens of billions sent to Ukraine, has led to a once in a lifetime cost-of-living crisis. Under Biden’s watch, credit card debt has reached a record $1.1 trillion, with 60% of Americans now living paycheck to paycheck.

With such a decline in the quality of life that Americans have experienced, it is little wonder that there is a great longing for the return of Trump and why more are turning their back on Biden. This is epitimosed in the very fact that not even criminal charges can weaken Trump in the polls in the context of the great inability to afford necessities like food and housing.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

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

***

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual event bringing together global leaders, policymakers, and influential business figures, took place in St. Petersburg, Russia from June 5th to 8th, 2024. Attendees representing 130 countries and roughly 3 billion people worldwide attended. This year, SPIEF’s theme was “The Foundations of a Multipolar World – The Formation of New Areas of Growth.”

Foreign companies are eager to access the Russian market’s potential, despite Western sanctions aimed at isolating Moscow.

Deals involve firms from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, suggesting a pragmatic approach prioritizing commercial interests over politics and avoiding missed opportunities in Russia. The diversity of participants indicates many businesses recognize the risks of being left out of this lucrative market.

What should be a wakeup call for the global West is instead falling on deaf ears. While Washington and European capitals report declining economies, Russia, in spite of severe sanctions, continues to adapt and flourish.

Policymakers are not testing their countries’ long-term economic policies against the implications of the rise of multipolarism. Let’s consider the Green/degrowth policies favored by the Biden administration and former European economic powerhouses like Germany. They are not protecting the future of their people. 

SPIEF 2024 introduced concepts the Global South Century will move forward on driving the world economy while the American and European economies recede. Russia is positioning itself as a leader.

What Is the Global South?

Take the 3.5 billion population of China, India, and the ASEAN countries, for example.

In 2000, only 150 million of these people enjoyed middle-class living standards. Today, the number has exploded to around 1.5 billion, double the total population of Western countries. And it is predicted to grow to 3 billion by 2030.”

If the Global South’s middle class are that large, who will be controlling the economy? At the same time, America will be deindustrializing and the sheer weight of debt will push most of the middle class into poverty. 

This is a far cry from what we see in the headlines. First, we were told the Russian economy would collapse under the sanction load. Later, it was; the growth we are seeing is temporary, even as Western economies faltered from being directly affected by the sanctions levied and cutting off the energy it needs to fuel industry.

In the same vein, we’re assured Ukraine is winning the war on the battlefield and Russia is reduced to going into battle in golf carts. All the while Ukraine needs more out of our treasuries and constant weapon deliveries that drained Western stockpiles to the point it will take 5 years to replenish.

While headlines read Moscow’s booming because of the Ukrainian war, they also state Russia’s economy is said to have slipped to 12th place globally.

What is the truth?

By August 2023, it was reported that Russia overtook Germany as the fifth-largest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) GDP rankings. Recently impacted by shocks and the loss of cheap Russian gas, Germany has stagnated and fallen to sixth place in the World Bank’s ranking. PPP GDP accounts for local price differences, similar to The Economist’s Big Mac index comparing burger costs across countries.”

The World Bank revised Russia’s ranking, stating that Russia overtook Japan in 2021 and has maintained its position at number four since then. The previous calculations were based on 2017 data, now updated to reflect the 2021 figures.

This data is pre-war and supplants the notion Russia’s expanding economy is riding solely on a war economy bump. Russia is currently the fastest growing major economy in the world.

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) is heavily invested in the Global South’s growth, where developing countries are outpacing the West.

China and India, currently ranked first and third in PPP terms, are expected to also lead nominally in the coming decades. The fastest-growing economies are from the Global South.

Over 980 agreements worth a staggering $71. 87 billion were concluded at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in 2024, highlighting the immense opportunities that Washington and European Union planners are inadvertently leaving their own industries out of. 

The sheer volume of deals indicates a strong appetite among foreign companies to tap into the Russian market’s vast potential, even as Western nations impose sanctions and seek to isolate Moscow from the global economy. Notably, the agreements were not limited to traditional Russian allies or partners; they involved companies and investors from various regions, including Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This diversity of participants suggests that many businesses are taking a pragmatic approach, prioritizing commercial interests over political considerations, and recognizing the risks of being left out of lucrative opportunities in the Russian market. 

How Russia Is Doing It, Lessons to Learn

Russia has shifted its economic model, investing heavily in areas like the military-industrial complex and civilian sectors through initiatives like National Projects 2. 1. This has benefited the country’s poorest regions, leading to a record low in Russia’s despair index – a measure of inflation, unemployment, and poverty. 

This is supposedly a time when Russia, according to Ukraine and the Biden administration is supposed to be conscripting soldiers they can’t arm or even feed?

This is supposed to be a time when battlefield casualty numbers for Russian soldiers are over 500,000 and climbing?

This defies logic and the evidence is plain to see. The Russian military is inundated with so many volunteers they can’t handle the inflow. If the battlefield deaths were what is being reported, this would be another story altogether. Civilians don’t volunteer for war if they are being sent into a meat grinder.

“It is certainly true that 88 per cent of the world population lives outside the West in what is now called the Global South. Arguably, many Global South countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia are no longer passive participants on the world stage, instead acting independently of the West in many ways.

It is equally notable that other forums and institutions of the Global South are gaining weight. The BRICS forum – comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – was set up in 2009 as a counterpoint to the G7 club of nations, to criticism from some quarters that it was little more than ‘marketing’.

Yet, it is now clear that the BRICS is growing in clout. In 1980, the G7 accounted for about 50 per cent of the world’s GDP in purchasing power parity terms, while the BRICS countries – excluding Russia, then part of the Soviet Union – accounted for about 11 per cent.

Today, the G7 accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s GDP, while the BRICS countries account match it at around 30 per cent. Equally importantly, the membership of BRICS is growing dramatically, while the G7’s is stagnant.” Chatham House

What else are we being lied to about?

America’s Despair Index Problem

To put Russia’s record low in perspective, this US Joint Congressional report on the American despair index is shocking to the senses.

Mortality from deaths of despair far surpasses anything seen in America since the dawn of the 20th century. (The trend for middle-aged whites reveals a more dramatic rise but only goes back continuously to 1959.) The recent increase has primarily been driven by an unprecedented epidemic of drug overdoses, but even excluding those deaths, the combined mortality rate from suicides and alcohol-related deaths is higher than at any point in more than 100 years. Suicides have not been so common since 1938, and one has to go back to the 1910s to find mortality from alcohol-related deaths as high as today’s.”

The gravity of this report titled Long-Term Trends in Deaths of Despair shows Washington has been out of touch with the needs of the American people for such a long time, they don’t remember Congress is supposed to be steering the ship and are hellbent on capsizing it for political gain and personal profit.

The US national debt just hit a new all-time high of $34.667 trillion. New numbers from the Treasury Department’s Debt to the Penny system show the country’s national debt reached the milestone on Friday, May 31st.

The current law debt trajectory will reduce income growth by 12% over the next three decades and 13% annually by Fiscal Year (FY) 2049. 

Rapidly rising debt could reduce income growth by 33% over the next three decades and 42% annually by FY 2049. 

Rapidly rising debt would reduce projected income by about $14,500 per person in FY 2054, in today’s dollars.”

The CBO says the reduction in household income is due to “crowding out,” an economic theory that traces how high debt and deficits slow economic growth on national and individual level.

“…High debt and deficits carry significant risks and threats to the budget and the economy. 

High and rising debt hinders economic growth by crowding out investments, pushes up interest rates, strains the federal budget through rising interest payments, creates geopolitical challenges and risks, makes responding to new emergencies more challenging, imposes burdens on future generations, and increases the risk of a fiscal crisis.”

Russia’s wartime industry is simultaneously shifting to manufacture consumer goods. After a resolution, Moscow intends to have these new facilities and industries providing products to new partners, where the collective West will struggle to compete.

Putin stressed achieving this through enhancing domestic production and reducing import reliance, rather than trade barriers. 

The approach recognizes that sustainable growth requires more than protectionism. Russia will achieve long-term economic resilience through diversification and self-sufficiency, setting its economy up for long-term growth.

Conversely, the Biden and EU model stresses switching to carbon-neutral manufacturing decades before the technology and infrastructure are in place to do so. This is a sure recipe for long term austerity and more citizens giving up on the future.

The Russian president noted that the center of economic development was gradually shifting further eastwards and northwards

“The basis of the US economy is ‘cracking’ due to government debt and inflation, according to Putin. “It is an unequivocal problem for all holders of dollar assets,” the Russian president said. He further stated that the development center is shifting to Asia, and Russia needs to be closer.

According to the Russian leader, Peter the Great opened the window into Europe precisely because this is where development was seen. Well, no more.”

Or at least, not now.

What sanctions and the theft of Russian assets has shown the world is America can no longer be trusted. The days when the world’s economy is pegged on the American Dollar, which is the only thing propping up America today are over.

Would you trust your national assets, like gold for instance, with a bank that may or may not turn around and seize them? Of course not.

Countries with a combined population of over 3 billion people represented at SPIEF are divesting in American assets because of the above. Traditional trade done in US Dollars is shifting to local currencies.

As this economic decoupling accelerates the CBO report becomes the optimistic view. The reality is much starker because the report doesn’t consider the eventual loss of the Dollar’s status as the indispensable currency.

 The fact Americans are already facing the impact of this situation is disastrous and is a matter of policy. What policy?

Imagine the economy going so backwards that for any single item, there are only two producers. You still have freedom of choice between the two but the quality is constrained by state policy. Many of the things you took for granted growing up, become unavailable. 

While Russia, China, India, and the Global South enjoy the benefits of Capitalism and democracy which large middle classes demand, the collective West has no choice but to step away from it to address the new and harsher realities.

This isn’t a pro-Russia, pro-China, or India ideological statement. If left unchanged, this is the future unfolding before us.

As industry becomes restricted and labor markets overburdened with the perpetually unemployed, services people count on will roll back. All of this is the natural progression forward from the Paris Accords. It was never about the environment.

Green Growth Is “Degrowth” Policy as It Rolls Out

The EU spent $630 billion on replacing gas from Russia in 2021-2023. This amount is comparable to Europe’s total gas spending over the previous eight years.

At the September 12th, 2022 Yalta European Strategy conference September 12th, German Foreign Minister Analena Baerbock bluntly stated she didn’t care what the German people suffered over the next 10 years, they wouldn’t import Russian gas.

Within 10 days, Germany updated its security policy to include Russian gas purchases as dangerous to the state. Within 2 weeks, the Nord Stream explosions happened which cemented Baerbock’s Green Party green agenda in Germany and across Europe. 

For the German Greens, the Nord Stream explosions were a godsend that enabled them to start decoupling German industry from the economy as companies were forced to relocate to survive.

When you consider that Joe Biden’s Build Back Better program is a copy of Baerbock’s Green Party platform on economics and society, the concept of “degrowth” shows why it’s necessary for America and the West to push down their economies and get populations used to living on the brink.

 German Greens have lengthy political experience with many ups and downs, becoming less compromising, more system focused, and more pragmatic in recent years. Paths to achieving ecological sustainability are now more readily understood in their social dimensions. Influenced by German activists and sustainability scholars who have made a degrowth turn to the subsistence orientation pioneered by German ecofeminists decades ago, German Greens incorporate strong concerns with equity, reducing over-consumption and modifying work.”

Degrowth doesn’t mean they want you to buy electric cars. They want to take electric cars away and the ability to purchase them. They want to destroy industries so products are no longer available. This was never about “saving” the planet. 

Degrowth means shrinking down major economies like America’s as close to the level of second-world economies as possible so there is social equity. There’s that word again.

Was destroying German industry necessary to support Ukraine? Or America’s? The question looms large because if Russia was wielding energy prices like a foreign policy sword, an orderly withdrawal to new sources would have supported economic stability.

If the question was “will” Russia do this? And it’s spot on, then once again, policymakers were lied to as well as the general public. Governments tore up the social contract with the “people” to support the common good in favor of something else. 

Russia offered long-term energy contracts that locked the price of energy at affordable levels. Europe and the US decided to pay spot pricing instead. The locked in prices and contracts specifying terms for deliverables negates the “Russia using energy as a diplomatic weapon” argument.

And yet, the global demand for oil continues to grow, mainly due to developing countries. Developing countries will be the main drivers of oil consumption in the coming decades. The President of Bolivia is discussing supplies of liquid hydrocarbons with Rosneft.

The global demand for technology, products, research, and skilled workers continues to grow. For America and Europe, the path they’re taking leads these countries to the sidelines as this policy develops. 

Russia, China, India, and the Global South will become the economic juggernauts driving the world while economically devolving green/degrowth agenda countries have less and less to offer.

*

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

George Eliason is an American journalist based in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV.

His articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washington’s Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT, and Global Research among others.

Featured image source

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Researchers looked at samples from 20 formulas made by well-known local and international brands, and found that six out of 20 formulas tested positive for five types of toxic heavy metals, including lead and aluminum

In May 2024, the FDA sounded the alarm on the Crecelac Infant Powdered Goat Milk Infant Formula, after tests revealed it was contaminated with Cronobacter, which can lead to life-threatening infections like sepsis and meningitis

U.S. lawmakers are also working on a new bill, dubbed The Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, that would direct the FDA to set maximum allowable limits for heavy metals in baby food and infant formula

Breast milk is still the best option for both infants and mothers. However, if you are unable to lactate, I recommend making your own homemade formula milk — recipes are included in this article

*

The “breast versus bottle” debate has long divided concerned parents who only want the best nourishment for their child. Many parents who seek convenience often choose infant formula. Others, such as moms who cannot produce enough breast milk to satisfy their children, have no choice but to resort to formula milk.

So, to find out that most infant formulas sold today are contaminated with not just one, but FIVE toxic metals is not just alarming, but an eye-opener to just how unnatural and damaging these highly processed infant foods are.

Study on Infant Formulas Finds All Samples Contaminated with Heavy Metals

Published in May 2024, the study was a collaboration between two nonprofit organizations, GMOScience and Moms Across America.1 Spearheaded by Michelle Perro, MD, Zen Honeycutt and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., the study aimed to determine the presence of toxic metals in several brands of infant formula.

The researchers tested 40 samples from 20 formulas made by well-known local and international brands, such as Enfamil, Gerber and Similac, to name a few. Some were labeled “Organic,” “Non-GMO,” “Grass fed” and “Hypoallergenic.” Most formulas were dairy-based, and only one was soy-based. Each formula was tested twice.

The study findings were alarming. Not only did all samples test positive for aluminum and lead, but the researchers also found that:2

  • Six out of 20 formulas tested positive for all the heavy metals being tested
  • 35% of the samples tested positive for cadmium, 55% were positive for mercury and 57% were positive for arsenic
  • Four samples had mercury levels that were higher than the allowed limit in drinking water by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • Cadmium levels in both samples of one formula are nearly twice higher than the allowed amount in drinking water
  • The aluminum levels in a goat’s milk baby formula were at 41,000 ppb — this means it was 4,000 to 40,000 times higher than other metals in the formulas tested. It also exceeds the limits set by the FDA for the maximum safety level of aluminum for a preemie

Heavy Metals Can Cross Your Infant’s Underdeveloped Blood-Brain Barrier

The study authors, who released their findings on their podcast The New MDS (Mothers, Doctors and Scientists),3 emphasized the significance of this project and what it can mean for young children’s health. They mentioned that these toxic heavy metals can cross your child’s blood-brain barrier, which doesn’t fully develop until they’re 6 months old, which puts them at risk of cognitive health issues.

“Chronic exposure to these metals, even at low levels, can have cumulative effects on infants, potentially leading to developmental and neurological issues, carcinogenic, as well as initiating the development of chronic diseases later in life.

Given the [crucial] growth period in infants, even small amounts of toxic metals can have disproportionately large impacts as compared to adults,” they stated.4

They also noted that the heavy metal contamination from formula milk can have a cumulative effect. The levels can also increase during early infant growth, as well as when various nutrient deficiencies are present, such as iron and vitamin D deficiency.5 In a blog post, Anne Temple of Moms Across America commented:6

“[W]e are extremely dismayed by the results. We had hoped some formulas would be free from toxic and heavy metals, but they were not. We were shocked to see such high levels of toxic metal aluminum present in goat’s milk formula and urge the manufacturers and the FDA to immediately take action to resolve this issue.”

Even More Alarming — Infant Formula Tests Positive for Cronobacter

In late May 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sounded the alarm on another infant formula manufacturer after learning that it not only failed to comply with FDA regulations,7 but one of its products is contaminated with Cronobacter.8,9

The Crecelac Infant Powdered Goat Milk Formula was voluntarily recalled by its Texas-based manufacturer Dairy Manufacturers Inc. after its samples tested positive for Cronobacter. This bacterium can cause life-threatening infections affecting the central nervous system and bloodstream, such as meningitis and sepsis.

Cronobacter infections are most common in infants younger than 2 months and can lead to complications like brain abscess, developmental delay and motor impairments. In the majority of cases, this infection can be fatal.10

Initial symptoms of this infection include poor feeding, temperature changes, irritability, jaundice, grunting breaths and abnormal body movements. So far, no illnesses related to the Crecelac recall have been reported,11 though the FDA cautions parents and guardians to contact their health care provider and get immediate care if their child experiences these symptoms after consuming these infant formulas.12

New Bill Aims to Limit Harmful Heavy Metals in Baby Food

There is one good outcome that came from the GMOScience and Moms Across America study — the FDA is taking notice and has made encouraging statements regarding the regulation of heavy metals in infant formula.

U.S. lawmakers are also working on a new bill, dubbed The Baby Food Safety Act of 2024,13 that would direct the FDA to set maximum allowable limits for heavy metals in baby food, as well as to monitor and set standards for testing the final product. This will also allow them to establish mandatory recalls for food products that don’t meet the standards. According to a CNN article:14

“‘Parents want what’s best for their children, and they deserve peace of mind knowing the food they purchase for their babies and toddlers is safe,’ Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said in a statement about the bill she is leading.

‘This legislation will boost food safety standards and require more complete testing by manufacturers to prevent heavy metals from poisoning our kids.’”

In recent years, there have been increasing instances of heavy metal contamination seen in baby foods. “A 2019 report from the advocacy group Healthy Babies Bright Futures said that 95% of baby foods from major manufacturers contained lead and a quarter of the foods contained all four heavy metals,” CNN reports.15

And just last year, the FDA issued a recall for three brands of fruit pouches after they were found to contain high lead levels.

“We urge our Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle to remember that toxins are not partisan. Heavy metals, pesticides, and contaminants damage a baby’s development, impair their ability to function, and prevent them from fulfilling their potential regardless of their parent’s political party. It is imperative that our politicians come together to support this bill,” according to the Moms Across America website.

Most Infant Formulas Are Actually Junk Food

These findings aren’t at all surprising, considering that infant formulas are among the most highly processed food products made for children today, and are prone to contamination. According to Dairy Reporter,16 “The [Cronobacter] bacterium is naturally found in the environment and may end up in formula if it comes in contact with contaminated surfaces or has been improperly stored.”

What’s more, infant formulas are made with junk ingredients that contribute nothing to your child’s health. Just take a look at the list of ingredients of one infant formula that’s “highly recommended” in the U.S.:

ingredients

Corn syrup solids, safflower oil, sucrose, soy oil — No wonder childhood obesity in the U.S. is now rising at alarming rates. One study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that formula milk made with corn syrup solids is associated with increased obesity risk in the first five years of life, in a dose dependent manner.17

Plus, the vegetable oils used in these products are loaded with omega-6 fats, particularly linoleic acid, the most damaging ingredient that contributes to most degenerative diseases today.

Babies nourished with formula milk are also more likely to rapidly gain weight and in excess — another risk factor for obesity both during childhood and in adulthood.18 One study, published in the npj Metabolic Health and Diseases, noted:19

“While infant formula is designed to provide all the necessary nutrients for infant growth and development, it has been linked with infant hospitalizations and infections, childhood obesity, and lowered levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an important fatty acid related to brain development.”

Breastmilk Is Still the Healthiest Food for Babies

This isn’t the first disaster in recent years involving infant formula. In 2022, the FDA shut down Abbott Nutrition’s facility in Sturgis, Michigan, after five infants were reportedly sickened with Cronobacter and Salmonella infections.20 Two of the babies died. As a result of this shutdown, a severe formula milk shortage was experienced all across the U.S.

Were breastfeeding the norm, then parents wouldn’t be in a panic over these disastrous events. Many children would also enjoy better health overall. Unfortunately, many mothers still turn to formula milk, as it not only offers greater freedom, but also because there’s been a stigma associated with breastfeeding. For many years, breastfeeding in public has been frowned upon, and has been even considered “shameful.”

Many mothers would defer to the bottle rather than be called out for “exposing themselves” in public — a ridiculous notion, as this is in fact the most natural, healthiest food you can offer your child.

Breast Is Best for Both Babies and Moms

The growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” campaign has led to increasing rates in breastfeeding in the U.S. In 1971, only 24% of mothers initiated breastfeeding after childbirth;21 this rose to 81% in 2016.22 However, a study23 notes that 60% mothers still stop breastfeeding sooner than planned.

But halting breastfeeding could cause your child to miss out on various health benefits, most of which continue well into adulthood. From a nutritional science point of view, there’s simply no dispute that breast milk is the optimal food for newborns and young infants.

For one, breastfeeding has been associated with a lower risk of being overweight and obese.24 Not only does exclusive breastfeeding prevent the early introduction of foods that may trigger weight gain, but it also establishes a healthy gut microbiome, which is key for lifelong health. According to the Global Breastfeeding Collective:25

“Breastfeeding helps populate the child’s body with ‘good’ bacteria from his or her mother, which provide protection against excessive weight gain. Breastmilk contains hormones and other biological factors involved in the regulation of food intake that may help shape the long-term physiological processes responsible for maintaining energy balance.

Feeding of infant formula by bottle may interfere with a child’s recognition of satiety and thus lead to overeating.”

Adults who were breastfed during infancy were also found to have a 26% lower risk of becoming overweight or obese, as well as a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.26 Mothers who breastfed also experienced profound benefits, such as:

  • Quicker recovery from childbirth — It helps return the uterus to normal size and reduces postpartum bleeding27
  • Reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancer28
  • Faster weight loss after childbirth — Producing milk burns approximately 450 extra calories each day, which helps mobilize visceral fat stores.
  • Reduced risk of cardiovascular disease29
  • Reduced risk of postpartum depression30
  • Closer bond between her and her child, even beyond infancy31

Make Your Own Infant Formula at Home

If you are a new mother and still lactating, then breastfeeding would be the best choice for both you and your child. However, moms who didn’t breastfeed from the start, or who have stopped for weeks or months, may find it difficult to go back to breastfeeding, as you cannot restart lactation at will.

Your next-best option then is to make your own infant formula using raw milk. In the video above, health and nutrition educator Sarah Pope of the Healthy Home Economist demonstrates how to make the formula created by Mary Enig, Ph.D., which was published in the book, “Nourishing Traditions.” There are a couple of caveats with Pope’s recipe, though:

1. Fermented cod liver oil is a recommended ingredient in Pope’s recipes, which may be dangerous for babies. Laboratory testing has revealed the product tends to be prone to rancidity, may contain added vegetable oils, and lacks vitamin K2 and CoQ10.

The concentration of vitamins A and D can also vary significantly from one batch to another, as cod liver oil is not regulated or standardized. Unless you can verify the purity of the cod liver oil, I’d recommend using wild-caught Alaskan Salmon oil instead.

2. The Weston A. Price Foundation’s baby formula recipe suggests butter oil is optional, but Dr. Price himself recommended always pairing cod liver oil with butter oil, which contains vitamin K2 (MK-4). I recommend tweaking the recipe by making butter oil a requirement if you’re using a certified pure fermented cod liver oil.

My Preferred Healthy Homemade Infant Formula

I’ve made adjustments to Pope’s recipe and have applied the necessary substitutions mentioned above. This milk-based recipe will make 36 ounces of infant formula, although if you need to make large batches to last several days, you can do so — just make sure to freeze the finished product.

If Your Child Cannot Tolerate Milk Proteins, Try This Meat-Based Formula

Many symptoms of milk intolerance are caused by A1 casein, a type of lectin associated with leaky gut and autoimmune disorders. Casein A2 is the normal protein in milk, present in sheep, goat, water buffalo and some Jersey cow milk. Unfortunately, most cows today are casein A1 producers.

For babies who cannot tolerate milk, Pope recommends this hypoallergenic infant formula recipe, which uses meat instead.

*

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

Notes

1, 6 Moms Across America, May 21, 2024

2, 4, 5 GMOScience, May 2024

3 GMOScience, The New MDS

7 Dairy Reporter, May 30, 2024

8, 11, 16 Dairy Reporter, June 5, 2024

9, 10, 12 U.S. FDA, May 31, 2024

13 Amy Klobuchar, May 9, 2024

14, 15 CNN, May 9, 2024

17 Am J Clin Nutr. Oct 6, 2022;116(4):1002-1009

18 Matern Child Nutr. July 2018; 14(3): e12602

19 npj Metabolic Health and Disease, December 13, 2023 volume 1, Article number: 2, Introduction

20 U.S. FDA February 17, 2022 (Archived)

21 Am J Public Health. December 2003; 93(12): 2000–2010, The Fall and Rise of Breastfeeding Initiation Rates

22 CDC Archive, August 22, 2016 (Archived)

23 Front Public Health. 2023; 11: 1256432. Introduction

24 BMC Pediatrics, 2022, volume 22, Article number: 347

25, 26 Global Breastfeeding Collective, Breastfeeding Advocacy Brief, Page 2

27 Cleveland Clinic, July 17, 2023

28 Medical Daily, January 14, 2013

29 Journal of the American Heart Association 2017

30 International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 2012;43(3):243

31 American Psychological Association, October 30, 2017

32 Weston A. Price Foundation Homemade Baby Formula

When the Lie Becomes the “Truth”

June 17th, 2024 by Mark Taliano

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

How long did it take for “alternate” or legacy media journalists to finally acknowledge that there are no “moderate rebels” in Syria and that the West and its agencies support al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and beyond?

How long did it take for Westerners to realize that the current Zionist genocide against Palestinians was planned in advance and is currently being realized, that it was never about Hamas?

How long did it take for Westerners to realize that Nazism and genocidal ethnic  nationalism drive the anti-Russian hatreds and military policies in post-coup Kiev?

In each case it took far too long, and the War Lies still persist. Why? One reason is that journalists seeking employment enter the Ring of Mainstream Lies, play the military-intelligence game, and empower Confusion Inc., all hallmarks of colonial war propaganda.

The notion embraced by some that there are “two truths” about Syria, or Gaza, or Ukraine is nonsense. It is Orwellan “doublethink.”

There is evidence-based truth and there is legacy/mainstream/colonial media masquerading as truth.

Suggesting there is equivalency between the Truth and the Lie ultimately empowers the Lie.

Unfortunately, the task of displacing the truth, of making it invisible, is easier when the messengers themselves are obliterated.

Syrian Basma Qaddour, co-author of Voices from Syria, Second Edition, details Western/Zionist-supported terrorist assassinations of Syrian journalists and media personnel:

On August 11, 2011, terrorists killed the journalist Ali Abbas, who was the head of news department at the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), through opening fire on him at his house in “Jdaydet Artoz” area in Damascus countryside.

In December 4, 2012, an armed terrorist group killed a 60-year-old journalist Naji As’ad, who was working for the state-run Tishreen Newspaper, near his house after he returned from his work.

On March 26, 2013, a rocket fired by terrorist groups, who had occupied the Eastern Ghouta of Damascus for 7 years, hit the headquarters of SANA, killing 4 workers there.

In May, 27, 2013, terrorist groups killed the reporter of the Syrian Al-ikhbaria TV Channel near Al-Qusair town in Homs countryside.

On October 2018, explains Qaddour, the Syrian Journalists Union presented a list including the names and photos of 46 Syrian journalists, who were killed by terrorist groups in Syria:

 

 

Al Jazeera reporter Hind Khoudary  reports similar crimes occurring right now in Gaza, claiming that  (Western-supported)  Zionists have murdered about 142 (1) reporters since October 7.

According to the “Government Media Office” the number of “journalist martyrs” has now risen to 151 “martyrs”.

The story in Ukraine is hauntingly similar, a CIA/NATO hit list, Myrotvorets,  includes such notables as Eva Bartlett, Scott Ritter, Roger Waters, Diane Sare, Geoff Young, John Mearsheimer, Senator Ron Paul, former Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, and many others. The Western-supported nazi junta accuses them of being “traitors” and “Russian propagandists”

At a September 7 press conference, Ritter lamented that US tax dollars subsidizing Ukraine are “being used to target and intimidate American citizens voicing their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.” (2) 

Meanwhile, assassination, torture, kidnapping and arrest of those opposing Nazism, parallel fascism and Washington’s destruction of Ukraine have been commonplace. (3)

When the Truth is obliterated, and the Lie becomes the “Truth”, Hate is so much easier to fabricate. And Hate is a prerequisite for more war and misery.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Notes

  1. Mark Taliano, “Empire of Lies Murders the Truth in Gaza and Beyond.” GLobal Research. 31 May, 2024. (Empire of Lies Murders the Truth in Gaza and Beyond – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization)Accessed16 June,2024.  see also: https://t.me/mustafaalbayed/25434
  2. Jeremy Kuzmarov, “Ukrainian ‘Hit List’ Publishes Names and Addresses of Alleged ‘Russian Propagandists’: Turns Out To Be Based Not in Ukraine But in Langley VA Where CIA Headquarters Is Located.” Covert Action Magazine, 19 September, 2022. (Ukrainian “Hit List” Publishes Names and Addresses of Alleged “Russian Propagandists:” Turns Out To Be Based Not in Ukraine But in Langley VA Where CIA Headquarters Is Located – CovertAction Magazine) Accessed 16 June, 2024.
  3. Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy, ” ‘One less traitor’: Zelensky oversees campaign of assassination, kidnapping and torture of political opposition.” 17 April, 2022. (“One less traitor”: Zelensky oversees campaign of assassination, kidnapping and torture of political opposition – The Grayzone) Accessed 16 June, 2024. see also: Is Zelensky disappearing and murdering Ukrainian citizens? (substack.com)

Featured image is from the author


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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

A Mother’s Plea for Peace. Mairead Maguire

June 17th, 2024 by Mairead Maguire

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

To all the people of Gaza I send you my deepest love and sympathy on the death of your beloved family and friends who have been murdered by the Israeli military in its ongoing war on Gaza.

I also send my deepest sympathy to all the many thousands of Palestinians who have been injured and maimed, many of whom have not been able to access medical help due to the killing of medical staff and bombing by Israel of many hospitals.

I cannot begin to understand the depth of your pain on the loss of those you love. I can only say ‘I am sorry – please forgive me that I did not do enough to help stop this madness of military violence which cruelly took away the ones you love.’

I am aware that in Gaza today there is famine and Palestinian children are dying of starvation. Aware too that whilst Israel refuses to open borders to allow food into Gaza, one in three Gazan children suffer malnutrition and if there is no immediate policy change by Israel, thousands and thousands of children will be starved to death! This ongoing genocide by Israel is being played out on all our television screens around the world.

Also whilst Palestinians are dying of bombing and starvation, made refugees yet again,  and being bombed and murdered in refugee tents, (with weapons made and paid for by USA and Europe), Israel builds new roads, watchtowers, and new military structures in Gaza in preparation of its land grab, of yet more Gazan land ensuring that the people of Gaza will be well and truly locked into the biggest prison camp courtesy of the US,  Britain, France, Germany, etc.

These countries have sold out on human rights and democracy continuing to provide weapons, money and political credibility to Israel, which has militarily murdered over 36,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, whilst lecturing the rest of the world on the need for human rights and democracy.  Shame indeed!

But Palestinians can take hope from the millions of extraordinary wonderful men, women, teenagers, students, children around the world who have followed their hearts and responded with love in action, demanding the genocidal actions of Israel to stop, and countries like USA, Britain, Germany stop colluding with Israel.

From South Africa, that rightly and courageously took Israel to the ICJ-International Court of Justice on a charge of Genocide, and the ICJ, that have charged the Israeli and Palestinian leaders for war crimes. So too students throughout the US standing against Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

The people of the world have stood and will continue to stand in solidarity with Palestinians in spite of the fact that many government leaders are not reflecting the will of their people.

I believe a democratic free Palestine is possible if the West drops its double standards, stops financing and arming a land grab, ethnic cleansing, colonization, and genocide of the Palestine people by the Israeli government.

Palestinian children have a right to live and be protected from violence, poverty, starvation, just as we demand for our children wherever we live.  This continuing massacre of the holy innocents by Israel military is a war crime and those responsible for such barbaric genocidal acts on the little children must be held accountable before international law.

*

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

Mairead Corrigan Maguire, co-founder of Peace People, is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. She won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for her work for peace in Northern Ireland. Her book, The Vision of Peace, (edited by John Dear with a foreword by Desmond Tutu and a preface by the Dalai Lama) is available from www.wipfandstock.com. She lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland. See: www.peacepeople.com.

Featured image source

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

On May 30, the World Health Organization announced that Rafah’s last remaining hospital, the Al-Helal al-Emirati Hospital, had gone out of service. The destruction of the southern Gaza city’s health care system, which comes after more than two dozen hospitals across the Strip have completely shut down as a result of Israel’s assault, encapsulates the human toll of the intensifying Israeli military operation in Rafah.

Far from the “limited” invasion that Israel’s leaders proclaimed, Israeli forces are currently occupying the heart of the city and remain in control of the Rafah Crossing and Philadelphi Corridor, while airstrikes continue to pummel camps for displaced families. Since Israel’s incursion began on May 6, more than 1 million Palestinians have fled Gaza’s last refuge.

In addition to the Emirati Hospital, the Abu Yousef al-Najjar Hospital and the Kuwaiti Hospital have been forced to cease all functions in recent weeks. With several smaller clinics closing too, all that remains to serve Rafah’s sick and wounded is two small field hospitals in the coastal area of Al-Mawasi — one run by the United Arab Emirates, and the other by the International Medical Corps — which are ill-equipped to deal with the scale of suffering among those unable or unwilling to flee the city.

With Israel’s ground invasion continuing to advance toward western Rafah, these remaining clinics may also soon be forced to evacuate. And while a trickle of seriously wounded patients had been leaving Gaza via the Rafah Crossing for treatment abroad, nobody has been able to escape the Strip since Israel occupied the crossing.

Muhammad Zaqout, the Gaza Health Ministry’s director general of hospitals, told +972 that staff at Rafah’s hospitals evacuated “because they feared a repeat of what happened at Nasser Medical Complex and Al-Shifa Hospital.” Israeli forces besieged and raided both hospitals in recent months, in Khan Younis and Gaza City respectively; after their withdrawal, mass graves containing hundreds of bodies were found at both sites.

“Hospitals in Tel al-Sultan [western Rafah] are being bombed by missiles and Quadcopter drones,” Zaqout explained. “The Indonesian field hospital was damaged, and the doctors there were terrified.” According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, nearly 500 healthcare workers have been killed as a result of Israel’s attacks across the Strip since October.

The field clinics that remain open, Zaqout added, “do not have advanced equipment to receive patients with serious injuries,” who must instead be transferred to the European Hospital near Khan Younis. This journey, he said, “requires an ambulance for an hour or more due to the long distance, the presence of [Israeli] tanks, and the continuous bombing of the city.”

Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, Zaqout noted, is slowly starting to receive new patients again after having been forced to shut down during Israel’s raids on the complex. But it, too, is able to admit only a small number of the wounded who are transported from Rafah.

According to Zaqout, the situation is similarly desperate in northern Gaza amid continuing Israeli military operations: with Al-Shifa and Kamal Adwan Hospital both out of commission, Al-Ahli Hospital is the only major medical facility offering some services.

‘The Israeli Army Does Not Exclude Medical Personnel from Its Attacks’

Dr. Rima Sadiq, 29, worked at the Kuwaiti Hospital until it was forced to close on May 28. “We received a large number of casualties during the first days of the military operation,” she said. “The bombing never stops. With every [attack], we received at least 10 [patients with] injuries of varying severity. All injuries require treatment and follow-up, and the presence of a hospital near [the wounded] saves lives.”

Sadiq explained that the staff were eager to continue working to serve the city’s residents but they ultimately had no choice but to abandon the hospital. As Israel’s bombardment intensified, staff feared for their own lives and the lives of their patients, as well as the potential damage to medical devices and equipment.

“The situation has become very dangerous,” she said. “Two paramedics were martyred during their work to transport the wounded. The Israeli army does not exclude medical personnel from its [attacks]. We are all at risk of being targeted or arrested.”

“There are patients who were forced to leave the hospital in poor condition who require follow-up,” Sadiq continued. “Field hospitals are unable to receive large numbers [of patients] due to their clinical capacity and lack of treatments.” The lack of food, she added, only worsens their conditions and prevents a full recovery.

Yet just as the ability of Rafah’s health services to treat the wounded declines, the need is becoming ever greater. As Israel’s ground assault intensifies, so have the army’s attacks on Palestinians who remain in the city — including in areas it had designated as “safe zones” such as Al-Mawasi and Tel al-Sultan.

Around 45 Palestinians were killed in a single attack on a refugee camp on the night of May 26, when much of the encampment was engulfed in flames and many burned to death inside their tents. Another attack two days later on tents in Al-Mawasi killed 21.

‘We Saw Tents Catching Fire and Children Burning Inside’

Marwa Asraf, 38, witnessed the attack on Al-Mawasi. Originally from Beit Hanoun in the north, Asraf was displaced to Al-Mawasi with six of her family members. “What we are experiencing in this area is terrifying,” she told +972. “We do not feel safe at all. Shells and missiles are falling continuously.”

At the time of the Al-Mawasi bombing, Asraf had gone to search for water for their family. “I left my children with their father and grandmother,” she recounted. “Suddenly, I heard the sound of an explosion and then the screams of the displaced people. I fell to the ground from the intensity of the sound. I was crying. I thought that my children had been bombed.

“I started running mindlessly, and left the water jug on the ground,” Asraf continued. “I returned to the tent and found my children crying. Their grandmother was crying, too; she told me that my husband Ahmed ran toward the tents to check on the wounded, and that she was very concerned for him. I did not believe that my children were okay. One displaced person staying near us was killed when shrapnel entered the tent.

“This situation is very tiring,” she went on. “We are tired of being displaced from the northern Gaza Strip, for eight months, and we are waiting to return to our homes. We were a little reassured because we were in a ‘safe area,’ but whoever says that is a liar. We lost more than seventy people, including women and children, while they were in their tents.”

Beyond its emotional cost, Asraf explained, constantly relocating with her family has taken a financial toll. “We need to hire a taxi to take us to a new place every time we have to move. We spent all our money during this war just to buy basic necessities. Now I very much regret [leaving] the north. I wish I had stayed there and died in my home instead of here in the area they said was safe.”

Riyad Rawida, 43, was also displaced to Al-Mawasi from his home in the center of Rafah. He fled with 20 of his relatives after they spotted Israeli tanks penetrating the Zoroub roundabout area, approaching Tel al-Sultan. “We began to hear shelling and clashes,” he recalled. “We saw people leaving their homes and fleeing to Al-Mawasi. Tel al-Sultan became almost empty. We had no choice.”

Unlike the vast majority of Gaza’s displaced residents, this was the first time Rawida and his family had been forced to flee their homes. “It was difficult for us — we were in our homes from the beginning of the war for more than seven and a half months. Many [Israeli] statements reassured us that the area was safe, and that the world rejected any Israeli military operation in Rafah. But the army broke those lines and attacked the city, gradually advancing toward the western areas.

“Now we are in Al-Mawasi and we are afraid of being targeted at any moment, as happened in the tents last week,” he continued. “There is no safety at all. I fear for my children. The tents do not protect anyone. In Tel al-Sultan, we saw the tents catching fire and children burning inside them. The situation in Rafah is dangerous, the streets are empty, and unfortunately life has stopped here.”

*

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

Ruwaida Kamal Amer is a freelance journalist from Khan Younis.

Featured image: Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in Rafah, the last refuge in southern Gaza. Photo credit: MENAFN 

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

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

In the past two weeks alone, Israel has perpetrated three massacres in Gaza that managed to shock the world and trigger widespread condemnation.

Flooding social media were scenes that the head of Unrwa called “hell on earth” and Doctors Without Borders described as “apocalyptic“.

A raging inferno engulfing a camp for displaced Palestinians, a headless child, dismembered limbs, and scores of maimed and burnt bodies appeared against a soundtrack of explosions and the piercing screams of terrified women and children.

Even those who have closely followed the daily horror show in Gaza over the last eight months – the mass civilian casualties and total destruction of its infrastructure – could not fathom the savagery of dropping a 110kg bomb on plastic tents.

Yet for US officials, the 26 May Rafah tent massacre, which killed 45 people and injured more than 200 others, did not cross President Joe Biden’s “red line” for halting weapons shipments.

With no accountability, Israel has continued its genocidal campaign in Gaza unabated – as part of a settler colonial project to eliminate native Palestinians that began seven decades ago.

The following week, on 6 June, an Israeli air strike on al-Sardi Unrwa school killed around 40 displaced Palestinian civilians, including children. Two days later, on 8 June, the Nuseirat camp was brutally assaulted by land and air, killing 274 Palestinians.

The harrowing attacks have placed a spotlight on the role of US-supplied weapons and munitions in perpetrating a war that has killed at least 37,296 Palestinians and injured more than 85,000 others since 7 October 2023.

Indeed, US weapons shipments are key to Israel’s genocidal violence – and they reveal the sprawling network of the US military war machine that connects settler colonial and militarist violence on two occupied lands, Okinawa and Palestine.

Shared Weapons Systems

All three recent strikes on Palestinian civilians in Gaza were carried out using US-manufactured weapons.

Both weapons experts and images captured revealed that the explosives used in Rafah and the UN school were US-made GBU-39 small-diameter bombs (SDB). The GBU-39 is a 110kg guided air-to-surface munition manufactured by defence contractor Boeing since 2005.

According to the US Air Force’s fact sheet, the F-15E Strike Eagle is the only aircraft outfitted with the SDB weapons system. Future platforms designated for SDBs include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-117, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II.

The SDB is one of several weapons used in the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Golden Horde programme, which was launched in 2021.

Intended to advance Networked, Collaborative and Autonomous (NCA) weapons capabilities, the programme uses two weapons systems: the Collaborative Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (CMALD) and the Collaborative Small Diameter Bomb I (CDSB-I), the latter being a modified version of the GBU-39 SDB.

Since 7 October, the US and Israel have worked on various deals to manage the exchange of weapons like the SDB and the aircraft systems to carry them.

In January, the two nations signed a massive arms deal that included the supply of F-35 and F-15 fighter jets, the two systems equipped or designated for the SDB weapons system. In April, the US Congress approved an additional $26bn in aid to Israel, including $5bn to bolster air defences and bundle weapons shipments.

‘Arsenal of Democracy’

One weapon that has been frequently mentioned since Israel declared war on Gaza has been the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM for short.

Manufactured by Boeing, JDAM was developed in 1993 after the Gulf War and uses GPS locators to counter the effects of dust clouds in targeting systems. It can convert unguided “dumb bombs” to guided “smart bombs”, meaning that the bombs can be remotely controlled and navigated.

The Israeli military has relied on it in Gaza since October and has killed hundreds of Palestinians in densely populated areas.

The US military first released JDAM in a fleet squadron drop by the Hornet fighter aircraft, which launched from the USS Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka, Japan and deployed to Okinawa, Japan’s fifth largest island, on 22 August 1999.

Since its deployment, it has been used in all US wars abroad, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen, and has been sold to Ukraine in 2023 for use against Russia.

In two incidents last October, Israel deliberately targeted civilian populations and residences in the central Gaza city of Deir al-Balah with JDAM bombs.

JDAM bomb fragments were found following Israeli air strikes on 10 October and 22 October, both of which resulted in the deaths of many civilians.

Recent protests against Israel’s war in Gaza on US college campuses caused the Biden administration to delay the sending of JDAM units to Israel despite the US government’s continued support for Israeli military assaults.

On 7 May, Republican Congresswoman Ann Wagner of Missouri called on Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to speed up the delivery of JDAMs because they are manufactured in her St Louis district.

During Blinken’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on 22 May, Wagner doubled down on her demand that the Biden administration send 6,500 JDAMs to Israel. If weapons sales to Israel were paused, she insisted, her constituents’ livelihoods and their ability to pay for daycare, car payments, or mortgages would be threatened. Wagner further assertedthat the US weapons industry is the “arsenal of democracy”.

Lethal Weapons Supply

The US uses its massive network of military bases worldwide to store its weapons and aircraft, including at the Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan.

In April 2023, the US deployed a squadron of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lighting II fighter jets to replace Boeing’s F-15s that are gradually being phased out. The newly released jets first arrived at Kadena, the largest US base in Asia.

This network of US military bases is one way that Japan has circumvented Article 9, or the “pacifist clause”, of its post-World War Two constitution.

Written by the US following the Japanese surrender, the Japanese constitution included a pacifist clause, currently in debate, that explicitly bans the sale or transfer of weapons to any state engaged in active warfare, such as Israel. It further prohibits the deployment of the Japanese military into active combat zones.

In 2014, then-prime minister, Shinzo Abe, revised Japan’s arms policy to allow the sale of individual weapons components, defence technology, and equipment rather than fully assembled products.

However, a series of political manoeuvres in December 2023 by current prime minister, Fumio Kishida, expanded Japan’s ability to export arms further, allowing it to send finished weapons such as the surface-to-air Patriot guided missiles produced in Japan and used in countries like Israel and Ukraine.

Through its licensing agreements with eight countries, including the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway, Japan has helped bolster the global war machine. Japan can now replenish US weapons stockpiles, which in turn furnish Israel’s stock of fighter aircraft and missiles.

Following Ukraine’s footsteps, in 2022, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) bought Israeli and US-made attack drones to deploy in Okinawa that could be used in actual warfare against a potential Chinese threat.

Just this week, Japan and the US held their first talks to enact a new framework that will deepen their defence-industrial collaboration to replenish US stockpiles of anti-tank weapons.

This comes after the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement in Japan, which has gained strength amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza, forced Japanese companies to break their ties and “strategic partnership” with the Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems.

Despite mounting popular pressure, however, the Japanese government has continued to militarise and increase its own arsenal while playing the role of a US puppet in serving its imperialist interests.

Kishida’s remarks before Congress in April only reinforced this image, particularly his tone-deaf praise of the US’s “indispensable” role in world governance and policing.

These weapons supply networks and international arms agreements are just some of the ways Japan has supported the expansion of the US military machine since 1945.

Land Theft and Dispossession

The current genocide in Gaza continues a long history of Israeli occupation, dispossession and displacement of Palestinians that stretches back to the Nakba in 1948.

Just as the State of Israel was built on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, in the Ryukyu Islands, Okinawans also face the brutality of settler violence.

The Japanese annexation of the once sovereign Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879 introduced Japanese imperialism to the islands, which led to their militarisation under the Japanese emperors.

The 82-day Battle of Okinawa, fought between the US military and the Imperial Japanese Army in 1945, resulted in 150,000 Okinawan civilian deaths – a quarter of the population – and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Okinawans.

In the aftermath of the war, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito brokered a deal that sold Okinawa and handed administrative control of the prefecture to the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands.

During the American occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1972, a land acquisition law allowed US forces to confiscate land from its owners, furthering the systematic dispossession of Okinawans. This blatant land theft became locally known as “Bulldozers and Bayonets“.

The legacies of these dispossessions continue today. Although Okinawa constitutes only 0.6 percent of Japan’s total land mass, it hosts more than 70 percent of the US military facilities in the country.

The US military’s land seizures established the foundations for its network of military bases in Asia and the Pacific. Throughout the Cold War, the US reshaped the image of Okinawa, referring to it as the “Keystone of the Pacific” for its strategic location.

That discourse continues today, with Kadena Air Base being recognised as the “lynchpin” of US power in Asia. The base is home to the US Air Force’s 18th Wing, which operates fighter jets like the F-15 Eagle, the F-22 Raptor, and now the F-35.

Throughout the nearly 80 years of US military occupation, the US has used Okinawa to store much of its inventory, including the use of Kadena as a strategic bombing station for the B29 and B47 bombers during the Korean War and, in recent years, as a station for the F-15s used in the Gulf War.

A recent public opinion poll has once again shown that the majority of Okinawans oppose US military bases. Yet despite decades of protest and a vocal anti-base movement, the people’s will is ignored, and Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands more broadly continue to be used as an inventory and supply station for the US military.

Beyond the US, Okinawa’s enduring struggles represent the legacy of Japan’s colonisation of the former Ryukyu Kingdom. On 23 June, Okinawans will commemorate “Irei no hi”, Okinawan Memorial Day, to remember those killed in 1945.

Free Okinawa, Free Palestine

Just days after Okinawans solemnly mark a historical massacre, the US will lead defence training exercises on military-occupied lands nearly 8,000km away across the Pacific.

Touted as the largest international maritime exercise, Rim of the Pacific, or Rimpac, serves as a showroom for the latest US military weaponry.

This summer, from 26 June to 2 August, 29 countries are invited to bomb the occupied Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, including at Pohakuloa Training Area, a US military base, on the island of Hawaiʻi.

Among them are Japan and South Korea, which are forming a trilateral partnership with the US and participating in joint military exercises known as “Freedom Edge“.

Other repressive states like Sri Lanka, which has committed widespread human rights abuses, and Israel, which stands accused of genocide in the International Court of Justice, are also invited to Rimpac ostensibly as potential customers.

But perhaps most disappointing is the participation of Chile, home to the largest Palestinian population outside of the Arab world with roughly half a million, in the Rimpac exercises destroying the lands and oceans around Hawaiʻi.

A petition for 27 countries to withdraw from Rimpac and end cooperation with the US and Israel over Gaza garnered over 8,100 signatures from more than 70 organisations and 92 countries.

The shared experience of settler-colonial dispossession, particularly the role of the US, helps explain why many Okinawans support a free Palestine and why Palestinian doctor Salim Anati observed that “both Palestine and Okinawa are under the same situation of occupation”.

A poster connecting two occupied lands is displayed at a pro-Palestine student encampment at the University of California, San Diego on 1 May 2024 (Wendy Matsumura)

A poster connecting two occupied lands is displayed at a Gaza solidarity encampment at the University of California, San Diego, on 1 May 2024 (Wendy Matsumura)

 

The dedicated struggle that both Indigenous people have waged against military occupation and colonialism even sparked the recent “Okinawa to Palestine” liberation movement.

The calls for self-determination are only getting louder and more determined, with many believing that the fates of both peoples are ultimately intertwined.

From Okinawa to Palestine, everyone has the right to live in dignity and freedom from settler-colonial occupation and the violent military network that enables it.

*

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

Adam Miyashiro is Professor of Literature at Stockton University in New Jersey and teaches courses in medieval literature and postcolonial studies.

Nozomi Nakaganeku-Saito is an Assistant Professor of English and Asian American and Pacific Islander Studies at Amherst College. Her research focuses on the impacts of US militarism and Japanese settler colonialism on Okinawa and the role of literature and storytelling in (re)shaping relations to land/air/sea by centring Indigenous perspectives. Her scholarship can be found in American Quarterly, Amerasia Journal, and the Journal of Asian American Studies.

War on Gaza: The Death of American Exceptionalism

June 17th, 2024 by Jess Salomon

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

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

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

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

***

For more than eight months, Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians. It has levelled Gaza’s buildings and infrastructure to such a degree that it is noticeable from space

Under the rubble, along with an untold number of people still unaccounted for, saturated with toxic matter and unexploded ordinances, lies whatever pretence remained of the United States as a country that upholds its obligations under international law – including, but especially, the prevention and punishment of genocide.

It’s not a revelation to say that international law is applied unequally. We know the international rules-based order created in the wake of World War II favours the victors of that war. 

The five veto-endowed permanent members of the UN Security Council are a snapshot of the world in 1946; who was rewarded, who was punished, and some consideration for regional representation (ie China). 

Still, it honestly feels a little shocking to see this laid so bare. 

It’s as if an employer put out an ad that read: “Hiring men who will golf with me and people I have to hire because I owe someone a favour.” Imagine a bouncer came out and said: “Hot, rich, and famous people only. Everyone else, you’re ruining the vibe.” 

We know people are treated differently, that exceptions are made for the powerful – but generally speaking, the pretence remains intact: everyone has, if not a fair shot, a shot.   

Saying the Quiet Part Loud

In a recent interview, International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour:

“I’ve had some elected leaders speak to me and be very blunt. ‘This court is built for Africa and thugs like Putin,’ was what one senior leader told me.” 

Khan gave this interview on the heels of announcing he was seeking arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It marks the first time an American ally has been targeted by the international criminal tribunal; this is apparently all it took for the quiet part to be said very much out loud.

I always assumed the US would try to maintain some level of plausible deniability around the equal application of international law – that it would respect the judgements of international courts while avoiding their jurisdiction, if only because its stated commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, rule of law, and democratic principles plays such an important role in justifying its interventionist foreign policy. 

American exceptionalism, as it applies to international relations, would seem to require the pretence, however thinly worn, that despite its failings, the US is ultimately a force for good in the world. 

If it is simply a rogue nation acting outside the law and using its immense power to undermine the system for no other reason than its own (and its allies’) self-interest, what are we left with? What then becomes of the international rules-based order? 

This feels like a big concession to be making for an ally credibly accused of genocide. There is no plausible deniability to fall back on when we can all see the crimes Israel is committing; when we see the weapons and money the US continues to send, the red lines drawn and then crossed. 

There is no plausible deniability to fall back on when people the world over have borne witness to the unimaginable suffering of Palestinians in Gaza every day for more than eight months; when the consensus opinion among legal experts and international humanitarian groups is that Israel is committing genocide. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly ordered provisional measures against Israel, citing an urgent need to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the plausible risk of genocide. 

Israeli Fan Fiction

And yet, US President Joe Biden’s spokespeople stand at the White House podium day in and day out, sharing what sounds like Israeli fan fiction, as reporters ask them serious and pointed questions. 

In the Biden administration’s fictionalised world, every documented horror perpetrated against the civilians of Gaza – babies, aid workers, doctors, journalists, ambulance drivers, zip-tied patients with IVs still in their arms excavated from mass graves – all of it, they tell us, Israel is investigating and can be trusted to do so. 

It doesn’t matter that Israel has never legitimately carried out any such investigation. They haven’t even (at least publicly) investigated what happened on 7 October. 

In this world, we’re told the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction, because Israel’s independent judiciary can be trusted to hold its leaders accountable for atrocity crimes – as if we aren’t all watching Netanyahu preside over a genocide to avoid personal accountability for much (much) lesser crimes. As if, prior to being interrupted by 7 October, this government wasn’t specifically working to take away the judiciary’s independent authority to review government actions. 

In fact, the only real example of accountability we’ve seen was Israel’s recent decision to phase out its use of the Sde Teiman detention facility. This was because of a CNN report that detailed the extreme use of torture against detainees held without charge, trial, or access to the Red Cross, including being tied to electric chairs and having hot metal rods put up their anus. 

Hypocrisy Exposed 

It’s not even gaslighting. These White House news conferences are more like very dark, absurdist performance pieces. Remember the Iraqi information minister during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? He’d be out there talking to the cameras, denying there were any American tanks in Baghdad, when you could see and hear them approaching behind him. It’s like that, but more repetitive, and with less charisma and humour.

Gaza, and the broader Palestinian cause, has exposed the hypocrisy of western governments in ways it’s hard to imagine coming back from. We’ve seen anti-democratic repression of peaceful protests, and of academic and artistic freedoms; and a McCarthyite blacklisting of people who advocate for Palestinian liberation. 

There is a very real possibility that Donald Trump will be re-elected president in November if young people don’t turn out for Biden because of his full-throttled support for this genocide (and because the Democratic Party chooses not to replace him). If that happens, then the pretence of American democracy itself could end up buried beneath the rubble. 

Again, I think it’s worth underscoring: this is a very big price to pay for an ally that takes your money and does not appear to respect you. 

Perhaps looking back, Gaza will come to be seen as what marked the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism, and in its place, we’ll see a reordering that puts the Global South and the Global North on equal footing. None of this is to say that the ideals upon which American exceptionalism is claimed – democracy, liberty and equality – are not still a very worthy pursuit. But their pursuit is not a justification for exemptions from the application and consequences of international law. 

In this post-exceptionalist world, perhaps pretence will finally be dispensed with, and we can all finally admit that the US is in fact the world’s biggest thug. 

*

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

Jess Salomon is a comedian who has appeared on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. Prior to comedy, Jess was an international lawyer. She worked at the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Canadian Department of Justice. She has written for Haaretz, The Montreal Gazette and Vice.

Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish

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

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

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

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

***

In a recent lecture, Nobel Laureate physicist John Clauser exposed how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models and analyses, which are relied upon by politicians and activists to support claims of a ‘climate crisis’, do not meet basic standards of scientific enquiry. Clauser received his Nobel prize in 2022 for the observational measurement of quantum entanglement and understands well the problem of distinguishing a physical signal from background noise.

Clauser shows that, when corrected for the IPCC’s error prone arithmetic and statistics, the observational data do not support the power imbalance claimed to be responsible for global warming. Furthermore, the outputs of climate models are at variance with the observational record. Clauser discusses the roles of convection, clouds and their variability in providing a negative feedback mechanism, and proposes that this acts as a thermostat that stabilises surface temperatures. Clauser’s conclusion is that claims of a ‘climate crisis’ lack scientific substance and that Net Zero policies are an unnecessary hindrance.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the global mean energy budget of the Earth. Numbers indicate best estimates for the magnitudes of the globally averaged energy balance components, together with their uncertainty ranges (5%-95% confidence), representing climate conditions at the beginning of the 21st Century. Note that amounts are expressed in terms of power flux (Watts per square metre or W/m2), which equals energy per second per unit area (Joules/s/m2). (Source: IPCC AR6 WG 1 report p.934)

Clauser’s talk is available on YouTube. However, there is merit in reviewing the physics arguments that draw on the observational data about atmospheric energy flows to refute the notion of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) induced climate crisis.

Energy Flows in the Climate System

It is useful to start with a simplified depiction of the solar energy flow that reaches the Earth, its transformation by the Earth’s climate system and the resulting (mostly thermal) energy flow that leaves the Earth’s atmosphere. This is shown in Figure 1, taken from a recent IPCC report.

The IPCC diagram shows an energy imbalance, being the difference between the incoming visible and UV solar radiation 340 W/m2, less the amount reflected (100 W/m2), less the outgoing infra-red (IR) thermal radiation (239 W/m2). The claimed imbalance at the Top of the Atmosphere is 0.7 W/m2 (give or take 0.2) and the IPCC asserts that this is driving the continuing warming of the climate system.

Table. 1. Top of Atmosphere Energy Flows. Energy flows at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, with their errors as per Figure 1. The balance is calculated from its components.

The radiation measurements necessary for this calculation are carried out at different wavelengths by instruments carried by satellites, and observational errors are inevitable. Combining the uncertainty ranges in the incoming, reflected and outgoing streams shown in Table 1, by using the standard statistical Root Mean Square rule, shows that the error margin in the calculated imbalance is actually 3 W/m2, some 15 times greater than the 0.2 W/m2 error margin claimed by the IPCC. In short, there is no observedenergy imbalance. The claimed imbalance of 0.7 W/m2 is swamped by observational error, and, from a scientific perspective, it is described by Clauser as a “fudge”.

Natural Variability

Importantly, the IPCC treatment understates the natural variability of the solar energy flow that penetrates the climate system. One key element driving this variation is ‘albedo’, the proportion of sunlight that is reflected by clouds or the surface. The extent of cloud cover, which typically covers about two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, is actually quite dynamic, and as a consequence, albedo varies from month to month in a range of 0.275 to 0.305. Clauser estimates that the resulting monthly variation in reflected energy spans the range (95-105 W/m2). Clauser observes that this fluctuating monthly pattern is not well replicated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) computer models used by the IPCC, which must therefore be missing key aspects of the physics of clouds.

This is significant because the natural variability introduced to the climate system by variations in clouds and albedo dwarfs the effect of secondary greenhouse gases such as CO2. Moreover, the relative stability of the Earth’s climate system in the face of these swings in the solar energy input indicates that there are negative feedback mechanisms at work.

Surface Heat Flows and the Nature of Atmospheric Equilibrium

Before returning to the subject of clouds, some more comments on the energy flows depicted in Figure 1 are in order. In thermodynamics it is crucial to distinguish between energy and heat. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is conserved. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy never decreases, and this in turn entails that heat only flows from hotter to colder objects and never the reverse. In order to understand the physics of atmospheric processes it is necessary to take this directionality of heat flows into account. Thus, the ‘greenhouse gases down surface’ energy flux (339-347 W/m2) shown in the IPCC diagram does not actually represent a heat flow; rather it simply acts to counter a portion of the ‘up surface’ energy flux (395-400 W/m2), with the result being that the rate of surface cooling by radiation is determined by the difference (56 +/-5 W/m2). We can use this insight to put the balance of heat flows at the surface into perspective, as shown in Table 2.

Table. 2. Surface Heat Flows. Downward (upward) heat flows at the Earth’s surface are shown along with their errors. Radiant heat is the net of the surface up and surface down energy fluxes in Figure 1.

The general circulation climate models in use today were inspired by the work of Nobel Prize winning physicist Syukuro Manabe, who in 1967 introduced the paradigm of the atmospheric system as being in a radiative convective equilibrium1. It can be seen from Table 2, that the convective flow of latent and sensible heat is twice as important as radiation in cooling the Earth’s surface. Manabe’s incorporation of convection marked a distinct improvement on the earlier generation of radiative models. One can, however, ask if a predilection for trying to understand atmospheric dynamics purely in terms of radiation, rather than convective heat flows, still persists within the climate modelling community, and whether this is at the root of the continuing inability of climate models to match observation.

Radiative Forcing and Negative Feedbacks

The early work by Manabe, recently confirmed in refined calculations carried out by Happer and van Wjngaarden2, describes the impact of greenhouse gases in terms of ‘radiative forcing’, that is to say, their transient impact on the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) energy balance. Both calculate that the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 leads to around 3 W/m2 reduction in the outgoing thermal radiation in clear skies. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, according to which black body radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature (measured in degrees Kelvin), tells us that the radiating sources in the atmosphere would need to increase in temperature by about 0.75°C to produce extra compensating radiation. The key question for climate physics is, what is the compensating ground surface temperature response required in order to restore the thermal radiation at the ToA?

The 27 CMIP climate models in use by the IPCC incorporate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) with a range of 1.8°C to 5.6°C increase in ground surface temperature per doubling of CO23. This is between 2.5 and 7.5 times higher than the temperature response 0.75°C in the atmosphere, implying the presence of some very substantial positive feedback mechanisms incorporated in the CMIP models that multiply the initial forcing.

Clauser makes the general observation, based on Le Chatelier’s principle, that a complex physical system in equilibrium typically contains multiple negative feedback mechanisms that act to oppose rather than amplify forcing and questions the basis of the IPCC’s supposed positive feedbacks.

Indeed, it is far easier to identify negative feedback mechanisms than it is to identify positive feedbacks. Table 3 sets out the obvious negative feedbacks in response to a surface temperature increase of 1°C, that follow by the application of basic physics to the heat flows in Figure 1.

Table. 3. Feedback Responses to Surface Temperature Increase. Solar reflection by clouds estimated at 7% increase in 75 W/m2. Evaporation estimated at 7% increase in 82 W/m2. Surface thermal increase based on Stefan-Boltzmann Law applied to increase in surface temperature from 15°C to 16°C.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation entails that the saturated water vapour content of air increases by 7% for an increase in temperature of 1°C from the current global average around 15°C. Based on this, the IPCC estimates a positive feedback of 1.3 W/m2 due to increased water vapour content of the atmosphere and the consequent absorption of surface radiation. However, as Clauser points out, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation must also lead to comparable increases in evaporation, cloud formation and rainfall, along with the accompanying transfer of latent heat (of evaporation of water) away from the ground surface. The consequent negative feedbacks act to offset radiative forcing. In particular, (a) the effect of increased solar reflection by clouds has a direct impact on the ToA energy balance, and (b) the physics of convection entails that heated air expands, acquires buoyancy and rises to the Tropopause (at around 11 km altitude), while releasing its extra heat as thermal radiation to space. While some of the surface thermal radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere, it is manifest from Table 3 that the identified negative feedbacks dwarf the positive feedback calculated by the IPCC.

Clauser points out that the amount of negative feedback from clouds depends not only on their extent, but also on their distribution over the Earth’s surface and on their reflectivity. Most clouds are formed by the strong absorption of sunlight by the oceans, where the cooling impact of reflection from clouds is greater than over land. Taken together, the thermal, convective and cloud negative feedbacks combine to provide a thermostat mechanism that stabilises the temperature of the Earth’s surface against forcing, regardless of whether this originates from variability in solar insolation (for example, due to changes in cloud cover) or from the effect of greenhouse gasses. Clauser estimates a combined negative net feedback strength in the range 7-14 W/m2 per 1°C, consistent with the magnitudes in Table 3.

If we assume an overall net negative feedback of (10) W/m2 per 1°C at the surface, in the middle of Clauser’s range, this would be three times greater than the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 in clear skies of 3 W/m2, so the surface temperature increase necessary to offset the radiative forcing would imply an ECS of only 0.3°C. With this level of negative feedback, the ECS range of 1.8°C to 5.6°C used by the IPCC overestimates the effect of CO2 by a factor of between 6 and 19 times.

Equivalently, under this range of negative feedbacks, the ECS range of 1.8°C to 5.6°C would imply that an increase in heat flux from the surface of between 18-56 W/m2 is required to compensate for a mere 3 W/m2 radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Where does the remainder of the heat flux go? The First Law of Thermodynamics entails that this energy cannot disappear, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics entails that heat in the atmosphere can only transfer to a cooler surface (i.e., radiate out to space). The IPCC climate models appear to violate either the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics, possibly both.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Clauser argues that the negative feedback mechanisms in the Earth’s climate system stabilise temperatures against warming due to increases in radiative forcing. As a corollary, there is no CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming climate crisis. The negative feedbacks similarly serve to stabilise surface temperatures against cooling. Such a thermostatic mechanism that draws on the thermodynamic properties of water can explain how a water-rich planet such as the Earth has been hospitable to life throughout history.

The climate narrative promulgated by the IPCC and its advocates is based on poor statistics, the flawed cherry-picking of data and an incomplete treatment of physical mechanisms, which includes ignoring important negative feedbacks.

An analysis of negative feedbacks implies that the 50% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times (280 ppm) to the current level (420 ppm) is plausibly the cause of only about 0.15°C of global warming.

A physics explanation of the Earth’s observed historic warming and cooling cycles and the warming observed since the 1970s has to look to the variability induced by the many other natural mechanisms discussed in the climate literature, such as solar cycles, orbital/lunar cycles, cloud variability, ocean cycles, volcanoes, ozone variability, urban heat islands and so on. These are beyond the scope of this note.

*

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

Dr. Rudolph Kalveks is a retired executive. His PhD was in theoretical physics.

Notes

  1. S. Manabe and R. T. Wetherald, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity, J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 241 (1967). 
  2. van Wijngaarden, W.A. and Happer, W., 2020. Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03098
  3. Zelinka, M.D., Myers, T.A., McCoy, D.T., Po‐Chedley, S., Caldwell, P.M., Ceppi, P., Klein, S.A. and Taylor, K.E., 2020. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophysical Research Letters47(1), p.e2019GL085782. 

Featured image is from TDS

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

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

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

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

***

On March 1st, 2024, Elon Musk tweeted on his social media platform ‘X’ referring to an ABC TV news report,

“People, who get their news from legacy TV, live in a fake alternate reality.” (‘legacy’ = the long-lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past)

For much of the past week, Western TV News has featured a Second World War anniversary ‘Glorious D-day’ celebration hailing the U.S., British Commonwealth and Canadian amphibious invasion of France on June 6, 1944 as leading to the defeat of Nazi Germany.Political leaders praised the veterans still alive as having successfully fought for ‘freedom!’ Estimated Allied Forces D-day casualties were about 10,000, with 4,000 confirmed dead. [1]

It is agonisingly sad to imagine those, who got killed on D-day following orders to wade forward into the firing line of German gun emplacements, but living in true reality would mean knowing that the Russians, (who were not invited to the D-day celebrations), had, at great human cost, already defeated Germany the year before D-day, during the cataclysmic battles of Stalingrad [2] and Kursk [3] in February and August of 1943, and were by D-day 1944 pushing toward Berlin liberating Nazi concentration camps on the way. [4]

In Western Legacy TV News Fake Alternate Reality:

Americans, with British Help, Defeated
Hitler’s Nazi German Armed Forces

In Reality, The Red Army won World War II.

The Red Army won World War II.  The cost to the Soviets was between 9 million and 11 million military deaths.  Adding in the Russian civilian deaths, the Soviet Union won the war at the cost of between 25 million and 27 million Soviet lives. By contrast total American military deaths in all of WWII were approximately 219,723 (2,715 in North Africa,183,588 in Europe, and 108,504 in Asia) [5]

On December 5, two days before, the United States entered World War Two, the Red Army had begun it’s successful enormous winter counter-offensive ending the Nazi siege of Moscow.  As early as June 1942 the Soviet Union had urged its American and British allies to open a second front in Western Europe. It would take the US and UK another two years to finally launch the invasion of France. Meanwhile, the Red Army took the brunt of German military might and millions died in the genocidal race war waged by the Nazis on the Eastern Front.[6]

Stalingrad

From 23 August 1942 to 2 February 1943, Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. With fierce close-quarters combat and heavy air raids, it was one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties. 

Soviet forces are estimated to have suffered 1,100,000 casualties, 478,000 to 478,741 killed and approximately 40,000 civilians died. [7]

The German defeat at Stalingrad was the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front, in the war against Nazi Germany overall, and of the entire Second World War. [8]

German and Axis casualties were enormous: 68 German, 19 Romanian, 10 Hungarian and 10 Italian divisions were mauled or destroyed. That represented 43% of Axis forces in the east. After Stalingrad, the Red Army had the initiative, and the Wehrmacht was in retreat. Germany’s Sixth Army had ceased to exist, and the armed forces of Germany’s European allies, except Finland, had been shattered. In a speech on 9 November 1944, Hitler himself blamed Stalingrad for Germany’s impending doom. The destruction of an entire army, the largest killed, captured, wounded figures for Axis soldiers, during the war, and the foiling of Germany’s grand strategy gave the battle at Stalingrad global significance.[9]

Kursk

On 4 July 1943, Germany attacked Soviet forces around the city of Kursk, which became the site of the largest tank battle in history involving some 6,000 tanks, 2,000,000 troops, and 4,000 aircraft. German forces  exhausted themselves against the Soviets’ deeply echeloned and well-constructed defenses and then faced the Soviet counterattackThe Battle of Kursk marked the end of German offensive capability on the Eastern Front [10]

While at Kursk in Russia, 6,000 tanks and more than 2,000,000 men battled, on July 9, 1943, an American seaborne assault by the U.S. 7th Army, involving only 150,000 troops, 3,000 ships and 4,000 aircraft landed on the southern coast of Sicily.[11]

A Very Belated ‘D-Day’ (Operation Overlord) at Normandy June 6, 1944

A fleet of some 6,900 vessels landed the assault forces of slightly more than 156,000 men, Americans, British and Canadians on five beaches,

By the time the Allies did open this Western front in Normandy in June of 1944, the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) the year before. At Stalingrad Germany had lost its Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 400,000 men. Meanwhile, at Kursk Germany  had lost thirty divisions (over 500,000 men) including seven Panzer divisions equipped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks, 1,500 tanks, 3,000 guns and 3,500 warplanes. (Thus, while the war was being won and whole German armies destroyed at great human cost to the Soviet Red Army during the month of July at Kursk, the Americans, British and Canadians in the same month had been invading a weakly defended Sicily.

Throughout most of World War II, the U.S. and the British faced 10 German divisions combined. The Soviets were facing more than 200 German divisions. The Germans lost approximately 1 million men on the Western front. They lost 6 million on the Eastern front. There is reason why Churchill said the Red Army tore the guts out of the German war machine. However, that’s not what Americans learn.[12]

The success of the Allies after Normandy was largely due to the Germans having been already weakened badly because of the pummeling they had taken from the Russian Army, and were at the time of the D Day landing in retreat across Europe ahead of the vast Red Army, which was then liberating the concentration camps. Majdanek on July 22–23, later that summer the Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka killing centers.

By the time Allied troops came ashore on June 6, 1944 the Russians had already fought three years of devastating war on the Eastern Front, taking and inflicting appalling casualties. The enormous and pivotal battles of Stalingrad and Kursk had been fought and won.

In addition, the greatest Soviet campaign began 17 days after D-Day.

Following the defeat of Nazi Operation Zitadelle, the Soviets launched counter-offensives employing six million men along a 2,400-kilometre (1,500 mi) front as they drove the Germans westwards.

Operation Bagration, the Red Army offensive into Byelorussia from June 23 to August 19, 1944, resulted in the destruction of 28 of 34 divisions of the German Third Panzer, Fourth, and Ninth Armies of Army Group Center. The gutting of German forces in the East liberated the last parts of the Soviet Union and positioned the Red Army on the Vistula River, just across from Warsaw and within striking distance of Berlin. [13]Operation Bagration Was a Colossal Victory for the Red Army

– the Soviet destruction of German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive was launched just after Allied troops had landed in Normandy, and it is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge about the war in the East that whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about the Soviet Operation Bagration. Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day. [14] Despite the recent Allied landing at Normandy, the German army retained over 235 divisions in the East, in comparison with roughly 85 in the West.[15]

On January 27, Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.

February 13-14, the U.S. continuously bombed Dresden killing 160,000 German civilians. RAF and USAF air raids devastated Dresden, By this period, Soviet forces had crossed the Oder River and were closing in on Berlin. [14]

Examples of Western Press Admissions of the Falsification of History

Newsweek, June 6, 2019

‘NORMANDY LANDING DID NOT HAVE A DECISIVE IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME OF WORLD WAR II’ BY DAVID BRENNAN [16] .]

Source

Business Insider, 6/5/2019

Russia says D-Day memorials are part of a ‘false’ history of World War II meant to airbrush out the Soviet Union by Bill Bostock, Jun 5, 2019 [17

Source

Peoples World, 6/6/2019

“Let’s not leave the Soviet Union out of our D-Day history – On the 75th Anniversary of D-Day today, but who bore the brunt of the battles to defeat fascism in World War II? … Still another Soviet battle that surpassed D-Day happened after D-Day itself: Operation Bagration.” [18]

Source

Why Did The Second World War Happen?

In Reality

In reality it was America’s great corporations investing in, and joint venturing with, Hitler’s poor and totally disarmed Nazi Germany that made World War Two, Hitler’s invasion of Russia and the multi-nation Holocaust possible. [See Anthony Sutton’s ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,’ 1976, available to read at https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ ] [18A]

The true source of the Second World War was American industrial might empowering a rabid Adolf Hitler and his Nazi thugs in what had been a disarmed Germany. Hitler’s strident call for Germany to expand into the revolutionary communist Soviet Union was silently or tacitly approved as was much of Hitler’s rabid condemnation of Jews by America’s wealthy  investing in and joint venturing with Nazi Germany. [19]

Reality in 1929

A Colonial Powers Exploited World Mismanaged Into the Deeper Suffering of the Great Depression

The World Controlling Capitalist Colonial Powers Found Themselves In Dreadful Circumstances   

With the world of the plundering Colonial Powers deep in the chaos of the Great Depression, a disastrous failure of rule by the banks of the capitalist countries, the United States internally threatened by local organisations of socialists, communists, anarchists, unionists and unpaid veterans, Nazi Germany was to be made into a loaded gun pointed, to be eventually fired, at the intolerably economically successful [20] socialist Soviet Union, which had become a beacon of light for those calling for the overthrow of failed capitalism and plundering colonialism.

Hitler’s uncompromisingly lethal condemnation of communism and his threatening the very existence of Wall Street’s archenemy, socialist Soviet Union, would have to have impressed many of the US and European wealthy, whose racist capitalist colonial rule of most of the world was threatened by socialist fervour and riots at home for its failure to have prevented the ongoing Great Depression with tens of millions suffering even from lack of food. Newsreels of massive and violent riots in many US cities can be seen on YouTube at ‘Riots Across America – The Great Depression.’  This author was really struck by the massive violence seen in these newsreels of that time.

The rearming of Germany made possible Hitler’s invasions of twenty-two countries and brought world war to Asia, for Japan would not have dared to attack and declare war on the United States of America without it being able to count on an alliance with an awesomely powerful rearmed Nazi Germany, plus Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania and Finland, which all declared war on the USA immediately after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Target of the Western Sponsors of the Nazi War Machine

The real target for the Western sponsors of the Nazi war machine was an attack on the Soviet Union in order to destroy, in their view, the source of international revolutionary socialism. In the 1930s, the very existence of capitalism was teetering on the edge amid the Great Depression, massive poverty and seething popular discontent in the US, Britain and other Western countries. The entire Western capitalist order was under imminent threat from its own masses. This is the historical context for the Western-backed rise of European fascism. [Quoted from ‘World War II Continues… Against Russia,’ Finian Cunningham PressTV, 5/10/2014]

The Second World War and the Holocaust, which made the rich speculators of Wall Street owned America the sole world superpower, is estimated to have taken the lives of 70 to 85 million men, women and children. Within this total were the 25 to 27 million citizens of the Soviet Union, which had been the obvious target in the rearming of Germany of a consensus among the wealthiest American and European capitalists. A further plus for Wall Street was the outcome that left half the cities of Wall Street’s designated archenemy, socialist model USSR, lying in ruins.

The beyond imagination great multi-nation genocide that included the Holocaust must be laid at the feet of wealthy profit scheming speculative investors in war headquartered mostly in lower Manhattan, New York City.

When we recall films and photos of skies filled with warplanes, of seas filled with warships and of thousands of tanks engaged in deadly conflict on land bringing death, destruction and misery to hundreds of innocent millions, we best remember that a lot of upper class people in business suits were elatedly counting their enormous blood-soaked profits from investments in the manufacture of weapons, munitions, uniforms, and coffins.

All War Crimes Committed Made Possible by the Rearming of Germany

All the monstrous beyond description inhuman Nazi German crimes, the crimes that have been attributed to Stalin and those committed by the US and Britain in fire bombing civilians in German and Japanese cities, happened during the world war that was made possible by the enthusiastic rearming of an insanely dangerous Nazi Germany.

This was done to protect and continue invested capital rule over most of humanity by the unjustly wealthy in the Western colonial empires then threatened by the economic calamity of the Great Depression that had been created by their own financial malfeasance.

Soldiers Fought and Died Gm. Ford, Itt. Ge. Made $

Both at the Allied Normandy landing and three years earlier during the Nazi invasion of Russia, many, or often nearly most, disabled Nazi tanks were found to have GM motors. When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarisation programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes. [See “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration,” Washington Post, Michael Dobbs, 11/30/1998.]

The following is excerpted from a report printed by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1974:

“The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II…are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximised corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged.” Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximised profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war.

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing… Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne. “General Motors… was paid $32 million by the U.S. government for damages sustained to its German plants.”

During the post-WW II war era, the mega immense profits deriving from Wall Street’s dominance of the world’s crippled industry and commerce continued unabated for decades, while its military and clandestine CIA operations tore through innumerable unfortunate populations of non-Caucasian majority humanity in former colonies in maintenance of unjust predatory investments under the guise of anti-communism.

Through America’s formidable grip over international media, CIA overseen monopolised Western mainstream media[21]have inculcated such a heroism for America’s role in the defeat of Hitler (whose war Americans facilitated in the first place), that the world seems to have accepted all the US led post war neo-colonial genocide as somehow more or less forgivable, widely accepting capitalist media misrepresentation of communism as evil.

The media implanted deception that it was American soldiers, helped by the British, who defeated Hitler has so dramatically portrayed Americans as ‘good guys,’ that the neocolonial Western genocide they have led throughout the Third World has been somehow excusable, as if the mass murder taking the lives of many millions of innocent men, women and children was carried off with good intentions. US world reach propaganda has hailed the millions of American soldiers, who invaded Korea and the French colonies of Indochina and dozens of Third World nations, which had been colonies occupied by European or US military, as anti-communist heroes. ‘Better dead than red’ was a slogan repeated with bravado to counter demonstrations against these undeclared wars.

Best not to lose sight of the reason behind the arming of Hitler’s Nazi Wehrmacht having been anti-communism or anti Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in protection of colonial capitalism’s hegemony during its brutal wholesale systematic economic misadventure, the Great Depression.

In today’s world of instant global communication and the wide distribution of cell phone and social networking, The former militarily occupied colonies, recently still referred to as the ‘3rd World’ or ‘Developing Nations,’ previously as the ‘Underdeveloped World,’ and earlier as the ‘Undeveloped World,’ now show signs of slowly unifying themselves as a ‘Global South’ and ‘Majority Humanity.’*

A Global South Awakening Awareness of Reality?

Today’s hegemonic Western Colonial Powers had their powerful satellite powered U.S. monopolised media televise an effusive show of celebrating their second gigantic war between themselves, which had deadly involved, as had their first gigantic war between themselves, most all ‘their’ militarily colonised nations world-wide.

The former militarily occupied colonies, recently still referred to as the ‘3rd World’ or ‘Developing Nations,’ previously as the ‘Underdeveloped World,’ and earlier as the ‘Undeveloped World,’ now show signs of slowly unifying themselves as a ‘Global South’ and ‘Majority Humanity.’ *

Citizens of the nations of the Global South watch Western TV without forgetting the crimes against humanity suffered under the military of these European empires and their off shore descendent empires. * The media of their former colonial masters’ constantly remind viewers, listeners and readers, that the governments of most Europeans, of Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Israelis still appear to demand hegemony to go on exploiting peoples of Majority Humanity politically and economically when not militarily. *

This Global South must easily see through much of the racist West praising itself for having fought for freedom,* a freedom that excluded colonially enslaved and plundered peoples of Majority Humanity.*

***

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

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, in Germany & Sweden Einartysken,and in the US by Greanville Post, Dissident Voice; Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents; Minority Perspective, UK,and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, https://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/which contains a history of US crimes in 19 nations from 1945 thru 2012.

Notes

[*] only a well traveled author’s observation

[1] Estimates of Soviet Russian military casualties at Stalingrad: 478,741 killled, 650,878 for a total of 1.13 million casualties and tens of thousands of Russian civilians were killed.

[2] AP News, June 6, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/dday-wwii-france-invasion-military-b02d03fa11f66767a521a3b01357a89a      3. Approximate casualties at Kursk: Soviets 785,584; Germans between 50,000 and 200,000. Total Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns Lost : Russian 6,064, German 1,500; aircraft lost both sides total: 3,000. Post-war analyses by historians such as Karl-Heinz Frieser, The Eastern Front 1943-1944.

[3] Approximate casualties at Kursk: Soviets 785,584; Germans between 50,000 and 200,000. Total Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns Lost : Russian 6,064, German 1,500; aircraft lost both sides total: 3,000. Post-war analyses by historians such as Karl-Heinz Frieser, The Eastern Front 1943-1944.

[4] Germany and the Second World War: Volume VIII: The Eastern Front 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts: Volume VIII: May 16, 2017 · by Karl-Heinz Frieser (Editor) 4.8 8 ratings. https://www.amazon.com/Germany-Second-World-War-Neighbouring/dp/0198723466

[5] U.S. Department of Defence Records

Website: National WWII Museum

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Website: Britannica on Soviet Casualties

The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-45: A Documentary Reader by Alexander Hill: Routledge, June 13, 2008

[6] The Eastern Front during World War II was the site of immense brutality and loss of life. The conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union resulted in millions of deaths, both military and civilian. The Nazis waged a genocidal campaign, targeting not only Soviet soldiers but also civilians, including Jews, Roma, and others deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime.

The Second World War on the Eastern Front – 1st Edition – Lee Baker – www.routledge.com

[7] “Battle-of-Stalingrad,” (brittanica.com)

[8] P.M.H. Bell, Twelve Turning Points of the Second World War,(Yale University Press, New Haven and London), 2011, p 104;

[9] Beevor, Antony (1998). Stalingrad. {London: Viking). ISBN 978-0-14-103240-5.

[10] David M. Glantz, (1986). “Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943”. Combined Arms Research Library. CSI Report No. 11. Command and General Staff College, pp.149-59. OCLC 278029256. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. Retrieved 15 July 2013.

[11] “Invasionof Sicily”history.com, updated :August 21, 20original Nov. 18, 2009

[12] Peter Kuznick, “Mythology of America as Liberator,” The Real News Network, 6/9/2019)

[13] (“Operation Bagration And The Destruction Of The Army Group Center,” by Peter R. Mansoor, Hoover Institution) 

[14] Peter Kuznick, D DAY: MYTHOLOGY OF AMERICA AS LIBERATOR FEEDS TRUMP’S MILITARISM, The Real News Network, June 9, 2019, (Peter Kuznick is Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, DC. He and Oliver Stone co-authored The Untold History of the United States.)]

[15] Peter R. Mansoor Operation Bagration And The Destruction Of The Army Group Center (Hoover Institution) June 24, 2019 – Peter Mansoor, colonel, US Army (retired), is the General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Chair of Military History at Ohio State University https://www.hoover.org/research/operation-bagration-and-destruction-army-group-center

[16] ”Russia Trolls West on D-Day: ‘Normandy Landing Did Not Have a Decisive Impact on the Outcome of World War II” BY DAVID BRENNAN 6/6/19 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-d-day-troll-normandy-anniversary-75-nazi-allies-victory-1442493

[17] https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-claims-d-day-memorials-effort-to-pretend-ussr-didnt-win-wwii-

[18] June 6, 2019 10:06 Am Cst  BY JOHN WOJCIK https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/lets-not-leave-the-soviet-union-out-of-our-d-day-history/

Anthony Sutton was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973.) and an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles.

[19] Nazi Party leader Adolph Hitler in his 1925 published autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf had emphasized Germany’s need for ‘Lebensraum’ (‘living space’), insisting that Germany’s 19th century motto ‘Drang Nach Osten’ (‘push to the East,’ a slogan designating German expansion into Slavic lands), must become a reality.

This was strikingly proclaimed by Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, which by 1939 had sold 5.2 million copies in eleven languages. [3]

“The National-Socialist movement must attempt to remove the  disproportion between the number of our population and the size of  our territory to secure for the German people the soil that is due to them  on this earth. And this action is the only one that can justify a sacrifice  of blood before God and our German posterity. . . . “

[20] The prospering revolutionary Soviet Union had become an inspiration and model for revolutionary organizing against capitalism and colonialism across the world.  Actually, though by 1928, the Soviet Union had made an amazingly rapid recovery from the ravages of the First World War and from a horrible civil war promoted by invasions of twelve capitalist nations, its agricultural production had not recovered from war’s devastation and there were still terrible famines throughout the 1930s.

[21] “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A,” December 26, 1977, New York Time

Featured image is from Countercurrents

Israeli Plans for Attacking Southern Lebanon

June 17th, 2024 by Karsten Riise

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

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

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

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

***

Israel Lost the Balance in Lebanon

Israel TV7 has reported that Israeli plans for attacking South Lebanon have been ready for months – plans where the Israeli Airforce would play a “key role”- in other words, fearful of going in with boots, Israel would do a usual, and with little effect (!), namely bombing Hezbollah.

But the go-ahead has been missing – even though Israeli politicians including Netanyahu and the defense minister under public pressure have stated clearly that Israel will impose a “normal” situation in the North either politically (a pipedream) or militarily – but that has been postponed and postponed.

Israel’s latent threat to do like previously, and bomb and kill 35,000 civilians in Beirut is no longer credible – because with 170,000 missiles, Hezbollah can respond likewise and kill large numbers of Israelis inside Israel. Thus a deterrence has been acquired by Hezbollah.

Israel getting tired and losing support –  Hezbollah getting stronger and more audacious. The balance which has been talked about in Lebanon, where both parties wanted to keep a lid on escalation, has come to an end.

When one party feels strong enough (Hezbollah, now with open backing from Iran) or doesn’t see any other way out (Israel), things will escalate and explode.

Israel TV7 just reported how Israel instead of wider actions in Lebanon, has focused on targeted killing (by bombing) of key Hezbollah operatives, in order not to provoke a larger escalatory response from Hezbollah. This Israeli Gambit has coming to an end – Hezbollah won’t take it anymore. Therefore, Hezbollah’s recent response over was an unprecedented barrage with 150 missiles and 30 drones on Wednesday 12 June 2024. See this.

The day after, Hezbollah launched more than 100 additional drones and missiles. We must remember that “patience” is also a function of how strong or weak a party is – a party which sees itself as strong has less “patience” and will react more forcefully to lesser transgressions than a weak party.

Israel TV7 also just reported, how Hezbollah not only in number of missiles, but also geographically, has been expanding its missiles attacks on northern Israel the past weeks or months. Previously, it was mostly the northernmost and eastern part of Israel’s north. Now, Hezbollah strikes all of Northern Israel from the Mediterranean over to the Golan Heights, and all the way down to the strategic port and economic center of Haifa. 

Hezbollah is also beginning to attack and destroy Iron Dome missile defenses. Israel simply doesn’t have enough air defense – when Iran attacked with some 550 missiles, ships from US, UK, and France intercepted a large part of them, some say up to 50%. Israel cannot rely on US, UK; and France forever stationing high-value ships off their coast to protect what Israel itself alone cannot protect. Then compare 550 missiles from Iran with newly 350 from Hezbollah – that is something. And Israel even had hours and quarters of hours to react, from the missiles and drones were launched in Iran until they arrived in Israel. Due to the vicinity of Lebanon, missiles from Hezbollah give Israel much shorter time, only a few minutes, to react.

Hezbollah is pressing Israel harder … and harder.

The escalation to a large war between Israel and Hezbollah is coming.  

And there will be no ceasefire in Gaza to defuse the escalation. Blinken is just running around in a fool’s errand. Israel wants to continue its rampage in Gaza, and Hamas won’t release its only bargaining chip for 6 weeks of silent starvation. Once Israel fights a full war with Hezbollah, Iran has promised to support Hezbollah and “let Hell lose on Israel“. 

We are heading towards a full regional war. Recent developments only confirm that the train is locked on track to a big conflict; Israel just killed another Hezbollah operative.

The IDF confirms carrying out a strike against a Hezbollah operative in southern Lebanon’s Aitaroun this morning.

A video released by the military shows the strike against the operative riding a motorcycle.

—Emanuel Fabian, 15 June 2024, The Times of Israel

We are awaiting Hezbollah’s response to the latest Israeli killing of a Hezbollah “operate”. Don’t expect Hezbollah’s answer to de-escalate. Israel cannot handle this. The US cannot either.

Going for the Kill – of Israel

I believe that Hezbollah (and Iran) now go for the kill – of Israel. Not in one fell swoop, but gradually. Cautiously, step-by-step. Note that Israel has completely lost its most valuable military asset, namely deterrence. 

  • Israel lost its deterrence against Hamas on 8 Oct. 2023. On 7 October 2023, Hamas proved that it was able and willing to strike big on Israeli territory, and that nothing Israel has been able to do, can stop Hamas. Bye-bye Israeli deterrence. 
  • Israel lost its deterrence against Iran on 13-14 April 2024. On 13 April 2024, Iran took escalatory domination over Israel by sending 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles – a massive total of 320 units – on Israel. And Iran threatened to send “10 times more” if Israel retaliated. This is called “escalatory dominance”, and Iran – not Israel – has got it. Israel couldn’t respond with more than a hiccup.
  • Israel now lost its deterrence even against Hezbollah on Wednesday 12 June 2024. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has widened its attacks on northern Israel to the whole area from Haifa to the Golan Heights. On 12 June 2024, Israel also lost deterrence against Hezbollah. On that day, Hezbollah sent more than 200 missiles on Israel. Hezbollah didn’t say it aloud, but the message from Hezbollah was, that “Hezbollah has got 170,000 more of these air weapons, if Israel retaliates”. When Israel the day after responded with some airstrikes in Lebanon, Hezbollah the day after again proved its point and reinforced its message of escalatory dominance and sent an additional 100 drones onto Israel. Once again, like Iran, Hezbollah proved to Israel that Hezbollah – not Israel – has got escalatory dominance. If Israel dares kill scores of civilians in Beirut, like Israel did in 2006 (the Dahiya doctrine), Hezbollah has got over a hundred thousand more missiles to do the same in Israel. After that latest message from Hezbollah to Israel, Israel seems to have understood the point, and Israel merely responded by killing a single unnamed Hezbollah “operative” in an air attack – once again, the Israeli equivalent to a hiccup. See this.

Israel couldn’t deter any of these adversaries from an historically unprecedented large-scale attack directly on Israel. And Israel hasn’t been able to restore deterrence since. At the same time, Israel has made it clear to all of its “friends” in the Region, that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state – a condition without which all further talks with Israel become meaningless.

Israel’s security cooperation with Egypt and Saudi Arabia is cracking up.

Saudi Arabia would like to have a security and economic cooperation with Israel, the US, and a Palestinian state, but without a Palestinian state, and with Israel’s insistence on killing countless civilians in Gaza, this is just not possible, no matter how much Israel’s elite tells itself that the surrounding Arab élites “don’t care” for Hamas or the Palestinians. As for security, Saudi Arabia doesn’t need US or Israel, as Saudi Arabia is finding its own solutions with Iran, backed up by China and Russia.

The commitments to peace from both sides of Iran-Saudi are becoming long-term binding – Iran asks for infrastructure loans from the Arab development bank, that is, from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia wants to participate in the Iranian mega-port and BRI project in Chabahar, together with Russia, China, and India.

That Saudi Arabia doesn’t need US “security guarantees” anymore, was underscored when Saudi Arabia didn’t extend the 1974-agreement with US, which was both a petro-dollar agreement, but also a US security-guarantee agreement. And as for economics, Saudi Arabia will trade oil in all currencies not just dollars, and get finance for its big infrastructure projects from, of course, China.

Hezbollah, as a consequence, is now taking down Israel, possibly in a Regional war with support openly or covertly not only from Iran, but importantly also from several regional “friends” of US-Israel like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Türkiye.

There will be no ceasefire. There will be no Two-State-Solution. Israel has a lot of resources, this will take long, but it won’t stop.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The Decline of the West. The G7 “War Summit”. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, June 17, 2024

The G7 Summit under the Italian presidency, organized by the Meloni Government in Puglia, proclaimed as its priority “the defence of the international system based on the force of law”, declaring that “the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine has undermined its principles and has unleashed growing instability, visible in the various crisis hotspots.”

Coalition Government: A Test for South Africa’s Democracy

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, June 17, 2024

Despite the alarming struggle for control and influence among South African political parties, the African National Congress (ANC) headed by Cyril Ramaphosa has finally constituted a broad coalition government, contentiously designed to contain rising tension and to integrate rival opposition forces such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Inkatha Freedom Party into its fold.

America and Britain Rehabilitate Nazism and Arm Fascist Militias in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, June 17, 2024

Western countries are no longer hiding their sympathy for Ukrainian neo-Nazism. The US and the UK are rapidly advancing the process of global rehabilitation of Nazism. Recently, Ukrainian fascist militants were welcomed into the British parliament, and now Washington authorized the supply of weapons to the infamous Azov Regiment, clearly showing that far-right militias are NATO’s allies in the current conflict.

Israel Lobby’s Control Over America Grows Ever Stronger

By Philip Giraldi, June 16, 2024

Support for Israel in the media is also contrived and essentially phony, going beyond slanting stories and ignoring the Palestinians. It is generally and imposed from the top down.

The US’ “Security Pact” With Kiev Regime: Ukraine NATO Membership No longer Contemplated. WWIII “Could Break Out Through Miscalculation

By Andrew Korybko, June 16, 2024

Zelensky celebrated his country’s new security pact with the US on Thursday as “bring[ing] our relations to the level of a true alliance”, but the reality is that it’s just a consolation for the US not approving Ukraine’s NATO membership, which would give it much more meaningful mutual defense commitments.

Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited. Escalations… The U.S., Canada, and NATO Provoking World War III

By Michael Welch, Yves Engler, and Larry Johnson, June 16, 2024

Russia is making substantial gains in Ukraine. Ukraine is running out of troops and are now allowing prison convicts to enter the battle on the front-lines. Is the U.S. admitting the situation is not going to their liking and preparing to revisit genuine negotiations with this most potent military force that is Russia’s?

Acting As If It Weren’t Really So. “Ignorance of What Is Really Going On…” “The Nightmare Which Is Approaching”. Edward Curtin

By Edward Curtin, June 16, 2024

Only people who listen to the chorus of reliable alternative media voices warning of the quickly growing threat of nuclear war have any sense of the nightmare that is approaching.  Even for them, however, and surely for most others, unreality reigns.  Reality has a tough time countering illusions.

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

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

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

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

***

War always commands its own appeal.  It has its own frazzled laurels, the calling of its own worn poets tenured in propaganda.  In battle, the poets keep writing, and keep glorifying.  The chattering diplomats are kept in the cooler, biding their time.  The soldiers die, as do civilians.  The politicians are permitted to behave badly.

With Ukraine looking desperately bloodied at the hands of their Russian counterparts, the horizon of the conflict had seemingly shrunk of late.  Fatigue and desperation had set in.  Washington seemed more interested in sending such musically illiterate types as the Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Kyiv for moral cuddling rather than suitably murderous military hardware.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, mindful of the losses inflicted on his own side in the conflict, thought it opportune to spring the question of peace talks.  On June 14, while speaking with members of the Russian Foreign Ministry, he floated the idea that Russia would cease combat operations “immediately” if Ukraine abandoned any aspirations of joining NATO and withdrew its troops from the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Rather than refrigerate the conflict into its previous frozen phase, Putin went further.  It would end, provided that Kyiv accepted Moscow’s sovereign control over the four regions as “new territorial realities”.  Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine would also be afforded protections; sanctions imposed by Western states would be lifted. 

“Today,” he stated, “we have put forward another concrete, genuine peace proposal.  If Kyiv and Western capitals reject it as they have in the past, they will bear political and moral responsibility of the ‘continuation of the bloodshed.’”

He further added that, as soon as Ukraine began withdrawing its military personnel from Donbas and Novorossiya, with an undertaking not to join NATO, “the Russian Federation will cease fire and be ready for negotiations.  I don’t think it will take long.”

Length and duration, however, remain the signal attributes of this murderous gambit.  Ukraine’s defeat and humbling is unacceptable for the armchair strategists in the US imperium, along with their various satellites.  NATO’s obsessive expansion cannot be thwarted, nor can the projection of Washington’s influence eastwards from Europe.  And as for the defence contractors and companies keen to make a killing on the killings, they must also be considered.

This was unpardonable for the interests of the Biden administration.  The Washington War Gaming Set must continue.  Empires need their fill, their sullied pound of flesh.  Preponderance of power comes in various forms: direct assault against adversaries (potentially unpopular for the voters), proxy enlistment, or the one degree removed sponsorship of a national state or entity as a convenient hitman.  Ukraine, in this sense, has become the latter, a repurposed, tragic henchman for US interests, shedding blood in patriotic gore.

In keeping with that gore, US President Joe Biden, in announcing a funding package for Ukraine from the G7 group, promised that “democracies can deliver”.  The amount on the ledger: $US50 billion.  “We are putting our money to work for Ukraine, and giving another reminder to Putin that we are not backing down.”  That particular amount is derived from frozen Russian assets outside Russian territory, most of it from the Russian Central Bank amounting to US$280 billion.  The circumstances of such freezing will, in future, be the subject of numerous dissertations and legal challenges, but that very fact suggests that Ukraine’s allies are tiring from drawing from their own budgets.  We support you, but we also hate to see the money of our taxpayers continually splurged on the enterprise.

Biden’s remarks from the Hotel Masseria San Domenico in Fasano have a haunting quality of repetition when it comes to US support for doomed causes and misguided goals.  The fig leaf, when offered, can be withdrawn at any given movement: South Vietnam, doomed to conquest at the hands of North Vietnam; Afghanistan, almost inevitably destined to be recaptured by the Taliban; Kurds the Marsh Arabs, pet projects for US strategists encouraged to revolt only to be slaughtered in betrayal.

Thus goes Biden:

“A lasting peace for Ukraine must be underwritten by Ukraine’s own ability to defend itself now and to deter future aggression anytime […] in the future,” Biden explains, drawing from the echo of Vietnamisation and any such exultation of an indigenous cause against a wicked enemy.   

The idea here: strengthen Ukrainian defence and deterrence while not sending US troops.  In other words, we pay you to die.

The NATO disease, poxy and draining, rears its head.  Weapons and ammunition are to be provided to Ukraine along with the expansion of “intelligence-sharing” and training while “enhancing interoperability between our militaries in line with NATO standards”.  Money is to be put into Ukraine’s own defence industry so that they can duly “supply their own weapons and munitions”.  In the floral bouquet, a cautionary note is appended.  “In terms of longer range of weapons into the interior of Russia we are not changing our positions.”  Killing is always a matter of quantum, and calculation.  The note for Kyiv is clear: use the weapons but do so carefully.

As for the logistics of finance, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan is already voicing concerns about the complexity of the funding venture.  “The simple proposition is we got to put these assets to work.  The complex proposition is how you do that specifically.”

While Putin has turned his nose up at the UN Charter in its solemn affirmation of the sovereignty of states, Washington has taken its own wrecking ball to the text.  It has meddled, fiddled and tampered with the internal affairs of states while accusing Russia of the very same thing.  Spiteful of history and its bitter lessons, it has employed such saboteurs as former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to undertake such tasks, poking the Russian Bear while courting and seducing the Ukrainian establishment.  The horror is evident for all to see, and unlikely to halt.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

The sudden deaths of children ages 12-15 continue and no one is even attempting to investigate these deaths.

May 11, 2024 – Scotland – 14 year old Corbin Jones was playing soccer when he fell ill and collapsed and died.

May 2, 2024 – Singapore – 14 year old Isaac Loo collapsed after 10 min during a 2.4km run and died suddenly from “swelling of the brain.”

Apr. 3, 2024 – Schnecksville, PA – 15 year old Talia Shumway died unexpectedly at her home on April 3, 2024 She was enrolled in a nursing program at LCTI (Lehigh Career & Technical Institute).

April 2, 2024 – Belfast, Northern Ireland – 13 year old Sofia Forgione died from “Sudden Death Syndrome” when she died in her sleep.

Mar. 12, 2024 – Moline, IL – 13 year old Sampson Sprague died of a massive brain bleed.

Mar. 5, 2024 – Ireland -12 year old Saoirse Ruane died after her lung cancer came back.

Feb. 27, 2024 – Elmhurst, IL – 14 year old Reilyn Willow Ramsay died suddenly & unexpectedly on Feb.27, 2024 She was an athlete on the track team for York High School.

Feb. 24, 2024 – Spain – 15 year old soccer cadet Alejandro Padín, died suddenly on Feb. 24, 2024.

Feb. 22, 2024 – Italy – 12 year old soccer player Andrea Vincenzi died from pneumonia and cardiac arrest.

Feb. 18, 2024 – Brazil – 12 year old Rhyan dos Reis Garcia had a cardiac arrest at school and died a few days later.

Feb. 17, 2024 – Johnson City, TN – 14 year old cheerleader Charlee Blackburn died from a “sudden illness” “A sickness that started as strep throat continued escalating over the course of three days” “We have no idea what happened.”

Click here to read all cases.

*

My Take…

On May 10, 2021, FDA amended use authorization for Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine to include children ages 12-15.

Here are some characteristics of these recent 56 deaths in children ages 12-15.

20 were athletes:

  • 9 soccer players
  • 4 football players
  • 3 basketball players
  • 2 runners
  • 1 gymnastics
  • 1 cheerleader

Causes of death:

  • 10 cardiac arrests
  • 5 died in sleep
  • 5 died from cancer
  • 4 brain bleeds
  • 3 infection (?)
  • 1 stroke
  • 1 aortic dissection

Activities when sudden death occurred

  • 5 were playing soccer
  • 4 died at home
  • 3 died at school, 1 died on school bus, 1 died in car on way home
  • 2 were playing football
  • 2 were playing basketball
  • 2 were running (up to 5km)
  • 2 were playing outside
  • 1 was in phys ed class
  • 1 was swimming
  • 1 was doing gymnastics
  • 1 was recording tiktok videos

Cancer deaths are increasing in this age group. 

Damaged blood vessels and clots are still a major issue 3 years into the rollout. Brain bleeds are far too common, there should be none in a sample of this size.

 Soccer remains the deadliest sport, followed by football, running and basketball.

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel


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

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

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

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

Coalition Government: A Test for South Africa’s Democracy

June 17th, 2024 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

Despite the alarming struggle for control and influence among South African political parties, the African National Congress (ANC) headed by Cyril Ramaphosa has finally constituted a broad coalition government, contentiously designed to contain rising tension and to integrate rival opposition forces such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Inkatha Freedom Party into its fold.

However, expert analysis and narratives indicated that despite this first step towards advancing the main political and economic achievements of the ANC and the roadmap for sharing power in the next government, and at the same time, given the latest emerging political model in the country there are diverse internal and external implications for South Africa.

In this conversation, Samir Bhattacharya, a research associate at Observer Research Foundation (ORF) discusses importance of the political reconfiguration and aspects of its implications. Bhattacharya also provides insights for understanding the common intricacies in the latest developments after the first parliamentary sitting on 14th June 2024 and South Africa’s relations with Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU).  Here are the interview excerpts:

Kester Kenn Klomegah (KKK): ls ANC slippery slope in South Africa’s politics is an expected evolutionary process?

Image: Samir Bhattacharya (Source: KKK)

Samir Bhattacharya (SB): When the results of the seventh national election in South Africa were announced in May 2024, it was not shocking that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) had lost its absolute majority for the first time since its 1994 transition to democracy. It witnessed a steady decline in its share of the vote since 1999. However, every time, it managed to secure a majority. Last time, in 2019, it got about 57.5 per cent vote share. But this time, the vote share dropped abysmally low to 40.2%.

As of present, the African National Congress (ANC) has called for a coalition of national unity in which all parties are welcome to join and take part in governing alongside the ANC. It is anticipated that the cabinet posts will be distributed according to the number of seats each party won. Currently, the coalition’s members include the main opposition party, the centrist Democratic Alliance (DA), and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). The vote shares for the DA and IFP were 22% and 4%, respectively.

This may be a boon in disguise since it will force parties on opposing sides of the aisle to cooperate. Since each party represents a different set of electors, it can foster social solidarity amongst disparate elements of society.

Nevertheless, South Africa lacks a legislative or constitutional structure that would dictate the manner in which the proposed unity government must be constituted. Furthermore, the parties radically different and occasionally incompatible points of view may result in ideological conflicts and deadlock in policy. Moreover, if this gap grows, the coalition can disintegrate, leading to political instability.

KKK: As the current situation stands, what signals and implications of the latest development offer for South Africa, and generally for Africa?

SB: President Ramaphosa has undoubtedly received a startling reality check after the election result, as his party was not able to secure an absolute majority in parliament. Furthermore, this setback can have an impact on the stability or course of his government during his second term. The primary reason is that the ruling ANC, despite being way ahead than any of its rival parties, has lost its commanding majority and will depend on other parties to keep the government running.

Truly, the recent election of South Africa was quite chaotic, and it witnessed the proliferation of several new political parties. More than 50 political parties participated, highest number of parties fighting in the election in South African history. While most of them wanted to topple the ANC government, except the four major parties, none even had any national level ambition or vision. They were mostly restricted to highly localised issues and expected to draw some blood from weakened ANC. 

There was no shared leadership or agenda among these parties. Additionally, they have incredibly different and frequently conflicting beliefs about governance. For instance, even though DA agreed to join the coalition, it firmly opposes both the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, which would provide universal healthcare for all, and the ANC’s black empowerment program, which aims to give black people a stake in the economy as a response to their exclusion during the apartheid era. Meanwhile radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party and newly formed uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party endorse nationalising the country’s mines and seizing of white-owned land without compensation. The IFP, on the other hand, is a conservative, pro-Israel, pro-West party that is extremely hostile to the migrants.

Within the ANC, there are also internal divisions. The liberal lot, which has been the party’s main force since its founding but has now mellowed into a moderate social democrat fraction that currently has the majority, is more inclined to support business interests than to pursue drastic economic reforms. Forming an alliance with the official opposition DA is acceptable to this segment. But, the left wing, which has been historically moulded by the Tripartite Alliance between the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, will attempt to exert more influence, either under Jacob Zuma’s leadership or through the radical leftist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), should either of them choose to join the coalition.

KKK: And what possible impact do you think this would have on its future foreign policy, and considering at the fact that South Africa is a member of Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU)?

SB: Foreign policy is rife with ideological divisions, just like domestic concerns. The agenda that the DA seeks is pro-Western. On the other hand, the recently formed MK party, led by former President Jacob Zuma, is anti-Western and pro-BRICS. MK and Malema’s EEF, in contrast to DA, both support Russia.

Moving forward, the next administration will need to give the country’s foreign policy issues serious attention, chief among them being the delicate balancing act between the West, China, and Russia. Despite being geographically distant, the metastasising war in Ukraine has had a substantial impact on South Africa, particularly in terms of food security. At a deeper level, the incoming administration must develop a realistic foreign policy agenda that inspires confidence among investors. The main goal of South African foreign policy must still be to revive the country’s economy, but it must do it without openly favoring one country over another. Due to its close ties to all of the superpowers and the BRICS countries, South Africa’s nonalignment approach to international affairs is unlikely to alter in the current environment. 

In response, external actors working with South Africa’s coalition government will be required to exercise some patience and remain flexible. In fact, given the extreme ideological division within, it would become increasingly challenging to adopt a coherent policy stance. However, they need to keep in mind that South Africa still finds strength in its democratic system, which remains a cornerstone of stability and inclusivity. Due to its participation in numerous international issues and membership in groups such as the G20 and BRICS, South Africa is a significant global player. It has lately surpassed Nigeria to become the largest economy on the African continent.

South Africa also plays a major role in a number of international platforms and problems. South Africa received international recognition for its action in January when it approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ), filing a case against Israel. But the DA’s alignment with Western perspectives, its backing of Israel, and its strategic uncertainty about the Palestinian cause might have a significant impact on South Africa’s foreign policy, especially with regard to Palestine. However, a partnership between the ANC and Malema’s EFF would bolster South Africa’s opposition to Israel and increase its voice in several international fora.

In conclusion, it goes without saying that the election outcome and its fallout will be closely watched not only in South Africa and throughout the continent but also globally. This uncertainty is primarily caused by the difficulties in interpreting any prospective change in South African foreign policy and whether the coalition government would significantly alter or reframe its stance and policies in light of various global occurrences. The functional elements of the coalition will become more apparent in the days to come. After all, the devil is always in the details. Nevertheless, this would be a test for South Africa’s democracy because a stable South Africa would be important for its citizens as well as for the rest of the continent.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image: African National Congress logo (Licensed under Fair Use)

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

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

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

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

***

Western countries are no longer hiding their sympathy for Ukrainian neo-Nazism. The US and the UK are rapidly advancing the process of global rehabilitation of Nazism. Recently, Ukrainian fascist militants were welcomed into the British parliament, and now Washington authorized the supply of weapons to the infamous Azov Regiment, clearly showing that far-right militias are NATO’s allies in the current conflict.

All at once, the US and the UK decided to normalize Ukrainian Nazism. Two weeks ago, in London, a delegation from the Azov Regiment was greeted with applause by the British Parliament. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a speech calling the fascist militiamen “heroes” and encouraging them to attack targets within the undisputed territory of the Russian Federation with British weapons. In other words,

Johnson not only congratulated neo-Nazis, but he “authorized” them to kill Russians outside the conflict zone.

Johnson also took a photo with the Azov soldiers holding a banner with the Wolfsangel symbol, “which was used by a Waffen-SS division and several Wehrmacht units during WWII.”

On June 11th, the US State Department published a revision of its arms trade guidelines, lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to the Azov Regiment. Ten years ago, the Ukrainian fascist militia had been officially banned from the US arms trade due to its Nazi ties as well as human rights violations committed during hostilities in Russian-majority regions. Now, however, US officials say there is no evidence that such violations actually occurred, which is why the ban has been reversed.

It would be naive to believe that the “ban” ever really worked. Washington has always armed the Azov militants and all other Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias. However, until now, this supply of weapons was unofficial. The US officially sold weapons to the Ukrainian state, which then individually delivered them to the fascist battalions. Now, this legal maneuver is no longer necessary, since Washington is openly ready to supply weapons to Azov.

It is interesting to see Americans and British normalizing the existence of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine.

The Azov Regiment has never disguised its far-right racist ideology, being widely known for its ethnic supremacism and active participation in the extermination of Russian citizens since 2014. After the beginning of the special military operation, the brigade’s main officials have toned down their rhetoric, trying to “normalize” the group among Western public opinion. However, many members of the militia continue to constantly post photos on social media with neo-Nazi tattoos and symbols. Furthermore, the SS-linked Wolfsangel remains the organization’s official symbol, which shows how Hitlerite ideology is indeed part of the Azov militants’ mindset.

These moves by the US and UK are taking place amid a wider context of Nazi rehabilitation in the West. A few months ago, a former Ukrainian SS officer was received in the Canadian parliament with ovation and honored in a public ceremony. At the same time, in Europe, especially in the eastern regions, an irresponsible historical revisionism continues to be promoted, with countries such as Poland and the Baltics removing monuments for the heroes of the Red Army and rehabilitating Nazi figures.

At the same time, since 2022 Western countries have been boycotting the UN resolution proposed by Russia calling for the global condemnation of Nazism. More than 50 countries aligned with the US have simply decided not to condemn Nazism, stating that voting against the resolution would be a gesture of solidarity with Ukraine in the current conflict.

Nazism is no longer a mere tool of war for the West against Russia, but is on its way to becoming the real ideology of many Western states. This is a direct consequence of the infamous policy of asylum for Nazi criminals in the post-WWII times, when the US and Europe granted amnesty to German generals, politicians and scientists in exchange for military and scientific secrets. Many Nazis who were exiled to Western countries ended up reaching high positions in the state administration, which resulted in the progressive Nazification of the Western political mentality.

For a long time, this Nazification remained hidden due to the global memory of Germany’s crimes in the WWII. However, Ukraine has been the excuse for NATO’s Nazi tendencies to become public. The normalization and rehabilitation of Nazism is not a simple side effect of the current conflict, but a real project on the part of the West to implement Russophobia on a global level. Only a Russian victory in the special military operation and the reconfiguration of the geopolitical order can stop the advance of Nazism.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

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

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

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

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

*** 

It sure is a crazy coincidence how western politicians and media always start urgently telling us about an invisible epidemic of left wing antisemitism every time western military ties to Israel are subjected to widespread public scrutiny.

It’s getting bad, and it will likely get worse.

The mass media are filling up with op-eds and cable news segments about how antisemitic leftist anti-genocide protesters are becoming. 

Instagram progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently hosted two virulent Zionists in a livestream where the three spent their time concern trolling about the rise of antisemitism in left-wing activist circles.

Whoever runs Joe Biden’s presidential Twitter account for him is tweeting about “horrific acts of Antisemitism” by demonstrators, citing four incidents which were demonstrably not in the least bit antisemitic.

These same false claims about antisemitic activity by protesters are being used by US officials like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to push through the “Countering Antisemitism Act”, a bill which would give the White House new powers to “counter the spread of antisemitism online” (read: government internet censorship to promote US and Israeli information interests).

And it’s so important that people who are new to this understand we’ve already seen this “crisis of antisemitism on the left” song and dance before; they ran the exact same script a few years ago in the UK to kill the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, who supports Palestinian rights. It’s the exact same bad faith concern trolling op where the whole political-media class suddenly starts pretending to believe something that is transparently ridiculous in order to protect an agenda of the empire.

It’s also important that everyone understand that every part of this is 100 percent cynical manipulation. The people pushing this narrative are fully aware that it is false. Everyone knew Jeremy Corbyn was a lifelong anti-racist who didn’t have an antisemitic bone in his body. Everyone knew there was no crisis of antisemitism in the Labour Party. But they pretended to believe otherwise because they didn’t want to see socialism and anti-imperialism gain a political foothold in the UK. The same thing is happening in the US and throughout the west right now regarding protests against the genocide in Gaza.

So when you see people aggressively rejecting the concern trolls on this issue, that’s why. They’ve seen this schtick before, and they know how politically devastating it can be. They’ve seen how it can be used to suck all the oxygen away from real discourse about real things and funnel it all into this insanely vapid, idiotic conversation about a problem that exists nowhere outside the imaginations of the people talking about it. It’s a deeply evil, disgusting thing to do, especially now in 2024 when it’s being done to facilitate an active genocide.

There is no crisis of antisemitism on the left. It is not happening. The people pushing this narrative know it is not happening. Even the claim that anti-semitic incidents overall are on the rise is highly dubious, given that the figure everyone always cites for this claim comes from the Anti-Defamation League, who after October 7 began categorizing pro-Palestine rallies as antisemitic incidents — including rallies organized and attended by Jewish groups.

People get into left-wing politics exactly because they oppose racism and injustice. Nobody who actually understands the pro-Palestine movement sincerely believes all these peaceniks and commies have suddenly morphed into Jew-hating Nazis in contradiction of their entire worldview. They might pretend to believe this is a real thing that is actually happening in order to advance a political agenda, but they won’t actually believe it.

There’s plenty of hatred for Jews to be found on the extreme right, where the ideological inability to acknowledge capitalism and western imperialism as the source of today’s ills leaves a void for blame that will be filled by anything from Jews to immigrants to Satanic pedophile cabals to drag queens. But it’s always the lefties who get the overwhelming brunt of the antisemitism accusations, because their pro-peace, pro-justice, anti-colonialist, anti-racist activism makes them an obstacle to the information interests of Israel and the murderous empire which supports it.

We saw it with Corbyn, and we’re seeing it again today. 

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

It takes a lot to get the diplomats of the Middle East to agree on anything. The behaviour of one man over the last eight months of the war in Gaza has, however, forged a consensus rare among such a group: Antony Blinken cannot be trusted. 

The US secretary of state’s powers of turning reality on its head have raised the eyebrows of even practised cynics. It is a complaint that resounds from Doha to Amman, Cairo, Tel Aviv and Ankara. 

Blinken is currently engaged in what one of his predecessors, James Baker, called “dead cat diplomacy”. Baker’s pupil, Aaron David Miller, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “The objective is not to reach a deal but to ensure if it fails, the dead cat is on other’s doorstep.”

The dead, or dying, cat of the moment is a ceasefire deal in Gaza that holds. 

Indisputably, Hamas is closer to accepting this deal than Israel is. The evidence for this is mounting. Hamas signed a ceasefire deal presented by Egypt and Qatar, under the gaze of CIA Director Bill Burns, which would have ensured a permanent halt to the war. 

When Israel and the US walked away from it, Hamas welcomed the principles declared in President Joe Biden’s speech, in which he urged Israel to accept a “full and complete ceasefire”. It had the same reaction to the US-sponsored UN resolution. 

Those principles are clear: that a permanent ceasefire should exist after an initial exchange of hostages; that there should be a full withdrawal of Israeli troops; that the people of Gaza should be free to return to their homes; that there should be no change in the territory or demography of Gaza; and that its people should have full access to humanitarian aid, alongside reconstruction efforts.

Sticking Point

Israel disagrees with each and every one of these principles. It has said consistently that no ceasefire should prevent the achievement of its war aims, which include the dismantlement of Hamas as a military power and as a government of Gaza. It continues to block aid through its land border crossings and has no intention of lifting the siege, especially after the war ends.

More critically, it has made no commitment to sticking to a ceasefire should negotiations between the first and second phases of the prisoner and hostage exchange fail. 

This is the crux of the matter. There has been only one substantive issue preventing a ceasefire deal since the first exchange of prisoners and hostages last November.

Israel has yet to give any official response to either Biden’s speech or the UN resolution. Blinken is doing all the talking for it. How curious, then, that Blinken, on his latest Middle East tour, placed all the blame on Hamas for not yet accepting the deal. 

The talks are stuck on Israel’s refusal to accept an upfront commitment to a permanent ceasefire. It is on Israel that Blinken should be applying all of Washington’s pressure.

And yet, Blinken declared: “Israel accepted the proposal as it was” – a comment that flies in the face of repeated public statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu casting doubt on the deal, in addition to recent remarks from National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, who said it would take another seven months to destroy the military and governing capabilities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

“Hamas could have answered with a single word – yes,” Blinken said, surpassing himself in a brazen attempt to turn the truth on its head. 

Hamas has now given its formal response, and Middle East Eye has seen a copy of that reply.

There are changes to the document, which are not, as it claims, minor – although they are more compatible with what Biden and the UN resolution said, than the Israeli position is. Hamas has included the Philadelphi Corridor in the list of areas that Israeli forces should withdraw from in the first 42-day stage of the deal. It also insists that prisoners to be released by Israel are in accordance with Hamas’s list, which includes high-profile resistance leaders such as Marwan Barghouti.

Shielding Israel

The most substantial change is to the wording of paragraph 14, which deals crucially with the transition from stage one to stage two, and the key question of whether any party can withdraw unilaterally from this process and go back to war. 

Paragraph 14 used to say that the temporary cessation of violence would continue into stage two “so long as the negotiations on the conditions for implementing stage 2 of this agreement are ongoing”, and that the guarantors of the deal would make “every effort to ensure that those indirect negotiations continue until both sides are able to reach agreement”.

The revised version from Hamas says the temporary ceasefire would continue “until a sustainable calm” is announced, by which is meant a full cessation of military activities on both sides, and that negotiations would continue until the two parties reach an agreement on an exchange of prisoners. 

In addition, Hamas now demands that Israel lift its 17-year siege of Gaza and withdraw all its forces in the initial stage of the ceasefire deal.

These key changes address the meaning and substance of Biden’s speech and the UN resolution. But Israel will be implacably opposed to them, as they mean that once the first set of hostages and prisoners has been released, Israel will not be able to back out of a permanent ceasefire. 

It does not take a genius to see that shielding an Israel that has no intention of abiding by Biden’s words, let alone the UN’s, is not doing anything to advance US goals. 

These are clear: Biden’s overwhelming personal political interest as an ageing president, seeking re-election while not always being able to read his teleprompter, is to shut this war down as soon as possible. He has even more interest in doing so before it spreads, as it shows every sign of doing, to Lebanon and then the wider region. 

Blinken is doing the opposite. He is letting Washington get dragged ever deeper, and with more direct military involvement, into a regional quagmire of Netanyahu’s creation. 

Only one party benefits from a continuous war in Gaza and a new front opening up in Lebanon, and that is the Religious Zionist extreme right. Netanyahu cannot abandon that party. Benny Gantz’s defection from the war cabinet would be nothing politically next to Itamar Ben Gvir’s exit. The moment that happens, Netanyahu knows he has a challenger for the leadership of the ruling right-wing coalition.

That Sinking Feeling

Accordingly, Netanyahu has responded to every failed round of negotiations by going on the military offensive. 

After his rejection of the ceasefire deal hammered out during the debacle in Cairo and Doha, and amid the increasing possibility of being served with an international arrest warrant for war crimes, his response was to launch the offensive on Rafah.

Here again, the Israeli national interest called for caution. He showed no hesitation in jettisoning the support of the Egyptian army, which if he thought about things strategically, as a real leader should, he would realise that Israel will need after this conflict is over.

Egypt’s generals could make life painful along Israel’s eminently porous 200-kilometre border with Sinai, by releasing the brakes they apply on the drug smugglers and warlords who roam the desert. 

Instead, Netanyahu has humiliated them – and adding insult to injury, deprived them of a personal source of hard currency by closing the Rafah border and occupying the Philadelphi corridor.

The unwritten understanding between them was that any such closure would be temporary. But Netanyahu has now broken that understanding too, leaving the generals with egg on their face. Not a wise thing to do, in this region. 

Similarly, Netanyahu’s response to Biden’s speech was to launch a hostage rescue in Nuseirat camp, whose beneficial effects on domestic public opinion lasted all of 24 hours. 

Wild jubilation at the release of four hostages – Israeli networks interrupted their recorded programmes on Shabbat to go live – gave way to sober reflection on the total cost of this operation.

It was not repeatable. It was not a replacement for negotiations. Israel lost a special forces police officer in the extraction, and if Hamas is to be believed, three other hostages as well.

State of Chaos

But more puzzling still was the US claiming a decisive role in the hostage release. As the Palestinian death toll soared past 270, you might have expected National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to distance himself from such a disaster. He did the opposite, taking credit for what he termed a “daring operation”.

The exact part that US intelligence or their hostage release team played in this operation is not known. Israeli helicopters were, however, captured on camera taking off and landing on the beach, a few metres from the pier the US Navy built to provide aid for Gaza. 

Centcom, the US military command that oversees the Middle East, said that while Israel used an area south of the US-built pier as a landing zone, “the humanitarian pier facility, including its equipment, personnel, and assets were not used in the operation to rescue hostages”.

But a US defence official, speaking with Middle East Eye, said Israel’s use of the beach, with the pier a stone’s throw away, “implies we were part of it”.

Furthermore, the US would have been notified of Israel’s exfiltration plan via the beach because it maintains an air defence system at the pier.

US cooperation with a hostage release operation that killed more than 270 Palestinians, and possibly also a further group of hostages, puts US policy on hostage release in a state of total chaos. 

Its policy goal is to persuade Israel of the obvious truth that the hostages themselves, and their families, scream often and loudly about: the only killer of hostages is Israel’s continuing bombardment. 

US military involvement in such a murderous operation does the opposite. “Israel’s argument has always been that it doesn’t need a ceasefire to rescue hostages,” Frank Lowenstein, the former special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the Obama administration, told MEE. “The rescue operation is likely to deepen Israel’s resolve on that.”

US Weakness

This is not in US interests. Netanyahu is perfectly logical in his conclusion that Biden is weak and getting weaker by the month.

He is fundamentally unable or unwilling to apply a brake to Israel’s offensive. He threatened very publicly to withhold heavy bombs for Netanyahu’s offensive on Rafah. Netanyahu went ahead with it anyway, and Biden backed down.

Channel 13 recently reported that “significant progress” had been reached towards “understandings” that would allow the suspended shipment to arrive in Israel in the near future: “Within the framework of the understandings being developed between Washington and Tel Aviv, Israel will be forced to make commitments to Washington that it will not attack with certain bombs that will be supplied by the Biden administration, in populated areas, including populated areas in Rafah.”

So Israel can have the heavy bombs Biden promised to withhold, and continue with the operation in Rafah that Biden warned it not to proceed with.

At every stage in this eight-month war, US diplomacy has showed its weakness, and it bears a heavy responsibility for where this has now landed both Israel and US forces in the region. 

As things stand, and with the active complicity of Blinken, the gap between Israel and Hamas will not be bridged, even though the truth is that that the gap between the US and Israel is much larger than that between the US or the UN and Hamas.

Both Hamas and the US, and the 13 other members of the UN Security Council that voted for the resolution, want an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Israel is in a minority of one in making sure that does not happen, knowing that neither Blinken nor Biden has the political capital left to stop it. 

A New Low

To carry on the war in Gaza is to ensure that the escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah will continue, with each side striking deeper into each other’s territory. The surest method of de-escalation on the northern border is to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

I cannot think of any other time during the 76 years of this bitter conflict, when an Israeli leadership has been so obdurate in pursuing war aims that are unachievable – and a US president so weak and powerless to stop it.

James Baker or George Shultz were giants of diplomacy and resolve compared with the likes of Blinken. 

I previously thought that the combination of Netanyahu and former President Donald Trump had brought the situation to an all-time low. But I was proved wrong; worse was to come.

All the concessions Israel got during Trump’s presidency – the Golan Heights, the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords – pale into insignificance compared with the backing Biden has given Israel to pursue and continue its war on Gaza with this savagery, and for this long. 

It proved to be the combination of Netanyahu and a Democratic president that led this conflict to its most dangerous and murderous moment.

*

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

David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was the Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

Featured image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported on 13 June that Israel’s genocidal war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has resulted in over 8,000 children under the age of five suffering from severe malnutrition.

Among the 8,000 children under the age of five identified and provided treatment for acute malnutrition, 1,600 were afflicted with severe acute malnutrition, commonly referred to as severe wasting, which is the most fatal form.

At a press briefing held in Geneva on 12 June, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that a significant segment of Gaza’s population faces near-famine conditions due to the devastation caused by the Israeli war. Ghebreyesus also went on to specify that

“there have already been 32 deaths attributed to malnutrition, including 28 among children under five years old.”

UNICEF announced on 11 June that up to 3,000 children are at risk of “dying before their families’ eyes” as they continue to be deprived of access to food and treatment in southern Gaza.

The conditions in Rafah, where over a million were displaced and had sought shelter since the start of the war, have significantly worsened since Israel’s operations on the southernmost city over the past month, forcing the displaced to flee yet again and complicating efforts for aid and humanitarian services.

Earlier this month, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) revealed that it had ceased operations at all its shelters and most services for Palestinians in Rafah due to the escalating Israeli assault.

*

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

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

***

On June 4, a coalition of active-duty service members, veterans and G.I. rights groups launched a campaign called Appeal for Redress V2 to encourage military personnel to tell Congress to stop funding genocide in Gaza. Israel’s genocidal operation, now in its ninth month, has killed more than 37,000 Palestinians and wounded nearly 85,000.

The campaign is sponsored by Veterans For Peace (VFP), the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild, About Face: Veterans Against the War and the Center on Conscience & War. It is modeled after the 2006 Appeal for Redress issued during the occupation of Iraq. During that campaign, almost 3,000 active-duty, Reserve and Guard personnel sent protected communications to their members of Congress urging an end to the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Appeal for Redress V2 was formulated to help G.I.s directly tell their representatives that they oppose U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“We will not stand by silently while genocide unfolds,” Senior Airman Juan Bettancourt, an active-duty member of the U.S. Air Force, stated at a June 4 press conference announcing the campaign. “We refuse to be complicit” in the “unspeakable carnage,” said Bettancourt, who is seeking separation from the U.S. military as a conscientious objector.

Kathleen Gilberd, executive director of the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild and my coauthor for Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent, told Truthout there has been an increase in the number of applications for conscientious objection (CO) and other types of honorable discharge from the military.

“Many military personnel have serious objections to the U.S. support for Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians,” Gilberd said.

According to a June 3 statement from Bill Galvin, counseling director at the Center on Conscience and War,

“Almost all of [the CO applicants] cite the carnage in Gaza as something that their conscience would not allow them to ignore. Some have expressed feeling complicit in the violence.”

Gilberd noted the significance of these protests, saying:

“As in the Vietnam War, Iraq War and Afghanistan War, G.I. resistance is a powerful force for peace. The National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force and our allies stand in support of these military dissenters and resisters.”

Senior Airman Larry Hebert, who recently conducted a hunger strike in front of the White House in solidarity with the people of Gaza, noted at the press conference that,

“Genocide didn’t start on October 7.” He added: “It’s been going on for 76 years. It’s time for it to come to an end.”

Hebert was referring to the 1947-48 Nakba, when 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their land in the process of creating the state of Israel. Hebert said the groups sponsoring the Appeal for Redress are calling for a ceasefire, an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, and protection of the human rights of Palestinians and their right to self-determination.

“I have been taught that honor and integrity are pivotal to being a soldier,” Army Sergeant Johnson said in the June 3 press release. “It hurts me to my core that the same country that instilled these values in me would proudly support a genocide.” He added, “It is our duty as service members to uphold Geneva Conventions and international law. That is why I am pleading for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for humanitarian aid to be distributed throughout the entire Gaza Strip.”

Will Hopkins, former executive director of Veterans For Peace, said at the press conference it was “absolutely unconscionable” that U.S. money has been used to kill more than 14,000 children in Gaza.

“The Appeal for Redress, initiated by military personnel, provides an important, protected way for service members to tell their members of Congress that they oppose the U.S.’s funding and support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Gilberd told Truthout. “It is literally the tip of an iceberg of military dissent about the war and the U.S.’s role.” She cited the significance of individual, small, silent protests — in addition to bold and public acts of refusal.

Indeed, some of the speakers at the press conference honored the memory of Aaron Bushnell, an active-duty member of the U.S. Air Force who set himself on fire on February 25 outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. to protest Israel’s genocide and U.S. complicity in it. He livestreamed the act, stating,

“I will no longer be complicit in genocide” before he lit himself on fire, repeatedly yelling “Free Palestine!” as the flames engulfed him.

Major Harrison Mann, a Jewish officer who worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently resigned from the U.S. Army over what he called the United States’ “nearly unqualified support for the government of Israel,” which he says has “enabled and empowered the killing and starvation of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.”

Mann went public with his resignation in May after the State Department issued a report concluding it was “reasonable to assess” that Israel had used U.S. weapons in ways “inconsistent” with international law. Shortly after that report was published, the Biden administration decided to send Israel $1 billion more in weapons and ammunition.

The Appeal for Redress

“We know many young people join the military out of necessity to get their needs met. But they are not obligated to contribute to genocide and unjust, unlawful wars that go against their conscience,” said Shiloh Emelein, U.S. Marine Corps veteran and operations director of About Face: Veterans Against the War, in the Appeal’s June 3 press release. “You do have rights, you do have options to object, and there’s a large community of post-9/11 veterans ready to welcome you.”

The Appeal for Redress employs the language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (emphasis added).

“Though their rights are somewhat limited by military law, service members can still speak out about their beliefs and protest the travesty of this war,” Gilberd said. Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06 protects the First Amendment rights to free speech and protests.

Moreover, a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 1034, says,

“No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.

Bill Galvin said at the press conference that military personnel have the right to be politically engaged as long as they’re off duty, off base and out of uniform and make clear they’re not speaking on behalf of the military. They can’t show disrespect to the chain of command, including the commander-in-chief.

The Appeal for Redress warns service members that they could face illegal retaliation by their command; the letter could be used against them in a court-martial for civil disobedience; and they could be punished if they reveal classified information without permission, make threats, use “contemptuous words” about chain of command (including the president) or make “disloyal” statements.

This courageous effort by service members and veterans follows in a long tradition of dissent in the U.S. military, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. The G.I. movement during the Vietnam War was integral to ending that war.

U.S. Provision of Weapons to Israel Violates Several U.S. Statutes

These active-duty service members oppose U.S. funding of Israel’s genocide both because it’s immoral and because U.S. government employees are violating several federal statutes when weapons are shipped to Israel.

In a February 11 letter to the U.S. State Department, Veterans For Peace urgently demanded that the State Department “immediately suspend ongoing shipments of military weapons and munitions” from the U.S. to Israel. VFP also demanded “that the consideration of approvals of prospective shipments be terminated immediately.”

The VFP letter cited violations of the Foreign Assistance Act, Arms Export Control Act, Leahy Laws, Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, U.S. War Crimes Act and the Genocide Convention Implementation Act. Those laws prohibit the transfer of weapons and munitions when there is credible evidence that the arms will be used by the country to commit, or aggravate the risk that the country will commit, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.

The letter quoted the sworn declaration of Josh Paul that was filed in the Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden lawsuit in which Palestinians sued President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin for failure to prevent genocide and complicity in genocide. Paul served as director of congressional and public affairs in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs before resigning in October 2023 in protest of U.S. arms transfers to Israel.

“I believe it is clear that the U.S. government is failing not only to execute the due diligence required under existing U.S. laws, but is actively creating and utilizing processes that help insulate Israel from accountability or sanctions in accordance with existing U.S. laws and policies,” Paul wrote in his declaration in the lawsuit. “The failure to execute meaningful due diligence or adequately apply existing U.S. laws permits the unfettered flow of military assistance to Israel forces with minimal oversight that leads to unnecessary civilian harm, gross violations of human rights, and impunity for violations of international law.”

Meanwhile, on June 6, Israeli airstrikes on a United Nations-run school in central Gaza killed at least 40 people with explosive weapons provided by the United States. The school was sheltering about 6,000 displaced Palestinians, UNRWA Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini said.

And on June 8, Israeli occupying forces, with U.S. support, killed at least 274 people, including dozens of children, and injured nearly 700 in a raid to rescue four hostages held by Hamas.

The same day, tens of thousands of people demonstrated at the White House in Washington, D.C. to protest the use of U.S. weapons and diplomatic support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The organizers of the Appeal for Redress encourage civilian supporters to share the appeal with their networks so that it reaches a larger number of service members.

*

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

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace. A member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyersshe is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. 

Featured image: Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell (Licensed under Fair Use)

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

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

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

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

***

G7 countries have increased military spending to record levels while slashing humanitarian aid to help people affected by war, Islamic Relief says as G7 leaders meet in Italy for their 50th annual summit (13-15 June).

Military expenditure by G7 nations surged to $1.2 trillion last year, an increase of 7.3% on the year before1 and 62 times what they spent on all humanitarian aid responding to wars and disasters.

Meanwhile G7 contributions to humanitarian aid appeals for the biggest global crises dropped from $27.5 billion in 2022 to $20.1 billion last year2 – a 27% cut and just 1.6% of what was spent on military last year.

With conflict, security and immigration high on this week’s G7 Summit agenda, Islamic Relief is calling on the bloc to invest more in helping people whose lives have been destroyed and uprooted by war. The summit comes as the killing and displacement of civilians in places such as Gaza and Sudan continues unabated, and the number of conflict-related deaths has reached the highest level in three decades3.

Islamic Relief is also calling for G7 nations – and other governments – to end arms sales to states where there are serious risks of international law being violated, such as Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Shahin Ashraf, Islamic Relief’s head of global advocacy, says: “From Gaza to Sudan, Ukraine to Myanmar we see millions of lives destroyed by war. The humanitarian needs today are greater than ever before, so it’s scandalous that many wealthy G7 nations are cutting aid while spending more than ever before on weapons. Too many governments are putting far more resources towards acquiring weapons of war than helping those suffering the deadly impacts of conflict. More must be invested in eradicating poverty and fostering peace and development, not fuelling war and destruction.”

The trend in G7 countries increasing military spending while cutting humanitarian aid is mirrored by other governments, with global military expenditure increasing to $2.44 trillion last year – a rise of 6.8% from the year before – according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

While some of the discussions at the G7 summit focus on restricting immigration into rich developed nations, most people displaced by conflict remain in war-torn countries and impoverished neighbouring countries. After more than a year of brutal war, Sudan is now the world’s biggest displacement crisis with over 10 million people – about a quarter of the population – now forced from their homes. The vast majority of people fleeing the violence in Sudan remain in the country, with many receiving aid from local communities, youth groups and mosques.

Shahin Ashraf says: “As rich nations increasingly shut their borders and cut aid, in places like Sudan it is heartening to see the generosity of some of the world’s poorest communities taking displaced people into their homes and sharing their food and water with them. But they need more international support, especially from the wealthiest countries.”

*

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

Notes

1 Based on Islamic Relief analysis of data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

2 Based on Islamic Relief analysis of data from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

3 New research by the Peace Research Institute Oslo (Prio) shows that deaths, including those of civilians, from civil conflicts and battles worldwide between 2021-2023 rose to the highest levels in 30 years.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

 


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.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


First posted on Global Research on March 1, 2022

***

Notes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east. It’s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia.

A newly discovered document provides more evidence that Western governments broke their promise not to expand NATO eastward after German reunification.

Notes from a 1991 meeting between top US, British, French, and German officials confirm that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for Central and Eastern Europe.

Germany’s diplomatic representative emphasized that the Soviet Union was promised in 1990 that “we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe” river, in eastern Germany.

The document, which was formerly classified as secret, comes from the British National Archives.

It was made widely known this February by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, but was actually first published by US political scientist Joshua Shifrinson in 2019.

The document describes a meeting between senior officials from the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany in the city of Bonn on March 6, 1991.

The subject of the gathering was “Security in Central and Eastern Europe.”

German diplomat Jürgen Chrobog is quoted in the notes saying,

“We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others.”

The 2+4 negotiations were talks in 1990 that allowed for the reunification of Germany, featuring capitalist West Germany and socialist East Germany (the 2) along with the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France (the 4).

Chrobog’s comments in the notes, therefore, confirm that the Western powers had promised the USSR in 1990 that they would not expand NATO eastward after German reunification.

Further clarifying this fact, the document adds that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for countries east of Germany.

NATO expansion document promise UK US Germany

NATO has added 14 member states east of Germany since end of First Cold War

Since the end of the First Cold War and the overthrow of the Soviet Union,14 countries in Central and Eastern Europe have joined the US-led NATO military alliance – all countries east of Germany, in flagrant violation of the promise not to expand.

In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO.

In 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined as well.

In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined.

In 2017, Montenegro joined.

In 2020, North Macedonia joined.

NATO has also discussed the possibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine joining in the future.

In December 2021, the Russian Federation demanded that NATO agree to a series of security guarantees, including a promise not to add any more members. The United States and NATO rejected Moscow’s demands.

NATO expansion map

Map of NATO expansion

More evidence that NATO broke its promise not to expand east of Germany

The newly discovered 1991 diplomatic record is part of a growing body of evidence that the Russian government’s accusation that NATO broke its promise is indeed correct.

As Multipolarista previously reported, declassified documents from the governments of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation prove that NATO pledged not to expand east.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, DC published records showing that US Secretary of State James Baker reassured Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev “not once, but three times” that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward,” in a February 9, 1990 meeting.

Baker admitted that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

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

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

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

***

With funds equivalent to just 2.9 percent ($35.7 billion) of their combined annual military spending, Group of Seven (G7) countries could help end world hunger and solve the debt crisis in the Global South, reveals new Oxfam analysis ahead of the G7 Summit in Borgo Egnazia, Italy.

Eradicating world hunger in all its forms would require $31.7 billion more from donors, and Oxfam estimates that the G7’s fair share of debt relief efforts for the world’s poorest countries is equivalent to $4 billion, for a total of $35.7 billion.

“Governments are finding their pockets run deep to fund war today, but when it comes to stopping starvation they are suddenly broke,” said Oxfam International’s Head of Inequality Policy Max Lawson.

“We’re talking about a small commitment with the potential for huge impact. Imagine a world where no one goes to bed hungry and where countries in the Global South can put money into public schools and hospitals instead of debt interest payments. The G7 not only has the means, but the moral and strategic imperative to make this happen,” said Lawson.

Hunger is rising rapidly in many places, including Somalia, Guatemala, Yemen and Kenya, with devastating consequences. Over 281 million people are now grappling with severe hunger and malnutrition. Gaza is facing one of the most severe hunger crises in the world, caused by Israel’s ongoing onslaught and siege of the enclave. People are already in extreme suffering and dying of starvation and treatable diseases. These deaths will increase at a faster rate unless a ceasefire is forged and full humanitarian access and safe distribution are allowed.

Oxfam is calling on the G7 to reiterate its demand on Israel to implement the recent ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to halt military operations in Rafah and allow the access of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The G7 must also ensure their economic policies and agreements with Israel are not financially enabling potential genocide in Gaza. Under the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law, states are obliged to take all political, economic, and military countermeasures within their power to prevent genocide. This includes immediately halting exports of arms and munitions that might risk use in war crimes or facilitate potential genocide. It goes beyond complicity; states are obligated to act to prevent genocide.

“The G7’s collective failure has basically given the Israeli military a free pass to commit terrible atrocities against Palestinian people. G7 leaders must do everything in their power to make sure there is an immediate and permanent ceasefire to stop the death and destruction. They also need to ensure full and permanent access of humanitarian aid through all ground crossings, and the release of all hostages and unlawfully detained Palestinian prisoners,” said Lawson.

“The G7 must also deploy all diplomatic efforts to stop further escalation in Lebanon and Yemen —should regional instability escalate into all-out war, the devastation will spare no one,” said Lawson.

Oxfam’s analysis also shows that despite G7 countries owing low- and middle-income countries $15 trillion in unpaid aid and funding for climate action, they are demanding that Global South pay $291 million a day in debt repayments and interests.

In May, Pope Francis said cancelling the debts of countries unable to repay them is “a matter of justice”, and outlined his vision for the Catholic Church’s 2025 Jubilee. Low- and middle-income countries are now spending nearly a third of their budgets on servicing debts ―as much as on public education, healthcare and social protection combined.

The G7 summit comes on the heels of Brazil’s historic proposal to tax the super-rich globally under their G20 Presidency. With the inequality gap widening, there has been mounting pressure on world leaders to increase taxes on the richest people and corporations. G7 finance ministers last month pledged to “work constructively with the Brazilian G20 Presidency,” and “to increase our efforts aimed at progressive and fair taxation of individuals.”

Oxfam estimates that higher and fairer taxes on millionaires and billionaires in G7 countries could raise over $1 trillion a year. The G7 is home to 1,211 billionaires (about 45 percent of the world’s billionaires) with a combined wealth of $8 trillion. Their wealth has grown in real terms by 74 percent over the past decade.  

“Families are struggling to get food on the table, our tax systems are making the rich richer, and the solution is glaringly obvious. The G7 needs to commit to global efforts, championed by the Brazilian G20 Presidency, to increase the tax paid by billionaires and the super-rich,” said Lawson.

*

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

Featured image is from NationofChange

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

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

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

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

***

Back in September 2017 I wrote an article for the Unz Review site entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” with the subtitle “Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?”

The article focused on the fact that most of the individuals and groups in the US that were agitating for war with Iran in particular were Jewish and most did not hide their loyalty to Israel, headed then as now by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I argued that it was a mistake to have Jews managing America’s relationships in the Middle East in particular as some of them certainly would experience a conflict of interest that would inevitably not be beneficial to the United States. And, one might add, that in spite of that tie that binds with a foreign government, no pro-Israel group has ever been compelled to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 which would provide some transparency on finances and concerning direct contacts with the Israeli government or its Embassy in Washington. The end result of all that is to make it extremely easy to use money, which the Zionist billionaires have in abundance, to corrupt the US government process on behalf of an apartheid state that is no ally in reality and does not have values that fit well with what was once American democracy.

If measured by comments received on it on the Unz site, the article on the ethnic advocacy promoting America’s Wars turned out to be the most popular that I have ever written and it was picked up widely online and in various publications both in the US and abroad. Inevitably, however, it produced a backlash from Israel’s many friends and within 24 hours there was added an update to the original online posting. It read “On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that ‘America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars’ was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.”

The TAC malignancy who did the actual firing was particularly miffed by my assertion in the article that prominent Jews, like Bill Kristol, who appear regularly on television to advocate hardlines against Iran and others while articulating a “threat to America” when they are actually acting on behalf of Israel should appear above a label that reads something like “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” I added that it would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

Indeed, it is the wealthy and influential beyond belief Jewish diaspora and its non-stop lying and corruption that sustains the fictitious narrative of Israel as a “land without people for a people without a land.” Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone observes that

“Everything about Israel is fake. It’s a completely synthetic nation created without any regard for the organic sociopolitical movements of the land and its people, slapped rootless atop an ancient pre-existing civilization with deep roots. That’s why it cannot exist without being artificially propped up by nonstop propaganda, lobbying, online influence operations, and mass military violence.”

My point in revisiting the past is that seven years ago one would never have imagined the control that the Jewish Lobby has since obtained over the US foreign policy as well as over many domestic policies largely thanks to the alarmingly pro-Israel measures that have been advanced by an ignorant and reckless Donald Trump followed by the totally mindless and heedless Joe Biden. Biden has a majority of Jews occupying senior positions in his administration and it is fair to say that Jews are at the controls for Middle Eastern policy as well as what is playing out in Ukraine. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is little more than a spokesman and advocate for Israel as he made clear when he arrived in Israel after the Hamas attack and announced that “I come before you as a Jew…” and followed that up with his family holocaust history, though he failed to mention that his stepfather worked for Robert Maxwell, a leading Israeli spy. And let’s not forget about Congress, where pro-Israel fanatics have taken complete control (with the sole exception of Tom Massie) of the Republican Party. This control is exercised through over the top political donations and favorable media coverage dependent on one’s supportive view of Israel. A story is currently circulating indicating that Miriam Adelson, Israel-born heiress to the Sheldon Adelson multi-billion dollar casino fortune, has offered Trump $100 million as a political campaign contribution if he will promise to enable Israeli annexation of all of historic Palestine after he wins the November election.

Some congressmen have revealed that when they first surfaced as political candidates a representative of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would casually drop by and determine their viewpoint on the Middle East. In some cases, would-be legislators would be asked to sign a statement pledging full and uncritical support of Israel no matter what it does. And we have recently learned that Israel runs major secret intelligence operations using fake personas on social media spreading pro-Israeli stories to influence decision making and maintain control of the US government. Beyond that, according to Massie, who told Tucker Carlson, every Republican in Congress besides himself “has an AIPAC person” assigned to them with whom they are in constant communication, whom he describes as functioning “like your babysitter” to make sure that no one hesitates when it comes to policies impacting on Israel. One assumes that this consists of AIPAC or Anti-Defamation League (ADL) provided interns who spy on the officials lest they deviate from their pledged loyalty to the Jewish state. I would call such activity foreign espionage connected to incitement to commit treason that should be exposed like the rat poison metaphor cited above. These monsters promoting a foreign country’s interests are not really our friends and are not out to do anything beneficial for the American people.

Support for Israel in the media is also contrived and essentially phony, going beyond slanting stories and ignoring the Palestinians. It is generally and imposed from the top down. Since October outlets like The New York Times, CNN and CBC have been denounced through staff leaks regarding demands from their top executives, who are often Jewish, that they slant their Gaza coverage to support the narratives favored by Israel. There have been resignations in government over the Israeli genocide being supported by Biden and Briahna Joy Gray has just been fired by The Hill for mildly criticizing Israel while co-hosting the show “Rising”, a fate that every media employees must understand lest they share Gray’s fate if they are insufficiently supportive of the Zionist entity. Israel’s support from Hollywood and other celebrities is similarly forced. A Hollywood marketing firm has had to explain a newly leaked email that instructed the firm’s employees to “pause on working with any celebrity or influencer or tastemaker posting against Israel.”

Other new developments on the Israel front that have emerged in the past seven years include the attacks on freedom of speech and association, the development of pro-Israel legislation at state and local levels which deny government benefits and jobs to citizens who support peaceful boycotts of Israel, and the ultimate abomination the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is seeking to criminalize any criticism of the Jewish state. The Act is just one aspect of how the power of organized Jewish groups over the government and media is shaping the kind of society that Americans will be living in in the near future. It will be a society devoid of several fundamental constitutional rights, like free speech, due to deference to the preferences of one tiny demographic.

Upcoming elections have also been targeted by the “Lobby,” with Jewish groups raising hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out attacks on candidates considered to be anti-Israeli. The Zionist inspired heavy hand of government and of America’s educational institutions has also been observed recently in the arrests and other punishments to include blocking of employment opportunities and canceling degrees to students protesting against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians. Jewish counter-protesters, sometimes violent as in the recent case of UCLA, are as a rule not punished and their student groups are untouched while pro-Palestinians groups are banned from campus.

Sometimes the leaning over backwards to please the Israelis is completely ridiculous. Congress is currently seeking to pass a bill that would punish the Maldives for blocking travel to the islands for Israeli passport holders while the war in Gaza continues. US Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey is leading efforts to pressure the government of the Indian Ocean tourist hotspot. Gottheimer, known to be one of Congress’s most aggressive Israel firsters, is seeking bipartisan support in developing the legislation which will be called the Protecting Allied Travel Here (PATH) Act. The legislation could block any US aid or assistance to the Maldives until Israelis again have permission to visit the country. Gottheimer argued that “taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be sent to a foreign nation that has banned all Israeli citizens – one of our greatest democratic allies.” He also added predictably that the Maldivean move was “antisemitic”.

So, in my humble opinion we have been increasingly getting screwed relentlessly by Israel in spite of much of the punishment taking place out in the open, but the hapless wretches in Congress are too weak and terrified by the Jewish lobby to do anything about it. And now we have war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu showing up at the end of July for another round of pandering and groveling plus cheering and bowing by the Joint Session of that very same Congress that has done so much to give Bibi and tools and money enabling him to kill 35,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and counting. It is a disgrace and when the world sits back and reckons what has happened and determines who is to blame the chickens will inevitably come home to roost. America the Pariah. It almost rhymes.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

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

***

On the face of it, it’s hard to make sense of the rift within Israel’s government over the “day after” in Gaza, which led Benny Gantz to quit the coalition on Sunday. In a press conference announcing his decision, Gantz accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “preventing … real victory” by failing to present a viable plan for the Strip’s post-war governance.

Gantz, who joined the government and war cabinet after October 7 as a minister without portfolio, has been urging Netanyahu for months to lay out his “day after” plan. The prime minister, who has a personal and political interest in prolonging the war, has so far refused to produce one; instead, he has only repeatedly insisted that he rejects both the continued existence of a “Hamastan” and its replacement with a “Fatahstan” run by the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Yet Gantz doesn’t have a viable plan either. His proposal — replacing Hamas with an “international civilian governance mechanism” that includes some Palestinian elements, while maintaining overall Israeli security control — is so far-fetched that its practical significance is to continue the war indefinitely. In other words, exactly what Netanyahu and his far-right allies want.

The same can be said of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who was Gantz’s closest ally in the war cabinet. Gallant reportedly walked out of a security cabinet meeting last month when other ministers castigated him for demanding that Netanyahu rule out prolonged Israeli civilian or military control over Gaza. But the defense minister’s alternative proposal is essentially the same as Gantz’s: to establish a government run by non-Hamas “Palestinian entities” with international backing — which no Palestinian, Arab, or international actors will accept. 

It’s true that Gantz and Gallant have also demanded that Netanyahu prioritize a deal with Hamas to bring back the hostages, while the prime minister is dragging his feet. But this apparent disagreement also collapses under scrutiny: any deal would entail a significant, if not complete, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a months-long, if not permanent, ceasefire. Such a scenario would result in one of two possibilities: a return to Hamas rule, or the reimposition of the PA — both of which are unacceptable to Gantz and Gallant on the one hand, and Netanyahu and his far-right allies on the other.

So why does the Israeli right see the fundamentally incoherent proposals of Gantz and Gallant as an existential threat? The answer goes far deeper than disagreements over the question of Gaza’s “day-after.” What Gantz and Gallant are implicitly acknowledging, and Netanyahu and his allies refuse to admit, is that Israel’s decades-old “separation policy” has collapsed in the wake of the October 7 attacks. No longer able to maintain the illusion that the Gaza Strip has been severed from the West Bank and thus from any future Palestinian political settlement, Israel’s leaders are in a bind.

From Separation to Annexation

Israel’s separation policy can be traced back to the early ’90s, when, against the backdrop of the First Intifada and the Gulf War, the government began imposing a permit regime on Palestinians that limited travel between the West Bank and Gaza. Such restrictions intensified during the Second Intifada and culminated in the aftermath of Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas’s subsequent rise to power.

Most Israelis thought that Israel had left Gaza and therefore no longer bore any responsibility for what happened in the Strip. The international community largely rejected this stance and continued to view Israel as an occupying power in Gaza, but the Israeli government consistently shirked its responsibility for the enclave’s residents. At most, the government was willing to grant Palestinians travel permits to enter the West Bank or Israel on special humanitarian grounds.

When Netanyahu returned to the premiership in 2009, he worked to entrench the separation policy. He expanded the rift between Gaza and the West Bank by channeling funds to the Hamas government in the Strip, based on the belief that dividing the Palestinians geographically and politically would limit the possibility of an independent Palestinian state. 

This, in turn, has paved the way for Israel to annex part or even all of the West Bank. When Yoram Ettinger, the Israeli right’s demographic “expert,” was asked in 2021 how he would deal with the fact that between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there are roughly the same number of Jews and Palestinians, he explained that “Gaza is not in the game and is not relevant … The area in dispute is Judea and Samaria.”

David Friedman, the pro-annexation U.S. ambassador appointed by Donald Trump, agreed that after the withdrawal from Gaza, only the question of the West Bank remained relevant. “The evacuation [of Israelis] from Gaza had one salutary effect: it took 2 million Arabs out of the [demographic equation],” he said in 2016. By removing Gaza from the conversation, the former ambassador explained, Israel could maintain a Jewish majority even if it annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to its Palestinian residents.

A Strategic Power Vacuum

One of Hamas’s stated reasons for the October 7 attack was to shatter the illusion that Gaza is a separate entity, and to return the Strip and the entire Palestinian cause back to history. In this, it has undoubtedly succeeded.

However, even after October 7, Israel has largely continued to ignore the connection between Gaza and the West Bank, as well as its centrality to the Palestinian struggle as a whole. Israel has consistently refused to articulate a coherent plan for the “day after” because doing so necessarily requires addressing the Strip’s status within the broader Israeli-Palestinian context. Any such discussion fundamentally undermines Israel’s carefully cultivated separation policy.

In addition to its utter brutality, Israel’s current assault on Gaza differs in important ways from previous wars. Never before has Israel allowed a territory under its military control to go essentially ungoverned. When the Israeli army first occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, it immediately established a military government that assumed responsibility for the civil administration of the lives of the occupied residents. When it occupied southern Lebanon in 1982, it didn’t dismantle the existing Lebanese government; after establishing a “security zone” in 1985, Israel handed over responsibility for civilian affairs to a local militia.

This stands in stark contrast to the current operation. Despite the fact that Israel effectively controls large parts of Gaza, Israel treats Gaza’s 2.3 million residents as though they are living in a vacuum. 

For obvious reasons, Israel sees the Hamas government that ruled the Strip for 16 years as illegitimate — but it doesn’t view the PA, which administers parts of the West Bank, as a suitable alternative. Such a scenario would fully undermine Israel’s separation policy: the same Palestinian entity would govern both occupied territories, and Israel would face greater pressure to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state. 

So long as the power vacuum in Gaza exists, the right can achieve what it wants: the war can continue, Netanyahu can prolong his time in office, and there can be no real possibility of opening peace negotiations, which even the Americans now seem eager to restart. The messianic-nationalist right also wants to maintain this limbo because it opens the door to the possibility of so-called “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from Gaza, which is National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s ultimate wish, or to the “total annihilation” of Gaza’s population centers, which is Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s goal. Both believe that red-roofed Israeli settlements lie at the other end of this period of limbo.

Two Visions for Gaza

The army, however, seems tired of this vacuum. For them, it promises only endless fighting with no achievable goal, burnout among soldiers and reservists, and a mounting confrontation with the Americans, with whom Israel’s defense establishment has a uniquely close relationship. The invasion of Rafah only heightened the army’s displeasure. 

Israel’s takeover of the Rafah Crossing with Egypt has further undermined the idea that it has no responsibility for what happens in Gaza. Gallant correctly recognized that control of the Rafah Crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor have brought Israel closer to establishing a military government in the Strip: without intending to, and certainly without admitting it, Israel appears on the precipice of governing Gaza like it governs the West Bank.

Gantz and Gallant have reacted to this situation similarly. Both are in close contact with the United States, and are also more exposed to pressure from the hostages’ families whose support continues to grow among the Israeli public. Both understand very well that the continued refusal of Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich to discuss the “day after” prevents any possibility of reaching a deal for the hostages’ release, and sentences them to a slow and certain death in Hamas’ tunnels.

Gallant and Gantz’s proposals for Palestinian rule are not serious, and cannot be accepted by any respected Palestinian, Arab, or international body. But they are enough to challenge the preferences of Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir for eternal limbo, to provoke their unholy rage, and to undermine the stability of the government.

Gantz and Gallant’s statements also express an unconscious admission that Israel currently faces only two real possibilities. The first is a settlement that recognizes Gaza as an integral part of any Palestinian political entity, which would involve the return of the PA and the establishment of a united Palestinian government. The alternative is a war of attrition, which the messianic right hopes will end with the expulsion or annihilation of the Palestinians, but which will more likely end just as the First Lebanon War did: an Israel withdrawal under sustained military pressure and the entrenchment of a skilled guerrilla force on Israel’s border.

*

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

Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call.

Featured image is from The Jerusalem Post

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

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

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

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

***

Neither the US nor Russia wants Ukraine in NATO, each for different reasons, yet the US wants to continue militarizing Ukraine so that it can keep waging NATO’s proxy war on Russia while Russia wants to demilitarize Ukraine in order to end Ukrainian-emanating NATO proxy threats to its security.

Zelensky celebrated his country’s new security pact with the US on Thursday as “bring[ing] our relations to the level of a true alliance”, but the reality is that it’s just a consolation for the US not approving Ukraine’s NATO membership, which would give it much more meaningful mutual defense commitments. The full text can be read here while the fact sheet can be read here, and upon doing so, the reader will learn that the US is simply formalizing the support that it’s been giving Ukraine since February 2022.

There’s no obligation for the US to dispatch troops to Ukraine if it enters into another round of hostilities with Russia sometime after the ongoing one finally ends. To be sure, NATO’s Article 5 doesn’t obligate the same either, but the US would be under much more pressure to directly aid Ukraine if it were an official military ally, which is why Russia was always so strongly opposed to that country’s membership. The latest pact therefore just maintains Ukraine’s role as NATO’s anti-Russian proxy.

As was observed in mid-January after Ukraine reached its first such agreement with the UK, “Ukraine’s Hoped-For ‘Security Guarantees’ Aren’t All That They Were Hyped Up To Be”. The precedent established by that pact set the stage for all those that followed, including this latest one with the US. The bombshell that Biden dropped in early June about how peace in Ukraine “doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO”, leaves no doubt that the US prefers keeping that country outside of the bloc.

From the American perspective, Ukraine has much more strategic utility functioning as NATO’s anti-Russian proxy than as an official military ally which the US would then feel pressured to directly support in the event of another conflict with Russia due to the public’s interpretation of Article 5’s commitments. In other words, NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine would end if that country joined the bloc, but from Russia’s perspective, Kiev could unilaterally resume it in order to provoke a serious crisis.

Neither the US nor Russia wants Ukraine in NATO, each for different reasons, yet the US wants to continue militarizing Ukraine so that it can keep waging NATO’s proxy war on Russia while Russia wants to demilitarize Ukraine in order to end Ukrainian-emanating NATO proxy threats to its security. It’s the natural friction between these two’s goals that’s driving the ongoing conflict, which is expected to drag on since they’re unable to achieve their maximum objectives but also don’t want to curtail them either.

NATO can’t strategically defeat Russia through Ukraine due to its loss in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition”, which now sees Russia producing three times as many shells at one-quarter of the cost, so it can only settle for perpetuating the proxy war until Russia achieves a breakthrough. As for Russia, it can’t fully demilitarize Ukraine since NATO could conventionally intervene to asymmetrically partition the country if a breakthrough occurs, thus keeping part of Ukraine militarized under NATO’s umbrella.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned scenario could lay the basis for a ceasefire agreement if NATO forces remain west of the Dnieper while Ukraine withdraws its heavy weaponry over the river to demilitarize the eastern bank that politically remains under Kiev’s control. Russia might consider the massive buffer zone which would be created in the latter’s wake to be an acceptable compromise on its maximalist objective of demilitarizing all of Ukraine so long as NATO tacitly recognizes its new borders.

Although NATO is loath to take responsibility for any part of Ukraine due to the US wanting to avoid creating the fait accompli of that country’s membership in the bloc, it might settle for this “sphere of influence” on those terms after all that it’s invested thus far than risk losing it. The US’ newly clinched security deal with Ukraine also increases the odds of this happening since there’s now more pressure than ever on the US to prevent Russia from inflicting a strategic defeat on NATO through Ukraine.

Ukraine’s de facto membership in NATO, which would occur if part of the country came under its control in the asymmetrical partition scenario that was described, would still pose the same strategic dilemma that the US and Russia both wanted to avert by keeping it outside of the bloc for different reasons. It would therefore be incumbent on the US to force its proxy to withdraw its heavy weaponry deeper inside Western Ukraine in order to reduce the chances of it unilaterally striking Russia to provoke a crisis.

Returning to each side’s perspective that was earlier touched upon, the US’ compromise would be to abruptly halt its proxy war and tacitly recognize Russia’s new borders, while Russia’s would be to accept that part of Ukraine will remain militarized but only in exchange for a massive buffer zone. While this trade-off is rational and pragmatic, it can’t be taken for granted that their policymakers have the political will to pursue it, let alone that they’re even aware of this proposal to begin with.

There’s also the danger that World War III could break out by miscalculation during the brief partition phase of this scenario if it’s carried out ad hoc between NATO, Russia, and Ukraine. That’s why it’s imperative for a truly neutral third party like India to help coordinate the first’s intervention up to the Dnieper, the second’s restraint in not maximally exploiting the breakthrough that could trigger the aforesaid, and the third’s withdrawal of heavy weaponry over the river in that event.

Best-case scenarios rarely transpire so it would likely be that the sequence of events mentioned above would largely play out ad hoc, though with a select group of countries individually working to convey each side’s red lines to the other in order to help control mutual escalations. If NATO crosses the Dnieper or Russia exploits its breakthrough to once again march on Kiev or even Odessa, then their counterpart might escalate in self-defense (falsely perceived in NATO’s case) and thus provoke a serious crisis.

It’s only if NATO-Russian tensions remain manageable in the breakthrough-intervention scenario that the Ukrainian part could come into play with the bloc then ordering Kiev to withdraw its heavy weaponry over the river in order to complete the country’s asymmetrical partition by creating a massive buffer zone. That said, NATO might not make such an order or Kiev could refuse, in which case Russia would likely continue advancing until NATO crosses the Dnieper or Ukraine withdraws its heavy weaponry.

Circling back to the lede, while the US’ security pact with Ukraine is indeed consolation for not approving its NATO membership, this deal paradoxically increases the possibility that Ukraine will become a de facto NATO member despite the US wanting to avoid that through these means. The US would be more pressured than ever to approve a conventional NATO intervention if Russia achieves a breakthrough instead of risk losing all of Ukraine, which could result in part of it coming under NATO’s control.

By formalizing the US’ existing support for Ukraine, which is aimed at perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia, the US raises its reputational stakes in the conflict to the point where it couldn’t accept Russia inflicting a strategic defeat on it by fully demilitarizing Ukraine. It’s therefore more likely than ever to either directly intervene if Russia achieves a breakthrough or at least authorize its NATO allies to so, thus escalating everything towards uncertain ends that can either result in a ceasefire or World War III.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

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

***

During late May, the Nigerian Labor Congress (NLC) called upon its members to stay away from work in order to demand a raise in the minimum wage and for a price cut in the cost of electricity.

In recent years the rate of inflation in this West African state has skyrocketed to the point where today the exchange rate stands at 1,503 in the local currency, the Naira, to one United States dollar.

Although the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the most populous state on the African continent with 218.5 million people and is rich with crude oil and natural gas, the country is reeling from what workers describe as “starvation wages.” Costs for fuel and electricity have accelerated since the government of President Bola Tinubu eliminated subsidies after taking office in 2023. The annual rate of inflation in Nigeria is calculated at 33%. (See this)

A campaign for raising the minimum wage has been met with strong resistance by the Tinubu administration along with various state governments throughout the vast country. The NLC and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) issued an ultimatum in late May saying if the government did not take immediate measures to raise the wages of workers, they would call for a general strike.

In a memorandum from the Secretary General of the NLC, Emmanul Ugboaja, to all of its affiliates issued on June 2, called for a nationwide strike until their demands were met. The message to the workers read in part:

“This is to inform you of the commencement of the proposed indefinite nationwide strike beginning on Monday, June 3, 2024, as a result of the failure of the Nigerian state to agree on a new national minimum wage and subsequently pass it into law before the end of this month as they were notified; reverse the hike in electricity tariff without consulting the stakeholders as required by the law to N225/kwh back to N66/kwh and to stop the apartheid categorization of Nigerian electricity consumers into bands.” 

NLC President Joe Ajaero told the national government that the unions wanted a definitive signed agreement. He said that they would not accept a verbal assurance through a phone call or letter.

Similar labor actions were carried out during October of 2023. However, due to the continuing rise in the cost of living, the agreements reached with the federal government eight months ago are now meaningless.

Ajaero in a statement to the media stressed that:

“As of today, there is no minimum wage for Nigerian workers. Technically, the minimum wage had expired on the 18th of April. As of now, we are operating without any law backing up the minimum wage. They were talking about a 100 per cent increase. That is what they have offered, but the 100 per cent increase amounts to one loaf of bread per day for 30 days. They (the government) are not looking at the quality or the value of what they are offering to us…. If we take even the N600,000 we are proposing today, by next week, it will not make any impact. So, we have to look at them holistically and see what we can do to save the working class in Nigeria. We are not doing a strike that will be one month without a bite. I’m not sure where you have labor centers in a country embarking on a strike for one month and you don’t listen to them.” 

In conjunction with the NLC and TUC, other unions in critical sectors of the national economy had notified their members to comply with the strike. These labor organizations included the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG); National Union of Electricity Employees (NUEE); Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria (MWUN); and National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees (NUBIFIE).

This is the fourth strike since the Tinubu administration took office. As a result of these industrial actions, the power grid was shut down along with the main airports inside the country.

Government offices, schools and banks were closed between June 3-4. Although domestic flights were grounded, international flights continued to fly in and out of the country.

Despite these declarations from the union leadership, after one day, the NLC and the TUC suspended their strike saying they would continue discussions with the government over the period of one week. This deadline expired on June 10 without an agreement which is acceptable to the workers.

The government promised to increase the minimum wage. However, the actual pledge by the federal government amounts to approximately $40 U.S. dollars per month.

Impact of Nigerian Economic Crisis on Other Regional States

Nigeria provides countries in the West Africa region with power supplies which are vital to the normal functioning within these states. Due to the necessity of carrying out maintenance on the natural gas pipelines and power grids, Ghana, Benin, Togo and other states have been inflicted with reductions and outages.

Popularly described as “load shedding”, the Ghana government announced that over the next three weeks, the country would be impacted by cuts to the electrical power supplies.

In a report published by the Nigerian Chronicle, the infrastructural problems in the country will affect the capacity of regional states to provide regular service to their populations. This article notes:

“Power outages are anticipated to endure for three weeks in parts of Ghana due to a scarcity of supply from Nigeria. According to a statement from the state electricity company, the cause of the temporary stoppage was maintenance work at an unnamed Nigerian gas supplier. Ghanaians have experienced years of frequent power outages, and they even have their own term, ‘dumsor,’ which means on and off in the Akan language. Power demand has consistently increased over the last two decades, owing to rising urbanization and population development. The state-owned power company in Ghana has announced that load-shedding will be used to distribute available supply as efficiently as feasible. ‘We wish to assure the public that we are collaborating with other stakeholders… to ensure minimal impact of the reduction in gas supply on consumers,’ the Electricity Company of Ghana said on Thursday (June 13) in a joint statement with the Ghana Grid Company. The companies promised to handle the disruptions effectively so that important services were not disrupted during the period of reduced gas supply. It comes just two months after President Nana Akufo-Addo stopped electricity supplies to Togo, Burkina Faso, and Benin due to supply issues. Power shortages have worsened in recent years as the country faces its worst economic crisis in a decade.” 

These problems undoubtedly are hampering economic and public activities throughout the West Africa region. If industrial sites and other institutions such as small businesses, schools and healthcare facilities do not have adequate power supplies, it will have broad implications for these societies as a whole.

Even though the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the 15-member regional organization, says it is committed to greater cooperation and integration, these objectives appear to be far from realization. Western imperialist influence within leading ECOWAS states represents a major impediment to resolving the problems related to power supplies to the entire region.

In recent months, three Sahel states, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, have withdrawn from ECOWAS due the threats made against the military governments which took power away from imperialist-backed political leaders. These administrations have formed an Alliance of Sahel States and have refused to return to the ECOWAS grouping despite the lifting of sanctions.

During 2023, Tinubu of Nigeria was encouraged by France and the U.S. to mobilize a regional military force to invade neighboring Niger to reinstall the overthrown imperialist-backed administration of President Mohamed Bazoum. However, public opposition throughout the West Africa region to such a scheme doomed the interventionist proposal to failure.

Consequently, the only real solution to the regional economic crises is a firm break with the dependency upon the western capitalist governments. The African Union (AU) 2063 plan for integration and economic development cannot be achieved absent of continental planning independent of imperialist domination.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author