Archives: Articles

By Kim Petersen

Interview with author Wei Ling Chua

The G7 has recently wound up its meeting in Hiroshima, and the participants joined to affirm their fear of the Threat of China. British media reported that prime minister Rishi Sunak said: “China poses the biggest challenge to global security and prosperity of our age with the ‘means and intent to reshape the world order’.” The global septet spoke of “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling” from China. This was prudent because decoupling from the world’s leading manufacturing base would risk plunging all economies into recession. China leads the world in so many facets of production, particularly high technology: high-speed rail, rocket technology, their own space station, lunar and Martian probes and rovers, quantum computing, AI, robotics, bridge building, tunnel construction, chip production, hypersonic missiles, laser weapons, military armaments, nuclear technology, and on and on. Could it be that the Chinese economy is not as sturdy as it seems to be?

I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of Democracy: What the West can learn from China and Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, his forecast for the Chinese economy.

Kim Petersen: In a recent article, “Why China Can’t Pull the World Out of a New Great Depression,” strategic risk consultant F. William Engdahl writes, “… in real physical economic production, China has left the USA and everyone else in the dust. Therefore, the future course of industrial production in China is vital to the future of the world economy.”

He writes that steel production is “the single best indicator of a growing real economy” for which China crushes the competition. China leads in coal production, rare earth mining and processing, motor vehicle production, as supplier of essential cement for construction, aluminum production, and copper consumption. Engdahl adds, “The list goes on.”

Then Engdahl identifies a problem: “A huge problem with China’s economic model over the past two decades has been the fact that it has been a debt-based finance model massively concentrated on real estate speculation beyond what the economy can digest.” He points at the inflated housing market, rising unemployment, the dubiousness of official figures for total state debt, and the lack of transparency for financial information.

It is expected that there would be bumps along the road in the development of what was once, not so long ago, a very poor country compared to the economic colossus that China has become today. In addition to the commodities exported worldwide, China has also garnered much skepticism for its growth and development over the years, and yet China has always managed to steam ahead. China has a planned economy, and assuredly the mandarins have contingency plans for the unexpected.

What is your take on the Engdahl article?

Wei Ling Chua: I think the author lacks an understanding of the CCP series of policies and reforms, and he relies too heavily on the crusader agenda-based line-of-thinking.

Unlike western, Japanese, USSR development that relied heavily on imperialism, expansionism and looting

1) In the first 30 years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the sources of finance were mainly from the agricultural sector, and the hard work, delegation and sacrifices of the entire population to rebuild the nation.

The Mao era was the hardest era in the history of the PRC, as the country just managed to hold together the entire nation with virtually nothing (no technology, no money, a 90% illiteracy rate, a divided population, a population hungry and in poor health with a super short average life-expectancy of 36 years, a hostile international environment (Korean war, Sino-India war, USSR border war, plus western sanctions, and in the 1960s USSR sanctions as well).

However, Mao managed to win the Korean war with mainly foot soldiers armed with rifles and hand grenades, helped Vietnam to chase away the US occupier, and defeated India and the USSR in skirmishes. China worked herself into the UN to replace the nationalist government as the only legitimate government of China. It also completed the first stage of the Chinese industrial revolution with all types of light industry (self-made household appliances, processed food), an active agriculture sector, fisheries, etc, and heavy industry such as producing trucks, cars, buses, trains, atomic bombs, satellite, missiles, and all type of other military weapons, construction technology…

2) over the next 30 years, China financed her economic reform via opening up with massive foreign investment plus massive land mortgage financing to fund all types of infrastructure across the country.

But, unlike the rest of the developing countries, China used cheap land and labor to attract foreign investment to build factories, and used her own land allocation as a guarantee to print money and provide loans for building infrastructure, commercial and residential property, and therefore, not incurring too much foreign debt. So, most of China’s debts are domestic and are outside of foreign control.

3) Since Xi came into power, his zero tolerance towards corruption and successful anti-corruption policy very much ensured the country’s continued smooth operation with high efficiency and less waste. This is a most vital element in any nation’s development and future prosperity (whereas all western countries are down down and down at the moment due to legalised corruption in the name of lobbying, political donations, speech bureaus, privatisation, etc)

Xi’s centralised medicine approval strategy has successfully reduced all drug prices by up to more than 90%, and hence china was able to introduce sustainable nationwide medicare coverage. Such a policy freed up people’s savings for domestic consumption. This economic generator is a pillar of any advanced country.

Under Xi, the average wages of the nation basically more than doubled.

Yes, like the rest of the world, the real estate market and tax on property transactions are major sources of government revenue. But Xi knew that if the real-estate market was allowed to continue being controlled by a handful of billionaires to reap speculative profits then the housing prices would keep rising. So, he openly told the nation that housing is for people to live, not for speculative profit. He cracked down on irresponsible real estate giants controlling too much real estate and using them to mortgage and buy more. Finally, this caused some collapse in overheated pricing. But unlike the US, there is no too-big-to-fail company in China; Xi froze these troubled giant companies from issuing dividends to shareholders, and made the owners sell their own assets to repay the interest and loans, sell their overseas companies and assets, and then domestic assets to repay the loans. And when the state bails out a company, all those assets return back to the people; i.e., state control.

The author also failed to take in a lot of things that have taken place in China.

4) Yes, there are debt issues in China, but debts should be distinguished between good debt and bad debt:

Across the west, they keep printing money to give away to political donors in exchange for personal benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, they also give away money to voters to win votes. These are bad debts as they produce no future return for the masses.

But, for China, the debts transform into infrastructure domestically and overseas. The outcome is apparent: more and more regions and countries with Chinese investment enjoy economic prosperity; hence, they help China to continue enjoying prosperity despite western decoupling policies.

The winning of trust and friends across the world will only pave the way for China’s Belt and Road win-win strategy to ensure mutual prosperity even without the West. We are now witnessing that the BRICS’s GDP is bigger than that of the G7, and the Chinese economy has been bigger than the entire EU (the combined GDP of 27 countries) since 2021.

Besides, the rise of China’s high-tech economy are obvious: due to China’s superiority in EV car technology, China has just replaced Japan as the world’s biggest new car exporter (the world number 1 in EV car exports), solar technology exports as well, infrastructure exports, ship building etc, and lately, overtaking the US in military armament exports to places like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Thailand… etc. Consider also the growing popularity of the RMB as a reserve currency. It is important to note that China managed to achieve these feats without firing a single shot; it’s all about investment in education, R&D, development of infrastructure, and a policy of win-win.

China’s future is very bright with the coming development, export of chips, nuclear power plants, and reunification with Taiwan. At this moment, the world has seen China managing to finally create a peaceful and Chinese-friendly Central Asia, Russia, Middle East, and ASEAN (excluding the Philippines under Marcos). We also notice that almost all African countries and Latin American countries are also very much preferring China over the West. This peace dividend will help create an entire region surrounding China to move towards the world’s biggest economic block developing in peace and harmony. It will become a magnet for the rest of the world.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer.

26 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dan Lieberman

Israel still has plenty of land for population expansion and its preference to expand by stealing land from Palestinians indicates that nonchalantly making others invisible is a metaphor for making them physically extinct.

An unusual and pleasant experience occurred when I attended the webinar book launch of Never Again: Germans and Genocide after the Holocaust, authored by Dr. Andrew Port, Professor of History at Wayne State University. Skeptical of Germany’s anxiety in remaining identified with the genocidal Nazi past and its servile attempts to gain Jewish approval by assisting Israel, I audaciously framed a question for Dr. Port, “You say never again, but Germany supports Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. How do you reconcile that hypocrisy?”

I admit that the question was poorly expressed and can be misinterpreted; Germany does not support Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people; Germany has contributed to Israel’s oppression and simmering genocide of the Palestinian people. In addition to German government reparations payments, estimated at $60 billion, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) sponsors the second-largest scientific research in Israel and German scientists represent the largest group of foreign scientists working in Israel. Between the years 2009-2020, the FRG accounted for 24 percent of Israel’s arms imports. Included in the weapons deals were submarines, which can be equipped with missiles, and four German-made corvette warships for patrolling the coast.

From Germany’s Relations with Israel: Background and Implications for German Middle East Policy, Congressional Research, January 19, 2007.

In 1999 and 2000, in perhaps the most high-profile German arms shipments to Israel since German unification, Germany financed 50% of the costs for three “Dolphin-class” submarines designed specifically for the Israeli navy. In August 2006, the German government committed to deliver and finance one-third of the costs, approximately 1 billion Euros ($1.3 billion), for two more submarines by 2010.

By not admitting that its assistance to Israel has dual use, Germany flirts between contributing and supporting Israel’s oppression — strengthening Israel economically and militarily and enabling donated and other resources to be made available to oppress the Palestinians. The FRG jumped to supporting the oppression when a majority of legislators in the Bundestag voted in favor of a motion to label the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement “as an entity that uses anti-Semitic tactics to fulfill its political goals.”

Knowing that moderators do not relish provocative questions, I did not expect my question would be fielded. To my surprise, Dr. Andrew Port, the book’s author interrupted the moderator and noted the question. Here are his words, as accurately as I could transcribe them from the posted video.

Dr. Polk: There`s a question about um, Germany and support for the Palestinian people. That was the first question and I am happy to respond to that even though you may not want me. Is that okay?

Moderator: Of course, please?

Dr. Polk: Yeah, it’s not the first time. So for those of you who can’t see, um, Dan has written, “You say never again, but Germany supports Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. How do you reconcile that hypocrisy?”
I would say this, I used to be, I used to react to the Germans say, very allegedly to this claim that the Israelis were committing genocide in Israel. The more I did research and the more I learned about the UN genocide convention, I certainly can see why some people would make the case. And I’m not going to comment on that whether or not I do think it’s, um, it’s genocide. Um, but it is certainly a legitimate, um, question is, is it hypocrisy? Well, you know, I, I think, um, it’s not something that I Iooked at. I focused on Cambodia, on Bosnia, and Rwanda and I think it would be very interesting for someone to examine how Germans, uh, talk about it. Yeah, obviously work has been done on this and you know, Dirk Moses with this German catechism that he published, which led to a major debate has brought this topic out into the open. I, l, l think there’s a lot to be. So there is a hypocrisy. Well, you know Germans are in a very difficult position there and you can imagine, you can imagine what it would be like for the Germans to accuse Israelis of genocide, and l think we have to have an understanding for, for the past and for the, the difficult situation you know they face.

The professor displayed bravery in going out of script and expressing his thoughts on a challenging topic — is Israel committing genocide against the Palestinian people? My observation is that he was slightly equivocal, wanting to let the audience know that, by UN Genocide Convention, Article II, the charge is true but not willing to state his agreement. The question remains bogged in debate and polemical exercises that resolve nothing. Genocide never receives agreement until the deadly crime has culminated Then comes the usual soul searching, accusations, recriminations, and a chorus of, “Who can predict the future,” followed by “never again,” and followed by a genocide happening again.

Predicting the future is not difficult when a pattern of events of a contemporary situation compares favorably with those of an earlier period. Carefully study history, find previous events that duplicate contemporary events, trace the earlier history to its climax, and, voilà, assuredly the contemporary events will evolve with the same trajectory. Unless an external occurrence modifies the situation, similar circumstances most likely lead to similar conclusions.

A religious group feels constantly persecuted and desires to preserve its identity. Members band together and seek a new place to live their unique social and communal life in a promised land. After sputtering failures, the group, sponsored by investments and not by a national government, manages to establish itself on already inhabited foreign soil and attract adherents, financial assistance, and adventurers.

The group purchases land from the native population, establishes industries, seeks to win resources, competes with, and begins to pauperize the indigenous people. Friction leads to battles and total war. Security replaces reconciliation and becomes an excuse for the victors to impose severe restrictions on the defeated, steal their property, and oppress them. The native population is decimated and forced from its ancestral lands.

The previous narrative describes the Pilgrim voyage to their promised land and approximates the Zionist incursion into the Levant. An addition to the narrative has the native Pokanoket tribe initially assisting the Pilgrims in their endeavors. After being wary of the newcomers to his territory, the Pokanoket leader, Massoit, came to regard the English as benefactors. The Mayflower boat, perceived as a ‘walking island,’ the iron plows, muskets, and other material goods entranced the Natives and they saw themselves benefiting from a cordial relationship with the Pilgrims.

Palestinians were also willing to cooperate with the Zionists. Khalil Sakakini, a well-known Palestinian nationalist, essayist, and poet initially concurred.

I see no reason why the Jews and the Arabs cannot work together in this great country. There is room for all, and up to the present time there have been no serious quarrels. At the beginning, what little dissension arose has smoothed out, and I believe it is the desire at least of the younger and vigorous and open minded group of Arabs to do everything they can to work amicably with the Jews. We must say that the Jews have brought considerable progress, and as they are mainly spend­ing their own money in developing the country, it would be wrong not to give them credit for efforts in trying to make a future and better Palestine.

After 40 years of a peaceful and helpful relationship, it became evident that the Pilgrims intended to reduce the indigenous people to servitude.

The Pilgrims bought their land from the Natives, but the Natives expected to continue to use the land’s resources.  The colonists built fences where no fences had ever been before, closing off their property to make the land their own. Tensions had long existed due to the two cultures different ways of life.  Colonists’ livestock trampling Native cornfields was a continuing problem.  Competition for resources created friction.  Regional economic changes forced many Natives to sell their land.”- Nathan Philbrick, Mayflower.

The wanting “all or nothing” Zionists pursued a similar path as the wanting pilgrims and their sponsor, Massachusetts Bay Colony. On November 3, 1918, a day after the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, a delegation of the Muslim-Christian Association handed a petition signed by more than 100 notables to Ronald Storrs, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration military governor.

We noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and overrunning the streets shouting words, which hurt the feelings and wound the soul. They pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our Fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them. These are words which displease the heavens.  How do the Jews expect Palestine to be a national home when the Muslims and the Christians never asked that it should be a national home for those of them who are not inhabitants of Palestine?  We Arabs, Muslim and Christian, have always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries as much as we sympathized with the persecuted Armenians and other weaker nations. We hoped for their deliverance and prosperity. But there is a wide difference between this sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation in our country, to be made by them a national home, ruling over us and disposing of our affairs. We Muslims and Christians desire to live with our brothers, the Jews of Palestine, in peace and happiness and with equal rights. Our privileges are theirs, and their duties are ours.

The significant result of the Massachusetts Bay Colony settlements was the genocide of the local tribes, which led to the mass extermination of Native tribes throughout North America.

By violently expelling approximately three-quarters of all Palestinians during the period of 1947-1949, the Zionists set the stage for a genocide of the Palestinian people. In 1967, following Israel’s victory in the 6-day war, Israel displaced an estimated additional 300,000 Palestinians. Afterward, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank treated the Palestinians as if they were not there, giving little heed to the Palestinian need for resources, homes, water, agriculture cultivation, infrastructure, and institutions. The only time Israel gives attention to the Palestinians is when they want to take something from them, harass them, or injure them. Israel still has plenty of land for population expansion and its preference to expand by stealing land from Palestinians indicates that nonchalantly making others invisible is a metaphor for making them physically extinct.

Let those skeptical of the eventual genocide respond to questions: “Being continually encroached and reduced to diminishing living space, agriculture, water, and resources, what will happen with the Palestinians in the future?” If life becomes unbearable, where will they find a bearable life? With no leadership or nationality, how can Palestinians maintain ontological security, which is “a stable mental state derived from a sense of continuity in regard to the events in one’s life.” The latter two words are more than an esoteric expression. They define what the Palestinians lack and most need. The absence of ontological security accelerates the deterioration of the Palestinian community, a process caused by the severe Israeli repression.

The other doubt of an ongoing genocide cites the presence of six million Palestinians in Israel and the territories. Reports have about 6 million killed during a few years of the World War II Holocaust. Occurring behind enemy lines during a world war, and without the surveillance and communications available today, the WWII Holocaust was difficult to confirm and prevent. With present-day observation and communication tools, it seems implausible that an oppressor can bring about another holocaust and murder 6 million people in a similar manner and in a short period. Implausible, but not impossible; an accepted statistic has 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered in 100 days in the Rwanda genocide. Unfortunately, even today, in full view of the world, genocide can be done by several means. At this moment, foreign aid prevents the ultimate tragedy and keeps the Palestinian community alive.

According to figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aid to Palestinians amounted to more than $40 billion between 1994 and 2020. The Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction totals its foreign aid in 2020 at 1.13 billion dollars, a hefty sum considering that the GDP of Mexico is 1.15 billion dollars. By replacing what should be Israel’s legal and financial commitments as an occupier power to its occupied with their financial assistance to the Palestinians, the U.S. taxpayers and other world peoples subsidize Israel’s theft of Palestinian property and the infrastructure created to oppress the Palestinians, another example of how the Zionists deceive the world. This foreign aid begs the questions, “What will be the fate of the Palestinians if the aid is completely cut,” and “Can it continue forever?” Will the Palestinians live at subsistence levels or will Israel meet its commitments as an occupying power and give attention to Palestinian needs? Given the Zionist past of deceit, lying, trickery, knavery, and criminal behavior, the former is most likely and, with its occurrence, the genocide will escalate. Discussing an anticipated method by which a country can initiate the destruction of a minority within its borders. is unpleasant. Not being aware is worse than feeling unpleasant.

One way to accomplish the deadly deed is by decreasing birth rates and increasing death rates, done by exiling youth, population control, and causing psychological problems that lead to physical problems. The latter is a daily activity that has been visited upon the Palestinians for decades — permanent and flying checkpoints, roadblocks, forcing families into basements while Israel military sleeps overnight in the house, stopping cars and beating the adult male, arbitrary and unjust detentions, punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative, allowing tilling of fields and tending of flocks only at prescribed times and specified entry places, and many, many other deliberate mechanisms that wound the Palestinian psyche and diminish ontological security.

If the population decreases by 5 percent annually, in 14 years, the population is halved, and, in 50 years, the population decreases to 10 percent of its initial amount. By these methods, the Palestinian population can be reduced from 6 million to 600,000. The remaining Palestinians will be faceless and wandering people among the many millions of Israelis.

Not wanting to know or not accepting what is obvious are compounded by not being able to handle the horror of the situation and not knowing what to do about it, which places the situation in the same category as previous genocides. The time has arrived to break tradition.

Reciting what to do is exceedingly complex and beyond the scope of this article. Four points:

(1)    Everything must be done peaceably and within the law. The problem to be faced is that if the thrust is succeeding, adversaries resort to violence and lawless activities.

(2)    The United States, Great Britain, and Germany are the principal culprits in setting the stage for the genocide of the Palestinian people. Their governments must be shamed and changed.

(3)    The Jewish people are identified with committing the genocide. They and their synagogues should realize they must redeem themselves or face an eternal backlash for their support of  Zionist Israel, which calls itself, “the Jewish state,” and has disgraced Judaism.

(4)    Institutions, such as PBS and many “think tanks” should purge themselves of pro-Israel elements who use the institution to campaign for Israel, which, indirectly campaigns for the liquidation of the Palestinians.

Considering the prolonged suffering of the Palestinian people, almost 75 years of unendurable oppression, the genocide is superfluous. In the PBS documentary, America and the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt says, “If ‘the time to stop a Holocaust is before it happens,’ then it means you have to lay on the table the ingredients that go into it. Maybe these ingredients don’t add up to it… But if you’re seeing people assembling, in the kitchen, the same ingredients, you’ve got to say, you cannot wait until the meal is prepared.”

Well, Ms. Lipstadt and the rest of the world, don’t wait, inform the authorities in the government you now inhabit to get on the ball and thwart the predicted genocide of the Palestinian people.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, economics, and politics at https://dlieb10gmailcom.substack.com/.

26 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

By recognising that the question of NATO enlargement is at the centre of this war, we understand why U.S. weaponry will not end this war. Only diplomatic efforts can do that.

George Orwell wrote in 1984 that “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Governments work relentlessly to distort public perceptions of the past. Regarding the Ukraine War, the Biden administration has repeatedly and falsely claimed that the Ukraine War started with an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war was provoked by the U.S. in ways that leading U.S. diplomats anticipated for decades in the lead-up to the war, meaning that the war could have been avoided and should now be stopped through negotiations.

Recognising that the war was provoked helps us to understand how to stop it. It doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion. A far better approach for Russia might have been to step up diplomacy with Europe and with the non-Western world to explain and oppose U.S. militarism and unilateralism. In fact, the relentless U.S. push to expand NATO is widely opposed throughout the world, so Russian diplomacy rather than war would likely have been effective.

The Biden team uses the word “unprovoked” incessantly, most recently in Biden’s major speech on the first-year anniversary of the war, in a recent NATO statement,, and in the most recent G7 statement. Mainstream media friendly to Biden simply parrot the White House. The New York Times is the lead culprit, describing the invasion as “unprovoked” no fewer than 26 times, in five editorials, 14 opinion columns by NYT writers, and seven guest op-eds!

There were in fact two main U.S. provocations. The first was the U.S. intention to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia in the Black Sea region by NATO countries (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, in counterclockwise order). The second was the U.S. role in installing a Russophobic regime in Ukraine by the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014. The shooting war in Ukraine began with Yanukovych’s overthrow nine years ago, not in February 2022 as the U.S. government, NATO, and the G7 leaders would have us believe.

Biden and his foreign policy team refuse to discuss these roots of the war. To recognise them would undermine the administration in three ways. First, it would expose the fact that the war could have been avoided, or stopped early, sparing Ukraine its current devastation and the U.S. more than $100 billion in outlays to date. Second, it would expose President Biden’s personal role in the war as a participant in the overthrow of Yanukovych, and before that as a staunch backer of the military-industrial complex and very early advocate of NATO enlargement. Third, it would push Biden to the negotiating table, undermining the administration’s continued push for NATO expansion.

The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.

U.S. diplomats and Ukraine’s own leaders knew well that NATO enlargement could lead to war. The great US scholar-statesman George Kennan called NATO enlargement a “fateful error,” writing in the New York Times that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defence William Perry considered resigning in protest against NATO enlargement. In reminiscing about this crucial moment in the mid-1990s, Perry said the following in 2016: “Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time, we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that NATO could be a friend rather than an enemy … but they were very uncomfortable about having NATO right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

In 1998, then U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and now CIA Director, William Burns, sent a cable to Washington warning at length of grave risks of NATO enlargement: “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

Ukraine’s leaders knew clearly that pressing for NATO enlargement to Ukraine would mean war. Former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovych declared in a 2019 interview “that our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”

During 2010-2013, Yanukovych pushed neutrality, in line with Ukrainian public opinion. The U.S. worked covertly to overthrow Yanukovych, as captured vividly in the tape of then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt planning the post-Yanukovych government weeks before the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland makes clear on the call that she was coordinating closely with then Vice President Biden and his national security advisor Jake Sullivan, the same Biden-Nuland-Sullivan team now at the centre of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Ukraine.

After Yanukovych’s overthrow, the war broke out in the Donbas, while Russia claimed Crimea. The new Ukrainian government appealed for NATO membership, and the U.S. armed and helped restructure the Ukrainian army to make it interoperable with NATO. In 2021, NATO and the Biden Administration strongly recommitted to Ukraine’s future in NATO.

In the immediate lead-up to Russia’s invasion, NATO enlargement was centre stage. Putin’s draft US-Russia treaty (December 17, 2021) called for a halt to NATO enlargement. Russia’s leaders put NATO enlargement as the cause of war in Russia’s National Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022.. In his address to the nation that day, Putin declared NATO enlargement to be a central reason for the invasion.

Historian Geoffrey Roberts recently wrote: “Could war have been prevented by a Russian-Western deal that halted NATO expansion and neutralised Ukraine in return for solid guarantees of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty? Quite possibly.” In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine reported progress towards a quick negotiated end to the war based on Ukraine’s neutrality. According to Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, who was a mediator, an agreement was close to being reached before the U.S., U.K., and France blocked it.

While the Biden administration declares Russia’s invasion to be unprovoked, Russia pursued diplomatic options in 2021 to avoid war, while Biden rejected diplomacy, insisting that Russia had no say whatsoever on the question of NATO enlargement. And Russia pushed diplomacy in March 2022, while the Biden team again blocked a diplomatic end to the war.

By recognising that the question of NATO enlargement is at the centre of this war, we understand why U.S. weaponry will not end this war. Russia will escalate as necessary to prevent NATO enlargement to Ukraine. The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement. The Biden administration’s insistence on NATO enlargement to Ukraine has made Ukraine a victim of misconceived and unachievable U.S. military aspirations. It’s time for the provocations to stop, and for negotiations to restore peace to Ukraine.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

26 May 2023

Source: johnmenadue.com

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Dragan Vujicic

The West’s support of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine should come as no surprise. Historically, powerful U.S. financial interests not only supported Nazi Germany as well as Bandera Nazism in Ukraine. In some regards the totalitarian practice of Neo-nazism is akin to the doctrine of the Neocons as formulated in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC).

And Serbia, beware, you are the only country in Europe which has courageously stood up against US pressures.

This and much more is revealed in this interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, economist, professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa and editor of the renowned anti-globalist Global Research website.

***

Dragan Vujicic: How do you view the war between Ukraine and Russia?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky: The war in Ukraine ended before it began. The Russians literally destroyed their Air Force and Navy at the very outset in February-March 2022.

Also Russia has strategic control over a large part of the Black Sea and total control of the Sea of Azov. Turkey which is a NATO heavyweight is an unspoken ally of Russia. Turkey controls the southern flank of the Black Sea.

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

Now, after these recent Pentagon “leaks”, there is ample evidence that Ukraine is running out of ammunition and that they do not have (even with US-NATO support) the military capabilities to confront the Russians.

Hopefully there will be a cease-fire to save lives. I think that the war could end in a month or so and negotiations might begin. But there are obstacles to reaching this objective. There is a crisis in bona fide diplomacy. The Biden administration refuses to enter into dialogue with Russia with a view to reaching a cease-fire and peace negotiations.

In fact, the biggest problem is that politicians in America believe in their own propaganda. They think they can defeat Russia by using nuclear weapons. Nukes have been re-categorized. Tactical so-called low yield mini-nukes have been slated for use in the conventional war theater. If nukes are used that would lead us into a WW III scenario.

I have researched the history of nuclear weapons, starting with the Manhattan Project (the creation of the American atomic bomb). Many people simply do not know that the Manhattan Project in the immediate wake of Hiroshima, Nagasaki in August 1945 was intended to wage a nuclear war against the USSR, at a time when the Soviet Union and the U.S. were allies.

DV: Are you talking about plans for nuclear war after 1945?

PMC: What I am referring to is the U.S Blueprint of September 15, 1945 according to which the US War Department planned to drop more than 200 atomic bombs on 66 cities of the Soviet Union. This is not mentioned in the history books. See:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1945-Atomic-Bomb-Production.pdf 

DV: What are the nuclear capabilities of the U.S’s main rivals today?

PMC: Russia and China are on par with the U.S. with regard to nuclear capabilities. The U.S. has a 1.3 trillion dollar project assigned solely to nuclear weapons, which constitutes Big Money for the US-NATO defense contractors. We are at a dangerous crossroads. Western politicians believe that they can win a nuclear war.

DV: With the war in Ukraine, Nazism has reemerged, now they call it neo-Nazism?

PMC: The U.S. financial establishment have supported the Nazis since the outset of the Third Reich. Wall Street, The Federal Reserve  and the Bank of England supported Adolf Hitler’s election campaign  for Chancellor in the wake of the Weimar Republic. They had business interests in Nazi Germany. There were powerful US economic interests behind the Third Reich including Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush.

Moreover, it is common knowledge that you do not go to war if you do not have Oil and Hitler started Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, a military operation for which he needed a huge amount of fuel. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil  of  New Jersey (today’s Exxon) supplied Hitler’s troops until 1945. Without the sale of U.S. oil to Nazi Germany, Operation Barbarossa would not have taken place.

Before Harry Truman became president in 1945, when he was senator he stated his position as follows:

“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany”

DV: Today the world is moving towards de-dollarization and the Multipolar world is born.

PMC: I think many analysts and journalists do not understand what de-dollarization means. The dollar as a currency is not the main issue. What is at stake is the macroeconomic apparatus of dollarised countries and their relationship with Wall Street and the Washington consensus.

The Federal Reserve, Wall Street  et al,  generate dollar denominated debts, which then enables them to enforce Neoliberal economic policies Worldwide.

The central banks of dollarized Third World countries are invariably defunct, controlled by Wall Street, the IMF and the World Bank.

De-dollarization requires “Exit” from the institutions which sustain the (dollar denominated) Debt Crisis. These institutions include the IMF and the WB (which control the central banks of the Global South), not to mention the regional development banks and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

As far as the BRICS member states are concerned, India, South Africa and Brazil are heavily dollarized, ie. in the stranglehold of IMF conditionalities. They are not sovereign nation-states. What is required is for sovereign countries to have their own central bank which does not depend on external creditors.

DV: Is Russia considered the bearer of the current de-dollarization?

PMC: Their post-Cold War financial and banking institutions are in many regards still aligned with the West. Let us recall that the neoliberal agenda was imposed on Russia under the proxy Boris Yeltsin government in the early 1990s.

I should also mention the fate of Russia’s gold and dollar deposits in Western banks. They are significant for the Russian government. When Russia’s “Special Military Operation” began in February 2022, about 200 billion dollars of Russia’s Central Bank reserves deposited in Western banks were frozen. And that does not include the billions of dollars of assets of Russia’s “oligarchs” deposited in the Western banking system. Why did they not attempt to withdraw those funds?

DV: Is Russia, from a military standpoint better organized than the USA and NATO.

PMC: The US and European companies which produce weapons for US-NATO, (i.e. the military industrial complex) are entirely in private hands. In practice, the wars waged by US-NATO are privatized, they serve private corporate interests under the label of “national security”.

The “owners of war” are primarily interested in profit and more profit, from the proceeds of weapons sales, rather than the performance of the advanced weapons systems which they sell to US-NATO.

Militarily, Russia is ahead of US-NATO in many regards, specifically with regard to its air defense system (S-400) which is superior to the U.S. Patriot (ADS).

DV: There are many stupid and dangerous things in that war?

PMC: Yes, let’s point to the actions of the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC), which accused President Putin of the war crime of forcibly transferring Ukrainian children to Russia. This is  obvious nonsense. The  ICC did not blame Russia for aggression against a neighboring country, but for removing children from war-torn areas in Donbass, ultimately to save the lives of those children. It’s idiocy and the ICC is totally corrupt.

DV: When talking about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, what is the relevance of the Davos WEP agenda?

PMC: Russia’s relations with the World Economic Forum are contradictory. Eight months before the February 2022 “Special Military Operation”, Russia participated in a scenario with the WEF on procedures and actions in the event of a major cyber attack.

The “Davos players” are routinely in contact with Russia’s financial establishment. In turn Russia’s financial and banking interests including Russia’s Central Bank have retained their connections with the Washington Consensus as well as with the IMF and the World Bank.

Putin is aware that there are intruders in Russia’s financial system.

DV: What to do when the UN is absolutely blocked?

PMC: It must be known that the UN was at the outset a project which was very much influenced by powerful banking interests including the Rockefellers. I should say that the UN system at the outset of the post war era had international legitimacy and acceptance as an instrument of peace. I have worked for a number of UN agencies as a consultant.

Now the UN is de facto privatized and coopted, partner of the WEF, serving the interests of the financial elites. I would characterize them as “sold out”. They have betrayed the United Nations.

As outlined by the late Padre Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann (who was President of the UN General Assembly in 2008-2009), the UN system needs to be completely restructured with a view to restoring the true spirit of internationalism.

Padre Miguel was my mentor. In this regard, I have worked in Asia, China, Latin America… and I realize just how people from all walks of life in different continents share the same values. Everyone should live in justice and with justice.

DV: How do you view Serbia’s international position?

PMC: Exceptional. Serbia has not caved in to the pressures of Washington, i.e. sanctions on Russia.

DV: Serbia is still being pressured to give up Kosovo and Metohija?

PMC: Based on my experience and from the documents on the international status of Kosovo. I do not think it is possible to negotiate the possibility of Kosovo and Metohija gaining the status of a sovereign nation state.  Kosovo and Metohija belong to Serbia under international law. It is true that there is a US military base there but that is another topic for discussion.

DV: What is another reason why the Republic of Kosovo must not be internationally recognized?

PMC: The leader of the KLA, Hashim Thaci in 1998-99 was wanted by Interpol, for crimes committed in the 1990s. He was used by US-NATO to create a mafia state.

Hashim Thaci and Madeleine  Albright, (1998)

It’s ironic that Thaci is now being held in prison and tried for crimes against humanity committed in the late 1990s. Why didn’t they arrest him in 1999, when they knew everything?

22 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Countercurrents Collective

The global debt increased by $8.3 trillion in the first quarter of the year to a near-record high of $305 trillion amid an aggressive tightening of monetary policy by central banks, the Institute of International Finance (IIF) has revealed.

According to its quarterly Global Debt Monitor (GDM) report on Wednesday, the reading is the highest since the first quarter of last year and the second-highest quarterly reading ever.

“Global debt is now $45 trillion higher than its pre-pandemic level and is expected to continue increasing rapidly,” said the IIF in the GDM.

After peaking near 360% in 2021 the debt-to-output ratio has stabilized around 335%, above pre-pandemic levels.

The IIF warned that the combination of such high debt levels and rising interest rates had pushed up the cost of servicing that debt, prompting concerns about leverage in the financial system.

The IIF also noted the growth of shadow banking, or credit intermediation from non-bank financials.

“Shadow banks now account for more than 14% of financial markets, with the majority of growth stemming from a rapid expansion of U.S. investment funds and private debt markets.”

Specifically, the report mentioned the “large portion” of corporate debt held by life insurance companies, “raising concerns over their increased exposure to less liquid assets.”

“With financial conditions at their most restrictive levels since the 2008-09 financial crisis, a credit crunch would prompt higher default rates and result in more ‘zombie firms’ – already approaching an estimated 14% of U.S.-listed firms,” the IIF said.

Despite concerns over a potential credit crunch following recent turmoil in the banking sectors of the U.S. and Switzerland, government borrowing needs to remain elevated, the finance industry body stressed.

According to the report, aging populations and rising healthcare costs continue putting strain on government balance sheets, while “heightened geopolitical tensions are also expected to drive further increases in national defense spending over the medium term,” which would potentially affect the credit profile of both governments and corporate borrowers.

“If this trend continues, it will have significant implications for international debt markets, particularly if interest rates remain higher for longer,” the IIF cautioned.

The report showed that total debt in emerging markets hit a new record high of more than $100 trillion, around 250% of GDP, up from $75 trillion in 2019. China, Mexico, Brazil, India and Türkiye were the biggest upward contributors, according to the IIF.

As for the developed markets, Japan, the US, France and the UK posted the sharpest increases over the quarter, it said.

The report partly focused on the effects of last year’s rapid rise in rates in some bank balance sheets.

“Although recent bank failures appear more idiosyncratic than systemic,” the report said, “fear of contagion has prompted significant deposit withdrawals from U.S. regional banks.”

The IIF voiced its concern that tighter lending practices among smaller banks would hurt some businesses and households harder.

“Given the central role of regional banks in credit intermediation in the U.S., worries about their liquidity positions could result in a sharp contraction in lending to some segments.”

The report showed 75% of the IIF’s emerging market (EM) universe saw an increase in debt levels in dollar terms in the first quarter, with the overall figure crossing over $100 trillion for the first time.

Some of the larger EMs have benefited from the relative weakness of the dollar, which has attracted investors to their local currency debt. But for others access to markets has been harder or non-existent on either tighter spreads as rates rose in developed markets or fast-rising borrowing costs.

“With the interest rate differential between EMs and mature markets diminishing, EM local currency debt is less appealing for foreign investors,” the IIF said.

World Economic Forum said on May 16, 2022 (What does ‘global debt’ mean and how high is it now?, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/what-is-global-debt-why-high/):

Borrowing was already surging before the pandemic – but COVID-19 and now the war in Ukraine have pushed global debt to new highs.

About a year ago IMF warned: Countries need to work together to tackle this debt mountain in order to safeguard global stability and prosperity.

“In the end, the impact will be most sharply felt by those households that can least afford it,” it adds.

Experts warn: Low-income countries and households suffer the most from high debt levels.

Global debt is borrowing by governments, businesses and households.

In 2021, the global debt was a record $303 trillion, according to the IIF.

That was a further jump from record global debt in 2020 of $226 trillion, as was reported by the IMF in its Global Debt Database.

The current debt wave is the world’s fourth since 1970, the World Bank says.

Emerging and developing economies have been the worst hit by previous debt crises, World Bank research shows.

If countries default on their debts, it can cause panic on financial markets and economic slowdowns.

For businesses, meeting repayments on high levels of debt can mean less money is available to invest. Insolvency is also a risk for businesses that are unable to pay back their loans.

For households, high levels of debt can force them to cut some areas of spending, such as food or fuel.

When low-income countries get into debt distress, it is associated with “protracted recessions, high inflation and fewer resources going to essential sectors like health, education and social safety nets, with a disproportionate impact on the poor”, the World Bank says.

Debt distress is when a country is unable to fulfill its financial obligations, such as repayments due on its debt. The IMF and World Bank believe 60% of low-income countries are at or near this point.

As food and fuel prices soar, governments may need to give more grants to households in need to help them cover costs, particularly in low-income countries, the IMF says.

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.

22 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Teddy Ogborn

As the planet’s biggest investor, with $9 trillion in assets under management and an army of tech-savvy analysts trained on the scent of easy money, numbers are BlackRock’s bread and butter. A giant with such an enormous appetite should find room for all kinds of facts and figures – but this one’s a bit of a picky eater.

The BlackRock Annual General Meeting is on May 24th, and resolutions submitted by shareholders will be going to a vote. The board advocates for or against those resolutions in a statement released last month. One resolution they unanimously recommend shareholders vote against is Item 7 – the ‘Impact Report for Climate-Related Human Risks of iShares U.S. Aerospace and Defense Exchange-Traded Fund’ resolution, submitted by CODEPINK.

The resolution simply calls on BlackRock to research and publish the climate impacts of this industry-wide investment offering (ticker code ITA). Among the dozens of companies represented in ITA are Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing – companies that profit directly from mass killings. Lockheed Martin developed the bombs Saudi Arabia used on a Yemeni school bus full of children in 2018, and Raytheon is the contractor behind the expansion of the US’ nuclear arsenal.

But the significant climate impact of these companies often goes unmentioned. By providing ballistic missiles and aerospace tech to the Pentagon, these companies fuel the latter’s carbon emissions – making the U.S. military the planet’s largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gasses, and thus a leading cause of our present climate crisis. This is one of many reasons that BlackRock’s continued acknowledgement of the severity of the climate crisis is at serious odds with the investment platforms it sells.

If BlackRock’s CEO and chairman Larry Fink has a catchphrase, it’s “we are a fiduciary to our clients.” In the guise of displaying the firm’s humble loyalty to investors, this line is usually delivered with an exculpatory tenor: “Sure we call the shots, but it’s our investors who pull the trigger.” For a corporation that is second only to the US and China in terms of the financial power it wields, this is an extremely convenient way to pass the buck. But Fink’s M.O. is to publicly play both roles – on one hand a duty-bound servant, on the other, a super-powerful arbiter of global financial affairs.

For years, activists have worked to expose the problem with these incongruencies, and it’s paid off. In his 2020 letter to investors, Fink underscored the reality of the climate crisis, stating plainly that “climate risk is investment risk” in order to highlight the trillions of dollars in damage and lost revenue that will stem from fossil-fueled disasters. After coming under intense fire for the firm’s continued investment in the dirtiest fossil fuel sector, Fink pledged to cut thermal coal from some of its offerings. Climate activists got a glimmer of hope. Could this signal the beginning of the end for climate-killing investments?

But since 2020, BlackRock has shown that Fink was full of hot air. The firm included gaping loopholes in the new coal rules, rendering them moot. The total of those thermal coal investments now hovers around $110 billion, and BlackRock is the planet’s second-biggest funder of fossil fuels. Climate-conscious language has evaporated from Fink’s annual letters and public statements. But that performative display of climate goodwill in 2020 exposed the truth: BlackRock is capable of partially decarbonizing the global economy. It’s not a question of ability, as it tends to claim, but one of will. Its board’s statement against CODEPINK’S resolution is a case study in the firm’s duck-and-weave approach when faced with this fact.

In short, the board argues that ITA’s information page already provides all the “sustainability characteristics” an investor could possibly want to see. The board points out that the “implied temperature rise,” or ITR, associated with the operation of the companies is clearly displayed. What the board leaves out speaks volumes: the ITR is listed as “>3.0° C.” In other words: the sector is slated to exceed emissions levels that are consistent with global warming of 3 degrees Celsius. This is a stunning figure for several reasons.

A temperature rise above 3 degrees Celsius won’t produce “more-April-beach-days” weather. Three degrees means melted ice caps, the death of the Amazon rainforest, mass migration of climate refugees, global food shortages – that “>3.0° C” means the end of life as we know it. The board kindly informs us that ITR shows whether the index is “progressing toward the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.” But the Paris goal is 1.5 degrees Celsius, and you’d never know that from reading the board’s statement.

A popular ethics thought experiment goes like this: You are presented with a button. If you press it, a random person will be killed; but you’ll be a million dollars richer. Do you press it? In obscuring the effects of a greater-than-3-degrees future, BlackRock omits the catch. The question BlackRock poses to its clients is: “Would you press a button for a million dollars?” The response is predictable and perilous.

Further, the board’s statement says that the ITR metric is provided by “third party” research  – that third party in this case is Morgan Stanley, another notoriously major player in the financial sector. Morgan Stanley also provides an ESG (or Environmental, Social, and Governance) score for the fund. It assigns ratings from “AAA” – “leaders” in ESG – to “CCC” – “laggards.” In a move that would be laughable were it not so troubling, Morgan Stanley recognizes that ITA will help to produce an apocalyptic level of warming of at least 3 degrees – yet gives ITA the triple-A score, a blue ribbon for ethical investment.

Setting aside a much-needed investigation of Morgan Stanley’s methodology, it is abundantly clear that investors are being seriously misled by the presentation of ITA as “sustainable.” BlackRock, per its opposition statement to CODEPINK’s resolution, believes it has no obligation to remedy the issue. For a company that prides itself on providing accurate numbers to clients so they can make informed investment decisions, it is shocking how intent BlackRock is to underplay the climate impacts of ITA.

Few people would choose to sit idle in a house that is burning – but statistically few people, I’d wager, truly understand their home is burning. It remains to be seen whether I’m right across the board – whether erstwhile investors in ITA (nukes and all) would reallocate their money if they knew what a “greater than 3” world will look like.That isn’t my decision to make, but neither is it BlackRock’s.

BlackRock’s clients deserve to know the climate impact of ITA. This isn’t just a reasonable request, one that is well within BlackRock’s wheelhouse and purview – it’s a moral obligation to investors.

Teddy Ogborn is an activist and organizer based in New York City with a BA in Comparative Literature from Haverford College.

19 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Michael Welch and Dr. Naomi Wolf

“I speak as the granddaughter of a woman who lost nine siblings to the Holocaust. We have an obligation to speak out against murder in our own communities.” – Naomi Wolf [1]

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Martin Luther King (cited as favorite quote by Magda Havas) [2][3]

A smoking gun?

Reams of data are coming out of Pfizer’s internal documents, released under court orders from a Texas judge. The judge ruled that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the data guiding the decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve the approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine “is of paramount public importance.” [4]

The documents were released at a rate of 55,000 pages per month. One of the individuals rolling up her sleeves and digging into the numbers alongside a team of reportedly hundreds of doctors, scientists, oncologists, medical fraud investigators and other experts was Naomi Wolf. The facts she revealed, based on Pfizer’s own documents showed shocking statistics, including 1223 fatalities during a three month period, half of the adverse events, which included fatalities, occurred within 48 hours of the injection, and the vaccine was killing adults, babies and fetuses with adverse events ranging from 3 to 1 to 8 to 1. [5]

Pfizer had documented these and other hazards by February 2021 and rather than inform the public, they urged people, including pregnant mothers, with intensive campaigns to get the jab. [6]

Wolf has spoken up on this subject. In numerous articles online, and in the media interviews. [7]

But earlier this month, on May 9, the UK media regulator Ofcom found the broadcaster GB News of an interview between Naomi Wolf and host Mark Steyn on October 4 2022 in breach of Broadcast rules. Ofcom said the interview guest was relaying views that would be potentially harmful to the public. Ofcom received 422 complaints about the show’s comments being “dangerous” and including “misinformation” that was “unopposed” by Steyn. [8]

Is a journalist citing information from a FOIA requested release of information and bringing it to the attention of the public an example of “dangerous” information harmful to the public being aired?

Another interesting twist to the COVID “pandemic” is the interesting case of 5G installations around the globe that were happening at the same time as the virus was allegedly spreading around the globe.

A number of studies, for instance here, here, and here, document illnesses attributable to radio frequency radiation. This is not necessarily to say that the virus wasn’t hazardous. However, the two dynamics can act in a synergistic way to complicate the lives for those subjected to both in intense ways.

On this week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour we talk to Naomi Wolf about her research into Pfizer’s internal files and about the immense act of what she calls censorship recently directed toward her and Mark Steyn by Ofcom, and the UK government actually linked to it. We also speak with Magda Havas, an emerita professor from Trent University and specialist in environmental toxicology who has spoken of the harms associated with radio frequency radiation for years. She discusses the links between COVID-19 and the rise of 5G in our communities and across the planet. Finally, we speak briefly to Dr. Brent Roussin, the Chief Provincial Public Health Officer in Manitoba about how he defends his own decisions related to COVID-19 in the face of many critics present on this program.

Dr. Naomi Wolf is a former political consultant and Co-Founder of the DailyClout, a platform that empowers democracy-building. She is the author of the best-selling The Beauty Myth, which launched her reputation as a leading voice within Third Wave feminism, and she authored the 2007 book The End Of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.

Professor Magda Havas is Professor Emerita at Trent University and a specialist on Environmental Toxicology. Dr. Havas has been an advisor to several public interest groups and educational groups concerned with the health of the environment. She is currently science advisor on EMF-related issues to several non-profit organizations.

Dr. Brent Roussin was the Chief Provincial Public Health Officer throughout the pandemic in Manitoba.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 392)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-media-regulator-ofcom-goes-after-me-mark-steyn-telling-truth/5818861
2. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/06/dan-patrick/half-true-dan-patrick-martin-luther-king-saying-li/
3. https://rumble.com/v2kcqe6-5g-and-covid-symptoms-dr.-magda-havas-saskatoon-day-3-national-citizens-inq.html
4. https://www.fdanews.com/articles/206113-federal-judge-tells-fda-it-must-make-public-55000-pages-a-month-of-pfizer-vaccine-data
5. https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-media-regulator-ofcom-goes-after-me-mark-steyn-telling-truth/5818861
6. ibid;
7. https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/naomi-wolf
8. https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-media-regulator-ofcom-goes-after-me-mark-steyn-telling-truth/5818861

19 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Peter Koenig

For almost as long as the West supplies Ukraine with weapons to kill Russians, it is known that most of these weapons – billions of dollars and euros-worth of weapons, would never reach the front, but would instead be sold on the black-market.

The West knew that from the very beginning. BBC and CNN were reporting on this calamity already in 2022. At one point BBC was reporting that up to 70% of the weaponry supplied by the West would disappear on the black market.

Of course, in the meantime all such references have been either deleted from the internet, or “fact-checked” away. The mainstream of the mainstream may not be seen or heard to say the truth. They are paid to lie or be silent.

However, there are some who speak up, who do not mind risking their reputation – but dare bringing the truth to the people. Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh is one of them. He recently spoke to Afshin Rattansi, a British broadcaster, journalist and author who presents Going Underground which is broadcast around the world, except in the UK and EU, on television stations including the RT network.

According to his data, Hersh said, shortly after the conflict started between Kiev and Moscow in February 2022, “Poland, Romania, other countries on the border were being flooded with US and allies supplied weapons which were shipped to Ukraine to support the war against Russia.”

Hersh noted that there was concern in the West, especially about Stinger shoulder-launched missiles, as they could be used to “shoot down an airplane at considerable height.”

In other words, the West was concerned that these shoulder launchers could shoot down Western civilian planes, either by accident or, of course, also on purpose, depending in who’s hands they landed.

*

So the West knew from the very beginning that most of their weaponry – paid for with US, European, UK and other so-called Western allies’ taxpayer’s money – ended up on the black market, often through what is called the “Dark Net”.

Journalist Hersh also said that “CBS wrote a story about it that they were forced to retract.” When asked why the story was withdrawn, the CBS journalists said, “We are on the side of Ukraine. We all hate Russia.”

This referred most likely to a CBS documentary, “Arming Ukraine”, aired in August 2022, in which CBS claimed that only about 30% of military aid actually reached the frontline. This part was removed, as it was taken out of similar reports by BBC and CNN.

People must not know that 70% of the weapons they paid for Ukraine to kill Russians, are going to the black market, most probably ending up in hands of terrorist groups. They would be so disappointed and risked no longer supporting their governments’ anti-Russia stance.

On many occasions, Russian official warned about Western supplied arms being smuggled outside Ukraine, causing a severe security risk. Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova estimated in October 2022, the black market at $1billion per month. See this for the full interview and this 6-min video clip (below) by “CRUX” Finland, confirming Russia’s concern of western weapons via black-market feeding world terrorist gangs.

Putin Vindicated? Western Arms For Ukraine Feeding Black Market I Finland Confirms Russia’s Claim

There is logic behind the fact that up to 70% of Western weaponry ends up on the Dark Net or directly on the black market being sold to all sorts of potential organizations, no questions asked. Amazing, isn’t it?

And the logic is that the Ukrainian army is far from being equipped to absorb and handle these masses of weaponry, some of them highly sophisticated, for which no Ukrainian soldiers were trained. But the West knows all that.

Ms. Donatella Rovera, a senior crisis adviser with Amnesty International, told CBS,

“There is really no information as to where they’re [the weapons] going at all. What is really worrying is that some countries that are sending weapons do not seem to think that it is their responsibility to put in place a very robust oversight mechanism.”

Likewise, a US intelligence source told CNN already in April 2022 that Washington has “almost zero” idea what happens to these arms, describing the shipments as dropping “into a big black hole” once they enter Ukraine.

Also, Canadian sources said that they have “no idea” where their weapons deliveries end up.

And so does Europol; they believe that some of these weapons have ended up in the hands of organized crime groups in the EU.

Russian government officials are afraid that many of these weapons are ending up in the Middle East.

According to Transparency International, Ukraine is consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt countries, if not the most corrupt country, in the world.

See this.

*

Let’s jump to another dimension. If the West knew that most of their weaponry supposedly destined for Ukraine’s war against Russia will end up on the black market and find its way eventually to terrorist groups, why did they not stop it, police it, at the borders, make sure that no weapon reaches the Dark Net or the black market?

Putting in place a rigorous security apparatus would have been worth the money to avoid more terror groups roaming the world and attacking “randomly” Western civilization.

The West did not put such a security system in place. Could it be – just hypothetically — that there was and is a special agenda behind this reckless and thoughtless behavior of the Western anti-Russian alliance?

Is this perhaps a plan to arm existing or new Western-founded terrorist groups, à la al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Islamic State and others – mind you, to be repeated, ALL created and funded by the West, mostly by the CIA, NATO and other US/UK/EU secret service organizations – so as to be ready to use these terror organization when needed by the West?

For example, to intimidate an ever-more “awakening” populace, to the terror and wars waged against people by the US/Western quest towards full hegemony?

Armed with Ukraine weaponry, commanded by CIA, NATO, or even the unelected European Commission, in accordance with “rules-based orders”, such old and new terror groups could carry out random or not so random mass killings, thereby keeping the populace worldwide in check, afraid, submissive.

This could be a new tentacle of the failing octopus, reaching around the globe for full spectrum dominance, trying to keep the illusion of US Western hegemony alive as long as possible, continuing killing and maiming people by the millions, and destroying economies – as per the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 playbook.

Like mentioned earlier, it is just a hypothesis but a real one. Nothing is beyond the intent and reach of this diabolical dark Deep State Death Cult, currently engulfing Mother Earth, her sentient beings and perhaps foremost her generous supply of natural resources.

Remember the Club of Rome’s doctrine of “Limits to Growth”, a blueprint still underpinning the agenda of the billionaires’ elite, the Cult that wants to reduce the current world population by 90%, and produces highly sophisticated man-made ENMOD-type “climate changes”, severe droughts, floods, cold and hot spells, and even earthquakes, to bring about famine, destruction of infrastructure, of economies, shifting resources from the bottom to the top and killing masses of people, genocide-style.

When we dare staring the enemy – the Antichrist roaming among us – in the eye, stepping out of the circle of fear, we may also find the way to another conscience where Light and Love reigns, leading us out of and away from the digital gulag – into FREEDOM.

*

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.

18 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Shane Quinn

Under president Barack Obama (2009–17) covert operations and raids by American military special forces intensified. Organisations like the US Special Operations Forces (SOF), Navy SEALs and CIA were infiltrating different states, violating their national sovereignty in kill/capture offensives aimed ostensibly at Islamic insurgents.

The countries targeted were those such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, etc. The kill/capture targets highlighted by Washington comprised part of a Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL), which even included some American citizens abroad deemed as enemies, and which was based on legal or extralegal assumptions according to classified information from president Obama.

The Pentagon chose to wage “unconventional war” through elite military units, through proxy forces and sabotage groups.

In executing night raids and other activities, the US special forces were often focused on countries outside of Washington’s influence, in efforts to align them with the Western liberal order. For example president George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor, had sent special forces such as the Green Berets, along with US Marine Corps troops, to the Caucasus state of Georgia where they trained Georgian military personnel (1). The goal was to turn Georgia, which borders Russia to the north, into a permanent US client nation.

John Nagl, a US lieutenant-colonel, described the kill/capture campaign as “an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine”. Nagl said that, in a 3 month period in 2010, US forces from the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) carried out 3,000 military operations in Afghanistan (2). This involved entering villages in the middle of the night, in order to kill or take prisoner Islamic militants.

From mid-2010 to mid-2011, US special forces liquidated or captured 12,000 Islamic fighters according to the US military (3). Many of the night raids were executed through faulty intelligence or recklessness, and as the months went by hundreds of innocent people and civilians were also killed. Under the leadership of General Stanley McChrystal, appointed by Obama as the top commander in Afghanistan in summer 2009, the US special forces killed or took prisoner 700 insurgent officers. In another 3 month period, from July to September 2010, US-led NATO forces executed 3,279 operations, resulting in the deaths of 293 insurgent commanders and the capture of 2,169 Islamic fighters. (4)

In July 2010, General David Petraeus succeeded McChrystal as overall commander of US-led forces in Afghanistan, as McChrystal had irreconcilable differences with the Obama administration. In a 1 year period, from 25 April 2010 to 25 April 2011, the US Special Operations Forces killed 3,200 insurgents and captured 800. Between February to May 2011, NATO purported it had carried out 1,400 operations in Afghanistan, which they said resulted in the deaths or capture of 500 “insurgent leaders” and 2,700 “lower-level insurgents” (5). These attacks, because of their often indiscriminate nature, would have again resulted in significant loss of life to non-combatants.

In 2011 president Obama authorised the construction of a network of US military bases on the Arabian Peninsula, and in the Horn of Africa (east Africa), with another base on the island of Seychelles in the Indian Ocean.

More US bases were established in central and east Africa, such as in South Sudan, Ethiopia and the Central African Republic. Obama dispatched special forces soldiers to central areas of Africa, apparently to assist in hunting down Joseph Kony, the Ugandan-born rebel commander (6). Kony was often described as “the world’s most wanted warlord” in Western media and he was never found. The US commandos have been operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

The likelihood is that, rather than the main focus being the capture of people like Kony, the US has attempted to increase its presence in Africa for strategic purposes. Hundreds of American soldiers from the Special Operations Forces have been stationed at the US military base in Djibouti, east Africa, called Camp Lemonnier, where they work under concealed identities and have co-ordinated the flight path for American aircraft and drones. About 3,200 people, including some civilians, were stationed at Camp Lemonnier where US troops have provided training to foreign militants.

 

The Camp Lemonnier base is of importance, due to its location between east Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The Port of Djibouti offers access to the Indian Ocean and Red Sea, and from Camp Lemonnier the US military can hit targets in nearby Somalia and Yemen within minutes. Washington continued to launch strikes over Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, countries which the Americans were not officially at war with. (7)

Washington was implementing a kill/capture offensive inside Pakistan, traditionally a pro-American country. An independent research organisation based in Pakistan, the Conflict Monitoring Center, estimated that the kill/capture raids in Pakistan during the 5 years up to June 2011 resulted in the deaths of 2,052 people, the majority of whom were civilians. From July 2008 to June 2011, the CIA carried out 220 attacks within Pakistan, and in doing so the CIA claimed to have killed 1,400 “suspects” along with 30 civilians. (8)

The American raids and drone strikes inside Pakistan swelled the ranks of armed radical groups, like the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. The Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid believed that, around 2011, the Taliban within Pakistan was more formidable than the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US military attacks on Pakistan and Afghanistan also boosted the legitimacy of Al Qaeda, whose members could rely on numerous safehouses in which to plan their operations.

Mistrust between the US and Pakistan increased on 26 November 2011, when NATO helicopters and aircraft bombed an outpost in northern Pakistan in an unprovoked attack, killing at least 24 Pakistani soldiers, in the Mohmand District (9). Pakistan’s government quickly retaliated, by cutting supply routes for US-NATO troops into Afghanistan, and demanded that Washington shut down its drone launch base. The Americans, despite these actions, did not want to lose Pakistan as an ally; because Pakistan, a strategically important country and nuclear power, shares borders with Afghanistan, India, Iran and China, and has a lengthy coastline which provides the Pakistanis with access to lucrative sea routes.

The US was pursuing two kill/capture campaigns inside Yemen (10). One was overseen by the CIA and the other was executed by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). General James Jones, of the US Marine Corps, said Yemen was “an embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with”. The Americans, however, were aware that Yemen like Pakistan is strategically placed, beside crucial sea lanes and the Persian Gulf’s oil reserves.

The CIA was operating as a de facto paramilitary force. On top of the CIA’s intelligence activities, it was partaking in many of the tasks assigned to the special forces. On 17 September 2001, Bush had authorised a secret presidential finding, which enabled the CIA to develop teams with the goal of catching, killing or apprehending designated insurgents in different countries.

Obama greatly surpassed Bush in the deployment of elite units, such as from the Joint Special Operations Command. In the middle of 2010, the US Special Operations Forces were present in 75 countries at that time (11). Colonel Tim Nye, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Special Operations Forces would probably be operating in 120 countries by late 2011. Unsurprisingly then, Obama had requested a 5.7% increase in the Special Operations Forces budget for 2011, amounting to $6.3 billion with a contingency fund of another $3.5 billion. By 2015 it was reported the Special Operations Forces were active in 135 countries that year, clearly a mind-boggling number. (12)

The combined population, of the US and its allies, is much lower than that of the states of Eurasia and the Global South, many of whom increasingly desire a multipolar world rather than a unipolar world governed by the US. European nations like Britain, in decline for generations and losing its sovereignty, has hung on to the coat-tails of the US empire. The American-led NATO continues expanding but this is not, as the liberal media insists, a strategic defeat for Russia or China. NATO enlargement endangers the world, including the US, which would suffer a total defeat in a nuclear war as is known.

When Obama assumed the presidency in January 2009, he was faced with the upheaval that Bush left behind. There was the very high cost and failure of the war in Iraq, and ongoing uncertainty with the conflict in Afghanistan, another distant country which most Americans had a limited understanding of.

A survey conducted by the American media in March 2012, over a decade after the US invasion of Afghanistan was launched, revealed that 69% of American adults who partook in the survey did not want their nation involved in the war in Afghanistan. Only 23% of respondents felt America was “doing the right thing” by participating in the war. Twenty-seven per cent of Americans believed the conflict “has been mostly a success for the US”, just 25% felt the fighting was progressing well, and 59% stated that it had not been a successful war. (13)

Obama decided to pursue more cost-effective methods, and which he felt would not risk as many American lives. Obama, advised by intelligence expert and CIA director John Brennan, changed the “war on terror” to a “high-tech war”. The conflicts created more jobs in the US arms industry, and shored up the tax revenues of the states where the weapons firms are based, such as in Texas, California, Virginia, Massachusetts and Maryland.

Between 2001 and 2007, the US arms companies Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing Defense, Space & Security recorded over $30 billion in yearly sales, and Raytheon and General Dynamics posted annual revenues of more than $20 billion during the same period (14). In June 2015 Obama sanctioned the National Military Strategy which outlined that Iran, Russia, China and North Korea are the countries most challenging to US interests in various regions. Yet the Pentagon’s Military Strategy conceded that none of the above countries was seeking a direct armed conflict, against the US or its allies. (15)

With Obama as president, US foreign policy continued to be focused on expansionist doctrines. In announcing a “pivot” to Asia, Obama tried to encircle and contain China with the construction of large numbers of bases in the Asia-Pacific areas, while he maintained the Pentagon military budget at over $600 billion per year. Contingency plans have been made for a US military attack on China, which is a nuclear state.

The American commander, Douglas MacArthur, had wanted to pursue a US-backed invasion of China in the early 1950s. General MacArthur, who at the time was commanding US-led forces in the Korean War, wished to extend the conflict to China in order to overthrow the communist government in Beijing. MacArthur supported the use of atomic bombs during the Korean War, but he had fallen out with president Harry Truman, and he was removed from his position as overall commander in April 1951. (16)

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects.

Notes

1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 48

2 Ibid., p. 130

3 “What is the secretive U.S. ‘Kill/Capture’ Campaign?’, PBS, 17 June 2011

4 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 130

5 “Daily brief: U.S. prepared for fights with Pakistanis during bin Laden raid: report”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 10 May 2011

6 “Obama sends U.S. military advisers to central Africa”, Reuters, 14 October 2011

7 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 136

8 Ibid., p. 138

9 “Pakistan outrage after ‘NATO attack kills soldiers’”, BBC News, 26 November 2011

10 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 213

11 “A Secret War in 120 Countries: The Pentagon’s New Power Elite”, Commondreams.org, 4 August 2011

12 “American special operations forces have been deployed to 135 countries this year alone”, The Independent, 25 September 2015

13 “Poll: Support for war in Afghanistan hits all-time low”, CBS News, 26 March 2012

14 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 132

15 “Pentagon releases National Military Strategy”, Defense News, 1 July 2015

16 “Douglas MacArthur”, Spartacus Educational, September 199 (updated November 2021)

18 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca