Friday, June 21, 2024

Tech impacts on Mother Earth

 


 

Techno-ecocide: the systematic destruction of our ecosystem by the exploitive use of technology

While many have seen advertisements promoting 5G’s speedy wireless capacities connecting everything and everyone… and promises that these smart technologies will provide a renewable energy future, scientific research and environmental advocacy efforts shows the opposite of what these profit-driven industries promise—with hundreds of scientists, climate change activists, and public health experts demanding a moratorium on the rollout of these technologies.

Our mission is to support the global movement to rein in wireless expansion on Earth, in the skies and in the ocean because it poses an immediate threat to all life. It is our hope that we will bring greater public awareness about the harms of 5G, satellites, and “smart” oceans, and start a dialogue about wiser and more balanced technology options for a safer and more life-affirming future.

Thursday, June 20, 2024

Wales (UK) opposition to U.S. space warfare radar

 


 

In this month's Global Network Space Alert podcast Bruce Gagnon interviews Roy Jones about a US war fighting radar facility planned for his beautiful natural wondrous part of Wales in the UK.

The radar called DARC would help the US and UK monitor, track and attack satellites in space used by China and Russia. Currently the UK Air Force is practicing flying high into space where during time of war they could launch anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles from the planes to knock out 'enemy' satellites.

Local residents in Pembrokeshire are currently organizing to stop the planned facility with 27 radars. The US DARC program would also have similar radars in Texas and Australia giving the Space Force the capability to monitor all the skies above our Mother Earth.

 


On June 27 PARC Against DARC will have a public meeting to discuss the entire slate of problems from the planned radars including the health risks.

A senior Israeli radiation scientist, Dr. Michael Peleg, a man whose study on highly elevated cancer rates in the very young military personnel operating Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence radar system, stands right now as perhaps the world’s most cutting-edge and renowned study into the subject of military radar. 

Dr. Peleg of Technion (the Israeli Institute of Technology) has produced an outstanding video presentation for PARC Against DARC. The video will be presented at the public meeting on June 27th, 7 PM, in Solva Memorial Hall. He will give a vital, behind-the-scenes glimpse into exactly the facts the US—the architect of both the Iron Dome and DARC—refuses to open up for scrutiny by the public, by scientists, and by the medical community.

You can reach Pembrokeshire Against the Radar on Fazebook at https://www.facebook.com/parcagainstdarc

The PARC Against DARC website is here

You can also learn more about DARC in the video just below.

 

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

German WW2 Nazi leaders went to work for US-NATO

 

Nazi Major General Reinhard Gehlen went to work for US-NATO after WW2

 

By Diana Johnstone

While the Russians and Anglo-Americans joined in condemning the very top Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials, denazification proceeded very differently in the respective zones occupied by the victorious powers.

In the Federal Republic established in the Western zones, very few officials, officers or judges were actually purged for their Nazi past.  Their official repentance centered on persecution of the Jews, expressed in monetary compensation to individual victims and especially to Israel.

While immediately after the war, the war itself was considered the major Nazi crime, over the years the impression spread through the West that the worst crime and even the primary purpose of Nazi rule had been the persecution of the Jews.  

The Holocaust, the Shoah were names with religious connotations that set it apart from the rest of history.  The Holocaust was the unpardonable crime, acknowledged by the Federal Republic so emphatically that it tended to erase all others. As for the war itself, Germans could easily consider it their own misfortune, since they lost, and limit their most heartfelt regret to that loss.

It was not Germans but the American occupiers who determined to create a new German army, the Bundeswehr, safely ensconced in an alliance under U.S. control.  Germans themselves had had enough. But the Americans were intent on solidifying their control of Western Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

 

NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay – who had been Churchill’s chief military assistant during World War II – succinctly defined its mission: “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.”


The United States government wasted no time in selecting qualified Germans for their own alliance reversal. German experts who had gathered intelligence or planned military operations against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Third Reich were welcome to continue their professional activities, henceforth on behalf of Western liberal democracy.

This transformation is personified by Wehrmacht Major General Reinhard Gehlen, who had been head of military intelligence on the Eastern Front. In June 1946, U.S. occupation authorities established a new intelligence agency in Pullach, near Munich, employing former members of the German Army General Staff and headed by Gehlen, to spy on the Soviet bloc.  

The Gehlen Organization recruited agents among anti-communist East European émigré organizations, in close collaboration with the C.I.A. It employed hundreds of former Nazis.  It contributed to the domestic West German political scene by hunting down communists (the German Communist Party was banned).  

The Gehlen Organization’s activities were put under the authority of the Federal Republic government  in 1956 and absorbed into  the  Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND or Federal Intelligence Service), which Gehlen led until 1968.

In short, for decades, under U.S. occupation, the Federal Republic of Germany has fostered the structures of the Alliance Reversal, directed against Russia.  The old pretext was the threat of communism.  But Russia is no longer communist.  The Soviet Union surprisingly dissolved itself and turned to the West in search of lasting peace.  

In retrospect, it becomes crashingly clear that the “communist threat” was indeed only a pretext for great powers seeking more power. More land, more resources. 

 

The Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, like the Anglo-American liberals, looked at Russia in the way mountain-climbers proverbially look at mountains.  Why must you climb that mountain? Because it’s there. Because it’s too big, it has all that space and all those resources. And oh yes, we must defend “our values”.

It’s nothing new. The dynamic is deeply institutionalized.  It’s just the same old war, based on illusions, lies and manufactured hatred, leading us to greater disaster.  

Is it too late to stop?

~ Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press). She can be reached at diana.johnstone@wanadoo.fr

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

I read it in the alt news....

 


Children in Palestine
(Gaza and the West Bank)
are being slaughtered in droves,
starvation, dehydration, disease,
set on fire,
beheaded, limbs blown off,
if still alive
taken to 'hospitals' with no capacity
to treat the victims.

All the while Blinken, 
Sullivan, Austin, Kirby,
the toothless self-declared
zionist Joe Biden,
and a bi-partisan 
war-mongering Congress,
fall to their knees
in subjugation
to AIPAC, Wall St,
and the MIC.

We have no real government
in the US, 
UK, EU, and
the rest of the mafia led
western entities.

How long does this go on?
Zionists continue daily
to perpetuate genocide.
 
Rumors of ceasefires
abound in western
crap media,
news conferences are held
but nothing ever changes.

The killing goes on.
Settlers take more of the
West Bank each week.
 
Parts of Syria, Lebanon,
Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
and of course all of Palestine,
are the goal of Tel Aviv's 
'Greater Israel'.

These very sick
killers 
must be stopped.

Bruce

Pine Gap’s (Australia) secret expansion

 


   The United States’ satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap has been expanded more in recent times than at any point in its history, and the Australian public has been largely kept in the dark.

 

By Peter Cronau

The United States satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap, jointly run with Australia, has been undergoing its largest and most rapid expansion ever, with 10 new satellite antennas or dishes being constructed over the past few years.

Three large satellite dishes have been built in the west of the base, in Central Australia, along with another four smaller dishes in the northern section and three new dishes in the south.

The new satellite dishes are built inside radomes, large ball-shaped structures covered with a plastic and fiberglass composite material to protect from the desert dust and sun, and from observation.

The total number of satellite radomes, smaller dishes and antennas at the base is now the highest ever, at 45, with 25 of the largest housed inside radomes and the other 20 uncovered, according to the latest research by Professor Richard Tanter, of the Nautilus Institute. 

 

Linked remotely from Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado, these new Pine Gap satellite antennas can collect an enormous amount of intelligence on missile and rocket launches, including location, size, type, likely warhead, range, speed, trajectory, tracking and target location. They operate as an integral part of the US nuclear war-fighting strategy, providing real battlefield intelligence.

The expanded thermal imaging capability to detect and track ballistic missiles through all phases of flight will play a new critical role in US battlefield operations worldwide and in upgrading missile defence for the US and Japan.

The capability, which is enabled by the new Pine Gap radomes, gives an enormous advantage to the US in countering new generation weapons in future wars, whether they be defensive or pre-emptive. Their focus in particular is the growing power of China.

The Americans cleared about 14 hectares outside the western boundary of the Pine Gap base to expand the footprint for construction of the three huge new satellite radomes.

In March 2020, contractors began land-clearing the desert oaks and spinifex, and in June foundations for the three radomes were being prepared.

Only by scrutiny of publicly available satellite photographs of the base has Declassified Australia been able to follow the many stages of construction from 2020. No announcement was made to the Australian population, no permission sought from parliament, no development application to the regional council for the works.

It is an irony that it is the same sort of capability used by the US satellites to spy on the world, that allowed the base expansion to be detected.

By August 2020 the first of the concrete foundations was finished, the second under way. All three of the foundations to support each of the 20-metre radomes holding the three new satellite antennas were completed by December 2020.

A new extended boundary fence was put up in September and the following month small concrete pads, possibly movement sensors, were in place in the ground along the boundary.

Over the course of 2021, the large number of vehicles appearing each day in the car park outside the north-east visitors’ entrance to the base betrayed the presence of building and engineering contractors and the frenetic construction work under way. Dozens of shipping containers were delivered. On some days more than 100 vehicles could be counted in the outside visitors’ car park.

Construction of the three huge satellite antennas with their radome covers took about 10 months, with the first completed by June 2021, the second in August and the third finished by October.

The base has also had major new building works in the main complex, thought to be for an expanded data centre for the collection and analysis of signals intelligence (SIGINT). The building site clearing began in March 2021, with foundations laid by August, and the roof going on in February 2022.

One of the largest radomes for the SIGINT collection was rebuilt in 2022. As I reported for the ABC in 2017, it is the SIGINT capability of the base that gives it the battlefield surveillance capability to spy on military command and data communications, as well as on personal phones and communications. It also allows the geolocation of targets for elimination, most notably by lethal drone.

The expansion of Pine Gap’s capabilities to assist a US strike on China amplifies the risk of such a nuclear war as China and the US manoeuvre in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and adjacent areas. 

 


Other parts of the base are expanding, too. In a separate compound to the south of the main section of the base, the multi-sensor Torus satellite dish has received a new sensor dish and three new small satellite dishes, likely for communication and enhanced surveillance.

The Torus system, now located in six countries, is directed at secretly gathering a massive volume of signals intelligence from most of the present 400 commercial communications satellites operated for the world’s phone, internet and data communications.

This is the collection system that US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed as using the XKeyscore analysis system, enabling the NSA to boast of its “collect it all” spying network. The expanding Pine Gap is helping the NSA to spy on the world. 

 

At Declassified Australia I reported that Pine Gap was providing intelligence to the US for use by the Israel Defense Forces, most likely focusing on the “remote launch signals for Hamas rockets, as well as any threatened missile launches from Lebanon or Iran”. The new enhanced Pine Gap radomes add to this intelligence with rapid detection and tracking of the thermal signature of launches of rockets and missiles.


However, while Pine Gap base presently has a heightened attention to Ukraine and Gaza, these limited wars are not the main aim of the huge US investment in the Australian-sited base. 

 

The development of the three new satellite antennas at Pine Gap is the subject of a new study by Professor Tanter. He says they indicate “a greater Australian involvement with US nuclear war fighting planning and operations”. The primary purpose of the new antennas is believed to be to hunt and target Chinese nuclear missile silos.


Despite the end of the Cold War, the US has never totally abandoned its “first use” nuclear policy, with US President Joe Biden saying of the policy in 2020, “the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal should be deterring – and if necessary retaliating against – a nuclear attack”.

That changed after a Pentagon-led review of US defence strategy and nuclear weapons policy. The National Defense Strategy included a revised nuclear posture review.

In March 2022, in an article in The Wall Street Journal, Biden reflected this new policy when he opened up his options by saying the “fundamental role” of the US nuclear arsenal was to deter nuclear attacks.

This “fundamental” purpose is a clear move away from the administration’s previous policy of “the sole purpose” of the use of nuclear weapons. It raises the prospect that US nuclear weapons may now be used in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners”, in response to a serious conventional attack or other non-nuclear threat.

With the US retaining this policy option to respond to a serious military threat with nuclear weapons, a pre-emptive nuclear war with China is not impossible. If this happened, Australia would be on the nuclear frontline.

Clearly the Pine Gap base, and the other main surveillance and communication bases in Australia used by the US, at Kojarena near Geraldton and at North West Cape near Exmouth, will be prime targets in any war-planning by China.

It was at the Pine Gap base in March 2022 that the US Indo-Pacific commander, Admiral John Aquilino, head of US Space Command General James Dickinson, and the deputy head of US Cyber Command, Lieutenant General Charles Moore, met to discuss boosting security cooperation in space and the cyber domain.

They reassured Australian military and intelligence officials who gathered there that Australia was “an extremely high-end partner”. 

 

Admiral Aquilino said the US and Australia would accelerate the Pentagon’s “integrated deterrence”. General Dickinson pointedly described how Australia helped the US military overcome the “tyranny of distance”: “It’s really location, location, location. This is a perfect location for a lot of the things we need to do.”

If China believes a war will turn nuclear, it may believe its only chance of survival is to shoot first and cripple the US to such an extent its retaliation is muted. De-escalation would be impossible.

The expansion of Pine Gap’s capabilities to assist a US strike on China amplifies the risk of such a nuclear war as China and the US manoeuvre in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and adjacent areas.

China knows the crucial role Pine Gap plays in locating Chinese command centres, missiles, warships and submarines, and that it is providing this intelligence to US nuclear-armed ships, submarines and bombers within easy reach of China.

Professor Paul Dibb, an academic at the Australian National University and former director of Australia’s Joint Intelligence Organisation, in a policy paper in 2022  confirmed Pine Gap was definitely a target if a conflict between the nuclear powers arose in the Indo-Pacific.

“We need to plan on the basis that Pine Gap continues to be a nuclear target, and not only for Russia,” says Dibb.

“If China attacks Taiwan, Pine Gap is likely to be heavily involved. We need to remember that Pine Gap is a fundamentally important element in US war fighting and deterrence of conflict.”

Peter Cronau is an award-winning former senior Four Corners producer and is co-editor of Declassified Australia.

Monday, June 17, 2024

NATO in the Arctic webinar

 


Webinar organized by the Global Women for Peace - United Against NATO (GWUAN)


Event description:

Moderator: Pippa Bartolotti - author and politician working with United National Anti-war Coalition and Global Women United for Peace against NATO

Opening words: Sean Conner - Executive Director of IPB

1. US, Canada, Russia - 30 min

US: Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space - Breaking Russia up to get at Arctic resources - speaks at 11:08


Canada: Tamara Lorincz - Voice of Women for Peace, WILPF - The militarization of Canada’s Arctic

Russia: Oleg Bodrov – physicist, ecologist, board member of the International Peace Bureau, Chairman of the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, St. Petersburg, Russia - Victory With Weapons is Impossible in the Atomic World

Discussion 20 min

2. Norway, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland, Finland - 40 min

Norway: Ingeborg Breines - Former Chair of IPB and UNESCO Director - The militarization especially in the Norwegian Arctic, new American bases and the Arctic Council

Sweden: Lars Drake - Environmental economist and former adjunct professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences - Natural resources in the Arctic - extraction, environment and international conflicts

Denmark/Greenland: Palle Bendsen – long time climate, environmental, anti-nuclear activist, involved in opposition to uranium mining plans in Southern Greenland. Engaged in the Danish Centre for Conflict Resolution and the Council for International Conflict Resolution, where he in 2019 authored an analysis of the “changing Arctic” - The Arctic is Changing - AGAIN

Finland: Teemu Matinpuro, executive director of the Finnish Peace Committee - Finland – NATO – DCA – the Arctic

Discussion 30 min

Supporters of the webinar:

- GWUAN (Global Women for Peace United Against NATO)
- IPB (International Peace Bureau)
- Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
- World BEYOND War

For more information you can visit: www.womenagainstnato.org\

See the Global Network's Facebook page on the Arctic issue with many available resources at: Protect the Arctic Sea from militarization & war

'Human Rights NGOs' and the Corruption of Civil Society

  


By Glenn Diesen

The organisations operating under the banner of “human rights non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) have become key actors in disseminating war propaganda, intimidating academics, and corrupting civil society. The NGOs act as gatekeepers determining which voices should be elevated and which should be censored and cancelled.

Civil society is imperative to balance the power of the state, yet the state is increasingly seeking to hijack the representation of civil society through NGOs. The NGOs can be problematic on their own as they can enable a loud minority to override a silent majority. Yet, the Reagan doctrine exacerbated the problem as these “human rights NGOs” were financed by the government and staffed by people with ties to intelligence agencies to ensure civil society does not deviate significantly from government policies.

The ability of academics to speak openly and honestly is restricted by these gatekeepers. Case in point, the NGOs limit dissent in academic debates about the great power rivalry in Ukraine. Well-documented and proven facts that are imperative to understanding the conflict are simply not reported in the media, and any efforts to address these facts are confronted with vague accusations of being “controversial” or “pro-Russian”, a transgression that must be punished with intimidation, censorship, and cancellation.

I will outline here first my personal experiences with one of these NGOs, and second how the NGOs are hijacking civil society.

My Encounter with the Norwegian Helsinki Committee

The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is one of these “NGOs” financed by the government and the CIA-cutout National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They regularly publish hit pieces about me and rarely miss their weekly tweets that label me a propagandist for Russia. It is always name-calling and smearing rather than anything that can be considered a coherent argument.

The standard formula for cancellation is to shame my university in every article and tweet for allowing academic freedom, with the implicit offer of redemption by terminating my employment as a professor. Peak absurdity occurred with a 7-page article in a newspaper in which it was argued I violated international law by spreading war propaganda. They grudgingly had to admit that I have opposed the war from day one, although for a professor in Russian politics to engage with Russian media allegedly made me complicit in spreading war propaganda.

Every single time I am invited to give a speech at any event, this NGO will appear to publicly shame and pressure the organisers to cancel my invitation. The NGO also openly attempts to incite academics to rally against me to strengthen their case for censorship in a trial of public opinion. Besides whipping up hatred in the media by labeling me a propagandist for Russia, they incite online troll armies such as NAFO to cancel me online and in the real world. After subsequent intimidations through social media, emails, SMS and phone calls, the police advised me to remove my home address and phone number from public access. One of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee recently responded by posting a sale ad for my house, which included photos of my home with my address for their social media followers.

The Norwegian Helsinki Committee also infiltrates and corrupts other institutions. One of the more eager Helsinki Committee employees is also a board member at the Norwegian organisation for non-fictional authors and translators (NFFO) and used his position there to cancel the organisation’s co-hosting of an event as I had been invited to speak. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is also over-represented in the Nobel Committee to ensure the right candidates are picked.

Why would a humanitarian NGO act like modern Brownshirts by limiting academic freedom? One could similarly ask why a human rights NGO spend more effort to demonise Julian Assange rather than exploring the human rights abuses he exposed.

This “human rights NGO” is devoted primarily to addressing human rights abuses in the East. Subsequently, all great power politics is framed as a competition between good values versus bad values. Constructing stereotypes for the in-group versus the out-groups as a conflict between good and evil is a key component of political propaganda. The complexity of security competition between the great powers is dumbed down and propagandised as a mere struggle between liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. Furthermore, they rest on the source credibility of being “non-governmental” and merely devoted to human rights, which increases the effectiveness of their messaging.

By framing the world as a conflict between good and evil, mutual understanding and compromise are tantamount to appeasement while peace is achieved by defeating enemies. Thus, these “human rights NGOs” call for confrontation and escalation against whoever is the most recent reincarnation of Hitler, while the people calling for diplomacy are denounced and censored as traitors. 


NGOs Hijacking Civil Society

After the Second World War, American intelligence agencies took on a profound role in manipulating civil society in Europe. The intelligence agencies were embarrassed when they were caught, and the solution was to hide in plain sight.

The Reagan Doctrine entailed setting up NGOs that would openly interfere in the civil society of other states under the guise of supporting human rights. The well-documented objective was to conceal influence operations by US intelligence as work on democracy and human rights. The “non-governmental” aspect of the NGOs is fraudulent as they are almost completely funded by the government and staffed with people connected to the intelligence community. Case in point, during Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004, an anti-corruption protest was transformed into a pro-NATO/anti-Russian government. The head of the influential NGO Freedom House in Ukraine was the former Director of the CIA.

Reagan himself gave the inauguration speech when he established the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983. Washington Post wrote that NED has been the “sugar daddy of overt operations” and “what used to be called ‘propaganda’ and can now simply be called 'information'". Documents released reveal that NED cooperated closely with CIA propaganda initiatives. Allen Weinstein, a cofounder of NED, acknowledged: “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”. Philip Agee, a CIA whistle-blower, explained that NED was established as a “propaganda and inducement program” to subvert foreign nations and style it as a democracy promotion initiative. NED also finances the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.

 



The NGOs enable a loud Western-backed minority to marginalise a silent majority, and then sell it as “democracy”. Protests can therefore legitimise the overthrow of elected governments. The Guardian referred to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004 as “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing” for the purpose of “winning other people’s elections”. Another article by the Guardian labelled the Orange Revolution as a “postmodern coup d’état” and a “CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days, adapted to post-Soviet conditions”. A similar regime change operation was repeated in Ukraine in 2014 to mobilise Ukrainian civil society against their government, resulting in overthrowing the democratically elected government against the will of the majority of Ukrainians. The NGOs branded it a “democratic revolution” and was followed by Washington asserting its dominance over key levers of power in Kiev.

Similar NGO operations were also launched against Georgia. The NGOs staged Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” in 2003 which eventually resulted in war with Russia after the new authorities in Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Recently, the Prime Minister of Georgia cautioned that the US was yet again using NGOs in an effort to topple the government to use his country as a second front against Russia.  Georgia’s democratically elected parliament passed a law with an overwhelming majority (83 in favour vs 23 against), for greater transparency over the funding of NGOs. Unsurprisingly, the Western NGOs decided that transparency over funding of NGOs was undemocratic, and it was labelled a “Russian law”. The Western public was fed footage of protests for democratic credibility, and they were reassured that the Georgian Prime Minister was merely a Russian puppet. The US and EU subsequently responded by threatening Georgia with sanctions in the name of “supporting” Georgia’s civil society.

Civil Society Corrupted

Society rests on three legs – the government, the market and civil society. Initially, the free market was seen as the main instrument to elevate the freedom of the individual from government. Yet, as immense power concentrated in large industries in the late 19th century, some liberals looked to the government as an ally to limit the power of large businesses. The challenge of our time is that government and corporate interests go increasingly hand-in-hand, which only intensifies with the rise of the tech giants. This makes it much more difficult for civil society to operate independently. The universities should be a bastion of freedom and not policed by fake NGOs.


~ Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Substack

Sunday, June 16, 2024

G7: the decline of the West

 

 

By Manlio Dinucci (Grandangolo on Byoblu TV, Italy)

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 hot spots." 

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 six 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 fueling 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.

Sunday song with bonus

 


 

 

Saturday, June 15, 2024

Empire blow-back report: Economic implications of failing $$$$$

 


 
Andy Schectman is the owner of Miles Franklin, a precious metals investment company, that he founded together with his father in 1989. 

Andy and I discuss, the expiration of the petrodollar agreement, what it means for the US and the looming banking crisis.

Really important stuff discussed here.

Les poules rentrent à la maison pour se percher...

Ukraine Rejected Path to Peace on Western Orders, Putin Reveals

 


Sputnik

NATO has sought to turn Ukraine into a staging ground and has done everything it could to pit nation against nation, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. 

“There have been five, now six, rounds of NATO expansion. They tried to turn Ukraine into their staging ground, to make it anti-Russia. To achieve these goals, they invested money, resources, bought politicians and entire parties, rewrote history and educational programs, nurtured and cultivated neo-Nazi and radical groups. They did everything to undermine our state ties, to divide and pit our peoples against each other,” Putin said at a meeting at Russia's Foreign Ministry in Moscow. 

He emphasized that the Ukrainian crisis is not a conflict between two nations but a result of the West’s aggressive policy.

“Let me say this right off the bat, the crisis regarding Ukraine is not a conflict between two states, much less two peoples, caused by some problems between them... The matter is different, though. The roots of the conflict are not in bilateral relations. The events unfolding in Ukraine are a direct consequence of global and European developments at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. It's the West's aggressive, unscrupulous, and absolutely reckless policy that has been pursued for all these years, long before the start of the special operation," he explained. 

Putin pointed out that if the conflict had been solely about disputes between Russia and Ukraine, then the mutual history, culture, spiritual values, and the millions of familial ties that both peoples share would have facilitated a fair resolution. 

Russia had initially sought a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis, but all proposals put forth were ultimately rejected. 

“We took the Minsk agreements seriously, hoping to resolve the situation through a peaceful process and international law,” he said. Moscow expected this would address the legitimate interests and demands of Donbass [Russian ethnic region of eastern Ukraine] and secure the constitutional status of these regions, along with the fundamental rights of the people living there. However, he added, “But everything was ultimately rejected.”

 


Russia, in spite of seeking to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, was, nonetheless, deceived and misled. 

“The ex-German Chancellor and former French President, essentially co-authors and, as it were, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, later admitted that they never intended to fulfill them. They just needed to buy time to build up the Ukrainian armed forces, and to supply them with weapons and equipment. They simply deceived us once again,” Putin remarked.

Putin highlighted that Russia did not start the war in Ukraine, rather, it was Kiev that launched military assaults against its own citizens who declared independence.

The Russian leader declared that those who assisted Ukraine in its punitive operation against Donbass are the aggressors. 

 



“Russia did not initiate the conflict [with Ukraine]. That was the Kiev regime. After the residents from a part of Ukraine, in line with international law, had declared their independence, they [the Kiev regime] launched military operations and have kept them going ever since. This is an act of aggression, given that the right of these territories to declare independence has been recognized. Those who have supported the Kiev regime's military machine all these years are accomplices of the aggressor," he clarified.

Friday, June 14, 2024

Irish standing firm with Palestine

 


Palestinian supporters organised a demonstration in Dublin, the capital of Ireland, demanding sanctions against Israel. Dozens of people attended the demonstration organised in front of the Irish Parliament. The demonstrators called on the Irish government to impose sanctions on Israel, which continues its attacks on Gaza. 

The demonstrators, who put yellow chairs and baby models on the ground to represent the babies and children killed in the Israeli attacks on Gaza, held banners reading "Families slaughtered", "Do not allow armament through Ireland" and "Expel the Israeli Ambassador". 

They also chanted "Israel, you can't hide how many children you killed today". Karen Moynihan, one of the participants of the demonstration, told the AA correspondent that artists, health workers, teachers and activists from many parts of the country participated in the demonstration and tried to show their absolute support for the Palestinians.

Thursday, June 13, 2024

Israel and the Misjudgement of Reality

 

Rafah


By Alastair Crooke

The hard truth is that the Resistance has understood the reality of the situation better than their western counterparts.


On all fronts, the Israeli internal paradigm is fracturing; and externally, the West is itself fissuring, and becoming a pariah on the global stage. The western leaderships’ explicit facilitation of a bloody cleansing of Palestinians has incised the old spectre of ‘Orientalism’ and colonialism onto the skyline. And is gyring the West towards being ‘the world’s untouchable’ (along with Israel).

Overall, Israel’s government objective looks to be to converge and then channel – multiple tensions into a wide military escalation disgorgement (a big war) – that somehow would bring a restoration of deterrence. Such a course concomitantly implies that Israel would thus turn its back to western pleas that it somehow act ‘reasonably’. The West mostly defines this ‘reasonableness’ as Israel accepting the chimaera of a passage to ‘normality’ arriving through the Saudi Crown Prince bestowing it, in return for a contrite Israel undoing seven decades of Jewish supremacism (i.e. accepting a Palestinian State).

The core tension within the Western-Israeli calculus is that the U.S. and the EU are moving in one direction – back to the failed Oslo approach – whilst polling underscores Jewish electors firmly marching in the other direction.

A recent survey conducted by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs shows that since 7 October, 79% of all Jewish respondents oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State on 1967 lines (68% were opposed prior to 7 Oct); 74% are opposed even in exchange for normalisation with Saudi Arabia. And reflective of the internal Israeli divide, “only 24% of left-wing voters support a [Palestinian] State without conditions”.

In short, as the western institutional leadership clings to the shrinking Israeli secular liberal Left, Israelis as whole (including the young) are moving hard Right. A recent Pew poll shows that 73% of the Israeli public support the military response in Gaza – albeit a third of Israelis complained it had not gone far enough. A plurality of Israelis think Israel should govern the Gaza Strip. And Netanyahu, in the aftermath of the ICC arrest threat, is overtaking Gantz (leader of the National Union) in approval ratings.

It seems that the ‘western consensus’ prefers not to notice these uncomfortable dynamics.

Additionally, a separate Israeli divide concerns the purpose of the war: Is it about restoring to Jewish citizens the sense of personal, physical security, which was lost in the wake of 7 Oct?

That is to say: Is it the sense of Israel as a redoubt, safe space in a hostile world that is being restored? Or alternatively, is the present struggle one of establishing a fully Judaicised Israel on the ‘Land of Israel’ (i.e. all the land between the river and the sea) the prime objective?

This constitutes a key divide. Those who see Israel primarily as the safe redoubt to which Jews could flee in the wake of European holocaust, naturally are more circumspect at the risking of a wider war (i.e. with Hizbullah) – a war that could see the civilian ‘rear’ directly attacked by Hizbullah’s vast missile arsenal. For this constituency, safety is a premium.

On the other hand, a majority of Israelis sees the risk of wider war as inevitable – indeed to be welcomed by many, if the Zionist project is to be fully established on the Land of Israel.

This reality may be difficult for secular westerners to grasp, but the 7 October has re-energised the Biblical vision in Israel, rather than excite a surfeit of caution about war, or a desire for rapprochement with Arab States.

The point here is that a ‘New War of Independence’ can be held aloft before the Israeli public as the metaphysical ‘vision’ of the way ahead, whilst the Israeli government attempts to pursue the more mundane path of playing the long game, leading to the full military matrix control over the land between the river and the sea, and the removal of populations that will not submit to the Smotrich dispensation of ‘acquiesce or leave’.

 


The schism between Israel as a secular, post-holocaust ‘safe-space’ and the contrasting Biblical, Zionist vision sets a border between the two zeitgeists that is both porous, and at times overlaps. Nonetheless, this Israeli divide has bled across into U.S. politics and, in a more scattered way, has entered into European polity.

For the Jewish diaspora living in the West, keeping Israel as a safe-space is vitally important as, insofar as Israel becomes insecure, Jews feel their own personal insecurity worsens, pari passu. In one sense, the Israeli projection of strong deterrence in the Middle East is an ‘umbrella’ that extends to cover the diaspora, as well. They want quiet in the region. The Biblical ‘vision’ has an edge to it which is frankly too polarising.

Yet, those very power structures straining to sustain the Israeli strongman paradigm in the western consciousness now find their efforts are tending to shred those western political structures, on which they depend, thus alienating key constituencies, particularly the young. A recent poll amongst 18-24 year-olds in Britain found that a majority (54%) agreed that “that the State of Israel should not exist”. Just 21% disagreed with this statement.

The wielding of Lobby power to compel Western united support for Israel and its deterrent objectives – coupled with a lack of human empathy for Palestinians – is inflicting heavy losses on institutional leadership structures as underlying mainstream parties fracture in different directions.

The damage is exacerbated by the western peace camp’s ‘reality blindspot’. We hear it all the time: the only solution is that of two-states living peacefully side by side on the lines of 1967 (as enshrined in UNSC resolutions 242 and 338). Apart from in the West, the same mantra is also rehearsed (as the peace camp reminds us) by the Arab League.

It seems so simple.

It is indeed ‘simple’ – but only through ignoring the reality that such a Palestinian state can only come into sovereign ‘being’ through force – through military force.

The reality is that there are 750,000 settlers occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem (and a further 25,000 settlers living in Syria’s Golan Heights). Who will remove them? Israel won’t. They will fight to the last settler; many of whom are zealots. They were invited and placed there in the years since the 1973 war (largely by successive Labour governments), precisely to obstruct any possible Palestinian state coming into existence.

The question that those who say ‘the solution is simple’ – two states living side by side in peace – do not answer: Has the West the will or the political resolve to instantiate a Palestinian State by force of arms, against the current will of a plurality of Israelis?

The answer, inevitably, is ‘no’. The West does not have the ‘will’ – and the suspicion then arises that in their hearts they know this. (There is perhaps a yearning for a solution, and disquiet that absent ‘calm in Gaza’, tensions will spike in the diaspora, too).

 



The hard truth is that the Resistance has understood the reality of the situation better than their western counterparts: A putative Palestinian State has only receded in prospect since the 1993 Oslo process, rather than having advanced a jot. Why did the West not take corrective action over three decades, and only then recall the dilemma when it became a crisis?

The Resistance has better appreciated the inherent untenable contradiction of one people appropriating to themselves special rights and privileges over another, sharing the same land, and that such a scenario could not long persist, without breaking the region apart (witness the wars and devastation to which maintaining the existing paradigm already has led).

The region stands at the edge; and ‘Events’ at any moment can push it over that edge, despite the efforts of regional actors to control incremental movement up the escalatory ladder. This is likely to be a long war. And a solution likely will only emerge through Israel, by one means or another, facing up to the inner paradigm contradiction within Zionism – and to begin seeing the future differently.

And of that, there is, as yet, no sign.

~ Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum. 

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Netanyahu coming to speak to U.S. Congress?

 


 

Everyone wants to be in the big chair, says Miko Peled, as Israeli war hawk Benny Gantz quits Netanyahu’s government. 

He thinks it’s his moment. 

Miko also addressed the possibility of Netanyahu speaking before Congress in July. Miko said he expected a huge protest would happen if the zionist leader did indeed appear in Washington.

Can't believe that Biden and the Democrats would want to wrap themselves around the genocidist once again, but they do love to wave Israeli flags. 

Likely to impress their deep pocket funders from AIPAC. Especially now that it has been proven that US Special Forces troops were involved in the recent raid on Gaza which was disguised as a humanitarian aid shipment using Biden's new $320 million floating pier.

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the UN Security Council resolution

 


Global South

Respects to Francesca Albanese.  She is not willing to be silenced and is a bright and eloquent woman. 

These are her comments on the very shaky so-called US peace resolution that was voted for, yesterday at the UNSC.  It is a surprise that what she says here, in principle, is exactly borne out by Mr. Lavrov [Russian Foreign Minister] in his descriptions on what is being done to scuttle multi-polarity by the collective west.  The word he uses is ‘protectorate’, which is simply control over the Palestinians that are left.  Despite the acceptance of this resolution by Hamas in principle I believe, because it contains a cease-fire clause, it is a new document of control.  The collective west cannot do it differently.  It is what they are.  I don’t know if anyone is going to cease their fire because of this resolution.

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt [Occupied Territories}:

I welcome the #UNSC’s ceasefire resolution of June 10. Pending a full assessment, here are some critical observations:

1. UNSC cannot infringe people’s right to #selfdetermination. UNSC lacks authority to determine “who” will or should rule over Gaza or the rest of the oPt. Palestinians (everywhere, starting with the whole occupied Palestinian territory) will have to choose in free and democratic #elections, not piloted, controlled or vetoed by outsiders, all the more by those who have committed or supported crimes against them in eight months of genocidal war. The fear of ideologically “extremist” parties cannot justify interfering with the free will of the people (in Palestine, Israel, Europe or elsewhere).

2. #eastJerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territory, with or without mention by the ceasefire resolution, and Israel must withdraw from there as well: #annexation remains unlawful.

3. Israel, NOT the international community, should pay for the #reconstruction of Gaza. There is something pedagogical in being held accountable for its own crimes, including #domicide #scholasticide and the destruction of the #health system.

4. Healing the wounds of this genocide should remain top priority for the body mandated to ensure peace & security for present and future generations.

Workers at Defense Contractors Navigate Dissent over Gaza War

 


At companies that produce weapons for Israel, employees opposed to the Gaza war explain how they navigate political speech in the workplace.


By Taylor Barnes (INKSTICK)

When an engineer started a new job last year at Northrop Grumman, America’s third-largest defense contractor, their training included vague guidance about political speech in the workplace. In a section of the online training regarding etiquette, the company instructed employees to not discuss politics at work in order to prevent a “hostile work environment.” The online training went on to present a fictional scenario that the engineer shared with Inkstick:

“Jane is involved in a political action group outside of work. She sometimes brings up the goals of the group and current events associated with it at work. Sometimes she asks her colleagues if they want to be involved, which makes some colleagues feel pressured or uneasy around her.”

The engineer, who has been deeply involved in protests against the war on Gaza outside of work, asked not to be named or identified by gender by Inkstick in order to avoid risking losing their job. They said the training didn’t spell out any consequences in such a scenario and that they choose to self-censor, refraining from asking a manager with whom they have a positive relationship to clarify the workplace speech policy, since they don’t know what would happen if they revealed their anti-war views.

“What if I did something really simple like wear a watermelon shirt?” the employee wondered, referring to the symbol used by activists due to the fruit’s colors matching those of the Palestinian flag.
Quietly Connecting with Colleagues

Dissent over US support for Israel’s war on Gaza has rocked workplaces across the country, where firings, rescinded job offers, canceled assignments, and workplace retaliation have been reported by a variety of professionals, including law school graduates, Apple store employees, journalists, and artists.   

The military-industrial complex has its own unique and formidable barriers holding back the dissenters who find themselves on the inside. (The engineer told Inkstick they wound up in the defense industry because they needed good healthcare and to pay off student loans from a pricey undergraduate aerospace engineering program, which they took on in the hopes of working for NASA. “I was desperate, and that” — military contractors — “was the only option.”) Arms plants are among the most secretive workplaces in the country, where concerns over revealing trade secrets, losing security clearances, and violating non-disclosure agreements chill workers’ speech.

Remarkably, given the incentives to stay quiet, the engineer and another dissident employee at Boeing shared several stories with Inkstick about how they and their colleagues were speaking up about the war.

At Northrop Grumman, the engineer said their operations manager confided in them that he took “comfort” in the fact that their specific building did not make weapons for Israel. (The engineer says the manager works on the Trident missile, which delivers nuclear warheads from ballistic missile submarines.) The engineer told Inkstick, however, that other buildings at their worksite make parts for the F-35, a fighter jet that Israel uses to bomb Gaza.

The operations manager told his colleague, “Yeah, this is really horrible what we [the United States] are doing,” the engineer recalled.

One program manager for the Trident looked “distressed” in a routine meeting about three months ago, the engineer recalled. She told her coworkers, “If I could do anything right now, I’d be protesting in Washington, DC.”

The manager’s son was in the military, and President Joe Biden had just announced that the United States was building a pier to deliver humanitarian aid to the besieged strip. The manager feared that the pier could mean American boots on the ground there. “She was furious and scared that her son would be deployed to Gaza,” the engineer told Inkstick.

The engineer decided to tell the program manager that they had a friend with family in Gaza who also feared for their lives, and told Inkstick the manager cried when speaking with them. “She and I definitely agree that we should have no involvement” in the war, they said. 

 


 

“Was It Something I Said?“

At-will employment is the default for the vast majority of private sector American workers who are not in labor unions or in places with exceptional local laws, like Montana. That means that workers can be fired for nearly any reason, including for something they said — including comments about Israel or Gaza, University of Minnesota law professor Charlotte Garden told Inkstick.

Legal protections for workplace speech are “limited and patchy,” Garden wrote in a report, titled, “Was it Something I Said?”, for the Economic Policy Institute. “The freedom of speech that so many Americans valorize is in practical effect illusory for many American workers,” she wrote.

She told Inkstick that the National Labor Relations Act protects political speech that relates to working conditions, such as advocating for raising the minimum wage.

“In one sense, of course what the employer does” — such as manufacturing weapons — “affects people’s working conditions,” Garden said. But she added that the National Labor Relations Board has not interpreted the act to mean that discussing working conditions includes an “absolute right” to suggest the employer should have a different mission or achieve it in a different way — for example, if a dissident in the arms industry advocates cutting of weapons to a country that the US government considers an ally.

Whether social commentary is permitted or punished in a non-unionized shop often comes down to individual “workplace culture” rather than rights, Garden said. In one recent dispute, the National Labor Relations Board sided with a Home Depot employee who wrote “BLM” on his apron during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and ordered the company to reinstate him and give him back pay. But in that case, Garden said, the employee put the political message on his apron to address specific concerns of racial discrimination in his workplace. Other cases of employers who retaliated against workers who were “commenting on the larger protest movement” at that time are still unwinding, she said. 

Dissenting in a Defense Industry Union

Unionized workers often feel more assertive in their workplace speech rights, since their contracts mean they are not subject to “at-will” employment and have the right to a grievance process to challenge workplace discipline or firings.

One unionized employee at Boeing, which makes fighter jets and munitions for Israel, told Inkstick that the limitations on speaking out about Gaza has less to do with fear of being fired than of how much pressure a union in a right-leaning workplace can take. Labor leaders “look at the membership and see that it’s very conservative and think, ‘There’s only so far I can pull on this leash before it breaks’,” he said.

That employee wanted to read a statement on the war by the executive council of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the largest union in the defense industry, to his Boeing coworkers at a general body meeting. The statement did not use the word “ceasefire” but said that the “senseless” conflict “must end now.”

He first had to get permission from his shop’s executive board; one member snapped at him for reading their own union’s statement: “The Bible gave that land to the Israelites and the Palestinians have no right to that!” The board also shot down his request to read a summary of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s “Anatomy of a Genocide” report, with a member telling the employee that the union only concerned itself with “labor issues.”

“What are we going to do about it?” the employee recalled one union leader asking him. “Pass a resolution telling Netanyahu to stop?” The employee told the union leadership that the issue is relevant because the IAM has a human rights committee and his coworkers were preparing rush shipments of weapons to Israel, seeing the name of the destination country on packing materials.

“We don’t make no weapons!” a board member yelled. The employee, who is also a military veteran, was stunned. “What is a harpoon?” he replied, referring to a missile that Boeing makes for the US Navy.

 



When he finally read the IAM statement at the general meeting, he said he got one angry rebuke from a coworker, while several others quietly told him that they appreciated him “spitting the truth.”
MAGA and Militia Bumper Stickers

The employee told Inkstick that Boeing’s workplace guidance on political activity was to not engage in “offensive” speech, which appeared to be a policy each manager interprets in their own way.

Both the Northrop Grumman and Boeing employees told Inkstick that right-wing messages on shirts, bumper stickers, and said out loud are commonplace in their line of work. At a defense contractor where they worked prior to Northrop Grumman, the engineer recalled shirts promoting the “Three Percenters,” an anti-government militia; the word “plandemic,” the name of a film series promoting conspiracy theories about Covid-19; and one that said “Watch out for these parasites,” followed by images of a flea, a tick, and Biden. At Boeing, the worker said he’s often seen “Make America Great Again” gear on his colleagues’ clothing and vehicles, including an “Ultra-MAGA” bumper sticker on a printer, and nationalist messages like a shirt reading, “If you don’t love this country, I’ll help you pack.”

On Jan. 6, 2021, the Boeing employee said he was at work while colleagues on the assembly line watched the insurrection live on their computer, cheering on rioters and saying that a noose and gallows erected in the crowd should be used on former House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“This is treason territory — you are openly wanting to murder an elected official,” the employee told Inkstick, adding sarcastically: “While you’re making aircraft for the US military.”

In the days after the Capitol insurrection, the employee said Boeing issued a rare restriction on political speech to its local workforce, telling employees to take bumper stickers for militias like the Oath Keepers off their vehicles — which, the employee said, they did.

Spokespeople for Boeing and Northrop Grumman did not reply to queries from Inkstick about the companies’ policies on political speech in the workplace. Boeing also did not respond to questions from Inkstick about the company telling employees to remove militia bumper stickers.

For its part, Northrop Grumman takes a tone internally that the engineer described as “rainbow capitalism,” hosting employee resource groups for gay workers and employees of color and publishing stories in its newsletter about single mothers who advance in their careers. But the engineer doubts that promotion of diverse identities extends to political dissent. “Northrop never came out and said, ‘You’re going to lose your job if you’re pro-Palestine’,” the engineer said. “But that’s not something I want to learn about the hard way.”

~ Taylor Barnes in Inkstick Media's field reporter for military affairs and the defense industry. She is a grantee with the Ploughshares Fund and is based in Atlanta. Follow her work at @tkbarnes. Tips? tbarnes@inkstickmedia.com

Monday, June 10, 2024

Using Ukraine since 1948

 


The U.S. has staged operations with extremists from Ukraine to undermine Russia for nearly 8 decades. It’s led us to the doorstep of nuclear annihilation.



By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News


The United States has for nearly 80 years seen Ukraine as the staging ground for its once covert and increasingly overt war with Russia.

After years of warnings, and after talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia fought back two years ago. With neither side backing down Ukraine is increasingly becoming a flashpoint that could lead to nuclear war.

The West thinks Russia is bluffing. But its doctrine states that if Russia feels that its existence is threatened it could resort to nuclear arms. Instead of taking these warnings seriously, NATO is recklessly opening corridors for a ground war against Russia in Ukraine; France says it’s putting together a coalition of nations to enter the war, despite Russia saying French or any other NATO force would be fair game.

In Paris the other day Joe Biden said Russia wants to conquer all of Europe but can’t even take Kharkiv. It is this kind of inflammatory nonsense, combined with allowing Ukraine to fire NATO weapons into Russian territory, that is imperiling us all.

The danger started building up many years ago but it is now reaching a head.

The U.S. relationship with Ukraine, and its extremists, to undermine Russia began after the Second World War. During the war, units of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) took part in the Holocaust, killing at least 100,000 Jews and Poles. 

 


Mykola Lebed, a top aide to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the fascist OUN-B, was recruited by the C.I.A. after the war, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. National Archives.

Lebed was the “foreign minister” of a Banderite government in exile, but he later broke with Bandera for acting as a dictator. The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps termed Bandera “extremely dangerous” yet said he was “looked upon as the spiritual and national hero of all Ukrainians….”

C.I.A.’s Allen Dulles asked U.S. Immigration to allow Lebed re-entry to U.S. despite murder conviction. 

Instead of Bandera, the C.I.A. was interested in Lebed, despite his fascist background. They set him up in an office in New York City from which he directed sabotage and propaganda operations on the agency’s behalf inside Ukraine against the Soviet Union.  The U.S. government study says:


    “CIA operations with these Ukrainians began in 1948 under the cryptonym CARTEL, soon changed to AERODYNAMIC. … Lebed relocated to New York and acquired permanent resident status, then U.S. citizenship. It kept him safe from assassination, allowed him to speak to Ukrainian émigré groups, and permitted him to return to the United States after operational trips to Europe. Once in the United States, Lebed was the CIA’s chief contact for AERODYNAMIC. CIA handlers pointed to his ‘cunning character,’ his ‘relations with the Gestapo and … Gestapo training,’ [and] the fact that he was ‘a very ruthless operator.’”

The C.I.A. worked with Lebed on sabotage and pro-Ukrainian nationalist propaganda operations inside Ukraine until Ukraine’s independence in 1991.

“Mykola Lebed’s relationship with the CIA lasted the entire length of the Cold War,” the study says. “While most CIA operations involving wartime perpetrators backfired, Lebed’s operations augmented the fundamental instability of the Soviet Union.”

Continued Until and Beyond Ukrainian Independence

 

Bandera followers in today's western Ukraine

 

The U.S. thus covertly kept Ukrainian fascist ideas alive inside Ukraine until at least Ukrainian independence was achieved. “Mykola Lebed, Bandera’s wartime chief in Ukraine, died in 1998. He is buried in New Jersey, and his papers are located at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University,” the U.S. National Archives study says.  

The successor organization to the OUN-B in the United States did not die with him, however.  It had been renamed the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), according to IBT. 

“By the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members. Reagan personally welcomed [Yaroslav] Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews in Lviv, in the White House in 1983,” IBT reported.  “Following the demise of [Viktor] Yanukovich’s regime [in 2014], the UCCA helped organise rallies in cities across the US in support of the EuroMaidan protests,” it reported.


That is a direct link between the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup against a democratically-elected Ukrainian government and WWII-era Ukrainian fascism.

Since 2014, the U.S. pushed for an attack on Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who had rejected the coup, and NATO began training and equipping Ukrainian troops.  Combined with talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia [was forced to react after] years of warning. 

 

U.S. bi-partisan congressional delegation met with Nazis in the new 'Ukraine Special Forces' soon after the 2014 Obama-Biden-Nuland orchestrated coup in Kiev


More than two years [after the start of Russia's 'Special Military Operation' in 2022], with Ukraine clearly losing the war, Western leaders will do just about anything to save their political skins as they have staked so much on winning in Ukraine.   Don’t listen to them.  They need a West in denial of the dangers facing us.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1963 American University speech:

    “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

The world may wake up when it’s too late — after the missiles have already started flying.   

~ Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

Sunday, June 09, 2024

U.S. aids Israel in massacre at Gaza refugee camp

 



At least 274 Palestinians have been killed in one of Israel's largest attacks since it launched its war on Gaza in October. 

Its forces carried out assaults from the air, land and sea - shelling residential areas around Deir el-Balah and Nuseirat. 

Those attacks were part of an operation to free four Israeli captives. 

Al Jazeera's Tareq Abu Azzoum has the latest from outside Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir el-Balah.