EU judicial institutions never showed interest in investigating the nearly decade-long mass murder of civilians in Donbass
By Drago Bosnic | October 17, 2022
Ever since Russia started its counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Eastern Europe, the political West has been parroting the narrative that Moscow is allegedly committing war crimes in Ukraine. Although there has been virtually zero evidence to support such claims, the mainstream propaganda machine refuses to give up. The Kiev regime and its geopolitical puppet masters in Washington DC and Brussels are also resorting to false flags and so-called deep fakes to create and maintain the narrative that Russian forces are deliberately targeting civilians. And yet, the Western mainstream propaganda machine often gets caught in its own web of lies. On October 11, The New York Times published an op-ed by Mike Ives in which he made the following claim:
“The Russian missile and drone attacks that killed at least 19 people across Ukraine on Monday were traumatic and wide-ranging, but they were not as deadly as they could have been… …That has renewed questions over the quality of Russia’s weapons and about the capacity of its forces to carry out President Vladimir V. Putin’s military designs.”
The claim clearly indicates that Russia’s recent missile strikes targeting the Kiev regime’s critical military infrastructure are somehow seen as “ineffective” because there were “too few” casualties. Such a sadistic claim serves as proof that propaganda pushed by the political West has no limits. Russia has been using advanced long-range precision weapons to target key military units and infrastructure of the Kiev regime forces. This approach is a result of both high-tech aspects of the Russian military and the fact that Moscow’s special military operation is still prioritizing the reduction of civilian casualties. And yet, even though the Western propaganda machine acknowledges this reality, the narrative of alleged Russian “war crimes” in Ukraine needs to be pushed into the mainstream. This is especially true when it comes to giving these false claims a legal and judicial aspect.
In recent days multiple reports have been published, claiming the European Union and Eurojust, the bloc’s agency dealing with judicial cooperation in criminal matters among agencies of the member states, have been working to create the judicial framework for dozens of fabricated reports of supposed Russian “war crimes” in Ukraine. According to Eurojust’s October 13 press release, this was the central theme of the 16th meeting of the Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General of EU Member States. Prosecutors General and Directors of Public Prosecutions discussed the self-appointed “expanded role” of Eurojust in matters of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. They also met with their new Kiev regime counterpart Andriy Kostin and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Karim A.A. Khan KC.
Olivier Christen, Director of Criminal Affairs and Pardons of France, stated that the EU “remains fully committed” to identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators of the atrocities taking place in Ukraine. He further pointed out that Eurojust has “expanded its prerogatives” in order to improve the “fight against impunity for war crimes.” Eurojust President Ladislav Hamran stated that “never in the history of armed conflict has the legal community responded with such commitment and determination” and that the meeting “will further fuel the joint ambition to bring justice to the Ukrainian people.” Apart from alleged Russian “war crimes”, the panel members discussed what they called the “disinformation via cyberspace”, which was further expanded to include notes on “practical experiences and challenges in relation to the prosecution of violations of the current EU sanctions against Russian and Belarusian individuals and companies.”
In another press release, also published on October 13, Eurojust announced that Romania also became a member of the joint investigation team (JIT) on alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Romania was the seventh member of the JIT, which was set up on 25 March 2022 by Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine and later joined by Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia. In April of this year, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) became a participant in the JIT. The relevant meeting was held just prior to the aforementioned 16th Meeting of the Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General. According to their own admission, Eurojust is also providing “essential logistical and operational support” to the JIT partners, including to “investigators” on the ground in Ukraine.
Needless to say, there was no mention of the Kiev regime death squads operating in the Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Donbass. The meeting members discussed only alleged Russian “war crimes” and the supposed Moscow’s “disinformation campaign”, despite the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta henchmen are openly boasting about “killing traitors”. Numerous Telegram channels have already published gruesome videos showing the Neo-Nazi death squads killing civilians and then throwing them into mass graves. In doing so, the Kiev regime accomplishes at least two goals – it gets rid of “noncompliant” or “pro-Russian” civilians and also gets to accuse Russian troops of killing them. The propaganda machine of the political West then comes into play, while EU agencies such as Eurojust cement the narrative from a judicial and legal perspective.
It would be naive, to say the least, to believe that the EU or any other entity of the political West would ever objectively investigate actual war crimes taking place in Ukraine. Charades such as the ones in Bucha and recently in the Kharkov region serve as a testament to that. None of the so-called “international” judicial institutions, such as the aforementioned ICC, ever showed interest in investigating the nearly decade-long mass murder of civilians in Donbass. Despite approximately 15,000 deaths from 2014 to 2022, with hundreds or even thousands more in recent months, as the Kiev regime forces never stopped shelling Donetsk and other towns and areas, the mainstream propaganda machine has been successful in suppressing most information on this.
Press TV Correspondent from Donetsk, Johnny Miller, says Ukraine has been hitting civilian areas on the outskirts of Donetsk, and today, the central city administrative building was hit by US-made missiles.
Ukraine attacked Donetsk with American missiles – mayor
Samizdat | October 16, 2022
Ukrainian forces have carried out a strike on Donetsk using the US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launch system, with one missile hitting the city administration building, local authorities claimed on Sunday. Four people were reportedly wounded.
Alexey Kulemzin, the mayor of Donetsk, posted a video on his Telegram account depicting a pile of rubble around what appeared to be the city administration. Another clip uploaded by Kulemzin shows extensive damage to the building, as well as several wrecked and charred cars nearby.
According to the territorial defense of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), four people were wounded during the shelling.
Meanwhile, local authorities told RIA Novosti that they are looking into the strike on the city administration, with one official saying that the shell fragments will be submitted for ballistic examination.
Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukraine of targeting residential blocks and civilian infrastructure in various towns in Donbass, with the strikes often resulting in destruction, injuries, and deaths.
Since the start of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, Western countries have supplied Ukraine with a significant amount of weaponry, munitions, and other aid. The US, in particular, has provided Ukraine with 20 HIMARS systems and ammunition for them, which Kiev has allegedly used to target civilians on numerous occasions.
Pfizer just reported FDA’s decision to approve a bivalent Covid booster for “emergency use” for children 5-17 years of age.
What is amazing is that the approved bivalent vaccine was NOT tested on children or even on baby mice, at all!
For each of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines authorized today, the FDA relied on immune response and safety data that it had previously evaluated from a clinical study in adults of a booster dose of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that contained a component of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and a component of omicron lineage BA.1. The FDA considers such data as relevant and supportive of vaccines containing a component of the omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5 lineages. In addition, the FDA has evaluated and considered immune response and safety data from clinical studies of the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including as a booster dose in pediatric age groups. These data and real-world experience with the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which have been administered to millions of people, including young children, support the EUA of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines in younger age groups.
May I ask, why no testing? The FDA and Pfizer had plenty of time: they were testing bivalent boosters on adults since the beginning of the year. No testing on children was done with any bivalent booster.
Could Pfizer at least purchase 8 baby mice and try their booster on 8 mouse babies? They surely could do that along with the adult dose testing.
An added touch of ridiculousness here is that the FDA also chose NOT to consult “FDA advisors” and thus did not convene the VRBPAC committee. That committee would, of course, approve anything. So, what is the reason for not convening it? The reason is that the FDA did not want to have any votes — even one vote — against this vaccine and did not want to have a public hearing about this travesty.
Three-Year-Old Spike Injections Still Required for Primary Series
It gets worse, of course. Only 30% of children 5-11 years of age are Covid vaccinated.
Should the parents of the 70% of unvaccinated children decide that they want their child to receive a bivalent (updated with Ba.5 formulation) shot, they would have to first give that child two shots of a three-year-old monovalent Wuhan-based vaccine (primary series), and only then they would be allowed to give their children the new and updated shot. Why? The FDA is not telling us.
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent is authorized for administration at least two months following completion of primary or booster vaccination in children down to six years of age.
If someone asked me three years ago, whether it is possible that the FDA would approve a children’s vaccine with ZERO testing on children, I would of course laugh the question off as ludicrous. Now it is reality. Even worse, schools and camps may start requiring it.
I thought that the reputation of our health authorities could only bottom at zero. Clearly, though, they want to drive it down to the negative territory.
Forget coral reefs and polar bears – they are so yesterday’s climate scare stories. The real big one, the tipping point du jour, is the collapse of the West Antarctica ice shelf and the prospect of global flooding on a biblical scale last reported in the times of Noah. It’s in rapid retreat says every scaremonger from Sir David Attenborough to the BBC’s resident green activist Justin Rowlatt. It is in retreat – a natural process as the Earth slowly moves out of an ice age. But now, new scientific work has found the process at the huge Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica – nicknamed the ‘Doomsday Glacier‘ for the supposed approaching catastrophe of its swift demise – is much slower than in the recent past.
The Thwaites Glacier has long been of interest. It is the second largest ice stream in West Antarctica and occupies an area the size of Florida. A group of oceanographers, led by Dr. Alastair Graham of the University of South Florida, has mapped part of the floor once occupied by the glacier, and discovered it was retreating at twice the rate in the past than that now indicated by the satellite measurements made between 2011-2019. The earlier rate of retreat was said to be “exceptionally fast”. Work is in progress to establish when that fast retreat occurred, but it is almost certain it pre-dates the 1950s, could be about 180 years old, and possibly dates back several centuries. What is completely clear, however, given the timing, is that human-caused climate change was not a factor in the faster retreat.
The results were obtained by using autonomous submersibles to map an area of the sea floor where markings were discovered representing the retreating glacier. Mapping 13 square kilometres, the researchers found a series of ridges caused by the moving glacier hitting the sea floor as it rose and fell with the tides. It was found that during the daily tidal cycle, the glacier retreated around 6-7 metres a day, although sometimes reaching 10m. Over about five months of data, the glacier retreated 2.1 kms a year, twice the current rate measured by the satellites.
The ridges were discovered on a ‘bump’ in the sea floor that had helped pin the glacier. It was found that over a 5.5 month period, the average spacing of the ridges increased upstream from 5.8m to 6.3m. This 8% increase accelerated the annual retreat rate from 2.13km to 2.3km. The results are said to indicate that the movement across the area to the present day position was “probably rapid”. The scientists note: “Our results indicate that the rate of retreat from the bump was double the average estimated for the period 1996-2009, and about three times faster than a location immediately inland of the bump between 2011 and 2017.”
Two years ago, another group led by glaciologist Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University measured similar tidal wedges under the Larsen continental shelf in the western Weddell Sea. Grounding line retreat rates of 40-50m a day were discovered, equivalent to 10kms a year. The scientists concluded that this retreat occurred 14,000 years ago and was 100 times faster than the rate over the past 10,000 years.
This is all fascinating scientific work that gives us more information about the natural processes that shape the Earth. But it will be largely ignored in the mainstream if such findings are seen to cast doubt on the ‘settled’ science of human-caused global warming. In March 2020, the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt took a camera crew to the middle of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, an area he called the “front line of climate change”. The equilibrium that had held our world in balance for tens of thousands of years was beginning to slip and crash, he claimed. The “epic forces” at work were like a “scream of anguish”, he continued. “The glacier is being torn and shattered.” The acceleration in melting that affected the entire West Antarctica ice sheet was, “needless to say”, the result of the global warming gases our lifestyles produced. The emotional tosh continued: “A colleague interviews me for a programme we are making and I burst into tears. It takes me days to process my emotions.”
Humans may have a part to play in a climate that has always changed. Considering the massive forces at work in the natural world, many only partly understood, it is probably minor or even insignificant. But the move to declare the science around the subject ‘settled’ is harming our efforts to better understand the natural forces that shape the planet. It is certainly harming our ability to have a reasoned conversation about it. Vast sums of money are being diverted into a command-and-control Net Zero political agenda designed to radically alter the lifestyles and economic prospects of every single human on the planet. Only science that supports this political narrative gets a hearing in the mainstream media, and when politics is involved, emotion is never far from the controlling message.
Chris Morrison isthe Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
A mostly ignored problem in the hydrogen discussion is that the existing gas grids are not suitable for handling larger amounts of hydrogen. Thus, the Scientific Advisory to the German Bundestag had already dealt with the issue in the past. It came to the conclusion that “unlimited quantities of methane” could be fed into the gas networks. But concluded
For hydrogen produced by means of electrolysis, the limits are currently 1-10 percent by volume.”
Indeed, a problem generally known in materials research is that hydrogen leads to the embrittlement of metals. Many of the pipeline steels currently in use react to contact with hydrogen by significantly reducing elongation at break and becoming hydrogen brittle.”
The article is also critical of heating with hydrogen:
Using hydrogen to heat homes is, by comparison, less economical, less efficient, more resource-intensive and also has a greater environmental impact, Rosenow argues.
But the alternative is not as ‘green’ as hydrogen likes to be called. Among other things, it is pointed out that considerable technical changes would also be required in households, including the piping in the home, among other things due to embrittlement. This would also cost households an enormous amount of money.
In addition, it is abundantly inefficient to use electricity from renewable sources to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen for this purpose. ‘In the UK, heating homes with green hydrogen would use about six times more renewable electricity than heat pumps,’ David Cebon of the Hydrogen Science Coalition and professor of mechanical engineering at Cambridge University tells the BBC.
There is neither the time nor the resources to investigate further the role of hydrogen in heating homes, especially if the laws of thermodynamics are respected, he added.”
But the US District Court, Northern District of California has granted both Meta’s motion to dismiss the defamation complaint with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be refiled), as well as Meta’s and Science Feedback’s anti-SLAPP motions.
One of Stossel’s videos, “Government Fueled Fires,” got labeled as “missing context,” and then deliberately downranked by Facebook’s algorithms, resulting in traffic and revenue loss from his account with more than a million followers.
The video was seen as “downplaying” climate change as the decisive factor and primary cause of the 2020 California wildfires, asserting instead that although the phenomenon plays a role, it was bad policies that contributed the most to the scale of that natural disaster.
In April 2021, Stossel published another video, “Are We Doomed?”, that discusses what the journalist calls environmental alarmists and their claims. This one received the “partly false information” from Facebook’s “fact-checking partner.”
Stossel’s failed lawsuit sought to prove that Facebook and the “fact-checker” in question defamed him in the first instance by falsely inferring that he made a statement he says he never did, and in the other, by accusing him of making false statements.
The court explained its decision by saying that, although called a “fact-check program” what Facebook is actually doing – and has the right to do – is “reflect a subjective judgment about the accuracy and reliability of assertions made.”
Therefore, the use of the term “fact” isn’t to say that Facebook is under an obligation to establish actual facts, and apply its censorship accordingly. “Simply because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a ‘fact-check’ does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact.”
The defamation complaint was dismissed based on CDA’s Section 230 and the protections it affords Facebook in crafting (and wording) its policies.
Facebook’s and “fact-checker’s” motions to dismiss based on anti-SLAPP (Anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) rules were granted because Facebook is a public forum, the court said.
PayPal appears unsure whether it should participate in the current crusade against online “disinformation” or not.
First it closed the PayPal accounts of The Daily Sceptic and the Free Speech Union, and even the personal account of their founder Toby Young, and then, two weeks later, it restored them. Then it announced that it would be docking $2,500 from anyone who uses its services in connection with “promoting misinformation” and then, two days later, it again reversed course and announced that this language was never intended to be included in its new Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
It was not intended to be included? Well, where did it come from then?
Could the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation and its Digital Services Act (DSA), about which I wrote in my last Brownstone article, have something to do with PayPal’s skittish forays into “combatting disinformation?” Well, yes, they could, and you may rest assured that EU officials or representatives have already had a word with PayPal about them.
As discussed in my previous article, the Code requires signatories to censor what is deemed by the European Commission to be disinformation on pain of massive fines. The enforcement mechanism, i.e. the fines, has been established under the DSA.
PayPal is not, for the moment, a signatory of the Code. Furthermore, since it is neither a content platform nor a search engine – the potential channels of “disinformation” targeted in the DSA – it is obviously not in a position to censor per se. But the very first commitment in the “strengthened” Code of Practice unveiled by the European Commission last June is dedicated precisely to demonetization.
Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the business models of the most prominent signatories – Twitter, Meta/Facebook and Google/YouTube – this commitment and the six “measures” it comprises are mostly related to advertising practices.
But the “Guidance” that the Commission issued in May 2021, prior to the Code’s drafting, explicitly calls for “broadening” efforts to defund alleged purveyors of disinformation and contains the following highly pertinent recommendation:
Actions to defund disinformation should be broadened by the participation of players active in the online monetisation value chain, such as online e-payment services, e-commerce platforms and relevant crowd-funding/donation systems. (p. 8; emphasis added)
PayPal, the online e-payment service par excellence, was thus already in the Commission’s sights.
Somewhat illogically, given their own emphasis on advertising and the fact that an advertising-based revenue model and a donation or pay model would ordinarily be regarded as alternatives, the signatories of the “strengthened” Code thus pledged to
… exchange best practices and strengthen cooperation with relevant players, expanding to organisations active in the online monetisation value chain, such as online e-payment services, e-commerce platforms and relevant crowd-funding/donation systems. … (Commitment 3)
But the outreach to PayPal has not only occurred via third parties like the Code signatories.
In late May, shortly after the text of the Digital Services Act had been finalized – but before the European Parliament had even had the opportunity to vote on it! – an 8-member delegation from the parliament was dispatched to California to discuss the DSA and the related Digital Markets Act (DMA) with relevant “digital stakeholders.”
In addition to Code signatories Google and Meta, the “host list,” so to say – since the parliamentarians were to be the guests and they were inviting themselves! – also included PayPal. (See the delegation report here.)
Curiously, Twitter was not included among the companies and organizations to be visited, perhaps because of the turmoil unleashed by Elon Musk’s takeover bid. But, as touched upon in my prior article, Thierry Breton, the EU’s Internal Market Commissioner, had already paid a visit to Musk in Austin, Texas earlier in the month to have a word with him about the DSA.
No less than three of the delegation’s eight members – Alexandra Geese, Marion Walsmann and delegation head Andreas Schwab – were German, whereas Germans only account for around 13% of the total members of the parliament. This stark overrepresentation is telling, since Germany has undoubtedly been the prime mover behind the EU’s censorship drive, having already adopted its own online censorship law in 2017 with the express motivation of “combatting criminal fake news in social networks” (p. 1 of the legislative proposal in German here).
The German legislation, commonly known as “NetzDG” or the Network Enforcement Act, threatens platforms with fines of up to €50 million for hosting content that infringes any of a variety of German laws that restrict speech in ways that would be unthinkable and unconstitutional in the United States. It is also the source of the Twitter notices that many Twitter users will have received informing them that their account had been denounced by “a person from Germany.”
As noted above, PayPal is not presently a signatory of the Code of Practice on Disinformation. On July 14, however, just nine days after the passage of the DSA, the Commission issued a “Call for interest to become a Signatory” of the Code. The call is explicitly addressed to, among others, “e-payment services, e-commerce platforms, crowd-funding/donation systems.” The latter are identified as “providers whose services may be used to monetize disinformation.”
Evidently not satisfied merely with “deplatforming,” the Commission has thus made clear that the next frontier in its combat against “disinformation” is attempting to defund dissenters who, despite their discrimination by or banishment from the major online platforms, have managed to preserve a place in the online discussion thanks to platforms of their own.
PayPal, moreover, will know that the “exclusive” – in effect, dictatorial – powers that the DSA confers on the European Commission include the power to designate the “very large” online platforms that are susceptible to incurring the massive DSA fines of up to 6% of global turnover. PayPal will easily satisfy the “very large” size criterion of having at least 45 million users in the EU, but it is obviously not a content platform.
Nonetheless, this appears not to be so obvious to the European Commission. For the Commission press release on the call for signatories treats it precisely… as a content platform! Thus, the press release refers to “providers of e-payment services, e-commerce platforms, crowd-funding/donation systems, which may be used to spread disinformation.” Huh?
In the meanwhile, on September 1, the EU has opened a specially-dedicated office or “embassy” in San Francisco to conduct what it itself describes as “digital diplomacy” with US tech firms. The “ambassador,” Commission official Gerard de Graaf, is reportedly one of the drafters of the DSA. Perhaps he will be able to explain the intricacies of the DSA to PayPal – or even already has. PayPal headquarters are, after all, just a stone’s throw away in Palo Alto.
In any case, PayPal has been put on notice, and, with it, so too have dissident websites that depend on user support for their survival. Ignore the EU at your peril.
Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, a translator, and researcher working in Europe. He writes at edv1694.substack.com.
In the past, if a government wanted a bank to close or freeze a customer’s account it would have to come banging on the door with a court order. Now, governments have shown that they can close private accounts at the drop of a hat. During the Freedom Convoy protests, the Canadian government drew up a list of individuals – on grounds that were never made clear, although the Justice Minister said that Trump supporters should be ‘worried’ – and banks immediately froze their customers’ accounts, no questions asked.
Indeed, payment companies are taking the lead and freezing their own customers’ accounts, because of vague offences such as perceived ‘misinformation’. PayPal recently closed the accounts of lockdown sceptics, doctors for informed consent, critics of trans ideology, even the Free Speech Union (perhaps for defending trans critical feminists). Other companies such as GoFundMe, MasterCard, Stripe, Etsy, and Patreon have closed the accounts of gender campaigners, right-wing campaigners and critics of vaccine mandates.
PayPal’s recent threat to fine its customers up to $2500 for ‘misinformation’ was a new step. Now they are not only closing accounts but also potentially seizing funds. Although PayPal implausibly claimed that the new ‘acceptable use policy’ was published in error – it was up for several days as a link from its Policy Updates page – the principle of PayPal potentially seizing customers’ funds had already been established. When it closed recent accounts, PayPal stated that it would be holding funds for 180 days to see if any ‘damages’ were due. The idea of holding and perhaps seizing customers’ money was already established in practice.
Similarly, during the truckers’ protests in Canada, GoFundMe decided that it was not going to pass on 9 million Canadian dollars of donations to the Freedom Convoy, since the protests had violated its ‘terms of service’. Instead, it would pass the money to ‘credible and established charities verified by GoFundMe’ (donors could get a refund if they filled in a form). Millions of dollars that had been donated by the public for a particular cause were reappropriated and used for some other cause.
Companies are violating the rules of their own market system. Private property rights are supposed to be sacred, protected with a single-minded obsession that outweighs almost everything else. The sociologist Max Weber said that the operation of the market requires that all authorities work according to ‘calculable rules’ and ‘without regard for persons’ (1). When you put money in an account you need to know that it is safe; when you make a payment you need to know that it will go to its intended beneficiary and not someone else.
Now, governments and companies are randomly freezing people’s accounts and they often won’t even tell you why they have done it. They are lording it over private interests. This has something of the Middle Ages about it, when all lands were nominally held from the king and could be seized at any time if a vassal was not sufficiently loyal; the lands would then be given to a more loyal follower. Now, the bureaucratic-corporate elite nominally holds the wealth of the world; we are graciously allowed to use it, so long as we do not use it for misinformation, in which case it will be taken back and reappropriated to a cause of its choice.
Here is another form of that nefarious principle that your ability to take part in public life is a privilege dependent upon good behaviour. With vaccine passports, you could only take part in society if you had obediently received the correct sequence of vaccines and boosters. If you didn’t get a booster on time, your QR code was deactivated and when you tried to buy a cup of coffee it would not work: ‘This code is no longer valid.’ Now, companies are taking it upon themselves to police the marketplace, so that you can only receive funds and make donations if you express the correct opinions on their flagship issues.
Public life is increasingly becoming subject to an ‘acceptable use policy’. If digital currencies go ahead, the potential for authorities to close accounts, freeze and reclaim funds and refuse purchases will be taken to a new level.
The public backlash against PayPal’s latest account freezes was phenomenal. Thousands of people sent complaints to Paypal and cancelled their PayPal accounts in solidarity, a pressure that led to some of these frozen accounts to be reinstated. The lordly presumption of the new corporate elite is terrifying; we must be prepared to fight it every step of the way.
(1) Max Weber, Economy and Society, Vol 2, Uni California Press, p975
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should look into whether the White House pressured Saudi Arabia to delay OPEC+’s promised oil production cut, Republican Tom Tiffany demanded in a letter to the congresswoman on Thursday.
The Saudi government had claimed earlier that day that the US government had requested a one-month delay in the 2 million barrels per day production cut announced earlier this month. Putting off the cut, it implied, would postpone the surge in energy prices expected to accompany the move until after the US midterm elections. However, “postponing the OPEC+ decision by a month… would have had negative economic consequences” for Riyadh, a statement from the Kingdom read.
The administration of US President Joe Biden responded by accusing its sometime Arab ally of attempting to “spin and deflect.” The Saudis “knew [the production cut] would increase Russian revenues and blunt the effectiveness of sanctions,” White House spokesman John Kirby reminded Americans.
However, Kirby did not deny their claim outright. He suggested that “other OPEC nations” had “privately” approached the US to support its bid to postpone the reduction, implying that it could not have been solely motivated by the desire to keep control of Congress in November.
“If the Biden administration did attempt to pressure a foreign government to influence the outcome of the US election, that’s something Americans deserve to know,” Tiffany tweeted on Thursday alongside his letter to Pelosi.
If the Saudis’ claims are to be believed, he wrote, the administration’s efforts to postpone the cut amounted to an “illegal solicitation of a foreign in-kind contribution by the White House on behalf of Democrats’ midterm campaign efforts.”
In addition to investigating whether calls took place between the Biden administration and the Saudis about potentially delaying the production cut, Tiffany urged Pelosi to obtain the transcripts of those calls. He also insisted that US administration officials who may have asked Saudi officials to delay the cut be identified.
Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, confirmed on Sunday that the president would act “methodically” to re-evaluate the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. The administration has been threatening to “reassess” the partnership ever since the price cut was announced. However, while the president warned there would be “some consequences” for the Saudis, their nature has yet to be publicly revealed.
Inflation and the high cost of living are the chief issues on voters’ minds heading into the midterms next month, casting the Democrats’ ability to hold onto both the House and Senate into doubt as polls indicate few voters trust Biden to effectively manage the economy.
The moment that Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba was ousted by his former military colleague, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pro-coup crowds filled the streets. Some burned French flags; others carried Russian flags. This scene alone represents the current tussle underway throughout the African continent.
A few years ago, the discussion regarding the geopolitical shifts in Africa was not exactly concerned with France and Russia per se. It focused mostly on China’s growing economic role and political partnerships on the African continent. For example, Beijing’s decision to establish its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017 signalled China’s major geopolitical move by translating its economic influence in the region to political influence, backed by military presence.
China remains committed to its Africa strategy. Beijing has been Africa’s largest trading partner for 12 years, consecutively, with total bilateral trade between China and Africa reaching $254.3 billion in 2021, according to recent data released by the General Administration of Customs of China.
The US and its Western allies have been aware of and are warning against China’s growing clout in Africa. The establishment of US AFRICOM in 2007 was rightly understood to be a countering measure to China’s influence. Since then, and arguably before, talks of a new “Scramble for Africa” abounded, with new players including China, Russia and even Turkiye entering the fray.
The Russia-Ukraine war, however, has altered geopolitical dynamics in Africa, as it highlighted the Russian-French rivalry on the continent, as opposed to the Chinese-American competition there.
Though Russia has been present in African politics for years, the war – thus the need for stable allies at the United Nations (UN) and elsewhere – accelerated Moscow’s charm offensive. In July, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of Congo, fortifying Russia’s diplomatic relations with African leaders.
“We know that the African colleagues do not approve of the undisguised attempts of the US and their European satellites. . . to impose a unipolar world order to the international community,” Lavrov said. His words were met with agreement.
Russian efforts have been paying dividends, as early as the first votes to condemn Moscow at the UN General Assembly in March and April. Many African nations remained either neutral or voted against measures targeting Russia at the UN.
South Africa’s position, in particular, was problematic from Washington’s perspective, not only because of the size of the country’s economy, but also because of Pretoria’s political influence and moral authority throughout Africa. Moreover, South Africa is the only African member of the G20.
In his visit to the US in September, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa defended his country’s neutrality and raised objections to a draft US bill – the Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act – that is set to monitor and punish African governments who do not conform to the American line in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The West fails to understand, however, that Africa’s slow but determined shift toward Moscow is not haphazard nor accidental.
The history of the continent’s past and current struggle against Western colonialism and neocolonialism is well known. While the West continues to define its relationship with Africa based on exploitation, Russia constantly reminds African countries of the Soviet’s legacy on the continent. This is not only apparent in official political discourses by Russian leaders and diplomats, but also in Russian media coverage, which is prioritising Africa and reminding African nations of their historical solidarity with Moscow.
Burning French flags and raising Russian ones, however, cannot simply be blamed on Russian supposed economic bribes, clever diplomacy or growing military influence. The readiness of African nations – Mali, Central African Republic and now, possibly, Burkina Faso – has much more to do with mistrust and resentment of France’s self-serving legacy in Africa, West Africa in particular.
France has military bases in many parts of Africa and remains an active participant in various military conflicts, which has earned it the reputation of being the continent’s main destabilising force. Equally important is Paris’s stronghold over the economies of 14 African countries, which are forced to use French currency, the CFA franc, and, according to Frederic Ange Toure writing in Le Journal de l’Afrique, to: “Centralise 50% of their reserves in the French public treasury.”
Though many African countries remain neutral in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, a massive geopolitical shift is underway, especially in militarily fragile, impoverished and politically unstable countries that are eager to seek alternatives to French and other Western powers. For a country like Mali, shifting allegiances from Paris to Moscow was not exactly a great gamble. Bamako had very little to lose, but much to gain. The same logic applies to other African countries fighting extreme poverty, political instability and the threat of militancy, all of which are intrinsically linked.
Though China remains a powerful newcomer to Africa – a reality that continues to frustrate US policymakers – the more urgent battle, for now, is between Russia and France – the latter experiencing a palpable retreat.
In a speech last July, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that he wanted a: “Rethink of all our (military) postures on the African continent.” France’s military and foreign policy shift in Africa, however, was not compelled by strategy or vision, but by changing realities over which France has little control.
The EU’s offers to Serbia are unacceptable, and Serbs should “accept that they don’t want us,” Interior Minister Aleksandar Vulin told the Novosti news site on Saturday. He added that Belgrade should instead turn its attention to “free countries that accept us without blackmail,” such as Russia and China.
“The question is not whether we want to join the EU, but whether the EU wants Serbia,” Vulin told Novosti. “Judging by the insane blackmail they are exposing us to…they don’t want us. The sooner we accept that they don’t want us and that we don’t belong there, the better off we will be.”
A traditional ally of Russia, Serbia has come under intense pressure from the West to back the sanctions regime against Moscow over its military operation in Ukraine. The European Parliament has considered freezing accession talks with Belgrade over the latter’s refusal to back its eight rounds of economic penalties, US state media reported last month, while Germany and France have offered to “accelerate” Serbia’s path to EU membership if it recognizes the independence of the province of Kosovo, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic stated last week.
For Vulin and Vucic, the answer to these offers is a clear “no.”
“How much would our friends respect us if they saw us neglecting our interests in the face of enemy force?” Vulin asked. “Who would fight for us if we chose not to fight for ourselves?
“Relations with Russia, China and other free countries that accept us without blackmail and conditions are the future of Serbia,” he continued. “I believe that friendship with Russia is of the greatest importance and that without it we risk the physical disappearance of Serbia.”
According to a poll taken in March, some 61% of Serbs oppose any cooperation with the US-led NATO alliance, largely due to the bloc’s support for Kosovo’s independence and its 1999 bombing campaign that brought about the end of Yugoslavia. Furthermore, while Serbia applied for EU membership in 2009, accession looks to be off the table for now. The EU’s latest sanctions package targeting Russian oil exports looks set to cost Belgrade hundreds of millions of euros, Vulin said last week, describing it as the “first EU sanctions package against Serbia.”
Hungary has responded to the sanctions by announcing a new pipeline to help Serbia tap into the supply of Russian crude oil.
If you take the time to watch Vladimir Putin’s press conference yesterday (Friday) in Astana and then watch any recent cluster fark by Joe Biden, you will understand why the Russians are so calm in dealing with Ukraine. Putin is remarkable. Low key, well informed, articulate and not afraid of tough questions. He did not get any softballs here and, in fact, faced some tough questions. So much for the myth that Russia is a totalitarian state that brokers no dissent and requires everyone to toe a party line. That characterization more aptly describes the United States under the demented Joe Biden.
Here are the highlights with the relevant time stamp:
9:15 Putin is asked about Germany’s behavior. He notes incisively that Germany has put a priority on serving NATO rather than the interests of its nation and people.
14:40 Putin is asked about attending the G20 and meeting with Joe Biden. Putin said, there is no point. “There is no platform for any kind of negotiations at this point.” And we are in constant contact with some members of the G20, e.g. Turkey.
18;00 Putin is questioned directly about recent arrest of man in Moscow for listening to Ukrainian music. Putin responded that the arrest is wrong and we (Russia) should not behave like the West in trying to cancel a culture, in this case Ukrainian culture. He noted that Ukrainian is still a recognized language in Crimea and would remain so. He emphasized that Neo-Nazis and Nazi symbols on display in Ukraine are NOT Ukrainian culture and must be eliminated.
20:10 Mobilization was a hot topic. Will there be another wave of mobilization? Will there be “total mobilization”? Putin said the Defense Ministry initially planned a smaller number than the 300,000. Putin remarked that he doesn’t see any need right now to expand that number. There are 220,000 mobilized and the work of mobilization will be finished in two weeks.
22:00 Putin was asked about the men who fled Russia for other countries and calls in the Duma to confiscate their property. Putin said it must not be handled based on emotions. Rather it must be dealt with according to the law. In other words, each case must be litigated on an individual basis instead of a blanket action.
24:00 Another reporter cited one person mobilized who died allegedly with no training. Putin emphasized that the mobilized are supposed to receive 5 to 10 days refresher training. Then they go for specialized training that lasts 5 to 15 days. Then they undergo joint combat training. So far 33,000 men have been mobilized already with front line units and 16,000 in units with combat missions. Putin said he will order a review of the training regimen to ensure it is being done appropriately.
29:15 A reporter asked about the retaliatory strikes in response to the terrorist bombing of the Crimea bridge. Putin said there is no massive retaliation. Russia hit 22 of 29 targets and is now working on hitting the remaining 7. He said he saw no need for “massive retaliation” at this point.
30:00 Final question–NATO says that defeat of Ukraine by Russia will be the defeat of NATO. What happens if NATO deploys troops to Ukraine. Putin said “it could lead to a global catastrophe and I hope that those who talk about this will be smart enough not to undertake such dangerous steps.”
Whether you like or despise Putin, give the man his due. He spoke off the cuff. No notes in hand. He did not shy away from any question and he did not get angry or lose his cool. What a contrast with a Joe Biden press encounter. I think that Western politicians and pundits who disparage Putin as an incompetent dictator are making a very dangerous mistake. They fail to take this man at his word. Putin is establishing himself as a man who says what he means and means what he says
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 