Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Occupy Ottawa Day 5: Canadian Government Feeling the Pressure as Trucker Convoy Gains Momentum

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | February 2, 2022

The Trucker Freedom Convoy in Canada entered its 5th day today, as there appeared to be pressure mounting on politicians to take action as Truckers remained steadfast in their demands.

The big news in Ottawa was that Erin O’Toole, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, resigned after 73 of 118 MPs voted to replace him.

Erin O’Toole has resigned as the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada but will stay on to serve as the Durham, Ont. member of Parliament.

The majority of caucus voted to remove O’Toole in a secret ballot on Wednesday. In a decisive revolt, 118 votes were cast at the virtual morning meeting, 73 MPs voted in favour of replacing O’Toole, while 45 MPs voted to endorse his leadership.

Chair of the 119-member caucus, Scott Reid, said he did not vote.

Following this vote, O’Toole submitted his formal resignation to the party, effective immediately.

“Our party founded this great nation, I believe it can and should lead Canada out of these troubling times for our country,” he said in a video statement.

“I want to thank the people of Durham who I will continue to serve as Member of Parliament, I never lose sight of what an honour it is for me to serve my hometown in Parliament and there is not a bad seat in the House of Commons.”

He also thanked his wife, Rebecca and his children, Mollie and Jack. (Source.)

In Alberta, where the border between the US and Canada has been blocked for the past few days, MLAs announced that they were going to meet with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney to end the mandates, in return for the Truckers opening up the border.

The Truckers reportedly did open the border in good faith, but at time of publication there was no news that Kenney had ended the mandates yet, and some MLAs were calling for his resignation as well.

Now that Erin O’Toole is officially out as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, some Alberta MLAs say the development should send a message to Premier Jason Kenney and the UCP caucus.

Drew Barnes, the independent MLA for Cypress Hills-Medicine Hat, and Todd Loewen, the representative for Central Peace-Notley, sent out a joint statement in response to the the departure of O’Toole as leader of the federal Conservatives.

In it, they said the result was the effect that elected officials can have “when they stand up for their constituents.”

They also accused O’Toole of lying, ignoring advice and breaking promises to members.

“He chose to put the advice of lobbyists and armchair strategists ahead of his own party’s membership, and in the ensuing election, he managed to lose seats,” Loewen wrote in a release.

Both MLAs say the same thing is happening in Alberta with Kenney and it should have the same result.

“Premier Kenney has completely tuned out the conservative grassroots, especially when it comes to vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, government spending, and run-away corporate welfare,” Barnes said.

Loewen says Kenney has also lost the moral authority to lead the UCP and when that happens, a leader must step down.

“UCP caucus members need to recognize that Kenney’s time is up,” said Barnes. (Source.)

As they have been doing throughout the standoff at the border in Coutts, Alberta, Rebel News reporters embedded with the Truckers updated the situation there throughout the day.

We will continue to follow this developing story.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | 1 Comment

Joe Rogan Up Against ‘Powerful Interests,’ as More Musicians Threaten to Remove Music From Spotify

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | Februry 1, 2022

Joe Rogan in an Instagram video Monday addressed the growing controversy surrounding his podcast — “The Joe Rogan Experience” — telling fans he’s not interested in talking to people who have only one perspective. He also said he has a problem with the term “misinformation.”

Rogan’s statement came as the streaming platform Spotify on Sunday announced new rules designed to “combat” the spread of COVID “misinformation” on its platform.

The new rules came after a handful of musicians, including Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen’s guitarist Nils Lofgren and Joni Mitchell, pulled their music catalogs from Spotify, in an effort to force Spotify to choose between their music or Rogan’s podcast. Author Brené Brown also joined the protest, stating she won’t release new episodes of her Spotify-exclusive podcasts “until further notice.”

Spotify last week agreed to remove Young’s music.

“We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to covid-19 since the start of the pandemic,” a Spotify spokesperson told The Washington Post in a statement. “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon.”

Saagar Enjeti, Washington correspondent at The Hillsaid there could be more going on behind the scenes. Investment firms who own the music catalogs — and who also have ties to pharmaceutical companies — may be calling the shots.

“The people speaking out may be doing so organically, but it also happens to coincide with the financial or oligarchic interests of some very, very rich people,” Enjeti said in a “Breaking Points” episode that took a “deep dive into the hedge funds behind the campaign by Neil Young and others to cancel Rogan and boost other music services such as Amazon music.”

Rogan, Spotify’s star podcaster, signed a $100 million deal in 2020, giving the streaming service exclusive rights to his show. The podcast, available only on Spotify, reached No. 1 globally last year, the company said last month.

What used to be misinformation, now accepted as fact

According to Rogan’s 10-minute video, his podcast was accused of “spreading dangerous misinformation,” citing specifically his interviews with Dr. Peter McCullough and one with Dr. Robert Malone.”

Rogan said:

“Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist and he’s the most published physician in his field in history. Dr. Robert Malone owns nine patents on the creation of mRNA vaccine technology and is at least partly responsible for the creation of the technology that led to mRNA vaccines.

“Both these people are very highly credentialed, very intelligent, very accomplished people and they have an opinion that’s different than the mainstream narrative. I wanted to hear what their opinion is.

“I had them on and because of that those episodes, in particular, those episodes were labeled as being dangerous, they had dangerous misinformation in them.”

Rogan said the issue he has with the term “misinformation” is that “many of the things we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact.”

Rogan explained:

“For instance, eight months ago if you said if you get vaccinated you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID, you would be removed from social media. They would ban you from certain platforms. Now that’s accepted as fact.

“If you said, I don’t think cloth masks work, you would be banned on social media. Now that’s openly, repeatedly stated on CNN.

“If you said, I think it’s possible that COVID-19 came from a lab, you would be banned from many social media platforms. Now, that’s on the cover as Newsweek.”

Rogan said all of those theories that “at one point in time” were banned, were openly discussed by McCullough and Malone who were accused of spreading dangerous misinformation.

Rogan said he wanted to make the video because he feels “people have a distorted perception” of what he does.

“I’m not trying to promote misinformation,” Rogan said. “I’m not trying to be controversial. I’ve never tried to do anything with this podcast other than just talk to people and have interesting conversations.”

Are Amazon and Hedge Funds trying to cancel Rogan?

In a video posted Jan. 31 on YouTube, Enjeti said there is more than meets the eye when it comes to musicians like Young pulling their catalogs from Spotify.

“The original impetus for Neil Young’s demand was a letter he posted on social media saying Spotify could either have Neil Young or Joe Rogan, but that letter was almost immediately deleted after it was posted,” Enjeti said.

“Who is demanding this? Enjeti asked. “Is it Neil Young or is it the people who own his music?”

Enjeti explained:

“You see a recent trend in the music business it that iconic artists such a Neil Young sell their catalogs to big-money groups who then reap the profits in perpetuity. Young actually sold his catalog in Jan. 2021 to a company called Hipgnosis. Now Hipgnosis is a $1 billion company that recently announced an ownership agreement with Blackstone.”

Enjeti said Blackstone is focused on taking over single-family housing and turning America into a nation of renters, but it also has interests everywhere.

“Blackstone, BlackRock and these big private equity giants are ruthless in their pursuit of profits and they’re savvy political players who know how to play the game,” Enjeti said. “They have all sorts of ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including announcing the former CEO and chairman of Pfizer would be joining Blackstone as a senior advisor.”

“Do you really think it’s a coincidence that days after Neil Young’s music was pulled off of Spotify he debuts a 4-month free trial to any person who wants to sign up for Amazon music — who has struggled to gain market share and has long-standing connections with all of the big money people in the game?” Enjeti asked.

“Open your eyes to see possibilities you may not have imagined,” Enjeti said. “At first it was simple, just Neil Young taking a stand.”

Now a lot of people with big money and a big agenda who would just so happen to profit if Rogan went down are speaking out, Enjeti added. “Joni Mitchell has come out and said she is going to stand in solidarity with Neil Young.”

Mitchell on Sept. 13, 2021, struck a publishing deal with Reservoir Media, Inc. (RMI). The top 10 owners of RMI are large private equity and investment firms.

Lofgren, who on Jan. 30 announced he was joining fellow musicians Mitchell and Young in their Spotify boycott, also does not own his music catalog.

Lofgren’s catalog was purchased on Dec. 16, 2021, by Sony Entertainment. The top 10 owners of Sony Group Corp. are large investment firms.

Enjeti said:

“You give into the mob, you give them an inch, they will keep coming. Will Spotify really be able to withstand up to the pressure? Who knows? Principles are not going to save you in this instance. Only money will.”

Enjeti said people better hold on to their seats and “hope that Joe prevails on this one,” as he is up against more powerful interests than many realize.

New Spotify rules don’t define ‘misinformation’

As part of its new rules, Spotify said it would add a content advisory to any podcast episode discussing COVID amid accusations it was allowing misinformation to spread on its platform.

The advisory will direct listeners to a “dedicated COVID-19 Hub,” which is described as a “resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources.”

Spotify said this is the first content advisory of its kind and will roll out in the next few days.

The streaming giant also announced it will begin testing ways to highlight its platform rules to raise awareness around “what’s acceptable” and to help creators understand their accountability for the content they post on the platform.

The statement did not say who determines what is and is not misinformation and what is considered a “trusted source.”

Rogan said he supports Spotify putting a disclaimer on controversial podcasts about COVID and encouraging listeners to speak to their physicians.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 3 Comments

46 Israel violations against Palestinian journalists in January

Journalists flee after being attacked with grenades in the West Bank on 22 February 2019 [HAZEM BADER/AFP/Getty Images]

MEMO | February 2, 2022

An Arab journalists’ rights group has recorded 46 Israeli violations of Palestinian media freedoms in January, Anadolu News Agency reports.

In a report on Wednesday, the Journalists’ Support Committee which documents media violations across the Palestinian territories, said the Israeli violations varied between “arrest, extortion and direct field assault” of media personnel among other forms of harassment.

According to the NGO, four Palestinian journalists were arrested by Israeli forces last month.

It noted that the Israeli army and settlers committed “17 cases of assault and injury against journalists” during their coverage of the demolition of Palestinian homes in the occupied East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood and rallies in the West Bank.

The Israeli army often used rubber bullets and gas bombs against Palestinian journalists, the report said.

The NGO also documented 18 cases of journalists being blocked from covering Israeli violations against the Palestinians.

According to the report, Israeli forces raided the house of one journalist, threatened two female journalists, while restricting the social media accounts of four others for “violating publishing instructions.”

Last month, the NGO said that 17 Palestinian journalists and media workers were held in prison by Israel.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Russia announces retaliation over RT DE ban in Germany

RT | February 2, 2022

Russia has repeatedly warned the German authorities that it considers any “politically motivated pressure” on the Moscow-based broadcasting company “unacceptable,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

“A decision by the German media regulator is a clear signal [showing] that Russia’s concerns have been demonstratively ignored,” it said, adding that such a step leaves Russia no choice but to take “reciprocal measures” against the German media certified in Russia, as well as internet platforms that deleted RT DE accounts “in an arbitrary and baseless way.”

The ministry did not specify what particular measures will be taken. Earlier, it repeatedly warned Berlin about an “inevitable” response in the case that Germany refuses to find a “constructive solution” to the issue around RT DE broadcasting “created by [Germany] itself.”

The statement comes as Germany’s Commission on Licensing and Supervision (ZAK) – the central organ of Germany’s Medienanstalten agency – sided with the regional media regulator MABB, which sought to shut down RT DE’s media operations citing an absence of a valid German license.

RT DE has been operating on a license secured in Serbia in 2021, which allowed it to broadcast in various European countries, including Germany, under the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT), of which both Berlin and Belgrade are signatories. The German authorities, however, dismissed the license as worthless.

The broadcaster has not seen the level of opposition it faced from the German authorities in any other country in the world, RT’s deputy editor-in-chief, Anna Belkina, said on Wednesday.

“It appears as if the German authorities, politicians and even media are really afraid of something, afraid of an alternative point of view that the German-speaking audience can get access to on RT DE channel.”

She added that the Moscow-based German-language channel would continue its broadcast despite the German authorities demanding it stop doing so not only via TV but also via online streaming and mobile apps.

“The channel does have a license obtained in a fully legitimate way,” she added. RT DE Productions GmbH, a Berlin-based production studio, which itself does not broadcast anything but only creates content for the Moscow-based channel, will challenge the regulator’s decision in court, according to the deputy editor-in-chief. “We believe we have good grounds to win this fight,” she said.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Facebook bans American trucker convoy group

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | February 2, 2022

Facebook has booted the rapidly growing “Convoy to DC 2022” group from its platform after it gained 137,000 members.

The group had been gaining tens of thousands of members per day and was calling on all truckers in the US to form a convoy to protest COVID-19 mandates. Organizers were planning to begin the convoy in California and end in Washington DC.

According to congressional candidate Tyler Lee, who was helping organizers of Convoy to DC 2022 and was planning to join the convoy, Facebook claimed that the group was banned for “repeatedly violating our policies around QAnon.”

However, Lee described Facebook’s actions as a “stunt” and added that this “is exactly why Americans are fed up.”

The QAnon policies that Facebook cited when banning Convoy to DC 2022 were blasted when they were first introduced with lawyers, journalists, and authors warning that they were arbitrary and gave Facebook an unchecked license to censor.

“Facebook just shut down our page,” Brian Brase, one of the organizers of Convoy to DC 2022 tweeted. “Apparently we don’t fit their agenda. People United is scary I guess. Convoy is still on.”

Facebook’s decision to boot the Convoy to DC 2022 group follows another convoy that’s protesting vaccine mandates, the “Freedom Convoy” in Canada, going viral on social media after mainstream media outlets downplayed the convoy and suggested that Russia was behind it.

This isn’t the first time Facebook has banned a rapidly growing grassroots protest movement that’s being shunned or disparaged by the mainstream media. Anti-critical race theory groupsanti-lockdown groupsgroups supporting exceptions to COVID vaccine mandates, and more have also been booted from the platform as they gain traction and attract lots of new members.

In addition to banning specific groups, Facebook has introduced new censorship rules that make it harder for group members to see each other’s content.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Unvaxxed Parents in Western Australia Banned From Visiting Sick Children in Hospital

News show grimly celebrates new form of inhumane tyranny

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | February 1, 2022

Unvaccinated parents in Western Australia will not be able to visit their own sick children in hospital, with news anchors discussing the rule celebrating it as an excellent way of forcing the unvaxxed to ‘change their philosophy’.

From yesterday onwards, parents who haven’t received at least two doses of the vaccine will be barred from visiting their own kids, unless on compassionate ‘end of life’ grounds.

In other words, their child has to literally be on its deathbed for unvaxxed parents to be allowed into hospitals in Western Australia.

Almost as odious as the rule itself was how this new level of inhumane tyranny was vehemently welcomed by a host and her two guests on the Sunrise television news show.

One male reporter called the rule “the ultimate test” for unvaccinated parents, asking, “Could that be the trigger to make you change your mind and I guess that’s the force at play here.”

“Would it make you change your philosophy? Maybe it would and maybe that’s what the government are banking on,” he added.

Journalist Susie O’Brien cracked a smile before announcing, “I’m all for this, this is not about the rights of parents, this is about the rights of the sick kids…to stay as safe as possible.”

Yes, because I’m sure children who are sick and alone in hospital will surely love exercising the “right” not to be able to see their own parents.

“If you are unvaccinated without a good reason, without a valid exemption, then you are gonna find your movements curtailed,” O’Brien smugly stated, adding that the government was right to “shock” and “challenge” people into “changing their philosophy, changing their action and get vaccinated.”

“People have had time, I mean really,” the news anchor sardonically stated as she ended the segment.

“The cruelty is the point,” remarked Mike Cernovich.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 3 Comments

Costa Rica Authorizes Vaccination – Against Parent’s Wishes

The Tico Times | January 30, 2022

The Costa Rica Ministry of Health in conjunction with the National Children’s Board (PANI) gave hospital officials the authorization to vaccinate all children in their care as long as there are no medical counter indications that would preclude it.

The issue arose after the parents of a child in a hospital in Heredia objected to their child being vaccinated after the child tested positive for Covid-19. Ultimately the child was vaccinated and discharged but only after a protest that became violent when a group organized online tried to remove the child from the hospital, resulting in the arrests of seven people.

In a statement from PANI they cited the the hosipital had the legal authority and the “fundamental right to health and life” of the child as paramount and part of the basis of the order.

While the first vaccination was administered it seems unlikely that the parents will follow up for any future Covid-19 vaccinations or that the Ministry of Health will intervene if the child is no longer under their care.

What is also unclear is if any other Costa Rica authorities will take any actions against the parents for failing to vaccinate their child in the future.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Costa Rica Anti-Vaccine group enters hospital by force

The Tico Times | January 27, 2022

In a chaotic, and at times violent confrontation, a group of anti-vaccine advocates forcibly entered a hospital in Heredia as part of their protest and to remove a child with Covid-19. Six protestors were arrested at the scene. Police later arrested another person after he posted threatening comments online against government officials enforcing Covid-19 health restrictions.

The confrontation arose from a situation where, reportedly, a six year old unvaccinated patient was admitted for one issue and then was discovered to have tested positive for Covid-19.

Hospital officials were reluctant to release the child back into the community while infectious, at the same time the patient’s parents, both anti-vaccine advocates, claimed their child was being held “hostage” as hospital officials waited for guidance from the Ministry of Health.

A small, but hardline group organized online, reportedly initially to go to the hospital to physically remove the child themselves. Included in the group was a member of the National Assembly by the name of Diaz.

Security personnel and hospital employees confronted the protestors and scuffles ensued until police arrived and the “rescue mission” became a sit in. Hospital officials denounced the participants for putting patients at a crucial medical facility at risk for what they described as a political stunt. Prosecutors promised to take a hard line against any violent protestors that may have broken the law.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

The Race Is On for an Omicron Jab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 1, 2022

At this stage in the game, it’s apparent that the COVID jab no longer works. Many health officials and world leaders are even openly acknowledging that the COVID shots cannot end the pandemic and that we must learn to live with the virus.

A major driver for this U-turn in the pandemic narrative is the emergence of the Omicron variant which, by mid-January 2022, accounted for 99.5% of all COVID cases in the U.S.1

The infection, which is far milder than previous ones, is ripping through populations, leaving natural herd immunity in its wake. Despite that, vaccine makers are still hard at work to produce an Omicron-specific injection.2 Pfizer has promised to have one ready by March 2022.3

The question is why, seeing how by the time the shot is released, just about everybody will have been exposed. If natural herd immunity is already maxed out, what good could a “vaccine” possibly do?

‘Everyone’ Will Have Natural Immunity

As Dr. William Moss, executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told CNBC,4 “An omicron-targeted vaccine was needed in December [2021]. It still could be valuable but I do think in many ways, it’s too late.”

Dr. Shaun Truelove, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of a team of researchers who make COVID projections, agreed, saying, “Given how quickly this [variant] is happening, [the targeted vaccine] may not matter because everybody’s going to be infected.”5 Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla even admits he doesn’t know “whether or not the new vaccine is needed or how it could be used,” CNBC reports.

January 25, 2022, Pfizer and Moderna announced they’ve started enrolling adults, 18 to 55, for trials on an Omicron-specific jab in the U.S. and South Africa.6 Pfizer will evaluate safety, tolerability and immune response in 1,420 volunteers,7 some of whom will have received two doses while others will have received three already. A third cohort will be unvaccinated (although one wonders where they’ll get those from).

Moderna has also joined the pointless race to produce an Omicron booster,8 although it’s doubtful they’ll be able to produce one any faster than Pfizer.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told CNBC that a fourth COVID jab also may be on the horizon, “as the efficacy of boosters will likely decline over time.”9 It’s unclear what strain that fourth shot would target.

Israel Proves Failure of COVID Boosters

For a preview of what’s in store after third and fourth booster shots, all we have to do is look at Israel, where more than 250,000 fourth doses had already been given by early January 2022. According to CNBC:10

“Early data from Israel shows that a fourth dose does increase antibody levels, says Dr. David Hirschwerk, infectious disease specialist and medical director at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital.”

What CNBC neglects to note is that, after the rollout of a fourth dose, Israel now has the highest COVID case rate per capita of any country in the world since the beginning of the pandemic.

Looking at a Reuters graph11 of Israel’s seven-day average case rate, something absolutely abnormal appears to have happened in mid-January 2022, as the line shoots straight upward, hitting an all-time high of 75,603 new infections per day on January 24, 2022.

This, despite 74% of the population having received at least one dose, 67% having received two doses, and 56% having received at least one booster, as of January 25, 2022.12

What Does It Mean To Be ‘Fully Vaxxed’?

While the pandemic narrative has recently shifted, and rather dramatically, with some leaders openly speaking out against boosters without getting canceled or censored, it seems clear that we’re not out of the woods yet when it comes to COVID shots.

Vaccine makers clearly aim to make the COVID shot, at bare minimum, an annual injection.13 In the meantime, the definition of what it means to be “fully vaccinated” against COVID keeps shifting. At the beginning of 2021, many people undoubtedly got their primary series (two shots of Pfizer or Moderna, or a single jab in the case of AstraZeneca and Janssen) thinking life would be easier that way.

Being “fully vaccinated,” they wouldn’t be inconvenienced by vaccine passport restrictions and mandates. Well, that fantasy only lasted a few months. Now, those who got the first required series find themselves in the unwelcome position of being among the “unvaccinated” again unless they submit to a third jab.

As explained by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky during a recent press briefing:14

“What we’re really working to do is pivot the language to make sure everyone is up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine. If you’ve recently gotten your second dose but you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up-to-date. If you’re eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up-to-date and you need to get your booster.”

It’s only a matter of time before those with three jabs will be “unvaccinated” unless they submit to a fourth, and so on, ad nauseum. An as-yet unanswered question is how many mRNA injections can a person survive?

Considering the injection causes your body to produce toxic spike protein in uncontrolled amounts, it seems reasonable to assume there’s a tolerance limit, although that limit may vary from person to person. There’s really no telling how many people are one shot away from a crippling side effect or sudden death.

Each Shot Degrades Your Immune System

As reported by The Exposé,15 January 22, 2022, government data from around the world suggest people who have received at least two shots are now showing signs of serious immune system degradation.

According to that report, data from Australia, the U.S., Canada, Scotland and England clearly show “that their vaccinated populations immune system capability has been decimated when compared to the not-vaccinated population.” For starters, Omicron cases are rising far more rapidly and readily among the fully jabbed and boosted than among the unvaxxed.

In Australia, the fully jabbed are 2.2 times more likely to catch COVID than the unvaccinated. “So, the vaccine passports holders are 2.2x more likely to spread COVID than the unvaxxed who are denied vaccine passports and locked up in detention centers,” The Exposé dryly notes.

Several studies have also shown the effectiveness of the jab wanes incredibly rapidly. And, disturbingly, it doesn’t peter out at zero. Immunity goes negative, meaning the fully vaxxed and boosted rapidly become MORE prone to COVID infection than they ever were before.

Negative Effectiveness Rates Found in Many Countries

In the U.S., a study16 on 780,225 U.S. veterans found the effectiveness of the jab dropped precipitously over six months:

  • Janssen dropped from 86.4% effectiveness at the outset to 13.1% in the sixth month
  • Moderna dropped from 89.2% to 58%
  • Pfizer dropped from 86.9% to 43.3%

A Canadian study17 found vaccine effectiveness started declining sharply within as little as the second week after the second jab. By the sixth month after the second jab, the blood of 70% of nursing home residents had “very poor ability to neutralize the coronavirus infection in laboratory experiments.”

In the U.K., government data “show a clear linear fall-off in vaccine efficiency at an average rate of 4.8% per week for the over 18s,” The Exposé reports,18 and by the time you get past Week 9 after jab No. 2, effectiveness starts going negative.

“Doubly vaxxed (unboosted) people in the U.K. have now (as of January 2022) run right out of immune system efficiency against both Delta and Omicron when compared to unvaccinated people,” The Exposé writes. The question is whether or not there might be a point at which the immune system stops deteriorating. As of now, we don’t know.

Using data from five UK HSA COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Reports, The Exposé created the following graph, illustrating “the overall immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past five months.”

The Exposé explains:19

“What we can see from the above is that the immune system performance for adults aged between 18 and 59 has deteriorated to the worst levels yet since they were given the COVID-19 vaccine.

Whilst the immune system performance of everyone over the age of 60 has deteriorated dramatically following receipt of the booster shot, but not yet to the level seen between week 37 and week 40. The over 70’s have however seen the most dramatic fall in immune system performance between month 4 and month 5 alongside 18-29-year-olds.

The 55% boost to the immune systems of the over 80’s given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 1% better than it was in month 3 but still 54% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The 73% boost to the immune systems of the 70-79-year-olds given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has also all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 10% better than it was in month 3 but still 63% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The minor boost however, given to the immune systems of everyone between the age of 30 and 59 by the boosters between month 3 and 4 has been completely decimated by the following month, whilst 18-29-year-olds have seen a 60% decline in their immune system performance between months 4 and 5.”

Are Double- and Triple-Jabbed People at Risk for VAIDS?

By now you may be wondering whether this negative effectiveness could be indicative of something far worse than just being more prone to Omicron infection. The Exposé20 believes the double- and triple-jabbed may actually have vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or VAIDS, similar to AIDS.

While I think it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion, former Pfizer vice president Michael Yeadon has made a similar statement.21 In a December 6, 2021, article on americasfrontlinedoctors.org, Yeadon is quoted saying:22

“If immune erosion occurs after two doses and just a few months, how can we exclude the possibility that effects of an untested ‘booster’ will not erode more rapidly and to a greater extent?”

The article goes on to cite a Lancet preprint23 that compared outcomes among “vaccinated” and unvaccinated Swedes over the course of nine months. As in other studies, they found that protection against symptomatic COVID rapidly declined, and by six months’ post-jab, “some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk than their unvaccinated peers.”

“Doctors are calling this phenomena in the repeatedly vaccinated ‘immune erosion’ or ‘acquired immune deficiency,’ accounting for elevated incidence of myocarditis and other post-vaccine illnesses that either affect them more rapidly, resulting in death, or more slowly, resulting in chronic illness,” the Frontline Doctors explain.24

The article also cites an August 2021 report from Scotland,25 which found those who had received the jab were 3.3 times more likely to die from COVID infection than the unvaccinated — a finding that certainly blows a huge hole in the claim that the jab prevents serious illness and death even if you do get symptomatic infection.

ICU Admissions Spike Among Vaxxed Immunocompromised Brits

The Daily Mail at the end of November 2021 also reported that weekly ICU admissions of “most vulnerable patients” had risen by 50% in the two preceding months, and that 1 in 28 ICU patients had conditions affecting their immune system. Blood cancer patients and organ transplant patients made up a bulk of this group.26

While the Daily Mail blamed the unusually high rate of admissions of immunocompromised patients on the government’s failure to roll out booster shots fast enough to counteract waning immunity, this is incredibly short-sighted. As noted by America’s Frontline Doctors, the shots are creating “vaccine addicts,” in the sense that their immune system won’t be able to ward off COVID without them. However, it’s still a losing venture, as each shot only worsens the immune erosion.

In the final analysis, it looks as though many may indeed end up being just one shot away from VAIDS as they continue to chase protection from an ever-mutating coronavirus.

The Daily Mail article tells the story of a transplant patient who was desperate to get his booster, knowing he was at high risk for COVID complications. It took three weeks, but he finally got his third shot. The very next day — THE NEXT DAY — he developed “a blinding headache, nausea and dizziness. A lateral flow test was positive and a follow-up PCR test confirmed that he had caught COVID.”

But rather than realizing he’s a victim of that third shot, the man is irrationally convinced that had he just gotten the third dose sooner, he wouldn’t have gotten COVID at all. Sadly, people like these will likely die from their “COVID jab addiction.” In closing, The Exposé writes:27

“Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.

Therefore, could we be seeing some new form of COVID-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome? Only time will tell, but judging by the current figures it looks like we will only need to wait a matter of weeks to find out.”

Sources and References

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 4 Comments

Russia responds to accusations of chemical weapons use

Russian ambassador to the United States says Washington is telling ‘outright lies’

By Jonny Tickle | RT | February 2, 2022

Russia is strictly adhering to the norms of international law, and suggestions that it is using chemical weapons are “fundamentally false,” the country’s ambassador to the US claimed on Wednesday.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday morning, Anatoly Antonov called the accusation a fantasy, and instead suggested that Washington is trying to “demonize” Russia. His rebuttal came after White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told journalists that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken “aggressive steps” on the global stage.

“This is a country and a leader who has, you know, used chemical weapons, who has invaded multiple countries in the past several years,” Psaki said, at a press briefing on Tuesday.

However, according to Antonov, both these suggestions are untrue, and Washington would be wise to “look in the mirror more often before blaming or lecturing others.”

“The US has not backed up with any credible evidence its fantasies built on outright lies about the alleged use of chemical weapons by our country,” the ambassador said. “The accusations against our country of ‘invading’ other states also have no grounds.”

According to Antonov, Russia has completely destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons, while the US has not.

“Russia adheres to the principle of ‘non-interference’ in the affairs of foreign countries and strictly follows international law – unlike the United States, whose modern history looks more like a chronology of US military operations in different parts of the globe,” the ambassador continued, accusing Washington of conducting “bloody” experiments around the world, which cause “nothing but chaos, instability, and loss of lives.”

The latest statement by Psaki is not the first time that Moscow has been accused of illegally using chemical weapons. Last year, Washington imposed sanctions on a number of Russian officials and businesses for the alleged poisoning of jailed opposition figure Alexey Navalny, in what the US dubbed “the use of a chemical weapon” in an “attempted assassination.”

“The U.S. government has exercised its authorities to send a clear signal that Russia’s use of chemical weapons and abuse of human rights have severe consequences. Any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and contravenes international norms,” a State Department press release said in March.

In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Washington of using Russia as a diversion from America’s internal issues.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 2 Comments

America’s Putin Psychosis

By Scott Ritter | Consortium News | February 2, 2022

The war of words between Russia and the United States over Ukraine escalated further on Tuesday as Russian President Vladimir Putin responded for the first time to the U.S. written reply to Russia’s demands for security guarantees that were expressed in the form of a pair of draft treaties submitted by Moscow to the U.S. and NATO in December.

“It is already clear…that the fundamental Russian concerns were ignored. We did not see an adequate consideration of our three key requirements,” Putin said at a press conference that followed his meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Moscow.

Putin said the U.S. had failed to give “adequate consideration of our three key demands regarding NATO expansion, the renunciation of the deployment of strike weapons systems near Russian borders, and the return of the [NATO] bloc’s military infrastructure in Europe to the state of 1997, when the Russia-NATO founding act was signed.”

He detailed what he alleged was NATO’s long history of deception, re-emphasizing the 1990 verbal commitment by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand “an inch” eastward. “They said one thing, they did another,” Putin said. “As people say, they screwed us over, well they simply deceived us.”

With some 130,000 Russian troops deployed in the western and southern military districts bordering Ukraine, and another 30,000 assembling in neighboring Belarus, U.S. policy makers are scrambling to figure out what Russia’s next move might be, a choice most U.S. policy makers believe boils down to diplomacy or war.

Rather than examine the situation from the perspective of Russian national security interests, however, these officials have placed the fate of European peace and security in the hands of a single individual: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Interests of an Entire Nation

In a recent article in The AtlanticTom Nichols opines that “no one really knows why Putin is doing this—or whether he really intends to do it at all. It is unlikely that his own inner circle even has a good read on its boss.”

Even the president of the United States, Joe Biden, professed a sense of frustration at not knowing what Putin’s objectives are vis-à-vis Ukraine. “I’ll be completely honest with you,” Biden said last month, “it is a little bit like reading tea leaves” when it came to predicting Putin’s next move.

The fact that the U.S. president is at a loss when assessing Russia’s next move regarding Ukraine should send a shiver up the spines of all concerned Americans. One of the main reasons for this confusion lies in the emphasis Biden placed on the importance of only what Putin was thinking, as opposed what the legitimate national security interests of Russia were.

This problem is not unique to the present circumstance, but rather is part and parcel of a national obsession with Putin the man that obviates the reality that Russia is a country whose interests are greater than any single individual, no matter how long serving or powerful.

The problem with focusing on an individual as the embodiment of a nation is that one is trying to solve the wrong problem. Russia’s ongoing issues with Ukraine are larger than Vladimir Putin, and as such, far more complex in defining national goals and policy boundaries. You can’t solve a problem unless you first accurately define the problem; by tying the problem of Ukraine to one man, American policy makers are, in effect, dealing with the wrong problem.

This disconnect from reality is further exacerbated when, as is the case with the majority of so-called “Russian experts” prevalent in America today, one seeks to play amateur psychiatrist by getting into the mind of the Russian leader.

Take, for example, Michael McFaul, the architect of Barack Obama’s infamous policy “reset” with Russia (a little-disguised effort designed to squeeze Putin out of power and replace him with the ostensibly more compliant Dmitry Medvedev). The title of his policy memoir, From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia says it all. If you think you have the ability to define the character of an entire nation through the persona of a single named individual, you should be able to provide some insight into the thinking of that person.

But as McFaul himself admitted recently on MSNBC, “I want to state categorically that I don’t know what Putin wants. I don’t know what he’s decided. President Biden doesn’t know. The director of the CIA [William Burns] doesn’t know. I don’t think Sergei Lavrov knows, the foreign minister.”

A moment of honest humility? No; McFaul continues: “And from my experience dealing with Putin in negotiations, I don’t think he has made his own decision yet. I think that he likes this uncertainty. He likes that we’re all talking about, you know, negotiating with ourselves, making counter proposals. He likes to watch that.”

McFaul, by his own admission, doesn’t know what Putin wants, but he freely opines about what Putin thinks and likes. I would respectfully suggest that if you know a person well enough to publicly pontificate on their thoughts and desires, then you probably know what they want.

Perception Over Reality

McFaul honestly stated that he doesn’t know what Putin wants; the rest is simply speculative drivel motivated not by any genuine intellectually-based curiosity about Russia and the man who serves as its president, but rather the need to feed the American mainstream media’s appetite for a narrative that doesn’t challenge that of a White House that sets the tone and content of what passes for news based upon domestic political imperatives as opposed to global geopolitical reality.

Perception is everything; facts mean nothing. This is the Biden administration’s mantra. One only need look to Biden’s July 23, 2021, telephone conversation with then-Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things aren’t going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden told the beleaguered Afghan leader. “And there’s a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”

The fact that U.S. presidential administrations, as a matter of course, manufacture a fact-free narrative designed to mislead a domestic American audience should not come as a shock to anyone who has studied the sickening intersection of public and foreign policy in the United States since the end of the Second World War.

In this vein, one of the central themes that is being woven into the Ukraine narrative is the frenetic nature of decision making by Vladimir Putin.

McFaul described Russia’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 as an impulsive move by Putin, not something long planned, but put into effect only after the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Kiev. This line of thinking was endemic in the Obama White House where McFaul served. Journalist Susan Glasser, a long-time critic of Putin, quotes an unnamed “top Obama official” in her 2014 article for Politico, “Putin on the Couch.’

“I hear people say we were naïve about Putin and that the president didn’t understand Putin,” the official said. “No. We had a very sober, very steely-eyed realist assessment of Putin.”

But then the “top official” proved they did not. “It comes down to a debate going on in his own head,” the official noted. “He does impulsive, or dare I say irrational, things. I don’t think he’s the realist grand strategist that some people admiringly ascribe to him.”

Glasser ran with the theme, quoting David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker and Pulitzer Prize winning author of Lenin’s Tomb, who, speaking about Putin and Crimea, declared, “I think he has improvised, acted rashly and foolishly, even on his own terms.”

Stephen Sestanovich, the U.S. ambassador-at-large to the former Soviet Union from 1997 to 2001, continued this line of analysis, noting Putin’s “bad judgment, emotional decision-making, petty score-settling with little care for long-term consequences,” before concluding “But it’s vintage Putin.”

Even when fellow travelers like Fiona Hill, who doubled as the top Kremlinologist for both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former C.I.A. analyst who served as a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia under Barack Obama, come together for a pragmatic assessment of Russia, they are colored by their collective Putin-centric approach to all things Russia.

Hill, the author of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, recently observed that, “With Putin it’s always important to expect the unexpected. He makes sure that he has a range of options for action and different ways of leveraging a situation to exploit weakness. If all our attention is on Ukraine, then his next move might be somewhere else to throw us off balance and see how we react.”

Kendall-Taylor, whose assessments on Putin and Russia were regularly briefed to President Obama, testified before Congress in 2019 that, “Although Putin’s actions in Crimea and Syria were designed to advance a number of key Russian goals, it is also likely that Putin’s lack of domestic constraints increased the level of risk he was willing to accept in pursuit of those goals.”

These two seasoned Russian hands, both highly influential in terms of advising senior American policy makers, from the president on down, both continue the narrative of Putin as an impulsive, risk-taking gambler, who makes spur of the moment decisions based upon personal intuition.

They, like all the other so-called Russian experts, are wrong.

How Policy Is Made in Russia

The fact is, any Russian expert worth their salt knows what Russia’s goals and objectives vis-à-vis Ukraine are because the Russians told us back in 2008. One of the few genuine Russian experts in a position to influence policy, C.I.A. Director William Burns, put it all down in writing in a February 2008 cable entitled, simply enough, “Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines.” He wrote it while serving as the U.S. ambassador to Russia during the administration of President George W. Bush.

Burns, reporting on the Russian reaction to the 2008 NATO summit where the idea of membership for Ukraine was floated, noted that the Russian Foreign Ministry had declared that “a radical new expansion of NATO may bring about a serious political-military shift that will inevitably affect the security interests of Russia.”

The Russians highlighted that when it came to Ukraine, Russia was bound by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to “refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other side.” Ukraine’s ‘likely integration into NATO,” the Russian Foreign Ministry declared, “would seriously complicate the many-sided Russian-Ukrainian relations,” and that Russia would “have to take appropriate measures.”

Burns gave the Bush administration the Russian playbook of consequences should NATO seek to move forward on membership for Ukraine. This information was known to McFaul, Hill, Kendall-Taylor, and all the other so-called “Russian experts,” yet they failed to address it (further reinforcing Putin’s claims that “fundamental Russian concerns were ignored”).

The concept that Putin would act “impulsively” in 2014 to a problem outlined concisely and accurately in 2008 by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs likewise shows an absolute disregard for, or ignorance of, how policy is made in Russia today.

There is no doubt that Putin is a very powerful president wielding strong executive powers. But he is not a dictator, nor is Russia set up to be ruled by a dictator.

Russian policy is made by professional bureaucrat-specialists resident in the extremely dense permanent Russian bureaucracy. These bureaucrats, part of the Russian civil servant class, are responsible for turning policy guidance into detailed implementation plans from which the resources needed for implementation are assigned, along with a timeline for completion of the task.

These implementation plans cut across ministries and are designed to consider all foreseeable variables. In short, Russian policy is the by-product of a process which represents the coordinated effort of a vast bureaucracy—the exact opposite of the individual “impulsivity” ascribed by McFaul, Hill, Kendall-Taylor, and others to Putin.

The plan implemented by Russia regarding Crimea in 2014 was born of the Russian concerns expressed in 2008, and were not the knee-jerk reactions of an impulsive, risk-taking Russian President. The same can be said for the situation unfolding in Ukraine today. The fact that Biden and his national security advisors are locked on to Putin as the personification of all things Russia is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Russia works or — worse — a deliberate campaign of perception management intended to deceive the American public about the complexities and realities of U.S. policy objectives.

Getting it wrong when it comes to defining policy-making reality in Russia today goes well beyond simply formulating bad policy, which is then incompetently implemented. The United States is ceding the initiative to Russia and its president. At the end of the day, one would be hard pressed to make a case where the executive decision-making powers of Vladimir Putin far exceed those of his American counterpart.

The Russians, however, have a two-fold advantage over the United States in terms of policy implementation. First and foremost, they are dealing with an executive who has been at the helm of the Russian ship for two decades; Putin is unmatched when it comes to knowledge of his system of government, and how to make it work. Even someone like Biden, with his four-plus decades of government experience, operates like a rookie during his first few years in office, if for no other reason than he is, in fact, a rookie.

A U.S. presidential administration in its first term is, literally, starting from scratch. True, there is a standing American civil service (some call it part of the “deep state”) which provides a modicum of operational consistency from administration to administration, but the critical leadership for every administration is provided by the political appointees. As opposed to Russia’s twin decades of consistent policy formulation and implementation, the United States has witnessed during the same time frame four changes of administrations, each one with a radically different approach toward governance than its predecessor.

A Manufactured Narrative

The only consistency between administrations is the need to manufacture narratives used to placate a domestic constituency about policies linked to national defense and, by extension, the defense industry. Here, the demonization of Russia has played a large role in defining U.S. defense needs and, by extension, the acquisition of weapons.

No administration has trusted the American public to engage in a fact-based national dialogue about the “threat” posed by Russia and, by extension, the continued need for NATO. The main reason for this is, if the facts were presented clearly, no American could possibly support the continuation of NATO and, therefore, would not support the elevation of Russia as a threat worthy of hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars.

In this way, the United States can produce a class of partisan “experts” on Russia whose only claim to real expertise is the ability to conform to a narrative designed to further a lie, as opposed to seeking the truth. Gone are the days when masters of Russian studies, such as the former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, held sway.

Even when the U.S. produced a qualified Russian expert in academia, such as the late Steven Cohen, the mainstream media negated his true expertise by either drowning out his message in a sea of Russophobic propaganda spewed by his opposite numbers, or just simply ignoring him. Instead, we get the Michael McFaul’s, Fiona Hill’s, and Andrea Kendall-Taylor’s—academics whose sole claim to relevance is their collective embrace of Putin as the personification of all that ails Russia in the world today.

America’s dependence on this inferior class of ersatz Russian expertise has created a congenital defect in American national security decision making that is best expressed as a variation of John Boyd’s OODA Loop. Boyd, a renowned fighter pilot, claimed he could shoot down any opposing fighter within forty seconds from a position of disadvantage employing a decision-making cycle he called the “OODA Loop” (for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act).

In short, by executing one’s decision-making cycle faster than an opponent, one “got inside” the decision-making cycle of the enemy, forcing them to react to you, and thereby guaranteeing their demise.

The OODA Loop has been adapted by various non-pilot organizations and entities, from the U.S. Marines to business, as a model to improve operational efficiency. While neither the Russian Foreign Ministry nor the U.S. State Department have embraced the theory, it can be used as a vehicle of comparative analysis when assessing the effectiveness of the respective policy formulation and implementation cycles.

Three Phases

From the standpoint of observing, the fundamental tennet is to collect data using all possible resources. From the Russian perspective, when it comes to Ukraine and NATO, Russia has been focused on NATO policy, both expressed and implemented, when it comes to its eastward expansion, and the applicability of such expansion to Ukraine. The data collected by Russia is fact-based, and singularly focused on the problem at hand, which is the potential threat posed to Russia by Ukrainian membership in NATO.

The U.S., however, with its Putin-centric approach, focuses on the person of the Russian president, without any attempt to match observed actions with anything resembling actual policy. The data collected is of the tabloid variety, focusing on posturing, mannerisms, and photo opportunities.

While Putin does provide a plethora of data in the form of speeches and extended press question and answer sessions, the analysis conducted from these opportunities rarely goes deeper than turning the Russian president’s presentation into a cartoon-like depiction of evil.

The next phase, orientation, is guided by the data collected during the observation phase. Here, the Russians can zoom in on the U.S./NATO centers of gravity, so to speak — that which makes the trans-Atlantic alliance work, and that which could cause problems.

Here, Russia has predicted possible policy options that could be pursued by NATO in response to a wide variety of policy stimuli from Russia and gamed out each to find a range of actions and reaction possibilities that best suit Russian policy objectives.

The U.S., however, continues to focus on Putin, producing material in book, article, and television formats which attack the character of the Russian president while denigrating Russia as a nation (“Russia is nothing more than a gas station masquerading as a country” seems to be a popular jibe.)

By creating a false narrative built around the absolute nature of Putin’s quasi-dictatorial state, the Americans have lulled themselves into a false sense of complacency premised on the notion of Putin’s impulsivity which, by its very nature, cannot be predicted, and as such cannot be deterred through preventive measures.

The third phase, decision, is paramount. Here, the Russians, having gathered data, assessed its value, and formulated policy options derived from the same, pick the option that best suits their policy objectives. They are in control of the timetable, and as such, can allocate resources sufficient to the task.

The Americans, by comparison, remain engaged in the business of demeaning the Russians and their president in products designed for domestic consumption and, as such, virtually useless in the realm of reality.

The final phase, action, is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Here the Russians have initiated a process which not only has them operating at a time and place of their choosing, but also to have positioned themselves to immediately begin the next OODA Loop cycle by having the appropriate sensors in place to collect data regarding any potential American reaction so that new decision options can be rapidly prepared and acted on.

The Americans, meanwhile, are alerted to a potential crisis only through the actions of the Russians. The Americans initiate their own observation process, but their collection mechanism, so firmly rooted in the persona of Putin, is oblivious to the complexity and layering of the Russian action.

Russia, armed with the luxury of time and initiative, can isolate American actions as they take place, beginning a process of action-reaction which Russia controls.

In short, if the current diplomatic engagement taking place between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine were a dog fight, the Americans would be shot down by the Russians inside of forty seconds, guaranteed.

Russia isn’t simply operating inside the American decision-making cycle—they control it.

Propagandized Conformity

While the ultimate responsibility for bad policy rests with the senior policy maker — the U.S. president — there is no doubt that successive presidential administrations have been poorly served by the current crop of American Kremlinologists, personified by McFaul, Hill, Kendall-Taylor, and others, who made Putin bashing the standard for what passed for Russian studies.

In short, so long as your world view of Russia conformed with the Putin bashers, you were welcomed into the club; if, however, one opted to take a more nuanced, fact-based approach to Russian studies that went beyond the persona of the Russian president, and explored the complexity of post-Cold War Russia, the powers that be in government, academia and media would relegate you to the trash bin of relevancy.

Every American citizen should realize that they have been poorly served by these slavish servants of propagandized conformity, and the potential consequence of their collective failure — war — stares us all in the face.

If we can emerge from these difficult times intact, it will only be because the Russians—not Biden—picked a policy path that possessed a viable diplomatic offramp.

And if we are so fortunate, then the practitioners of this Putin psychosis —the McFaul’s, Hill’s, Kendall-Taylor’s, and others of their ilk — should be singled out for their respective role in bringing America to such a place policy-wise and treated accordingly — no more sinecures, no more access, no more credibility.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Could the Ukrainian army face Russian forces?

By Uriel Araujo | February 2, 2022

With a Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict becoming increasingly more likely, due to the escalation of tensions and Ukrainian provocations, some analysts are already reflecting on the possible outcomes of such a conflict. In this scenario, what chances do the Ukrainian armed forces have?

The Ukrainian military is notoriously outdated, corrupt, low-tech, focused on trench warfare, low-skilled, and poorly paid. In addition, it lacks discipline and it is not very experienced. One could argue it has “hardened” itself since 2014, as it has been fighting rebel forces in Donbas but by Kiev’s own estimates, the vast majority of the rebels are locals, contrary to Western discourses about “Russian occupants”, and possess mainly light weapons and Soviet-age armor. The Russian armed forces are something very different. Moreover, Ukrainian bombers and jet fighters are quite dated and could play only a supporting role in a war against Russia. Kiev has Soviet-era surface-to-air missile batteries and most of its systems are dependent on Russia for upgrades. Of course, it could modernize its air force, but it would take at least a decade and would cost some billions of dollars.

It is true the Ukrainian army now has some Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapons (MBT LAWs, also known as NLAWs). Around 2,000 units of these “fire-and-forget” anti-tank missile systems have been provided to Kiev by the UK, hundreds of those were delivered last month, apparently in a hurry.

According to Sebastien Roblin, an international security expert, who has served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China and holds a Georgetown University Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution, these missiles might only be useful in “desperate circumstances”. They were chosen mainly due to the fact that they are easy to use, thus allowing the Ukrainian forces to be quickly trained in their use by British paratroopers. The MBT LAWs do not possess as much long-distance accuracy as the US anti-tank missile TOW (tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided), for instance.

They could of course destroy some Russian tanks in an urban warfare context, but, as Roblin argues, in his Forbes piece, Moscow’s military doctrine today (known as “non-contact warfare“), focuses mainly on destroying the enemy forces from a great distance, employing all kinds of artillery aided by drone surveillance technology. Moscow has learned much from Chechnya urban battles of the 1990s, after all. This means Russian tanks and infantry would only come after massive artillery fire. In this case, Ukraine’s mostly plain geography does not help much. Russian ballistic and cruise missile platforms, simply put, have the power to devastate Ukrainian power plants, radars, command centers and armored vehicle columns.

Kiev also possesses some Javelin missiles now, delivered by Washington – albeit in a very limited amount (about 540 missiles and 77 launchers). They too are no match for Moscow’s airpower and could merely deter the Russian army for a while, as they are mostly ambush weapons.

Last month, the Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov addressed Washington humbly requesting Patriot PAC-3 missiles. It is quite unlikely the US would authorize supplying a non-NATO member with Patriots missiles in any case, as Ukraine defense expert Mikhail Zhirikov argues. The thing is the kind of longer-range missiles Kiev would need are tremendously costly and complex and, moreover, Ukraine would need years to properly train its forces in using such systems and to fully integrate them.

Since the 2014 so-called Maidan revolution, Ukraine’s economy, one of Europe’s poorest, has been in very bad shape and recent Western alarmism has hurt it even more, according to Ukrainian President Zelensky himself. This too, would not help much in a hypothetical situation of war.

Samuel Charap and Scott Boston, two Rand Corporation analysts, argue that any military assistance or weapons Ukraine receives will be simply irrelevant considering Russian advantages in geography, capability and capacity. They go as far as to say that the best help Washington could provide Kiev would be finding a diplomatic solution.

In any case, according to Ukraine’s own generals, Kiev could not repel Russian forces without major Western military help. Such help however might never come. The US-led NATO, as expected, has already made it abundantly clear it will not send any troops should a war ensue. Western help would be limited to sending mercenaries disguised as advisors to train sabotage units and terrorists.

Contrary to Western narratives, Moscow does not desire to occupy Eastern Ukraine and never intended to do so. What Moscow wants is very simple: it wants NATO to cease expanding towards Russian borders, as the Alliance has persistently done since the end of the Cold War, and the end of the so-called Iron Curtain.

One should also keep in mind that Eastern Ukraine is mostly pro-Russian and that Ukraine has a very high rate of bilingualism and mixed Russian-Ukrainian marriages. The two countries’ history is intertwined. This greatly limits Ukrainian nationalism’s potential for growth outside parts of Western Ukraine.

The most likely outcome of a war would be a quickly defeated Ukraine forced to compromise by granting some limited autonomy to the Donbas region instead of pushing its current genocidal and chauvinistic policies there. In such a scenario, the presence of a Russian peace-keeping mission in Donbas for some years would also be a possibility, amid a possible frozen conflict in the region (involving rogue ultra-nationalist Ukrainian factions), with occasional acts of sabotage and terrorism commited by far-right Ukrainian groups funded or aided by Western powers and their networks of proxies, and also possibly by Turkey’s own networks (considering ultra-nationalist Turkish-Ukranian cooperation).

In this case, one could expect a potentially long counter-insurgency conflict in a context of irregular warfare. This would further fuel Europe’s own migration crisis, with an increase in criminality, terrorism and all the usual negative economic and political outcomes, thus impacting the EU very badly.

To sum it up, in the event of a Russian-Ukrainian war, everyone loses, as is the case with any armed conflict, but some lose more: Ukraine as a whole would suffer the most, followed by Europe.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment