Aletho News


Ukraine halts electricity exports to EU

Samizdat | October 11, 2022

Damage to energy infrastructure caused by Moscow’s air strikes has forced Ukraine’s government to cut off electricity exports to the European Union, taking away a supply source that Kiev claims helped its partners reduce their reliance on power generated with Russian natural gas.

“Today’s missile strikes, which hit the thermal generation and electrical substations, forced Ukraine to suspend electricity exports from October 11, 2022, to stabilize its own energy system,” the Ukrainian energy ministry said on Monday in a statement.

The ministry noted that even after losing control of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant to Russian forces in March, Kiev had been able to meet its export commitments to European partners, but Monday’s attacks were the largest of the entire conflict. “The cynicism is that the entire supply chain has been hit,” Energy Minister German Galushchenko said. “It’s both electricity distribution systems and generation. The enemy’s goal is to make it difficult to reconnect electricity supplies from other sources.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday’s air strikes on Kiev and other major Ukrainian cities – targeting military, energy and communications infrastructure – came in response to Ukraine’s attack on the strategic Crimean Bridge on Saturday.

“If there are further attempts to conduct terrorist attacks on our soil, Russia will respond firmly and on a scale corresponding to the threats created against Russia,” Putin announced.

Galushchenko, however, accused Moscow of waging “energy terror” in retaliation for Kiev helping other countries reduce their dependence on Russia. After joining European energy system ENTSO-E back in June, Kiev said it expected to earn some €1.5 billion from electricity exports to the EU by the end of the year.

“That is why Russia is destroying our energy system, killing the very possibility of exporting electricity from Ukraine,” the energy minister claimed.

Ukrenergo, the national power grid operator, claimed its specialists have been “engaging backup supply schemes” and repaired some of the damage by Monday night.

In the meantime the ministry urged “all citizens of Ukraine to unite” and minimize their energy use during the peak demand hours, arguing that not only Ukraine is implementing measures to reduce power consumption, but the “whole of Europe is doing this now.”

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , | 2 Comments

Torturing the Truth

Corbett • 10/10/2022

We all know that torture is bad, but are we really aware of how much of the narrative of the past two decades was constructed on torture testimony? Do we know the CIA contractors who developed the torture program or the steps that the intelligence agencies took to cover up their illegal activities? And, when we connect the dots, are we prepared to face the parallels between the torture regime and the biosecurity regime? If you haven’t followed the twists and turns in the torture story since my 2008 podcast on the subject, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild ride.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


Documentation – Zero Dark Thirty
Time Reference: 00:00
Description: Hollywood torture porn brought to you by CIA collaborationists. 0/10, do not recommend.
Link To: IMDB
Documentation – Flashback: Torture is Bad (2008)
Time Reference: 03:08
Description: A new video version of my 2008 audio podcast on the torture program.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Senate report: Torture didn’t lead to bin Laden
Time Reference: 06:41
Description: Mostly an official story whitewash about the mythical courier that supposedly led them to Abbottabad where they totally killed bin Laden, guys. But it does admit that torture didn’t lead to OBL, so there’s that.
Link To: AP News
Documentation – Episode 426 – Who Controls the News Controls the World
Time Reference: 08:42
Description: Newsflash: the newsmakers control our perceptions. If you need more details, here’s a podcast on that very point.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – The Killing of Osama bin Laden
Time Reference: 10:37
Description: Hersh’s take on the OBL killing, sourcing to anonymous retired officials who couldn’t possibly know the details of that raid. Definitely worth taking with gigantic grains of salt, but does corroborate the fact that torture did not lead to the finding of Osama bin Bogeyman.
Link To: London Review of Books
Documentation – Why the Self-Proclaimed 9/11 Mastermind Hasn’t Seen Trial 21 Years Later
Time Reference: 13:00
Description: Spoiler: because his confession was torture-derived nonsense that would never stand up in any court, even a kangaroo court.
Link To: MSN
Documentation – We have your sons: CIA
Time Reference: 18:17
Description: Back when the MSM had no compunction about reporting on the CIA threatening people’s children in order to extract false confessions. (But don’t worry, guys, the CIA has some child psychologists on hand to make sure those kids are tortured kindly!)
Link To: The Age
Documentation – CIA ‘threatened’ 9/11 mastermind’s children
Time Reference: 19:31
Description: “American interrogators threatened to kill the children of the self-confessed September 11 mastermind, a new declassified CIA report says.”
Link To:
Documentation – Self-Confessed 9/11 “Mastermind” Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn’t Commit
Time Reference: 20:30
Description: Uh oh, some problems for the official story of 9/11.
Link To: George Washington’s Blog
Documentation – Important: Huge Problem with KSM Confession
Time Reference: 21:06
Description: Link to and discussion of the KSM confession problem. Read ningen’s comment for more context and breakdown.
Link To: 9/11 Blogger
Documentation – Terrorist’s threat stirs up old fears
Time Reference: 21:33
Description: Old archived Seattle PI post about the “confession” that admits and then makes light of the glaring problem with it.
Link To: Seattle PI
Documentation – 9/11 Commission controversy
Time Reference: 23:24
Description: An archived MSNBC report on the fact that over a quarter of all of the 9/11 commission report’s footnotes derived from torture testimony and some of the terrorist’s “confessions” were signed without them even being allowed to read it.
Link To: MSNBC
Documentation – Senator: Government Used Communist Torture Techniques Aimed at Extracting FALSE Confessions
Time Reference: 27:25
Description: Did you know that all of this has been officially admitted? I bet you most of your friends, family, coworkers, neighbours and random passersby don’t!
Link To: MSNBC
Documentation – CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders
Time Reference: 29:04
Description: The CIA brazenly broke the law. Want to guess how many people were held accountable for that?
Link To: NBC News
Documentation – CIA Destroyed 92 Interrogation Tapes
Time Reference: 30:14
Description: Later update to previous story confirming how many pieces of evidence the CIA illegally destroyed.
Link To: ABC News
Documentation – CIA Hacked Senate Computers
Time Reference: 30:37
Description: The CIA brazenly broke the law again, this time hacking into the Senate’s computer system. Want to guess how many people were held accountable this time?
Link To: Newsweek
Documentation – The CIA Hacked Senate Computers, Lied About It, and No One Is Getting Fired
Time Reference: 31:07
Description: Later update to previous story confirming that no one at the CIA suffered any consequences for the agency’s brazenly illegal conduct.
Link To: Vice
Documentation – Senate Report on CIA Torture – 2014 – PDF – Download
Time Reference: 32:12
Description: Read the summary of the report online! Just don’t ask to read the other 5,700 pages.
Link To:
Documentation – Torture Report Timeline
Time Reference: 32:39
Description: A timeline of the attempts to thwart the release of the full torture report.
Link To: Open The Government
Documentation – US Senate’s CIA Torture Report to Remain Secret for ‘National Security’
Time Reference: 33:34
Description: From “Biden Issues Executive Order to Begin Transhuman Nightmare – #NewWorldNextWeek” from September 23, 2022
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – You can’t win. Don’t even try!
Time Reference: 36:52
Description: 2021 article on the origins and purpose of the CIA torture program (and how to flip the psychology behind it on its head).
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – CIA Psychologist Threatened to Cut Throat of KSM’s Son in Quest to Stop More Attacks
Time Reference: 42:14
Description: More info about Mitchell and his actions.
Link To: Lawdragon
Documentation – CIA Contractor Details Torture of 9/11 Suspects
Time Reference: 43:38
Description: Yet more info about Mitchell and his part in the CIA torture program.
Link To: Human Rights Watch
Documentation – “Freda S.” on Insta
Time Reference: 43:38
Description: Follow her today for beauty tips (and torture techniques?)!
Link To: Instagram
Documentation – Bin Laden Expert Accused of Shaping CIA Deception on ‘Torture’ Program
Time Reference: 47:19
Description: Details Bikowsky (Scheuer’s) role in and defense of the illegal CIA torture program.
Link To: NBC News
Documentation – False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda
Time Reference: 48:08
Description: If you haven’t absorbed the largest Corbett Report documentary yet, here’s your chance.
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – Exclusive: Ex-CIA analyst says she ‘got bloodied’ in tangled U.S. war on Al Qaeda
Time Reference: 49:13
Description: The Queen of Torture would like your sympathy (and some money for her beauty products).
Link To: Reuters
Documentation – The CIA’s ‘Torture Queen’ Is Now a Life Coach Hawking Beauty Products
Time Reference: 49:51
Description: More info about the career change and exploits of the Queen of Torture, Alfreda Bikowsky Scheuer.
Link To: Rolling Stone
Documentation – New World Next Year 2021
Time Reference: 50:53
Description: James Evan Pilato’s Story of the Year for 2020 drew the parallels between the torture program and the biosecurity state.
Link To: The Corbett Report

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

Kenya, Tanzania to Fast-Track Dar es Salaam-Mombasa Gas Pipeline in Bid to Cut Fuel Costs

By Fantine Gardinier – Samizdat – 10.10.2022

During a visit to the Tanzanian port city of Dar es Salaam on Monday, Kenyan President William Ruto and Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu agreed to fast-track construction of a new gas pipeline connecting the city to Mombasa, Kenya’s main port.

“We will now expedite the gas pipeline from Dar es Salaam to Mombasa and eventually to Nairobi so that we can use the resources that we have in our region to lower energy tariffs, both for industry, commercial and domestic purposes,” Ruto said, according to Kenyan online news portal Tuko.

“In the shortest time possible, we can access the gas resources that you have in your country to drive industrialization in our country. I am confident that as the ministers get down to work, they will provide a brief to you and me to fast-track the project,” he told Suluhu.

She and Ruto’s predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, signed a memorandum of understanding on the long-awaited pipeline last year, which would extend 373 miles and cost $1.1 billion.

Just days after Ruto took office last month, he was forced to slash fuel subsidies, thanks to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout that included such neoliberal stipulations in its contract. By mid-October, the prices of several types of fuel are expected to increase sharply in Kenya, putting a dent in Ruto’s plans to improve the country’s economic life for millions of Kenyans.

Ruto’s visit, his fourth foreign trip since taking office but his first focused on bilateral deals, is aimed at further bolstering Kenya’s burgeoning trade with Tanzania, its southern neighbor and fellow former British colony.

“We want to double trade, which is doable,” he said. Kenya-Tanzania bilateral trade amounted to nearly $1 billion last year, according to The East African. Years ago, their rivalry led to mountains of trade barriers being imposed, but both countries have labored in recent years to slash them as competition has turned toward cooperation.

“In total, our experts identified 68 barriers which were reviewed and 54 non-tariff barriers were removed and now we want our cabinet secretaries to deal with the remaining 14 so as to ensure there is freewill to trade,” Suluhu said on Monday.

Last month, Suluhu also penned a deal with Mozambican President Felipe Nyusi to expand trade ties as well as defense cooperation, with both nations desiring to quell a cross-border insurgency and re-establish and expand trade.

Last year, Uganda, Tanzania, French-owned oil giant Total, and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) signed a series of deals to build a massive 900-mile-long gas pipeline from western Uganda’s oil fields to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will pass along the southern edge of Lake Victoria, circumventing Kenya before crossing northern Tanzania. It is expected to begin pumping oil in 2025 and cost $10 billion.

In March, Tanzania also announced a massive new liquefied natural gas (LNG) project expected to draw $10 billion in investment. Rising energy costs thanks to a global inflation problem and Western sanctions on Russia, the world’s largest energy exporter, have created problems for nations like Kenya, that import much of their energy, but opportunities for nations like Tanzania, which export it or have untapped reserves.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Delete Your PayPal Account


Yesterday, #DeletePayPal was trending on Twitter. This is not an expression of solidarity with the Daily Sceptic, although PayPal’s attempt to close our account, along with that of the Free Speech Union and my personal account, seems to have been the beginning of the company’s recent difficulties. Rather, it is a response to a change to its Acceptable Use Policy that the company announced last week, whereby it was about to grant itself the right to fine customers $2,500 if they spread “misinformation” or offended members of various victim groups. By “fine” it meant help itself to $2,500 from its customers’ deposits, so, not surprisingly, many people decided to withdraw their funds and close their accounts. That, in turn, prompted PayPal to do a reverse ferret and announce that its message setting out the changes to its Acceptable Use Policy had been sent in “error”. Cue general hilarity, including this tweet from Brendan Carr, a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission: “@PayPal says its misinformation policy ‘went out in error’. Because who among us has not fat fingered a new, seven-page policy that would take away peoples’ money for publishing ‘misinformation’ – and then released that new policy on accident?”

I suspect many of PayPal’s customers won’t be reassured by this change of heart and will continue to be wary of the woke payment processor. Consequently, I thought it would be useful to reprint a guide to closing your account produced by BGR.

First things first: Make sure to withdraw any money you have remaining in your PayPal account before you get ready to close it. Click that link to learn how to do so — and then, once any lingering issues or balance is taken care of, here’s how you’ll delete your PayPal via the company’s website.

  1. Click the Settings icon, next to the words “Log out”.
  2. Click Close your account under “Account options”.
  3. Enter your bank account number if you’re asked to do.
  4. Finally, click Close Account.

If you want to delete your PayPal account from the app instead:

  1. First, log into the app.
  2. Click on the Profile icon in the upper-left corner.
  3. Scroll down until you see the option to Close your account.
  4. After tapping Close your account, next click on the Close Account button.

One final, important note: Any unpaid money requests are automatically canceled after closing your PayPal account. Also, you will lose any unused redemption codes or coupons.

Worth reading in full.

If you need further guidance, Tech Insider has produced a video guide.

Stop Press: A reader reports that when he tried to close his account he got a message saying: “We’re sorry, we’re not able to process your request right now. Please try again later.” I wonder if PayPal’s recent behaviour has produced the digital equivalent of a run on the bank and it cannot now return its customers deposits because it’s invested them in financial products it cannot now liquidate without incurring large losses? If anyone else is having difficulty closing their PayPal account, please contact us here.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Leave a comment

Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner calls for government intervention for online speech

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 10, 2022

 had Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner on his Joe Rogan Experience podcast last Wednesday and, among other topics, the pair touched on the government regulating the internet and the media landscape today.

Wenner – a magazine magnate who, according to reports, was in the past a prominent donor to Democratic candidates and liberal groups – spoke in favor of regulating the internet like any other industry in the US – although for some reason prefacing his “yes, but” argument by saying that the internet is great and that he “loves” social media.

But – he continued, it has to be regulated, and when Rogan asked by whom, Wenner replied, “the government.”

The question then became whether the government can be trusted with a job of such nature and magnitude – particularly given its credibility issues.

But Wenner appeared unwavering in his support of the internet – that is today heavily influenced by the authorities- tomorrow also becoming more formally regulated by them. “Absolutely,” he replied, when asked whether he trusted the White House to do a good job.

Rogan, otherwise not known for mincing his words, recalled that the US was plunged into the Iraq War under false pretenses (of WDMs) made by the government (and, to be fair, heavily promoted by their media mouthpieces like the New York Times ).

Trusting the class of people who did that did not seem to sit well with the host.

“Do you think that makes any sense,” he asked Wenner, who made a curious attempt at arguing that it was politicians specifically, rather than the government, who led the US into a war.

But that is government, responded Rogan.

He then went on to explain why he does not share Wenner’s enthusiasm for a government-regulated internet. If internet regulation comes from people in power, Rogan deduced, “they’re gonna regulate it in a way that suits their best interest.”

The podcast star also had other examples of what happens to industries whose rules are prescribed by the government, such as energy, banking, environment – and really, in Rogan’s words, “everything.”

“You’re talking about so much money involved in disseminating information,” Rogan noted, adding that he believes in society that adopts ethic norms “that respects truth and (…) appreciates opinions and reality and an understanding of things that’s not necessarily possible with corporate interest involved in dissemination of information.”

Wenner then asserted that, “there’s no way that you can do that except through the government… Human nature’s not gonna change” – to which Rogan retorted, “but the government’s not gonna change either.”

And yet, while Wenner has no faith in human nature, he seems optimistic about – those in power.

“But the government is capable of change,” he said.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

It’s Time To Tell Biden We Say ‘NO!’ To Nuclear War!

By Ron Paul | October 10, 2022

Last week the New York Times ran a shocking article claiming that the US intelligence community believes the Ukrainian government to be responsible for the August attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian philosopher.

Surely the established narrative that Ukraine is a model western democracy standing strong for our shared values against an aggressive Russian invader is damaged with reporting that Kiev conducted an al-Qaeda style attack on an innocent civilian inside Russia. The murder of Dugina was a textbook definition of terrorism, which is, “the use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.”

Just over a month later, the Nordstream pipelines were blown up, seemingly ending at least in the near term the possibility that Germany may find a way to save its economy by mending fences with its main energy supplier. A leading Polish politician thanked the US for doing the job.

Then over the weekend, the bridge connecting mainland Russia to Crimea was bombed, killing at least six civilians and leaving part of the bridge under water. Traffic was restored hours after the attack, but Russian President Vladimir Putin placed the blame on Ukraine’s intelligence service. We all know that Ukraine relies on its US masters, so we can assume the US provided the intelligence allowing the targeting of the bridge.

There is a pattern here. More and more brazen attacks are being launched against Russia and Washington is doing little to hide US fingerprints. Why?

The Biden Administration seems to be moving us closer to nuclear war over Ukraine and Biden himself seems to know it. Last week he said, Putin “is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons…” For the “first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use [of nuclear weapons] if in fact things continue down the path they are going.”

So the question is if he knows that his proxy war against Russia is moving us closer to the unthinkable – nuclear annihilation – why does his Administration persist in crossing red line after red line? Apparently, Biden’s “experts” believe that Putin is bluffing and will do nothing about the Dugina assassination, the Nordstream pipeline sabotage, and the Kerch Bridge attack.

But what if they’re wrong?

Normally foreign policy action should be weighed on a cost/benefit basis. Will adopting one particular policy benefit the United States more than the risks involved? In this case there is absolutely nothing on the positive side of the ledger. Will the security and prosperity of the United States benefit more from regime change in Russia than it would suffer should nuclear war break out?

It doesn’t seem all that hard. No.

So what’s going on here? Why does the US Administration – with the support of most Republicans in Congress – continue to send tens of billions of dollars in military aid and move us toward nuclear war over a conflict that has nothing at all to do with the United States?

The time to end US participation in this war is yesterday. And if it takes millions of Americans in the streets peacefully protesting while demanding that their representatives stop this madness, then bring it on. Tomorrow may be too late.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

Open Letter to Therese Coffey Urging Her to Apologise to the Care Workers Forced Out by Vaccine Mandate


Campaign group Together’s latest campaign, an Open Letter to Health Secretary Therese Coffey urging her to “Apologise, Reinstate, Compensate the 40,000 Care Workers Forced Out by Covid Jab Mandate” has attracted over 10,000 signatures within a few hours of going live. Here is an extract:

Forcing out approximately 40,000 social care workers for declining the Covid jab was not just unethical, but disastrous for the care sector and those it supports. The sector now has 165,000 vacancies, with 500,000 members of the public waiting for assessments, care or reviews. The situation is grave and urgent, not least as without a functioning care sector the NHS will collapse.

Failure to respect bodily autonomy was wrong in principle. ‘No jab, no job’ amounted to blackmail. But even on a practical level, the ‘mandate’ policy was always illogical and ill-advised.

For starters, natural immunity was totally ignored as a factor – for reasons that remain unclear. Throughout most of 2021 it was clear that Covid jabs did not prevent transmission and by October, the Guardian was explicitly reporting that ‘research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass (the) virus on… whether an infected individual is themselves fully vaccinated or unvaccinated makes little or no difference to how infectious they are to their household contacts’. This alone should have been enough to kill off this divisive policy. Yet, seemingly oblivious to the actual scientific data, your predecessor Sajid Javid took to television the same month, belligerently ‘warning’ care workers ‘if you cannot be bothered to go and get vaccinated then get out… go and get another job.’

On November 9th 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care warned Javid that his ‘mandate’ policy would result in upwards of 40,000 care staff leaving the sector. He persisted with it anyway, and on 11 November workers who had not already been forced out were sacked in droves. Many lost not only their jobs, but also their pensions.

Already a range of well-known people including Prof Carl Heneghan, journalists Allison Pearson and Julia Hartley-Brewer, author and broadcaster Laura Dodsworth, Richard Tice of Reform UK and Laurence Fox of the Reclaim party, medics Dr Tony Hinton, Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, Dr Clare Craig and Dr Teck Khong, and sportsman Matt Le Tissier, have all signed.

You can read the Open Letter in full and sign it here.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

UAE President to visit Russia for bilateral talks

The Cradle | October 10, 2022

The President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, will visit Russia on 11 October to discuss a series of national and international topics with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

The bilateral talks were announced by the Russian Presidential Spokesman Dimitry Peskov on 10 October.

The visit comes less than a week after OPEC+ member and nonmember states decided to cut oil production output by 2 million barrels per day, defying the hopes and expectations of the Biden administration to curb rising energy prices.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre accused OPEC+ on 5 October of “aligning with Russia,” and claimed their decision “is shortsighted while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of [Russia’s] invasion of Ukraine,” in reference to the crisis caused by western sanctions imposed on Russia’s energy sector and attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.

Jean-Pierre added that President Joe Biden is consulting with congress “on additional tools and authorities to reduce OPEC’s control over energy prices.”

In May of this year, the US Senate approved the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act, which could open OPEC member states and their partners to antitrust lawsuits for “orchestrating supply cuts that raise global crude prices.”

The bipartisan legislation would modify US antitrust law to revoke the sovereign immunity that protects sovereign states from lawsuits. This, in turn, would give the US attorney general the ability to sue OPEC+ members like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Russia in federal court.

According to the New York Times, analysts have argued that Saudi Arabia is determined to bring the price back above the $90 benchmark.

However, the chief of Saudi Aramco’s operations, Amin Nasser, said that the move to lower output was a decision made based on the international energy markets and fears over a looming recession.

“Even if we decide we are going to increase investment, it is going to be difficult; it will take a number of years,” Nasser said as he warned that the world could experience a serious supply crisis in the energy sectors.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

America doesn’t owe Zelensky ‘a damn thing’ – congressman

Samizdat | October 10, 2022

US Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) has called on Washington to cut foreign aid to Ukraine, which he argued is being used to fund a conflict that the US should have “no involvement in.” On Capitol Hill, a number of Republican lawmakers have condemned President Joe Biden’s open checkbook for Kiev.

“NO MORE Foreign Aid, especially not to fund a war that we should have NO involvement in,” Gosar tweeted on Monday. “Biden and his crime family may owe Zelensky, but America doesn’t owe him a damn thing,” the lawmaker added.

A staunch anti-interventionist and a member of the Republican Party’s unofficial ‘America First’ caucus, Gosar has emerged as one of the loudest critics of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy. The Arizona congressman voted against a $40 billion military and economic aid package for Kiev in May, and against a spending bill offering Kiev another $12 billion last month.

“The border is open, fentanyl is killing hundreds of thousands and inflation is raging,” he wrote as his colleagues voted to pass the latter bill. “Yet the left and the establishment right just voted to send another 12 billion to Ukraine? This is more America Last policy.”

Gosar’s mentioning of Biden’s “crime family” owing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensy a favor is likely a reference to the theory held by some US conservatives that Zelensky aided Biden’s 2020 election win by refusing a request by former President Donald Trump to reopen a corruption investigation into Biden’s son’s lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm.

Gosar is not the only Republican calling on both parties to shut off the cash and arms pipeline to Ukraine. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene declared last week that US aid to Kiev has “killed thousands and thousands of people [and] drastically driven up the cost of living all over the world,” while Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz wrote on Sunday that “maintaining Ukraine as an international money laundering Mecca isn’t worth” the threat of nuclear war.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | 4 Comments

To Save the Republic, Abolish the Black Budget

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | October 10, 2022

I have been puzzling over the ever-augmenting Black Budget since about the time the U.S. government began openly assassinating suspects, including U.S. citizens, without indictment, much less conviction in a court of law, for capital crimes. Tim Weiner’s groundbreaking work Blank Check: The Pentagon’s Black Budget (1990) explains how the means to commit crimes under cover of state secrets privilege all began with the Manhattan Project. Like so many other aspects of the sprawling defense and security apparatus which continues to expand like an amoeba, engulfing nearly every aspect of American culture, the Black Budget took on a life of its on during the Cold War.

The stakes were admittedly high: freedom or slavery? Put that way, it seemed eminently reasonable to policymakers at the time to devise intricate mechanisms shrouded from public view in order to do whatever needed to be done to keep the inhabitants of the Western world both safe and free. In their view, it was strategic; it was tactical; and it had to be secret, in order to succeed. Beginning with the Manhattan Project, through which atomic bombs were developed for the first time in human history, the perceived need to keep newly developed weapons systems shrouded in secrecy, for fear that the enemy might develop the same, arose out of a recognition of just how devastating those weapons could be. Little Boy and Fat Man were notoriously tested on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945, and with the U.S. government’s demonstrated willingness to deploy such weapons, the nuclear arms race was on.

Once a chunk of the defense budget had been made black to keep new weapons technology secret, it did not take long for entire systems of clandestine operations, today known as “black ops,” to emerge and expand as well. Again, we have Tim Weiner to thank for having done us the service of documenting in his indispensable work Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (2007) at least some of what went on during the Cold War. Legacy of Ashes is based on a trove of some 50,000 CIA documents first declassified near the end of the twentieth century. But today, long after the Soviet Union collapsed, the secrecy apparatus put in place by well-meaning—if sometimes confused, inept, deluded and occasionally outright insane—bureaucrats has come to be a seemingly permanent fixture of our world. At more than $80 billion, the Black Budget now exceeds the entire military budget of nearly all other governments.

We may, if so inclined, most charitably explain the persistence of the Black Budget by appeal to bureaucratic habits (which do die hard…), even when the rational grounds for the secrecy no longer obtain. The strategic grounds originally used to justify the Black Budget disappeared with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., but so did the tactical grounds, given that advanced nuclear weapons systems are already possessed by several governments, and the technology has been shared with others as well—whether by spies, defectors or simple mercenaries. The secrets, then, remain secrets, ironically enough, only to the very citizens who pay for the systems, including nearly all of their elected representatives.

Legislators continue nonetheless reflexively to approve every new defense budget, along with any requests for funding which anyone cares to cast as a matter of national defense. Indeed, embedding controversial, non-defense measures within National Defense Authorization Acts (NDA) has become a tried-and-true technique of passing new laws which would never have been ratified on their own, as stand-alone bills. A notable and relevant example is the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which was rolled into the NDA of 2013. This tactic works because any congressperson who votes against “national defense” becomes an instantly denounced target by the political opposition and the media.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower presciently warned in 1961 about the danger of perversely prioritizing state means of mass homicide over every other thing. How this ultimately came to fruition has been illuminated by Robert Higgs, author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (1987), who shows how historical crises invariably expand the power of the state, the agents of which are loath to give any of it back. Even when the originating crisis is somehow mitigated or resolved, the government does not retract in size. Instead, it continues to “ratchet up” in response to each new crisis, with the previous expansion regarded as the new baseline.

Everyone is aware of this dynamic on some level, whether or not they spend much time reflecting on foreign affairs. We all know, to take a considerably less grave example than the summary execution of persons deemed “suspicious” by anonymous analysts, that when we prepare to fly anywhere in the world from the United States, we are not permitted to transport in our carry-on luggage any liquids or gels in volumes greater than 100ml (~3.3 ounces). Why do we still have to remove our footwear to get through airport security, more than two decades after September 11, 2001? Because some incompetent dude thought that he could use explosives hidden in his shoes to blow up a plane.

The post-9/11 travel security measures seem unlikely ever to change, and we can also expect the structural features of the sprawling homeland defense apparatus, including mass surveillance of citizens not suspected of any crimes, to continue to grow, given the conservative nature of belief conjoined with the bet-hedging behavior of lawmakers. Setting what is arguably bribery by lobbyists to one side, the primary driving factor in the minds of politicians who wish to be reelected is plausibly that they want not to be blamed, should anything untoward happen after they vote to reduce the defense budget or eliminate any of the security-related laws already in place. And God forbid that unelected bureaucrats who dispense unaccountable Black Budget funds at their caprice should be “hobbled” through oversight!

The reasoning of opportunistic politicians appears to be that adding even more restrictions, filling the (feckless) defense department’s already overflowing coffers, and allowing off-the-leash bureaucrats to do whatever they may deem necessary in the name of national defense, will all be seen in a positive light by citizens who are counting on the government to serve as their protector. This fictional image is maintained, against all empirical evidence of the actual outcomes of every military intervention since World War II, because the populace is constantly “tutored” by the government-coopted mainstream media to support anything whatsoever labeled by anyone as “defense”. Examples include the “War on Terror”; the “humanitarian intervention” on behalf of the Libyan people; the empowerment of Saddam Hussein; the arming of radical Islamists in Afghanistan and, later, in Syria; the bombing of Kosovo; and the goading of Russian President Putin in 2022 to the point where he may opt to use nukes. Despite the human misery which these undertakings have caused, all have been “worth it,” according to mainstream media pundits, and as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright might say.

Now, given the tendency of government restrictions enacted in response to crises to expand, the power of government authorities in such circumstances to augment, and the natural resistance of human beings to relinquish any of that power, the persistence and expansion of the Black Budget may not seem puzzling in the least. Having been trained quite effectively to believe that “national defense” is always and everywhere good, few citizens would find it troubling even to learn that trillions of Pentagon dollars have been “lost track of”—creating what is in effect an enormous supplement to the Black Budget, which should perhaps be termed the Ultra Black Budget.

Albeit considerably less charitable than the “bureaucratic habit” explanation for the persistence and growth of the Black Budget, equally plausible is that it has created a class of people who now wear what is tantamount to the ring of Gyges (Plato’s Republic). They are capable of committing crimes invisibly, with no possible risk of being redressed, much less punished, for their morally dubious activities. Why would anyone in such a position ever renounce that privilege, the unassailable power to do anything at all to anyone at all for any reason at all and with complete impunity? To anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of human nature and the reality of corruption, it should be clear that the ongoing pretext of state secrets privilege has opened up the possibility of an entire criminal underworld operating under the aegis of the U.S. government and fully funded by taxpayers.

What it worse, far from serving either strategic or tactical roles in defending our waning republic, the Black Budget is arguably being used to undermine it. Let us take as a possible example the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines between Russia and Europe. If this intentional act of piracy was perpetrated by the United States, then it is equivalent to a declaration of war against Russia. As a Black Op, the secret need never be admitted to anyone, even if it leads to World War III and nuclear holocaust. And therein lies the irony: the means to destroy the United States in toto are now possessed by a few individuals with access to the Black Budget, even though all of what they do is paid for by citizens under the assumption that they are being protected. Such is the logic of the legislatively shielded Black Budget that, if in fact the Nord Stream sabotage was a U.S. operation, then anyone who knows what happened and who dares to go public with compelling evidence of the truth becomes guilty of espionage, if not treason, and subject to the federal death penalty, if convicted. Conviction?

One of the most significant expansions of federal power in the twenty-first century has been the executive’s elimination of the requirement of conviction in a court of law before state execution. This assault on the most basic principles of the republic came about in incremental steps, in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, and was made possible by the technological development of the ability to kill by remote control.

The U.S. government’s first publicly vaunted execution of suspects by lethal drone outside a war zone was carried out under the authorization of President George W. Bush, on November 3, 2002, in Yemen, when a group of men were incinerated while driving down a road. Nearly twenty years later, President Joe Biden claimed to have terminated the life of alleged al Qaeda mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 31, 2022. For his part, President Donald Trump openly bragged about having used a lethal drone to eliminate Iranian Major General Qasem Soleiman on January 3, 2020, at Baghdad International Airport, as though this brazen act of premeditated, intentional homicide were somehow noble or courageous.

Before Biden and Trump, it was President Barack Obama who in 2011 summarily executed not only Osama bin Laden, when he could have been taken prisoner, but also Anwar al-Awlaki, which places Obama in a league all his own, having intentionally denied even a U.S. citizen his right to stand trial for whatever crimes he was believed to have committed. (Note that an American, Kamal Derwish, was killed by the Bush administration in its publicly vaunted drone strike on November 3, 2002, but this fact appears to have been discovered after, not before, the strike.) Had Anwar al-Awlaki been found guilty of treason in a federal court, he might have been sentenced to death. Obama opted instead to streamline the process, in the manner of every tyrant since time immemorial, by imposing the death penalty on the basis of what the president, a fallible human being, had been persuaded by bureaucrats to believe was evidence of the suspect’s guilt. John Brennan, Obama’s drone killing czar at the time, was promoted in 2013 to the directorship of the CIA.

Obama also authorized the execution of U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, for which no official explanation was ever offered by his killers. Being a male and having recently celebrated his sixteenth birthday, the younger al-Awlaki did satisfy the Obama administration’s scrupulous standard for classifying a corpse as an Enemy Killed in Action (EKIA). Yes, the label EKIA was applied to all men who found themselves at the receiving end of missiles launched by U.S. drones, whether inside or outside areas of active hostility, provided only that they were of military age. We have Daniel Hale to thank for having revealed to U.S. citizens the unsavory truth about the drone program, that the burden of proof was inverted by the drone killers, who defined their victims as guilty until proven innocent. Note that Hale was rewarded for his courageous act of whistleblowing with a federal prison sentence.

The longstanding international proscription to political assassination has been flouted throughout the twenty-first century, and the string of intentional acts of homicide perpetrated and openly acknowledged by four successive administrations together illustrate that the U.S. executive is no longer constrained in any way by the letter of international law. Once someone has been labeled a “terrorist” by appropriately situated bureaucrats, the U.S. executive grants the drone assassins the license to take him out. Given this normalization of assassination, what precisely is the Black Budget being used for, if people deemed dangerous by the U.S. government may be summarily executed without any sort of judicial process whatsoever?

No one privy to the details, the line items shrouded in secrecy, is permitted to share them publicly without risking harsh sanctions. But logic suggests that the Black Budget and the ancillary Ultra Black Budget (the trillions of dollars “lost track of” by the Pentagon) are being either siphoned off by mercenary criminals, in yet another version of the lobbyist kick-back scheme, or else used to commit crimes which are even worse than the summary execution of suspected criminals without trial. Assuming for the sake of argument the latter to be true, if government officials are now permitted premeditatedly and intentionally to assassinate human beings, including U.S. citizens, perceived of as potentially dangerous, then what is it that the Ring of Gyges wearers are not permitted to do and which must, for allegedly strategic and tactical reasons, be done secretly and beyond the reach of any form of accountability?

There is no proof that the U.S. government perpetrated the Nord Stream attack and thereby increased the likelihood of nuclear war, in which millions of Americans could be expected to die. But undermining democratically elected foreign governments, through inciting mass unrest and plotting coups are enterprises in which the U.S. government is known to have engaged repeatedly. Again, a great deal of that sort of activity went on during the Cold War, on the grounds that the evil Communists could not be allowed to spread their ideology around the world. But communism is no longer a threat, so it is unclear what the rationale for undermining democratically elected governments is supposed to be today, beyond maintaining U.S. global military hegemony.

In this post-Communist world, examples of crimes worse than the summary execution of terrorist suspects (some of whom are in fact innocent) could be the summary execution (or attempted elimination) of persons whose outspoken opposition to the U.S. hegemon is perceived of as threatening to the defense apparatus itself. Such figures may have included Julian Assange, Michael Hastings, John McAfee, et al.—anyone who has dared to reject in an effective way the reigning narrative that “We are good, and they are evil,” which has been used to rationalize mass homicide and destruction wherever and whenever the current crop of U.S. elites happen to please.

Consider the plans reportedly drawn up to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange while he was living under asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It is undeniable that this sort of initiative is both illegal and criminal, and yet it is, one gathers, fully funded by taxpayers. Less clear examples of the same phenomenon may or may not include the fate suffered by a long list of other “annoying” persons who came to tragic ends either by their own or someone else’s hand. The case of Julian Assange is especially troubling because he quite successfully exposed U.S. war crimes, and for his efforts he has been discredited and criminalized as though he were a mass murderer. It is true that Assange is still among the living, which cannot be said of the many other arguably less fortunate nonviolent dissidents eliminated by governments throughout history. But Assange has by now been incapacitated to the point where it can be said without hyperbole that he no longer is the person who he once was. His power to express dissent has been stripped entirely away. The Nord Stream sabotage “mystery” is in fact just the sort of event which Assange, if not shackled and muffled, might have been able to illuminate with the aid of whistleblowers.

Needless to say, this schema does not bode well for the future of free people, and least of all dissidents who criticize the government, pointing out its crimes and contradictions. President Biden recently announced that “domestic extremists” currently constitute the gravest danger to the republic, an allegation which he claims is based on reports from “our very own intelligence agencies,” presumably including the CIA and the FBI. Both of these organizations have evinced a morally unsavory “scorecard” mentality in recent years, attempting to rack up as many EKIA (in the case of the CIA) or federal convictions (in the case of the FBI) as possible—by all means necessary.

In the drone killing program run throughout the Middle East by the CIA in the twenty-first century, analysts have been generously remunerated for finding potential future terrorists to kill, with ever-lengthening hit lists of targets created through bribing informants on the ground while mining the cellphone data of persons previously suspected of terrorism. Meanwhile, in the homeland, FBI agents have gone to great lengths to identify potential future members of factional terrorist groups, and even to lure them into complicity in conspiracies to commit violent plots which were in fact masterminded by government officials and informants, who provided funding to hundreds of hapless losers who ended up being convicted and are now serving sentences in federal penitentiaries. It sounds preposterous, if not impossible, but such techniques of entrapment have been well-documented by Trevor Aaronson in his extremely disturbing exposé, Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism (2013).

Given the ways in which suspected potential terrorists were targeted and ensnared by the CIA and the FBI throughout the “War on Terror,” we should be very wary of anyone who maintains that persons in the homeland who reject the current administration’s narratives are properly labeled “extremists”. “Extremism” is a concept by now wed to the notion of “terrorism,” and by calling dissenters at home “extremists,” the path is paved for bureaucrats to deploy the very same “tools” against them.

By stripping our civil liberties away and propelling the nation toward World War III, the bureaucrats currently protected by state secrets privilege are on track, and indeed seem determined, to destroy what remains of the republic. Nowhere is the danger before us more evident than in the shockingly reckless handling of the crisis in Ukraine by war propagandists posing as diplomats. It has become abundantly clear that the only way to rein in what has transmogrified into tyrannical rule by an unaccountable oligarchic bureaucracy is to abolish the Black Budget and cease funding any of the network of activities being perpetrated under cover of a spurious and obsolete need for secrecy.

Laurie Calhoun is the author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique, in addition to many essays and book chapters.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Has AUKUS nuclear submarine deal stalled?

With a deal that threatens non-proliferation, Australia is now yet another focal point of US-China tensions.

By Uriel Araujo | October 10, 2022

According to recent reports, an amendment proposed by AUKUS (Australia, UK and the US) countries to legitimize their nuclear submarine cooperation is being curbed by Chinese diplomatic efforts. The $122.4 billion dollars deal reached in September 2021 had been announced as the core component of this new strategic partnership. 

AUKUS, the security pact between these three Anglo-Saxon countries to counter China, was announced in September 2021, and has been controversial from the very start. Together with the QUAD, it has certainly increased tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.

In this context, Australian authorities in Canberra plan to acquire at least eight nuclear submarines, thereby possibly making the Indo-Pacific state the first one in the Southern Hemisphere to possess such vessels, as well as the first country that is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to do so other than the five recognized weapon states, namely the US, Russia, China, UK, and France. According to the International Atomic Energy (IAE) Rafael Grossi, these submarines will be fuelled by “highly enriched uranium”, so they could be weapons-grade or close to it. Beijing’s Permanent Mission, in a position paper sent to the IAE last month, emphasized the fact that the “AUKUS partnership involves the illegal transfer of nuclear weapon materials, making it essentially an act of nuclear proliferation.”

The AUKUS countries in turn argue that the NPT allows marine nuclear propulsion as long as the proper arrangements are made with the Agency. However, in this case, nuclear material will be transferred to rather than produced by Australia itself. China disagrees with the AUKUS’ stance, arguing that the IAE is in fact overstepping its mandate. Beijing has called for an “inter-governmental” process to examine the issue at hand.

This is a complicated matter: when nuclear submarines are at sea, their fuel is not within the reach of the IAE’s inspectors and there is no way to keep track of the nuclear material. The agency’s director himself, Rafael Grossi, has told the BBC the AUKUS submarine deal would be “very tricky” for nuclear inspectors.

China’s mission to the UN in Vienna has also bluntly described AUKUS’ plans as nuclear proliferation under a naval nuclear propulsion “cover”. Ambassador Wang Qun, Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN accused the AUKUS states of “double standard” in a September 19 interview

American-Chinese tensions are already too high over the issue of Taiwan and to add fuel to the fire, Beijing perceives the US-led AUKUS plans as the West pushing its sea frontiers against China by weaponizing its ally Australia with nuclear submarines. To make matters worse, under the current arrangements the fleet would be a US-controlled squadron. Given the ongoing American “dual containment” policy, Beijing’s concerns do make a lot of sense.

Chen Hong, president of the Chinese Association of Australian Studies and also a director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, has even warned that by playing a part in this, Canberra could be sacrificing its own national security for the sake of other countries’ national interests.

In July, two Chinese think-thanks (China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and China Institute of Nuclear Industry Strategy) had already warned that the AUKUS submarine project could set a “dangerous precedent” and thus threaten non-proliferation in a lengthy report called “A Dangerous Conspiracy: The Nuclear Proliferation Risk of the Nuclear-powered Submarines Collaboration in the Context of AUKUS.” 

According to the document, if the US and the UK have their way, nuclear states will for the very first time be transferring weapons-grade nuclear material to a non-nuclear state (Australia). Such a precedent, it warns, “ferments potential risks and hazards in multiple aspects such as nuclear security, arms race in nuclear submarines and missile technology proliferation, with a profound negative impact on global strategic balance and stability.” The report also controversially evokes the possibility that Canberra might actually be intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, given its historical pursuit of the technology since the 1950s.

Meanwhile, Rob Wittman and Donald Norcross, two members of the US House Armed Services Committee, in a Wilson Center discussion on southeast Asia and the Pacific, have  urged Australians to work closely with the US to master nuclear technology.

Anthony Moretti, a Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership Professor at the Robert Morris University argues that there is a loophole in the NPT which would allow Canberra to acknowledge to the IEA that it has acquired nuclear materials and then simply refuse to allow any inspections validating its procedures. This would be the only way for Australia to go ahead with the AUKUS deal under the current framework, but the problem is the dangerous precedent it would set, as mentioned above. It is quite hard to imagine how Beijing could possibly allow such development. 

In his recent book titled “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena”, retired Australian army intelligence officer, Clinton Fernandes makes the convincing point that Canberra’s defense strategy has been built around a “structural dependence” on the US, which leaves it unable to defend itself in any scenario other than “in the context of the US Alliance.”

Australia has been called the “coup capital” of the so-called democratic world and the American influence on the country over the years has a lot to do with this. Washington has also controlled Canberra’s foreign policy for decades, as exemplified by the infamous Anglo-American coup that “dismissed” Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Right now, the island-country has become yet another focal point of tensions between great powers.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Bolton says Putin on US target list, wants coup in Russia

“Putin is a legitimate military target… he needs to know that he’s on our target list at this point,” Bolton stated.

By Drago Bosnic | October 10, 2022

Just as the world thought that the lack of basic etiquette (diplomatic or any other) in the United States establishment couldn’t possibly get worse, that same establishment goes beyond anyone’s imagination (or worst nightmares in this particular case). On Friday, October 7, during an interview on CBS, former US National Security Advisor John Bolton, infamous for his insistence on starting wars against Venezuela, Iran and North Korea or escalating the ongoing ones (such as Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc), said Russian President Vladimir Putin is on the US target list and threatened he might be assassinated.

“I think we should make it clear publicly so that not just Putin but that all the top Russian leadership… that if Putin authorizes the use of a nuclear weapon he’s signing his own suicide note,” the infamous neoconservative war-hawk said.

Bolton insisted that Putin is “a legitimate military target” since he heads the command and control structure of all Russian strategic forces. Bolton further stated that this should be official US policy.

“He’s a legitimate military target… he needs to know that he’s on our target list at this point,” he concluded.

Bolton’s comments effectively boil down to calls for the US to use any opportunity to assassinate the president of Russia. It cannot possibly be overstated just how dangerous, destabilizing and irresponsible such rhetoric is, especially coming from high-ranking officials, whether they currently hold office or not. However, Bolton’s statements are simply a continuation of a string of his recent provocative actions. He also discussed an op-ed he recently authored for the online military journal 1945, where he openly called for a coup in Russia.

“There is no long-term prospect for peace and security in Europe without regime change in Russia. Russians are already discussing it, quietly, for obvious reasons. For the United States and others pretending that the issue is not before will do far more harm than good,” Bolton wrote in the aforementioned op-ed.

“To avoid the war simply grinding along indefinitely, we must alter today’s calculus. Carefully assisting Russian dissidents to pursue regime change might just be the answer,” he continued.

Bolton stated that a color revolution-style coup (or “regime change” as he calls it) was necessary, or at least an attempt to sabotage and cause division in the Russian establishment from the inside.

“Actually effecting regime change is doubtless the hardest problem, but it does not require foreign military forces. The key is for Russians themselves to exacerbate divisions among those with real authority, the siloviki, the ‘men of power.’ Disagreements and animosities already exist, as in all authoritarian regimes, exploitable as dissidents set their minds to it. Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank outside the Russian White House in 1991 evidenced the fracturing of the Soviet ruling class. Once regime coherence and solidarity shatter, change is possible,” Bolton wrote.

John Bolton is so infamously hawkish that he called former US Defense Secretary James Mattis (also a retired US Marine Corps general nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Chaos”) too “soft”. One of the very first things Bolton did while serving as the US National Security Advisor was to make sure the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (officially JCPOA). Immediately after, Bolton refocused on advocating for invasions and/or coups in Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, North Korea, etc. His warmongering became too much of a liability and a major point of contention between Bolton and the then president Trump, so much so that he was eventually fired after approximately a year and a half in office.

Although Bolton’s comments may be dismissed or ignored altogether, they will surely not go unnoticed in Moscow, as Russia is faced with increasingly aggressive actions and warlike rhetoric coming from the political West, particularly the US. Such statements come at a time when tensions are escalating by the day, especially as other US officials, both former and current, have been commenting in a similar fashion. This also includes US President Joe Biden himself, whose “nuclear apocalypse” remarks stunned the world in recent days.

It is also not the first time the US has called for a coup in Russia. In late March, President Biden stated the same during a speech in Warsaw, when he said that “Putin cannot remain in power“, which later prompted many White House spokespeople to try and distort the remarks. In contrast, Russia and its top brass have exercised restraint. There have been no reciprocal comments or actions in response to such blatant threats, but there have been warnings that Russia will defend itself by any means necessary. However, even these statements have been taken out of context and then turned into supposed “threats” by the mainstream propaganda machine of the political West.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

October 10, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 9 Comments