For those of us who started pulling uncomfortable threads of ‘hang on a minute, that doesn’t seem quite right’ and kept going, the world is now a strange landscape. When it comes to our health, many of us have had life-long assumptions smashed to smithereens.
The last few years have been a brutal introduction to the harsh realities of the medical industrial complex. Its recent behaviour has completely shattered public trust. Overnight, medical ethics including bodily autonomy and informed consent were tossed out. The dying were unable to see loved ones, blanket DNRs were applied and people were subjected to forced procedures (e.g. PCR testing) or were discriminated against based on their covid vaccination status. Most went along with these inhumane diktats that came from ‘on high’. Is it any wonder that many people would now be reluctant to enter a hospital even where there was a genuine need? There has to be a balance where people regain the confidence to seek care if genuinely needed. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will not lead to fewer excess deaths. Patients rightly want the best available care but in the current system of protocolised medicine, that pathway is far from guaranteed.
What is striking, when spending time amongst those still firmly planted behind the Overton window, is the notion that for any ailment – particularly with advancing age – the answer is always pharmaceutical or surgical interventions rather than lifestyle changes. This is clearly superb for Big Pharma. Less certain, is the benefit for the end user. Blanket approvals of the novel, mRNA injections across all age groups – in spite of total lack of long-term safety data – showed us clearly, in real-time, how money and politics corrupts health regulators. This renders the current system totally defunct. This article in The Epoch Timesreports how 65% of drug recommendations by the FDA are approved based on a single study. In the meantime doctors who want to promote lifestyle changes as first line treatment ahead of more dangerous interventions, find themselves increasingly working in a system opposed to them.
Trying to make an informed assessment of risks and benefits becomes almost impossible, once you realise how untrustworthy scientific literature has become. Or perhaps always was. ‘But it says so in the Lancet…’ Hopefully, many have now realised how empty this sentence sounds. Research outcomes are heavily influenced by the desires of those funding them, who just happen to be the ones manufacturing the drugs. This meme, whilst humorous, is worryingly accurate:
From statins to HRT, to proven-to-be-ineffective surgeries, to antidepressants, there is almost zero discussion in modern ‘medicine’ of preventative measures that do not benefit Big Pharma. Diet, exercise, breathing techniques, stress management, ensuring proper balance of micronutrients, enquiring about emotional and relationship causes of ill health. These should be the basic lines of enquiry for any competent physician, long before offering various magic bullets following the luxurious seven minute consultation via Zoom. GPs offering this paltry level of service are complicit in ensuring their own redundancy within a few short years. AI would serve just as well, the human factor having been almost entirely scrubbed out.
Most people with elderly parents know that they often need special plastic containers to house the numerous medications that they take on a daily basis. Often many of these drugs were added in sequence to deal with side effects (or more correctly, ‘effects’) of the medications that were introduced first. This close-to-the-bone satire that has been circulating online really sums it up:
“I took ASPIRIN for the headache caused by the ZYRTEC™ for the hay fever I got from the RELENZA™ for the upset stomach and flu-like symptoms caused by the VIAGRA™ for the erectile dysfunction from the PROPECIA™ for the hair loss caused by the RITALIN™ for my short attention span caused by the SCOPODERM TTS™ for the motion sickness that I got from the LOMOTIL™ for the diarrhoea caused by the XENICAL™ for the weight gain caused by the PAXIL™ for the anxiety that I got from the ZOCOR™ that I’m taking for my high cholesterol, because a good diet and exercise is just too much trouble.”
There seems to be the prevailing belief that human beings can only stay alive with constant interference from the medical profession. But what if the entire system keeps you sick, in order to retain you as a loyal customer to The Firm? What if much of the so-called ‘safety’ data are in fact just as flawed as those used to push the covid ‘vaccines’ in 2020? For those of us who became curious (suspicious?), we felt it might be worth having a retrospective look at other trends in medical diagnostics and treatments.
As it turns out, the more you look, the more you find…
Doing more harm than good?
A deep dive into questionable drugs and surgical practices that are built into standard protocols here in the UK would fill a book. Maybe several books. That is beyond the scope of this article, however here are a few ‘top picks’ to get started:
Statins: This has been allowed on occasion to seep into mainstream consciousness, but it is still worth reading the book written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, entitled The Great Cholesterol Con. There is simply no good evidence for the widespread use of statins. The notion that they don’t have harmful effects is also nonsense. A 17-year study on the elderly showed that low serum cholesterol was associated with increased frailty, accelerated mental decline, and early death. This should get any sensible clinician asking questions about what effects deliberately lowering it might have on long-term health. During ward rounds one senior consultant says to his juniors, ‘let’s stop this wonder drug’, scoring it off the prescription list. The juniors ask why he calls it that, to which he replies ‘I wonder what use it is!’
SSRIs: a growing number of studies show they are less effective than thought. Has this resulted in a decline in prescriptions? Of course not. In fact psychiatry in general is an area that many medics describe as barbaric. The links between gut and brain health are now widely accepted and yet almost no money goes into mainstream R&D in this area. Cures are simply not as profitable as life-long customers.
HRT: There is evidence for an increased risk of blood clots and stroke as well as an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women using HRT. In researching this article and questioning women who had recently started on these drugs, most had not been adequately informed as to any associated risks. Many had no idea what kind of HRT they were even taking. This shows the level of blind faith people still have in a system that, judging by the history of criminal fines paid out, does not have a very good track record, to say the least.
Angioplasty: For decades, we were led to believe that angioplasties are an effective treatment for not only angina (chest pain) but also served as protection from a heart attack. Now, the evidence seems to point to the procedure being ‘useless’ or even worse than useless. Lifestyle and diet changes are more effective and have the capacity to reverse the progression of coronary heart disease. This hardly seems like rocket science but somehow has taken decades to ‘realise’.
Childhood Vaccinations: or as we like to call them, The Sacred Cows. Daring to even utter the words that these interventions may carry risks as well as benefits, or pointing out that there are no long-term safety studies using a genuine placebo, seems to create an allergic reaction in even the most sceptical of folks. However, at HART the adage ‘everything is back on the table’ is one we hold dear. Many people who now have the appetite to question The Science™ are quietly murmuring the name of the book Turtles All the Way Down. Perhaps it is worth reading, just to know what the alternative view point is. We do not need protection from theories. We need them to be aired and debated, so we can reach full and informed decisions. No topic should be out of bounds, including this one. Perhaps especially this one.
This list could go on ad infinitum, but instead we will end with a list of suggestions given by various practising medics when asked about drugs or interventions that they question. Once again, we point out that people are individuals. Protocols are not good for individuals. Do your research, take responsibility and remember that The Experts may have their hands tied firmly behind their back by The Money.
List of drugs with questionable efficacy/safety from currently prescribing doctors:
Benzodiazepines and other so-called ‘Z’ drugs (zopiclone, eszopiclone, zaleplon and zolpidem): habit forming with evidence of severe side effects such as dementia, infections, respiratory disease exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cancer. They cause severe withdrawal symptoms;
Gliflozins: the new ‘wonder drugs’ used in diabetes and heart failure. Concerns about kidney damage and they come with no long-term safety profile;
GLP-1 agonist injectables: originally marketed for diabetes, now being sold as weight loss drugs. Concerns over risks of thyroid and pancreatic cancer and can cause pancreatitis;
Psychiatric drugs in general. Recommended reading: Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin;
Antivirals: For example Tamiflu, which is now labelled a ‘fiasco’. The drug caused severe side effects such as hallucinations, self-injury, abnormal behaviour and renal impairment;
Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs):evidence of major side effects with long-term use, including dementia, chronic kidney disease and increased cancer risk;
Beta Blockers:evidence that long-term use is not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, with considerable side effects, such as depression and fatigue;
Anti-arthritis drugs: Overuse of NSAIDs in particular can cause bleeding, heart attack, stroke, and renal damage.
To quote Aldous Huxley: ‘Medical science is making such remarkable progress that soon none of us will be well’.
The United Nations (UN) is no fan of free speech and one of its plans to “address” so-called “misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization” is on the verge of being finalized.
This unelected intergovernmental organization, which wields significant influence over its 193 member states, recently published the final draft of its Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.
The final draft contains several agreements from heads of state and government to crack down on lawful speech. Additionally, it contains pledges from these heads of state and government to back two instruments that will give the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) enhanced powers to target “misinformation” and build out its surveillance networks.
While UN political declarations aren’t usually legally binding, they do wield significant legal influence. According to the UN, declarations “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and reflect the commitment of states to move in certain directions, abiding by certain principles.”
The proposed speech crackdowns are outlined in several sections of the final draft of this political declaration.
In section OP35, the heads of state and government agree to “take measures to counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization, especially on social media platforms” and counter “vaccine hesitancy in the context of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” Additionally, section OP42 includes an agreement to combat “misinformation.”
The UN member states back the pandemic treaty in section OP15 and agree to encourage the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (the group that’s responsible for drafting and negotiating the pandemic treaty) to conclude their negotiations on the “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” (the full name of the WHO’s pandemic treaty).
The support for the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) is contained in section OP16 of the final draft. This section encourages the working group that’s focused on these amendments to continue its work with respect to the intended finalization date of May 2024.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Tuesday filed an amicus brief in support of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) groundbreaking lawsuit against the legacy news media members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI).
The lawsuit, filed May 31, alleges the TNI violated antitrust laws and the U.S. Constitution by colluding with tech giants, some of which also are members of the TNI, to censor online news.
An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to a lawsuit to provide information that has a bearing on the issues and to assist the court in reaching the correct decision.
According to Landry’s amicus brief:
“The scope of TNI group’s conspiracy is wide-ranging. Restricting disfavored information injures not merely the Plaintiffs, but also Louisiana residents and state officials.
“Louisiana officials need a free press to communicate with and understand the concerns of the State’s residents. Louisiana residents, in turn, need a free press to receive information and make up their own minds about what is true and what is false.
“The State has a strong interest in seeing the injuries the TNI group has inflicted on Louisiana officials and residents redressed.”
Jed Rubenfeld, lead attorney in CHD’s lawsuit, said Landry’s amicus brief “from the sovereign state of Louisiana is incredibly helpful to CHD’s historic case against TNI and in explicating Louisiana’s own compelling interests in its outcome.”
CHD and its chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in March filed a similar lawsuit against Biden administration officials, in a Louisiana district court. A federal judge last month consolidated the two cases.
TNI describes itself as an industry “partnership” formed during the early days of the COVID-19 crisis. Its members include some of the world’s largest legacy news organizations including The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC.
Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft also are members of the TNI.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include CHD, Jim Hoft (the Gateway Pundit), Dr. Joseph Mercola and seven others.
According to the complaint, one of TNI’s stated goals is to “choke off” and “stamp out” online news reporting that TNI or any of its members deems “misinformation.”
Federal antitrust laws prohibit companies from colluding to deny critical facilities or market access to rivals. Such agreements, known as group boycotts, are per se illegal.
Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty for the Western District of Louisiana on Wednesday granted leave to file Landry’s amicus brief. The court’s decision on the defendants’ legal objections to the lawsuit is expected in the near future.
From the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal to Chinese-brokered peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the US administration of President Joe Biden has been overseeing an era of declining American power across West Asia. In the midst of this fall from grace as the Middle East’s hegemon, Washington’s obsession with achieving a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal demonstrates a disconnect from reality and proves that optics are more important than tangible policy positions.
US National Security Advisor Jake Sulivan made it publicly clear last Tuesday that a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which Washington is currently working on, is still far from being achieved. This announcement followed speculation in American media that such a deal could be imminent. For those who have been paying attention to the region’s politics, however, it couldn’t be more clear how arduous a task achieving such a deal would be.
Looking at the deal through an American lens, it is clear what a diplomatic achievement of this nature would mean for the legacy of a US president’s administration. It would go down as a significant victory for the head of state, Joe Biden. It would also provide a great photo-op in the event that it happens; one that could be used to demonstrate the government’s strength in the 2024 elections. It could be calculated by the Democratic Party administration that prioritizing such a deal could make up for the president’s previous failures regarding the American role in the Middle East.
However, objectively speaking, achieving Saudi-Israeli rapprochement will mean overcoming countless hurdles on all sides and may end up doing more harm than good regionally. This is despite the Biden administration’s promises that it would boost regional security and stability. Yet with the recent announcement that the BRICS bloc will be adding Iran and Saudi Arabia as members come January 2024, after Tehran and Riyadh re-established ties under Beijing’s auspices, such a deal could open new regional wounds and run contrary to the vision set forth by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.
When the Trump administration managed to rope Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco into a normalization agreement between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel (the Abraham Accords), the initiative came from the UAE itself, at a time when Abu Dhabi had clearly decided to go ahead with the move. There was no real struggle to convince the UAE to go ahead with normalizing ties with the Israelis. In fact, in the cases of Morocco and Sudan, the Emiratis helped place pressure on those nations to accept normalization deals.
Saudi Arabia, despite having maintained close ties with the Trump administration – the first foreign visit of US President Donald Trump was to Riyadh – shied away from signing onto the normalization deal with the Israelis, likely because such a move would be more challenging for a country like Saudi Arabia domestically than for the likes of neighboring Bahrain or the UAE.
As of now, Saudi-US relations under the Biden administrations have been far from cordial, and when the American president made his first trip to the Saudi kingdom last year, he was made to appear as an afterthought. When Joe Biden confronted Mohammed Bin Salman over the infamous killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Crown Prince allegedly fired back by bringing up the lack of action taken over the killing of American veteran journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, by an Israeli soldier. Mohammed Bin Salman even told The Atlantic monthly that he didn’t care if Biden misunderstood him. Saudi Arabia has also ignored calls from the US to alter oil production.
If the Biden administration is to convince Saudi Arabia to sign onto a normalization deal, concessions must first be granted. Riyadh reportedly seeks a civil nuclear program and a US security pact that could drag Washington into war in the event that the kingdom comes under attack. Such preconditions present a litany of hurdles for the American government.
Then there is Israel, which under any other government than the current far-right coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would easily be able to get away with signing such a deal. However, Netanyahu has reportedly been requested to make some kind of concession towards the Palestinians in order to make the UAE deal go ahead. The government that Benjamin Netanyahu now heads is entirely different to the one he led in 2019, and his coalition depends on the support of the extremist Religious Zionism (RZ) alliance. RZ even pushes back against the idea of security coordination with the Palestinian Authority (PA), based in Ramallah, despite the fact that this policy benefits Israeli security. RZ stated clearly, from the time of the 2022 national election, that one of its goals was to annex the West Bank and the most likely concession that the US will ask of Tel Aviv is to again promise that it will steer away from doing so.
When it comes to the Palestinians, there is also the uncontrollable factor of a major escalation between the Palestinian armed factions and the Israeli military, over Israeli provocations at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Saleh Al-Arouri, the deputy head of the political bureau of Hamas, recently told al-Mayadeen that in the event of any senior leader being targeted, there will be regional war. This is at a time when pressure is growing on the Israeli government to carry out an attack on Hamas leaders in response to numerous attacks against Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank. This, on top of the recent tensions at the Lebanese border with Hezbollah, all make for a potentially explosive situation, under which a Saudi-Israeli deal would look awful for Mohammed Bin Salman.
There is additionally the issue of what a Saudi-Israeli deal may do to Iranian-Saudi relations and their recent re-establishment of ties. As Saudi Arabia includes within it two of the holiest sites in the Islamic faith, Mecca and Medina, its decision to normalize ties with Israel will carry massive significance throughout the Muslim world. Such a move would prove it impossible for Tehran to remain neutral on the issue and it is very likely that the Iranians would reverse their decision to maintain ties with the Saudis. This means that if the Saudis are to sign a normalization deal with Israel, they have to know that this will undermine China’s diplomatic breakthrough and could end up presenting greater security concerns if they again find themselves competing so heavily for influence regionally with Iran. There is also cause for concern when it comes to Jordan’s reaction, which may see such a deal as a threat to its custodianship over the Holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, and feel that Saudi Arabia is encroaching upon its territory.
If the US administration had a serious approach to its Middle East policy, it would realize the dramatic shift that has occurred regionally and that its traditional allies have agendas that are no longer congruent with the old American status quo approach. It would seem, from observing the rhetoric and actions of Washington, that the current US government is in denial and cannot grasp that the days when it could boss around every country in West Asia are long gone. It will take pragmatic thinking to revive the US position in the long run, and one thing is for sure, a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal doesn’t make sense for any country at this time.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
Despite their complicated and often uneasy relationship, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, agree on one thing: Iran is behind Israel’s security problem.
The socio-economic polarization in Israel, the country’s political and judicial crises, the ongoing settlers’ pogroms in the West Bank, the repeated calls for religious war by Tel Aviv’s far-right ministers – all of these myriad problems are suddenly negligible. The problem is Iran.
Though Iran, as a common enemy, often unites all major Israeli political parties, the supposed Iranian threat this time around, is quite different.
“We are in the midst of a terrorist onslaught that is being encouraged, directed and financed by Iran and its proxies,” said Netanyahu of a Palestinian attack that killed a settler and wounded another near the occupied Palestinian city of Al-Khalil (Hebron) on 21 August.
The attack came only two days after another, which killed two Israeli settlers near the town of Huwwara, near Nablus, in the northern West Bank.
Huwwara, a small town of 5,500 people, was the site of an outright pogrom by large mobs of armed Israeli Jewish settlers on 26 February.
Amnesty International described what occurred in the town as follows: “On the night of Sunday 26 February, hundreds of state-backed Israeli settlers carried out a spree of attacks against Palestinians (in Huwwara) … Settlers torched dozens of Palestinian cars, homes and orchards and physically assaulted Palestinians, including with metal bars and rocks.”
Typically, every Palestinian attack on Israeli soldiers, armed settlers or even civilians is preceded by a multitude of deadly Israeli army raids or settler attacks on Palestinian communities.
Not a day passes without Israeli violence in occupied Palestine. Reports by the United Nations, Palestinian, Israeli and international rights groups indicate that this year is the most violent in the West Bank in nearly two decades.
More than 200 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 30 Israelis since January 2023, according to a statement to the UN Security Council by UN Middle East envoy, Tor Wennesland, on 21 August.
Wennesland described the violence as a “concerning trend”, attributing it to a “growing sense of despair about the future,” UN News reported.
The UN humanitarian agency, OCHA, had similar findings. It said that nearly 600 settler-related ‘incidents’ were reported in the Occupied Territories in the first six months of 2023. Settler attacks have resulted in “Palestinian casualties, property damage or both.”
Neither Wennesland nor OCHA mentioned Iran in their statements, nor did the constant stream of reports on Israel’s ongoing violence, incitement or, at times, outright calls for genocide by settlers and their leaders in Netanyahu’s government.
As for the reason behind the “sense of despair” mentioned in Wennesland’s UN briefing, the Israeli anti-settlement organisation, Peace Now, may have an answer.
In a statement issued on 17 August, the Israeli group said that Netanyahu’s government is advancing a plan for ‘unprecedented investment’ of nearly $200 million in illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
“There are clauses that have not yet determined the allocation amounts, so the total amount is expected to increase significantly,” Peace Now said on its website.
Since a large sum of the funds is described as ‘undefined’ grants, the illegal settlements are allowed “to use the money for almost any purpose.”
This can only mean expansion of the illegal settlements, construction of new outposts, ethnically cleansing Palestinians and paving the way for full, de jure annexation of the West Bank.
The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is not being used lightly here.
Aside from the ‘incremental genocide’ happening daily throughout the Occupied Territories, at times large communities are being expelled, en masse.
The Norwegian Refugee Council recently reported on the eviction of nearly 500 Palestinians from seven communities in the West Bank in a matter of 20 months, many of them from the Ras At-Tin Bedouin community, north of Ramallah.
“Entire Palestinian communities being wiped off the map, a shameful legacy of unrelenting violence, intimidation and harassment perpetrated by Israeli settlers and, in some cases, encouraged by Israeli authorities,” Ana Povrzenic, NRC’s Country Director for Palestine commented on the findings.
The list is endless, and nothing suggests that Iran is relevant to any part of this discussion.
The direct link between the Israeli occupation and Palestinian relations cannot be denied by any honest observer.
But neither Netanyahu nor Gallant is expected to be honest in their depiction of what is occurring in Palestine now.
As if reading from the same script, Gallant agreed with his boss on the alleged Iranian threat. “The most significant change on the ground is related to Iranian financing and intent,” Gallant said, declaring that “Iran is looking for any way to harm the citizens of Israel.”
The irony is that the Netanyahu-Gallant political conflict since March has fuelled the greatest political crisis, arguably, in the history of the Israeli state. The crisis is enduring.
Yet, now both are emerging as the stalwarts of Israeli security against a supposed Iranian threat. But why would the two agree on anything? And why Iran, in particular? And why now?
Both Netanyahu and Gallant stand to gain from diverting attention from the reasons behind the ongoing rebellion in Palestine.
For Netanyahu, blaming Iran allows him to stoke the fire of instability in the Middle East, unite all Israelis behind their supposed defender and avoid any accountability for the ongoing human rights violations in Palestine.
As for Gallant, blaming Iran elevates the military and all branches of intelligence services; instead of being seen as failing to stop home-grown Palestinian struggle, he wants to paint an alternative image of a heroic army fighting an ‘existential threat’ hatched elsewhere.
This is not a simple case of lacking self-awareness, but a deliberate diversion of the actual problem: the Israeli occupation and apartheid.
Throughout the years, Israel has insisted that Palestinians are not political actors capable of making their own collective decisions, and that some bogeymen elsewhere – the Arabs, the Iranians, the communists, the Islamists, and so on … are to blame.
But Tel Aviv is wrong. For Israel to understand the reasons behind the growing Palestinian resistance in all of its forms, it needs to look at the devastated refugee camps of Jenin, Balata and Nur Shams – not Tehran – for the answers.
Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov demanded that Washington “stop the bacchanalia” and return every single piece of diplomatic property in the United States stolen from the Russian Federation.
“We demand Washington to stop the bacchanalia, comply with international obligations and return every single piece of diplomatic property in the United States stolen from us,” the Russian embassy quoted the diplomat as saying on its Telegram channel on Wednesday.
Antonov recalled that exactly six years ago, on August 31, 2017, the US administration “took a new round of unprecedented measures to restrict the activities of Russian diplomatic and consular missions in the United States and, in fact, further curtail bilateral ties.” “In the form of an ultimatum it demanded us to close in two days the Consulate General in San Francisco – one of the largest institutions providing visa, notary and other consular services to citizens of Russia and the United States. Simultaneously, we were groundlessly ordered to cease the activities of the Trade Representation in Washington, D.C.,” Antonov said.
According to him, over the past six years, the Russian embassy has sent “hundreds of diplomatic notes to the State Department regarding access to the real estate assets owned by the Russian Federation,” but each has been rejected. “The United States flagrantly violated fundamental norms of international law, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, as well as the bilateral Consular Convention of 1964. In addition, the US authorities flouted their own legislation, encroaching on the principle of inviolability of private property, guaranteed by the US Constitution,” the ambassador said with confidence.
All this, Antonov said, happened under the pretext of “alleged Russian interference in US elections,” however, “after years of slandering,” Washington has presented no real evidence in support of its claims. “The case of [former US President] ‘Donald Trump’s collusion with Moscow’ fell apart, but all the imposed sanctions are still there,” he lamented.
“We are cynically told that, according to the documents, Russia has not been deprived of ownership title to the real estate assets – just ‘banned from using them.’ There is a pseudo-legitimate attempt to juggle basic legal concepts,” the ambassador concluded.
Niger’s National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) has reportedly demanded the complete withdrawal of French troops from the West African country by September 3.
Earlier in the day, Saudi media reported the CNSP had announced the annulment of all security and military agreements with France.
By the end of the week, supporters of the pullout are going to stage an indefinite protest against the presence of the French military in Niger. Some residents have reportedly demanded that the authorities cut water and power supply to the French base, as well as halt food deliveries.
Last week, the Nigerien Foreign Ministry called on French Ambassador Sylvain Itte to leave the country within 48 hours. Paris said it took note of Niger’s request to the ambassador, but noted Niger’s military leadership has no authority to make such decisions.
Nigerien soldiers stand guard as supporters of Niger’s National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) gather for a demonstration in Niamey on
On July 26, Niger’s presidential guard ousted and detained President Mohamed Bazoum. The guard’s commander, Gen. Abdourahmane Tchiani, proclaimed himself the president of the caretaker CNSP-led government. Most Western countries as well as ECOWAS condemned it. In early August, ECOWAS adopted a plan for a potential military intervention in Niger.
The NATO-Russianproxywar in Ukraine has been trending towards a stalemate since the beginning of the year after Moscow’s growing edge in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” ensured that it won’t be defeated. NATO is unlikely to be defeated either, however, since it’ll probably intervene directly – whether as a whole or via a Polish–ledmission that draws in the bloc via Article 5 – to freeze the Line of Contact in the event that Russia achieves a breakthrough and threatens to sweep through Ukraine.
The counteroffensive’s spectacular failure and the subsequently vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine strongly suggest that talks with Russia will resume by year’s end for freezing the conflict. Ahead of that happening, these wartime allies are frenziedly trying to convince their respective people that the other is responsible for this debacle simultaneously with formulating an attractive post-conflict vision of the future. The first is served by their vicious blame game while the second will now be discussed.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s now polling third after winning last week’s debate and had earlier attracted enormous media attention for his outspokenness on sensitive issues, just published his “Viable Realism & Revival Doctrine” in an article for The American Conservative. Of relevance to this piece is his plan for ending the NATO-Russian proxy war. Liberal–globalist policymakers and their media allies responded with fury, and it’s not difficult to see why.
Ramaswamy describes the conflict as a “no-win war” that’s needlessly depleted Western stockpiles to China’s benefit. With a view towards more effectively containing the People’s Republic in the Asia-Pacific, he therefore suggests extricating the US from its proxy war with Russia as soon as possible. To that end, he proposes recognizing the new ground realities in Eastern Europe, ending NATO expansion, refusing to admit Ukraine to the bloc, lifting sanctions, and having Europe shoulder the burden for its own security.
The explicit goal is to “get Putin to dump Xi”, and that’s why he says that the quid pro quo is “Russia exiting its military alliance with China.” Ramaswamy is convinced that his plan will “elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia” if it’s implemented into practice, but the problem is that no such “military alliance” exists between those two. Moreover, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the US will “get Putin to dump Xi” since they’re good friends and their countries are strategic partners.
Having clarified that, this plan does have its merits. From the Russian side, it ensures that country’s objective national security interests and gives it the chance to rely on the EU for preemptively averting potentially disproportionate economic dependence on China upon the lifting of sanctions. On the home front, Ramaswamy’s plan appeals to the pragmatic policymaking faction whose influence is on the rise as proven by the success over the summer of their policy towards India that was detailed here.
The timing couldn’t have been better. The US is looking for a “face-saving” way to resume peace talks as previously explained, and the rising influence of pragmatic policymakers could lead to them overruling the liberal-globalists’ objections to this, though their rivals could still try to sabotage this. The enormous media attention that Ramaswamy has already generated, not to mention what he’s now receiving as a result of his proposal, could reshape the national discourse on the proxy war’s endgame.
Americans are becoming fatigued with this conflict but no one had yet articulated an attractive post-conflict vision of the future until now. Irrespective of Ramaswamy’s political future, his plan serves to spark a wider conversation at all levels about the pragmatism of compromising with Russia in order to free the US up for more effectively containing China in the Asia-Pacific. This can in turn facilitate the resumption of talks with Russia, especially if it emboldens pragmatic US policymakers.
The vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine over the counteroffensive’s failure leads to the inevitable one over who’s responsible for losing this proxy war, with all of this preceding America’s formulation of an attractive post-conflict vision of the future for its people and policymakers alike. The first dynamic is continually intensifying and making more headlines by the day, while the second is also presently unfolding but mostly in silence, and it’s this dynamic that Ramaswamy’s plan contributes to.
Accepting the impossibility of Russia abandoning its mutually beneficial cooperation with China and acknowledging that lifting the sanctions likely won’t happen either, the rest of his proposals could form the parameters of a potential Russian-American deal for ending their proxy war in Ukraine. That former Soviet Republic wouldn’t join NATO, nor would that bloc expand any further, and the West would de facto recognize the new ground realities in Eastern Europe while the EU bears the burden for its security.
Russia would obviously have to agree to some regional compromises too in that scenario, such as Ukraine’s privileged post-conflict relationship with NATO and the hard security guarantees that the Anglo-American Axis will likely provide, but these could be acceptable if its other interests are met. If there’s any movement in this direction, then it shouldn’t be maliciously spun as Russia conspiring to facilitating the US’ containment of China, but seen for what it truly is: Russia putting its interests first.
While the troubled Biden administration keeps parroting the same narrative about the CO2 emissions, even insisting that a ban on gas stoves would “help fight global warming”, it’s also actively working on the return of the ever so “climate-friendly” live nuclear weapons testing. The Russian Foreign Ministry has been warning about this for months, although this is usually decried as “Russian disinformation” by the mainstream propaganda machine. It’s important to note that thanks to the efforts of the United States, the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty) never entered into force and its implementation is largely dependent on the goodwill of the signatories.
“The situation involving the CTBT is causing increasing concern. The responsibility for the situation in which the treaty has not entered into force over more than a quarter of a century of its existence lies squarely with the United States, which defiantly refused to ratify it and is now demonstrating its clear intention to resume testing,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned back in early March, adding: “We cannot afford to remain idle spectators to what is happening. If the United States nevertheless decides to take such a step and be the first to conduct nuclear tests, we will be forced to respond proportionately. No one should have dangerous illusions that global strategic parity can be upset.”
However, it seems that’s exactly what the US is trying to accomplish. Its intention to restart nuclear weapons testing isn’t subsiding in the slightest. Quite the contrary it would seem, as the belligerent thalassocracy is now actively working on restoring and improving its nuclear test sites. Andrey Belousov, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN and International Organizations in Geneva, stated that the US is still engaged in covert activities in Nevada, which shows that it doesn’t intend to stop testing new nuclear warheads. Belousov warned that Washington DC is working to improve and maintain the nuclear test site in a state of full operational readiness.
“The United States does not hide the development of new types of nuclear warheads, the effectiveness of which will sooner or later have to be tested in practice,” Belousov stated.
What the high-ranking Russian diplomat is most likely referring to is the so-called “nuclear super-fuse” technology that the US has been testing for decades, particularly under the Obama administration (and ever since). Investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote extensively on the topic, warning that the sole purpose of this controversial technology is to exponentially amplify the effectiveness of America’s first-strike capabilities, meaning that the belligerent thalassocracy is contemplating a direct attack on Russia. Zuesse’s warnings are not to be discarded or ignored, as he argues that Finland’s NATO accession is a crucial part of this sinister plan.
It’s estimated that the US is planning to trap Russia by positioning its nuclear missiles about 500 miles or 7 minutes of missile-flying distance from the Kremlin. The Pentagon believes this would be a “checkmate move” as it would allow a decapitation strike on Russia’s central command so that it doesn’t have enough time to launch retaliatory missiles. The goal is to demand Russia’s surrender on the assumption there would be no way for Moscow to assess the situation within only 7 minutes and respond accordingly. The plan was set in motion no later than 2006 when the relations between Russia and the US were cordial and years before there were major tensions between them.
Namely, at the time, America’s two most prestigious national security academic journals, Foreign Affairs and National Security, both recommended replacing the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the new strategy of so-called “nuclear Primacy” that involves America’s dominance in first-strike capabilities, all in order to win a nuclear war against Russia. Zuesse argues that positioning missiles in Ukraine was supposed to be the way to achieve “nuclear primacy”, but since that’s no longer a possibility, Finland is to take the central role in this plan. It should be noted that Moscow will certainly know if the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Finland ever takes place.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that Moscow is in the late stages of developing weapons based on new physical principles. These have been in testing for several years now. Such Russian claims are usually discarded by the mainstream propaganda machine, as the political West still believes that Moscow is supposedly “incapable” of fielding such high-tech weapons. However, Russia has been proving this notion wrong for centuries now. For instance, when Putin announced that Moscow was developing hypersonic weapons back in 2004, this was met with ridicule in the West. However, nobody was laughing when Russia inducted its first hypersonic weapons several years later.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Kiev’s propaganda continues to spread baseless narratives about the so-called “counteroffensive”. Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dmitri Kuleba, during a recent meeting with European diplomats, stated that the Ukrainian attacks on the Rabotino region are a key point to “open the way” towards Crimea. According to him, by attacking villages in the Zaporozhye region, the Ukrainians are “expelling” the Russians and forcing them to retreat to Crimea, taking the fighting deeper into the oblast. With that, it would be possible to start a real battle for Crimea soon, with Kiev having chances to retake it.
“Having entrenched on its [Robotyne’s] flanks, we are opening the way to Tokmak and, eventually, Melitopol and the administrative border with Crimea”, he said, thus calling Rabotino a “strategically important” village.
On the same occasion, Kuleba admitted the Ukrainian difficulties in the overhyped “counteroffensive”, indicating the Russian-made minefields as one of the main reasons for the “slow progress” of the counterattack. Kuleba also admitted losses to Russian air power, saying Moscow “plans to dominate the air” with its drones, helicopters and planes. However, in the end, Kuleba lied once again by saying that despite the problems, Kiev is “gradually succeeding”.
“The number of minefields and fortifications is unprecedented. Russian drones, helicopters and planes dominate the air. But we are gradually succeeding”, he added.
Indeed, instead of “slow”, it would be more appropriate to say that there is simply no Ukrainian progress. So far, the counteroffensive has been an absolute failure and it is unlikely to be any reversal of this scenario. Western experts have already begun to admit that Ukraine’s losses in the attempted counterattack are practically irreversible and that it will not be possible for Kiev to achieve its objectives set when the operation was launched in early June.
It must be remembered that one of these objectives was precisely to invade and possibly retake Crimea, in addition to the newly reintegrated Russian territories. Since 2014, Crimea has been a permanent strategic objective for Ukrainian forces. Unable to launch attacks in the region, Kiev affected the Crimean oblast for eight years through sabotage and boycotts. After the start of the Russian special operation, Ukraine hardened its actions, adopting real terrorism against Crimea, mainly through drone attacks against civilian targets.
Obviously, these terrorist incursions were not enough to “retake” the peninsula, so several of Kiev’s officials promised that the long-awaited “reconquest” would come with the spring-summer counteroffensive. However, the failure of Ukrainian military moves prevented any relevant territorial success from being achieved, with no hope of reaching Crimea.
Failing in all its strategic objectives, Kiev has launched a series of recent attacks in the southern region of Zaporozhye,mainly in the villages of Rabotino and Verbove. In fact, these villages are close to Tokmak, which would allow a more privileged position for the Ukrainian troops, if victorious, to eventually reach regions such as Melitopol and even Crimea itself. The problem is that Kiev has virtually no chance of achieving this since it is just overrating its territorial gains.
Ukrainian forces have recently crossed the first Russian line of defense in the Zaporozhye region. However, they are still being held back by the Moscow’s artillery. Indeed, no territorial control has yet been fully guaranteed by Ukraine. Furthermore, to cross the first Russian line, the Ukrainians suffered many heavy losses, with hundreds killed, in addition to a lot of NATO-provided equipment destroyed. As reported by the Russian authorities, Rabotino is almost completely destroyed, with great material damage to the village, but the military situation is not yet under Ukrainian control.
Even if the Ukrainians eventually take the village completely, they will still be encircled by the Russian forces that are stationed around it, which will prevent them from launching any relevant moves towards Melitopol or Crimea. In this scenario, the Ukrainians will also be extremely weakened as they will have lost many troops to control Rabotino, which will prevent them from moving forward in the face of Russian numerical superiority.
Ukraine seems to insist on violating an elementary concept of military sciences, which is to preserve soldiers’ lives over territories. If troops remain alive, territories can be captured later – but if soldiers die, no territorial gains can be secured. Ukraine ignores this, as it fights to serve interests that are not its own, but those of NATO – which has no hope of Ukrainian victory.
In practice, Kiev is just launching another one of its “suicide missions” encouraged by the Western media. In fact, there is no concrete military objective in the Ukrainian attitudes, only propagandistic actions focused on increasing the support of Western sponsors and public opinion. By mentioning Crimea as the target behind the Ukrainian attacks on Rabotino, Kuleba is simply making propaganda and trying to justify Kiev’s insistence on taking the village, despite so many losses.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Artificial intelligence can’t be trusted to auto-correct emails, much less make civilization-altering decisions about the use of lethal force, a peace activist told Sputnik on Wednesday. Putting autonomous weapons into high-risk situations only risks triggering a war nobody can back down from.
The US Department of Defense has unveiled a new AI drone program designed to close the gap with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Called “Replicator,” the program aims to introduce thousands of cheap and disposable – “atrittable” in Pentagon parlance – autonomous drones over the next two years.
“Replicator will galvanize progress in the too-slow shift of US military innovation to leverage platforms that are small, smart, cheap and many,” US Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said on Tuesday at an industry event.
Noting that China’s core advantage is mass – “more ships, more missiles, more people” – Hicks said the US would “counter” the PLA’s mass “with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, and harder to beat.”
Michael Wong, the national vice president of Veterans for Peace, co-chair of the Veterans for Peace China Working Group, and co-founder of Pivot to Peace, a coalition of Chinese and peace communities, told Radio Sputnik that giving AI the power to both trigger and escalate military conflicts “poses a great danger to all of humanity.”
“We should be very concerned. Let me make three main points. First, China does not want an arms race. They’ve spoken at the UN about this and they’re very much against having such a race in the first place. And my second point is, if there is an arms race, if the United States is foolish enough to force it on China, China will win. And my third point is, these AI, sometimes called killer robots, are a danger to all of humanity because they interact with each other, they could conceivably interact with our nuclear systems, and it risks decisions being made by AI without the oversight of humans or controlled by humans that will escalate situations out of control,” he said.
“Zhang Jun, who is the China representative to the UN, spoke at the UN recently, and he urged the UN to lead in advocating for a peaceful use of AI, regulations and rules to control the development of AI and to direct AI for peaceful use, not for weapons. And he felt that standards need to be made to regulate and control AI. And UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres also said that interaction between AI, nuclear weapons, biotechnology, neurotechnology and robotics is deeply alarming,” Wong explained.
“And yes, if China were to have an arms race forced on them on AI, China’s actually slightly more advanced in some ways in AI than we are. They also are able to mass produce things in general much faster than we are. For example, here in California, we’ve been trying for over a decade to build high speed rail just from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We have not been able to do that. China has built thousands of miles of light rail all across the country, networking every major city in China in just about ten years. So in terms of mass producing anything, China will win if we engage in a race with China.”
Wong then pointed out a very practical example of why giving computers such authority is dangerous: they can’t even get things like spell-checking and auto-correcting text right.
“How much trouble do you have with your computer? Would you trust your computer to make life and death decisions for you?” he asked. “You know, I have trouble with my smartphone auto-correcting my email, making mistakes, and making them wrong. Yeah, you know. So do we want autonomous robots, killer robots out there deciding which humans to kill and when and why?”
“And also if two automated nationwide systems are fighting each other, they will be geared and programmed to win, which means that if they can’t win, they will escalate. And that means that escalation could easily spiral out of control. We could end up in a nuclear war. So this is very foolish. There is actually an organization I discovered called Stop Killer Robots dot org. If anybody wants to go to their website, they can get involved.”
For years, the US and its allies have engaged in so-called “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOPS) in which they deliberately flout the territorial claims of other nations that they consider to be “excessive” by sailing US warships through those waters. In the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, such demonstrations have become commonplace, although China takes them seriously and has at times met FONOPS with a stern response, sending their warships and aircraft to within a few dozen feet of the violating US ship or plane.
Wong noted that the Pentagon’s “Replicator” program would increasingly put AI into such flashpoints.
“For Americans to understand how China feels, just imagine if China or Russia were doing freedom of navigation patrols up and down our coast. And when I say freedom of navigation patrols, I’m not even just talking about sending a cruiser or a destroyer through these waters every every few months, I’m talking about entire aircraft carrier battle groups, a whole armada of ships patrolling up and down China’s coast. And that’s very provocative. Just imagine if China or Russia were doing that to us. How would we feel? That would be a very obvious threat. The Americans, when they read the mainstream news, they hear China’s being aggressive, China’s being a threat. China is not on our borders, that China’s not running battle groups up and down our coast. We’re doing it to them,” he said.
“And we say, well, we’re defending our allies in the Pacific. Our allies are not under threat. China’s not threatening Japan. China is not threatening South Korea, China is not even threatening Taiwan.”
We keep saying China intends to invade Taiwan: China’s very clear they’ve been saying the same thing now that they’ve been saying for 50 years, which is ‘We want peaceful reunification with Taiwan eventually, no time frame named, and that we would only consider use of force if Taiwan were to declare independence.’ The United States keeps trying to push that red line. And if you look at polls in Taiwan, the polls always say a majority of people in Taiwan want to maintain the status quo. And the status quo is working for both sides just fine right now. You know, there’s been billions of dollars in trade that goes back and forth each year between the mainland and Taiwan, there’s thousands of tourists and businesspeople that go back and forth every year, the economies are thriving on both sides. The status quo is working just fine. So the United States is the one that keeps pushing the red line and trying to provoke a war just like we did in Ukraine,” Wong said.
“There’s no need for this. The United States basically is trying to stop China from its peaceful economic rise because they don’t want a large segment of the world not being under the thumb of US domination. It’s basically exploitation and imperialism of the Third World, of which China is still a part.”
“The US elite, especially right now, is composed of people who have a very arrogant and unrealistic view of America and the world. They keep introducing new weapons systems into Ukraine and thinking that that’s going to turn the tide of war. And each time they’re proven wrong, because whatever they do, the Russians will counter it,” he said. “And they’re applying that same logic to China, that they can come up with some new gimmick that can somehow defeat China.”
“This magical thinking is very, very dangerous. You know, there’s always been talk about pushing the edge of nuclear escalation in Ukraine, and they’re doing the same thing with China, they’re pushing the edge, constantly, of escalation. They’re introducing new systems, they’re getting more and more desperate and they’re engaging in more and more magical thinking, which is extremely dangerous. And once we have all these AI killer robots running around the planet – because not just China, but, you know, many countries can develop them – we’ll have something that we don’t have control over. It almost looks like the ‘Terminator’ series of movies that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in.”
Apparently, the Ukrainian government wants to disguise the dictatorial aspect of the regime by pretending to be a democracy. According to information reported by Western media, Kiev plans to organize elections next year. The news is surprising, as the country has been under martial law since February 2022, which would legitimize the postponement of the elections. However, the aim is believed to be to increase Zelensky’s popularity and improve his public image.
The information was published by the Spanish newspaper El Pais on August 28th. Anonymous sources familiar with the matter were consulted by journalists and said that elections will strengthen Zelensky, thus motivating a circumvention of the norms imposed by martial law.
Until recently, Zelensky ruled out elections, but now there are signs that he and his team are changing the strategy. In an interview with local TV a few days ago, Zelensky said: “The logic is that if you are protecting democracy, you must also protect it during the war. And one way to protect it is elections”. In the same vein, Ruslan Stefanchuk, the head of the Ukrainian parliament, stated in July that updates to Ukrainian martial law “would take place soon” as “democracy cannot stop”. Some analysts believe he was commenting on the possibility of calling elections even in times of war.
There are some additional reasons why Kiev is planning these measures. First, it is necessary to remember that the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime is not sovereign, and all its decisions are taken under the direct influence of foreign agents. And recently there has been pressure from some Americans for Ukraine to implement “more democratic” policies to justify Western support. American politicians have already expressed, including in a personal meeting with Zelensky, their desire to see elections in Ukraine next year, which explains Ukraine’s readiness to revise its martial law.
“After a meeting with Zelensky in Kyiv on Wednesday, two senators from the Democratic Party, Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, as well as Republican Lindsey Graham, stressed that they considered it necessary for Ukrainian democracy to hold elections despite the country being at war. The Democratic position has a lot to do with the upcoming presidential election in the United States, which will be held in November 2024. The Republican Party has numerous prominent members (including former President Donald Trump) who have criticized military support for Kyiv, and who, since last spring, have used the argument that Ukraine is not so different from Russia, since the country has suspended democracy under the pretext of war”, El Pais’ article reads.
However, some sources also believe that the main reason for Kiev to take this action is a matter of domestic politics. Zelensky’s popularity has fallen recently, not just because of the conflict, but also because the Ukrainian president has failed to fulfill his main promise during the previous election campaign: to fight corruption. So, instead of thinking about concrete solutions to the corruption problem, Zelensky apparently plans to regain his popularity through new elections. The Ukrainian political scenario does not allow for the existence of a solid opposition coalition, given that many parties were banned and opposing politicians arrested, so it could be “easy” for Zelensky to achieve victory.
In this regard, Mark Savchuk, a political commentator and adviser to the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Office, told journalists:
“Zelenskiy is a great public relations man, especially with the international community, and we are lucky for that, but if there is now talk of going to the polls it is because of Ukrainian internal issues that he does not want to be aired abroad (…) Only in the judiciary have there been improvements, but neither Zelenskiy nor his team are prepared [to fight corruption]. Ordinary Ukrainians see that this is still a corrupt country, they experience it on a daily basis and there are always new stories about it in the news (…) Their team is inept and corrupt. We have a serious corruption problem and they believe that their popularity will slip, so they want to take advantage of their charisma now electorally.”
However, it will not be so easy to organize elections in the midst of the conflict. There are many difficulties to be faced by Ukrainian citizens in an election scenario. In all regions affected by the hostilities it will be virtually impossible for citizens to vote, as the possibility of moving around is severely limited due to the intensity of the fighting. This will restrict the voting area to only some western regions of Ukraine, where the population is more influenced by pro-NATO media and tends to support the regime – despite growing criticism of Zelensky’s administrative ability.
In practice, there are two risks for Zelensky with the plan to hold a new election. One of them is Zelensky losing the dispute. Although the Ukrainian opposition has been practically neutralized by the regime’s dictatorial policies, it has become increasingly clear that Western sponsors plan to replace Zelensky, which makes it possible for Washington to create the necessary conditions for another candidate to win. The other risk is that, even if he wins, Zelensky remains unpopular, with his victory looking like a mere bureaucratic procedure, given the absence of relevant opponents. In this scenario, the plan to make Ukraine look “more democratic” would fail.
However, in either case, Ukraine’s real problem will not be solved: the country will continue to work as a proxy for the US and fight an unwinnable war against a much stronger enemy, causing unnecessary suffering for the Ukrainian population.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist and a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.” The winner of the “Miss Italy” beauty pageant earlier this year got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun.[i] For purposes of this book, however, I am going to look only at the claim that WWII was morally just. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 