Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Feds want to make it easier to identify independent doctors

They want to obtain the National Practitioner Data Bank

BY MERYL NASS | AUGUST 22, 2023

Do the feds want to be ready to censor or even round up doctors who may oppose their next round of heavy-handed “public health” measures?

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The NPDB acts primarily 
as a flagging system; its principal purpose is to facilitate 
comprehensive review of practitioners' professional credentials and 
background. Information is collected from, and disseminated to, 
eligible entities (entities that are entitled to query and/or report to 
the NPDB as authorized in Title 45 CFR part 60 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations) on the following: (1) medical malpractice payments, (2) 
licensure actions taken by Boards of Medical Examiners, (3) state 
licensure and certification actions, (4) federal licensure and 
certification actions, (5) negative actions or findings taken by peer 
review organizations or private accreditation entities, (6) adverse 
actions taken against clinical privileges, (7) federal or state 
criminal convictions related to the delivery of a health care item or 
service, (8) civil judgments related to the delivery of a health care 
item or service, (9) exclusions from participation in federal or state 
health care programs, and (10) other adjudicated actions or decisions. 
It is intended for NPDB information to be considered with other 
relevant information in evaluating credentials of health care 
practitioners, providers, and suppliers.
    Likely Respondents: Eligible entities or individuals that are 
entitled to query and/or report to the NPDB as authorized in 
regulations found at 45 CFR part 60.

I have a black mark in the NPDB despite lack of a completed hearing — the demand for a psych evaluation and temp suspension gave me the black mark.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | 1 Comment

10 Years After HHS Asked CDC to Study Safety of Childhood Vaccine Schedule, CDC Hasn’t Produced It

By Brian Hooker, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 21, 2023

In 2013, the National Vaccine Program Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commissioned an update of earlier findings on the lack of evidence to support claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) infant/child vaccination schedule was safe.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee, charged with producing the update, found that “few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task.”

According to the IOM committee, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

The lack of information on the overall safety of the vaccination schedule was so compelling that the committee then recommended HHS incorporate the study of the safety of the overall childhood immunization schedule into its processes for setting priorities for research, “recognizing stakeholder concerns, and establishing the priorities on the basis of epidemiological evidence, biological plausibility, and feasibility.”

The IOM also recommended the CDC use its private database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), to study the overall health effects of the vaccination schedule using retrospective analyses.

Ten years later, the CDC has yet to do such a comparison study, even though it is sitting on a vast repository of data in the VSD, which include comprehensive medical records for more than 10 million individuals and 2 million children.

The VSD also contains records for a significant number of unvaccinated children, yet the CDC refuses to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children.

The CDC also prohibits VSD outside researchers from accessing the VSD data so they can do the studies.

I was fortunate enough to be one of the researchers who had VSD access as I worked with Dr. Mark R. Geier and his son, David Geier, on a series of studies on thimerosal-containing vaccines in the early 2010s.

However, the CDC subsequently revoked the Geiers’ access because one of the health maintenance organizations (HMO) participating in the VSD project did not like the results the Geiers were obtaining, tying thimerosal exposure to a variety of childhood chronic disorders including autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), birth defects, acute ethylmercury poisoning, fetal/infant/childhood death, premature pubertyemotional disturbancetic disorder and developmental delays.

In Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and I present the very few studies completed on the entire infant/child vaccination schedule, including the groundbreaking study, “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year-Old U.S. Children,” by Anthony Mawson, doctor in public health.

Mawson and his co-authors studied fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated home-schooled children for both infectious and chronic disease incidence.

Not only were chronic diseases more prominent in fully and partially vaccinated children — where the incidence of these diseases ranged from 30 times higher for allergic rhinitis to 3.7 times for neurodevelopmental disorders — but there also was a higher prevalence of infectious diseases like pneumonia and ear infections in vaccinated children.

In a separate 2017 study, “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: a Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Mawson et al. also found that the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among vaccinated children was compounded by low birth weight.

Low birth weight, vaccinated children were 14.5 times more likely to get a diagnosis compared to unvaccinated, normal birth weight children.

I also completed two studies with Neil Z. Miller on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children using medical records from six separate pediatric practices.

Our first study, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” published in 2020, focused on vaccines administered during the first year of life and specific diagnoses occurring after the first birthday.

Those children who received one or more vaccines during their first year of life were 2.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with a developmental delay, 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and 2.1 times more likely to suffer from ear infections when compared to unvaccinated children.

In our second study, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children, with Covariates for Breastfeeding Status and Type of Birth,” published in 2021, we compared fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children for incidence of autism, ADHD, asthma, chronic ear infections, severe allergies and gastrointestinal disorders.

Most notably, fully vaccinated children were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, 17.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma, 20.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 27.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic ear infections compared to completely unvaccinated children.

In a separate analysis within this same study, we changed the statistical model to reflect breastfeeding status and type of birth (normal or Cesarean). Breastfed unvaccinated children fared much better than non-breastfed vaccinated children when comparing the incidence of autism, asthma, ADHD, gastrointestinal disorders, severe allergies and chronic ear infections.

We obtained similar results when investigating the type of birth and vaccination status.

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., and Dr. Paul Thomas also published a study in 2021, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination,” investigating children in Thomas’ Portland, Oregon, pediatric practice.

This study compared the relative incidence of office visits for different disorders between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas found significant increases in office visits among vaccinated children for fever, ear infections, conjunctivitis, asthma, breathing issues, anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, gastroenteritis, weight/eating disorders and respiratory infections.

Notably, there were no ADHD diagnoses among unvaccinated children, whereas the rate of diagnosis among vaccinated children was 5.3%.

Unfortunately, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health retracted the study on the basis of a lone, anonymous complaint. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas were not allowed to rebut the complainant’s concerns regarding the healthcare-seeking behavior of families of unvaccinated children.

However, Lyons-Weiler fired back with Dr. Russell Blaylock in their 2022 paper, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research — an article in which the authors definitively showed that vaccinated children tended to visit their pediatrician more not less than unvaccinated children, which affirmed their original analysis.

Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax” also highlights the 2022 study, “Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months,” by CDC scientists who used the VSD to calculate the level of aluminum exposure in infant vaccines administered up to 2 years of age.

The authors compared the health outcomes of children exposed to more than 3 milligrams of aluminum in their vaccines versus those exposed to less than 3 milligrams of aluminum.

Although this was not a true “vax-unvax” study as there was no unvaccinated control group (the CDC never includes one, unfortunately), Kennedy and I decided to include it in the book because of the study’s alarming findings.

The study authors found that children exposed to higher levels of aluminum were 1.36 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.

Children diagnosed with eczema and exposed to the higher level of aluminum fared even worse and were 1.61 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.

Each of these results was statistically significant, leading us to wonder what the risk of asthma would have been if the CDC had chosen to compare vaccinated children exposed to aluminum to an unvaccinated cohort of children.

“Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” will be released Aug. 29 and is available for preorder on AmazonBarnes & Noble and other online booksellers.


Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., is senior director of science and research at Children’s Health Defense and professor emeritus of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

New Memos Hint at Biden’s Personal Interest in Firing Ukraine Prosecutor Targeting Burisma

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 22.08.2023

New memos indicate that then-Vice President Joe Biden did not act in concert with the US government when he threatened to withhold $1 billion in Ukraine aid unless the Poroshenko government fired the prosecutor general who targeted Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian employer at that time.

Joe Biden and Democrats have repeatedly stressed that his insistence on firing Ukrainian then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokhin back in December 2015 was consistent with the US policy of stamping out corruption in Ukraine.

At the time, then-Vice President Joe Biden even went so far as to threaten then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that Washington would deprive Ukraine of a much-needed $1 billion loan guarantee in case the latter did not fire Shokhin. The conversation reportedly occurred in December 2015. Biden openly bragged about the incident to the Council on Foreign Relations gathering in January 2018:

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

However, memos by Treasury and Justice Department officials obtained by Just the News, an independent US media outlet founded by award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon, indicate that the US government held Shokhin in high regard at the time and concluded that Ukraine had made progress in fighting endemic corruption, thus deserving the loan guarantee.

“Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee,” read an October 1, 2015, memo by the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC), a Barack Obama task force.

Moreover, Senior State Department officials sent Shokhin a personal note saying they were “impressed” with his office’s work and invited him and his staff to Washington for a January 2016 strategy session prior to his sacking.

Remarkably, an audio tape from March 2016 which appeared to record Biden and Poroshenko’s conversation showed that the Ukrainian president pointed out that there was no evidence that Shokhin and his office were anyhow mired in corruption:

“Despite the fact that we didn’t have any corruption charges, we don’t have any information about him doing something wrong, I especially asked him … No, it was the day before yesterday. I especially asked him to resign,” Poroshenko allegedly told Biden in a tape released in 2020 by then-parliamentarian Andrii Derkach.”

Per Solomon, Biden’s political maneuver stemmed from the fact that the latter had been aggressively investigating Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas firm that hired Joe’s son Hunter in 2014 and paid him a hefty salary of $83,333 a month despite Hunter having no expertise or experience in the energy sphere.

What’s more, Hunter’s business associate Devon Archer, who was also employed by Burisma at the time, testified to the House Oversight Committee on July 31 that Shokhin’s investigation was rattling the Ukrainian gas firm and that the Burisma leadership was putting pressure on Hunter to deal with it.

Joe Biden’s role in firing Shokhin created much controversy in 2019, when House Democrats pushed ahead with the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump who asked Poroshenko’s successor, Volodymyr Zelensky, to look into the Bidens’ conduct in a phone conversation.

Democratic lawmakers and officials testified during Trump’s first impeachment that Joe’s actions in withholding the $1 billion in aid had nothing to do with Hunter and were thoroughly consistent with the US government’s Ukraine policy. Per Solomon, this narrative appears to be false.

The US investigative journalist specifically quoted lawyers who worked on Trump’s impeachment defense. They said that they didn’t have access to the memos unearthed by Just the News, showing that the Obama government was satisfied with Shokhin’s work. As per Trump’s former legal team, the documents in question would have made a significant difference to the Trump impeachment case.

The Democratic Party’s apparent attempts to shield Biden, who announced his presidential bid on April 25, 2019, seemingly fit into a broader set of actions by US officials, Biden campaign aides, intelligence operatives, Big Tech and Big Media to suppress any narrative which could cast a shadow on the Bidens’ conduct.

In October 2020, a concerted action by the former top brass of US intelligence agencies, Silicon Valley giants and the US mainstream press smeared a legitimate story by the New York Post stemming from files of a so-called “laptop from hell”, belonging to Hunter Biden, as “Russian disinformation”. It turned out later that the damning materials on the infamous laptop were genuine.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | 1 Comment

Zios Pay US Pols to Hate on Iran

Interview with Iranian Hamshahri newspaper

BY KEVIN BARRETT | AUGUST 22, 2023

Hamshahri

1. Some American officials, such as Tom Cotton, have described Iran’s recent victory as the White House dancing to Iran’s tune, and are angry about it. Former Vice President Mike Pence also lashed out at the recent prisoner swap with Iran, terming the new arrangement as “the largest ransom payment in American history” to the Islamic Republic. In your opinion, what is the main reason for the anger of the American officials, and more importantly, is Washington humiliated?

Tom Cotton and other Republicans who are criticizing the US-Iran prisoner swap and funds release are doing so for only one reason: They want to reap political gains. They hope to fool ignorant voters into viewing them as tougher on officially-designated US adveraries than their Democratic opponents. More importantly, they are preening in front of the mirror offering anti-Iran poses and gestures in order to convince wealthy hardline Zionists to give them more of the lavish bribes that fuel the American political system, euphemistically known as “campaign contributions.”

Ironically, Cotton and other anti-Iran Republicans are traitors posing as hyper-patriots. They and the Zionist-owned-and-operated mainstream media will never tell the American people the real reason for US hostility towards Iran: the power of the Jewish billionaires who constitute between one third and one half of the corrupt oligarchs who rule America, and who work together to make sure US foreign policy serves Israel first and America second if at all. Though US interests dictate comity with Iran, Zionist interests dictate the reverse. Since the US has been taken over by Zionists, it shoots itself in the foot by slavishly following Zionist orders to maintain hostile relations with Iran. Politicians like Cotton are, in essence, agents of a hostile foreign power. If the American people ever wake up, Cotton and his fellow traitors will face a harsh reckoning.

2. As you probably know, Iran’s blocked assets are estimated to be between 100 to 120 billion dollars in international accounts. On the other hand, it has been proven that there is no way to release Iran’s blocked assets except to put pressure on US officials. What are the ways to put pressure on the US from your point of view and which solution is more effective?

Iran is not really in a position to pressure US officials the way Israel does. Imagine, if you will, a world in which 40% of the richest Americans are ethnic Iranians and fanatically loyal to Tehran’s government. Then imagine that this group dominates the US media and uses it to propagandize on behalf of Tehran. Go one step further, and imagine that these maniacal ethnic loyalists dominate American and to some extent global organized crime, and liase with Iranian intelligence to gather blackmail material on American politicans and other leaders. That would be a world in which Iran could seriously “pressure,” or even control, the United States. And that is the world we are in—except that the nation in question is Israel, not Iran. (Those wishing to learn more about Israeli-linked organized crime’s death grip on the US should read the works of Michael Collins Piper, especially Final Judgment, alongside One Nation Under Blackmail by Whitney Webb.)

In the world as it stands, Iran, with its unshakeable support for Palestine, confronts an America that is largely controlled by its worst enemy. So it must do what it can to gain modest leverage, including finding ways to annoy the United States and then offering to reduce those annoyances in return for the US giving back its stolen money.

3. The Pentagon’s central command has claimed that the US will strengthen its military presence in the Strait of Hormuz with two ground-water offensive vessels to protect international shipping against the threat of Iran. How should this military presence be interpreted, and what are its effects on the resistance front?

Iran has two immense strategic advantages over the Zionist-controlled United States, which taken together largely negate the US edge in military firepower. Iran’s first advantage is its ability to decimate US military bases in the region, thanks to its rocket and drone programs. The US has kindly chosen to station substantial numbers of troops within easy range of Iranian rocket and drone fire. As in the parallel case with North Korea, that means that the US has essentially volunteered its troops as hostages. The fact that large numbers of Americans would quickly die in any major shooting war with Iran (or North Korea) serves as a potent deterrent to any US attack plans.

Iran’s second ace in the hole is its ability to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the choke point through which more than a quarter of the world’s oil transits. Iran has massive firepower, including unstoppable anti-ship missiles, dug deep into the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Straits. Additionally, it can use its highly maneuverable navy to distribute mines and launch attacks on larger and clumsier craft.

In 2004 The Atlantic Magazine commissioned a war game, run by top military experts, simulating war between the US and Iran, and the result was “sobering”: Iran won in every conceivable scenario short of all-out nuclear annihilation. Since 2004 the Iranian edge has only grown, as Iran’s rocket, drone, and anti-ship-missile programs have made quantum leaps.

So when the US sends more men and materiel into the Strait of Hormuz, it is making an empty theatrical gesture which does not change the strategic equation. Unfortunately, though, the Straits are narrow and crowded, and the more American forces enter the area, the greater the possibility of misunderstandings and unintended clashes that could get out of hand.

The resistance front will no doubt figure out how to take advantage of the situation by raising the costs of (Zionist-driven) American aggression without crossing red lines that could lead to tragic losses on both sides.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Neocons and Other Malignancies in the American Body Politic

They will never give up until we’re all dead

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • AUGUST 22, 2023

It is interesting to observe how, over the past twenty-five years, the United States has become not only a participant in wars in various places on the planet but has also evolved into being the prime initiator of most of the armed conflict. Going back to the Balkans in the nineteen-nineties and moving forward in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Somalia there is almost always an American leading role where there is bombing and killing. And where there is no actual war, there are threats and sanctions intended to make other nations come to heel, be they in Latin America like Venezuela, or Iran in the Middle East, or North Korea in Asia. And then there is the completely senseless act of turning major competitors like Russia and China, as we are now seeing, into enemies, with a proxy war raging in Ukraine, threats over Taiwan, and the world moving one step closer to a nuclear disaster.

It seems to me that the transition from an America bumbling its way into war and the current situation where wars are pursued as a matter of course coincides with a certain political development in the United States, which is the rise of neoconservatives as the foreign and national security policy makers in both major parties. This has developed together with the evolution of the view that the United States can do no wrong by definition, indeed, that it has a unique and God-given right to establish and police the globe through something that it invented, exploits and has dubbed the “rules based international order.”

Who would have thought that a bunch of Jewish student-activists, mostly leftists, originally conspiring in a corner of the cafeteria in the City College of New York would create a cult type following that now aspires to rule the world? The neocons became politically most active in the 1960s and eventually some of them attached themselves to the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan, declaring their evolution had come about because they were “liberals mugged by reality.” The neoconservative label was first used to describe their political philosophy in 1973. Since that time, they have diversified and succeeded in selling their view to a bipartisan audience that the US should embrace an aggressive interventionist foreign policy and must be the world hegemon. To be sure their desire for overwhelming military power has been strongly shaped by their tribal cohesion which has fed a compulsion to have Washington serve as the eternal protector of Israel, but the hegemonistic approach has inevitably led to expanding conflict all over the world and a willingness to challenge, confront and defeat other existing great powers. Hence the support for a needless and pointless war in Ukraine to “weaken Russia” and a growing conflict with China over Taiwan to do the same in Asia. To make sure that the Republicans do not waver on that mission, leading neocon Bill Kristol has recently raised $2 million to do some heavy lobbying to make sure that they stay on track to confront the Kremlin in Europe.

One of the leading neocon families is the Kagans, who have successfully penetrated and come to dominate the establishment foreign policy centers in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Victoria Nuland nee Nudelman, the wife of Robert Kagan, is entrenched at the State Department where she is now the Deputy Secretary, the number two position. Up until recently, she was one of the top three officials at State, all of whom were and are Jewish Zionists. Indeed, under Joe Biden Zionist Jews dominate the national security structure, to include the top level of the State Department, the head of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the National Security Adviser, the Director of National Intelligence, the President’s Chief of Staff, and the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Nuland’s hawkish appeal is apparently bipartisan as she has served in senior positions under Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Joe Biden. As adviser to Cheney, she was a leading advocate of war with Iraq, working with other Jewish neocons Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz at Defense and also Scooter Libby in the Vice President’s office. As there was no actual threat to the US from Saddam Hussein she and her colleagues invented one, the WMD that they sold to the media and to idiots like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Nuland is also considered to be close to Hillary Clinton and the recently deceased ghastly former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. All of her government assignments have included either invading or severely sanctioning some country considered by her and her colleagues to be unfriendly. She particularly hates the Russians and anyone who is hostile to Israel.

Apparently, Nuland’s record of being seriously wrong in the policies she promoted has only served to improve her resume in Washington’s hawkish foreign policy establishment and when Biden came into the presidency she found herself appointed to the number three position at the State Department as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Her return to power with the Democrats might also be due in part to the activism of her husband Robert, currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, who was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by Trump. Robert famously has never seen a war he disapproved of and, while urging Europe to do more defense spending, commented that “When it comes to use of military force “Americans are from Mars, and Europeans are from Venus.” Robert’s brother Frederick, a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and Frederick’s wife Kimberly, who heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War, are also regarded as neocon royalty.

Nuland is particularly well known for her being the driving force behind the regime change in Ukraine in 2014 that replaced the fairly-elected but friendly-to-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych with a selected candidate more accommodating to the US and Western Europe. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, has been unstable ever since and the current war, also initiated by interference from the US and UK, has brought about the deaths and wounding of an estimated half million Ukrainians and Russians.

Nuland was recently in Africa, stirring up developments in Niger, which has experienced a recent military coup that removed a president who was corrupt but also a friend of the US and France, both of which have troops stationed in the country. As I write this, a number of African nations (ECOWAS) friendly to US and French interests in the region are gathering together their own military force to reverse the coup, but there is little enthusiasm for the project. We will see how that turns out, but predictably Nuland is advertising a possible intervention as a “restoration of democracy.”

And there is more over the horizon with neocons like Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Nuland in charge of US foreign policy and supported by most of congress and a Jewish dominated media and entertainment industry. Joe Biden is too weak and too much under the thumb of the Israel Lobby to pursue any policies that would be beneficial to the American people in general, so the course will be set by the current crop of zealots, just as Donald Trump was guided by his Christian Zionist advisers.

If you want to understand just how what remains of our republic is in a bus being driven over the cliff by a group that has no regard for most of the citizens of the country that they reside in, one only has to read some of what passes for neocon analysis of what must be done to make America “safe.” Not surprisingly, it also involves Israel and a war on behalf of the Jewish state.

One astonishingly audacious article that appeared on August 13th in The Hill entitled “If Israel strikes Iran over its nuclear program, the US must have its back,” gives Israel the option of starting a war for any or no reason with the United States compelled to join in in support. It was written Michael Makovsky, a well-known Jewish neocon, and Chuck Wald. Makovsky is President and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) while Wald is a former general who also is affiliated with that group as a “distinguished fellow,” which means he is getting paid generously to serve as a mouthpiece providing credibility for the group. For those unfamiliar with The Hill, it is an inside the beltway defense contractor funded online magazine that pretends to be serious but which is actually an integral part of the status quo Zionist and war-on-demand network. That the Jewish Institute for National Security is “of America” is, of course, a characteristically clever euphemism.

The article begins with “The Biden administration should learn from its unpreparedness for the Russia-Ukraine war and begin to prepare for a major Israel-Iran conflict. The administration needs to set aside its differences with the Israeli government, overcome its aversion to conflict with Iran, and begin to work closely with Jerusalem to prepare for the growing likelihood that Israel will feel it has no choice but to initiate a military campaign against Iran’s nuclear program. In ‘No Daylight,’ a new report from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA)… retired senior military officers and national security experts explain that whatever differences the US might now have with Israel over Iran policy, our two countries’ interests will be aligned after an Israeli strike. Consequently, in preparing its response, the U.S. guiding principle should be ‘no daylight with Israel,’ to ensure Israeli military success, mitigate Iranian retaliation and limit the scope of the conflict — vital interests for both countries.”

That war with Iran is a “vital interest” for the United States is, of course, not really explained as the point is to let Israel to decide on the issue of war and peace for the United States. The article then trots out the old “credibility” argument, i.e. that if we don’t go to war no one will ever trust our security guarantees: “A US betrayal of its close Israeli ally, at a time of great peril for the Jewish state, would be ‘one of the greatest catastrophes ever,’ an Arab leader told us privately recently. Because Israel is widely perceived as a close American ally, the US stance as Israel risks thousands of casualties in defense of its very existence, will resound broadly. Strong American support will reassure allies from Warsaw to Abu Dhabi and Taipei; American equivocation will shred Washington’s credibility and embolden adversaries from Tehran to Moscow and Beijing.”

One would love to know who the anonymous Arab leader so concerned about Israel is and, of course, the Jewish state is not in fact an American ally apart from in the fertile imaginations of congressmen, the media and the White House. And Israel will, of course, need more weapons and money from the US taxpayer to include “expediting delivery to Israel of KC-46A tankers, precision-guided munitions, F-15 and F-35 aircraft, and air and missile defenses… Washington should accelerate building integrated regional air, missile and maritime defenses against persistent Iranian threats.” And America must be prepared to expand the war: “Privately, Iranian and Hezbollah leadership should be warned that heavy retaliation against Israel… will prompt severe Israeli and/or American responses that could threaten their very grasp on power. Upon commencement of an Israeli strike, the United States should promptly resupply Israel with Iron Dome interceptors, precision-guided munitions, ammunition and spare parts, and deploy Patriot air defenses to Israel…”

So the United States must be prepared to turn over its national security to Israel in exchange for what gain for Americans? In part it would apparently involve “finding a permanent solution to Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program” which is based on a lie even if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been repeating for over 20 years that Iran is only six months away from a weapon. Both the CIA and Mossad have confirmed that Iran has no such program while Israel does have a secret illegal nuclear arsenal built using enriched uranium and nuclear triggers stolen from the US. The article concludes with another reference to the non-existing program, claiming “the most effective way to address Iran’s nuclear program already has been articulated by President Biden and communicated by America’s ambassador in Jerusalem: ‘Israel can and should do whatever they need to deal with it, and we’ve got their back.’”

Supporting Israeli war crimes is not the way to go. As Chris Hedges puts it correctly, there is no compelling American interest in damaging itself by supporting Israel blindly, quite the contrary: “The long nightmare of oppression of Palestinians is not a tangential issue. It is a black and white issue of a settler-colonial state imposing a military occupation, horrific violence and apartheidbacked by billions of US dollars, on the indigenous population of Palestine. It is the all powerful against the all powerless. Israel uses its modern weaponry against a captive population that has no army, no navy, no air force, no mechanized military units, no command and control and no heavy artillery, while pretending intermittent acts of wholesale slaughter are wars.”

And, of course, while Israel engages in slaughter and torture it always portrays itself as the victim only engaged in fighting against “terrorists.” I have a better idea for where we should go with all of this. President Joe Biden should be impeached for ignoring war powers legislation and indicating that he is willing to sacrifice US interests and kill American soldiers, few or plausibly none of whom will actually be Jewish since it is not an occupation that attracts them, to please and support a manifestly evil foreign government. And Donald Trump should also be punished for having done much the same type of pandering to a foreign country while in office. Meanwhile, haul Makovsky and Wald together with their buddies at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) down to the Justice Department and put them in jail for violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) in that they are willfully acting as agents of a foreign government and are operating corruptly to serve the interests of that government. The criminals at AIPAC are already using their associated PACs to oust targeted members of Congress up for re-election in 2024 who have in any way been critical of Israel or pro-Palestinian. And while you’re at it Mr. Attorney General Merrick Garland nee Garfinkel, please have Mr. Blinken and Ms. Nuland pop by for a chat just for starters and see how far you can make the laws apply to those in power. There is some confusion evident here as Israel is not part of the United States, no matter how politically dominant and wealthy its lobby might be. Time to put an end to this nonsense and call it out for what it is – it is treason.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Tensions rise as Poland accelerates military buildup on border with Belarus

By Drago Bosnic | August 22, 2023

The geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe has gone through numerous shifts in the last 30+ years, ranging from massive Soviet military presence to near-complete demilitarization that reached its peak in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Ever since, but particularly after Poland joined NATO, the course has slowly but steadily reversed. However, while the process was incremental up until early 2022, since then, it has escalated to almost unimaginable levels. Warsaw’s ambitions to build perhaps the most powerful ground force in the European Union are not only an expensive endeavor, but also an extremely dangerous one.

Namely, the plan to acquire massive amounts of weapons from the United States and its vassals and satellite states, particularly South Korea, includes a plethora of systems, the purpose of which can hardly be described as anything but offensive. Since last year, Poland announced it will acquire 250 US-made “Abrams” main battle tanks (MBTs), hundreds of HIMARS and “Chunmoo” multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), K9 self-propelled 155 mm howitzers, up to 50 FA-50 trainer/light combat aircraft, as well as 1000 K2 tanks, 820 of which are projected to be produced in Poland. Warsaw also plans to procure at least 32 F-35 fighter jets.

It’s worth noting that, apart from “Abrams”, HIMARS and F-35, all of the aforementioned weapon systems are South Korean, (in)famous for their extreme cost. For instance, the K2 stands at a staggering $8.5 million apiece, making it one of the most expensive MBTs in the world. In fact, it’s so expensive that South Korea, whose economy is almost three times larger than that of Poland, approved mass production for K2 only after Poland announced its intention to acquire them. Even Turkey, which has an economy that’s approximately 20% larger than Warsaw’s, plans to procure no more than 100 “Altay” MBTs (these are essentially a licensed copy of K2).

Poland’s military spending currently stands at 3.9% of GDP, nearly twice that of NATO’s 2% requirement. For comparison, Germany is spending less than 1.5% of its GDP on the military, even though its economy is well over six times larger. In addition, Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak just announced that Warsaw plans to deploy at least 10,000 soldiers to the Polish-Belarussian border, further reinforcing the notion that the militarization of Poland is escalating to proportions never seen since the early 1980s. In the last several years, Warsaw announced its intention of nearly doubling the number of active troops to 300,000 (currently, there are over 160,000).

According to South Front, in the last few months, the 12th Mechanized Division and the 11th Armored Division of the Polish Land Forces were transferred from the German border to the area of Bialystok and Biala Podlaska. And at the end of July, their forward command posts and field communication centers were deployed near these cities. In turn, the 18th Mechanized Division was urgently transferred from near Rzeszów to the area of Bielsk-Podlaska. Thus, Poland deployed three divisions on the border with Belarus, specifically in the area between Grodno and Brest. It should be noted that these divisions are all fully equipped for offensive military operations.

At the moment, it’s estimated that up to 15,000 soldiers, several hundred tanks, artillery and missile systems, and several thousand combat vehicles are deployed in areas close to the Belarussian border. This also includes the redeployment of military aircraft and airborne troops, both of which are considered offensive assets. Having such forces in the area shows that Warsaw’s belligerence toward Minsk is bound to escalate further. This is particularly true when considering the fact that Poland actively took part in attempts to destabilize Belarus in the last several years, including by providing logistics and Intelligence support to various foreign-backed groups within the country.

On the other hand, Belarus is not sitting idly. On the contrary, its Ministry of Defense just confirmed that a five-day training exercise for its Ground Forces, including assault and airborne brigades, is being conducted in Brest. The training area is only a few kilometers away from the Bug River, which marks the border with Poland in the southwestern part of the country. Approximately a month ago, precisely in the vicinity of Brest, a training site was set up for use by the “Wagner” PMC (private military company), which is now actively working with the Belarussian military to share its extensive battlefield experience. According to various reports, some of the most battle-hardened “Wagner” veterans are actively taking part in intensive training.

In addition, Belarus also announced its intention to strengthen military cooperation with China, including through participation in joint military exercises. On August 16, General Li Shangfu, the Chinese National Defense Minister since March, arrived in Belarus for a three-day official visit. General Shangfu was greeted by his Belarussian counterpart Lieutenant General Viktor Khrenin at the Minsk National Airport. The Chinese Defense Minister flew from Russia, where he took part in the 11th Moscow Conference on International Security held in Kubinka, in the Moscow oblast (region). This was the first high-level visit in approximately five years.

Apart from China, a growing superpower whose unrivaled economic might is rapidly translating to military power, Belarus also enjoys unequivocal Russian support. President Vladimir Putin himself has repeatedly warned that any attack on Belarus would be tantamount to aggression against Russia and that such actions will be met with an adequate response. In addition, Minsk already has access to Russian tactical nuclear weapons, meaning that attacking Europe’s last truly sovereign nation would simply be suicidal.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Leaked documents indicate Zelensky about to be replaced

By Lucas Leiroz | August 22, 2023

It seems increasingly clear that the West wants to replace Zelensky. In addition to several predictions by experts that the Ukrainian president will be removed from power, it is now revealed that some previously leaked Pentagon documents expose a plan to make the mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, the new head of state.

The documents were leaked months ago when several secret US Department of Defense’s files were exposed by Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old soldier working at the 102nd Intelligence Wing of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. Being employed in the information technology sector, Teixeira had access to several classified government data, having leaked many of them. In April, Teixeira was arrested and is expected to be sentenced to around 10 years in prison.

What was not known until now is that among the documents there was a letter in which a Pentagon official showed his interest in putting someone more competent than Zelensky to take the presidency in Ukraine. In addition, Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland herself is apparently also involved in this plan, having expressed her personal desire to see Vitali Klitschko as president. In a certain part of the document, there is an open call for “creating conditions” to elect Vitali in 2024.

“The letter, dated February 22, 2023, states that the leadership of the US State Department, as well as top officials of the US Department of Defense, are not happy with Ukrainian President Zelensky and are planning his exchange as President of Ukraine, for the ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko as his replacement in 2024 (…) According to the letter, the leadership of the Pentagon expresses agreement with an opinion of the United States Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland that Zelensky is ‘exhausting his political capacity rapidly’. Judging by the letter, both Department of Defense and Department of State would like to see the former boxer and an active participant of the events of 2014 Maidan coup d’état Vitali Klitschko, now the mayor of Kiev, as the President of Ukraine”, Dutch journalist Sonja van den Ende wrote.

Former boxer and a famous supporter of the neo-Nazi regime, Vitali Klitschko has governed the city of Kiev since the 2014 coup d’état. He gained notoriety in the international media for his “patriotism” after the start of Russia’s special military operation, when he stated that he would “take up arms” with his brother, Vladimir, to defend the Ukrainian capital and repel the Russian “invaders”. Portrayed by Western newspapers as “courageous” and “heroic”, Klitschko has won the sympathy of many Westerners, which explains why some figures now want him as the new head of state.

However, Klitschko is not the only name on the list of predictions to replace Zelensky. There are several reports that point to different people as possible candidates for the Ukrainian presidency. Previously, names like the Commander in Chief of Ground Forces Alexander Syrsky, Ukrainian intelligence head Kirill Budanov and Armed Forces Commander Valeri Zaluzhnyi have been mentioned as possible candidates for Zelensky’s office. More recently, western media outlets have suggested that the Ukrainian president would be replaced, not by another individual head of state, but by a team of officials led by the head of parliament Ruslan Stefanchuck.

Apparently, there is still no consensus on who may be the new president of Ukraine. But the consensus is real about the Western desire to remove Zelensky. For Western authorities and media, Zelensky is already a problematic and negative public figure. As stated in the documents, the Ukrainian president is “exhausting his political capacity rapidly”. This is due to his constant unjustified “beggar” behavior towards his NATO partners, in addition to the repeated military failures and territorial losses.

The possibilities of justifying Zelensky’s actions through mere propaganda are running out, which is why he is likely to be removed. In this sense, Vitali Klitschko seems to sound more interesting to Kiev’s international partners. His image seems more positive than Zelensky’s for public opinion, which tends to legitimize among citizens the continuity of the military assistance policy. In other words, in order to continue to wage the proxy war against Russia, the West needs someone more competent, less criticized than Zelensky.

It remains to be seen how Zelensky would be removed. Being a dictatorial regime under martial law, it is difficult for changes to occur through electoral and democratic means. Recently, in an article published by Politico, it was suggested that Zelensky could be assassinated and some officials even have a “secret plan” to be followed in case this happens.

Considering that plans to replace him have been in the works since at least February – as leaked documents show – and that the media is already talking about a possible assassination, Zelensky could be killed and his death falsely blamed on Russia. The move looks like an attempt to prepare public opinion for a false flag operation legitimizing a new escalation.

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

Western Media Is Nowadays Talking About How Fatigued & Frustrated Ukrainians Have Become

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 22, 2023

Average Westerners were told for the past 18 months how fearless and optimistic the Ukrainians were, which was done to convince the former to continue supporting their leaders’ decision to fund the latter, but now the Mainstream Media (MSM) is telling them the complete opposite. The Washington Post wrote earlier this month that “Slow counteroffensive darkens mood in Ukraine”, which was followed by The Economist declaring that “Ukraine’s sluggish counter-offensive is souring the public mood”.

These four major updates were shared in the 10-day period between those two pieces:

* Washington Post : “U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal

* CNN: “Ukraine’s recent focus on Crimea draws skepticism from corners of the Biden administration

* Washington Post : “Ukraine running out of options to retake significant territory

* Financial Times : “US grows doubtful Ukraine counteroffensive can quickly succeed

The impression that one gets from all this is that a new information campaign has begun.

As was explained in this recent analysis about how “A Vicious Blame Game Is Breaking Out After The Counteroffensive Predictably Failed”, everyone’s now pointing fingers out of desperation to eschew their own responsibility for this spectacular disaster, which set this latest media trend- into motion. The average Westerner is now either very confused if they’re a hardcore pro-Kiev supporter or feels vindicated if they were against funding the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine.

In any case, the point is that the Western public is finally discovering the truth about this conflict, both in terms of the counteroffensive’s failure as well as Ukrainians’ fatigue and frustration with everything. The first revelation proves that their tens of billions of dollars’ worth of taxpayer-provided funding for the counteroffensive failed to achieve any military dividends while the second suggests that Ukrainians aren’t as gung-ho about fighting as before. Taken together, they hint that a ceasefire is possible.

Regrettably, “US Policymakers Are Caught In A Dilemma Of Their Own Making After The Failed Counteroffensive”, which the preceding hyperlinked analysis explains is due to them sabotaging peace talks last spring and then declining to resume them last winter. Since then, the path towards peace has become much more complex since the top four stakeholders in this proxy war – Russia, the US, Ukraine, and Poland – have increasingly divergent interests that thus greatly impede the possibility of a ceasefire.

Even so, the two revelations that the MSM just shared help shift Western public opinion in support of that scenario. The first one about the counteroffensive’s failure is enough for the average person to turn against continuing the proxy war, while the second absolves the most brainwashed among them of guilt by informing them that a growing number of Ukrainians want to end it too. Nobody can be “more pro-Ukrainian than the Ukrainians themselves” so that group would feel pressured to go along with this.

Simply put, what’s taking place is a “de-programming operation” aimed at reversing the effect that pro-Ukrainian/-war and anti-peace/-Russian propaganda had on the Western masses. The purpose is to precondition them for accepting the scenario of peace talks and the resultant ceasefire that they could lead to if successful. Even if the aforesaid doesn’t transpire, the impact that the MSM’s latest information campaign will have on reshaping the Western public’s perceptions will likely be irreversible.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Desperate U.S. Hawks Face Tough Choice in Ukraine

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | August 22, 2023

Even during the period of wild optimism in the United States during 2022 and early 2023 about Ukraine’s chances of defeating Russian forces, there was a small, dark cloud of doubt about what the Joe Biden administration would do if the prospects of victory unraveled. That question has now become more pertinent and urgent as Kiev’s vaunted offensive clearly is faltering. Territorial gains in Russian-occupied regions are minimal, and they have occurred only with great cost in the lives of Ukrainian troops. For Ukraine’s forces, the war has become a meat grinder reminiscent of the fighting in World War I. Attacks on entrenched Russian defenses have proven to be horrifically costly in terms of both personnel and military hardware.

Hawks in the United States and other NATO members are reacting in two rather different ways. One faction, typified by the latest propaganda campaign undertaken by Defending Democracy Together, headed by Bill Kristol, has redoubled lobbying efforts to give Kiev more potent weapons with longer ranges so that Ukraine can launch larger and more frequent attacks inside Russia. Through a new front group, Republicans for Ukraine, neo-conservative stalwarts insistSupporting Ukraine is in the best interests of the United States and the best traditions of the Republican Party. Now is no time to give up the fight.”

At the same time, there are noticeable leaks in the news media, apparently from high-level sources, about Ukraine’s fading chances of victory. One especially important foray was a leaked report from U.S. intelligence agencies that Kiev’s current military offensive has failed to achieve its objectives. The report also expressed dissatisfaction with a growing unwillingness of Ukrainian forces to follow the advice of NATO advisers and continue to mount frontal assaults on Russian defenses. There was grousing from American sources about the Ukrainians becoming excessively “casualty averse.”

Even some staunch congressional supporters of Ukraine concede that the war may not be winnable. A corollary to that grudging acknowledgement are the hints coming out of Europe that peace negotiations may need to commence soon, even if the ultimate settlement requires Volodymyr Zelensky’s government to make territorial concessions to Russia. Perhaps even more indicative of the shifting attitude among portions of America’s opinion elite is a mounting whisper campaign, as epitomized by the leaked intelligence report, to denigrate Ukraine’s military strategy and “willingness to fight.” As yet, there are only a few trial balloons conveying that message, but they hint at the onset of an effort to prepare the American public for possible abandonment of a U.S. client.

Either doubling down on the commitment to Ukraine or conducting a policy retreat entails serious perils for America’s foreign policy establishment. The Biden administration and NATO already have escalated their proxy war against Russia to reckless levels. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, NATO responded by sending large quantities of weapons to Kiev. Initially, though, those items were defensive weapons, such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, designed to thwart Russian invading forces. A gradual—and dangerous–escalation in the NATO commitment has taken place since then. Indeed, it has reached the point of equipping Ukraine’s military with heavy battle tanks and other offensive weapons. The Biden administration has been deeply involved in that process, sending Abrams tanks and Patriot missiles to Kiev. Washington has also now authorized NATO allies to transfer U.S. F-16 fighters in their arsenals to Ukraine, and U.S. officials flirt with the idea of sending such planes directly from the United States.

A key problem for establishment types who are looking for an exit from the Ukraine morass is that the Biden administration has hyped the alleged importance of events there to stratospheric levels. The president and his key advisers have insisted from the outset that the war is an existential struggle between democracy and authoritarianism and between a “rules-based” international order and the law of the jungle. It is now difficult for those same officials and their supporters to call for negotiations and a compromise peace accord.

Indeed, the Biden administration and its supporters may be doubling down on the Ukraine commitment. In mid-August, the president asked Congress to approve another $24 billion in economic and military aid to Kiev, despite public opinion polls showing rapidly declining support for that option.

If the administration chooses a more prudent approach (however belatedly), the nightmare of a direct military clash between NATO and Russia would fade. The cost in terms of credibility for Western foreign policy hawks would be considerable, however. They would have to implicitly admit yet another U.S.-led interventionist crusade had failed. Coming on the heels of the fiascos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, public (and even congressional) discontent with that approach to world affairs could rise sharply. The images of the humiliating, chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 are especially fresh.

Escalation, though, would likely prove futile as well as excessively dangerous. Ukraine has served effectively as NATO’s bloody pawn, but its usefulness in the campaign to weaken Russia is drawing to a close. The apparent failure of Kiev’s current military offensive confirms that future significant gains are improbable. It is uncertain, though, if America’s foreign policy hawks are smart enough to abandon a used pawn. The danger still exists that they may instead succumb to their own propaganda and conclude that the Ukraine war really is an existential struggle requiring the West to double down on its commitment to Kiev.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Libertarian Institute and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. Dr. Carpenter also served in various policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. He is the author of thirteen books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs and the threat that the U.S. national security state poses to peace and civil liberties at home and around the world. Dr. Carpenter’s latest book is “Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy” (2022)

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Cracks beginning to emerge between Washington and Kiev

By Ahmed Adel | August 22, 2023

Ukraine is running out of possibilities for a counteroffensive, according to the Washington Post. This report comes as it was recently revealed that cracks are beginning to emerge between Washington and Kiev over the latter’s handling of the war. These cracks will only deepen as we slowly creep towards next year’s US presidential election, where Biden’s unwavering and uncritical support for Ukraine is making him lose support – and at a fast pace.

The Washington Post writes that Ukraine appears to be running out of options in a counteroffensive that officials initially saw as Kiev’s most crucial operation. Although Ukrainian and Western officials call for patience, the newspaper stressed that “the window of time for Ukraine to conduct offensive is limited” because of the “inhospitable weather” in autumn and winter.

“Without more advanced weapons slated to bolster the front line or fully committing forces still being held in reserve, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be able to secure a breakthrough in the counteroffensive, according to analysts,” said the newspaper.

The article also warned that “the inability to demonstrate decisive success on the battlefield is stoking fears that the conflict is becoming a stalemate and international support could erode.”

According to the newspaper, Western and Ukrainian officials, answering questions about the progress of the counteroffensive, call for patience. They describe the fighting as slower than expected but emphasise that Ukraine is progressing. However, away from the public eye, US officials are expressing their disappointment in Ukraine’s handling of its counteroffensive and doubt Kiev will be able to achieve any significant gains by the end of the year.

The Financial Times claimed that Washington had urged Kiev to push hard on the Zaporozhye region instead of spreading its forces thinly along a lengthy frontline. The British outlet says that rifts between the two countries are beginning to grow. This signals that US President Joe Biden feels pressure for his bungled Ukraine policy.

According to the report, Washington and Kiev planned to launch the counteroffensive in the spring and breach Russian defences to reach the Sea of Azov during the summer. In addition, the Ukrainian military was supposed to employ NATO’s combined arms-manoeuvre tactics, as taught by their Western trainers. However, the Ukrainian military reverted to older Soviet-era tactics due to endless setbacks, which displeased Washington. The outlet reported that more US officials are privately preparing for a “war of attrition that will last well into next year.”

At the same time, US officials reportedly “encouraged Ukraine to be less risk-averse and fully commit its forces to the main axis of the counteroffensive in the south” so that Moscow’s land bridge to Crimea could be severed.

A source told the Financial Times that US officials are privately preparing for a war of attrition in Ukraine, which could continue as late as 2024, while they publicly reiterate their support for offensive attempts by Ukrainian troops. It is not understood why the US believes that a war of attrition that hurts Russia can occur since it is Ukraine being demilitarised.

Ukraine launched its much-touted offensive in early June after multiple postponements. Citing its needs, Kiev pressured its Western partners to increase military and financial aid. According to Moscow, as of August 4, the losses of the Ukrainian Army since the start of the counteroffensive were about 43,000 troops and 4,900 units of military equipment, while more than 150,000 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed or wounded since the beginning of the special military operation. This unmitigated disaster also has a significant effect on the US, as Biden’s Ukraine policy, among other reasons, has seen his popularity plummet.

According to a CNN survey released at the beginning of August, 55% of citizens are against the US continuing to send funds to Ukraine, including 38% of Democratic voters, the party that champions the head of the federal executive. The data reflects a growing chorus speaking against Biden’s reckless Ukraine policy.

It is worth remembering that the US has already sent $113,000 billion of aid to Ukraine since February 2022, when the operation launched by Moscow began, of which $70 billion have been allocated to security. This vast sum for no gain is proving disastrous for Biden as Ukraine is effectively a financial blackhole and a source of criticism against the current administration.

The Biden government, Kiev’s main ally, has sent it all kinds of military weapons, humanitarian aid, and intelligence and training contributions for Ukrainian soldiers. This is in addition to leading political efforts worldwide, rejecting peace negotiations and imposing sanctions against Russian citizens and companies. Yet, all these efforts have not been enough to deter the special military operation, thus deepening the emerging cracks between Washington and Kiev.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Toward a New York City Hypothesis

Open Science Session by Jessica Hockett, PhD | August 15, 2023

I was honored to present to PANDA earlier this summer regarding my ongoing independent study of New York City’s spring 2020 mass-casualty event. Content is similar to what I shared with Jonathan Couey in our conversation a few weeks ago. – Jessica Hockett

Watch on Rumble

New York City’s spring 2020 mass-casualty event is a global and domestic outlier that warrants closer scrutiny. How do common explanations for a weekly death rate that peaked at 600% above normal hold up against daily events and data points? In this two-part presentation, Dr. Jessica Hockett shares aspects of her hypothesis in progress about what happened – and what it suggests about whether the New York mortality experience is evidence that a global viral pandemic occurred. Content includes data Dr. Hockett has obtained via public records requests, as well as already-public datasets that media and researchers overlook.

Dr. Hockett has a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Virginia. For over 20 years, she worked in and with schools and agencies in the U.S., Canada, and South America, to improve curriculum, instruction, and programmes. Her publications include numerous articles related to the education field, as well as three books: Exam Schools: Inside America’s Most Selective Public High Schools, Differentiation in Middle and High School: Strategies to Engage All Learners Differentiation in the Elementary Grades: Strategies to Engage & Equip All Learners. Jessica’s current work involves policy research and analysis for the National Opportunity Project, a government watchdog and education nonprofit. Her paper on the implementation of federal Covid relief funds for nonpublic schools was released this spring https://www.nationalopportunity.org/eans-funding-report/ A forthcoming paper focuses on politically/ideologically-biased teacher-hiring practices in K12 public schools.

In the Covid-response era, Jessica used her Twitter account and Substack to push against mandates and for common sense. She leveraged her research skills and investigative tenacity to obtain public records, communicate directly with government officials, and gather data that uncovered illegalities and inefficacies of harmful orders and policies. Highlights of her research was exposing the University of Illinois’ false claims to FDA EUA for its Covid saliva test; assisting with a lawsuit against Chicago’s vaccine passport; testifying as a data analyst in a vaccine mandate arbitration case; helping lead the fight for mask choice in schools and churches; homeschooling her two children in 2020-21; and being censored by and banned for almost six months from Twitter.

August 22, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment