West enabling Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian targets – The Economist
RT | August 27, 2023
Ukraine relies on Western intelligence and satellite surveillance to guide its drones toward targets within Russia, The Economist reported on Sunday. The report backs up Moscow’s claims that the West is complicit in these “terrorist” strikes.
Russia’s extensive air defense and electronic warfare capacity mean that Ukrainian drone operators often need outside help to hit targets deep inside Russia, The Economist reported, citing anonymous sources within Ukraine’s multiple drone programs. This assistance includes “intelligence (often from Western partners) about radars, electronic warfare, and air-defense assets,” the report stated.
Feedback on the success of a strike is compiled from satellites, the report noted. Ukraine has only a single surveillance satellite, meaning that any imagery collected in between its 15 daily orbits is likely provided by Western satellites.
While Ukraine often attempts to hit military targets within Russia, many of its strikes are focused on civilian infrastructure and residential areas. In the most recent incident, a small drone slammed into an apartment block in the city of Kursk, shattering windows but leaving nobody injured. Successive waves of drone attacks have targeted Moscow’s central business district in recent weeks, and although the strikes on the capital have not killed anyone, an attack on the border region of Belgorod earlier this week left three people dead.
Moscow has previously accused Ukraine’s Western backers of complicity in these “terrorist strikes.” Speaking after a small drone hit the Kremlin in May, government spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated: “We know very well that decisions about such actions, about such terrorist attacks, are made not in Kiev but in Washington.” Moscow has also accused British and American special forces of assisting Kiev’s recent missile attacks on the Crimean Bridge.
According to Peskov, Moscow views the attacks as “acts of desperation,” carried out to compensate for Ukraine’s failures on the battlefield. The strikes are viewed similarly in the West, the New York Times reported on Friday. Citing US officials, the newspaper said that the drone operations are intended “to bolster the morale of Ukraine’s population and troops,” and show that Kiev “can strike back” amid its failing counteroffensive.
Revisiting the Biden Legal Position on Masks
Brownstone Institute | August 26, 2023
Last year, it seemed that masks were gone for good. US District Judge Kathryn Kimball held that Biden’s national mask mandate on airplanes was “illegal.” Airlines and airports immediately revoked their mask requirements. Flight attendants sang in celebration, passengers cheered, and companies welcomed the change in policy.
While Americans rejoiced, the Biden Administration worked behind the scenes to ensure that it could reimplement mask mandates at any time, in any place, for any reason.
The humiliation exercise never had a scientific basis. Existing air filtration systems made the threat of viral transmission on aircraft negligible. Studies found that there was “no direct evidence” of Covid-19 being transmitted aboard aircraft.
Despite the data, President Biden issued nationwide mask mandates in his first hours in office. His administration appealed Judge Kimball’s decision last April. “Our focus here was seeing what power we had to preserve,” explained White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
The case was dismissed as moot because the court found, “there is not a grain of evidence that the CDC has any plans to promulgate an identical mandate.”
Recent news suggests that prediction may have been wrong. The Covid regime appears to be revamping for a resurgence of mandates and potential lockdowns. CNN ran a headline Wednesday urging readers to “break out the masks against Covid.” The federal government has entered into Covid-related contracts with consultants and medical equipment providers to enforce “safety protocols” beginning in the next two months.
The return of Covid hysteria begs the question: what “power” did Jen Psaki and the White House want to preserve? Their legal briefs appealing Judge Kimball’s decision offer clues.
In court, the Biden Administration argued that mask mandates should be permissible even if there is no evidence to support them. Further, government lawyers wrote that these mandates should be permissible to any extent that bureaucrats deem necessary, even if the risk of Covid is nonexistent.
That is not hyperbole. Opponents of the mandates argued that the government should have “controlled trials” to provide evidence of efficacy and potential negative side effects before implementing universal masking.
The Biden Administration responded that the government did not need to provide any evidence or rational basis for its orders. Instead, “the CDC’s determination that there was good cause” should be sufficient. Government edicts should not be subject to judicial scrutiny, according to the government’s brief.
Further, there should be no limit to that authority, according to the Biden Administration. “It was equally permissible for the CDC,” the brief argued, “to make the masking requirement applicable to all passengers… regardless of whether there is any indication that the plane is diseased or dirtied.”
It’s not difficult to discern what we might call the Biden Doctrine of administrative rule-making. It means that the agencies can order whatever they want, whether or not there is any plausible basis in law or whether or not there is any rational basis for it at all. It is a doctrine of bureaucratic supremacy.
Cyberattack on Strategic Culture Foundation… Now available at new url
SCF | August 25, 2023
The Strategic Culture Foundation’s online journal was this week hit by a massive cyberattack. The assault resulted in the forum being shut down on its regular internet site. Readers who normally access the journal were informed that the site was no longer available.
The online journal has safely migrated to strategic-culture.su and, in addition, we continue to post articles via SCF’s Telegram channel in order to exercise our inalienable right to freedom of speech.
The SCF online journal has been up to now accessed via the “.org” domain. The domain is operated by an organization called Public Interest Registry (PIC) based in the United States. PIC proclaims to be a “trusted” non-profit company “dedicated to the integrity of the internet” and free speech.
The outrageous action to obliterate SCF is a sign of the sinister times. There can be little doubt that the sabotage was carried out by state agencies: those of the United States and its NATO allies. This should not be seen as some kind of petty hacking by cyber vandals, but rather as cyber-warfare at the state level.
This is not the first time that this journal has been subjected to cyberattack. In recent years, SCF’s publishing business has been forced offline on several occasions by malicious attacks. The latest incident this week seems to have been the most serious endeavor to eliminate our publishing forum.
For over 12 years, Strategic Culture Foundation has been publishing articles by authors from all over the world. The forum has earned widespread acclaim for providing a diverse range of intelligent commentary and analysis on international politics. It has gained respect among many readers from a worldwide audience for its open-minded perspectives on geopolitics. In particular, we have provided in-depth critical reporting and analysis of how the United States government and its Western allies have systematically abused international law and the United Nations Charter in their unlawful pursuit of strategic interests in various parts of the globe, from Asia to Africa, and from the Middle East to Latin America.
As the United States and its NATO partners have become increasingly reckless and lawless over recent years in their imperialist depredations, the SCF forum has likewise becstraome increasingly critical. Consequently, the attacks on our journal have apparently intensified.
The U.S. State Department three years ago smeared our journal as a Kremlin propaganda outlet. The U.S. authorities have vilified writers for SCF as “Kremlin agents” even though our writers are based in different parts of the world and have nothing to do with the Russian government.
Subsequently, all our American-based authors were approached in person by U.S. state security agents knocking on their doors and threatened with prosecution and massive financial penalties if they did not stop publishing articles with SCF. All of our former American colleagues were compelled to break off what had been fruitful relations of intellectual exchange.
None of this unprecedented harassment prevented us from continuing to exercise our right to free speech and critical thinking.
However, since the U.S.-led NATO proxy war against Russia escalated with armed conflict in Ukraine 18 months ago, the SCF site has come under intensifying cyberattack.
This proves that Washington and its Western allies are indeed waging a determined proxy war. As the old adage goes: the first casualty of war is the truth.
We have provided trenchant commentary and analysis on the conflict in Ukraine. Our writers have exposed the bigger picture of geopolitical motives behind the confrontation including: NATO’s decades-long expansionism, the desire by Washington to maintain its global hegemony, the U.S. strategic need to exert control over its European vassals, Washington’s objective to displace Russia as an energy provider to Europe, the paramount importance of militarism to Western capitalism, and the imperative objective for the West to thwart the emergence of a multipolar world as advocated by Russia, China and many other nations associating with the BRICS and the Global South.
As the stakes grow higher for Washington’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine so too has the West’s desperation to shut down all critical voices that undermine the West’s bogus posturing as a “defender of democracy”.
Russia-based media have been heavily censored by the United States and European Union. It has become increasingly difficult for an international audience to access Russian media and, more significantly, any media that publishes critical voices and thinking about Western policies.
The internet domains controlled by U.S. companies have shut down many American and European-based alternative media simply on the grounds that such alternative media provide an intelligent and informed critical analysis of the policies of Western governments. Sometimes the censorship is not so overt, conducted by algorithms that relegate accessibility for readers.
Critical thinking and truth-telling are intolerable for liars and despots, which the Western regimes are increasingly devolving into, absolutely discarding their pretensions of virtue, democracy, legality and integrity. The charade of “Western liberal democracy” is increasingly threadbare as Western states become ever more warmongering, authoritarian, dictatorships of economic austerity and elitist, unaccountable rule. In a word, fascist. The Western powers’ full-on association with the Nazi regime in Ukraine is entirely consistent with their own political degeneration.
In the case of SCF, the West’s censorship has degenerated to the level of outright sabotage of our forum.
Here it is appropriate to pay special tribute to Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of Wikileaks. He has paid for his truth-telling about the crimes of the U.S. empire and its vassals with the loss of his personal freedom, incarcerated for years in solitary confinement in a British dungeon on wholly fabricated spying allegations.
At such a perilous time in history when all-out war between nuclear powers is a dreadful danger, the world’s public needs more than ever open access to information and understanding of what are the causes of conflict. Western corporate media have increasingly shown themselves to be nothing but propaganda tools that promote risible pro-war narratives, such as the West “defending Ukraine from Russian aggression”. The Western media are misleading the public with false propaganda that distorts and conceals the real causes of conflict. Thus, making all-out catastrophic war a real danger.
Nevertheless, despite this propaganda onslaught and execrable dereliction of journalistic duty, the international public and the Western public, in particular, have shown an admirably healthy resistance and skepticism towards the Western media and their so-called governments. What is becoming more apparent is the toxic propaganda and the hypocrisy of Western governments and their servile media. This public resistance is fatally undermining the authority of Washington and its NATO allies.
This is reflected in growing public awareness and criticism around the world but in particular in the United States and across Europe leveled at the U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine. People are increasingly critical of how the Western powers are reprehensibly fueling the war with endless weapons while the Western public’s own social and economic needs are unconscionably neglected.
So-called leaders like America’s Joe Biden are ridiculed as decrepit clowns while European non-entities like Germany’s Olaf Scholz and France’s Emmanuel Macron are routinely booed in public.
Strategic Culture Foundation has empowered Western public knowledge and critical thinking through its open forum of intelligent and independent articles.
That is why it has become essential, from the point of view of the Western regimes, to shut us down with a vengeance. This, in turn, only exposes all the more the hypocrisy of Western states who claim to respect free speech and democracy.
It needs to be more widely appreciated what is going on at this time. The Western states, under the sway of ruling elites and corporate propaganda services, are at war. Not just against Russia, China and other dissenting nations. They are at war against their own public who are growing increasingly discontented and angered by the despotism that is the real, inherent condition of Western rulers and their bankrupt capitalist system.
Truth may be an early casualty of war. But that casualty can be repaired with more supportive truth and time. What might be said to be the last casualty of war are liars and their despotism.
And they can’t be repaired – when the damage to their deception is finally done.
The Establishment Wants to Ban Germany’s Second Largest Party – for the Sake of Democracy
Free West Media | August 27, 2023
The rising popularity of AfD has raised strong concerns within the establishment. Despite lies and demonization in the media and isolation from the overall political establishment, the party continues to grow. Certain representatives of the party are accused of becoming increasingly “extreme,” and in an unusual move, the influential weekly newspaper Der Spiegel demanded that AfD be “banned.”
In mid-June, Alternative for Germany (AfD) surpassed the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to become Germany’s second-largest party in terms of public opinion. By August, they had garnered a substantial 21 percent of voter support, three percentage points ahead of the SPD and five percentage points behind the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Some individual opinion polls even showed AfD with as much as 23 percent support.
The growing public support for AfD, which has already been the dominant party in the eastern parts of the country for a while, but is now also growing in the western regions, has shaken the establishment. Both the coalition government composed of the SPD, the Free Democratic Party, and the Greens, as well as the Christian Democratic opposition outside the government, have continued to argue that the so-called “firewall” against AfD must be maintained: absolutely no cooperation of any kind whatsoever.
Recently, CDU’s chairman Friedrich Merz found himself in hot water after stating that practical cooperation on municipal matters was unavoidable and even required by law. After facing internal criticism, he had to backtrack and confirm that he naturally did not advocate cooperation at the “legislative” levels, meaning in state parliaments or the Bundestag.
AfD’s female spokesperson, Alice Weidel, stated during the AfD conference in Magdeburg that it’s hypocritical to speak in favor of democracy while isolating a party with significant popular support from influence.
“The firewall must be torn down. We are the largest in eastern Germany, and what we are witnessing now is just the beginning. No one will surpass us as the strongest force. The firewall is antidemocratic; millions of voters are excluded from influence. We speak with all parties; it’s our duty to the voters; otherwise, we’ll have excessive political polarization. We need to create a bulwark against the Green party, which advocates for banning us.”
The established parties have also invoked constitutional protection several times. In some federal states, AfD has been placed under “observation” for “suspected anti-constitutional efforts.” The focus has primarily been on ethnonationalist statements from certain representatives, where it’s considered unconstitutional to talk about “true Germans” in an ethnic sense as opposed to “Germans” who are immigrants and citizens.
AfD has taken “legal counteractions” by appealing such decisions, which have been successful in several cases. In one federal state, the term “extremism” was withdrawn by Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution after a decision by an administrative court.
Not surprisingly, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution faced significant criticism during AfD’s party conference at the end of July. The Office has “delegitimized itself,” among other things, according to statements made.
In an unusually bold move, the magazine Der Spiegel entered the debate on August 11 with an editorial titled “Ban Enemies of the Constitution!” Der Spiegel has a globalist profile and is the largest political weekly magazine in Europe. They argue that AfD has “become increasingly radicalized. It’s time to defend democracy with sharper weapons.”
SPD party leader Olaf Scholz has also expressed that a ban should be considered if it can be proven that AfD can be categorized as a “right-wing extremist group” by constitutional protection.
Many have reacted to the fact that the political establishment and its mainstream media believe that the best way to defend democracy is to undermine it.
Top UK Journalist Isabel Oakeshott Gloated Over The US’ Role In Imran Khan’s Deposal
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 27, 2023
The Mainstream Media’s (MSM) narrative about former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s scandalous deposal in April 2022 has hitherto been that it supposedly represented a completely independent and purely democratic exercise that was entirely free of foreign influence. These analyses here and here argue that it was actually a US-backed post-modern coup carried out as punishment for his multipolar foreign policy, which readers can learn more about by reviewing the preceding pieces.
The details are beyond the scope of the present piece, however, which focuses on how the MSM’s narrative has abruptly shifted in light of the provocative op-ed published by top UK journalist Isabel Oakeshott for the Telegraph. In her article titled “Imran Khan isn’t a martyr for freedom. He’s a friend of the West’s worst enemies”, she breaks ranks with her peers after being triggered by a recent video about IK’s plight in prison that includes footage of his meeting with President Putin in February 2022.
Here’s her initial reaction to that from the article:
“But hang on a minute! Who’s that lurking in the video? Do I spy an image of Khan gladhanding Vladimir Putin, even as the Russian president rained bombs on Ukraine? Of all the many pictures his spin doctors could have selected of their man on the world stage, they chose this one, as well as an image of their leader meeting Xi Jinping, the Chinese president. What a blunder – and what a disturbing insight into Khan’s new allegiances, now he has left his colourful playboy past behind.”
She then gloated over the US’ role in his deposal:
“A sensational report by The Intercept claims that a leaked Pakistani government document shows his deposal was actively encouraged by the US State Department. No wonder! As the West united to support Ukraine, what was he doing gravitating towards the Kremlin? While his supporters wring their hands over his plight, others may be relieved that this complex character no longer has his finger on a nuclear button.”
Oakeshott is entitled to her opinion, but it surprised many that a leading UK journalist would break the MSM’s narrative on this ultra-sensitive issue in an op-ed for one of the West’s leading outlets. It’s also curious that the Telegraph didn’t include the typical disclaimer that their contributors’ views don’t necessarily reflect their own. Considering this, the message being conveyed is that they – and elements of the Western elite by extrapolation – are proud of the US’ most successful regime change in years.
The silver lining is that anyone who tries to gaslight by claiming that it’s a so-called “conspiracy theory” to allege US involvement in IK’s deposal is now discredited since those who they’re attacking can simply point to how top UK journalist Oakeshott gloated over this in the Telegraph. Without realizing it, she just dealt a powerful blow to Western soft power by exposing the hypocrisy of its “rules-based order”, which in this context lends credence to many Pakistanis’ claims that their government is illegitimate.
The Nigerien Coup Prompted A Long-Overdue Discussion About Sovereignty In West Africa
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 27, 2023
It was earlier assessed that “The AU-ECOWAS Rift Over Niger Was Predictable” due to their differing approaches towards the continent’s latest regime change. The AU believes that its ousted leader should be returned to power via peaceful means while ECOWAS’ active members are in favor of forcefully reimposing his rule. Neither of them support the interim authorities’ three-year transitional plan, however, with ECOWAS rejecting it outright and the AU suspending Niger right afterwards.
The AU also “called upon all Member States of the AU and the international community including bilateral and multilateral partners, at large to reject this unconstitutional change of government and to refrain from any action likely to grant legitimacy to the illegal regime in Niger.” This came shortly after reports began circulating that neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali, which are also run by interim military-led governments, stationed warplanes in Niger to deter a French-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion.
Late last week, those three countries’ Foreign Ministers met in Niamey, where they issued a joint statement that importantly declared the following:
“The three countries have agreed to grant each other facilities for mutual assistance in matters of defense and security in the event of aggression or terrorist attacks. They have decided to set up a consultation framework that allows them to coordinate their actions in order to deal with the multiple situations and challenges to which they are exposed. This consultation framework remains open to countries wishing to participate in this dynamic in order to respond to the concerns and needs of their populations in terms of peace, security and economic and monetary development. To this end, they agreed to set up a Joint Secretariat.”
Simply put, they’ve established a regional mutual defense alliance (“Sahelian Alliance”) that’ll also aim to accelerate political and economic-financial integration between them.
Before delving into a discussion about which of the three organizations involved in the West African Crisis – the AU, ECOWAS, and the Sahelian Alliance – truly represent the Nigerien people’s sovereign will, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s detailed reaction to that country’s regime change is worth mentioning. It can be read in full here, but he basically concluded that the region’s interim military-led governments sought to rebalance their prior leaderships’ relations with the West for the betterment of their people.
That observation segues into the subject of this analysis since it lends credence to the views shared by Burkinabe leader Ibrahim Traore during late July’s Second Russia-Africa Summit in St. Petersburg. While speaking among those of his fellow African leaders who were brave enough to resist Western pressure to attend, he still lambasted many of them for being imperialist puppets due to their opposition to his interim military-led government after it was suspended from the AU and ECOWAS.
His country’s people and those of similarly military-ruled Guinea, Mali, and now Niger all rallied behind their armed forces after they overthrew their French puppet leaderships, yet each were still punished by those two organizations to different extents, with Niger now facing the threat of invasion. It stands to reason that all of these interim military-led governments genuinely enjoy grassroots support otherwise there’d be Color Revolution attempts and even anti-state rebellions/insurgencies/terrorist campaigns.
To be sure, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger – which have now joined forces to become the Sahelian Alliance – are indeed facing terrorist threats, but they’re derived from a radical ideological virus that predates their respective military coups and aren’t a result of those regime changes. The AU represents the African Establishment, however, whose members fear being overthrown by their own armed forces. For that reason, it always opposes coups even if they’re popular among the people.
The same can be said about ECOWAS’ stance since it’s pretty much just a regionally focused version of the AU that represents the West African Establishment more so than the West African people. Since the Nigerien coup is the fourth one to take place in the ambit of its influence, the non-suspended members of the group are more worried than the distant AU is about the possibility of a so-called “domino effect”, ergo why they’re threatening the use of force to reverse the situation while the AU remains against it.
Both organizations prioritize the interests of their elite members, the African Establishment as a whole in the AU’s case and the West African one in ECOWAS’, over those of the people that they claim to represent. This explains why they’re not only against the Nigerien coup, but why the AU told others not to legitimize it while ECOWAS is threatening an invasion. Although Russia is formally opposed to it and any anti-constitutional regime change too, Moscow’s stance is much more pragmatic than theirs.
Post-coup Mali became one of Russia’s closest military partners on the continent behind the Central African Republic, while Burkina Faso is considering following in its neighbor’s footsteps after Interim President Traore declared earlier this spring that he considers Russia his country’s strategic ally. These two Sahelian security relationships are flourishing in spite of Moscow having opposed their anti-constitutional regime changes since it believes in cooperating with them during their transitions.
By contrast, the AU and ECOWAS are against third parties legitimizing the post-coup leaderships of those countries who they’ve suspended even though the aforesaid could advance everyone’s objective interests like in the Russian example of helping Mali and Burkina Faso fight transnational terrorists. Once again, it’s important to remind the reader that neither those two, Guinea, or Niger experienced any Color Revolution attempts or serious anti-state violence, thus confirming popular support for their rulers.
All factors considered, the AU and ECOWAS are arguably against the sovereign will of the Nigerien people whereas that country’s interim military-led authorities, the newly formed Sahelian Alliance, and Russia all embody it on the national, regional, and international levels. The first of those three carried out their coup for patriotic reasons aimed at realizing their people’s desire for true sovereignty after languishing under France’s neo-colonial occupation for decades as de facto slaves.
The second’s allies experienced their own patriotic military coups for the same reason and then sought to pool their forces to deter imperialist puppets like ECOWAS’ remaining members. As for Russia’s interests, it pragmatically decided to help these post-coup countries’ leaderships fight transnational terrorism since it’s in their own people’s, the region’s, and all of Africa’s interests. These three – Niger’s new authorities, the Sahelian Alliance, and Russia – are the true vanguards of sovereignty in West Africa.
Conflict in Ukraine Reveals EU Leaders’ Subordination to Washington: Ex-Italian PM
Al-Manar | August 27, 2023
NATO’s strategy for the conflict in Ukraine, based on military supplies and the logic of escalation, has failed, while the crisis itself has exposed the EU’s inability to show leadership and underlined its subordination to the US. Giuseppe Conte, former Prime Minister of Italy, now the leader of the Five Star Movement opposition political party, expressed this opinion on Saturday.
“The strategy pursued so far in NATO, based on constant military supplies to Ukraine and the logic of escalation, did not lead to a military defeat for Russia: there was no defeat of the Russian army in Bakhmut, there was no collapse [of] its military units, there was no retreat during the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia did not lead to its bankruptcy and did not bring down its economy,” Conte wrote on his Facebook page.
“The isolation of Russia has by no means become a reality. On the contrary, the 15th summit of the BRICS group has just ended with a concrete prospect of its further expansion in 2024, which will cover 45% of the world’s population and 38.2% of world GDP,” Conte went on.
According to Conte, “the conflict in the heart of old Europe has revealed the inability of the European Union to develop an effective common strategy and show independent political and economic leadership, highlighting, on the contrary, the subordination of [European] rulers to the United States.” As the former Italian prime minister noted, his party has always “been convinced of the fallacy of the desire to inflict a military defeat on the Russian Federation.”
Conte has repeatedly called for the start of peace talks on Ukraine. In particular, he said that he was in favor of a “breakthrough in the negotiation process” with the participation of the Vatican and “all other players in the international community.” The former prime minister noted that he “would not leave” President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky “the right to decide how, when and under what conditions to sit down at the negotiating table.”
The Five Star Movement has long opposed sending weapons to Ukraine. This position indirectly caused it to leave the previous ruling coalition, which led to the fall of the previous government of Mario Draghi in the summer of 2022.
EU imports from Russia drop at ‘unprecedented’ pace – Borrell
RT | August 27, 2023
The drop in trade between Russia and the EU over the past year is one of the major signs that Brussels’ sanctions on Moscow have been successful, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in an article titled, ‘Yes, the sanctions against Russia are working’, which was published on Saturday on his EEAS blog.
According to Borrell, EU imports from Russia dropped by 58% in 2022, which he called “an unprecedented decoupling.”
“This movement is accelerating: the decline in imports is above 75% for the first quarter of 2023, and the fall is even greater for energy goods, at minus 80%.”
He noted that EU exports of goods to Russia last year also dropped 52% below the annual average prior to 2022.
“Within a year, [the sanctions] have already limited Moscow’s options considerably, causing financial strain, cutting the country from key markets and significantly degrading Russia’s industrial and technological capacity,” Borrell said. He added that Russia’s “technological degradation” and the exit of foreign companies, a number of which left the country under sanctions pressure, “will hamper investment and productivity growth for years.”
“And the outlook for 2023 remains bleak. According to the latest OECD report, Russia’s GDP is foreseen to shrink by up to 2.5%… In short: Russia’s decision to attack Ukraine has obviously pushed the Russian economy towards isolation and decline.”
Meanwhile, both economic data and experts’ projections paint a different picture. Despite the sanctions, trade has been on the rise in both the energy and non-energy sectors due to Moscow’s successful efforts to reorient from Western markets to the East. For instance, according to data from Chinese customs, as of the end of 2022, Russia became the top European country in terms of exports to China, fourth in terms of imports, and second in trade turnover. In recent months, Russia has also become the largest exporter of oil to both China and India.
According to a recent World Bank report, Russia moved into the world’s top five largest economies in 2022 based on purchasing power parity, outpacing the EU’s largest economy, Germany. Both the World Bank and the IMF recently raised their forecasts for the Russian economy, saying GDP would continue to grow amid strong trade and industrial production, as well as higher-than-expected energy revenues. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said this week that the country’s economy is expected to grow about 2.5% by the end of the year, fully recovering from last year’s decline.
By contrast, the Eurozone entered a recession earlier this year after energy prices spiked following the drop in gas flows from Russia, which was once its largest energy supplier. Despite its efforts, the European Central Bank has been unable to bring inflation in the region to the target level and turn the economy towards growth. According to a recent ECB forecast, Eurozone GDP growth is expected to slow to 0.9% by the end of the year from 3.5% in 2022.
UK slammed for opposing ICJ ruling on Israel Occupation of Palestine
MEMO | August 26, 2023
The UK has come under scrutiny for reportedly attempting to hinder the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from issuing a legal opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The UK’s alleged move came to light through a 43-page legal opinion submitted to the ICJ, which is currently in the fact-finding stage before an expected advisory opinion from the Court on the legal consequences of the “occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian land.
The UK’s objection submitted in the “amicus brief” has been met with dismay as it not only seeks to derail the work of the ICJ, it also goes against the grain of other member states and non-governmental organisations by opposing the hearing of the case entirely.
Critics argue that the UK’s stance ignores the entrenched nature of Israel’s occupation and the deteriorating situation on the ground. Palestinian diplomats and international humanitarian law experts have expressed dismay at the UK’s submission. The ICJ, based in The Hague, is the top United Nations Court for resolving disputes between nations; its decisions are binding, although it lacks enforcement powers.
“[Assuming that the document is authentic] … this is a rather weak and uninformed document that portrays Israel’s longstanding occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its annexation of East Jerusalem, as a bilateral dispute between two states,” Dr Victor Kattan, an assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham is reported saying in the Guardian.
Kattan stressed that the ICJ can issue an opinion on any legal question arising from the work of the UN, and the General Assembly does not need Israel’s consent to refer a request to the Court. The ICJ’s 2004 opinion on “The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, for example, was issued without the consent of the occupation state. The UN Court found that the barrier violates international law and should be torn down. The vote of the justices was 14 to 1.
The latest attempt to obtain an ICJ opinion holds significance for Israel and the Palestinians, as it addresses the legality of Israel’s occupation – a matter that has not been conclusively judged in the 56 years of its existence. Legal experts have judged the occupation to be illegal due to its length and also because of Israel’s de-facto annexation, which has made occupation a permanent reality.
The UK’s position contrasts with the UN General Assembly resolution, which sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The UK, along with Israel and other Western states, voted against the resolution.
The ICJ’s deliberations on this matter are anticipated to last at least a year, and the question of whether the occupation is still temporary will be a central point of discussion. The ICJ’s potential findings could influence recognition, aid and obligations related to the occupation. Israel has criticised the referral to the ICJ, with its envoy to the UN describing the General Assembly vote as delegitimising, a term that is often used to label critics of the occupation state as anti-Semitic.
Members have until 25 October to make comments on statements to the ICJ submitted by others. If the Court accepts the request for an advisory opinion, as is expected, deliberations will last at least a year.
Modern Medicine’s Great Controversy | Dr. Peter McCullough
Mises Institute
Recorded in Windham, New Hampshire, on August 20, 2023.
Find free books, daily articles, podcasts, lecture series, and everything about the Austrian School of Economics, at https://Mises.org.
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/mises/
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/mises.institute/
Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/misesinstitute/
SoundCloud ► https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/
Apple Podcasts ► https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/mises-institute/1280664810
Rumble ► https://rumble.com/c/c-2212754
Odysee ► https://odysee.com/@mises/
Podcasts ► https://mises.org/library/audio-video/