Tactics for shutting down debate: Pandemic Preparedness narratives in the UK Parliament
During the UK Parliamentary debate on the WHO Treaty there was a noticeable contrast between those supporting the petition and those opposing it. This article analyses the arguments made by those rejecting the petition, drawing on insights from Behavioural Science.
BY ALICE ASHWELL, SINEAD STRINGER, DR DAVID BELL | PANDA | AUGUST 25, 2023
On 17 April 2023, a petition [1] was debated in the UK Parliament calling for the Government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum.” The petition had received 156,086 signatures. Of the thirteen Members of Parliament (MPs) who spoke during the debate [2] four strongly supported the motion, three took a more neutral stance, and six strongly opposed the petition or elements of the argument. Examples of arguments in support of the petition can be viewed in a collation of clips taken from the video of the debate [3].
There was a noticeable contrast between the arguments presented by MPs supporting the petition — who exhibited concern for the constituents who had signed the petition and approached them directly — and those opposing it. All those who, like the petitioners, were concerned about the growing power and influence of WHO and threats to national sovereignty were familiar with the contents of the so-called ‘pandemic treaty’ [4], since labelled the WHO CA+, as well as proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) [5]. While some opposing the petition were also familiar with the document, others had not even read it, prompting Andrew Bridgen (MP for North West Leicestershire) to plead with members to do so.
Those concerned about these proposals presented well-reasoned arguments reflecting an understanding of the history of WHO [6], its many failures during Covid-19, and its current problematic relationships with non-state funders [7,8]. Those supporting WHO’s proposals uncritically supported WHO, focusing on its public health successes and ignoring obvious concerns. Perturbed by the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the Covid response measures, some MPs worried that the UK government, having played a leadership role in drafting the treaty, might ratify it without parliamentary debate. This reservation was flatly denied by those opposing the petition, with some denying that WHO would in any way threaten UK sovereignty, that its role would remain advisory in nature, and that those opposing the treaty were in effect opposing international cooperation.
This article analyses the arguments made by those rejecting the petition, drawing on insights from Behavioural Science. During the debate, these MPs tended to rely on the following tactics:
- Using derogatory language or false claims to discredit speakers and their arguments
- Making inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements
- Using globalist slogans
- Patronising the petitioners
- Using the debate as an opportunity for party-political point-scoring
- Downplaying or normalising threats to sovereignty
- Promoting internationalism over sovereignty.
The debate was a sad reminder that it is not necessarily the quality of arguments, or even the sincerity of the individuals making them, that wins the day.
1. Using derogatory language and labels to discredit speakers and their arguments
A tactic used to shut down discussion and debate was to attach derogatory labels to those supporting the petition. In the debate, two such labels used in relation to the Covid event and the pandemic treaty were ‘conspiracy theory/theorist’ (ten references made by four speakers) and ‘anti-vax’ (one speaker). Some opposing the petition used these labels early in their presentations, their comments and tone indicating that these were untenable positions that no sane person could possibly subscribe to.
Using such labels at the beginning of the debate set the scene, immediately employing a behavioural science tactic to prime the participants and the wider audience. Priming is a ‘nudge’ [9] tactic; techniques that are used to modify people’s behaviours or emotions in a way that is unconscious and therefore difficult to identify or counter. Priming [10] occurs when the emotional attachment or views held about one issue are then used to influence the emotional attachment on a separate and unrelated issue; an emotional contagion if you like. This can be utilised to produce a positive or negative relationship. Over the past three years in particular, the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’ has become strongly and negatively associated with an archetype of someone whose views are not based in fact and who are not community minded, and therefore not socially acceptable. By stating in his introductory comments that “I have no time for conspiracy theories”, leader of the debate Nick Fletcher (MP for Don Valley) activated this already negative mental construct and associated it with the question of the WHO pandemic treaty. Whether this was purposeful or not is debatable but concerns about conspiracies do seem strangely placed in a debate which should be about publicly documented proposals, and UK and international legislation.
Similarly, Sally-Ann Hart (MP for Hastings and Rye), who herself was committed to representing the concerns of constituents who had signed the petition, warned that, “We must be wary of … conspiracy theories distorting the facts and scaring people. Transparency of debate is therefore needed to squash those conspiracy theories.”
Some comments could only be described as invective. Language such as that used by John Spellar (MP for Warley) was entirely inappropriate in the context of a Parliamentary debate:
… the poisonous cesspit of the right-wing conspiracy theorist ecosystem in the United States … an appalling subculture of those who live by conspiracy theories … Unfortunately, we have some people — a very limited number … who wallow in the realm of conspiracy theories.
The ‘conspiracy theorist’ label has become a catch-all term used to discredit numerous perspectives that disagree with the dominant narrative. It has also taken on the power of a curse, which those who hope to remain accepted by their peers must protect themselves from by declaring their immunity.
Another such label is ‘anti-vax’, used by Mr Spellar who interjected early in Mr Fletcher’s introduction:
I thank the hon. Gentleman … for highlighting both smallpox and polio. Is the fact of the matter not that it has been a worldwide vaccination programme that has enabled us to achieve that? Does that not demonstrate the falseness of the anti-vax campaigns?
This is another example of priming, where an exceptionally negative construct (anti-vax), which was set up in mainstream and social media over the past few years, is associated with those who may have genuine concerns about the powers being delegated to a non-elected body. When attached to a person, the related term ‘anti-vaxxer’ is an example of an ad hominem attack [11], which is an example of a false argument. Instead of the argument being discussed on its own merit in terms of data or facts, the audience and other participants are misdirected toward a perceived ‘failing of character’ in those who might have a different view and legitimate questions.
Mr Spellar used this terminology to discredit those wary of vaccinations, in particular the Covid-19 genetic therapy. He continued his interruption of Mr Fletcher’s introductory remarks with the following tirade against academic gastroenterologist Dr Andrew Wakefield who, in 1998, co-authored a research study in The Lancet, linking inflammatory bowel symptoms in 12 autistic children to the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine:
Part of this argument has been about vaccination. We go back to Dr Wakefield and that appalling piece of chicanery that was the supposed impact of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which has now been completely exposed and discredited. Indeed Mr Wakefield is now no longer a recognised doctor.
This argument is an example of ‘false equivalence’ [12], another propaganda tool that has the effect of misdirecting the audience away from the key facts of the debate. Those who doubt the safety and efficacy of the novel Covid ‘vaccine’ have not necessarily questioned the safety and efficacy of all other vaccines, and should therefore not be considered ‘anti-vaxxers’. By associating arguments against the Covid shot with the MMR vaccine debacle, the purpose is to tar objections to this entirely novel and inadequately tested therapy with the same brush as arguments levied against an earlier, unrelated, conventional vaccine.
Mr Spellar’s interjection also reflects another tactic of those who wish to quash debate, namely the use of threats to intimidate those who might be inclined to consider alternative narratives. The story of the suppression of harms caused by the MMR vaccine has much in common with the current censorship of reports of serious adverse events and deaths following the Covid injections. Raising the 25-year-old case of Dr Wakefield who is “no longer a recognised doctor” represents a threat, already a reality for many ethical doctors and scientists, that those who speak out against the harms caused by the Covid injections face being dismissed and deregistered.
2. Using inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements
Justin Madders (MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston) also used derogatory language in denying concerns about threats to national sovereignty posed by global organisations such as WHO:
On the absurd side, a narrative has been created that the World Health Organization is a body intent on world domination. Borrowing tropes from conspiracy theories, I found one website referring to the WHO as ‘globalists’ … That sentiment is clearly ludicrous, as is the reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates or the Chinese Government.
The treaty has nothing to do with Bill Gates, and it is not the first step in creating a world-dominating authoritarian state.
The first sentence in the quote above is an example of a behavioural science nudge tactic called ‘framing’. In framing, words, metaphors and perspectives are used in a way that makes the message more attractive and activates certain emotional reactions. The image created by the MP’s statements is quick to evoke a mental picture of a film-like villain plotting to take over the world. Being ‘absurd’ (untrue) and a ‘narrative’ (story), this should clearly be discounted.
Beyond the language used, Mr Madders’s claims are not substantiated and as such are simply opinions. Firstly, as the United Nations (UN) agency responsible for global public health, WHO can indeed be considered a ‘globalist’ organisation, along with numerous other international bodies such as other UN agencies, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and international corporations and foundations. But, largely due to the growing influence exerted over national governments by WHO and other unelected supra-national bodies during Covid, the term ‘globalist’ has taken on more sinister connotations. Its use by those critical of the dominant narrative may account for Mr Madders treating the term as a ‘red flag’.
Secondly, Mr Madders may be unaware of the significant changes to WHO’s funding model that have taken place in recent years, with assessed contributions [13] from Member States having declined to less than 20% of WHO’s financing, and Bill Gates now being one of its major funders. WHO’s own website records that, as of Quarter 4 of 2021, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) was their second-largest donor (9.49%) after Germany [14]. While on this point, Steve Brine (MP for Winchester) asserted that “the UK is the second-largest contributor to the WHO”, which is incorrect; in fact, the UK is the sixth-largest contributor (5.99%). Gates is also a founding partner and second-largest contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which is the fifth-largest funder of WHO (6.43%). And with 56.14% of BMGF’s funding going to support WHO’s Headquarters [15], it is unlikely that “The treaty has nothing to do with Bill Gates”, as asserted by Mr Madders.
Many unsubstantiated statements regarding Covid ‘vaccine’ safety and effectiveness were also made during the debate. Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) asserted that “AstraZeneca saved lives worldwide”, despite the use of this adenovirus viral vector vaccine being restricted or suspended in numerous countries due to many reports of recipients suffering blood clots [16].
Similarly, Mr Spellar, referring to the Pfizer mRNA ‘vaccines’, stated that it “certainly was not unproven or unsafe, and it had a huge beneficial impact across the world.” There is, in fact, mounting evidence showing that the Covid injections, released under emergency use authorisation before adequate testing could be undertaken, have been neither safe nor very effective. All vaccine adverse events tracking systems, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card system in the United Kingdom, the European Medicines Agency’s EudraVigilance system in the European Union, and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States, have recorded unprecedented numbers of serious adverse reactions, including deaths. Furthermore, an increasing number of studies are reporting evidence of a broad range of serious adverse events [17]. An independent systematic review of serious harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, currently in pre-print, adds significant weight to these findings [18].
Furthermore, after a group of scientists and medical researchers successfully sued the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [19] to release many thousands of documents related to licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, it was revealed that early trials had resulted in hundreds of adverse reactions [20 (Appendix 1)]. This information had been withheld from the public by the authorities.
The injections have also been been unable to stop SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission, with Dr Peter Marks of the FDA admitting in a letter responding to a citizens’ petition that proof of efficacy had not been required for authorisation [21]:
It is important to note that FDA’s authorization and licensure standards for vaccines do not require demonstration of the prevention of infection or transmission. (p.11)
Furthermore, the applicable statutory standards for licensure and authorization of vaccines do not require that the primary objective of efficacy trials be a demonstration of reduction in person-to-person transmission. (p.13)
In addition, there is growing concern that claims that the boosters prevent severe illness and deaths amount to a “wishful myth” [22].
Three years of pro-vaccine propaganda and ongoing efforts to censor reports of vaccine harms have effectively blinded many people to the possibility that the rollout of Covid injections may be related to the sharp rise in excess deaths now being experienced in many countries [23; 24]. This is despite the fact that many vulnerable people, such as the elderly and those with multiple comorbidities, had died previously as a result of Covid-19, lockdown measures and medical interventions.
Despite having had the opportunity to peruse the evidence presented by the petitioners, Mr Spellar was still sure that the vaccination campaign had been a huge success, stating:
… mobilisation of [the] intellectual power and production capacity [of the major pharmaceutical companies] in producing a vaccine in record time to stem the tide of covid was absolutely magnificent.
3. Using globalist slogans
Just as certain terms (conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer) have become modern-day curses causing those so labelled to be socially shunned, so have other terms and slogans become the mantras of those wishing to demonstrate their membership of the mainstream. These catchy but often meaningless slogans are building blocks of a collective reality, introduced and normalised through the presentations, publications and public relations communications of powerful individuals, and globalist organisations such as the UN, WHO, WEF and BMGF.
Mr Madders, for example, echoed Bill Gates [25] when he stated: “We need to be better prepared for the next pandemic.” This also represents an unsubstantiated claim, as it ignores the reality that pandemics are actually extremely rare. Since 1900, only five pandemics, each responsible for over one million deaths, have broken out, namely the Spanish flu (1918-1920), the 1957-1958 influenza pandemic, the Hong Kong flu (1968-1969), the AIDS pandemic (ongoing since 1981), and Covid-19 [26]. It also powerfully illustrates the effectiveness of presupposition, where the speaker inserts a statement or assumption as a fact agreed by all and therefore requiring no evidence of its own. The phrase “the next pandemic” provides a nudge by inserting itself unconsciously into the psyche of the listener and readily bypassing the conscious thought process [27].
The Covid event did, however, demonstrate that a pandemic can mean big gains for certain people. It can literally be used to “reset our world” [28], creating unprecedented numbers of billionaires while destroying the lives of billions or others, stripping citizens of their rights and freedoms, unleashing a tyrannical and repressive security apparatus, and creating a ‘polycrisis’ [29], in response to which governments and even citizens will beg for unprecedented levels of global control.
One of the most meaningless slogans, which appears to have been invented by the UN at the beginning of the Covid event, and which has become a mantra reiterated by countless organisations and individuals, is ‘nobody is safe until everyone is safe’. It is not clear what this unsubstantiated statement even means, but what is clear is that it is demonstrably untrue. Nonetheless, this mantra was recited in some form by four speakers, with Anne McLaughlin (MP for Glasgow North East) stating, “It is only when the world is safe from Covid-19 that any of us are truly safe.”
Not only does such an obvious fallacy, a propaganda trope, have no place in a parliamentary debate, its use as some type of rational fact by four MPs across the political spectrum does bring into question the quality and independence of any literature provided to them ahead of this event. It is worth considering this much-used slogan and its ramifications in terms of any safety incident. The ideology underpinning it is one of collectivism, even socialism, in that the individual and their relative safety is merely incidental compared to the safety of all. Some might argue that this contradicts the fundamental principles of the International Declaration of Human Rights, which puts the individual at its core. Certainly, it is not an idle statement and reflects the underlying changes being proposed by WHO, which is seeking under their ‘One Health’ initiative [30] a more far-reaching remit where ‘everyone’ will include not only all sovereign citizens of participating nations, but animals and the environment as well.
Slogans infuse documents produced by UN agencies such as WHO. In referring to the zero-draft of the Pandemic Treaty, Preet Kaur Gill (MP for Birmingham, Edgbaston) used a number of them, including: ‘leave no country behind’, ‘global health is local health’, ‘we are stronger together’, and ‘vaccine equity’. Trotting out vacuous statements like this might be appropriate at a protest rally but should have no place in a parliamentary debate. Slogans are rallying cries. They are right-sounding and apparently well-meaning, even moral, in nature. Their repetition is quite hypnotic and they seem to act as spells, potentially binding those who faithfully recite them to an outcome they may live to regret [31].
The repetitive nature of any phrase or slogan is a tool of both behavioural science and propaganda. Both the repetitive effect and the rhythmic phrasing allow such phrases to easily enter the unconscious. Over time we simply accept the statement as true, as it bypasses our conscious thought processes that might critically assess such a phrase and see it as false or simply nonsensical. The use of such tactics, particularly by people in positions of authority or trust, allow the effect to be amplified. This is known as the ‘messenger effect’. Simply put, we are more likely to trust the message because it was issued by someone representing expertise and trust [32].
One such case relates to the slogan ‘vaccine equity’. Referring to the “terrible divide in coverage between richer countries and the global south,” Ms Gill lamented that “just 27% of people in low-income countries have received a first dose of a Covid vaccine.” What she does not go on to say, disappointingly, is that there was no correlation between high vaccination rates and low death rates from Covid-19. Indeed, some low-income countries (especially in Africa) with young populations and low vaccination rates experienced very low death rates due to Covid-19, while the USA, one of the richest and most highly vaccinated countries in the world, had one of the highest Covid-19 death rates [33].
Figure 1: Comparing Covid-19 deaths in Africa and the USA [33]
4. Patronising the petitioners
Regarding the aim of the petition, which was to request that a referendum be held before the Government could agree to signing the pandemic treaty, Mr Fletcher declared:
Referendums are divisive; they polarise positions and leave a lasting legacy of division. Whether a referendum is appropriate is for the Government to decide, and if they think it is, they must make all the facts known. I suggest that petitioners, while playing their part in the education process, must do so in a sensible manner.
The patronising tone of this comment is ironic. While the referendum on Brexit did indeed sharpen the edge between ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’, the UK Government’s Covid-19 response was possibly even more effective at dividing the populace into camps and pitting one side (those who complied with the mandates) against the other (those who chose not to comply). Furthermore, insisting that citizens should be “sensible” ignores the fact that constituents in favour of a referendum contacted their MPs to raise thoughtful, well-researched concerns, while some MPs arguing against the referendum tended to rely on slogans, unfounded generalities, and invective, rather than “sensible”, factual, reasoned arguments.
Mr Spellar not only used disparaging language to deny the request for a referendum, but also predicted that it would be rejected by the House:
We cannot be arguing to have [a referendum] for every bloomin’ issue, every policy and every treaty. … What we are seeing is overreaction and hysteria, and I would argue that we should give the petition a firm rejection, as I am sure we would do if it ever came to the Floor of the House of Commons.
Inasmuch as MPs in the UK are supposed to represent and take seriously the concerns of their constituencies, it is disturbing that an elected Member should respond with such contempt to a petition signed by more than 150,000 people.
5. Party-political point-scoring
Disappointingly, despite the importance of the debate and the number of citizens who had taken the time to express their concerns about the pandemic treaty, Ms McLaughlin and Ms Gill spent much of their time criticising the Conservative Government’s response to the Covid event. Instead of focusing on the debate, they chose to score party-political points by indicating the readiness of the Scottish National Party and Labour Party to implement WHO’s agenda, including enabling vaccine equity; sharing technology, knowledge, and skills; and strengthening global health systems using, ironically, the failing National Health Service as a model.
6. Downplaying or normalising threats to sovereignty
The Covid-19 event has been a classic case of the popular dialectic of ‘Problem-Reaction-Solution’. The engineered over-reaction to the problem of Covid-19 (whether or not there was an engineered virus), and the subsequent societal fall-out, have left traumatised people and their governments desperate to be better prepared for the much-anticipated ‘next one’, and ready to accept a ‘solution’ that few would have countenanced just four years ago.
In her presentation, Ms Gill expressed the need for an international approach to tackle transnational threats and improve global public health:
Negotiating an effective international treaty on pandemic preparedness is an historic task, but, if we can achieve it, it will save hundreds of thousands of lives.
If we can use the WHO to support basic universal healthcare around the world, infectious diseases are less likely to spread and fuel global pandemics.
It is through multilateral efforts, strengthened through international law, that we can ensure that the response to the next pandemic is faster and more effective, and does not leave other countries behind.
… the Opposition absolutely support the principle of a legally binding WHO treaty that sets the standard for all countries to contribute to global health security.
We need a binding, enforceable investment and trade agreement among all participating countries to govern the coordination of supplies and the financing of production, to prevent hoarding of materials and equipment, and to centrally manage the production and distribution process for maximum efficiency and output in the wake of a pandemic being declared.
The last few comments (underlined above) point to one of the most worrying issues for those concerned about sovereignty: if accepted, the pandemic treaty and amendments to the IHR would no longer be non-binding recommendations subject to government oversight but would become legally binding. WHO would be given legislative powers to mandate medical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; to commandeer intellectual property, production capability and resources; and to sanction those who refused to comply.
Some MPs downplayed concerns about these threats to national sovereignty. Mr Madders stated that “creating a global treaty [was] entirely reasonable and responsible” and that it was possible to “both protect our values of freedom and democracy and work more closely with other countries in the face of a global threat.”
Mr Spellar agreed, noting that they were “signatories to hundreds of treaties around the world” and that signing trade treaties was “part of engaging with the world.” He added that during Covid, “international scientific cooperation” had “enabled us to produce a vaccine within something like twelve months instead of the normal ten years … [thus] stabilising the situation.” What was not mentioned is that it was not primarily international collaboration among scientists that allowed the rapid deployment of these Covid-19 countermeasures, but the institution of emergency use authorisations, which allowed inadequately tested products to be dispensed worldwide. Far from “stabilising the situation”, these injectables continue to cause unprecedented numbers of adverse events and deaths, resulting in ongoing destabilisation of society post-Covid.
Steve Brine (MP for Winchester) observed that, “We cede sovereignty through membership of organisations. We cede the sovereignty to go to war by being a member of NATO.” It is true that all manner of treaties exist between countries and that these are essential for international cooperation; but cooperating as sovereign nations is entirely different to taking instructions from an unelected, supra-national body that is unaccountable to populations. Once in place, WHO’s pandemic treaty and the amendments to the IHR threaten to reduce national sovereignty, giving full power to WHO and its director-general to call pandemics and health emergencies and to regulate the responses of member states.
Those in favour of the pandemic treaty provided no evidence that a one-size-fits-all, legally mandated response to future pandemics would actually prove effective. In fact, Covid-19 was an object lesson in the foolishness of imposing the same public health ‘solutions’ on radically different nations and communities. In reality, mandating centralised protocols disrespects human rights, cultural diversity, national sovereignty, the scientific method, and innovation in healthcare. Instead of trusting human ingenuity to create a multitude of locally appropriate responses, it increases the risk of spectacular failure should the single global solution prove ineffective.
In an attempt to counter fears about a loss of sovereignty, Mr Madders stated that “We live in a liberal democracy and … are determined to keep it that way.” He denied people’s:
fears that the treaty will restrict freedom of speech to the extent that dissenters could be imprisoned, that it will impose instruments that impede on our daily life, and that it will institute widespread global surveillance without warning and without the consent of world leaders … [and that] Under this treaty, those things will apparently be done without our Government having a say.
He did, however, acknowledge that the measures mentioned above were “already in the power of the Government under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.” Referring, without giving any details, to “fact checkers” and an unnamed “WHO spokesperson”, he reassured citizens that “WHO would have no capacity to force members to comply with public health measures.” The tyrannical actions during Covid of governments worldwide against their own citizens — many of whom assumed that they did, in fact, live in a “liberal democracy” — makes one wonder why these governments would behave any more independently in future, especially if legally required to follow WHO’s dictates. The repressive regulations and laws passed in various countries since 2020 suggest that this is unlikely, as governments seem to have become addicted to the sweeping emergency powers granted them by this convenient global ‘pandemic’.
Mr Madders and Ms Gill also attempted to allay citizens’ fears by pointing out that there was “over a year of negotiations to go” and that the treaty “would still have to be ratified by the United Kingdom”. Ms Gill also commented that:
The draft treaty is primarily about transparency, fostering international cooperation, and strengthening global health systems … the very first statement in the zero draft text reaffirms “the principle of sovereignty of States Parties” [and that] the implementation of the regulations “shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
Noting the dismissive attitude of the majority of MPs to the petitioners’ concerns, there is little chance that another year of negotiations will convince the UK Government to reject the treaty.
7. Promoting internationalism over sovereignty
The UK, as an erstwhile imperial and colonial power, continues to play a leadership role internationally. This may be why some MPs, such as Ms McLaughlin, could not believe that WHO might threaten UK’s sovereignty:
The treaty would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the UK’s constitutional function and sovereignty … [Imagine a] terrible situation whereby the UK might be unable to make its own decisions if it is outvoted by other countries … the UK is a leading member of the WHO and a primary architect of the treaty, so that is not what is happening here.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) also stressed that the UK was:
a sovereign state in control of whether we enter into international agreements … with its voice, expertise and wisdom, and our trusted partner status with so many other member states in the UN family, [it] is respected and listened to.
Ms Trevelyan also referred to the UK’s role as “a global leader, working with CEPI, Gavi and the WHO,” stating that she was “proud to lead the fundraising for Gavi and COVAX.”
A deep chasm appears to have formed between the UK Government and its people. The discussions during this debate suggest that a minority of MPs [3] [link to PANDA video] view themselves as representatives whose duty it is to serve their constituents and respond to their concerns. Most, however, appear to have shifted their focus and allegiance to the international sphere, identifying as members of the “UN family”, playing a leading role in developing WHO’s pandemic instruments, and raising funds, which will ultimately benefit vaccine manufacturers and their investors, impoverishing the majority in the process. Under these circumstances, it is clear why Parliament is unwilling to risk a referendum on WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. There are just too many globalist interests at stake.
At home, increasing numbers of UK citizens are growing weary of a government that speaks glibly of ‘no country left behind’, while leaving its own nation in the dust. Where the people are concerned, trust is gone.
As Danny Kruger (MP for Devizes) warned:
At the moment, we do not have a commitment from the Government that they would bring the proposals to Parliament, which is very concerning. They say that in our interconnected world we need less sovereignty and more co-operation, which means more power for people who sit above the nation states. I say that in the modern world we need nation states more than ever, because only nation states can be accountable to the people, as the WHO is not.
Concluding comments
After two-and-a-quarter hours of deliberation, Mr Fletcher concluded the debate by thanking the Minister for assuring Members that UK sovereignty was not at risk, and then delivering the most inconclusive resolution:
That this House has considered e-petition 614335, relating to an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
For the 156,086 citizens and their representatives who had made the effort to engage Parliament thoughtfully and actively using the relevant democratic process, this ‘resolution’ resolved nothing at all. The exercise amounted to all form and no substance; not only were requests for a referendum dismissed out of hand without adequate discussion, but there were indications that the matter might not even be discussed in the House of Commons.
Illustrating just how little impact was made by those representing the petitioners despite the strength of their arguments, subsequent to the debate and in response to this petition, the government’s official response published on their website [1] commenced with the words:
To protect lives, the economy and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally-binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
This ominous response was followed by the now familiar slogan that would sit comfortably in the pages of Orwell’s 1984 but has no place in an official government statement: “Covid-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until we are all safe.” Its use further erodes the expectations that such debates will be carried out without bias, undue influence, or ignorance.
MPs have a duty of care to their constituents to ensure that they are as knowledgeable as possible about the issue being debated, and that they consider the facts rationally and honestly; and citizens deserve to have their concerns taken seriously. Yet two critical questions remain unanswered: firstly, having explicitly stated their support for WHO’s pandemic instruments, will the UK Government bring this matter to Parliament to be debated? And secondly, would agreement with these instruments, ‘in effect’ if not legally, mean the relinquishment of sovereignty? After all, if the only way the UK will be able to make a sovereign decision in future is by removing itself from membership of WHO, then why would the country wish to sign this treaty in the first place?
References
- UK Government and Parliament, Petition: ‘Do Not Sign Any WHO Pandemic Treaty Unless It is Approved Via Public Referendum’, (Debated 17 April 2023) <https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614335> [accessed 15 June 2023]
- parliamentlive.tv, ‘Video Recording of Westminster Hall Debate: e-petition 614335, Relating to an International Agreement on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response’, (17 April 2023) <https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d667d23f-1bd5-4c71-8237-3dd240de0651> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- PANDA Video
- World Health Organization, ‘Bureau’s text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (WHO CA+)’, (2 June 2023) <https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb5/A_INB5_6-en.pdf> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- World Health Organization, ‘Article-by-Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9)’, (2022), <https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- David Bell, ‘The World Health Organization and COVID-19: Re-establishing Colonialism in Public Health’ Panda, (5 July 2021) <https://pandata.org/who-and-covid-19-re-establishing-colonialism-in-public-health/> [accessed 29 June 2023]
- David Bell, ‘International Health Regulations and Pandemic Treaties – What is the Deal?’ Panda, (19 May 2022), <https://pandata.org/international-health-regulations-and-pandemic-treaties-what-is-the-deal/> [accessed 28 June 2023]
- David Bell, ‘The Myths of Pandemic Preparedness’, Panda, (29 November 2022), <https://pandata.org/the-myths-of-pandemic-preparedness/> [accessed 28 June 2023]
- Richard Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008)
- Psychology Today, ‘Priming’, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/priming> [accessed 29 June 2023]
- Pierpaolo Goffredo, Shohreh Haddadan, Vorakit Vorakitphan, Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata, ‘Fallacious Argument Classification in Political Debates’, Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22), (2022) 4143-4149 <https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2022/0575.pdf>
- Stephanie Sarkis, ‘This is Not Equal to That: How False Equivalence Clouds our Judgment’, Forbes, (19 May 2019) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/05/19/this-is-not-equal-to-that-how-false-equivalence-clouds-our-judgment/?sh=569a0b335c0f> [accessed 29 June 2023]
- World Health Organization, ‘Assessed Contributions’ <https://www.who.int/about/funding/assessed-contributions> [accessed 15 June 2023]
- World Health Organization, ‘Contributors’ <https://open.who.int/2020-21/contributors/contributor> [accessed 15 June 2023]
- World Health Organization, ‘Contributor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’ <https://open.who.int/2020-21/contributors/contributor?name=Bill%20%26%20Melinda%20Gates%20Foundation> [accessed 15 June 2023]
- Reuters, ‘All the Countries That Restricted or Suspended Use of AstraZeneca and J&J Covid-19 Vaccines’, IOL, (24 April 2021), <https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/all-the-countries-that-restricted-or-suspended-use-of-astrazeneca-and-j-and-j-covid-19-vaccines-15e22cb0-3fef-4dab-9176-ebb7862fa6bb> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M Kaplan and Peter Doshi, ‘Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Randomized Trials in Adults’, Vaccine 40 (2022), 5798-5805 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036>
- Peter Gøtzsche and Maryanne Demasi, ‘Serious Harms of the COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review’, Preprint with medRxiv, (2023) <https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.06.22283145>
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division, ‘Case 4:21-cv-01058-P Document 35’, (Filed 6 January 2022), <https://www.scribd.com/document/551589334/FDA-Foia-Request-010722#> [accessed 26 June 2023]
- Worldwide Safety Pfizer, ‘5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2)’, (Received 28 February 2021, Approved 30 April 2021), <https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf> (Appendix 1) [accessed 26 June 2023]
- Peter Marks (Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA), Letter sent to Linda Wastila, Coalition Advocating for Adequately Labeled Medicines (CAALM), Re: Citizen Petition, Docket Number: FDA-2023-P-0360, (18 April 2023), <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23786932-fda-letter-on-covid-19-vaccine-labeling> [accessed 18 June 2023]
- Yaakov Ophir, Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov and Peter A. McCullough, ‘The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact or Wishful Myth?’ Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 28(1) (2023), 20-27 <https://jpands.org/vol28no1/ophir.pdf> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- Thomas Fazi and Toby Green, ‘Why Are Excess Deaths Still So High? We Can’t Just Blame a Failing NHS’, Unherd, (30 January 2023) <https://unherd.com/2023/01/why-are-excess-deaths-still-so-high/> [accessed 25 June 2023]
- Martin Neil and Norman Fenton, ‘The Devil’s Advocate: An Exploratory Analysis of 2022 Excess Mortality’, Where are the Numbers? (14 December 2022), <https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-devils-advocate-an-exploratory> [accessed 27 June 2023]
- Bill Gates, Bill and Melinda Gates on Preparing for the Next Pandemic, online video recording, YouTube, 10 January 2013, <https://youtu.be/Wn0xzZH1dJA> [accessed 18 June 2023].
- David Bell, ‘The Myths of Pandemic Preparedness’, Panda, (29 November 2022) <https://pandata.org/the-myths-of-pandemic-preparedness/> [accessed 27 June 2023]
- Andrew Mullen, ‘The Propaganda Model after 20 Years: Interview with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 6(2) (2017), 12-22 <https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.121>
- Klaus Schwab, ‘Now is the Time For a “Great Reset”’, World Economic Forum, (3 June 2022) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/> [accessed 26 June 2023]
- Simon Torkington, ‘We’re On the Brink of a “Polycrisis” – How Worried Should We Be?’ World Economic Forum, (23 June 2020) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/polycrisis-global-risks-report-cost-of-living/> [accessed 26 June 2023]
- World Health Organization, ‘One Health’, (21 September 2017) <https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health> [accessed 15 June 2023]
- John T. Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty, ‘Effects of Message Repetition and Negativity on Credibility Judgments and Political Attitudes’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1) (1989), 3-12 <https://richardepetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1989-basp-cacioppopetty.pdf>
- Christopher J. Anderson and Sara B. Hobolt, ‘Creating Compliance in Crisis: Messages, Messengers, and Masking up in Britain’, West European Politics, 46(2) (2023) 300-323 <https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2091863> [accessed 29 June 2023]
- Edouard Mathieu, Hannah Ritchie, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, Cameron Appel, Charlie Giattino, Joe Hasell, Bobbie Macdonald, Saloni Dattani, Diana Beltekian, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser ‘Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)’. Published online at OurWorldInData.org, (2020) <https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths> [accessed 25 June 2023]
Free Speech Fears Grow After Springer Nature “Meekly Obeys” Activist Demands For Alimonti Climate Paper Retraction
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
Free speech is under attack in the politicised world of climate science and disgust at the recent cancellation of Alimonti et al. by Springer Nature continues to grow. Readers will recall that the paper written by four Italian scientists led by Physics Professor Gianluca Alimonti said past data did not point to a “climate crisis”. It was retracted on August 23rd, 20 months after initial publication, following a concerted campaign by activist journalists and scientists. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who first published a number of whistle-blower emails about a Springer inquiry, has returned to the fray, noting: “We should not be in a situation where activist journalists, many funded by billionaires, enlist activist scientists to demand retraction of a science article and then the world’s arguably leading scientific publisher meekly obeys. We must do better.”
Francis Menton writes the widely-read Manhattan Contrarian and he recently noted that free speech today is under assault from the Left all the time. He used the Alimonti affair as an example of this crackdown on dissent.
If you wonder why the climate alarm narrative seems so completely to dominate public discussion (even though it is utter nonsense), then you need to understand that there is an orthodoxy enforcement police operating behind the scenes. Most of the time the operation of this orthodoxy enforcement mechanism is invisible to the general public. Climate sceptics can’t get jobs in academia, and go into other careers; when sceptics write papers, they get rejected and are never heard of again. But every once in a while something happens to bring aspects of the orthodoxy enforcement mechanism momentarily into the open. That has recently occurred with respect to a paper published in a European scientific journal in early 2022.
Again regular readers will recall that the paper attracted little comment until September last year when the Daily Sceptic covered the findings in an article that attracted 9,000 retweets. Following subsequent coverage in the Australian and Sky Australia, the Guardian and state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”. They were soon joined by a number of activist scientists including Michael Mann who sneered at his fellow academics, dismissing them as “nuclear physics dudes in Italy” from “totally unrelated fields”.
In Pielke’s latest contribution, he says it is his “strong opinion” that the sole reason to retract the paper is not to do with the analysis of the data, but the one sentence that reads: “In conclusion on the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
The joy of the successful activists appears unconfined. Marlowe Hood recently collected £88,000 from the foundation of the green technology supporting BBVA bank. He tweeted: “It may be akin to removing a speck of dust from a rubbish heap, but I confess to taking satisfaction in seeing this egregiously bad climate study retracted. The remaining question, of course, is how it got into a Springer Nature journal to start with.”
For its part, BBVA justified its recent large payment to Hood by noting “his ability to synthesise complex scientific models and studies and explain them in simple terms”.
The final Springer retraction notice did not detail any substantive issue with the Alimonti paper, writes Pielke, only vaguely refering to the Guardian and AFP articles in the passive voice — “concerns were raised”. The journal’s year-long attempt to review the paper was “apparently invented as they went along”.
Dr. Pielke is evidently an old-school science academic and he has a mild criticism about editorialising by using the term “climate crisis”. Whether there is a climate crisis is a political judgement and not one that emerges from data and evidence. But he goes on to note that anyone familiar with peer-reviewed literature knows that editorialising is common, and in the climate literature, “absolutely pervasive”. In fact, he conducted a review of Google Scholar and found more than 300,000 papers that assert a “climate crisis”. A minor editorial comment by the Alimonti authors that passed through peer review, he observes, is no way a justification for a retraction. In his view it is one of the “most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen”.
Meanwhile, another academic whistle-blower has cast further shocking light on the policing methods that evidently lie behind much climate science publishing. As the Daily Sceptic noted on Tuesday, Dr. Patrick Brown of John Hopkins University said he wrote a new paper on California wildfires in Nature according to the approved script in order to get it published. This of course involved boosting the role of ‘climate change’ and downplaying natural causes and the increasing role played by arsonists. He said he has learnt that there is a formula for success in getting papers published in high profile journals such as Nature and Science. “Unfortunately, the formula is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating knowledge for society,” he said. This formula, added Brown, distorts a great deal of climate science research, and misinforms the public.
Francis Menton highlights Pielke’s finding that 300,000 science papers assert the existence of a climate crisis. “A few hundred billion dollars of Government money can buy a lot of fake climate alarmism,” he concludes.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt Says The Organization Isn’t Pressuring X Advertisers
Despite telling advertisers to pause spending
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 7, 2023
In an interview this week on CNBC’s show Squawk Box, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), steered a conversation toward alleging that criticism of the ADL’s social media censorship efforts were being driven by “white supremacist” factions.
The ADL recently met with Twitter CEO, Linda Yaccarino. It apparently ignited the fuse for a fast-spreading hashtag campaign: “ban the ADL.” According to Greenblatt, the culprit for this viral trend was not those that were tired of the ADL trying to censor online speech but were none other than the “white supremacists” pervading across the online platform.
The spotlight of this segment also fell on the alleged deflation of advertisement revenue on Musk’s platform, X. Musk suggested this was due to the ADL pushing for advertisers to reconsider their commercial placements. Greenblatt asserted, “we are not out there publicly or privately talking to advertisers, they will make the decisions they want to.”
Greenblatt also said that he would challenge Musk “to find a single advertiser on whom we put any pressure, because we’re simply not doing that.”
However, the ADL did call for a pause in ad spending on X following its acquisition in November.
“We did call for a pause back in November after the acquisition. And then since then, since that initial statement, what we are doing is engaging with the management of the company trying to help them make it better,” Greenblatt said of X.
“I understand they have a big business problem. I mean, Elon tweeted something I didn’t know, that the advertising revenues down 60 percent. But look, brands are big boys and girls, they will make their own decisions.”
Greenblatt also presented his stance on the divisive issue of social media censorship. His disbelief in cancel culture was clear, preferring the term “council culture.” In his words: “So someone makes a mistake you help them fix it. So what we’ve tried to do over the years with Twitter, with YouTube, with Facebook and all those platforms, with Reddit, with Discord I can go on and on is to work with them to make those platforms better.”
The EU’s best weapon against free speech isn’t working
The EU has just realized that it can’t rule the internet with an iron fist by throwing around the ‘Kremlin propaganda’ label
EC President Ursula von der Leyen speaks to the press after a meeting with Joe Biden in the White House on March 10, 2023 in Washington, DC. © Alex Wong/Getty Images
By Rachel Marsden | RT | September 7, 2023
The European Commission has concluded in a new report that despite making pinky-promises to “mitigate the reach and influence of Kremlin-sponsored disinformation,” large social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook were “unsuccessful” in doing so. What a shocker that this research by oversight advocates has ended up advocating in favor of more oversight. Russia just happens to be the most convenient scapegoat.
Using the same kind of smear tactics that the bloc has used previously – like when it included Russia alongside Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in previous security and threat reports – this time it involved conflating “pro-Kremlin” social media accounts with those that it considers to be “Kremlin-aligned” or “Kremlin-backed.” In other words, mere disagreement with the Western narrative is enough to land anyone in the “pro-Kremlin” camp and to be considered worthy of content moderation or banning by the EU. And now they’re frustrated that social media platforms have dropped the ball on carrying out that censorship.
“Platforms rarely reviewed and removed more than 50 percent of the clearly violative content we flagged in repeated tests,” the report said. What kind of content would that be, exactly? It’s hard to tell, because their examples conflate the legitimately debatable with the patently absurd, and suggest that both warrant censorship. They cite, for example, content that accuses Ukraine of being run by Nazis – which is a legitimate concern, given that the Western press has reported extensively on the powerful role played by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which are “aggressively trying to impose their agenda on Ukrainian society, including by using force against those with opposite political and cultural views,” according to a publication by the Washington-based Freedom House prior to the conflict, adding that “they are a real physical threat to left-wing, feminist, liberal, and LGBT activists, human rights defenders, as well as ethnic and religious minorities” in Ukraine. The Council of Europe had made similar observations.
There’s also the fact that the West trained the neo-Nazi Azov battalion to fight Russians, and that Reuters reported way back in 2018 that then-president Petro Poroshenko “would risk major repercussions” should he take action against neo-Nazis.
That kind of does sound like there’s a neo-Nazi issue that’s at the very least worthy of highlighting and debating. Yet the EU dismisses any such suggestion as Russian disinformation.
The report also takes issue with accounts “denying war crimes,” using events in Bucha as an example. I’m sorry, but was there a war crimes tribunal that we missed? We’re talking here about events taking place in the immediate fog of war. Attempting to sort through facts, realities, and manipulations is precisely the kind of thing with which social media is meant to assist. Everyone by this point knows that it’s about having access to as much raw data as possible. We expect to see a chaotic mess online – not a curated Encyclopedia Britannica set or the evening news. What makes Brussels think it is entitled to a monopoly on that process?
The report places these examples of inconvenient debates alongside a blatantly ridiculous example of sh*tposting whereby someone made up the name of a fake media outlet and announced that Ukraine was sending a radioactive cloud towards Europe. Look, if anyone is so dumb as to believe something like that, then it certainly isn’t the EU that’s going to save them from their own stupidity. Not for long, anyway. Just let them spend their entire next week digging a fallout shelter while their neighbors have a good laugh.
In a line that just begs to be read repeatedly out of sheer incredulity that someone could be so tone-deaf, the report notes that so-called Kremlin disinfo efforts are “designed to foment political and social instability among its adversaries by stoking ethnic conflict, promoting isolationism, and distracting public attention away from Ukraine and onto domestic affairs.” How dare the people of Europe insist that their leaders focus on the considerable problems faced by their own country and citizens, which have long been exacerbated by misguided national and EU-level policies, rather than riveting their attention to Ukraine! Indeed, if it wasn’t for those meddling Russians, Europe would be a utopia of sunshine and rainbows, everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya, with nothing else for citizens to concern themselves with besides what’s happening in Ukraine.
The EU laments that “the Kremlin and its proxies captured growing audiences with highly produced propaganda content, and steered users to unregulated online spaces, where democratic norms have eroded and hate and lies could spread with impunity.” They have it all backwards. People wanting to engage in debate and discussion of topics and viewpoints that the EU — in all its arrogance as the self-appointed arbiter of truth — is keen to censor, have been driven to other platforms specifically because they support free speech in all its glory and imperfection.
“Over the course of 2022, the audience and reach of Kremlin-aligned social media accounts increased substantially all over Europe,” according to the report, adding that “the reach and influence of Kremlin-backed accounts has grown further in the first half of 2023, driven in particular by the dismantling of Twitter’s safety standards.” In other words, Elon Musk, who considers himself a “free speech absolutist,” came along and bought Twitter, leveled the playing field by opening up debate and reducing censorship, and what ended up happening is that people flooded to the platform as a refreshing alternative to the curated and censored Western establishment narrative that they’re spoon-fed elsewhere.
So what’s the EU going to do about it now? Well, mandatory compliance with its Digital Services Act is now in effect as of last month. This means that, theoretically, all the major social media platforms are obligated to work with the EU’s handpicked “civil society” actors to moderate and censor content – no doubt in alignment with the EU’s narrative. Musk should play along and take notes about the kind of censorship requests that are made of him by Brussels. Then he should publish them on Twitter in the interest of radical transparency and the kind of uncompromising defense of democracy to which the EU is constantly paying lip service as a pretext for its crackdowns on our fundamental freedoms.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
US Carries Out ICBM Test Amid Tensions with North Korea and Russia
By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | September 6, 2023
The US Air Force and Space Force jointly launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Wednesday, amidst increased tensions with Pyongyang and Moscow. Air Force Global Strike Command carried out the test firing from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.
“These test launches demonstrate the readiness of [US] nuclear forces and provide confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear deterrent,” said Space Launch Delta 30 vice commander Col. Bryan Titus.
A day earlier, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan threatened Pyongyang over a potentially upcoming meeting between Kim Jong Un, the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “[This] is not going to reflect well on North Korea and they will pay a price for this in the international community,” Sullivan said.
National Security Council spokesman John Kirby claimed “arms negotiations” between the two nations are “actively advancing.” Although, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained that he cannot confirm the leaders’ rumored meeting as there is “nothing to say.” The US has already pledged $113 billion backing Kiev in its proxy war with Moscow.
The latest US miliary aid package for Kiev includes depleted uranium tank ammunition which is radioactive and toxic, it has been linked to cancer as well as birth defects where it has been used such as during the Iraq War. Largely as a result of Washington actively undermining diplomacy and ruling out peace talks or ceasefires, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has warned humanity has never been closer to a nuclear holocaust.
Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Rebekah Koffler told Fox News Digital that “Washington is signaling to Moscow that it’s nuclear deterrent is combat ready should Putin decide to resort to nuclear warfare whether on the battlefield in Ukraine or outside of it… the risk of unintentional escalation due to misinterpretation of each other’s intentions is now heightened.”
Last Friday, Moscow put its nuclear Sarmat missile on “combat duty.” In 2022, Putin remarked that the advanced ICBM will “reliably ensure the security of Russia from external threats and make those, who in the heat of aggressive rhetoric try to threaten our country, think twice.”
Since 2022, massive joint US-South Korean live fire war games have resumed and, in response, the DPRK has launched more than 100 missiles. Last week, hours after the US flew bombers in separate joint air drills with Tokyo and Seoul, North Korea test fired two short-range “tactical” ballistic missiles.
During the Joe Biden administration, tensions have soared on the Korean peninsula as a result of Washington’s myriad war games which have seen the White House deploy armed Reaper drones, nuclear capable bombers, and aircraft carriers. In July, a US nuclear-armed submarine docked in South Korea for the first time since 1981.
Ukraine’s ‘biggest arms supplier’ orchestrated 2014 Maidan massacre, witnesses say
BY KIT KLARENBERG · GRAYZONE · SEPTEMBER 6, 2023
Years before emerging as Kiev’s top private weapons trafficker, ex-legislator Serhiy Pashinsky played a key role in the 2014 US-backed coup which toppled Ukraine’s democratically-elected president and set the stage for a devastating civil war. Though the notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian parliamentarian was condemned by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “criminal” as recently as 2019, a lengthy exposé by the New York Times has now identified Pashinsky as the Ukrainian government’s “biggest private arms supplier.”
Perhaps predictably, the report makes no mention of evidence implicating Pashinsky in the 2014 massacre of 70 anti-government protesters in Kiev’s Maidan Square, an incident which pro-Western forces used to consummate their coup d’etat against then-President Viktor Yanukovych.
In an August 12 report on Ukraine’s new weapons-sourcing strategy, the New York Times alleged that “out of desperation,” Kiev had no option but to adopt increasingly amoral tactics. The shift, they say, has driven up prices of lethal imports at an exponential rate, “and added layer upon layer of profit-making” for the benefit of unscrupulous speculators like Pashinsky.
According to the Times, the strategy is simple: Pashinksy “buys and sells grenades, artillery shells and rockets through a trans-European network of middlemen,” then “sells them, then buys them again and sells them once more”:
“With each transaction, prices rise – as do the profits of Mr. Pashinsky’s associates – until the final buyer, Ukraine’s military, pays the most,” the Times explained, adding that while using multiple brokers may technically be legal, “it is a time-tested way to inflate profits.”
As the seemingly endless supply of cash from Western taxpayers provides a bonanza for arms manufacturers such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, it similarly benefits war profiteers like Pashinsky. His company, Ukrainian Armored Technology, “reported its best year ever last year, with sales totaling more than $350 million” — a whopping 12,500% increase from its $2.8 million in sales the year before the war.
Pashinsky is not the only racketeer benefitting from the elimination of anti-corruption measures in wartime Ukraine. Several suppliers previously placed on an official blacklist after they “ripped off the military” are now free to sell again, according to the Times investigation. The outlet downplayed this as an unfortunate, but ultimately necessary measure.
“In the name of rushing weapons to the front line, leaders have resurrected figures from Ukraine’s rough-and-tumble past and undone, at least temporarily, years of anticorruption [sic] policies,” the Times asserted, describing “the re-emergence of figures like Mr. Pashinsky” as “one reason the American and British governments are buying ammunition for Ukraine rather than simply handing over money”:
“European and American officials are loath to discuss Mr. Pashinsky, for fear of playing into Russia’s narrative that Ukraine’s government is hopelessly corrupt and must be replaced.”
However, even the seemingly critical Times report overlooks a key aspect of Pashinsky’s unsavory biography. Conspicuously absent from the coverage was any explanation of his role in carrying out the infamous massacre of anti-government activists and police officers in Kiev’s Maidan Square in late February 2014.
A defining moment in the US-orchestrated overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government, the death of 70 at the hands of mysterious snipers triggered an avalanche of international outrage that led directly to the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych. Even today, these killings officially remain unsolved.
However, firsthand testimony by individuals who claimed to have helped carry out the false flag attack suggest Kiev’s most prolific gun runner was intimately involved in the grisly affair.
Maidan massacre organizer ‘takes no prisoners’
In November 2017, Italy’s Matrix TV channel published eyewitness accounts by three Georgians who say they were ordered to kill protesters by Mamuka Mamulashvili. Then the top-ranking military aide to Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili, Mamulashvili later founded the infamous mercenary brigade known as the Georgian Legion, whose fighters were widely condemned after they published a gruesome video of themselves gleefully executing unarmed and bound Russian soldiers in April 2022.
The documentary, “Ukraine: The Hidden Truth,” features an Italian journalist’s interviews with three Georgian fighters allegedly sent to orchestrate the coup. All described Pashinsky as a key organizer and executor of the Maidan massacre, even alleging the corrupt arms dealers provided weapons and selected specific targets. The film also featured footage of him personally evacuating a shooter from the Square, after they had been caught with a rifle and a scope by protesters and surrounded.
One of the Georgian fighters recalled how he and his two associates arrived in Kiev in January, “to arrange provocations to push the police to charge the crowd.” For almost a month, however, “there were not many weapons around,” and “molotov [cocktails], shields and sticks were used to the maximum.”
This changed around mid-February, they said, when Mamualashvili personally visited them alongside a US soldier named Brian Christopher Boyenger, a former officer and sniper in the 101st Airborne Division, who personally gave them orders they “had to follow.”
A documentary by Italy’s Matrix channel contains eyewitness testimony implicating an American military instructor in Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan massacre.
Pashinky then personally moved them along with sniper rifles and ammunition to buildings overlooking Maidan Square, they alleged. At that point, Mamualashvili reportedly insisted that “we have to start shooting, so much, to sow some chaos.”
So it was that the Georgian fighters “started shooting two or three shots at a time” into the crowd below, having been ordered to “shoot the Berkut, the police, and the demonstrators, no matter what.” Once the killing was over, Boyenger moved to the Donbas front to fight in the ranks of the Georgian Legion, which Mamulashvili commands to this day.
In the meantime, Ukrainian journalist Volodymyr Boiko, who headed the civic council of the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine after Maidan, has alleged that in order to obscure his role, Pashinsky personally hand-picked the figures leading the official investigation into the massacre, and even bribed the prosecutor who headed it.
Despite these shocking claims, Pashinsky’s involvement in the Maidan massacre has never been officially investigated, let alone punished, and his most recent experiences with the Ukrainian judicial system suggest it is unlikely to be heavily scrutinized by officials in Kiev. While a member of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, he was arrested for shooting and wounding a pedestrian in a traffic-related dispute, but was ultimately acquitted in 2021.
When Israeli journalists confronted Pashinsky about his role in the Maidan massacre, the arms dealer warned that they would be tracked down in their home country, where his associates would “tear them apart.” They could be forgiven for believing it was not an idle threat; there is a troubling tendency for Pashinky’s detractors to end up viciously beaten or shot dead in the street.
Hungary may still reject Sweden’s NATO membership: top Fidesz politician
Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership would have merited a wider social debate
By Laura Szalai | Mandiner | September 7, 2023
Sweden’s NATO membership is supposed to be imminent, but there are now signs that Hungary is balking at the possibility of Sweden in NATO, with the Hungarian speaker of the house, László Kövér, stating in an interview that his Fidesz party has a number of security concerns about Sweden and even Finland’s membership.
Kövér said that contrary to claims of the mainstream liberal media, Hungary is not waiting for Turkey in order to ratify Sweden’s NATO membership, and this will be a sovereign decision of the country.
“Fidesz-KDNP is a living political community, so its members may have different opinions. And many of us in the parliamentary group think it would be worth waiting for a decision. After all, a new member would be joining the military alliance with which we would need to have a fundamental relationship of trust if we are to entrust our defense to each other,” Kövér said during an interview with Mandiner while kicking off the autumn parliamentary season.
If Hungary steps back from approving Sweden’s membership, it could mark a major blow to Sweden’s NATO aspirations. Kövér said that while both the Hungarian government and Hungarian President Katalin Novak have made clear their support for Sweden’s yet-to-be-ratified NATO membership, many MPs in the ruling Fidesz coalition have reservations.
“There has been absolutely no basis for this trust in Swedish politics, especially on the left, in recent years. On the contrary, it has been in the vanguard when it comes to attacking Hungary, and I have not seen any gestures since then to show that, if they were to join NATO with our approval, they would indeed regard us as an equal ally and not as a lackey,” said the ruling party’s politician.
Kövér also said that the profound geopolitical impact of Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership should have merited a deeper debate.
“Two traditionally neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, are giving up their positions, the latter as a NATO hopeful, and stepping straight into Russia’s front line. This in itself is a development worthy of a wider, deeper debate in Hungary and in Europe. In my opinion, the accession of these two countries to the North Atlantic military alliance will in fact weaken, not strengthen, Europe’s security,” Kövér said.
Asked to expand on that thought, Kövér added:
“Because it increases the literal and metaphorical interface between Russia and NATO, which I think is not even in the interests of the Swedish and Finnish people. I would also point out that there was a referendum on accession in Hungary, whereas in Finland and Sweden, which are always trying to teach us about democracy, the people were not even consulted.
“There are subtle signs that the remaining neutral countries, Austria and even Switzerland, are under some diplomatic pressure from overseas and the EU center to rethink their position on the outside. It is therefore about something more than the security situation of two northern countries or even of Europe as a whole.”
NATO Baltic Drills: West Attempts to Show Russia it ‘Owns’ Region Despite Members’ Weakenesses
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 07.09.2023
Saturday will see the start of NATO’s major naval drills in the Baltic Sea that are expected to involve some 30 ships and over 3,000 service members who will conduct the war games close to the Russian border. What’s the goal of these maneuvers and what signs do the drills send to Russia?
When and Where Will the Drills Take Place
As many as 14 NATO countries are due to take part in the Northern Coast 23 naval exercises that will be held on September 9-23 off Estonia and Latvia, as well as in the eastern and central areas of the Baltic Sea near the Russian border.
The drills will witness the participation of 3,000 personnel from the US, Italy, France, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.
Thirty ships and submarines, as well as up to 15 aircraft and various land units will be involved in the exercises, which have been held in the Baltics since 2007.
What’s the Main Message?
Germany’s navy chief, Vice-Admiral Jan Christian Kaack, said that during the drills, participants “will for the first time practice how to respond to a potential Russian assault in the region.”
He added that by launching the war games, NATO countries are “sending a clear message of vigilance to Russia: Not on our watch.” According to Kaack, “credible deterrence must include the ability to attack.”
“The idea of responding to a [possible] Russian attack here with a littoral (coastal waters) interoperability exercise seems to be aimed at morale building for NATO’s Baltic members, rather than the practice of an actual strategy of response to an expected Russian action somewhere in the Baltic Sea,” retired US Air Force Lt. Col and former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.
She underscored that by deciding to conduct such massive maneuvers in the area, NATO signals to Russia that the alliance is allegedly a military force that now “owns” the Baltic Sea, “mainly because it has brought on new members Finland and, soon, Sweden, and [because] the prior Baltic members of NATO, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are enthusiastically anti-Russia.”
“Yet none of these countries really have large naval forces, and like everything in Europe, the economic legacy of Germany still sustains the rest of the region,” Kwiatkowski pointed out.
Why Germany Leads Drills
The Northern Coast 23 drills will be led by the German Maritime Forces Staff from its new headquarters in Rostock, which will, in fact, become NATO’s regional command center responsible for directing operations in the Baltic Sea.
The ex-Pentagon analyst said in this vein that “this particular exercise is traditionally led by the German Navy”. According to her, the drills are the “first since the German government purchased the MV Werften shipyard, with an aim at converting it from a private ship-building enterprise to a large naval arsenal and expanded HQ.”
“Part of the upgrade of the German Navy and justification for the unprecedented German state purchase of a commercial ship manufacturer that failed (with the collapse of the cruise ship industry during the government-demanded lockdowns), was the conflict in Ukraine,” Kwiatkowski added.
Dwelling on Germany’s push to expand its Baltic clout, she said that German government spending in this region, and the militarization thereof, “may also seem logical” since the US-led Western neoconservatives seek increased domestic political control in the future.
Northern Coast 23 Drills and Regional Security
Notably, the Northern Coast 23 exercises come several months after Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna called the Baltic Sea a “NATO lake” in connection with Finland entering the alliance in April. As he explained in an interview with Newsweek, this NATO expansion is “extremely important” and a strategic game changer.
Kwiatkowski suggested that “the Western and US messages that the ‘Baltic Sea is a NATO lake’ will continue to be sent – as it has been done for the Black Sea, the Straits of Taiwan, and the South China Sea – with much the same impact.”
“Western bullying, even as its financial and military empire wanes and weakens, tends to be poorly received by the targets of that bullying, and the threats may increasingly ring empty and thus not have the desired effect,” she pointed out.
When asked what impact the upcoming NATO naval maneuvers will have on the security system in the Baltic Sea region, the former Pentagon analyst made it clear all this will depend on the alliance’s next steps.
“More practice with interoperability, growing familiarity with the littoral region, and the various naval and communication capabilities of these NATO countries [which take part in the drills] will tend to lead to more exercises of this sort, and enthuse the smaller Baltic members to spend more of their own budget on such activities,” Kwiatkowski said.
She added that it’s safe to assume that “the neoconservative foreign policy advocates and their military-industrial backers in Washington have a strategy and believe that threats and tweaks in their alliances will produce a specific outcome or response in line with that strategy.”
“I suspect the main response intended is to increase military and surveillance spending by all NATO members, in order to better control their own populations and domestic threats to their elite rule, and to some extent this is working. However, because the neoconservatives do not accurately perceive the strategies and goals of their selected enemies – Russia, and China – their own actions to shape the behavior of those competitors are inappropriate, and ineffective,” the analyst noted.
Kwiatkowski suggested that in “any serious east-west rivalry that might take place in the Baltic anytime soon, littoral operations will be limited to those related to emergency and evacuation.”
Сould Russia Be Affected?
It’s worth recalling in this vein that Russia has its own Baltic Fleet, headquartered in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, with ships’ crews typically observing Western naval exercises in the area from a distance. Russia last staged its own Baltic naval drills in early August 2023.
As for the forthcoming NATO naval exercises, they come amid the West’s frustration over Kiev’s “slower than expected” counteroffensive against Russian troops in Ukraine, which was described by Russian President Vladimir Putin as “a failure, not a stalemate.”
When asked what consequences could arise from the possible provocations and tensions created by the Northern Coast 23 drills and what the risks for NATO conducting exercises close to Russia are, Kwiatkowski stressed that “Any military operation or exercise poses risks of accidents, mistakes, miscommunication, confusion, and internal hijack or errors.”
“The more complex and less habitual the exercise, the bigger the risk. Combined with the hostile political leadership and possible agendas among the NATO countries at the heart of this exercise, and the presence of Kaliningrad nearby, as well as unpredictable activity from increasingly demoralized and angry Kiev politicians and activists, makes this exercise one to watch closely,” the analyst underlined.
Separately, Kwiatkowski added without elaborating that “close active contact between military forces, with possible surveillance and disruption of communications from both sides, misunderstandings, and accidents have caused problems between the Russian, Chinese and Western governments”, something that she said should be “resolved diplomatically”.
She expressed hope that “all sides will be careful, but added that “any objective person looking at military readiness and capability of a military response in the region, recognizes that it is Russia, and then the United States, who will decide how military emergencies are handled in this region.”
“The US president is for the most part a vacant shell, and it is not clear how important, time-critical decisions are being made in Washington, and who is making them. This, and the increasing desperation of those who do not wish to see a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war, is worrisome,” the analyst concluded.
Poland’s Defense Spending Quadruples to $36Bln Since 2015
Sputnik – 07.09.2023
WARSAW – Poland’s defense spending has quadrupled to 155 billion zlotys ($36 billion) since 2015, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday.
“Improving the system of public finances allows us to spend enormous amounts of money on the military. Just to compare 2015 and 2024, in 2015, we spent 37 billion zlotys, while in 2024, we will spend over 150 billion, that is, about 155 billion zlotys. This is an increase of about four times, or by 400%,” Morawiecki told reporters.
Poland has recently purchased large quantities of arms and military equipment from domestic and foreign defense companies, mainly from the United States and South Korea. The weapons purchased include aircraft and helicopters, rocket and cannon artillery systems, air and missile defense systems, drones, small arms and a wide range of ammunition.
Poland’s Top Military Official Accidentally Discredited NATO On Several Counts
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces General Rajmund Andrzejczak spoke at the Karpacz Economic Forum in southwestern Poland earlier this week about the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, during which time he shared some very interesting information that was reported on by The Guardian. The present piece will highlight the most important parts prior to explaining how they accidentally discredited NATO on several counts.
———-
* Poland speculates that China might tacitly approve North Korean arms shipments to Russia
– “I don’t believe North Korea is strong enough or so free to make such an offer, so maybe it is testing our determination, attention and political will, but what is even more important is what China says about this than the North Korean leadership.”
* Warsaw is worried that Moscow might meddle in the upcoming elections on 15 October
– “Andrzejczak also predicted that Russia would try to create a crisis in next month’s Polish election but gave no details in public. He warned that Russia was on a permanent war footing and was ‘very much active in Poland, looking for some gaps in the system, trying to interfere in the media’.”
* The NATO-Russian proxy war is viewed by Poland as part of a civilizational competition with China
– “Andrzejczak also warned that if Ukraine lost the war and Belarus went further into Russia’s orbit, Poland would find that limiting defence spending to 5% of its gross domestic product and a standing army of 300,000-strong would not be enough. ‘If we lose credibility as Nato, as a civilisation, China is watching, so this is a big game,’ he said.”
* Andrzejczak wants NATO to proactively engage in nuclear saber-rattling against Russia
– “Nato is a nuclear treaty organisation; it should be much more proactive and stronger to the Russians. In the 70s and 80s, 30% of B-52 bombers were flying permanently and had nuclear weapons with pilots ready to act. Today we have a challenge to say the word B61 [the primary US thermonuclear gravity bomb], so let us change narratives.”
* He’s also upset that the bloc ignored his government’s request to host US nuclear weapons
– “He said there had been complete silence since Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, asked to join Nato’s nuclear sharing programme owing to the deployment of Russian nuclear missiles to Belarus.”
* Poland lacks confidence that NATO would react to a hypothetical attack from Wagner
– “He asked: ‘Who is the Wagner group today? Is it a national action by Russia or, as the Russian minister of defence says, just a private military company? Is it enough for Article 5?’”
———-
From the above, it’s clear that Andrzejczak is doubling down on the ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS) party’s national security focus that forms the crux of its re-election platform, but he’s arguably going too far. For example, reframing the NATO-Russian proxy war as part of a civilizational competition with China implies that Poland is indirectly fighting the People’s Republic via its military assistance to Kiev, which isn’t true. Spewing this false narrative, however, is likely an attempt to rally PiS’ conservative-nationalist base.
That party and its supporters believe that Poland has historically functioned as the West’s bulwark for protecting their shared civilization from what they depict as “Eastern barbarians”. PiS taps into that interpretation to justify its diehard opposition to everything Russia-related, but now the country’s top military official unexpectedly added an anti-Chinese twist to this shortly before the next elections. Andrzejczak’s hyperbole thus suggests that PiS doesn’t think Russophobia is enough to win re-election.
He himself is also channeling that sentiment by fearmongering about an alleged Kremlin meddling plot sometime around the vote, most probably for the purpose of preemptively discrediting the opposition if they perform better than expected, but it’s clearly not sufficient as evidenced by his tacit Sinophobia. In an attempt to artificially manufacture a sense of utmost urgency, Andrzejczak crossed an informal red line in Polish politics by hinting that NATO isn’t reliable, nor is its American leader either by extension.
He did this by complaining about the bloc ignoring his country’s nuclear-sharing request and then publicly questioning the sacrosanctity of Article 5 in the hypothetical event of a Wagner attack. The first is attributable to NATO’s reluctance thus far to escalate its security dilemma with Russia to potentially uncontrollable proportions while the second is based on a scenario debunked by the New York Times. Andrzejczak knows the truth about both, yet he’s still shamelessly manipulating the public’s perceptions.
The preceding point reinforces suspicions that he exploited his authority as Poland’s top military official to informally campaign for the ruling party during his latest remarks about the NATO-Russian proxy war by hyping up security threats and therefore betrayed his oath to be purely apolitical. In his passion to help them win re-election, he went too far by implying that NATO isn’t doing enough to stop the Sino–Russo Entente and suggesting that Article 5 isn’t sacrosanct, thus likely angering its US leader.
Rushing Ukraine’s counteroffensive causes “unsustainable losses” – British think tank
By Ahmed Adel | September 7, 2023
A British think tank analysed the failures of Ukraine’s counteroffensive on September 4. According to the report, prepared by two analysts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and cited by Newsweek, Ukrainian forces are facing enormous losses of equipment and the training provided by the West is not adapted to the type of battle they are fighting against Russia.
“Attempts at rapid breakthrough have resulted in an unsustainable rate of equipment loss,” the London-based think tank reported.
As observers explained, conclusions about the reasons for the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive were drawn from the study of tactical actions for two weeks in the villages of Novodarovka and Rovnopol, which are located across the border between Donetsk and Zaporozhye. However, “this approach is slow” and the approximately 700–1,200 yards of progress every five days made by Ukrainian troops, was “allowing Russian forces to reset.”
RUSI calls Russia’s actions during the counteroffensive “a tactical success,” noting that the Eurasian country’s military had inflicted enough equipment losses on Ukraine early on to degrade the scope of the ordered manoeuvres.
The analysis also noted that the counteroffensive was limited by the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers, explaining that the methods taught by NATO are designed for forces with different configurations than Kiev’s troops. The report also highlights the adaptation capacity of Russian forces on the battlefield, pointing out this element as key to their success.
RUSI said that Ukraine’s counteroffensive requires fire dominance and that it was critical to ensure this advantage by properly resourcing ammunition production and spares whilst also making “preparations for winter fighting, and subsequent campaign seasons now, if [the] initiative is to be retained into 2024.”
This will obviously not come to fruition as Kiev has never had fire dominance at any point in 2023 and certainly will not now that their stocks are exhausted while Russia’s stock remains healthy.
Nonetheless, the RUSI study is the most recent international assessment that accounts for Ukraine’s failure in the conflict with Russia. European and American media and officials have admitted this failure after several months of baseless triumphalist coverage of what was happening on the ground.
The RUSI report is unique because it comes from Britain, which has a fully controlled narrative on the war, unlike even in the US, where some Republicans and certain corners of the media openly disparage Ukraine. This is one of the first major British information sources to openly and categorically acknowledge that Ukrainian forces are struggling and that Russia has achieved “tactical success.”
This disappointing result has caused Washington’s frustration with Kiev for what they consider a poor strategy on the battlefield.
It is recalled that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky announced the replacement of Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who also resigned. Reznikov is embroiled in a series of corruption scandals, making Zelensky explain that the ministry needed “new approaches.”
At the same time, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu declared on September 5 that Ukrainian forces failed in all lines of operations during the three months of their counteroffensive.
“Despite the colossal losses, the Kiev regime has already been trying to carry out the so-called counteroffensive for three months. In none of the lines of operations have the Ukrainian Armed Forces achieved their objectives,” the minister said.
Ukrainian forces have lost more than 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of military equipment since the start of their counteroffensive, Shoigu reported. Russian air defence also shot down more than 1,000 Ukrainian drones over the last month. 159 Himars, multiple launch missiles, 13 cruise missiles, and 34 command posts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were destroyed.
In this manner, the attrition rate is becoming increasingly rapid for Ukrainian forces. Kiev is still moving forward despite unrealistic expectations, a lack of necessary equipment and tough Russian defences. However, there are concerns that such expectations could mean Ukraine receives less support from Western countries in the future and thus put the final nail in the coffin for the counteroffensive.
This revelation comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in his recent meeting with his Turkish counterpart that he never rejected mediation proposals on Ukraine, adding that the progress of the Ukrainian counteroffensive was not a stalemate but “a failure.”
It is a widespread belief now that the counteroffensive has failed, with Kiev and London being the only strongholds contesting against this. However, as the RUSI report demonstrates, the gripping reality is slowly beginning to set in even in London.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Featured Video
STEVE KIRSCH: THE COVID JAB AND VACCINES IN GENERAL
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Interview
Interview with Jennifer Bilek
On The Transgender Agenda
Lies are Unbekoming | May 12, 2016
I’ve been following Jennifer Bilek’s reporting on the Transgender Agenda for the last year.
In my opinion, she is doing the best investigative journalism, in the world, on the top-down nature of this society deforming “input” and “normalization”.
What we don’t understand is the scale of money behind this push, and the individuals controlling this weaponized capital. These are questions that go to the heart of Jennifer’s work. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Green Blob Tells Government to… roberthstiver on Pentagon orders withdrawal of… Unome on How hawks in US are trying to… Unome on Pentagon orders withdrawal of… Unome on 15 nations have made their pos… Kayleen on UK has flown 200 spy missions… poisonedwater on Hamas slams Biden for linking… poisonedwater on 15 nations have made their pos… Bill Francis on Britain At War-The Final … roberthstiver on Pro-Palestinian protests grow… roberthstiver on UK has flown 200 spy missions… Bill Francis on Pro-Palestinian protests grow…
Aletho News- Unremarkable peer recruited by Zionist lobby to stop Palestine Action
- 360,000 flee Rafah due to Israel strikes: UNRWA
- Iran, India move forward with port deal in face of US sanctions
- Germany upset by China’s embrace of Russia – envoy
- Poland cancels talks with Ukraine over corruption fears
- STEVE KIRSCH: THE COVID JAB AND VACCINES IN GENERAL
- Dr. Peter McCullough Reveals How Much Doctors Were BRIBED to Push COVID Shots
- Green Blob Tells Government to Spend £30 Billion on Machine to Remove CO2 From the Air
- Western Media Ignites War on China in Sports
- 15 nations have made their position on the WHO sovereignty grab public before the WHA meeting commences
- If Americans Knew
- Columbia crackdown led by university prof doubling as NYPD spook
- Disaster unfolds all over Gaza, West Bank – Day 219
- Israeli airstrikes in southern Gaza, invasion in central Gaza, carpet bombing in north – Day 218
- Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention center
- Fighter jets, attack drones hammer Rafah; catastrophe looms – Day 217
- What it’s like to be used as a human shield by the Israeli army
- Detailed study finds 99% of pro-Palestine protests at US universities are peaceful
- VIDEO: Armenian Christians under siege by Israel
- Ex-Israeli special forces agent says he went ‘undercover’ at UCLA protest encampment
- The mainstream media distorted our anti-Vietnam War protests 50 years ago. They’re following the same strategy today
- International Solidarity Movement
- The Right to Resist Genocide by Land and By Sea
- Women Support Center in Nablus empowers women and girls, resists gendered violence and the Occupation
- Palestinian Family at Um Darit Harassed and Isolated
- Occupation Forces Targeted Series of Strikes Kills 7 Aid Workers in Gaza
- Israeli army and police escalate repression of human rights volunteers following Knesset hearing.
- Illegal Israeli Settlers Continue Attacks on Shepherds in Masafer Yatta
- Second Friday of Ramadan at Qalandia Checkpoint
- Deceptively “quiet” first week of Ramadan in Jerusalem: a result of restrictions at Qalandia checkpoint
- Masafer Yatta: Israeli Settlers Burn a Family Car in Um Dhorit
- Violent arrest of Palestinian women in Susiya, Masafer Yatta
- Richie Allen
- The Richie Allen Show Returns Tomorrow Wednesday April 24th
- Call Richie Today Monday March 11th From 4.30pm
- Connect To The Richie Allen Show WhatsApp Today
- NHS Asks Patients To Choose From 12 Genders, 10 sexual Preferences & 159 Religions
- The Richie Allen Show Moves To A New Time Slot From Monday Nov 20th
- Starmer Will Sack Shadow Ministers Who Vote For Gaza Ceasefire
- AI Tool Can Predict Heart Attacks Years In Advance
- Nepal Bans TikTok To Preserve Social Harmony
- Bloke Appointed Boss Of Womb Health Charity
- WHO – “Gaza’s Biggest Hospital Becoming A Cemetery”
- No Tricks Zone
- Using Nets On The Seafloor To Retrieve Seafood ‘Roughly The Same As Running 100 Coal-Fired Plants’
- New Paper: Global Warming Leading To HIMALAYAN COOLING, Preventing Glacial Melt!
- DNA Evidence Reveals Domestic Cats, Dogs, African Wildcats, Frogs Lived In The Arctic 9000 Years Ago
- -80°C: Antarctic Vostok Station Records “Extreme Winter Cold”…Not Even Winter Yet!
- The German E-Vehicle Nightmare, 2024 Q1 Sales Plummet 14%… “Graveyard” For Unsold Cars
- Newly Discovered 90,000-Year-Old Human Footprints Reveal How Much Higher Sea Levels Used To Be
- Germany’s Economic Bloodbath Worsens As Green Revolution Causes Economy To Bleed To Death
- Water Vapor Absorbs 84 Times More Radiation Than CO2 … Clouds Drove 89% Of 1982-2018 Warming
- The 97% Consensus Claim Is In Fact 97% Bogus
- Post-1980s Increases In Shortwave Radiation Explains Europe’s Warming Trends Far Better Than CO2
Aletho News 