US promised to seize Russian assets – Kiev
RT | January 27, 2024
The US assured Kiev that the Russian assets that remain frozen in the West are going to be seized and used to rebuild Ukraine after the conflict, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal has said.
The US, EU, and their allies blocked some $300 billion of Russian central bank assets as part of sanctions in response to Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. Around $200 billion of that money is held in the EU.
Politico reported on Thursday that it asked Shmygal if he was concerned that US funding for the Kiev government would come to a complete stop if Donald Trump won the presidential election in November and returned to the White House for his second term.
”We have all the assurances from the US about long-term support for Ukraine – for example, the seizure of Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian recovery,” he claimed.
On Wednesday, a US Senate committee approved the “Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for Ukrainians Act,” which should help pave the way for such a move by Washington. If it passes both houses and is signed into law by President Joe Biden, Washington could seize the Russian central bank assets, using such a measure against a country that it’s not directly at war with for the first time in history.
Reuters reported this week, citing a senior official in Brussels, that the EU will be unlikely to join the US in confiscating the Russian funds as there’s no agreement on such a step between the bloc’s member-states.
Earlier in January, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned that Moscow would respond to a possible seizure of its assets by the West, inducing tit-for-tat measures.
Previously, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the confiscation of Russian funds would amount to “outright theft” by the West. He told reporters that it would undermine the trust in the US and EU financial systems around the globe.
Shmygal also stated that Kiev is “working hard with the administration of President Biden and with Congress to have support for 2024.” As for the continuation of the aid in 2025, “we’ll see how conditions develop,” he stressed.
”I believe that any president of the US will support our fight for civilized values, our mutual values,” the Ukrainian PM said.
The US has provided Ukraine with around $111 billion in economic and military support amid the conflict with Russia. But the flow of funds subsided dramatically in recent months as Republican lawmakers continue to resist attempts by the White House to push through another $60 billion in assistance for Kiev.
US Attempts to Sideline Russia Under Black Sea Security Strategy Won’t Work – Military Expert
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 26.01.2024
Washington is developing a new Black Sea strategy envisaging bolstering the US and NATO role in the region, as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Jim O’Brien announced at a German Marshall Fund meeting on January 25.
Assistant Secretary of State O’Brien, who oversees US relations with Europe and Eurasia, visited the German Marshall Fund on Thursday to discuss 2024 US priorities in Europe, including backing Ukraine and “widening European integration.”
During his speech, O’Brien placed special emphasis on the strategic importance of the Black Sea to the US and NATO, stressing that the development of a grand design to ensure security in the region is underway. He pointed out that meetings had been held with Turkiye and other littoral states.
“[The US] want[s] to establish dominance over the Black Sea,” Vasily Dandykin, a captain 1st rank reserve and military expert, told Sputnik. “This is an old idea. One of the goals is to bring Ukraine into NATO. Because they believe that whoever dominates the Black Sea and owns Crimea receives all the bonuses. This is the underbelly of Russia in the south. And that’s why there was such irritation when the Crimean Spring happened in 2014 [Crimean people voted to reunify with Russia in March 2014 – Sputnik ]. As far as I remember the Americans had agreed with Kiev to establish a base for the US fleet in Sevastopol by that time.”
What’s Behind US Plans to Create Strategic Dominance in the Black Sea?
It was not the first time that O’Brien has pushed the idea of beefing up US/NATO presence in the region. On October 25, 2023, the US official testified before the US Senate’s Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation. He claimed that the Ukraine conflict is “a very good bargain” for the US as it gives Washington a unique opportunity to increase NATO’s military presence in the Black Sea, including the region’s lands, airspace, and waters, while “Ukrainians are paying the bulk of the cost” by fighting with Russians.
NATO’s dominance in the region could create conditions for pulling Ukraine and other Black Sea countries away from Russia and integrating them into the Western sphere of influence, O’Brien added. That would also help the West build oil and gas pipelines that lead from Central Asia via Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkiye to Europe thus completely axing Russia’s energy commodities from the Old Continent’s market. In particular, O’Brien hinted that Washington was very interested in the Ukrainian conflict going on to allow the US to accomplish its geopolitical goals in the Black Sea region.
The Biden administration is considering the idea of redrawing the energy map of the Black Sea region altogether, as Edward Hunt, a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary, has written in his op-ed for Foreign Policy in Focus. Hunt noted that the idea of the “Southern Gas Corridor” through the Black Sea was recently touted by State Department official Geoffrey Pyatt, who served as a US ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev and who now leads US energy diplomacy. Per Pyatt, “the redrawing of the energy map around the Black Sea that’s taking place” envisages “new pipeline infrastructure”, in particular, “the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from Central Asia to European consumers.”
‘NATO’s Expanding in All Directions’
Meanwhile, Dandykin pointed out that Washington’s expansionist plans are not limited to the Black Sea:
“The fact is that the strengthening of the United States and NATO – first of all, the United States – in all directions has become the general concept,” the military expert stressed, adding that the US has recently expanded its continental shelf (including in the Arctic region) to about one million square kilometers – an area twice the size of California.
“They established their bases in Finland, and the Finns gave the go-ahead, for airfields, etc. In the Baltic, near our borders, maneuvers will now take place for two months, with a total of 90,000 [NATO] military personnel. This is a concept of the expansion in all directions, including in the south. They seek to encircle and bleed the Russian Federation white,” the expert said.
Dandykin emphasized that Washington appears to have benefitted the most from the Ukrainian conflict and sanctions spree. The US forced Europe to decouple from Russia and at least partially filled the latter’s shoes. The American military-industrial complex is now working “at full capacity” to replenish the allies’ depleted weapons stockpiles, as their obsolete weapons have been burned down in Ukraine.
“More and more [Western] countries are placing orders for weapons. There is a military schizophrenia in Germany, they want to rearm. The Americans have always been the beneficiaries in all these messes. Therefore, they will, in particular, try to pour more gasoline on the fire this year to create difficulties for Russia,” Dandykin said.
How Will Russia React to US Black Sea Strategy?
The US and their NATO allies have been trying to enhance their operations in the Black Sea, the military expert noted, referring in particular to Western surveillance drones flying in close proximity to Crimea.
Russia has repeatedly warned the US against meddling in the Ukraine conflict. On the morning of 14 March 2023, a Russian Su-27 fighter jet was scrambled to intercept an American MQ-9 Reaper drone. The latter eventually crashed into the Black Sea after conducting a botched maneuver.
Dandykin pointed out that no matter how brazen the US and its NATO allies may behave, they are fully aware that they are risking nothing short of a nuclear war with Russia.
Washington’s Black Sea strategy obviously won’t go unnoticed by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the expert continued, adding that Russia is ready for all potential scenarios. He noted that a lot depends on how Black Sea littoral states, especially Turkiye, will react to Team Biden’s Black Sea initiatives. Ankara has so far demonstrated its firm position by closing off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to warships from any country, whether or not they border the Black Sea, after the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Besides, a new conflict in the Middle East over Israel’s Gaza war may also influence the balance of power in the region. So, Russia is likely to take a wait-and-see approach and it won’t add fuel to the fire as its American counterparts are presently doing overseas, Dandykin noted.
What’s more, the US security doctrine for the Black Sea could hardly be accomplished as it excludes Russia, a littoral state with considerable strategic strength and influence in the region, Dandykin stressed. “No, it’s obviously impossible” the expert emphasized when asked whether it’s possible to implement this or any other security strategy in the Black Sea region without the participation of the Russian Federation.
US to redeploy nuclear weapons in UK – Telegraph
RT | January 27, 2024
The United States is planning to deploy nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years, the Telegraph reported Friday, citing Pentagon documents.
The report comes amid continuing standoff between Russia and NATO over the conflict in Ukraine, as some Western politicians are calling to prepare for a potential armed clash with Moscow.
The British newspaper cited procurement contracts for a new facility at the Royal Air Force station at Lakenheath in Suffolk that point to Washington’s intention to bring nuclear weapons to the base. RAF Lakenheath is expected to house B61-12 bombs that are three times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, the Telegraph said. The US sent F-35 nuclear-capable fighters to the base last year.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last year that Moscow would be compelled to enact “compensatory countermeasures” if American nuclear warheads return to Britain. Russia has accused the West of stoking tensions in Europe and maintains that the continuing expansion of NATO eastward is one of the root causes of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
High-ranking European officials, including German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, have spoken about the need to brace for a potential full-blown war with Russia. Last week, Chair of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Rob Bauer urged the bloc to be “readier across the whole spectrum” for direct confrontation.
The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, dismissed the claims that Moscow is planning an offensive against NATO as “information warfare” aimed at justifying the ongoing “hybrid aggression.”
Germany’s dream of building a fleet of hydrogen-fired power plants is faltering
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 26, 2024
When green fantasies hit the brick wall of cold reality!
By 2035, Germany wants to produce 100% of its power in a climate-neutral way. To back up wind turbines and solar panels, whose production is expected to dominate in the coming years, the government initially envisioned a fleet of hydrogen-fired power plants.
But these plans are now faltering amid a prolonged government budgetary crisis, said Sigfried Russwurm, the president of Germany’s powerful industry association BDI.
In early August 2023, the German government triumphantly announced that the European Commission had essentially greenlit its plan for subsidised backup power plants.
That meant 8.8 GW of dedicated hydrogen power plants, alongside 15 GW of natural gas-powered ones that ought to switch to hydrogen by 2035 at the latest, in total representing about one-third of the German peak power demand of 2023. Climate-friendly power at the press of a button.
Because these plants would likely only produce power in periods of sustained low wind and low sun – known as “kalte Dunkelflaute” – they are unlikely to make a profit without state support.
And critically, the annual €7 billion earmarked for this purpose “evaporated” following a ruling from Germany’s top court, which restricted the government’s use of credit lines approved during the COVID-19 crisis.
With no hydrogen plants available as backup, coal power will likely be needed to fill the gap, the BDI chief warned.
“As long as the prospect of new backup power plants based on hydrogen does not get off the ground […] the solution in Germany will be the continued operation of coal-fired power plants,” Russwurm told the press on Tuesday (16 January).
Given budgetary constraints, the two industry associations are urgning the government to cut corners and ditch plans for hydrogen-fired power plants.
Industry groups are now urging the government to take action. “The Federal Government must now get its act together: We need a power plant strategy with clear framework conditions,” said energy industry association BDEW on 11 January.
“At least 15 gigawatts (GW) of new secure generation capacity will be needed in Germany by 2030,” the association added.
Given budgetary constraints, the two industry associations are urging the government to cut corners and ditch plans for hydrogen-fired power plants.
“To significantly reduce complexity and costs,” BDEW stresses the need to “reevaluate” the role afforded to hydrogen peak and hybrid power plants, due to their expensive components and limited impacts on supply security.
Russwurm is of a similar mind. Outlining the BDI’s priorities for the year, he used metaphors to explain what a hydrogen-fired power plant would look like.
Existing power plants can’t run on “pure” hydrogen because the “burners would simply melt”, he explained. Addressing this would require retrofitting the plants with ceramics, which would make them look like the nose of a spaceship folded inwards – a process that can be done but is costly, the BDI chief said.
“If these turbines are only supposed to run when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, then they will be extremely expensive,” he added.
“I’m not even talking about the cost of hydrogen, which we don’t have, but only the investment costs of these new gas turbines and their new peripherals.”
Ultimately, this means Germany’s plan to entirely phase out coal power by 2030 looks unlikely to materialise. Instead, Germany will have to continue relying on gas-fired power plants to match growing demand for electricity.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/germanys-dream-of-building-a-fleet-of-hydrogen-fired-power-plants-is-faltering/
As the guy from BDI notes, 7 billion euros a year is just the cost of subsidising these hydrogen back up power plants. On top of that comes the cost of actually producing the hydrogen and the question of where the electricity will come from to do it.
Biden halts new LNG exports
The fuel is seen as a vital lifeline for Western Europe, which has cut itself off from cheaper Russian gas imports
RT | January 26, 2024
US President Joe Biden has ordered a pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from new projects in the country, citing their potential contribution to climate change. Energy costs in Western Europe have skyrocketed since nations such as Germany switched from Russian gas to American LNG, but Biden insists the continent doesn’t currently need additional supplies.
The pause will allow the US Department of Energy (DOE) to update the economic and environmental guidelines it uses when approving new export licenses, and will last for several months.
“During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment,” Biden said in a statement on Friday. The president added that the pause “sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”
According to the White House, roughly half of American LNG exports went to Western Europe last year, and the US has exceeded its annual delivery targets to the EU for each of the last two years. “Today’s announcement will not impact our ability to continue supplying LNG to our allies in the near-term,” Biden claimed in his statement.
Europe remains mired in an energy crisis. The continent’s former industrial powerhouse, Germany, is “in a particularly difficult situation” after abandoning Russian gas supplies, Economy Minister Robert Habeck told lawmakers last week. Prior to the imposition of sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Germany received 40% of its gas imports from Russia. Replacing this fuel with LNG from the US, as well as energy from Norway and the Netherlands, has come at a cost, with the German government forced to roll out massive subsidy packages to prevent its largest industrial firms from leaving the country.
German industrial output fell by 2% last year, while the entire economy shrank by 0.3% in the same time period, the country’s Federal Statistical Office reported last week. The office blamed the decline on high inflation, soaring energy prices, and weak foreign demand.
LNG is transported on large tanker ships to regasification plants, where it is heated to return it to a gaseous state. Germany has rushed to bring three such offshore plants online since early 2022, and plans to open three more over the coming months. The US has also built out its LNG export infrastructure to cope with the demand, including the Calcasieu Pass 2 project in Louisiana, which once certified will be the nation’s largest export terminal.
The Calcasieu Pass 2 facility will likely come before the DOE for approval in the coming weeks, where it will be stalled indefinitely by Biden’s pause. With half of the terminal’s output set to go to Germany, a spokesman for the project’s developer, Venture Global, told Reuters last week that the pause would send a “devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States.”
The Hospitals Clinging to Covid Masks Despite All Evidence
BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JANUARY 17, 2024
Like those famous Japanese soldiers still fighting World War II on a remote island decades after everyone else had ended hostilities, a minority of healthcare settings in the U.K. enter 2024 with local managers attempting to insist that visitors and patients wear “face coverings” into a fourth consecutive year. For allowing the dogged persistence of this superstitious practice we can thank the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), despite the fact its own boss, Dame Jenny Harries, made a series of incredible admissions about the value of masking at the recent Covid Inquiry. There was no solid proof masks ever slowed the spread of Covid, Harries explained. The advice to the public to make their own “face coverings” was “ineffective”. Worst of all, by creating a false sense of security, masking may have actually made things worse, she said. Of course, if you’d been paying attention, you’d know Harries was really just coming full circle.
On March 11th 2020, in her previous role as Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, less than two weeks before the first lockdown Harries was telling the public in a televised interview with then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson that “for the average member of the public” masks “are really not a good idea… people can put themselves at more risk than less… you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in”. Harris was far from alone in dismissing the value of mask-wearing, of course, because in the early spring of 2020 the public health experts spoke with one tongue. “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that,” Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, had told Sky News on March 4th. “We do not recommend masks for general wearing,” echoed England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van Tam, on April 3rd. On the same day, Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s Clinical Director said, “the global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work”.
The experts were so clearly united in their anti-mask stance that, around this time, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned the advertisements of two companies because of spurious claims that their face coverings would protect against coronavirus. The intervention by the ASA won the unequivocal support of NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis who said, “callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned”.
On April 16th, then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps had told ITV that wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection [sic]. Thirdly, it can provide a false sense of security”. But only 49 days later, on June 4th 2020, Shapps announced that “face coverings – not surgical masks – the kind of face covering you can easily make at home” – would be compulsory on public transport from June 15th, on pain of fines of up to £100. A day later, Government announced that, effective June 15th, staff would be required to wear surgical masks – and visitors and outpatients “face coverings” – in all NHS hospitals, a state of affairs that would persist by law for almost two entire years.
Some may argue that, as there is no longer a legal requirement, there is therefore no problem. But there is no shortage of commentators periodically agitating to make the practice a legal requirement again. And in any case, healthcare settings see us at our most vulnerable. Why should we even be asked to live out an intrusive, dehumanising charade? Especially off the back of two years of state-driven hysteria and an unprecedentedly draconian global restriction regime that achieved the grimmest of logical conclusions when one victim, Stephanie Warriner, was choked to death by hospital guards for the ‘crime’ of wearing a mask too low on her face.
It has long been recognised that masks achieve no appreciable reduction in the transmission of respiratory viruses. We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. The amount of robust evidence pointing to the ineffectiveness of face coverings has only increased since this time, culminating in the 2023 Cochrane review. On healthcare settings specifically, a study in April 2023 concluded that mask requirements in a large London hospital made “no discernible difference” to Covid transmission rates. UKHSA guidance acknowledges that the evidence of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (including masks) is “weak” and “would be graded as low or very low certainty”. Even when masks were legally required in healthcare settings, no quality standard was ever specified – we were asked to swallow the absurdity that strapping any old bit of rag to our faces was to ‘Follow the Science’. Refer to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and you will find that even surgical masks are not regarded as personal protective equipment (PPE) under the European Directive 89/686/EEC (PPE Regulation 2002 SI 2002 No. 1144). HSE notes that surgical masks “are normally worn during medical procedures to protect not only the patient but also the healthcare worker from the transfer of microorganisms, body fluids and particulate matter generated from any splash and splatter. Whilst they will provide a physical barrier to large projected droplets, they do not provide full respiratory protection against smaller suspended droplets and aerosols”.
Even leaving aside Harries’s now repeated suggestions that masks can cause more harm than good when it comes to Covid, health is of course about much more than attempting to avoid one virus, and masking has never been a benign intervention.
Routine masking, particularly for long periods of time, is increasingly recognised to be associated with a wide range of physical, psychological and social harms (see here for an overview). A recent research study highlighted the potential risks of elevated carbon dioxide levels associated with long-term mask wearing, particularly for children, adolescents and pregnant mothers.
Then there are the human costs of routine masking in healthcare settings: the exclusion of the hard-of-hearing; the re-traumatising of the historically abused; the increased risk of falls in the elderly; the exacerbation of confusion in the already confused; the aggravation of the autistic, anxious and panic-prone; the marginalisation of already stigmatised groups; and the impediment to the goal of soothing the frightened child or suicidal teenager. Faceless interactions impede the development of healing relationships. Humane healthcare, delivered with demonstrable warmth and compassion, will always be more effective than the robotic version emitted by a faceless professional hidden behind a veneer of sterility.
But patients in healthcare settings aren’t the only victims of the mask farce. Respect for institutional science has rightly taken a knock as well, as Peter Horby, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health at the University of Oxford, conveyed to the Covid Inquiry. During peak Covid, Horby chaired NERVTAG, a high-profile group of scientific experts who routinely provided advice to SAGE. Appearing before the Inquiry on October 18th 2023, he confirmed that “NERVTAG had looked at the issues of face masks in the past… and had taken quite a stringent scientific view that the highest quality evidence is randomised controlled trials… and those data were fairly clear… that the evidence was weak. And we maintained that position on how we saw the evidence, focusing on the data from randomised controlled trials.”
Lady Hallett (the less-than impartial Chair of the inquiry) interrupted, saying, “I’m sorry, I’m not following, Sir Peter. If there’s a possible benefit, what’s the downside?”
“The downside is that you are making a population-wide recommendation based on weak evidence which may weaken trust in your scientific independence and integrity,” Horby replied.
Why would scientists and public health experts risk this very obvious downside? The most obvious explanation is that forcing the public to wear masks was a highly visible way to be seen to be ‘doing something’ that came with at least a couple of attractive bonuses to politicians and bureaucrats. One, the practice had superficial ‘gut feel’ appeal to the layperson – if you didn’t think about it very much, and never looked at the evidence, masking felt like it should work. Two, as with most of the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) it shifted blame for Covid impacts away from the state and health service and onto individuals. ‘Rule breakers’ among the public – now easily identifiable by sight – made for convenient folk devils and scapegoats.
On June 1st 2022, in a letter co-signed by the same Professor Stephen Powis who had been so withering about “callous firms” promoting face masks to stop the spread of Covid, new guidance from NHS England – referencing “updates from UKHSA” – effectively passed the buck for masking down to local healthcare managers, amid general talk of “transitioning back” to pre-Covid policies.
At the time, the Smile Free campaign wrote:
Two years after the imposition of masking in English hospitals, it is most regrettable that NHS England and the authors of this latest guidance could not simply have signalled a clean break and consigned this unprecedented, poorly evidenced and ultimately failed policy to history. Since they have chosen not to, by far the most likely outcome is that masking in English hospitals will now become a ‘postcode lottery’ based on the whims of local staff.
In an open letter co-signed by over 2,200 doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals in summer 2022, we had called on the NHS Chief Executives in each of the home nations to revise the guidance for doctors, nurses and other health professionals with immediate effect, leaving the individual – whether a professional or service user – to decide whether he or she wanted to wear a mask or not, thereby bringing healthcare into line with other community settings. But with the Government having terrified the public with lurid fear campaigns, advised gravely that masks would “keep everyone safe” and endorsed this claim with the law and eye-watering fines of up to £3,200 for non-compliance, perhaps we should not be surprised that simply pulling the comfort blanket away again was rather too rich for the NHS’s blood.
A reply, dated October 4th 2022, from Dame Ruth May, Chief Nursing Office and national lead for infection control at NHS England, justified current mask advice to hospitals with a computer modelling report linked to Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College that by its own admission was “highly uncertain”. We were startled to find the report was also literally labelled “Should not be used to inform clinical practice” on page one.
Despite masks never having actually gone away in many healthcare settings, the following day, news outlets were reporting the “return of the mask”. Between the Mail and Sun’s accounts, eight different NHS Trusts were reintroducing a range of measures, prominent among which were mask “requirements” for patients and visitors.
In all cases, these measures were apparently being introduced as a result of “Covid’s resurgence” with “surveillance data suggesting Covid is on the rise in England”.
Were those trusts imposing mask “requirements” in areas of above-average Covid prevalence? It appears not; there was no discernible pattern and, in fact, glaring contradictions. For example, Barnsley, with continuing significant restrictions, had a catchment area with the lowest daily new cases per 100,000 people; while Swindon and surrounding areas, served by the Great Western Trust that had reduced its mask restrictions, had the highest rate.
In investigating one trust, ESNEFT, the 10,000 patients reportedly seen every day were still being subjected to “safety theatre” going into a third year of the Covid saga, seemingly driven by a very small and unaccountable infection control team, if not in reality the whims of one man.
Even into autumn 2023, ESNEFT’s website giving advice for visitors to wards and to Accident & Emergency still states that people are required to wear “surgical face masks covering their nose and mouth” where there is a “high-risk of transmission of contagious respiratory infection” or if clinical staff ask them to wear one.
On September 26th 2023 the Smile Free campaign submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to ESNEFT, seeking three pieces of information:
- Within the geographical boundaries covered by ESNEFT, COVID-19 case numbers (per 100,000 people) by month since October 2022.
- A copy of the full risk assessment document used to determine that it is necessary for ESNEFT to keep “mandating” the wearing of face masks.
- The most recent date that these mandates were subject to risk assessment and updated.
ESNEFT replied a month later, saying that it “does not have access” to any data related to Covid case numbers within its locality. Obviously, this raises the question as to how its staff ever knew whether ‘Covid cases’ were increasing, decreasing or staying flat? It further raises the question as to how they were ever able to make any decisions on mandating, or even recommending, the wearing of face coverings as ‘protection’ against a respiratory virus? It also throws into doubt ESNEFT’s operational competence. ESNEFT also claims that, as it hasn’t operated a “universal mandate” since May 2023, it doesn’t have a risk assessment. ESNEFT never answered the final question, concerning the most recent date at which it conducted a risk assessment. Should we conclude it has never done one?
In response to a similar FOI request around the same time, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which had reintroduced masking “requirements”, told us it doesn’t “hold the data for regional/community Covid data”, nor “a formal risk assessment” that would justify reintroduction of mask-wearing. In fact, it doesn’t have any “formal risk assessment” used to justify the mandating of masks at all, from any time. Instead it claims it has “a trust-wide expert group which reviews and agrees all actions required depending on the Covid prevalence level which includes the wearing of COVID-19 face masks”. In other words, unilateral decisions are made by a group of staff who don’t feel it necessary to follow the prescribed decision-making processes within their organisation (the NHS) and who don’t record their findings and document them in any formal way. We therefore followed up, asking for the roles of the individuals in this group. At time of writing, the trust had not provided an answer despite being long overdue based on FOI requirements.
In a second open letter in summer 2023, this time co-signed by over 2,500 doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals and 7,500 members of the public, we called on the NHS Chief Executives to immediately issue clear new guidance explicitly discouraging any routine requirement for staff, patients or visitors to cover their faces in healthcare settings.
This time, NHS England’s Dame Ruth May specifically referenced UKHSA guidance as the reason for the ongoing “postcode lottery”, stating “the current UKHSA guidance… sets out that in health and care settings, non-pharmaceutical interventions (such as mask wearing and enhanced ventilation) may be used, depending on local prevalence and risk assessment, with the aim to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2”. It is interesting that “local prevalence and risk assessment” should be emphasised as the key considerations, since our investigations show hospitals unable to provide any evidence of increased local prevalence, nor risk assessments, to underpin their arbitrary decisions.
On November 2nd 2023, a few weeks before Harries’s appearance at the Covid Inquiry, we wrote an open letter to her at UKHSA asking her to explain the discrepancy between UKHSA’s current guidance, which, while broadly recommending a return to pre-pandemic normality, continues to allow re-imposition of masks where there is a local appetite for it, and its recent literature review, which concluded the evidence for masks reducing viral transmission was, at best, very weak.
We asked Harries to immediately update UKHSA guidance so as to:
- Acknowledge the ineffectiveness of masks as a viral barrier;
- Explicitly recognise the range of harms associated with the masking of staff, patients and visitors in healthcare settings;
- Actively discourage the routine wearing of masks in all clinical areas.
At time of writing, we still await a reply – though we note that via her Covid Inquiry testimony Harries has clearly conceded point one above, and identified one extremely significant harm – the false sense of security engendered by masking – from point two.
In everyday life, it only makes sense to initiate a new action if we are reasonably confident it will not result in more harms than benefits. The importance of this notion is amplified manyfold when it is powerful actors – politicians and their public health experts – forcing the change on their citizens. The ‘Precautionary Principle‘ in its original form endorsed this important rule and complemented the Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to “first do no harm”. Yet throughout the Covid saga we have witnessed a total disregard for this principle with the imposition of a series of non-evidenced restrictions, driven more by politics than science, where the resulting collateral damage – to both the public and to the reputation of medicine and institutional science – has dwarfed any benefits. A prominent example of such absurdity has been the mask requirement in community settings.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign opposed to mask mandates.
Federal Court Judge Pulls Canada Back from the Brink
By Bruce Pardy | Brownstone Institute | January 25, 2024
The Canadian government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. The Trucker Convoy did not constitute a national emergency. So said a judge of the Federal Court on Tuesday. The decision may help to pull Canada back from the brink of authoritarian rule.
The Federal Court decision contains four conclusions. Two prerequisites for invoking the Emergencies Act, said Justice Richard Mosley, were not met. Moreover, the two regulations issued under it were unconstitutional. Predictably, the government has promised to appeal. For the government to prevail, an appeal panel would have to overturn all four. But there is a wrinkle, which I will get to momentarily.
Between 1963 and 1970, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), a separatist organization in Quebec, committed bombings, robberies, and killed several people. In October 1970, they kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross, and then kidnapped and killed Pierre Laporte, a minister in the Quebec government. In response, Pierre Trudeau’s government invoked the War Measures Act, the only time it had been used in peacetime. In the years that followed, the invocation of the Act became regarded as a dangerous overreach of government powers and breach of civil liberties.
The Emergencies Act, enacted in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act, had higher thresholds. It was supposed to be more difficult for governments to trigger. Before Covid and the trucker convoy, it had never been used.
The Freedom Convoy arrived at Parliament Hill in Ottawa on January 29, 2022 to protest Covid vaccine mandates. The truckers parked unlawfully in downtown Ottawa. They violated parking bylaws and probably the Highway Traffic Act. Authorities could have issued tickets and towed the trucks away. But they didn’t.
In the meantime, protests in other parts of the country emerged. Trucks blocked border crossings in Coutts, Alberta and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Local and provincial law enforcement dealt with those protests and cleared the borders. By February 15, when Justin Trudeau’s government declared a public order emergency and invoked the Emergencies Act, only the Ottawa protests had not been resolved.
The government issued two regulations under the Act. One prohibited public assemblies “that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.” The other outlawed donations and authorized banks to freeze donors’ bank accounts. On February 18 and 19, police brandishing riot batons descended on the crowd. They arrested close to 200 people, broke truck windows, and unleashed the occasional burst of pepper spray. By the evening of the 19th, they had cleared the trucker encampment away. Banks froze the accounts and credit cards of hundreds of supporters. On February 23, the government revoked the regulations and use of the Act.
Governments cannot use the Emergencies Act unless its prerequisites are met. A public order emergency must be a “national emergency” and a “threat to the security of Canada,” both of which are defined in the Act. A national emergency exists only if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” “Threats to the security of Canada” can be one of several things. The government relied upon the clause that requires activities “directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective.”
The trucker protests were neither a national emergency, Mosley concluded, nor a threat to the security of Canada.
There was no national emergency:
Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort. [Cabinet] cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces.…in this instance, the evidence is clear that the majority of the provinces were able to deal with the situation using other federal law, such as the Criminal Code, and their own legislation…For these reasons, I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires.
A threat to the security of Canada did not exist:
Ottawa was unique in the sense that it is clear that [Ottawa Police Services] had been unable to enforce the rule of law in the downtown core, at least in part, due to the volume of protesters and vehicles. The harassment of residents, workers and business owners in downtown Ottawa and the general infringement of the right to peaceful enjoyment of public spaces there, while highly objectionable, did not amount to serious violence or threats of serious violence…[Cabinet] did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the Act and the decision was ultra vires.
Nor were the regulations constitutional. The prohibition on public assemblies infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Empowering financing institutions to provide personal financial information to the government and to freeze bank accounts and credit cards was an unconstitutional search and seizure under section 8. Neither was justified, Mosley concluded, under section 1 of the Charter, the “reasonable limits” clause.
To prevail on appeal, the government would have to reverse all four conclusions. Justice Mosley did not make obvious errors of law. But there are a couple of odd bits. In particular, Mosley admits to doubts about how he would have proceeded had he been at the cabinet table himself:
I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law…
Which brings us to the wrinkle. In April 2022, Richard Wagner, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, gave an interview to Le Devoir. Speaking in French, he characterized the protest on Wellington Street in Ottawa, where Parliament and the Supreme Court are located, as “the beginning of anarchy where some people have decided to take other citizens hostage.” Wagner said that “forced blows against the state, justice and democratic institutions like the one delivered by protesters… should be denounced with force by all figures of power in the country.” He did not mention the Emergencies Act by name. But his comments could be interpreted as endorsing its use.
The government’s appeal will go first to the Federal Court of Appeal but then to the Supreme Court of Canada. Its chief justice appears to have already formed an opinion about the dispute. Having made his public comments, the chief justice should announce that he will recuse himself from the case to avoid a reasonable perception of bias. That too would help bring Canada back from the brink.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.
Israel clinches new US arms deal as Gaza atrocities mount
The Cradle | January 26, 2024
The US is finalizing three major military aircraft sales to Israel, as it continues to bomb Gaza, across a series of meetings led by the director general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, Eyal Zamir, Haaretz reported on 25 January.
Progress was made toward purchasing 25 F-35 fighter jets, 25 F-15 fighter jets, and a new squadron of Apache attack helicopters, possibly involving 12 units. These jets and helicopters will reportedly be paid for using the US aid provided to Israel.
Zamir, alongside other officials, held a series of meetings in Washington with senior Pentagon and State Department officials. The Israeli officials met with arms dealers, namely Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-35, and Boeing, manufacturer of the F-16 and Apache.
Haaretz reports that the sale “demonstrated the urgent need to deploy attack helicopters to hit enemy targets and to assist [Israeli army] ground forces.”
The F-35 and F15 purchases will be carried out after completing previous purchases of a second F-35 squadron. The third F-35 group will arrive in Israel from 2027 onward, and the new F-15s will be received a year later. The Apaches are expected to arrive in Israel within two years.
Alongside the procurement of jets and helicopters, Israel has also increased its aerial munitions purchases, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, that are expected to arrive shortly.
These arms are needed to both replenish their quickly depleting stockpile in the fight against Palestinian resistance forces in Gaza as well as to prepare the front in the north against the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah.
The US has voiced concerns over its potential need to stretch an already thin ammunition stockpile to support Israel as well as continue its support for Ukraine.
Israel’s new proposed budget has increased its weapons spending budget by an extra $8.3 billion, now projecting it to a historic high of about $37 billion.
Israel has been carrying out a brutal bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip since their war on the besieged enclave began in October. To date, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, at least 26,083 Palestinians have been killed and with over 64,000 injuries.
US enlists extremists to attack Russian troops in Syria: Official
The Cradle | January 26, 2024
The Russian President’s Special Envoy to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, has accused Washington of directing Syrian armed groups to carry out attacks against Russian troops in the country.
“There are indications that the Americans are specifying tasks for their forces from among the Syrian armed opposition to inflict the greatest amount of damage on Russian military forces in Syria,” Lavrentiev said on 26 January.
Lavrentiev added these attacks are planned not only against Russian forces in southern Syria but also in what is known as the Idlib de-escalation zone northwest of the country – patrolled by Russian and Turkish forces in line with a 2018 agreement.
“[The US] has begun … supplying [extremist groups] with modern weapons and modern drones so that it can carry out raids, including on the Hmeimim base.”
Hmeimim is a Russian-operated military base located southeast of the Syrian city of Latakia. Hostile, unidentified drones have approached the Hmeimim base in the past.
On 3 October, Idlib-based extremists launched a drone towards a crowded military college in the city of Homs, killing dozens of civilians and graduating officers.
Russian officials have repeatedly accused the US of harboring and training extremist militants in Syria, particularly inside Washington’s Al-Tanf military base.
Russian and Syrian officials have also accused US forces of providing ISIS with logistical support and allowing it to operate from the 55-kilometer area surrounding the Al-Tanf base.
Lavrentiev’s comments come as ISIS is making a resurgence in Syria. Despite losing the majority of its territory in the country, the group’s cells operate in the Syrian desert – geographically linked to Al-Tanf and the 55-kilometer zone around it – carrying out frequent hit and run attacks against Syrian troops, civilians, farmers, and truffle harvesters.
This marked resurgence in ISIS activity coincides with ongoing attacks on US bases in Syria and Iraq by Iraqi resistance factions in support of Gaza and in rejection of US support for Israel.
Since October, the Iraqi resistance has launched at least 153 attacks on the US bases.
US officials are reportedly also in talks to establish a time-table with the Iraqi government for a withdrawal of their troops from Iraq.
However, sources told Reuters that the talks “are expected to take several months, if not longer, with the outcome unclear and no US troop withdrawal imminent.”
As US bases in Syria come under fire, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – a US-backed Kurdish militia which helps oversee Washington’s occupation of the country’s oilfields – has also been facing a widespread rebellion since last August, waged by Arab tribes with Syrian government backing.
Saudi, Chinese vessels undeterred by Yemen Red Sea ops
The Cradle | January 26, 2024
Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, is continuing to send oil and fuel tankers through the Red Sea, despite US and UK bombing of Yemen and attacks by Yemen’s armed forces on Israeli, US, and UK-linked ships passing through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
“We’re moving in the Red Sea with our oil and products cargoes,” Mohammed al-Qahtani, head of Aramco’s refining and oil trading and marketing businesses, told Bloomberg on 26 January.
The risks of continuing to use the Red Sea route to Europe amid the violence are “manageable,” he said.
In November, Yemen’s de-facto government, led by the Ansarallah resistance movement, began targeting ships with Israeli links and ships traveling to Israel via the Red Sea and Suez Canal.
Ansarallah took the decision in response to Israel’s bombing and ground campaign against Gaza, which many view as a genocide.
Rather than press Israel to end attacks on Gaza, the US and UK began bombing targets in Yemen, endangering not only Israeli-linked ships but ships from other nations as well.
In response, many of the world’s largest shipping companies began redirecting ships around the Horn of Africa, adding two weeks to the journey from Asia to Europe.
But in January, Aramco increased crude shipments through the Red Sea toward Europe, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
“That is also giving us huge access and optionality,” Qahtani said. “We are assessing that almost on a daily basis.”
He said that the cost of these shipments has increased, as few shipping companies are willing to travel the route, and insurance costs have risen. “But overall it’s is very manageable.”
Most Saudi crude is exported east to Asia, but the kingdom has been able to continue using the Red Sea route for western shipments due to its continued ties with the Yemeni government.
Saudi Arabia and Ansarallah continue to negotiate a formal end to the war they fought between 2015 and 2022.
As western shipping companies have rerouted their ships, Chinese firms have stepped in to fill the void, as China also enjoys good relations with Ansarallah and does not fear its ships being attacked in the Red Sea.
Chinese firms have been serving ports such as Doraleh in Djibouti, Hodeidah in Yemen, and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, which all saw major drops in port traffic following the attacks.
Cichen Shen, the China expert at Lloyd’s List Intelligence, told the Financial Times that the “easiest explanation” for the rush of Chinese operators into the region was that they seek to exploit their relative invulnerability to attack to win business.
“You have commercial interest and you see this capacity gap and you see the demand,” Shen said of the lines’ motivation for moving ships to the region. “I think the commercial interest is probably the biggest reason.”
Featured Video
Iran’s Mass Protests /Patrick Henningsen & Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Does Kevin Barrett Seek to “Absolve Islam of a Terrible Crime”?
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Last part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 28, 2016
Amidst his litany of condemnations, Jonathan Kay reserves some of his most vicious and vitriolic attacks for Kevin Barrett. For instance Kay harshly criticizes Dr. Barrett’s published E-Mail exchange in 2008 with Prof. Chomsky. In that exchange Barrett castigates Chomsky for not going to the roots of the event that “doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution.” The original misrepresentations of 9/11, argues Barrett, led to further “false flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide.”
In Among The Truthers Kay tries to defend Chomsky against Barrett’s alleged “personal obsession” with “vilifying” the MIT academic. Kay objects particularly to Barrett’s “final salvo” in the published exchange where the Wisconsin public intellectual accuses Prof. Chomsky of having “done more to keep the 9/11 blood libel alive, and cause the murder of more than a million Muslims than any other single person.” … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje… loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America… John Edward Kendrick on Donald Trump, and Most America…
Aletho News- Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners
- Eilat port faces worst crisis as Red Sea shipping collapses
- Iran protest-riots can only achieve US-Israeli intervention, ‘shadow CIA’ concludes
- The Coming War on Iran: What Has Really Been Happening?
- US Cargo Planes Have Flooded the Persian Gulf Since the First of December
- Deep-state forces from abroad instigated violence in Nepal – former foreign minister
- Rare Earths—or Arctic Control? Greenland’s Riches May Just Be Excuse
- Kiev awards major mining project to Trump-linked investors
- US makes money from weapons, not from Ukrainian minerals
- Drone hits Kazakh tanker en route to Russian port
- If Americans Knew
- The New Neoconservatives
- As more Gaza children freeze to death, Trump eyes Gaza as starting point for world domination – Not a ceasefire Day 95
- More death: in Gaza, West Bank, Israeli prison – Not a ceasefire Day 94
- The Israeli Influence Operation Aiming to Install Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran
- Avoidable tragedy: another infant dies from cold – Not a ceasefire Day 93
- Israel is quietly erasing Palestinian refugee camps from existence in the West Bank
- The “Zionist tint” to the Maduro abduction, if not operational, then normative
- Press association condemns Israel’s continued ban on media access to Gaza
- Israeli Indifference to Palestinian Suffering Is Fertile Ground for the Growth of Sadism
- Surge in premature births, congenital defects, cancer deaths in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 92
- No Tricks Zone
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
Aletho News 