Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ex-UK Army Chief Nick Carter, Once In Charge of “Misinformation” Surveillance Army Unit, Joins Tony Blair Institute

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 28, 2024

A new noteworthy instance of what can be described as the UK-style revolving door policy, where those working for the government and private entities switch employers in both directions, has happened in that country.

A former chief of the British Army, under whose watch the 77th Brigade was spying on citizens during the pandemic, has now joined Tony Blair’s organization.

General Nick Carter is therefore a new recruit at the Institute for Global Change (globalist not in name only, either) – which the former British prime minister set up to supposedly create “open, inclusive and prosperous countries for all.”

Carter previously “distinguished” himself at the peak of the pandemic for allowing a unit under his command to hunt down “bad” speech on the internet – that of citizens skeptical of Covid measures and related contentious issues, whatever was treated as “Covid misinformation.”

Carter’s fellow new recruit at the Institute is former Government Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Another new hire is Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin. They will act as members of a team of “expert strategic counselors” in what critics might call Blair’s elitist globalist group – his own version of WEF, even.

Before becoming Blair’s private adviser, Carter, a decorated officer, served as the principal military advisor to the prime minister (reports don’t say which ones), as head of the Armed Forces, and finally the chief of the Defense Staff for the United Kingdom.

Back in the spring of 2020, reports cited Carter, then at the helm of the Defense Staff, saying that the 77th Brigade was “countering coronavirus misinformation online.”

Not a traditional deployment of a country’s military potential, even if it is one set up to carry out physiological warfare, like 77th Brigade had been.

And it didn’t make things better that the target of this warfare was free speech on the UK’s citizens – on Twitter, Facebook and the like.

No less than 2,000 military personnel were involved in this, with a dubious to say the least goal of what looks like a straight-forward attempt to sway opinion among the population.

This was at the time phrased as delivering “means of shaping behavior through the use of dynamic narratives.”

Related: 

Tony Blair Institute Calls For a Digital ID For All British Citizens, Calls It The “Great Enabler”

UK government monitored tweets from high profile journalists and politicians that criticized Covid policy

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

EU-Created Fund Interfering in Georgia’s Elections – Parliament Speaker

Sputnik – 28.02.2024

TBILISI – The EU-established European Endowment for Democracy (EED) fund is interfering in the parliamentary elections to come in Georgia by financing various political parties, Georgian parliamentary speaker Shalva Papuashvili said on Wednesday.

“EED does not disclose its own expenses in Georgia. Apparently, the fund directly finances political parties and interferes in the elections. Holding the elections properly is part of the nine points [needed to be taken by Georgia for EU integration] and we cannot deal with this alone. The European Union, its representative office, the European Commission must intervene, because this foundation is an institution created by the EU,” Papuashvili told reporters.

If not stopped, foreign funding will harm the elections, which are scheduled to take place in the country, on October 26, and hinder the choice of the Georgian people, the parliamentary speaker added.

“We are seeing that a significant part of the opposition is being financed directly from abroad and, given the fact that the current year is an election year, this is equivalent to foreign interference in the elections in Georgia. Foreign interference is one of the threats expected in these elections … For the elections to be transparent, it is necessary to prohibit and stop direct or indirect funding of parties in Georgia through European channels,” Papuashvili said.

Established in 2023 by the European Union, EED officially aims to promote democracy in the European Neighborhood, the Western Balkans, and Turkiye.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Time’s ‘New Antisemitism’ is More Woke Garbage

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity | February 29, 2024

We’ve all heard the “woke” assertion that some people cannot be considered racist no matter how they act or what they say while other people are destined to live their entire lives as racists no matter how they act or what they say. The key difference between the two groups of people is whether their ancestry dictates they be labeled among the oppressors or the oppressed.

People exercising rationality see through this nonsense. They can judge people’s actions and statements with no investigation of family trees required.

Reading the Tuesday editorial “The New Antisemitism” at Time one comes across a fair amount of interesting commentary. But, in the end, the editorial just ends up applying a variation of the now familiar woke garbage assertions to Israel’s ongoing war. The Israel government cannot be engaging in genocide in its war because Israel is “the Jewish state” and Jewish people have a long history of being much oppressed, plus people who say otherwise are antisemitic. That is how the author Noah Feldman wraps up the editorial.

Here is the Time editorial’s presentation of its conclusions on genocide and antisemitism:

There is something specifically noteworthy about leveling the [genocide] charge at the Jewish state—something intertwined with the new narrative of the Jews as archetypal oppressors rather than archetypal victims. Call it the genocide sleight of hand: if the Jews are depicted as genocidal—if Israel becomes the very archetype of a genocidal state—then Jews are much less likely to be conceived as a historically oppressed people engaged in self-defense.

The new narrative of Jews as oppressors is, in the end, far too close for comfort to the antisemitic tradition of singling out Jews as uniquely deserving of condemnation and punishment, whether in its old religious form or its Nazi iteration. Like those earlier forms of antisemitism, the new kind is not ultimately about the Jews, but about the human impulse to point the finger at someone who can be made to carry the weight of our social ills.

The Time editorial says people seeking to hold the Israel government to account for its actions and statements are applying a “genocide sleight of hand” rooted in antisemitism. However, critical readers will recognize that real sleight of hand is the rhetorical sleight of hand whereby the clever wording of the editorial is used in an attempt to absolve a government for its horrendous actions by defining that government as a perpetual victim and its accusers as inescapably antisemites.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Russia Reveals Ties With Germany, France at Unprecedented Low

Sputnik -29.02.2024

MOSCOW – The signing of a security agreement between Paris, Berlin, and Kiev does not affect relations with Russia, which are at rock bottom, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Sputnik.

“Referring specifically to Russia-Germany and Russia-France relations, I would like to emphasize that, unfortunately, at this stage there is little that could affect them for the worse. They are already at an unprecedentedly low level,” she said.

According to Zakharova, “the former partners [Germany and France] have discarded the voluminous baggage of large-scale, mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation [with Russia] accumulated over several generations.”

“This is not our decision. For two years we have been watching how NATO countries, including Germany and France playing a particularly active role (with Berlin ranking second after the United States in terms of supplying arms and military equipment to the Kiev regime), have been pumping Ukraine with modern lethal systems, training soldiers, supplying intelligence, and contributing to the escalation of hostilities,” Zakharova noted.

“All this makes them direct accomplices in Ukraine’s deeds,” she emphasized.

The spokeswoman claimed “the elites of these countries still indulge themselves in illusions about the possibility of inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia and consider Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ ultimatum – which, we reiterate, is unacceptable to us – as the only basis for resolving the Ukrainian crisis.”

“In this context, the signing of new agreements is another – albeit symbolic – move in the West’s hybrid war with Russia, a confirmation of the focus on long-term confrontation with our country and an unwillingness to go down the path of political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict,” she concluded.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

The CIA in Ukraine — The NY Times Gets a Guided Tour

By Patrick Lawrence | ScheerPost | February 29, 2024

If you have paid attention to what various polls and officials in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West have been doing and saying about Ukraine lately, you know the look and sound of desperation. You would be desperate, too, if you were making a case for a war Ukrainians are on the brink of losing and will never, brink or back-from-the-brink, have any chance of winning. Atop this, you want people who know better, including 70 percent of Americans according to a recent poll, to keep investing extravagant sums in this ruinous folly.

And here is what seems to me the true source of angst among these desperados: Having painted this war as a cosmic confrontation between the world’s democrats and the world’s authoritarians, the people who started it and want to prolong it have painted themselves into a corner. They cannot lose it. They cannot afford to lose a war they cannot win: This is what you see and hear from all those good-money-after-bad people still trying to persuade you that a bad war is a good war and that it is right that more lives and money should be pointlessly lost to it.

Everyone must act for the cause in these dire times. You have Chuck Schumer in Kyiv last week trying to show House Republicans that they should truly, really authorize the Biden regime to spend an additional $61 billion on its proxy war with Russia. “Everyone we saw, from Zelensky on down made this very point clear,” the Democratic senator from New York asserted in an interview with The New York Times. “If Ukraine gets the aid, they will win the war and beat Russia.”

Even at this late hour people still have the nerve to say such things.

You have European leaders gathering in Paris Monday to reassure one another of their unity behind the Kyiv regime—and where Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending NATO ground troops to the Ukrainian front. “Russia cannot and must not win this war,” the French president declared to his guests at the Elysée Palace.

Except that it can and, barring an act of God, it will.

Then you have Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s war-mongering sec-gen, telling Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty last week that it will be fine if Kyiv uses F–16s to attack Russian cities once they are operational this summer. The U.S.–made fighter jets, the munitions, the money—all of it is essential “to ensure Russia doesn’t make further gains.” Stephen Bryen, formerly a deputy undersecretary at the Defense Department, offered an excellent response to this over the weekend in his Weapons and Strategy newsletter: “Fire Jens Stoltenberg before it is too late.”

Good thought, but Stoltenberg, Washington’s longtime water-carrier in Brussels, is merely doing his job as assigned: Keep up the illusions as to Kyiv’s potency and along with it the Russophobia, the more primitive the better. You do not get fired for irresponsible rhetoric that risks something that might look a lot like World War III.

What would a propaganda blitz of this breadth and stupidity be without an entry from The New York Times ? Given the extent to which the Times has abandoned all professional principle in the service of the power it is supposed to report upon, you just knew it would have to get in on this one.

The Times has published very numerous pieces in recent weeks on the necessity of keeping the war going and the urgency of a House vote authorizing that $61 billion Biden’s national security people want to send Ukraine. But never mind all those daily stories. Last Sunday it came out with its big banana. “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin” sprawls—lengthy text, numerous photographs. The latter show the usual wreckage—cars, apartment buildings, farmhouses, a snowy dirt road lined with landmines. But the story that goes with it is other than usual.

Somewhere in Washington, someone appears to have decided it was time to let the Central Intelligence Agency’s presence and programs in Ukraine be known. And someone in Langley, the CIA’s headquarters, seems to have decided this will be O.K., a useful thing to do. When I say the agency’s presence and programs, I mean some : We get a very partial picture of the CIA’s doings in Ukraine, as the lies of omission—not to mention the lies of commission—are numerous in this piece. But what the Times published last weekend, all 5,500 words of it, tells us more than had been previously made public.

Let us consider this unusually long takeout carefully for what it is and how it came to make page one of last Sunday’s editions.

In a recent commentary I reflected on the mess the Times landed in when it published a thoroughly discredited p.o.s.—and I leave readers to understand this newsroom expression—on the sexual violence Hamas militias allegedly committed last Oct. 7. I described a corrupt but routinized relationship between the organs of official power and the journalists charged with reporting on official power, likening it to a foie gras farmer feeding his geese: The Times’s journalists opened wide and swallowed. For appearances’ sake, they then set about dressing up what they ingested as independently reported work. This is the routine.

It is the same, yet more obviously, with this extended piece on the CIA’s activities in Ukraine. Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz tell the story of—this the subhead—“a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.” They set the scene in a below-ground monitoring and communications center the CIA showed Ukrainian intel how to build beneath the wreckage of an army outpost destroyed in a Russian missile attack. They report on the archipelago of such places the agency paid for, designed, equipped, and now helps operate. Twelve of these, please note, are along Ukraine’s border with Russia.

Entous and Schwirtz, it is time to mention, are not based in Ukraine. They operate from Washington and New York respectively. This indicates clearly enough the genesis of “The Spy War.” There was no breaking down of doors involved here, no intrepid correspondents digging, no tramping around in Ukraine’s mud and cold, unguided. The CIA handed these two material according to what it wanted and did not want disclosed, and various officials associated with it made themselves available as “sources”—none of the American sources named, per usual.

Are we supposed to think these reporters found the underground bunker and all the other such installations by dint of their “investigation”—a term they have the gall to use as they describe what they did? And then they developed some kind of grand exposé of all the agency wanted to keep hidden? Is this it?

Sheer pretense, nothing more. Entous and Schwirtz opened wide and got fed. There appears to be nothing in what they wrote that was not effectively authorized, and we can probably do without “effectively.”

There is also the question of sources. Entous and Schwirtz say they conducted 200 interviews to get this piece done. If they did, and I will stay with my “if,” they do not seem to have been very good interviews to go by the published piece. And however many interviews they did, this must still be counted a one-source story, given that everyone quoted in it reflects the same perspective and so reinforces, more or less, what everyone else quoted has to say. The sources appear to have been handed to Entous and Schwirtz as was access to the underground bunker.

The narrative thread woven through the piece is interesting. It is all about the two-way, can’t-do-without-it cooperation between the CIA and Ukraine’s main intel services—the SBU (the domestic spy agency) and military intelligence, which goes by HUR. In this the piece reads like a difficult courtship that leads to a happy-at-last consummation. It took a long time for the Americans to trust the Ukrainians, we read, as they, the Americans, assumed the SBU was thick with Russian double agents. But the Ukrainian spooks enticed them with stacks and stacks of intelligence that seems to have astonished the CIA people on the ground and back in Langley.

So, a tale with two moving parts: The Americans helped the Ukrainians get their technology, methods, and all-around spookery up to snuff, and the Ukrainians made themselves indispensable to the Americans by providing wads of raw intel. Entous and Schwirtz describe this symbiosis as “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.” Here is how a former American official put it, as the Times quotes him or her:

The relationships only got stronger and stronger because both sides saw value in it, and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv—our station there, the operation out of Ukraine—became the best source of information, signals and everything else, on Russia. We couldn’t get enough of it.

As to omissions and commissions, there are things left out in this piece, events that are blurred, assertions that are simply untrue and proven to be so. What amazes me is how far back Entous and Schwirtz reach to dredge up all this stuff—even to the point they make fools of themselves and remind us of the Times’s dramatic loss of credibility since the current round of Russophobia took hold a decade ago.

Entous and Schwirtz begin their account of the CIA–SBU/HUR alliance in 2014, when the U.S. cultivated the coup in Kyiv that brought the present regime to power and ultimately led to Russia’s military intervention. But no mention of the U.S. role in it. They write, “The CIA’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.” Neat, granular, but absolutely false. The coup began  three days earlier, on Feb. 21, and as Vladimir Putin reminded Tucker Carlson during the latter’s Feb. 6 interview with the Russian president, it was the CIA that did the groundwork.

I confess a special affection for this one: “The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Entous and Schwirtz write. And later in the piece, this:

In one joint operation, a[n] HUR team duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service into providing information that allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference efforts in a number of countries.

Wonderful. Extravagantly nostalgic for that twilight interim that began eight years ago, when nothing had to be true so long as it explained why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why Donald Trump is No. 1 among America’s “deplorables.”

I have never seen evidence of Russian government interference in another nation’s elections, including America’s in 2016, and I will say with confidence you haven’t, either. All that came to be associated with the Russiagate fable, starting with the never-happened hack of the Democratic Party’s mail, was long ago revealed to be concocted junk. As to “Fancy Bear,” and its cousin “Cozy Bear”—monikers almost certainly cooked up over a long, fun lunch in Langley—for the umpteenth time these are not groups of hackers or any other sort of human being: They are sets of digital tools available to anyone who wants to use them.

Sloppy, tiresome. But to a purpose. Why, then? What is the Times’s purpose in publishing this piece?

We can start, logically enough, with that desperation evident among those dedicated to prolonging the war. The outcome of the war, in my read and in the view of various military analysts, does not depend on the $61 billion in aid that now hangs in the balance. But the Biden regime seems to think it does, or pretends to think it does. The Times’s most immediate intent, so far as one can make out from the piece, is to add what degree of urgency it can to this question.

Entous and Schwirtz report that the people running Ukrainian intelligence are nervous that without a House vote releasing new funds “the CIA will abandon them.” Good enough that it boosts the case to cite nervous Ukrainians, but we should recognize that this is a misapprehension. The CIA has a very large budget entirely independent of what Congress votes one way or another. William Burns, the CIA director, traveled to Kyiv two weeks ago to reassure his counterparts that “the U.S. commitment will continue,” as Entous and Schwirtz quote him saying. This is perfectly true, assuming Burns referred to the agency’s commitment.

More broadly, the Times piece appears amid flagging enthusiasm for the Ukraine project. And it is in this circumstance that Entous and Schwirtz went long on the benefits accruing to the CIA in consequence of its presence on the ground in Ukraine. But read these two reporters carefully: They, or whoever put their piece in its final shape, make it clear that the agency’s operations on Ukrainian soil count first and most as a contribution to Washington’s long campaign to undermine the Russian Federation. This is not about Ukrainian democracy, that figment of neoliberal propagandists. It is about Cold War II, plain and simple. It is time to reinvigorate the old Russophobia, thus—and hence all the baloney about Russians corrupting elections and so on. It is all there for a reason.

To gather these thoughts and summarize, This piece is not journalism and should not be read as such. Neither do Entous and Schwirtz serve as journalists. They are clerks of the governing class pretending to be journalists while they post notices on a bulletin board that pretends to be a newspaper.

Let’s dolly out to put this piece in its historical context and consider the implications of its appearance in the once-but-fallen newspaper of record. Let’s think about the early 1970s, when it first began to emerge that the CIA had compromised the American media  and broadcasters.

Jack Anderson, the admirably iconoclastic columnist, lifted the lid on the agency’s infiltration of the media by way of a passing mention of a corrupted correspondent in 1973. A year later a former Los Angeles Times correspondent named Stuart Loory published the first extensive exploration of relations between the CIA and the media in the Columbia Journalism Review. Then, in 1976, the Church Committee opened its famous hearings in the Senate. It took up all sorts of agency malfeasance—assassinations, coups, illegal covert ops. Its intent was also to disrupt the agency’s misuse of American media and restore the latter to their independence and integrity.

The Church Committee is still widely remembered for getting its job done. But it never did. A year after Church produced its six-volume report, Rolling Stone published “The CIA and the Media,” Carl Bernstein’s well-known piece. Bernstein went considerably beyond the Church Committee, demonstrating that it pulled its punches rather than pull the plug on the CIA’s intrusions in the media. Faced with the prospect of forcing the CIA to sever all covert ties with the media, a senator Bernstein did not name remarked, “We just weren’t ready to take that step.”

We should read the Times’s piece on the righteousness of the CIA’s activities in Ukraine—bearing in mind the self-evident cooperation between the agency and the newspaper—with this history in mind.

America was just emerging from the disgraces of the McCarthyist period when Stuart Loory opened the door on this question, the Church Committee convened, and Carl Bernstein filled in the blanks. In and out of the profession there was disgust at the covert relationship between media and the spooks. Now look. What was then viewed as top-to-bottom objectionable is now routinized. It is “as usual.” In my read this is one consequence among many of the Russiagate years: They again plunged Americans and their mainstream media into the same paranoia that produced the corruptions of the 1950s and 1960s.

Alas, the scars of the swoon we call Russiagate are many and run deep.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Hypersonic weapons promised six years ago now in service – Putin

RT | February 29, 2024

Moscow’s plans to deploy new, advanced weaponry, first revealed in 2018, have been realized or are in completion phases, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a keynote speech on Thursday.

Russian troops have already used the Kinzhal and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles in combat, hitting high-value Ukrainian military targets, Putin said, in an address to the Federal Assembly.

The Avangard strategic hypersonic gliders and the Peresvet laser system are already in service, the Russian leader said. A hypersonic glider is a vehicle usually designed for delivering a nuclear device. It can travel through the atmosphere at high altitude and great speed, and can maneuver to avoid interception.

Moscow will soon release footage of heavy strategic intercontinental ballistic Sarmat missiles in their silos, the president promised. Trials of the nuclear-powered, unlimited-range cruise missile Burevestnik and of the nuclear-capable underwater drone Poseidon are close to completion, he added.

“Those systems have confirmed their high – unique, I might say without exaggeration – specifications,” Putin said of the weapon systems.

All of the new arms, with the exception of the Tsirkon missile, were first revealed by the Russian president during a March 2018 address to the Federal Assembly.

At the time Putin described them as a response to US attempts to disrupt the strategic balance with Russia in its favor. Speaking on Thursday, he said Moscow remained willing to negotiate on the issue with Washington, but stressed that the countries’ relationship has since seriously deteriorated.

”We are dealing with a state whose ruling elites are openly taking hostile actions against us,” he said. “Do they seriously intend to discuss strategic stability with us while trying to inflict ‘strategic defeat on the battlefield,’ as they put it themselves, on Russia?”

He described Washington’s diplomatic stance as “hypocritical” and just a means to deliver outcomes that “are beneficiary only to the US.”

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Biden regime admits Ukraine will lose more territory within next two months

By Ahmed Adel | February 29, 2024

Ukraine will lose additional territory in the coming months due to a lack of US military support, White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby lamented on February 27. This comes as Washington confirmed that US troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine even if discussions were held with France over this possibility.

“If they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines,” Kirby told reporters, adding that this could occur in not only eastern Ukraine but also potentially in the south of the country.

In the same press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly emphasised that the situation is “dire” for Ukraine and recalled how the CIA Director “laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were” and “what was going on in the battle — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important.”

On the same day, US President Joe Biden also said that the need to provide additional support to Ukraine is urgent. However, the Republicans have blocked any further funding for Ukraine unless Biden relents on his open border policy, something that he is seemingly unwilling to do.

The lack of weapons and admission that Russia is about to liberate more territory compounds Kiev’s frustrations, especially after Washington confirmed that American troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine. According to a military source interviewed by the AFP news agency, the US spent weeks discussing plans to send troops with France but ultimately deemed the risk to be too high.

On February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, a surprising statement since the deployment of fighters was never publicly discussed or expected. Since Macron’s alarming statement, numerous European countries have disassociated from the idea, including Germany, Poland, Spain, Greece, and the Czech Republic.

Now it was the White House’s turn to deny that US troops would be deployed in Ukraine. In a statement to the press, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated that “the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine.”

According to a military source cited by AFP, NATO countries have been discussing for weeks the possibility of sending their own soldiers to support the Ukrainians, and the US was one of those who supported the idea.

Responding to Macron’s statement, the Kremlin said, “The very fact of discussing the possibility of sending certain contingents to Ukraine from NATO countries is a very important new element.” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that if troops are sent, “we would need to talk not about the probability, but about the inevitability (of a direct conflict).”

Macron seemingly wants to start a Russia-NATO war, a war that would inevitably lead to nuclear strikes and with no winner, and for this reason, it is obvious why the French president became immediately isolated, so much so that even Washington cowered and distanced itself from the idea.

French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné attempted to soften the humiliating blow on February 28 by claiming that Macron had in mind sending troops for specific tasks such as helping with mine clearance, production of weapons on site, and cyber-defence.

“[This] could require a [military] presence on Ukrainian territory without crossing the threshold of fighting,” Sejourne told French lawmakers. “It’s not sending troops to wage war against Russia.”

This is an obvious cover story as Macron was almost immediately isolated, and as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova highlighted, France’s allies neither understood nor supported the French president’s idea.

“This same statement shocked their NATO allies. A few hours later, a series of statements were made by the leadership of NATO countries, foreign ministers, and defence ministers, who said that they […] disassociate themselves from Macron’s statement. That they themselves do not plan any of this, they do not plan to send anyone and understand that this will already be a different story,” she said.

With the West failing to meet weapon supply promises made to Kiev, further US financing blocked in Congress, and, more importantly, the recent liberation of the fortress town of Avdeyevka, Ukraine will inevitably lose territory at a rapid rate. Given that the White House is openly admitting to this reality, one would expect the Kiev regime to search for an end to the conflict, yet it still chooses to pin its hopes on weapons that are not arriving on time or, more delusionally, that the West will finally directly intervene in the conflict.

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

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Scholz slammed for revealing UK troop presence in Ukraine

RT | February 29, 2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has come under fire from the UK after he suggested that there were British troops operating in the Ukraine conflict. Explaining why Berlin would not supply Kiev with long-range Taurus missiles, Scholz said it would require German military personnel on the ground providing assistance.

He went on to say that Taurus “is a very long-range weapon, and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance can’t be done in Germany.”

Commenting on Scholz’s remark, Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the British Commons defense committee, said it was “a flagrant abuse of intelligence deliberately designed to distract from Germany’s reluctance to arm Ukraine with its own long-range missile system,” as quoted by The Telegraph. The British lawmaker was also sure that the statement would be “used by Russia to rachet up the escalator ladder.”

“German soldiers can at no point and in no place be linked with the targets that this system reaches,” Scholz insisted, even if operating from German soil, according to the DPA news agency.

The German chancellor stated that it would be “not very responsible” for his country to risk becoming a “party to the war.”

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Financial Times quoted an anonymous senior European defense official as saying that “everyone knows there are Western special forces in Ukraine – they’ve just not acknowledged it officially.”

Addressing the press following a summit of Kiev’s backers in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron noted that “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything,” referring to a potential ground deployment of Western militaries.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg however hastened to clarify that there were “no plans for NATO combat troops on the ground in Ukraine.” This was followed by similar assurances by the leaders of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that such a development would mean that “we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability” of an all-out military confrontation between NATO and Russia.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

CIA behind Ukrainian disaster

Jason Freeman
By Lucas Leiroz | February 29, 2024

The disastrous actions of American intelligence in Ukraine have been a fact known by analysts since the beginning of the conflict. However, now the Americans themselves are admitting this. Being deceived by Russian pranksters, US mercenaries commented on the CIA’s tactical errors in Ukraine and how mistakes made by Washington’s intelligence and special forces are leading to Ukrainian citizens dying on the battlefield.

Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov – alias Vovan and Lexus – two Russian pranksters well known for their work of tricking Western public figures into leaking sensitive information, contacted Jason Freeman, an American mercenary living in Nikolaev. Freeman believed he was speaking directly to former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko. The pranksters claimed to be creating a private army commanded by the former president, contacting mercenaries to recruit and hire them.

During the conversation, Freeman gave some details about his work in Ukraine. Trying to show his skills as a combatant, he claimed to have killed 21 Russian soldiers and injured at least 13 others. However, Freeman also exposed the problems he faced on the battlefield. He admitted, for example, that his unit was entirely destroyed during the Battle for Artyomovsk (known in Ukraine as Bakhmut).

On the occasion, Freeman also criticized the work of the Ukrainian authorities, reporting problems with payment for soldiers and inefficiency of commanders. The most interesting fact, however, was his opinion on the presence of Western intelligence in the country. Unintentionally, he confirmed reports already made by several analysts about the participation of special agencies such as the CIA in the Ukrainian decision-making process. According to him, bad decisions made jointly by Americans and their proxy Ukrainians are leading to thousands of young, poorly trained soldiers dying in pointless clashes that could have been easily avoided.

“Young Ukrainians are dying because of bad orders or tactics. Most of those here are actually fresh meat,” Freeman said.

A second mercenary named Joshua Randsford was also contacted by the pranksters to be part of “Poroshenko’s army”. He commented something similar to Freeman, emphasizing the “lack of professionalism” of decision makers in Ukraine. According to him, Kiev’s troops are in a very difficult situation, with low morale among both ordinary soldiers and special and intelligence forces. The frequency of defeats on the battlefield severely impacted the Ukrainians, taking away their will to fight and their belief in victory.

Both mercenaries also blamed Ukrainian and American decision-makers for the failure of the summer counteroffensive in 2023. According to them, the fighting in the counterattack was a true “waste of lives”, with thousands of Ukrainians dying in clashes that did not bring any significant gain to Kiev. All these factors led to the current material, human and psychological crisis affecting the regime, with troops suffering from low morale.

It is curious to see how the personal opinion of the pro-Kiev fighters themselves absolutely contradicts the mainstream media’s narrative about the war. Those who know the reality of the battlefield are dissatisfied with the way American strategists manage the conflict. These fighters know that what is happening in Ukraine is a senseless massacre that could have been avoided if the war effort had actually been intended to “save Ukraine.” It is possible to see that the Western objective in the conflict is just to continue fighting the Russians, no matter how many Ukrainian lives are lost to make this happen.

In fact, the participation of American intelligence in Ukraine is not classified information anymore, as even large American newspapers have exposed this fact. The US appears increasingly less concerned with disguising its war intentions. The existence of an intelligence network in Ukraine is a vital part of the strategy of “fighting to the last Ukrainian”, because in this way Washington is able to coerce its proxies to continue fighting, regardless of losses, taking away from them the power to command their own citizens.

There is an interesting point to be analyzed: by having its participation in the war admitted, the US becomes co-author of all the crimes committed by the Ukrainians. Terrorist attacks, murder of civilians and incursions into Russia’s undisputed territory have been frequent since 2022. Russia does not react symmetrically, opting only to target military and infrastructure facilities. However, Moscow has already made it clear that any Western agent operating in decision-making centers on Ukrainian soil is a legitimate target. In this sense, it is possible that the Russians will begin to escalate their attacks against the American intelligence assets in Ukraine, if Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilians persist.

These data only show what the mainstream media tries to “refute”: the fact that the West is solely to blame for this conflict and the entire humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine. In this war, Kiev is just a proxy, having no real decision-making power. This is why it is necessary to understand the conflict as a proxy war waged by NATO against Russia through the Ukrainian regime.

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

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

How to Stop the WHO – #SolutionsWatch

Corbett | February 27, 2024

We all know the problem by now: the World Health Organization is trying to override your health freedoms and abrogate your bodily autonomy in the name of their scamdemic agenda. But what is the solution? Join James for this in-depth exploration of the ideas, organizations and actions that are already in motion to derail the WHO tyranny and regain our medical sovereignty.

WATCH ON: ARCHIVE / BITCHUTE ODYSEE / ROKFIN / RUMBLE   /SUBSTACK or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

SHOW NOTES:

Episode 417 – The Global Pandemic Treaty: What You Need to Know

Episode 442 – The Global Pandemic Treaty Is A Threat To Us All

Episode 445 – James Corbett Testifies at the National Citizens Inquiry

Canadian petitions to parliament

UK petition

US petition

The Global WHO Uprising Has Begun! on CHD TV

Amending The International Health Regulations (2005) – Health.Govt.NZ

Netherlands Letter To Parliament

South Africa Bill To Withdraw From WHO

Press conference on the growing concerns over the WHO ‘pandemic treaty’

Presentation to Irish parliament

UK Reject and Exit the WHO!

Good News: The UK’s membership of the WHO seems to be unlawful and legal action is pending

DoorToFreedom.org

jamesroguski.substack.com

screwthewho.com

exitthewho.org

Nullification – #SolutionsWatch

Maharrey on The Corbett Report

Michael Maharrey on “Shot Callers” discussing nullifying the WHO agreements

This week, please PAY FORWARD your gratitude for this work by sending info on the WHO takeover to someone in your life and by supporting the group or the individual that put that info together.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Video | | Leave a comment

US, pushed by Israel, involved in widening war despite consequences: Iran FM

Press TV – February 28, 2024

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says the United States is involved in the expansion of the scope of the Israeli war on Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip to other fronts across the West Asia region.

Amir-Abdollahian stressed that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to widen the Gaza war and involve the United States in a way that goes beyond the all-out support Washington and some of its allies have already provided for Tel Aviv.

“The Americans do not yet have the necessary will to stop the war, but at the same time, they are sending messages expressing their unwillingness to expand its scope because they are well aware of the danger of expanding its scope,” the top Iranian diplomat said.

“On the other hand, they are expanding the scope of the war through their joint aggression with the UK against Yemen.Today in Europe, everyone talks about the necessity of stopping the war, but Britain is playing a double game.”

He made the statement in an interview with Lebanon’s Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television news network in the Swiss city of Geneva on Tuesday,

Amir-Abdollahian added that Washington’s talk of reducing the intensity of the Gaza war, rather than stopping it, is a “mistake and malicious behavior that means giving the green light to Netanyahu” to press ahead with its months-long brutal aggression.

“I told the British foreign minister that the joint British-American aggression against Yemen is a strategic mistake that you are committing,” he said. Yemen has “proven that they do not trifle with any party regarding the security of their lands. They have been able to convey this message and clearly warned that ships carrying military cargo to Israel will be stopped.”

US hypocrisy on Gaza

The Iranian foreign minister also pointed to the US administration’s unswerving support to Israel in its brutal war on the besieged Palestinian territory and its continued supply of weapons and logistics to the occupying regime.

“Our information has it that the process of sending weapons from all American bases in the region and its warships to Tel Aviv is continuing,” he said, adding, “Islamic countries should not be turned into a place to supply weapons to the Israeli entity.”

Denouncing the US hypocrisy in dealing with the Gaza war, Amir-Abdollahian said, “Everyone agrees that if the United States abandons its military support for the occupying entity, Netanyahu will not be able to continue the war against Gaza for even an hour.”

The top Iranian diplomat also stressed that Israel did not achieve any of its declared goals in the war on Gaza, including the elimination of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, the group’s disarmament and the arrest of its Gaza-based leader Yahya Sinwar.

“The Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements are at their best despite all the challenges and difficulties, and that they have the material and human resources and capabilities necessary to continue to withstand a longer war than what we have seen so far,” Amir-Abdollahian said.

Praising the morale and steadfastness of the residents of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, he underlined that the Israeli plans in Rafah “will not translate into reality and the occupation will not be able to forcibly displace people to the Egyptian Sinai.”

UN performance ‘unacceptable’

Elsewhere in his interview, the Iranian foreign minister censured as “unacceptable” the United Nations’ performance regarding the situation on the ground in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, saying the UN Security Council has not fulfilled its duty in light of the United States’ use of its veto.

“The Security Council did not fulfill its duty as the US continuously and unilaterally exploited its veto power. Every prospect and proposal of a Gaza ceasefire has been rejected by the American veto, exhibiting a contradictory behavior to the banners of primary human rights. Even at the UN Human Rights Council, we still have not seen any adequate mobilization in this regard,” he said.

“Does the UNHRC not want to create a special committee that relays the facts and investigations into war crimes, genocide, and human rights violations being committed in Gaza? So far, we have not witnessed a singular decisive measure taken by any of the organizations that fall under the UN.”

Amir-Abdollahian said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had so far taken some good measures but had not been able to help the people of Gaza “in an effective and real way” through the existing mechanisms of the United Nations.

“In the Human Rights Council, we clearly see that everything is subject to the control of politicians and false human rights advocates,” he said.

Israel launched the campaign of death and destruction on October 7, after Hamas-led Palestinian resistance groups conducted the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the regime’s decades-long atrocities.

Israel has killed nearly 30,000 people and injured more than 70,000 others in Gaza since that October day.

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China’s unexpected gains from the Red Sea crisis

Yemen’s Red Sea ban on Israeli-linked shipping has boosted China’s regional standing while miring its US adversary in an unwinnable crisis

By Giorgio Cafiero | The Cradle | February 28, 2024

The Gaza war’s expansion into the Red Sea has created an international maritime crisis involving a host of countries. Despite a US-led bombing campaign aimed at deterring Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned navy from carrying out missile and drone strikes in the Red Sea, the armed forces continue to ramp up attacks and now are using “submarine weapons.”

As these clashes escalate dangerously, one of the world’s busiest bodies of water is rapidly militarizing. This includes the recent arrival to the Gulf of Aden of a Chinese fleet, including the guided-missile destroyer Jiaozuo, the missile frigate Xuchang, a replenishment vessel, and more than 700 troops – including dozens of special forces personnel – as part of a counter-piracy mission.

Beijing has voiced its determination to help restore stability to the Red Sea. “We should jointly uphold the security on the sea lanes of the Red Sea in accordance with the law and also respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries along the Red Sea coast, including Yemen,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized last month.

As the largest trading nation in the world, China depends on the Red Sea as its “maritime lifeline.” Most of the Asian giant’s exports to Europe go through the strategic waterway, and large quantities of oil and minerals that come to Chinese ports transit the body of water.

The Chinese have also invested in industrial parks along Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coasts, including the TEDA–Suez Zone in Ain Sokhna and the Chinese Industrial Park in Saudi Arabia’s Jizan City for Primary and Downstream Industries.

Chinese neutrality in West Asia

Prior to the sending of the 46th fleet of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, Beijing’s response to Ansarallah’s maritime attacks had been relatively muted. China has since condemned the US–UK airstrikes against Ansarallah’s military capabilities in Yemen, and refused to join the western-led naval coalition, Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG).

China’s response to mounting tension and insecurity in the Red Sea is consistent with Beijing’s grander set of foreign policy strategies, which include respect for the sovereignty of nation-states and a doctrine of “non-interference.”

In the Persian Gulf, China has pursued a balanced and geopolitically neutral agenda resting on a three-pronged approach: enemies of no one, allies of no one, and friends of everyone.

China’s position vis-à-vis all Persian Gulf countries was best exemplified almost a year ago when Beijing brokered a surprise reconciliation agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, in which it played the role of guarantor.

In Yemen, although China aligns with the international community’s non-recognition of the Ansarallah-led government in Sanaa, Beijing has nonetheless initiated dialogues with those officials and maintained a non-hostile stance – unlike many Arab and western states.

Understanding Beijing’s regional role 

Overall, China tries to leverage its influence in West Asian countries to mitigate regional tensions and advance stabilizing initiatives. Its main goal is ultimately to ensure the long-term success of President Xi Jinping’s multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and keep trade routes free of conflict.

Often labeled by the west as a “free rider,” China is accused of opportunistically benefiting from US- and European-led security efforts in the Persian Gulf and the northwestern Indian Ocean without contributing to them.

But given China’s anti-piracy task force in the Gulf of Aden and its military base in Djibouti, this accusation isn’t entirely justified.

Beijing’s motivations for staying out of OPG were easy to understand: first, China has no interest in bolstering US hegemony; second, joining the naval military coalition could upset its multi-vector diplomacy vis-à-vis Ansarallah and Iran; and third, the wider Arab–Islamic world and the rest of the Global South would interpret it as Chinese support for Israel’s war on Gaza.

Rejecting the OPG mission has instead bolstered China’s regional image as a defender of the Palestinian cause.

Speaking to The Cradle, Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Iran, said:

[Beijing’s] cooperation with the West in securing the Red Sea will not be good for China’s relations with the Arabs and Iran. Therefore, China has adopted political and military restraint to avoid jeopardizing its economic and diplomatic interests in the region.

Dropping the blame on Washington’s doorstep

Beijing recognizes the Red Sea security crisis to be a direct “spillover” from Gaza, where China has called for an immediate ceasefire.

As Yun Sun, co-director of the China Program at the Washington-based Stimson Center, informed The Cradle :

The Chinese do see the crisis in the Red Sea as a challenge to regional peace and stability but see the Gaza crisis as the fundamental origin of the crisis. Therefore, the solution to the crisis in the Chinese view will have to be based on ceasefire, easing of the tension and returning to the two-state solution.

Jean-Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, agrees, telling The Cradle:

Chinese diplomats have been carefully commenting on the events, but in Beijing’s narrative, the rise of attacks is a consequence of Israel’s war in Gaza – and perhaps more importantly the US policy in support [of] the Netanyahu government.

But in January, after the US and UK began their bombing campaign of Ansarallah targets in Yemen, China began to weigh in with serious concerns about the Red Sea crisis. Beijing noted that neither Washington nor London had received authorization for the use of force from the UN Security Council, and, therefore, as Sun explained it, the US–UK strikes “lack legitimacy in the Chinese view.”

How the Red Sea Crisis benefits Beijing

China has capitalized on intensifying anger directed against the US from all over the Islamic world and Global South. The Gaza war and its spread into the Red Sea have delivered Beijing some easy soft-power gains and reinforced to Arab audiences the vital importance of multipolarity. This point was drummed home by Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, when he told the 2023 Doha Forum:

The fact that there is only one single country which [on 8 December, 2023] vetoed the United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine War should convince all of us that we should be very lucky living not in the unipolar World.

Certainly, China has experienced some economic repercussions from the Red Sea crisis, although the extent of this is difficult to calculate. Yet Beijing’s political gains appear to trump any associated financial losses. As Sun explained to The Cradle, “The crisis does affect China, but the loss has been mostly economic and minor, while the gains are primarily political as China stands with the Arab countries on Gaza.”

In some ways, China has actually gained economically from the Red Sea crisis. With Ansarallah making a point of only targeting Israel-linked vessels, there is a widespread view that Chinese ships operating in the area are immune from Yemeni attacks.

After many international container shipping lines decided to reroute around South Africa to avoid Ansarallah’s missiles and drones, two ships operating under the Chinese flag – the Zhong Gu Ji Lin and Zhong Gu Shan Dong – continued transiting the Red Sea.

As Bloomberg reported early this month:

Chinese-owned merchant ships are getting hefty discounts on their insurance when sailing through the Red Sea, another sign of how Houthi attacks in the area are punishing the commercial interests of vessels with ties to the West.

US officials have since implored Beijing to pressure Iran into ordering the de-facto Yemeni government to halt maritime attacks. Those entreaties have failed, however, largely because Washington incorrectly assumes that Beijing holds influence over Tehran and that Iran can make demands of Ansarallah. Regardless, the fact that the US would turn to China for such help amid escalating tensions in the Red Sea is a boost to Beijing’s status as a go-to power amid global security crises.

China also has much to gain from the White House’s disproportionate focus on Gaza and the Red Sea. Since October–November 2023, the US has had significantly less bandwidth for its South China Sea and Taiwan files. In turn, this frees Beijing to act more confidently in West Asia while the US remains distracted. According to Heiran-Nia:

The developments in the Red Sea will keep America’s focus on the region and not open America’s hand to expand its presence in the Indo–Pacific region, [where] America’s main priority is to contain China. The war in Ukraine has the same advantage for China. While the connectivity of the Euro–Atlantic region with the Indo–Pacific region is expanding to contain China and increase NATO cooperation with the Indo–Pacific, the tensions in [West Asia] and Ukraine will be a boon for China.

Ultimately, the Red Sea crisis and Washington’s failure to deter Ansarallah signal yet another blow to US hegemony. From the Chinese perspective, the growing Red Sea conflict serves to further isolate the US and highlight its limitations as a security guarantor – particularly in light of its unconditional support for Israel’s brutal military assault on Gaza.

It is reasonable to call China a winner in the Red Sea crisis.

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment