By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 17.02.2024
Joe Biden’s emotional embrace with Benjamin Netanyahu on 18 October on the tarmac of Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv was seen around the world and is still being commented on by the world media. The embrace, which took place 11 days after the shameful failure of Israel and its “famous” Mossad intelligence agency on October 7 in the south, gave the Israelis carte blanche to do whatever they wanted against not only the militant organisation Hamas, but also against peaceful Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.
On that trip, Biden demonstrated his “ironclad” commitment to Israel, despite the crimes the Israeli army was committing in Gaza, cutting off access to food, water, medicine and other necessities for a population of 2.3 million and destroying homes, hospitals, universities, schools, churches, mosques, etc. And yet, the “Democrat-in-Chief” told Netanyahu, “I come to Israel with a single message: you are not alone. You are not alone.”
The unequivocal support for Israel, which has the most extremist government in power since its creation in 1948, has especially intensified since Biden and his pro-Israel administration took office. Not only has the U.S. begun supplying arms to Israel, but it has also gone against the will of the world at the United Nations, which has demanded an immediate ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian aid to the besieged territory. On 3 November, the US House of Representatives also passed a Republican-drafted plan to provide $14.5 billion in military aid to Israel. The Pentagon also sent two aircraft carriers to the region as a sign of support for Israel.
Biden’s strong support for the right-wing party in Israel has even embarrassed some figures in his administration. On 19 October, Josh Paul, director of the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, said he was resigning because of the White House’s “intellectually bankrupt” decision to increase military aid to Israel. He said the Biden administration is “repeating the same mistakes Washington has made for decades”.
Paul also said the administration’s “blind support for one side” led to policy decisions that were “shortsighted, destructive, unfair and contrary to the very values we publicly espouse”. In an interview with the New York Times, Paul also said that continuing to give Israel “carte blanche to destroy a ‘generation of enemies’ only to create a new one is ultimately not in the interest of the United States.”
It has come to the point where Biden openly states that he is a Zionist and is proud of it, “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist,” Reuters quoted Biden as telling an Israeli military cabinet. Politicians and generals gathered in a hotel ballroom in Tel Aviv nodded approvingly, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the remarks behind closed doors.
This explains the unconditional US support for the Israeli state, its huge funding and the dispatch of the most modern weapons, which are now actively used by the IDF to destroy Palestinian civilians, the constant shelling of Lebanon’s borders, and the unpunished bombing of Syrian territory. Such remarks are made at a time when Israel’s 75-year history is associated with the theft of Palestinian land, the displacement of indigenous Palestinians, the destruction of their homes, the creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees inside and outside Palestine, the building of homes on stolen land, the killing of children, the destruction of olive trees, the burning of agricultural land, the imprisonment of those who oppose the occupation, etc.
In his 26 October speech, Biden said: “I will say it 5,000 times in my career: The United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel is based on our principles, our ideas, our values.” The values of Israel stand for making a mockery of international law and qualify any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. Of course, it’s no secret that the United States doesn’t care about international law when it comes to Israel’s crimes and illegal actions, and whenever it seems that its commitment to international law doesn’t match its desires, just like what it did regarding the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).
Biden’s alliance with Israel has dealt a serious blow to the image of the United States. People around the world now view the Biden administration as complicit in the crimes Israel is committing in Gaza. Israel has dropped more than 22,000 U.S.-supplied bombs on Gaza in the first month and a half of the war alone, according to intelligence data provided to Congress and revealed by The Washington Post.
It is quite obvious that Biden considers himself indebted to the Zionist lobby. During his 36 years in the Senate, Biden was the largest recipient of donations from pro-Israel groups in the chamber’s history, receiving $4.2 million, according to the Open Secrets database, Reuters reported on 21 October.
In a speech to the Senate on 5 June 1986, Biden defended annual military aid to Israel, saying: “This is the best three-billion-dollar investment we are making. If there were no Israel, the United States of America would have to invent Israel to ‘protect its interests in the region.’”
A 4 November 2023 report on the US news site Axios states: “While the timing of the new security package remains unclear, the U.S. is by far the largest provider of military aid to Israel, having provided some $130 billion since its founding.”
In addition, as vice president, Biden often mediated the testy relationship between Barack Obama and Netanyahu. Dennis Ross, a Middle East adviser during President Obama’s first term, recalled that Biden intervened to prevent Netanyahu from retaliating against him for a diplomatic outburst during a 2010 visit. According to Ross, Obama wanted to respond harshly to Israel’s announcement of a major expansion of housing for Jews in East Jerusalem. “Whenever the situation in Israel got out of control, Biden was the liaison,” Ross said. “His commitment to Israel was so strong … And that’s the instinct we’re seeing now.”
During a visit to the United States in July 2023, Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog gave a speech to Congress. He called the bond between Israel and the United States “sacred” and said that calling Israel a racist state is anti-Semitism. Describing the alliance between Israel and the US as sacred is ideological and extremely dangerous. Such a term resembles the language used by ideologically motivated terrorist groups who hold their vicious ideas sacred and others as enemies to be purged. Describing ties between Israel and the US as sacred inherently conveys the idea that any Israeli action is right. For example, Israel believes it has an inalienable right to steal Palestinian land, demolish their homes in the West Bank, ethnically cleanse the population in Gaza, and starve all Palestinians to death without facing any consequences because the US as the most powerful country in the world will protect you. It’s as if loyalty to Israel is carved in stone to the point that if any official dares to criticise Israel, they are forced to back down from their position.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chairwoman of the Congressional Progressives Caucus, who called Israel a “racist state,” came under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans. They called the comments anti-Semitic, forcing her to retract her remarks. The House of Representatives then overwhelmingly passed a resolution declaring that Israel “is not a racist or apartheid state” by a vote of 412 to 9. Aida Touma-Suleiman, a member of the Israeli Knesset, was also suspended after criticising the bombing in Gaza.
Democrats and Republicans are competing to win Zionist support in Israel and the US, regardless of American public opinion. Harsh criticism of senior American officials is tolerated in the US, but it is unacceptable when it comes to Israel. Furthermore, the decades-old repeated statements by Democrats and Republicans that they support a two-state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis live together peacefully are not genuine.
The West’s blind and unconditional support for Israel that its crimes in Gaza are unbelievable, astonishing and shocking, has also infuriated some officials on both sides of the Atlantic. More than 800 officials in the United States, Britain and the European Union published an open letter of dissent against their governments’ support for Israel on Friday. “The current policies of our governments weaken their moral character and undermine their ability to stand up for freedom, justice and human rights around the world,” the letter reads. It adds: “There is a real risk that our governments’ policies are contributing to serious violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and even ethnic cleansing or genocide.”
Amid such crimes and protests against Israel’s behaviour in Gaza, it seems that Biden, who boasts of a 50-year political career, has lost touch with reality to the extent that his support for war criminals in Israel has brought shame to him and a bad reputation to the United States. Biden turned a blind eye to mass rallies around the world, especially in Western cities, against Israeli crimes in Gaza. No doubt, he has seen protesters carrying placards calling him “Genocide Joe.” Biden should also have read a book written by his colleague, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
A month after Russia launched a special military operation against the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine, the US government was quick to accuse Russia of committing aggression. However, when South Africa submitted an 84-page document to the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of actions in Gaza that are “genocidal in nature because they are intended to destroy a significant portion of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group,” the Biden administration dismissed the accusation as “baseless.” This is despite the fact that Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine is in no way comparable to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
In a 3 December article, The Washington Post stated: “The United States is making it clear that it will not stand up for international rules and norms if one of its closest allies violates them.”
And that is true. Nevertheless, it will take the United States many years, perhaps even decades, to regain the reputation it lost because of the ironclad commitment and ill-considered policies of Biden and his administration officials towards Israel.
Victor MIKHIN is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Science.
By Wesam Bahrani | Press TV | February 17, 2024
All eyes in Iraq are glued to the negotiations taking place at the moment between American officials and the government of Mohammad Shia’ al-Sudani, aimed at ending the years-long military occupation.
The climate of these talks is believed to be tense. A source familiar with the latest security developments in the Arab country said the Iraqi resistance has threatened to shut down the US embassy in Baghdad, which has long been accused of acting as a US military base instead of a diplomatic mission.
This would also see all Western embassies affiliated with the US-led military coalition getting closed if the American occupation rejects popular and growing calls to withdraw from Iraq, the source noted.
The Iraqi government can also expect threats from Washington during the meetings. With the revenue of Iraqi oil sales heading to the US Treasury in a very unfair measure, Washington can threaten to impose sanctions that could weaken the Iraqi Dinar.
This sinister ploy would be aimed at downgrading the living standards of Iraqi families in a bid to turn the people against their government and the resistance. They may both (as Washington would hope) be blamed for any damage to the country’s economy, despite the US pulling the strings.
The Iraqi resistance is seeking a clear timeline from the government for the expulsion of US forces and is not willing to settle for anything less, including vague assurances of withdrawal dates.
How the resistance will execute its threat against the US embassy is unclear, but it appears that America has already decided to withdraw from the country. The only question is when and how.
Washington is aware that its military presence in Iraq is deeply unpopular. This was evident when the White House held back from ordering strikes against the resistance, which had attacked US bases in Iraq and Syria around 200 times since the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza began on October 7, 2023.
But after the recent deadly US strikes on the Iraqi-Syrian border followed by the assassination of the Iraqi military commander Abu Baqr al-Sa’adi in the capital Baghdad, all the indications suggest that nothing will return to normal for the US occupation even if the Israeli-American war on Gaza ends.
Al-Sa’adi was a highly respected commander within the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi, whose factions have been integrated into the national armed forces.
The PMU’s Chief of Staff, Abu Fadek, asserted that “avenging the martyrdom of Abu Baqir al-Sa’adi is the removal of all foreign forces” and that the resistance “will not accept anything less than this.”
Abu Fadek did not go into specifics on how the US occupation will be removed; only saying the PMU will coordinate with “all relevant Iraqi parties,” including the government.
The PMU, which was established in 2014, needs the green light from the Iraqi government to wage military operations against the US occupation.
The Iraqi resistance was established in late 2003 to resist the US invasion. Many of its factions later joined the PMU in its fight against Daesh and, in turn, got involved in the country’s political system.
The resistance has also warned that the US seeks to return Daesh terrorism to Iraq should its troops leave the country for a second time, and this assertion does not look far-fetched.
It was no coincidence that when the Iraqi resistance kicked out the US occupation in late 2011, the Arab Spring turned into a terrorist Autumn that saw the US creation of Daesh (by the admission of American officials themselves), and allowed the US military to slip back into Iraq through the backdoor.
The resistance has been waging drone and missile operations on US bases in Iraq and Syria in solidarity with Gaza and to end the Israeli regime’s partner in crime, the American occupation, without government coordination.
That does not make its military measures illegitimate as it has the legal authority to resist an occupying entity. The resistance cooperates with government officials in the field of security. Deep down, the government knows it won’t be sitting in Baghdad today without the sacrifices of the resistance.
In the vast number of battles against terrorism, it has handed over many terrorists to the relevant government authorities to face trial. A large proportion of terrorists in Iraqi jails today were captured by the resistance, so the country owes its security to the resistance.
It has also acted independently during its operations against the US occupation, which have surged under the banner of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, following the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza.
Nevertheless, the recent deadly US bombings in Iraq have violated all the rules of engagement and agreements with Baghdad and the so-called US-led military coalition could see the potential entry of the PMU in the fight against the American occupation, should it not depart after the current negotiations between Iraqi and US officials.
It won’t be surprising to see a suspension of attacks by the resistance against American bases in the lead-up to a US withdrawal from the country.
This is what happened in 2011 when Washington requested third parties to plead with the resistance for a two-month pause in attacks against US forces so that President Barack Obama could paint a picture back home that American troops are not leaving under fire.
The two leading factions of the Iraqi resistance today, Kataib Sayyed al-Shuhada (KSS) and Harakat al-Nujaba operate – like all other Iraqi resistance forces – independently of any third party, contrary to US claims that these factions receive support or orders from Iran.
The Secretary-General of KSS, Abu Ala’a al-Walai, fought the former Iraqi Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein, the first US occupation, and more recently Daesh terrorists and the second US occupation.
The senior Iraqi resistance official was imprisoned by Saddam’s West-backed regime for ten years and the US occupation for three years.
“We were grateful for Iran’s support toward the resistance in the past, in particular against Daesh terrorists. Today we have our own opinions and make our own decisions. These repeated questions that ‘we fight on behalf of Iran’ or ‘take orders from Iran’ have become irritating,” he said.
Iran has repeatedly stressed that these resistance movements in the region act on their own accord.
The reality is that the Iraqi resistance has gained significant experience on the battlefield and much of the credit for that goes to the late Haj Radwan (Imad Mughniyah), a senior commander with Lebanon’s Hezbollah who was assassinated by a joint Israeli-American operation in February 2008.
The experience of the Lebanese guerilla-style resistance that ended the Israeli army’s occupation of Lebanon in 2000 suited the Iraqi resistance in its operations against the US army’s first occupation of the country from 2003 until 2011.
Furthermore, in all the US airstrikes against the arms depots of the resistance, there were never any Iranian weapons, such as short-range missiles that have been hitting US bases recently, found in the caches.
The irony is that Washington itself is fully aware of this, but has repeatedly branded the Iraqi resistance as “Iranian-backed” – repeating this hollow rhetoric many times since October 7.
The Americans argue their presence in Iraq has seen a transition from a combat mission to an “advisory” role. But there is nothing “advisory” about bombing the country dozens of times and killing its soldiers.
That was evident by America’s deadly combat mission in the country.
As the Secretary-General of Harak al-Nujaba, Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi said “The end of the resistance operations depends on Gaza and the US withdrawal from Iraq.”
One of the stumbling blocks to the US withdrawal from Iraq is some Sunni and Israeli-backed Kurdish parties that have shown little desire for the end of the occupation.
This was evident during the parliament session that was held to discuss the occupation in the aftermath of the US assassination of al-Sa’adi.
Sunni and Kurdish members were notably not in attendance at the session, which passed a bill for the parliamentary defense and security committees to review the violations of the occupation.
It appears that some Kurdish parties are complicit in the destabilization of their own country by inviting the Israeli Mossad to operate from the northern regions they control.
But many factions of Iraqi society, including its people from all faiths and backgrounds, the majority of its parliament, presidency and government have publicly voiced their rejection of the US occupation and are calling for the swift withdrawal of its military.
The government meetings with the US can see this task accomplished. America pretty much knows its time in Iraq has come to an end unless it seeks a major escalation.
As Iraq approaches the 21st anniversary of the US invasion that left a lasting imprint on its security infrastructure, the journey towards self-sufficiency has been a challenging one for the country, with persistent obstacles hindering its ability to stand firmly on its own feet.
Behind all of these setbacks that Iraq has suffered is the US.
The challenges that have faced the country are multifaceted. The deadly American occupation from 2003 until 2011 was intertwined with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which saw terrorist attacks killing dozens, if not hundreds, of civilians on an almost daily basis.
Not a single market in Baghdad was spared. At one point, 24 terrorist bombings took place in one day.
This was followed by the brutal Daesh terrorism that marked another dark chapter in the country’s history and then came the second wave of a very sinister and trouble-making US occupation in 2014.
It all proves that consecutive governments were incapable of providing stability, the government of Haider al-Abadi’s agreement to allow the Americans back in 2014, was strongly opposed by the resistance and the government of al-Sudani is now regretting that decision.
Iraq stands at a crossroads, grappling with the legacies of the past while striving for a more secure and stable future. The journey ahead is undoubtedly challenging, but the strength of the resistance remains a beacon of hope.
The incumbent government has declared that the PMU and other Iraqi armed forces are capable of securing the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and acknowledges that a destabilizing US occupation, which violates Iraqi skies every day, is standing in the way.
Iraq needs resistance until it is capable of providing security to its people and sovereignty for the country. Baghdad needs to purchase anti-air defense systems that can secure its skies from intruding aircraft. It needs a stronger army to secure its borders.
The PMU is doing an effective job on the Syrian border despite being bombed by the US. But all of the borders need to be protected. This will help bring security to the country and the wider region.
Wesam Bahrani is an Iraqi journalist and commentator.
By Chimauchem Nwosu – Sputnik – 17.02.2024
Tehran’s quest for self-sufficiency in modern indigenous military equipment has led to the development of new air defense weapon systems capable of intercepting multiple aerial targets within a range of less than 100 kilometers.
Iran has presented its latest advancements in anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and low-altitude air defense (LAAD) systems at an event in Tehran.
The event was attended by Defense Minister Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Ashtiani, Iran’s Press TV reported.
Among the new systems was the country’s homegrown Arman (Aspiration), also known as Tactical Sayyad (Hunter) ABM defense system. It can track and detect 24 targets at roughly 180 kilometers (111 miles) and engage multiple targets at once within a range of about 120 kilometers (74.5 miles).
The Arman system has short-range self-defense features compared to models like the Khordad-3 and Khordad-15 systems.
The new ABM has a self-defense system in one of its missile turrets, optimizing its capability to engage threats at low altitudes. This advanced air defense weapon offers enhanced mobility, featuring radars and missile launchers on a single mobile platform.
Also unveiled during the event was the Azarakhsh (Thunderbolt) low-altitude air defense system. It is designed to deliver close-range and ground-to-air firepower to protect frontline combat zones, mobile forces, key sites and critical infrastructure and specialized or autonomous operations.
Last December, Iran unveiled an advanced, locally-built naval remotely-operated vehicle (ROV). The submersible drone is built for minesweeping missions, and can function continuously for 24 hours underwater, reaching depths of 200 meters. The new system is set to be a pivotal asset for the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy as an addition to its HR-53 electromagnetic signal-generating mine-sweeping helicopters and manned minesweepers such as the Shahin.
The Islamic Republic’s military-industrial complex has evolved over the past four decades after it weaned itself off Western arms supplies, joining the club of a few regional military powers capable of designing, developing, and producing homegrown military hardware to deter its well-funded adversaries.
RT | February 17, 2024
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to remove sanctions on the country’s businesses when the two met on the sidelines of the 60th Munich Security Conference on Friday.
The meeting is the latest in a series of highest-level talks since US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in November of last year. Shortly after their summit, the US leader caused outrage in China when he stated that he stood by an earlier comment labeling his Chinese counterpart a “dictator” in response to a question by a journalist.
The two countries ended 2023 with an uneasy detente after a year that brought American panic over alleged Chinese spy balloons, and US tech sanctions that restricted China’s access to advanced chip-making tools and artificial intelligence processors. The two nations have also been locked in a growing military rivalry.
Wang said that pursuing the aim of “decoupling from China” will eventually backfire on the US, as cited by the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s press service. He called on Washington to lift the “illegal unilateral sanctions” against Chinese companies and individuals and not to undermine China’s legitimate right to develop.
Most of the recent sanctions against China were imposed in 2018, when the administration of then-President Donald Trump banned US agencies from using equipment and services from Chinese telecoms giant Huawei, fearing that the company was facilitating espionage.
Tensions escalated further in October 2022, when the Biden administration announced new limits on the sale of semiconductor technology to China, a step aimed at blocking Beijing’s access to critical technologies.
While speaking to his Chinese counterpart on Friday, Blinken raised concerns about China’s alleged support for Russia’s military industrial base. In 2022, the US imposed sanctions against several businesses in China for what Washington claims was aid provided to the Russian military amid the Ukraine conflict.
China has repeatedly denied US claims that it is considering arming Russia. Since the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022, China has consistently called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Beijing has also stood up to Western pressure to join sanctions on Moscow, while instead boosting economic cooperation with Russia. Chinese customs data shows that trade turnover between the two countries has grown by 26.6% percent in the past year, reaching a record $240 billion.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 17, 2024
There couldn’t be a better metaphor than what a Chinese analyst used to characterise NATO while commenting on its secretary general Jens Stoltenberg’s recent remark that the West does not seek war with Russia but should still “prepare ourselves for a confrontation that could last decades.”
The Chinese commentator compared Stoltenberg to a firm of undertakers, “a store owner of coffin and casket, which makes no money in peacetime. As an undertaker, NATO needs conflict, bloodshed for earnings. So it spreads fear and panic in order to ensure its member countries continue to contribute military funding.”
Stoltenberg’s remark appeared in an interview with German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag on Feb. 10, soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s famous interview with Tucker Carlson where the Kremlin signalled that Russia did not refuse and is not refusing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Stoltenberg spoke for the Pentagon, no doubt.
Moscow, having reached an unassailable position in the war, is not interested in a full-scale war to realise its objectives, as eventually, the West will have to co-exist with Russia. Putin’s interview with Carlson was timed carefully — with hardly a fortnight left for the war to enter its third year.
Putin’s “message” that Russia is open to dialogue caught Washington off guard. For one thing, the bandwidth of the Biden Administration is dominated by the Israel-Palestine crisis. On the other hand, the two-year anniversary of the war is marked by a signal battlefield victory by Russian forces in the strategic eastern town of Avdiivka, a gateway to Donetsk city, and effectively on the front line ever since 2014 when the conflict in Donbass started.
All attempts by Russian troops to liquidate the big Ukrainian base in Avdiivka threatening Donetsk city had failed so far. Avdiivka is key to Russia’s aim of securing full control of the two eastern Donbass provinces — Donetsk and Luhansk. Its capture not only boosts the Russian morale but also consolidates Donetsk as a major Russian logistics hub for further westerly operations in the direction of the Dniepr river.
In political terms, it underscores that all along the almost 1000-km frontline, Russian forces are presently advancing. The Ukrainian military suffered a rout in Avdiivka.
Biden’s re-election bid will be bumpy if such distressing news keeps appearing from Ukraine highlighting the gravity of his foreign policy disaster, as NATO stares at another humiliating defeat after Afghanistan. Donald Trump is relentlessly challenging Biden on the issue of Russia-Ukraine and on NATO. Contrary to earlier prognosis, the US election has turned into one of the most influencing factors in the Ukraine conflict.
The path in the US Congress towards a military aid package for Ukraine is uncertain. The main obstacle all along was the House of Representatives, where Republicans have a majority. Apart from the Republican Speaker of the House being not in any hurry to table the bill passed by the Senate, the Congress is also about to shift back towards domestic fiscal policies, so that the foreign aid bill might simply fall down the list of priorities in the legislative agenda.
Meanwhile, the hearing in the Supreme Court on Trump’s candidacy signals that the talk that he might be debarred from running for the presidency is only wishful thinking. That means, if Trump maintains his lead in the South Carolina primaries on 24th February, the Republican race will be essentially over and he will be the party’s presumptive candidate. Trump has also widened his lead over Joe Biden in the polls.
The flow of finance to Ukraine is already ebbing and there is a pall of gloom among Ukraine’s cheerleaders in Europe after having discovered finally that Kiev is not winning the war. The West’s proxy war without a clearly set war goal means that there is no exit strategy, either.
A Trump victory would badly expose the European partners. Plugging the funding gap by Europe is going to be highly problematic. The US has so far committed €71.4 billion, more than half of it in the form of military aid. Number two is Germany with €21 billion, followed by the UK with €13.3 billion. Norway comes fourth. The paradox is, while the three largest European donors are all NATO members, it is only Germany who is a member of the European Union.
And Germany is not big enough to fill the gap left by the US on its own. But the biggest obstacle to a common European response is the lack of common ground between France and Germany. The special Franco-German relationship has largely become a historical artefact. The two EU giants are pursuing incompatible economic strategies — on fiscal policy and nuclear energy — and their economies are diverging, and so are their politics and defence strategies.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz has reoriented German defence co-operation away from France and towards the US. The power struggle between the EU’s two biggest powers that had its origins in the lack of chemistry between French president Emmanuel Macron and Scholz has turned into an antagonism manifesting as two different visions of the world.
Macron’s concept of “strategic autonomy”, which calls for Europe not to rely on outside powers in vital areas that could give them political leverage, is rubbing against Germany’s historical reliance on the American military umbrella (which France does not require.)
After a meeting with Biden at the White House in Washington on February 9, Scholz said, “Let’s not beat about the bush: support from the United States is indispensable if Ukraine is to be capable of defending itself.” Scholz strongly advocated stepping up military aid to Ukraine, emphasising an imperative need to send out a “very clear signal” to Putin.
As he put it, “We need to show that he (Putin) can’t count on our support waning.” Scholz added: “The support we provide will be on a big enough scale and it will last long enough.” By hyping up the war-like atmosphere, Germany seeks to maintain the relevance and financial stability of NATO through the conflict in Ukraine.
Biden responded to Scholz purring like a cat showing pleasure. Biden will next host Poland’s President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Donald Tusk for a meeting in Washington on March 12. The US is re-energising its coalition with Germany and Poland for the next phase of Ukraine war. France stands outside looking in, while Britain lies in coma.
Simply put, while Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s delusion is that he can win this war, NATO’s delusion is that it will do whatever it takes. But the undertaker’s money is running out and further business depends on prolonging the war.
The veil has come off the western narrative — this war was never about Ukraine. The enemy image of Russia has become the cornerstone of NATO’s very existence and function.
Certainly, taking orders from an undertaker is not in Germany’s interests. The noted German editor Wolfgang Münchau wrote recently about “a general disorientation in Germany that accompanies the geopolitical and social change” manifesting in the faltering economy, the de-industrialisation that is happening and the absence of a post-industrial strategy for the country as such.
Clearly, European interests lie in shouldering their own defence and making peace with Russia so as to focus attention on the economy. Germans themselves are conflicted over this war. Scholz is not a man of charisma or of big ideas, Münchau noted, and the German public no longer trusts him. But then, there is also “the deeper problem: it is not really Scholz. It is that Germany has become a lot harder to run.”
Strategic Culture Foundation | February 16, 2024
The claims about Russian space-based nuclear weapons unraveled to become a joke. Fortunately, the death of Western-sponsored dissident Alexei Navalny then occurred to enable Western media to go into a frenzy of anti-Russia headlines.
First up was the scaremongering story about Russia allegedly developing a space-based nuclear weapon. Initially, it was dramatically trialed as posing a serious national security threat to the United States. Despite the sensational reporting, the story quickly became a laughingstock. Even some U.S. lawmakers dismissed it as “bullshit” and a blatant attempt by the Biden White House and intelligence agencies to push Congress into passing a new mega military aid bill for Ukraine worth $61 billion.
We’ll get to the Navalny story in a moment. But let’s just first parse the orchestration of the alleged Russian space nukes.
The drama began on Wednesday when Mike Turner, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (a dodgy source if ever there was one), made public appeals to President Joe Biden to declassify intelligence on “a serious threat to national security”. Turner is a Republican member of the House of Representatives but he is a close ally of the Democrat White House in terms of keenly supporting military aid to Ukraine. The latest bill passed the upper chamber of the U.S. Senate the day before, February 13, but it is unlikely to be approved by the House where many Republican lawmakers are staunchly opposed to it.
Accompanying the “concerns” of the intel committee chairman Turner, media outlets then vented anonymous US intelligence sources “revealing” that the national security threat was from Russian nuclear weapons allegedly under development for destroying American communication satellites in space. The White House then “confirmed” the intel the next day, February 15. It was a flagrant put-up job. But the Biden administration sought to tamp down any public panic by saying that the threat was not imminent and the alleged Russian satellite-killing weapon had not been deployed in orbit, nor would there be any danger to Earth. (So, what was all the fuss about?)
Ironically, derisive comments from incredulous U.S. lawmakers were also echoed by the Kremlin. The latter’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov made a similar assessment that the Biden administration was playing tricks to push through the military funding package for Ukraine.
That bill has been delayed since the end of last year. The Biden administration has been cajoling Congress for months to vote it through. After the Senate finally passed the bill this week, President Biden put pressure on the House, saying that “history is watching you”. The bill has been exalted as having existential importance in defeating “Russian aggression” in Ukraine. The U.S. media have claimed (preposterously) that if the military aid is not supplied then Ukraine’s defeat could result in American troops being deployed to prevent Russian rampaging across Europe.
The American public, as with the European public, has become increasingly skeptical about the relentless funneling of taxpayer funds and weapons to Ukraine. Many citizens in the West – a majority, according to polls – have become critical of fueling a bloody war for the dubious cause of “defending democracy” in a regime dominated by NeoNazis. At a time of deep social and economic hardship in the U.S. and Europe, the Western public is rightly disdainful of hundreds of billions of dollars and euros being wasted on death and destruction and also being siphoned off by a corrupt cabal in Kiev.
The $61 billion in military aid to Ukraine is just the latest tranche that Washington is seeking to throw at the black hole of its proxy war against Russia – a war that is really all about defeating Russia as a geopolitical obstacle to U.S. hegemony. Another driver is the massive profits that taxpayers are subsidizing the military-industrial complex at the rotten heart of Western capitalism.
There’s a huge lot at stake with the failure of the US/NATO proxy war in Ukraine. The Kiev regime is facing a collapse in the face of a superior Russian military.
That’s why the passing of the latest bill by Congress has taken on such an imperative importance – for the warmongers.
To get this bill into law, the U.S. deep state rulers and the pliant Biden White House along with the media-intelligence establishment sought to demonize Russia with a desperate story about alleged nuclear weapons for outer space. Oh, those dastardly Ruskies!
But as noted above the space nukes scar-story turned into farce. It was too obvious that the public was being manipulated, or gaslighted as one US lawmaker put it. When a psyops fails, the blowback is dangerous for the authors because of the damaging revelation and contempt it engenders. The Biden administration was open to ridicule.
There are several telltale signs that the story was total hogwash from the outset. Bruce Gagnon, U.S.-based coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, said the claims are absurd. In an email exchange with the Strategic Culture Foundation for this editorial, Gagnon said Russia has already developed formidable non-nuclear kinetic weapons to destroy satellites if it wanted to. He also remarked that the United States possesses anti-satellite weapons (ASATs).
In other words, there is no need for Russia to develop a risky nuclear weapon to knock out satellites. The nuclear details flagged up in US media this week are a gratuitous embellishment designed to alarm the public and to demonize Russia as an evil rogue state.
Russia is a co-signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as are the United States, China, and over 120 other nations.
Bruce Gagnon commented: “I believe the Russians have a long history of generally honoring treaties while the U.S. does not. And remember that Russia and China every year for at least the last 20-30 years go to the UN and introduce a new treaty called Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) to ban all weapons that fall outside of the 1967 treaty. The U.S. always refuses, saying there is no need for a new treaty.”
Apart from the paramount issue of getting additional funding for the proxy war in Ukraine, another timing issue is the aftermath of the blockbuster interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin by American journalist Tucker Carlson. Since the interview was aired last Thursday, February 8, it has broken all records for public audiences around the world. It has garnered over 300 million views, and counting.
The one-on-one interview was seen as a breakthrough world exclusive, an informative platform for Putin to comprehensively give Russia’s point of view on the whole Ukraine conflict, and more. The Russian leader was seen by American and European audiences as reasonable, intelligent, articulate, and convincing. The Western propaganda caricature of Putin was dispelled and for a rare moment, the Western public was persuasively informed of the bigger causes of the conflict in Ukraine. That is, how the U.S.-led NATO axis had instigated the war by fomenting an anti-Russian regime dominated by NeoNazis. The impact of the interview dealt a devastating blow to the Western narrative of “Russian aggression” and “evil Putin”.
Plausibly, the U.S. warmongering establishment was incensed by this exposé.
Hence, to wrest back control of the narrative and corral the Western public, the space-based nukes scare-story was unleashed. Unfortunately, that psyop attempt failed to gain traction and indeed was fast descending into a farce.
Next up, luckily, came the news of Navalny’s death. Western media immediately blared headlines and comments that he had been killed by the “Putin regime”.
Navalny was serving 19 years in prison on multiple corruption convictions. He died Friday apparently from a blood clot. The 47-year-old was a broken and forgotten figure facing a futile existence, having been used and abandoned by Western intelligence handlers as a cut-out dissident figure. His future looked bleak. Who knows at this stage what caused his death? He was last seen by his lawyer during a prison meeting this week two days before his passing. Did his lawyer pass something to Navalny? Was the washed-up Western asset offered a deal for his family’s benefit if he agreed to one last, ultimate psyop on behalf of Western handlers? Taking his own life? His death in prison has certainly provided the Western media with a bonanza opportunity to change the narrative and precipitate an avalanche of Russophobia, just as required.
As for the far-fetched Russian space nukes and the death of Navalny, the criminologist’s question of Who Gains? and the factor of timing are often reliable indicators.
By Gilbert Doctorow | February 16, 2024
It is remarkable how an invitation to do a live television interview can change your schedule and concentrate your mind.
This afternoon I got a WhatsApp message from TRT, Turkey’s premier English language international broadcaster with whom I had done several interviews a year ago, followed by many months of silence. That is not unusual. Broadcasters rotate experts in and rotate experts out at their pleasure.
The invitation today was to speak about breaking news, the reported death in a remote Yamalo-Nenets prison colony of Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny at age 47. A glance at the latest online edition of The Financial Times confirmed that Navalny had indeed died and set out the comments of leading Western statesmen condemning what they considered to be the latest murder by Vladimir Putin of prominent activists who oppose his rule. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, European Council President Charles Michel and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz were among those who already had spoken before microphones and were reading from the same anti-Putin script.
In short, what happened in the West this afternoon was a new campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin on the world stage based on a death which was, if I may quote former British PM Theresa May, ‘highly likely’ to have been perpetrated by British Intelligence for this very purpose.
In all of the false flag operations that have been directed by the West against Russia over the past decade or more, I have argued that the old Roman investigative principle of cui bono militated against the Kremlin having been involved in any way. So it is today: why would Putin want to murder Navalny, when the man is now largely forgotten within Russia. Navalny is yesterday’s news and his ‘anti-corruption’ campaign is irrelevant to Russians in the midst of an existential struggle with the Collective West that is being fought on the territory of Ukraine? However, the murder of Navalny clearly serves the interests of that same Collective West as an intended antidote to the major Soft Power coup of the Carlson Tucker interview with Vladimir Putin just a week ago and perhaps even more important, to the follow-up Tucker News Briefs showing his visits to the Kievskaya Metro Station and to an Auchan supermarket in downtown Moscow. This was not Gilbert Doctorow publishing his travel notes of visits to St Petersburg markets and reaching 10,000 readers; it was Tucker Carlson, with a regular U.S. audience of 40 million or more for his every broadcast, and a peak of one billion views for the recent interview.
Let us go beyond the cui bono argumentation to circumstantial evidence that is damning for the Brits. As the Americans like to say, there are ‘fingerprints’ of the Brits all over this death of Navalny.
A fair number of the poisonings and other assorted deaths of people who could be said were ‘inconvenient’ to the Kremlin happened in the U.K., after all. That is where Boris Berezovsky, the exiled oligarch who opposed Putin tooth and nail, was ‘suicided’ and it occurred in 2013 at his London estate when it was widely rumored he was looking for forgiveness for his treachery and was preparing to return to Mother Russia with a trove of documents. Earlier still, the U.K. is where the Berezovsky employee Alexander Litvinenko met his death in 2006 from polonium poisoning in a very British cuppa tea.
However, more recently there were incidents in the U.K. which bear directly on the fate of Navalny, and their timing is very relevant. I am thinking about the Novichok poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Skripal in Salisbury at the start of March 2018, ahead of the 18 March presidential elections in Russia that year, when Putin was making his return to power following the interregnum when Dmitry Medvedev was president.
Hmm. A terrible attack on a Putin enemy in 2018 just weeks before a Russian presidential election. Hmm, again: the date of Putin’s next election happens to be 15-17 March.
The Skripal poisoning was shouted to the skies by the British political establishment. Can you just imagine, they said, that Putin is carrying out revenge murders on British soil! Of course, today, everyone has forgotten about the Skripals, who seem somehow to have survived the Novichok attack which is always fatal and to have been given new identities if they were not simply dumped by MI6 into shallow graves somewhere.
But the Novichok that the Russians were said to have invented also was in production in a chemical weapons facility located not far from Salisbury. Another detail that Western media chose to ignore.
Novichok just happens to be the poison that was allegedly used against Aleksei Navalny back in August 2020 while he was on the stump in provincial Russia working up the population to oppose the oligarchs and crooks who, he said, were running the country. Like the Skripals, Navalny miraculously survived his poisoning by Novichok. He was flown to Germany, where Angela Merkel extended a warm welcome to him and where, during his months long convalescence he oversaw the production by German crews of faked video exposés showing palaces on the Black Sea that were supposedly built for Putin.
Russian doctors at the prison colony were said to have spent half an hour today trying to revive Navalny, but in vain. He is just one more case of collateral damage in the British secret war on Russia
Time was, in the days of Tony Blair, we spoke of the British as the ‘lap dogs’ of Bush. Today it would be more appropriate to say that the British have become the Hound of the Baskervilles, ahead of and likely outside the control of Washington.
The Grayzone | February 15, 2024
In the latest Grayzone report from the ground in Gaza, 39-year-old mother Abier Mohammed Gheben describes how invading Israeli forces kidnapped her and subjected her to humiliation and violent threats as they interrogated her in captivity.
Defence for Children Palestine | February 13, 2024
Abdulhakim, 13, was injured in the Israeli military’s assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. As he recovers in a hospital in southern Gaza, there is no room for him and many others, so his bed remains in the hallway.
By Ben Bartee | Armageddon Prose | February 16, 2024
The last couple of years have been hell for the SSRI hustle.
First, in 2022, landmark research shot a God-sized hole in the “low serotonin causes depression” biochemical voodoo narrative, previously accepted uncritically as Gospel and which has sustained the multi-billion-dollar SSRI racket for decades.
Via Molecular Psychiatry :
“Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to people without, and methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan depletion do not consistently lower mood in volunteers. High quality, well-powered genetic studies effectively exclude an association between genotypes related to the serotonin system and depression, including a proposed interaction with stress. Weak evidence from some studies of serotonin 5-HT1A receptors and levels of SERT points towards a possible association between increased serotonin activity and depression. However, these results are likely to be influenced by prior use of antidepressants and its effects on the serotonin system. The effects of tryptophan depletion in some cross-over studies involving people with depression may also be mediated by antidepressants, although these are not consistently found.”
Bet you didn’t see that report on Fox News or MSNBC!
Unvarnished veritas: the reason you tune into independent media like Armageddon Prose.
Legacy media producers/executives/news actors know how their bread gets buttered, and it’s not by informing their audience; it’s by selling (patented) erectile dysfunction and depression drugs wall-to-wall on every commercial break and keeping their mouths shut about the industry’s lies and abuses in between said commercial breaks.
Now, in research published late last year, we learn that psychotherapy alone not only beats antidepressants alone for combatting depression, but that it beats the combination of both!
In other words, antidepressants are worse than useless for treating depression in tandem with psychotherapy.
Via Frontiers in Psychiatry :
“The results showed that antidepressant exposure significantly increased the risk of suicide and suicide attempt when compared with no antidepressant usage among children and adolescents…
Among the antidepressants, SSRI use was associated with an increased risk of suicide and suicide attempt…
Clinicians should evaluate carefully their patients and be cautious with patients at risk to have treatment emergence or worsening of suicidal ideation (TESI/TWOSI) when prescribing antidepressants to children and young patients.
Thirty-four relevant RCTs were included. Psychotherapy-only was stronger than combined treatment (1.9% v. 3.7%; OR 1.96 [1.20–3.20], p = 0.012) and ADM-only (3.0% v. 5.6%; OR 0.45 [0.30–0.67], p = 0.001) in decreasing the likelihood of [severe adverse events] in the primary and trim-and-fill sensitivity analyses. Combined treatment was better than ADM-only in reducing the probability of SAEs (6.0% v. 8.7%; OR 0.74 [0.56–0.96], p = 0.029), but this comparative efficacy finding was non-significant in the sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed the advantage of psychotherapy-only over combined treatment and ADM-only for reducing SAE risk among children and adolescents and the benefit of combined treatment over ADM-only among adults. Overall, psychotherapy and combined treatment outperformed ADM-only in reducing the likelihood of SAEs, perhaps by conferring strategies to enhance reasons for living. Plausibly, psychotherapy should be prioritized for high-risk youths and combined treatment for high-risk adults with MDD.”
As Pfizer exhorted the peasants at this year’s Super Bowl commercial pageantry, “Here’s to Science™”! (Except when it runs counter to financial interests; then it gets defunded and shelved and its practitioners run out of the field and any professional licenses confiscated by the state.)
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.
2nd Smartest Guy in the World | February 15, 2024
The WEF-captured government of France has pushed through a draconian new law entitled Article 4. This Orwellian and unconstitutional color of law power grab is a purposely poor attempt at obscuring the irrefutable slow kill bioweapon death and destruction data.
What makes Article 4 particularly incendiary is that the majority of the French population has been outright refusing all “vaccinations.” Throttling their free speech as it pertains to gene modifying poisons will only increase the already heightened tensions between the criminal Macron administration and the awakening French populace, by design.
Between WEF puppet Trudeau in Canada and WEF puppet Macron in France, there is now a race to create the most totalitarian technocommunist nation in the West, with France now taking a slight lead; to wit:
These policies and “laws” are nothing more than an extension of the ongoing democide, and the associated iatrocide.
Meanwhile, back in the USSA, the Center for Disease Crimes (CDC) is still at it with their “Trust the Science” mendacity and murder:
Readers of this Substack fully appreciate the myocarditis and turbo cancer epidemics currently underway — not to mention soaring excess non-PSYOP-19 mortality — since the rollout of the “vaccines:”
Removing all BigPharma legal liabilities and prosecuting the various “health” agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, et al. has never been more urgent.
France’s Article 4 is just a hint at what is to come, especially if the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty scam ever passes in the various nations that they are attempting to further hijack.
They want you dead.
Do NOT comply.
RT | February 16, 2024
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky have signed a security pact under which Berlin will supply Kiev with military and economic aid for another ten years.
Inked on Friday, the 10-page agreement commits Germany to providing “unwavering support for Ukraine for as long as it takes in order to help Ukraine defend itself” and restore its 1991 borders. In addition to retaking the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, this feat would also involve the seizure of Crimea from Russia, which some American officials and Kiev’s former military chief view as next to impossible.
On top of military aid, the plan binds Germany to training Ukrainian police officers, transferring weapons manufacturing technology, paying for green energy projects, and a range of other efforts to help the Ukrainian government “continue providing services to its people”
Speaking at a ceremony in Berlin, Zelensky said that the details of the agreement “are very specific and involve long-term support,” and that the pact proves that one day “Ukraine will be in NATO.”
Germany is Ukraine’s second-largest Western backer, behind only the US. To date, Berlin has given Kiev €22 billion ($23.7 billion) in assistance, including €17.7 billion in military aid, according to figures compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. When aid transferred via the EU is included, Germany has handed over a total of €28 billion to Ukraine, Scholz said on Friday.
In addition to signing the decade-long pledge to Ukraine, Scholz announced a new package of military aid worth €1.1 billion. It will include 36 self-propelled howitzers, 120,000 artillery shells, and additional ammunition for Ukraine’s German-provided Iris-T air defense systems.
Germany’s outlay has hurt its own military readiness, with the New York Times reporting in November that training exercises are routinely canceled due to ammunition shortages, while German soldiers have yet to fire their latest howitzers, all of which have been sent to Ukraine.
Scholz’s decision to sanction Russian energy imports has also hammered the German economy, with industrial output falling by 2% last year, while the entire economy shrank by 0.3% in the same time period, according to the country’s Federal Statistical Office. One in three German manufacturers is currently considering moving abroad, Federation of German Industries (BDI) chief Siegfried Russwurm told Bild on Saturday, citing persistent inflation and high energy costs.
By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | February 15, 2024
We are living through one of history’s longest and most excruciating versions of “We told you so.” When in March 2020, the world’s government decided to “shut down” the world’s economies and throttle any and all social activity, and deny kids schooling plus cancel worship services and holidays, there was no end to the warnings of the terrible collateral damage, even if most of them were censored.
Every bit of the warnings proved true. You see it in every story in the news. It’s behind every headline. It’s in countless family tragedies. It’s in the loss of trust. It’s in the upheaval in industry and demographics. The fingerprints of lockdowns are deeply embedded in every aspect of our lives, in ways obvious and not so much.
Actually, the results have been even worse than critics predicted, simply because the chaos lasted such a long time. There are seemingly endless iterations of this theme. Learning losses, infrastructure breakages, rampant criminality, vast debt, inflation, lost work ethic, a growing commercial real estate bust, real income losses, political extremism, labor shortages, substance addiction, and more much besides, all trace to the fateful decision.
The headlines on seemingly unrelated matters go back to the same, in circuitous ways. A good example is the news of the electric vehicle bust. The confusion, disorientation, malinvestment, overproduction, and retrenchment – along with the crazed ambition to force convert a country and world away from oil and gas toward wind and solar – all trace to those fateful days.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “As recently as a year ago, automakers were struggling to meet the hot demand for electric vehicles. In a span of months, though, the dynamic flipped, leaving them hitting the brakes on what for many had been an all-out push toward an electric transformation.”
Reading the story, it’s clear that the reporter is downplaying the sheer scale of the boom-bust.
That’s not to say that Tesla itself is going bust, only that it has a defined market segment. The technology of EVs simply cannot and will not become the major way Americans drive. It might have seemed otherwise for a moment in time but that was due to factors that traced exactly to pent up demand caused by lockdowns and huge errors in supply management due to bad signaling.
Looking back, the lockdowns hit in the spring of 2020 and supply chains were entirely frozen by force. This might have been a major problem for car manufacturers that had long relied on just-in-time inventory strategies. However, at the very time, the demand for travel collapsed. Commutes came to an end, and vacations too. At that same time, pre-arranged government subsidies and mandates for EVs flooded the industry, all of which were later ramped up by the Biden administration.
As demand picked up, retailers sold their old inventory of cars and looked to manufacturers for more but the chips needed to complete the cars were not available. Many cars were put on hold and lots emptied out. This continued through the following year as used car prices soared and stock was otherwise depleted.
By the time matters became desperate in the fall of 2021, manufacturers discerned a heightened demand for EVs and began to retool their factories for more. There was even a time when cars were being shipped without power steering, just to meet the demand.
It might have seemed for a time like the crazed period we just lived through was birthing a completely different way of life. A kind of irrationality, born of shock and awe, swept industry and culture. The EV was central to it.
This demand seemed to pan out in 2022 as Americans grabbed whatever cars were available, perhaps willing to give the new doohickies a shot. So on it went as more carmakers threw more resources at production, benefitting from massive subsidies and staying in compliance with new mandates for reducing their carbon footprint.
There was no particular reason to think anything would go wrong. But then the next year began to reveal uncomfortable truths. Cold weather dramatically cuts the range of the EVs. Charging stations are not as readily available on longer trips, charging takes longer than one expects, and having to plan such matters adds time. In addition, the repair bills can be extremely high if you can find someone to do it.
Tesla as a manufacturer had planned out all such contingencies but other carmakers less so. Very quickly the EVs gained a bad reputation on a number of different fronts.
“Last summer, dealers began warning of unsold electric vehicles clogging their lots. Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen and others shifted from frenetic spending on EVs to delaying or downsizing some projects,” writes the Journal. “Dealers who had been begging automakers to ship more EVs faster are now turning them down.”
In short, “the massive miscalculation has left the industry in a bind, facing a potential glut of EVs and half-empty factories while still having to meet stricter environmental regulations globally.”
Today, lots are selling the cars at a loss just to avoid the costs of keeping them around.
Truly, this has been one spectacular boom-bust in a single industry. There seems to be no real end to the bust either. These days it appears that everyone has given up on any chance of actually converting the mass of American cars to become EVs. All recent trends are headed in the other direction.
Meanwhile, the EV is deeply loved by many as 1) a second car, 2) for well-to-do suburban commuters, 3) who own homes, 4) can charge overnight, and 5) have a gas car as a backup for cold weather and out-of-town trips. That is to say, the market is becoming exactly what it should be – a street-worthy golf cart with very fancy features – and not some paradigmatic case for the “great reset.” That’s simply not happening, despite all the subsidies and tax breaks.
“A confluence of factors had led many auto executives to see the potential for a dramatic societal shift to electric cars,” writes the Journal, including “government regulations, corporate climate goals, the rise of Chinese EV makers, and Tesla’s stock valuation, which, at roughly $600 billion, still towers over the legacy car companies. But the push overlooked an important constituency: the consumer.”
Indeed, the American economy, much to the chagrin of many, still primarily relies on consumers to make choices in their best interest. When that doesn’t happen, no amount of subsidies can make up the difference.
This story is impossible to understand without reference to the crazed illusions caused by lockdowns. Those are what provided the respite of time to allow automakers to retool. Then they boosted demand artificially for transportation after a long period in which inventory had been depleted.
Then the whole ridiculous ethos of the “great reset” convinced idiotic corporate executives that nothing would ever be the same. Maybe we would get 15-minute cities powered by sunbeams and breezes after all, along with a social-credit system that would allow the authorities to decommission our ability to drive in an instant.
It turns out that the entire bit, including the fake prosperity of the lockdown economy, made possible by money printing and grotesque levels of government spending, was unsustainable. Even sophisticated car companies bought into the nonsense. Now they are paying a very heavy price. The new market depended on a panic of buying that turned out to be temporary.
In short, the illusions of these horrible policies have come crashing down. It was born of liberty-wrecking policies under the cover of virus control. Every special interest seized the day, including a new generation of industrialists seeking to displace the old ones by force.
More and more, it’s obvious what a disaster this was. And yet no one has apologized. Hardly anyone has admitted error. The big shots who wrecked the world are still in power.
The rest of us are left holding the bag, and paying very high repair bills for cars that are non-optimal for driving from one town to another and back again in the cold weather that was supposed to be gone by now had the “climate change” prophets been correct. They turn out to be as correct as those who promised us that we would no longer need “fossil fuels” and that the magic inoculation would protect everyone from a killer virus.
What astonishing illusions were born of this nutty and destructive period. At some point, not even corporate CEOs will be tricked by the experts.
Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Damian Lataan | January 10, 2014
Seventy senior Israeli-centric neoconservatives have written an open letter to Congress imploring them to do more to ensure Iran complies with the conditions of any agreement finally reached with the P5+1 over Iran’s nuclear program.
While the neocons are ostensibly asking Congress to ensure compliance, it is clear that their real aim is to convince members of Congress to support the bill currently passing through the Senate which calls for tighter sanctions against Iran in the event of any waywardness on Iran’s part.
The neocons are eager to see the bill currently passing through the Senate with enough support to make it veto-proof, not so much because they are concerned about Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program – there’s still not a skerrick of hard evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program – but, rather, because embedded within the bill is this clause:
… if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence…
Essentially, the clause is an automatic trigger for the US to attack Iran at any time the Israelis choose to launch a first strike – regardless of whether President Obama is in favour or not.
Partial list… continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 