Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s Bill Outlawing Canonical Orthodox Church Fits West’s Globalist Agenda – Psyop Veteran

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 21.08.2024

The Verkhovna Rada parliament of Ukraine has adopted in the final reading a bill that allows the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) to be banned in the country.

The Kiev regime’s newly-adopted bill banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) conforms with the “globalist agenda” pursued by the West, ex-US Army psychological warfare officer Scott Bennett told Sputnik.

“The globalist EU, American agenda has always been to establish an atheistic government in Ukraine, and this is one of their strategies for doing so,” he emphasized.

This strategy involves outlawing religious institutions to prevent individuals from engaging in religious worship and specifically targeting churches, according to the former analyst from the State Department’s counterterrorism division.

“The Ukrainian leadership is using the tactic of a political witch-hunt and attempting to brand religious orthodoxy as somehow a Russian intelligence secret military operation,” he added.

On August 20, the Verkhovna Rada approved the final reading of a bill that bans the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) nationwide. The bill garnered 265 votes in favor, surpassing the 226 votes needed for passage. The law is scheduled to take effect in 30 days.

After such a “devastatingly stupid” move to reject its Orthodox Christian heritage, there is a great probability that Ukraine will “descend into complete moral disintegration, madness and immorality,” according to the psyop veteran. The only way for the country to avoid such a disastrous scenario would be to “build a political-social-military momentum to push out of Ukraine this NATO-led… impregnation of religious death into the society,” he maintained.

The law’s passage confirms the “absolute corruption of the Ukrainian parliament,” he said, recalling that Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May and so he can no longer ratify acts of parliament.

In closing, Ukraine adopting a bill outlawing the Ukrainian orthodox church opens the door for Russia to be the religious salvation-defender… and redefine Russia as country that is rising up to preserve the Ukrainian peoples right to worship God in the orthodox religious manner they have been practicing for hundreds of years,” Scott Bennet concluded.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU state calls for probe into Orthodox churches

RT | August 21, 2024

Czech intelligence services must investigate the country’s Orthodox churches for signs of Russian influence, the head of the EU state’s Senate Security Committee, Pavel Fischer, has reportedly demanded.

The politician claimed the republic’s current legislation does not allow the state to respond to security threats caused by abuse of churches, implying that institutions such as the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the Czech Republic and the Czech Orthodox Church could be influenced by Moscow to act against the interests of the republic. He insisted that new laws are required to provide authorities with the necessary powers.

“Freedom of religion and association must not be abused for illegitimate influence by a hostile foreign state,” Fischer was quoted as saying by the Ceske Noviny news outlet.

He also called on the Ministry of Culture to review whether the two churches are operating in accordance with the law and the conditions of their registration, arguing that their operations should be shut down if they are found to be in violation.

As noted by Ceske Noviny, the ministry had already conducted a review of the churches after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 and found no grounds to withdraw their registration.

Nevertheless, Fischer has insisted that the Czech branch of the ROC has direct ties with the Russian government. He also suggested that the Czech Orthodox Church, despite being independent, has come under growing influence of figures supposedly connected to the Russian security services since 2014.

The politician has also called on the Czech Interior Ministry to ensure that the police are focused on uncovering and investigating possible criminal activity by members of the two churches.

Ukrainian MPs passed a law on Tuesday that outright bans the operation of the ROC and all affiliated religious institutions in the country. It also provides grounds for the closure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), the largest Orthodox church in the country, unless it proves that it has cut ties with Moscow.

The UOC, which had already declared full autonomy from the Moscow Patriarchate in 2022, now has nine months to comply with the new legislation.

Russia has condemned the new Ukrainian law, describing it as a “powerful blow against the whole of Orthodoxy.”

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 21.08.2024 

In the lead up to the Ukrainian military’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, even Western headlines were dominated by reports of Ukraine’s gradual demise. Ukraine is admittedly suffering arms and ammunition shortages, as well as facing an unsolvable manpower crisis. Russia has been destroying Ukrainian military power faster than Ukraine and its Western sponsors can reconstitute it.

Western headlines have also been admitting the scale on which Russia is expanding its own military power as its Special Military Operation (SMO) continues into its third year.

While the launch of Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has diverted attention away from Ukraine’s collapsing fighting capacity, the incursion itself has not only failed to address the factors leading to this collapse, it is already accelerating it.

Politico in an August 15, 2024 article titled, “As Kyiv makes gains in Kursk, Russia strikes back in Donetsk,” cites the spokesman of Ukraine’s 110th Mechanized Brigade who would admit, “since Ukraine launched the Kursk offensive I would say things have become worse in our part of the front. We have been getting even less ammo than before, and the Russians are pushing.”

The same article would also cite “Deep State,” a mapping project Politico claims is “close” to Ukraine Ministry of Defense, claiming, “over the past 24 hours, Russia occupied the villages of Zhelanne and Orlivka and made advances in New York, Krasnohorivka, Mykolaivka and Zhuravka in Donetsk.”

Thus, while Ukraine claims gains in Kursk, it comes at the expense of territory everywhere else along the line of contact.

Because of the nature of the fighting in Kursk where Ukrainian forces have come out from behind extensive defensive lines and are operating out in the open, they are suffering much greater losses than Ukrainian units being pushed back along the line of contact, according to even the Western media.

Superficial Success, Strategic Suicide  

Despite this reality, the Western media has invested heavily in depicting Ukraine’s Kursk incursion as a turning point in the fighting.

CNN in its August 15, 2024 article, “Russia appears to have diverted several thousand troops from occupied Ukraine to counter Kursk offensive, US officials say,” attempts at first glance to portray the Ukrainian operation as having successfully diverted Russian forces from the front lines.

Buried deeper in the article, however, CNN reveals that whatever troops Russia is moving are relatively insignificant compared to the number of Russian forces still fighting along the line of contact primarily in Kherson, Zaporozhye, the Donbass, and Kharkov.

In the short-term, experienced forces utilized as a mobile reserve are likely being moved to Kursk until Russian reserves within Russia itself can be sufficiently mobilized and moved to the area of fighting. The vast majority of Russia’s forces not only remain along the actual line of contact, they continue making progress at an accelerated rate.

The same CNN article would quote US officials, saying:

Some officials also raised concerns that Ukraine, which one western official said has sent some of its more experienced forces into Kursk, may have created weaknesses along its own frontlines that Russia may be able to exploit to gain more ground inside Ukraine.

“It’s impressive from a military point of view,” the official said of the Kursk operation. But Ukraine is “committing pretty experienced troops to this, and they can’t afford to lose those troops.”

“And having diverted them from the front line creates opportunities for Russia to seize advantage and break through,” this person added.

Buried under optimistic headlines across the Western media regarding this latest incursion is an ominous truth – that an operation aimed at humiliating Russia, boosting morale, and raising the political, territorial, and military costs for Russia, has only brought Ukraine deeper into its growing arms, ammunition, and manpower crisis.

Toward what end does an incursion accelerating the collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity serve?

Washington’s, Not Kiev’s Ends  

CNN would also attempt to convince readers that the Kursk incursion took the US itself entirely by surprise. This is untrue.

The United States, following its political capture of Ukraine in 2014, admittedly took over Ukraine’s intelligence networks. These are the same networks that would have been required to organize this most recent incursion.

A New York Times article, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” not only admits to the CIA’s role in training, shaping, and directing Ukrainian intelligence operations, but also admits to a network of CIA bases along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the fact that the CIA stood up covert military units specifically for crossing over into Russian territory and conducting operations there.

The CIA and other US military and intelligence agencies have been involved in Ukrainian military operations leading up to and all throughout the duration of Russia’s SMO.  The Washington Post admits that the US worked with Ukraine to “build a campaign plan” ahead of the failed 2023 Ukrainian offensive.

It is inconceivable Ukraine moved multiple brigades of manpower and equipment, including US-European trained soldiers and Western military equipment to Sumy where the Kursk incursion was launched without Washington’s involvement, let alone without Washington’s knowledge.

Why then did the US organize such an incursion, one admittedly overstretching Ukrainian forces already crumbling under the growing weight of Russian military power? Why, amid Russia’s strategy of attrition, have US planners decided to launch an incursion that will accelerate the loss of Ukrainian manpower, arms, and ammunition it does not have to spare?

In a much wider geopolitical context – Washington’s geopolitical context – the incursion helps raise the cost of victory for Russia in Ukraine as the US seeks to place pressure on and overextend Russia elsewhere within and along its borders.

Years before the SMO even began, as far back as at least 2019, US policymakers openly sought to draw Russia into a costly conflict in Ukraine, just one among many other proposals meant to overextend Russia.

The RAND Corporation in its 2019 paper “Extending Russia” would explain the benefits of “providing lethal aid to Ukraine,” stating:

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has – at a minimum – raised the political cost of Russia’s ongoing SMO. This most recent incursion into Kursk almost certainly had hoped to reach the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, just 35 kilometers beyond the furthest extent the incursion has reached as of this writing. Had Ukrainian forces reached the power plant, the price would have been even higher.

In many ways, however, the Kursk incursion has created a much greater strategic dilemma for Ukraine than it has for Russia. While it has unfolded on the wrong side of the border, the outcome is the same as the Kharkov front Russia opened earlier this year.

Regarding the Kharkov front, the New York Times in its May 2024 article, “Facing Russian Advance, a Top Ukrainian General Paints a Bleak Picture,” would admit, “the Russian attacks in the northeast are intended to stretch Ukraine’s already thin reserves of soldiers and divert them from fighting elsewhere,” and that, “the Ukrainian army was trying to redirect troops from other front-line areas to shore up its defenses in the northeast, but that it had been difficult to find the personnel.” 

By committing thousands of Ukrainian troops and large amounts of Ukraine’s best military equipment to an incursion into Kursk, it is creating the same overextension of its own forces Russia had created in Kharkov last May, but with the added complication of needing to extend logistics and other means of supporting Ukrainian operations beyond Ukrainian territory itself.

The same RAND Corporation paper proposing to draw Russia into a costly conflict with Ukraine would also discuss the consequences this conflict would have for Ukraine itself, explaining:

… such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.

The plan from the very beginning was to lure Russia into a costly conflict in the hopes of precipitating a Soviet-style collapse, but at the expense of Ukraine’s own survival. Thus, what we see unfolding in Ukraine today is simply the consequences predicted by the RAND Corporation in 2019.

Dangerous Escalation and the Long Game 

Perhaps most concerning of all is the looming prospect of the US intervening more directly, including in the form of a “buffer zone” similar to that created by the US and its Turkish allies in the east and north of Syria during Washington’s proxy war there.

For this intervention to succeed, Russia would have to be compelled to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine.

The possibility of this happening is difficult to predict.

On one hand, Russia has demonstrated immense patience amid other US proxy wars. Russian patience in Syria is finally paying off after almost a decade of enduring US provocations and the presence of US troops east of the Euphrates River. The US now finds itself isolated and vulnerable in Syria, its forces under regular attack there, and a disproportionate amount of US military hardware remains committed to both Syria and the surrounding region, limiting US combat power ahead of a potential conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the Asia-Pacific.

Moscow may determine that a Western intervention directly into Ukraine will, over time, collapse under its own weight in a similar manner. In the long term, the US is only going to grow weaker and more isolated as a result of its unsustainable, overreaching foreign policy. Initiating direct conflict with the US now, when it is inevitably going to be weaker later, would be permitting the US a potential and unnecessary advantage.

Instead, Russia and its allies may find an opportunity to exercise many of the means of escalation (short of direct conflict with the US itself) they have held in reserve throughout the duration of this conflict. This includes more open and direct military cooperation between Russia and China, including the arming of Russian forces with Chinese manufactured weapons and ammunition.

On the other hand, Russia may decide to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine’s westernmost regions, but continue military operations along the line of contact and obviously within Kursk itself to expel Ukrainian forces. The US would seek to test the limits of Russian resolve, seeking to constrain Russian operations as much as possible, just as the US did in Syria from 2015 onward.

Throughout this process, the potential for escalation and direct conflict between Russia and the US will grow.

Despite the continued collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity because Ukraine is ultimately a proxy of the United States, a difficult and dangerous transition period lies ahead dependent on the extent to which the US seeks to mitigate Ukraine’s subsequent political and territorial collapse.

Only time will tell whether the US cuts and runs as it did in Afghanistan, or doubles down as it did in Syria. It should be pointed out, however, that the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 to redirect its resources ahead of Russia’s SMO in 2022. Were the US to cut Ukraine loose, it would only be because the US requires resources for a larger, more dangerous conflict elsewhere – namely in the Asia-Pacific region against China.

Either way, when Ukraine’s fighting capacity nears its end, it is likely only wider conflict awaits.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires?

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | August 21, 2024

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

US, UK, Poland Took Part in Preparing Ukraine’s Operation in Kursk – Russian Foreign Intel

Sputnik – 21.08.2024

On August 6, Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, which was slammed by President Vladimir Putin as a large-scale provocation. The Kiev regime planned the attack with the participation of the US and NATO, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev earlier said.

Ukraine’s operation in Russia’s Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, UK, and Polish intelligence services, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said.

“According to available information, the operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, British, and Polish intelligence services. The units involved in it underwent combat coordination in training centers in the UK and Germany. Military advisers from NATO countries are providing assistance in managing Ukraine’s units that have invaded Russian territory, and in using Western weapons and military equipment,” the agency told Russian media.

NATO countries are also providing the Ukrainian military with satellite reconnaissance data on the deployment of Russian troops in the area of ​​the operation, the SVR added.

As the situation on the front deteriorates for Ukrainian troops, Kiev’s Western handlers have been pushing it to move combat operations deep into Russian territory in recent months, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said. One of the goals was to provoke an upsurge in anti-government sentiment and influence domestic policy in the country.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US PMC involved in Kursk invasion

By Lucas Leiroz | August 21, 2024

The US is directly involved in the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk – not only at the strategic level, but also at the tactical and operational sphere. Recent data confirm the participation of at least one US private military company (PMC), meaning that US troops are illegally operating within the 1991 Russian borders. This is likely to lead to a serious escalation of tensions between Moscow and Washington, with the Russian side already demanding formal explanations from US diplomats.

The presence of foreign mercenaries in Kursk is not new. The occurrence of foreigners among Ukrainian troops has been commonly reported, mainly Georgian, Polish and French citizens. However, so far, all reported mercenaries had been members of the Ukrainian Army’s “Foreign Legion”. It is now known that in addition to these individuals who have joined Kiev’s armed forces, there are also mercenary troops from at least one American PMC in Kursk, which represents a higher level of international aggression against Russia.

The American PMC Forward Observation Group (FOG) posted photos and videos on its Instagram showing some of its soldiers fighting on the Kursk front lines. In the photos, it is possible to see not only ordinary PMC members alongside Ukrainian soldiers, but also the founder of FOG himself, Derrick Bales – a well-known American mercenary who has participated in several conflicts. Bales is known for always using an M4A1 rifle in his operations, as well as for having a skull tattoo on his right arm. He has been in Ukraine since 2022, as FOG has been directly involved in training Ukrainian troops. However, this is the first time that a Western PMC has been reported inside the undisputed territory of Russia.

In fact, Western PMCs work together with Ukrainian troops quite often. However, the number of these groups has been decreasing over time. According to experts, Ukraine does not present desirable conditions for PMCs to accept contracts. Being a high-intensity conflict with a very high lethality rate, the Ukrainian scenario seems terrible for professional mercenaries, who see that it is clearly not worth fighting there.

Currently, most PMCs operating in Ukraine work only in activities that do not involve direct combat. Services such as logistics, intelligence, facility security and personnel training are some of their main activities. The fact that an American PMC is directly fighting on a highly lethal flank like the “Battle for Kursk” indicates that there may be direct intervention by the American state in the case – with Washington forcing the mercenaries to fight in Kursk, even though it does not seem like a profitable or interesting scenario.

Unlike classic mercenaries, who fought only for money and without any institutional loyalty, PMCs are a post-Cold War military phenomenon, formed from the reduction of personnel in regular armies’ special forces units. Despite fighting “for money”, these companies have the same mentality and ethics as the regular armed forces, since most of their members came from the ranks of state armies. These groups are loyal to their states and obey direct orders from their countries, being a kind of “semi-state force”. So, it is possible that FOG is following orders from the US state to fight in Kursk, even though the local military conditions did not make it worth the risk.

This possibility of direct American involvement at an institutional level has prompted the Russian Federation to ask Washington for clarification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Washington’s charge d’affaires in Moscow to ask some questions about the direct involvement of American citizens in the hostilities in Kursk. The American responses are not yet clear, but an official statement on the matter is expected to be released soon.

Summoning diplomats for clarification is one of the most serious steps a country can take in the diplomatic sphere. This type of action usually precedes more serious moves, such as imposing sanctions, taking military action or cutting off diplomatic relations. It is unlikely that the Russians will take escalatory measures in retaliation against the US, since avoiding the escalation of tensions has been one of Moscow’s top priorities since the beginning of the special military operation. However, there will certainly be some effective response, despite the concern to avoid escalation.

Regardless of what is done in the diplomatic sphere, it is expected that the Russians will increase military action in Kursk, eliminating all foreigners involved. Mercenaries and PMCs are not protected by international law, which is why any military effort against these groups is absolutely legal.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Dr. Peter McCullough: COVID Shots for Kids ‘the Last Straw’

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 19, 2024

“A child today faces well over a hundred shots,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told host Mat Staver on a recent episode of “Freedom Alive.” Many of those shots are for infectious diseases of the past or contemporary illnesses that don’t pose a risk to infants.

McCullough said the “inflection point” was the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which freed vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine injuries. “We saw essentially a vaccine bonanza develop,” he said, and “excessive, unnecessary” vaccination could be leading to serious side effects.

Those vaccines start just after a baby is born, he said, when they are given the hepatitis B vaccine.

As a cardiologist, dealing with blood and body fluids, McCullough said the vaccine is appropriate for him, but babies are not at risk for it unless their mother has the illness or is an active IV drug user. For most babies, he said, it is a “completely unnecessary shot on the first day of life.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October 2023 recommended newborns receive Beyfortus, the monoclonal antibody shot meant to protect babies from RSV-related illness.

“This has no safety track record,” he said. “We’ve never given a synthetic antibody to a baby ever in the history of medicine, and now it’s being given uniformly with no idea of what is going to happen to the baby’s immune system over the next several weeks or months.”

The clinical trials were inconclusive as to whether Beyfortus is safe, and evidence from France shows increased mortality among infants after the shot was introduced, he said.

McCullough said the broader safety concerns stem largely from the fact that so many are given in combination. “For some babies, it’s too much,” he said.

Excessive vaccination, he explained, sends the immune system into overdrive, which can lead a baby to develop a fever and a febrile seizure (convulsion).

Research shows febrile seizures have about a 40% chance of causing permanent neurologic injury, ranging from epilepsy to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism spectrum disorder.

Staver said many parents who saw their children develop autism post-vaccination are told either that it isn’t true or it’s just a coincidence because there is no evidence of such a link.

“The direct observation by a mother and father of their child is the strongest evidence,” McCullough said, citing Dr. Andy Wakefield’s controversial 1998 study.

McCullough also cited a recent study by the Children’s Health Defense science team, which showed that combining multiple vaccines is dangerous. Spacing them out and giving them individually — rather than combining three vaccines into one shot, like the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR, vaccine — is safer, he said.

And, he said, all children do not need all vaccines. Which vaccines a child gets should be determined on a risk basis. For example, a child with cystic fibrosis might need the respiratory illness vaccines, but healthy kids probably don’t.

Yet these vaccines are given to all children in part, he said, because the people who advise the CDC on which vaccines should be recommended for children have serious conflicts of interest — most take money from Big Pharma. Then schools enact mandates based on those recommendations, leaving parents feeling as if they have no choice.

Vaccine makers lobby state legislators to continually increase the list of mandatory vaccines.

McCullough said:

“Can you imagine if you had a product that treats an illness? You would have to treat a small number of people in a population. But if you have a vaccine, that means the whole entire population has to receive the product.

“A product that must be purchased by the entire population with no liability is an absolute boon to any purveyor of that product.”

McCullough said the CDC has turned a blind eye to vaccine safety. For example, none of the childhood vaccines have been studied for safety when given in combination.

He added that Dr. Paul Thomas reported in The Defender that pediatricians receive substantial incentives from insurance companies to vaccinate certain high percentages of their patients.

For lower-income kids, there is also government financial support to ensure that the vast majority of the population is vaccinated against legacy diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, polio and other diseases that are either no longer commonly circulating or for which good treatments exist.

For many, McCullough said, the recommendation that children take the COVID-19 vaccine, given its alarming safety data, was “the last straw.”

“That act was irresponsible. It triggered the World Council for Health, which is an evidence-based, consensus-driven body to recommend waiting on all the childhood vaccines,” he said.

Vaccines are not safe or effective enough to mandate, McCullough said. “Every parent and child unit should be able to make their own decisions free of any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal.”

Watch the interview here.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

A strategic shift: Will Palestinian groups return to ‘martyrdom attacks’ inside Israel?

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | August 20, 2024

Yesterday, the Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad warned Israel that they plan to return to ‘martyrdom attacks’ inside Israel.

“The Brigades affirm that martyrdom operations within the occupied territories will return to the forefront as long as the massacres by the occupation, the displacement of civilians and the assassination policy continue,” a joint statement by Al-Qassam Brigades and Al-Quds Brigades said.

Palestinian groups have refrained from using martyrdom attacks, or suicide bombings, as it is often called by mainstream media, as a central piece of their ongoing resistance against Israel.

The warning followed an explosion that rocked Tel Aviv on the evening of Sunday.

Initially, Israeli media conveyed a degree of confusion regarding what had transpired in the Israeli capital, before an Israeli police commander announced that there was a 99 per cent chance that the operation was “an attempted terror attack”.

Later, Israel said that the attacker may have originated from the Nablus area of the southern West Bank.

The attack and the announcement of responsibility by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad the following day are significant and could become the beginning of a strategic shift by Palestinians in their ongoing war against the Israeli occupation.

But why would Palestinians return to such operations?

Since 7 October, the Israeli war on Gaza has expanded to reach other domains, thus complicating the mission of the Israeli army, which has been overstretched to fight on several fronts.

While the war in Gaza itself remains the main battlefield, other war fronts began escalating with time, mainly the border war between the Lebanese Resistance Movement, Hezbollah, and the Israeli occupation army.

To prevent the West Bank from turning into a major front for the resistance, the Israeli army began carrying out bloody, but focused, attacks on Palestinian resistance brigades, which operate mostly in the northern West Bank.

Geographically isolated and operating mostly in small groups, Palestinian fighters underwent a bloody, disproportionate war against the Israeli army.

The Israeli occupation army’s confidence was buoyed by the fact that security forces and intelligence belonging to the Palestinian Authority openly cooperated with the Israeli military in their attempt to crush the resistance.

The degree of cooperation reached its zenith on 26 July, when PA security forces besieged the 26-year-old leader of the Tulkarm Brigades, and other fighters, in the Thabet Thabet Hospital in Tulkarm.

If it were not for hundreds of ordinary Palestinians who rushed to the hospital to rescue their youth, the fighters would have been apprehended, if not even worse.

But Israel’s military campaign to crush the resistance in the West Bank was hardly a success. According to Al Jazeera, 100 Palestinian operations were carried out in the last month alone.

Meanwhile, the resistance in Gaza has proved its durability, moving from the stage of defence to that of counter-attacks on more than one occasion. The operation by Hamas’s Al-Qassam fighters targeting Israeli forces inside the fortified Netzarim area in central Gaza, on Sunday, was a case in point.

These developments have been taking place in the larger context of the widening confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel, with the former extending its pinpointed operations to reach Nahariya, among other areas, in northern Israel.

Despite all the setbacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to reverse his dwindling numbers among potential voters. According to a poll conducted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv on 9 August, the Likud Party, led by Netanyahu, would be the largest party in the Knesset if elections were held today. This is the first time such results have been seen since 7 October.

A combination of factors led to the resurgence of Netanyahu in opinion polls.

First, the Israeli leader’s main rival, Benny Gantz has failed to galvanize on the anti-Netanyahu and anti-government popular sentiments starting on 7 October.

Second, Netanyahu’s ability to guarantee US support for his aggressive regional policies helped reassure the Israeli public.

Third, the direct involvement of the US-British and other western navies in confronting Yemen’s Ansarallah – Houthis – in the Red Sea has partly downgraded the geopolitical threat of the Yemeni solidarity with the Palestinians.

Fourth, the daring assassination of top Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on 31 July, and the assassination of leading Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr the day before, allowed Netanyahu to sell the idea, however temporary, that Israel has regained its so-called ‘deterrence’.

And, finally, despite the interception of occasional missiles beyond the Gaza Envelope or Israel’s northmost regions, Israeli society in the central areas of the country has learned to adapt to the new reality of the war.

While the Israeli army is losing an unprecedented number of soldiers and equipment on multiple fronts, not all Israelis are experiencing that loss in their everyday lives.

The opposite is true for Palestinians and Lebanese.

For the former, the genocide in Gaza has turned into a daily reality, and the Israeli occupation forces’s war on the West Bank has proved to be the most violent since the Second Intifada or Uprising of 2002.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Israel continues to target civilian areas as a matter of course, thus constantly challenging the rules of engagement that have governed the relationship between the Israeli army and the Lebanese resistance for years.

The new status quo may have assured Netanyahu that he might be able to carry on with his war in Gaza, reject any reasonable ceasefire proposal and maintain low-intensity warfare with Lebanon.

Netanyahu would also like to see the US-British war on Yemen escalate into an all-out war against Iran.

The Palestinian warning of their intention to return to striking deep inside Israel is meant to disturb Netanyahu’s calculations.

By denying Israelis any sense of security in major cities inside Israel, the Israeli public could, once more, turn against Netanyahu for failing to deliver on any of his lofty promises.

It remains unclear whether Sunday’s truck bombing was the exception or the start of a new norm. Either way, Netanyahu and his security apparatus must be aware of how such a move could prove equally costly to all of Israel’s losing wars, on all fronts.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Soft normalization: Saudi Arabia quietly engages with Israel

By Mawadda Iskandar | The Cradle | August 20, 2024

Despite Israel’s ongoing brutal assault on the Gaza Strip and its 2.4 million Palestinians, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) continues to pursue a controversial deal to normalize relations with the occupation state. Riyadh has persisted in deepening relations with Tel Aviv in multiple sectors despite receiving ‘death threats’ from opponents of normalization in the kingdom.

So why, then, does the crown prince insist on trudging down this unpopular path unless he believes that establishing ties with Israel is crucial for securing his ascendency to the Saudi throne?

Earlier this week, Politico revealed new details about these secretive negotiations, including multiple US commitments to Riyadh. These US assurances range from security guarantees through a treaty to assistance with a civilian nuclear program and economic investments in technology.

However, Tel Aviv remains resistant to including a credible path for establishing a Palestinian state as part of a deal, a key demand from the Saudis.

A history of quiet diplomatic moves

Normalization with Saudi Arabia is no less important for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has considered the deal a major diplomatic goal since before his re-election in 2022. Prior to last year’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Netanyahu believed the deal was imminent.

Today, the situation remains complex, with the deal’s fate hanging in the balance due to conflicting conditions and demands set by Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel.

The roots of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel stretch back several decades, with a history of covert diplomatic dealings often referred to as ‘soft normalization.’

Since his appointment as Riyadh’s ambassador to Washington in 1983, Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud laid the groundwork for this gradual rapprochement, meeting with Israeli political and security leaders over the years. His successor, Turki al-Faisal, continued these efforts, becoming a key point man in Saudi–Israeli contacts.

Anwar Eshki, who served as his predecessor and was an adviser to Prince Bandar, participated in seminars promoting normalization and paid his first visit to the occupied territories in 2016.

A pivotal moment in this covert relationship took place in 2019 when MbS hosted a delegation of evangelical figures supporting the Zionist project led by Joel Rosenberg. The meeting, along with subsequent secret talks between MbS and Netanyahu in NEOM in 2020, marked a notable step toward open normalization. Over time, such meetings and visits became routine, with Saudi officials and citizens increasingly engaging with Israel, including making public visits to the occupied territories.

Repressive measures and strategic interests

The two states share several strategic goals. Saudi Arabia is opposed to the regional Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Hamas, and other non-state actors, and has implemented repressive measures against the Palestinian resistance. The kingdom has for years targeted supporters of Hamas and individuals funneling funds to the Palestinian territories. This includes the arrest of more than 60 Palestinians in 2019, some of them Hamas officials and Saudi nationals who received lengthy prison terms.

As recently as May, Saudi Arabia stepped up its campaign to arrest social media users in the kingdom who attacked Israel online – this after more than 34,000 Palestinians had been killed in relentless Israeli airstrikes on population centers.

From the sidelines, Saudi Arabia has also supported the normalization efforts of Bahrain and Sudan while offering the occupied West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) economic incentives to collaborate further with Israel.

Since its inception, the kingdom has utilized Islam to legitimize its political actions, and this Saudi soft normalization with Israel is no exception, with Muhammad bin Abdul Karim bin Abdulaziz Al-Issa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League, playing a key role in promoting religious normalization.

Since 2017, Al-Issa has championed the cause of interfaith dialogue as a gateway for furthering religious ties with Israel. His 2020 visit to Auschwitz and subsequent meetings with Israeli and Jewish leaders were part of this broader strategy.

US Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt, also met with Saudi officials in the kingdom, and a delegation of American Jewish leaders visited to promote normalization. Areas of soft normalization included Saudi Arabia’s hosting of Rabbi Yaakov Herzog, a former Israeli artillery soldier and an extremist Zionist advocate of the demolition of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The rabbi seeks to stir controversy through his activities, including a visit to the mosque and the cemetery of martyrs of Uhud in Medina.

Security and economic ties with Israel 

Unsurprisingly, Riyadh and Tel Aviv have worked to enhance their security cooperation – a significant aspect of their relationship today. As the world’s largest arms importer, Saudi Arabia has sought to enhance its military capabilities through deals with the occupation state, including acquiring Israel’s flawed Iron Dome air defense system. Security relations have included joint military exercises and cooperation on cybersecurity, with Saudi Arabia relying on Israeli spyware to monitor and control opposition within the kingdom.

Speaking to The Cradle, dissident Saudi author and political analyst Fouad Ibrahim says:

Saudi Arabia views normalization as more than just a political project, as it also includes an economic project and a strategic project related to the future of the throne in Saudi Arabia.

Economic normalization is crucial for MbS’s coveted Vision 2030 project, which aims to transform the kingdom’s economy and institute social liberalization. The deal with Israel includes opening Saudi airspace to Israeli flights and encouraging Israeli investment in Saudi heritage sites. Jared Kushner, the architect of the 2020 Abraham Accords, has played a prominent role in these efforts, working to establish an investment corridor between Riyadh and Tel Aviv.

Among the most ambitious projects is the fiber optic cable linking Tel Aviv to Persian Gulf countries, as well as a planned railway expansion that would connect Saudi Arabia to Israel via Jordan. Ibrahim contends that the Palestinian resistance’s Al-Aqsa Flood operation last October disrupted these plans, placing a whole host of these economic projects in jeopardy:

The Al-Aqsa Flood came and thwarted this project and disrupted it for an unknown period. Therefore, the Saudi regime, along with the US and the Israeli entity, was the first to feel that the Al-Aqsa Flood was directed primarily at the normalization project in the region.

Softening stance leading to soft normalization 

Cultural and media strategies have played an advanced role in acclimating Saudis to normalization with Israel. Since the events of 11 September 2001, Saudi Arabia has worked on revising its education curricula, gradually removing references to Israel as an enemy and promoting a more neutral stance on the occupation state. Art and media have also played a role, with Saudi TV channels airing programs that subtly promote peace with Israel.

The media, in particular, has been a powerful tool in shaping public perception, with Saudi outlets often hosting Israeli officials and broadcasting reports from within the kingdom. This propaganda campaign has aimed to create a climate conducive to normalization, although public support for such a move has fluctuated, especially after the events of 7 October.

At the heart of the crown prince’s Vision 2030 is his desire to position Saudi Arabia as a global sports hub. The Public Investment Fund, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, leads this expansive project by purchasing major foreign sports franchises and hosting international sporting events in the kingdom.

The sports sector has been yet another tool of soft normalization, paving the way for official Israeli teams to appear in Saudi Arabia, where they raise the occupation state’s flag and sing its national anthem. Official matches and competitions are held between Saudi and Israeli players, and the Saudi national football team has even participated in matches held in the occupied West Bank.

As is now glaringly evident, Riyadh’s efforts toward normalization with Tel Aviv have been multifaceted, involving diplomatic, religious, security, economic, cultural, and media strategies. While these efforts have made significant progress over the years, the future of this delicate relationship remains uncertain, especially with rapid developments in the region-wide resistance against the occupation state in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The underlying strategic interests that drive Riyadh’s approach to Israel – security, economic growth, and regional influence – suggest that these efforts will continue, albeit with tweaks and adjustments, so as not to invite reprisals from the Resistance Axis, not least the Yemeni Armed Forces on Saudi Arabia’s restive southern border.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 5 Comments

A new leader for the next phase of Palestinian resistance

Yahya Sinwar, head of the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas ,in Gaza City on 14 April 2023 [Yousef Masoud/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images]
By Sayid Marcos Tenório | MEMO | August 20, 2024

The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, announced on 6 August the election of Yahya Sinwar as the new head of the movement’s Political Bureau, succeeding Ismail Haniyeh, who was assassinated in an Israeli terrorist attack in Tehran. Haniyeh was in the Iranian capital to attend the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Sinwar is one of the most prominent figures in the Hamas political sphere, known for his heavy hand and for making big changes. His unanimous election is a strong message that Hamas has become stronger and more resilient despite the severe blow it received from the political murder of Haniyeh. The movement expressed its confidence in Sinwar, known as Abu Ibrahim, to lead this new delicate phase in a complex local, regional and international context.

Known for his steadfast leadership style and his resistance-focused approach to the occupation state, Sinwar has played a crucial role in shaping the resistance movement’s strategies and managing Gaza’s complex political and social relations.

Hamas wanted a replacement for Haniyeh who would send strong messages to the enemies of the Palestinian people.

Sinwar was elected head of the Hamas Political Bureau in Gaza in February 2017, also succeeding Ismail Haniyeh. He was re-elected for a second term in 2021. He led the Great March of Return in 2018, a peaceful attempt to break the siege of Gaza, as well as the Sword of Al-Quds campaign in 2021. He has also played a prominent role in strengthening relations with the axis of resistance.

The new political bureau head was the mastermind and commander of the epic Al-Aqsa Flood, which has lasted more than 300 days. In a speech at the commemoration in Gaza on 14 December 2022 of the 35th anniversary of the creation of Hamas, he foreshadowed the events of 7 October when he declared: “We will come to you [Israel], God willing, in a thunderous flood. We will go against you with endless rockets, we will go against you in an endless onslaught of combatants, we will go against you with millions of our own, like an endless tide.”

The other Palestinian factions and leaders of the axis of resistance expressed their support for Sinwar’s election, demonstrating confidence in his ability to overcome the loss of Haniyeh and to continue his legacy and that of all the martyred leaders, especially those who fell during Al-Aqsa Storm.

Yahya Sinwar was born in 1962 in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip after his family was ethnically cleansed from the city of Majdal Asqualan (“Ashkelon”) by the Zionists in the 1948 Nakba. He completed his secondary education at Khan Younis Boys Secondary School. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in Arabic from the Islamic University of Gaza, where he was one of the leaders of the Student Council for five years, serving as Secretary of the Artistic Committee, then of the Sports Committee, Vice-President, President of the Council, and then Vice-President again from 1982 to 1987.

He began his political activity in his youth, leading numerous popular clashes against the Zionist occupation state between 1982 and 1988. His participation was instrumental in the founding of Majd, the Hamas internal security apparatus tasked with exposing Israeli spies. Along with Salah Shehada, he was one of the founders of the Hamas military wing, the Izz Ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, in 1991.

Arrested by Israel in 1982, Sinwar spent six months in Fara’a Prison for his resistance activities. In 1988, he was arrested again and given four life sentences, serving 23 consecutive years in the enemy’s prisons.

He spent four years being held in solitary confinement.

In prison, he repeatedly assumed leadership of the Hamas prisoners’ High Command, leading a series of hunger strikes, with significant examples in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. He learnt and still speaks fluent Hebrew and has numerous writings and translations related to political and security issues.

He translated the books Shabak Among the Remains and Israeli Parties in 1992, for example, and authored Hamas: Experience and Mistakes and Al-Mayd, which documents the work of the occupation state’s Shin Bet internal security agency. He is also the author of a novel, Thorns and Carnations, which covers the experience of the Palestinian struggle from the 1967 Naksa to the First Intifada (1987-1993).

After his release in 2011 under the prisoner exchange deal which saw 1,027 Palestinian prisoners freed in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, he was elected to the Hamas political office in Gaza and assumed responsibility for the security cabinet in 2012. He was later elected to the general political office and assumed responsibility for the military cabinet in 2013.

Now, the legitimate resistance for the liberation of the historic land of Palestine from occupation, with Jerusalem as its capital, continues under the leadership of Yahya Sinwar, a selfless anti-colonial, anti-occupation fighter.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Hawks’ Hacking Claims Designed to Distract Americans, Set Stage for New Regional War

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 20.08.2024

After nearly a year of efforts to taunt, provoke and intimidate Iran into a full-on regional war in the Middle East amid the Gaza crisis, Iran hawks in Washington have turned to a new strategy, accusing Tehran of interfering in the upcoming US presidential election. A respected Middle Eastern affairs scholar explains what’s behind the new approach.

The FBI, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence formally accused Iran of attempting to hack the Trump and Biden-Harris presidential campaigns on Monday.

The new allegations, which came weeks after a series of reports in US media citing “anonymous intelligence sources” claiming that Iran was plotting to assassinate Donald Trump, or to hack his presidential campaign, were not accompanied with any evidence.

“As the lead for threat response, the FBI has been tracking this activity, has been in contact with the victims, and will continue to investigate and gather information in order to pursue and disrupt the threat actors responsible. We will not tolerate foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections, including the targeting of American political campaigns,” the US intel agencies said in a joint statement.

Iran calmly rejected the US’s “unsubstantiated” and evidence-free claims.

“Such allegations are unsubstantiated and devoid of any standing. As we have previously announced, the Islamic Republic of Iran harbors neither the intention nor the motive to interference with the US presidential election,” the country’s permanent mission to the United Nations said in a statement.

“Should the US government genuinely believe in the validity of its claims, it should furnish us with the pertinent evidence – if any, to which we will respond accordingly,” the mission added.

Dangerous Distraction Action

“There is little doubt that the rhetoric itself has more impact than the substantiation of these accusations,” Dr. Mehmet Rakipoglu, a political scientist and international affairs observer and assistant professor at Turkiye’s Mardin Artuklu University, told Sputnik.

“Creating artificial agendas such as [the Iran hacking claims] intensifies hostilities between the parties involved. This accusation seems to be aimed at diverting attention from Israel’s actions in Gaza and refocusing it on the US election process,” Rakipoglu added, pointing out that Tel Aviv has been bogged down by accusations of engaging in genocide against Gaza’s civilian population, while proving unable to defeat Hamas militarily.

“It is already clear that the American public is deeply divided, regardless of whether there is an alleged Iranian attack. It is not Iran or any other external actor that is responsible for these divisions, but rather the US administrations themselves,” the academic said.

Rakipoglu stressed that, conveniently for the accusers, there’s virtually no way to verify the US intelligence agencies’ allegations, or conversely, prove that or Iran, or any other country, has interfered in the US election.

In some sense, the claims against Iran this election cycle are reminiscent of similar allegations made against Russia ahead of, during and following the 2016 vote, Rakipoglu said.

“While the US propagated a narrative of Russian interference during the 2016 elections, it continued to lose influence over time. It seems that the current accusation against Iran serves the same purpose as the allegations against Russian interference in 2016,” the observer said.

If that’s the case, it could signal a dangerous turn for Iran, and the Middle East in general. The 2016 Russian meddling allegations sparked a deep downturn in Russia-US relations, with the Russiagate conspiracy hounding Donald Trump throughout his term in office, blocking his ability to restore any semblance of normal ties with Moscow, and ultimately manufacturing consent among a substantial portion of the US electorate for the NATO-Russia proxy conflict in Ukraine which began in 2022.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Democratic Party platform lacks call for US arms embargo on Israel

Press TV – August 20, 2024

The US Democratic Party has unveiled its party platform ahead of the 2024 presidential race, laying out 92 pages of policy priorities with no mention of halting weapons sales to Israel amid the regime’s genocidal war in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The platform which was approved by delegates at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago a day earlier lacks a call for curbing arms sales to Israel despite a demand by pro-Palestinian demonstrators for an arms embargo on the occupying regime in the US city.

The platform, rather, announces that the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached with Israel under former President Barack Obama “is ironclad”. The memorandum which runs until 2028 gives Israel $3.8bn in US military aid each year.

The platform also lists examples of US President Joe Biden’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including the sending of arms shipments and providing a diplomatic shield for Israel at the United Nations during votes for a ceasefire.

The latest development comes a week after Biden’s administration approved more than $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel.

The new US military aid comes despite claims by Washington that it is supporting a ceasefire in Gaza where Israel has been waging a genocidal war since early October last year.

Israel launched the war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in retaliation for its intensified atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Since then, the United States has supplied the Tel Aviv regime with more than 10,000 tons of military equipment and used its veto power against all United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The occupying regime has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, since the start of the barbaric campaign of death, destruction and genocide. And more than 1.7 million people have been internally displaced.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »