Russia issues warning about future of Ukraine conflict
RT | February 21, 2023
Western elites “intend” to transform the conflict in Ukraine from a regional to a global one, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. Moscow perceives this as an existential threat and will react accordingly, he said.
The goal of those in power in the US and other Western nations is to “end us once and for all,” the Russian leader stated during a keynote speech on Tuesday. They are using Ukraine as a “battering ram” against Russia and don’t care how many people will die as a result, he said.
“They intend to turn a local conflict into a phase of global confrontation. That is how we understand things and will react accordingly. Because the issue here is the existence of our state,” Putin said.
The Ukraine conflict was unleashed by the West when it supported an armed coup in Kiev in 2014, the Russian president noted. Western powers then poured resources into the new regime, even as it used the military against its own population and became increasingly nationalist and extreme.
Western elites “don’t care who they are betting on in their fight against us, their fight against Russia. They just want them to go to war,” Putin observed. The current Ukrainian government is “alien” to the people it governs and serves Western interests, he believes.
“Nobody among them counts the loss of human lives and tragedies, because trillions of dollars are at stake, an opportunity to keep robbing everyone under the cover of rhetoric of democracy and freedoms,” the Russian leader warned.
He said that ultimately Russia’s opponents must realize that the country cannot be defeated on the battlefield. That is why they target it in different ways, trying to undermine its unity via historical revisionism and attacks on Russian traditional values, Putin explained.
The remarks were part of the president’s address to the Federal Assembly, as both chambers of the Russian parliament are called, as well to as senior Russian officials and public figures.
Moldova acts in a destabilizing way in Transnistria
By Lucas Leiroz | February 21, 2023
Moldova insists on the threat and blackmail strategy against Transnistria. The country’s new head of government has called on Russian troops to withdraw from the autonomous republic in order for the region to be “demilitarized”. In fact, the Western-backed Moldovan tactic of trying to intimidate the Transnistrian people will only lead to more conflict and insecurity, creating a scenario of instability in the face of which Moscow will not remain inert.
The new Prime Minister of Moldova, Dorin Recean, said on February 20 that Transnistria must be demilitarized, and the Russian troops must be expelled from there. The statement made clear the position of the new head of the Moldovan government, eliminating any doubts about the possibility of the emergence of more peaceful tendencies towards Russia in Chisinau with the recent change in the team of ministers. The country seems increasingly willing to cooperate with the West to advance anti-Russian political projects in the region.
According to Recean, Moldova is currently in a very vulnerable security situation, the solution of which depends in the first place on the immediate demilitarization of the “left bank of the Dniester”. The prime minister made it clear that even economic and social issues should only be discussed after demilitarization is achieved. In this sense, the withdrawal of Russian forces from Transnistria is the highest priority of the Moldovan government.
“[There are] real threats of escalation of either military or hybrid operations [in Moldova] (…) We must calibrate our defenses so that it would be tough for any aggressor to attack us (…) The left bank of the Dniester (Transnistria) should be demilitarized by evacuating Russian troops and demilitarizing local residents (…) We must achieve one fundamental thing – demilitarization. Everything else follows after that, and the economic and social integration of our citizens who are there is very important, but in the first place is demilitarization. It depends on many things, but at some point, it will be decided”, he said.
As expected, the reaction of the Russian and Transnistrian authorities was immediate, with several criticisms against the Moldovan position. Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented on the topic saying that “Moldova is slipping into anti-Russian hysteria”. In the same vein, Transnistria’s Foreign Minister Vitaly Ignatyev said: “It (the Moldovan side) is not ready for dialogue (…) In reality, Chisinau is sparing no effort to destroy the negotiating structures we have and to create new problems to dodge the implementation of its liabilities”.
In fact, it is curious to analyze what the Moldovan government understands by “demilitarization”. The withdrawal of Russian forces from Transnistria would not mean the mere “demilitarization” of the region, but its weakening, thus enabling Chisinau to intervene and resolve the issue through force and hostility. At no time did the Moldovan government show interest in advancing the negotiations towards a peaceful solution – it only emphasizes the Transnistrian issue as a national security matter, which makes it seem that the demand for the Russians to leave has the objective of facilitating a possible armed intervention in the region.
The presence of Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria is not any kind of occupation. On the contrary, the permanence of the forces is supported by the vast majority of the local population, who see in the Russian military a guarantee of protection against the constant threats of aggression by the central government. Politically, Moscow has respected Moldovan sovereignty, recognizing Transnistria as an autonomous region, with its right to self-administration, in coexistence with the Moldovan government. However, for Chisinau, there seems to be no other possible end to the conflict than an eventual military, violent recapture of the area.
Considering that Moldova has acted over the years as a proxy for NATO, given its alignment with the countries of the western alliance, mainly Romania, for Moscow it is absolutely unacceptable to allow Moldovan military growth in the region, as this would jeopardize not only the security of the Transnistrian people, but would also threaten Russia itself, since the Russian strategic environment would be vulnerable in the face of yet another focus of conflict.
Therefore, threat and blackmail really do not seem like good tactics for the Moldovan government to deal with the Transnistrian issue. The only interesting way to resolve the dispute is through peace negotiations that guarantee Transnistria’s right to political autonomy. Demanding that the Russians leave the region is meaningless, as obviously Moscow cannot remain inert while another threat of war arises within its strategic environment. In fact, either Chisinau adheres to diplomacy or the militarization of Transnistria will continue.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
America the Feckless
Lies and hypocrisy are at the heart of the Biden foreign policy
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • FEBRUARY 21, 2023
One would think that the United States military staging an unprovoked “plausibly deniable” covert attack on a nation with which it is not at war would be at least considered newsworthy. That the attack did grave damage to a country with which the US is closely allied would seem to make the aggression even more unthinkable. And, perhaps worst of all, that the attack was set up by the nation’s chief executive using a political bypass that avoided congressional oversight and adherence to the war powers act which might be most reprehensible of all as it cuts to the heart of the nation’s constitutional balance of powers. It is clearly an impeachable offense. And “Yes,” for those who are still wondering, Joe Biden and his team of terrorist emulators have done all that and more, and have capped their performance with a series of flat out lies and evasions to make it appear that they had done nothing wrong.
And the mainstream America media, in its worst performance since the invasion of Iraq, has served as an echo chamber for everything the White House chooses to leak to it. Given all of that, it was perhaps completely predictable that the government-subservient press and TV news would almost completely ignore the devastating report released by top investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on February 8th. Hersh’s article was entitled “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline” with a secondary headline reading “The New York Times called it a ‘mystery,’ but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now.” The article, which Hersh self-published on the internet, describes in considerable detail the preparations and execution by the US Navy Diving and Salvage Center and Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Maritime Branch, coordinated and directed by the White House, to sabotage and destroy Russia’s four Baltic Sea Nord Stream gas pipelines, a war crime and terroristic action that moves the United States much closer to direct armed conflict with Russia.
Given its potential political blowback, the Hersh story might very well be the most important expose to appear since fighting began in Ukraine over a year ago, but it is being ignored by the White House, which is denying the report, with a spokesman only commenting that “This is false and complete fiction.” The CIA’s spokesman Tammy Thorp likewise replied to Hersh that “This claim is completely and utterly false.” The US Navy was also asked for comments but did not respond. The media, clearly evident by its inaction, has religiously adhered to that government line, possibly due to some mistaken notion that our national security forces have to be supported when they are going “toe to toe with the Russkies” over Ukraine. On the contrary, it is precisely when the government is behaving recklessly not to mention criminally to bring about an unnecessary war that the press should be in hot pursuit of the story and what it means. That is particularly so as the Ukraine conflict is now escalating and threatening to go nuclear as both sides dig in to incompatible positions.
I have known Sy Hersh for a number of years and spent time together with him and other former CIA colleagues helping to confirm details of some of his earlier exposes on US government abuses and outright lies in its somewhat not completely credible role as “guardian” of national security. Hersh is a meticulous investigator who never, in my experience, accepted uncorroborated claims in support of his narratives. I have some understanding of who his sources in the intelligence agencies and Department of Defense might be in this case and it should be accepted that what he has written is completely verifiable and derived from individuals who were actual participants in the activities described. That is not to say that there will not be failures to recall accurately certainly details including aspects of the possible Norwegian involvement, something critics are already pointing to, but the main thrust of “whodunit” and “how” is pretty definitively demonstrated.
The report is long and includes a great deal of information on both the planning and the political decision-making that went into the willingness to destroy the pipeline, which I will briefly describe. Sy claims the following: It has not exactly been a secret that many in the United States government have long regarded the Nord Stream pipelines to be a security threat as the supply of relatively cheap natural gas to Germany as a gateway into Europe by Russia would enable Moscow to create a dependency on it for energy which could be manipulated to produce political and strategic advantage.
As the crisis over Ukraine deepened in 2021, the Biden White House set up a secret task force that worked on possible scenarios that focused on using military and intelligence resources to physically destroy the pipelines with some measure of plausible denial of the US hand in the process in order to avoid political blowback from America’s European allies or escalation of the conflict. The secrecy was needed to protect Biden from charges of hypocrisy since he had repeatedly pledged that the US would not be directly involved in any armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan headed the interagency task force, which convened throughout late 2021 and included key players from the Agency’s Maritime Branch and the Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center, both located in Panama City Florida, as well as the State Department, Treasury and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The operation was originally treated as a covert action that would have required congressional oversight, but that fig leaf was abandoned and it became a “highly classified intelligence operation” when Biden and others in the administration stated publicly and clearly their intentions to stop the pipeline, making what eventually took place an openly declared policy, perhaps intended to send a warning to the Russians. A number of options to destroy the pipelines were discussed. According to Hersh, the participants in the meeting, many of whom were hawks who had cut their teeth under the Obama Administration, clearly understood that they were proposing an “act of war” that was being considered in spite of potential blowback because the president had ordered it.
There was plenty of warning of what might be coming. In early February 2022, shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden publicly pledged during a joint news conference accompanied by a silent and frowning German chancellor Olav Scholz that “If Russia invades … there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2” and, when pressed on how he would carry that out, he responded, “We will — I promise you — we will be able to do it.” Later, after the destruction of the pipeline, Secretary of State Blinken stated that) the sabotage offered a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy… That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.” Not that any more confirmation was needed, but on January 22nd 2023 Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gloated while testifying to a US Senate committee that “the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now … a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
The Biden Administration, in its arrogance has more-or-less been admitting that it was behind the sabotage, which it certainly had the motive and means to carry out, though it was carefully avoiding leaving any actual evidence behind that it had carried out the destruction. As observed above, it has also been deliberately avoiding any congressional involvement, presumably to avoid any discussion of war powers or even due to concerns over possible media leaks.
The mechanics of the placing explosives followed by the actual destruction of the pipelines was reportedly as follows: Under cover of a NATO Baltic Sea exercise called BALTOPS-22 in June 2022 US Navy and possibly also CIA Special Activities and Norwegian deep sea divers descended 260 feet to a spot off the Danish Island of Bornholm, which was considered to be a location where the pipelines converged in relatively shallow tide-free water and were particularly vulnerable. They attached C-4 explosives both to Nord Stream 1, which was operational, and Nord Stream 2, which was completed but was waiting for German safety and security regulators’ approval to become active. The explosives were designed to be remotely detonatable.
The explosives were on a timer that created an escape window for those initiating the detonation and were reported to be activated by a secure signal sent by a sonar buoy that was dropped onto the prepared site by a Norwegian navy helicopter. The Norwegians were essential in that role due to their own military presence close to the targeted part of the Baltic as well as their considerable experience in deep-sea cold-water operations. A Norwegian Navy helicopter in the area would presumably arouse no particular concern, even from the ever-watchful Russians.
Under orders to “Go!” from Washington, on September 26, 2022 the Norwegians dropped the sonar buoy and a few hours later the C-4 explosives were detonated, immediately knocking out three of the four pipelines. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, the US and its allies in the media made every effort to blame the Russians who were repeatedly cited as a likely culprit. Leaks from the White House and from the British government never established a clear explanation of why Moscow would be into self-sabotage of a lucrative business arrangement. A few months later, when it was revealed that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the Nord Streams, in the neighborhood of $10 billion, the New York Times seemingly cluelessly described the development as “complicating theories about who was behind” the sabotage.
Indeed, it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own valuable pipeline which was intended to be a major income source for many years to come, a proposition that former British diplomat Craig Murray describes as “deranged.” But a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken. Asked at a press conference in September about the consequences of the worsening global energy crisis, most felt in Western Europe, a delusional Blinken described the development in positive terms, enthusing how the destruction would “take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”
The tale told by Sy Hersh is yet another great betrayal by the country’s so-called leadership, an egregious example of the United States government aided by its lap-dog media again lying to its own citizens and the world to cover-up a criminal act that in no way made Americans safer or more prosperous. In the US, the gadfly Tucker Carlson, among prominent journalists, has up to this point dared to present the investigative account developed by Hersh in a five-minute segment of his program. Newsweek has also run a piece examining the issues raised featuring Constitutional lawyer John Yoo. More interesting perhaps, a half hour interview of Hersh by Amy Goodman on PBS television’s Democracy Now! aired last week but then was partially blocked because YouTube considered it to be “inappropriate or offensive.” The full availability of the Seymour Hersh interview video has since that time been restored with the Democracy Now! channel providing the following explanatory message: “UPDATE: We have blurred some imagery about 30 seconds into the video in response to a content warning from YouTube that severely limited the reach of this interview. What you see now is an edited version. For the uncensored version of this interview that aired on our show, visit democracynow.org.”
Beyond that exposure, there remain, nevertheless, a lot of questions about the destruction of Nord Stream, which was unambiguously an act of war or even terrorism, that continue to be unanswered. Consider, for example, how NATO countries, the US and Norway, de facto attacked fellow NATO country Germany, which was both the intended recipient and an economic partner in the pipelines. Though some British involvement in the operation, also detected by Russian intelligence, was quickly revealed publicly by then-British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss’s “It’s done” text to Secretary of State Antony Blinken sixty seconds after the detonation. Berlin apparently was not trusted enough to have a voice in the planning and execution of the bombing even though it was gravely damaged by it. Also, Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack on one nation requires all other alliance members to aid the country that was targeted and it is intriguing to consider whether the rest of NATO ought to go to war with the United States and Norway. Alternatively, can “friends” in the defensive alliance attack each other without consequences or ought the US and Norway now be considered rogue nations? Will the alliance itself be able to stay together if several member states take steps unilaterally that can severely damage the economy of another member? And how are the Germans actually responding to their sinking economy and standards of living, with closing factories and cold houses as a consequence of the US/Norwegian action?
Americans, for their part, should also be thinking deeply about the government we have and the lack of restraint with which it behaves. The framers of the Constitution gave only to Congress the power to declare war, perhaps imagining that at some future date the president might stoop to using the military and naval forces of the United States globally to punish and coerce other nations, seize their territory, and kill their people. And it is all justified by something called “exceptionalism” empowering a massive sustained deception that waging continuous war is actually keeping the peace in a “rules based international order.”
But the final, and biggest, question remains: How will Russia retaliate to Nord Stream? Will it be one step closer to possible nuclear war initiated by Joe Biden’s reckless move or will the Kremlin persist with its request to have the United Nations Security Council investigate the incident? Moscow will certainly be careful to pick the right time and place, but the last act in this play surely remains to be written.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Putin Announces Suspension of New START Treaty, Orders New Strategic Systems Be Put on Combat Duty
Sputnik – 21.02.2023
Russia will be suspending its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction (New START) Treaty, President Vladimir Putin has announced.
The Russian president made the announcement during the course of a major annual address to lawmakers on Tuesday that focused on the security crisis in Ukraine and the broader global tensions between the West and Russia.
“They [the West] seek to inflict a strategic defeat on us and to creep onto our nuclear sites. In connection with this, I am forced to announce today that Russia is suspending its participation in the New START Treaty. I repeat – not exiting from the treaty, but suspending its participation,” Putin said, speaking to gathered lawmakers in Moscow during his speech to the Federal Assembly.
Putin explained that “at the start of February, the North Atlantic Alliance made a statement factually demanding that Russia ‘return to the implementation of the strategic offensive arms treaty,’ including the admission of inspections to our nuclear and defense facilities.”
“I don’t even know what to call this – some kind of theater of the absurd. We know that the West is involved directly in attempts of the Kiev regime to strike the bases of our strategic aviation,” Putin said, pointing to recent Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia’s Engels Air Base, home to part of the airborne contingent of Russia’s nuclear triad.
The drones used in these attacks were “equipped and modernized with the assistance of NATO specialists,” Putin said. “And now they want to inspect our defense facilities. In the current conditions and today’s confrontation, this simply sounds like some kind of nonsense.”
“A week ago, I signed a decree putting new ground-based strategic weapons systems on combat duty. Are they going to stick their nose in there too?” Putin asked.
The Russian president suggested that NATO’s collective statement essentially amounted to an application to join the New START Treaty, and said Moscow would only welcome such a move.
“We agree, please go ahead. Furthermore, we think that such a formulation of the issue is long overdue. After all, NATO contains not just one nuclear power – the USA. Britain and France also have nuclear arsenals, which are being developed and improved, and which are also directed against us, against Russia,” Putin said.
Slamming the US and NATO over the “hypocrisy” of their demands, Putin recalled how the Western bloc has attempted to assure Moscow that “there is no connection between issues related to strategic offensive arms and, say, the conflict in Ukraine, or other hostile actions against our country,” while at the same time seeking to “defeat” Russia militarily.
“This is either the height of hypocrisy and cynicism, or the height of stupidity. You can’t call them idiots, they are not stupid people: they want to inflict a strategic defeat on us,” the president said.
What is New START and Why Is It Important?
The New START Treaty is the last major strategic arms limitation agreement between the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the United States. The agreement, drafted in 2009 and signed by then-Russian and US Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in Prague, Czech Republic in 2010, limits the two countries’ deployed arsenals of strategic weapons and nuke stockpiles, and features a series of measures aimed at increased transparency and trust, including the broadcast of telemetry data, limits to missile testing activities, and the exchange of other information.
The Trump administration threatened to let the clock run out on New START in late 2020 after withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – a late Cold War-era pact which eliminated Soviet and US ground-based nuclear missiles in the 500-5,500 km range, in 2019. The Biden administration agreed to renew New START for five years in early 2021. Pentagon planners have repeatedly criticized the strategic treaty for its failure to account for the nuclear arsenal of China. Beijing has said that it would be happy to sign a nuclear agreement with Washington if the US reduced the size of its nuclear arsenal to China’s level.
The post-Cold War strategic security order began to be dismantled in late 2001, when the George W. Bush administration announced that it would scrap the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – a landmark 1972 agreement designed to limit anti-missile defenses and thus reduce the danger of a global nuclear war. Washington quit the treaty despite proposals by Moscow at the time to establish a joint missile defense system in the Caucasus to eliminate any threats posed to the US or Europe.
Russia suspends last nuclear treaty with US
RT | February 21, 2023
Moscow is suspending its participation in the last remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US, President Vladimir Putin has announced. During his key address to the Russian parliament on Tuesday, he noted that Moscow will not exit the New START Treaty, but is temporarily withdrawing.
Explaining the decision, Putin stated that the agreement was initially drawn up under completely different circumstances, when Russia and the US did not perceive each other as adversaries. Now, however, according to the president, not only is the US issuing ultimatums to Russia, but NATO itself has essentially made an application to become part of the treaty as well.
The bloc members are now demanding an inspection of Russia’s strategic facilities, Putin said, noting that Moscow’s requests to inspect Western nuclear facilities under the treaty are systematically denied with only formal explanations for the rejection.
Putin noted that the US has continued to insist on maintaining hegemony, while its NATO partners openly admit that they want to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
“Russia cannot ignore this. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore this,” he said.
Before we return to discussing this agreement, we must understand for ourselves what the intentions of countries like France and the UK are and how we will consider their strategic arsenals as well, which is the cumulative striking potential of NATO.
The New START Treaty was originally signed in 2010 by then-Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, and aimed to cut in half the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers deployed around the world. Under the treaty, both countries were supposed to allow the other side a limited number of inspections per year to verify compliance with the agreement. Unless extended, the treaty was set to expire in 2026.
Biden posing in Kiev as problems at home pile up

By Drago Bosnic | February 21, 2023
On February 20, United States President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Kiev. The unannounced trip comes on the heels of the failed Munich Conference and just days ahead of the first anniversary of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe. Various sources indicate that Moscow is very likely to launch another massive offensive, resulting in the political West’s arms shipment frenzy, as it is desperate to at least postpone Russia’s victory. NATO member states are flooding the Kiev regime with new weapons, particularly tanks, IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) and APCs (armored personnel carriers) to offset the Neo-Nazis junta’s mounting losses.
As per usual, Biden reiterated his “full support” for the “vibrant democracy in Ukraine” and once again condemned Russia’s special military operation as a “brutal, unprovoked invasion”. According to the AP, he also announced another “earth-shattering” $500 million in military “aid” which includes new ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), air defense radars, howitzers, shells, ammunition and other systems. However, there was no mention of any of the advanced weapons the Kiev regime has been “begmanding” for nearly a year. Considering that Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky requested a “mere” trillion dollars (1.000.000.000.000), if Biden makes at least two Kiev trips per year, bringing at least $500 million each time, it would take him “only” a thousand years to fulfill this “perfectly reasonable” request.
Biden also stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “dead wrong” for allegedly “believing he could instantly take Ukraine”. However, nothing indicates this was Russia’s intention, as it is virtually impossible to take the largest country in Europe with only the 200-250 thousand soldiers initially engaged in Russia’s counteroffensive. What Putin announced was demilitarization and denazification and considering the Neo-Nazi junta’s staggering losses, both tasks are going as planned. Biden also insisted that “the US has built a coalition of nations from the Atlantic to the Pacific to help defend Ukraine with unprecedented military, economic, and humanitarian support”, although the Munich Conference showed just how isolated the political West is.
Biden also announced additional sanctions “against elites and companies that are trying to evade or backfill Russia’s war machine”. It’s not entirely clear what the US president meant by this, but considering that the current economic siege has failed spectacularly, Moscow could even rejoice as the existing sanctions have actually helped it achieve greater economic growth than most of the countries enforcing them. Some have suggested that new restrictions will be aimed at Russia’s military industry. However, this would make little sense, as the Russian military has been virtually unscathed by the sanctions, given the fact that its suppliers are state-owned companies with their own resources and technologies.
Rather theatrically, during Biden’s meeting with Zelensky, air raid sirens sounded in Kiev. What was planned for a dramatic effect to portray the US president as some sort of a “hero” turned out to be nothing more than posing, since Washington DC revealed it has notified Moscow that Biden would be going to Kiev. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan stated that “the Russians were notified President Biden would be traveling to Kiev hours before his departure” and that this was done “for deconfliction purposes”. He didn’t disclose how Moscow responded to this, but despite the melodramatic air raid sirens, there were no Russian missiles or airstrikes in Kiev. Biden was promptly mocked for his theatrics by many around the world, including in the US.

Perhaps the most appropriate response to this came from Ohio, where many are jokingly suggesting the state be annexed by Ukraine, so they could get some relief, since Biden has made no mention of the disaster-stricken town of East Palestine in Ohio where a toxic chemical spill happened more than two weeks ago. The mainstream propaganda machine has been ignoring or at least trivializing the event, despite thousands of complaints about the resulting pollution. Approximately 50 freight train cars derailed on the outskirts of the town on 3 February, causing a toxic chemical spill that left the surrounding areas effectively unfit for habitation. Residents have reported headaches and eye irritation, in addition to finding their cars and lawns covered in soot. The hazardous chemicals have already killed pets and wildlife, including thousands of fish.
Since Biden took office, the US has been experiencing a plethora of issues, including 40-year peak inflation that has effectively pushed its economy into recession. The DNC neoliberals have exponentially intensified the existing issues, leaving chaos across the US, particularly in core urban areas. States such as California have seen soaring homelessness and record-breaking crime rates, to say nothing of the substance abuse crisis. Similar issues exist in most other DNC-run urban areas across the country. However, instead of tackling these issues, in addition to numerous already existing problems (racism, gun violence, immigration, etc.), the US keeps trying to divert attention by inciting wars and destabilization around the globe.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
‘US, Not China, Pouring Weapons Into Ukraine’, Says Chinese Foreign Ministry
By Wyatt Reed – Sputnik – 21.02.2023
With the US accusing China of looking into selling weapons to the Russian military, China’s foreign ministry says that – having pumped tens of billions in heavy weapons to Ukrainian militants – Washington is “not qualified” to lecture Beijing about international arms trafficking.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has struck back at Washington for suggesting China is evaluating the possibility of supplying Russia with weapons, saying Monday that it’s the American government pumping weapons into the conflict zone – not China’s.
“It is the US, not China, that has been consistently pouring weapons into the battlefield,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in a press briefing Monday.
Over the weekend, several high-level US officials began to suggest they had reason to believe that China was considering sending military supplies to Moscow.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused China on Saturday of “considering providing lethal support to Russia” in what he labeled Moscow’s “aggression against Ukraine.” He said that if his allegation turned out to be true, it “would have serious consequences in our relationship” with China.
Biden’s ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, echoed the threat Sunday, telling CNN that China would be crossing a “red line” if it decided to provide Russia with lethal aid.
But Wang said Monday that the US is “not qualified” to issue such ultimatums. He told reporters that the rest of the world knows who’s really to blame for the hostilities in Ukraine, and called on the Biden administration to publicly admit that it’s fanned the flames of the ongoing conflict.
“The international community is fully aware who is calling for dialogue and striving for peace, and who is fanning the flames and stoking confrontation,” Wang said.
Unlike Washington, he noted that Beijing has been “supporting talks for peace” since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, adding “we urge the US side to seriously reflect on the role it has played, do something to actually help de-escalate the situation and promote peace talks, and stop deflecting the blame and spreading disinformation.”
The back-and-forth comes after Wang Yi, China’s highest ranked diplomat, defended his country’s posture towards Russian military operations before an audience of European officials during Saturday’s Munich Security Conference.
“We do not add fuel to the fire, and we’re against reaping benefits from this crisis,” Wang said.
“Some forces might not want to see peace talks materialize,” Wang noted, in what was widely viewed as a thinly-veiled jab at the US government.
“They don’t care about the life and death of Ukrainians, nor the harm on Europe,” Wang suggested, adding “they might have strategic goals larger than Ukraine itself.”
132 Canadian doctors have died suddenly or unexpectedly since COVID-19 vaccine rollout (Part 2/2)
By Dr. William Makis MD | COVID Intel | February 18, 2023
Overall Canadian physician mortality in 2022 was 53% higher than 2019, however, as with all excess mortality data in highly COVID-19 vaccinated jurisdictions, this mortality is heavily skewed towards the younger age groups, with the youngest doctors – medical students or medical residents under age 30 dying at a 900% higher rate in 2022, compared to the 2019/2020 average.
2021 Sudden and unexpected Canadian doctor deaths:








Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Michael for the tremendous work and hundreds of hours spent compiling this important data from official medical sources: (Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Provincial Medical Associations, Canadian Medical University Alumni Associations, Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and online obituary aggregators), as well as Sonja, VA and everyone else who provided valuable contributions over time.
This data has been available to the Canadian Medical Association as well as the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
ADL report advocates for deplatforming at website infrastructure level
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | February 20, 2023
A new report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said pressuring online platforms and other internet services to remove those it deems to be far-right extremists is effective in limiting their reach. The report was authored by the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society Belfer fellow Megan Squire.
In preparing the report, Squire analyzed four deplatformed websites, including forum website The Donald, website The Daily Stormer, forum 8chan, and political commentator Nick Fuentes.
Squire compared the individuals and sites’ popularity before and after they were deplatformed, saying the objective is limiting the spread of hateful ideology, not cutting traffic. And according to Squire, deplatforming is an effective way of achieving that goal.
“Deplatforming websites—removing infrastructure services they need to operate such as website hosting—can reduce the spread and reach of extremism and hate online,” she wrote.
Deplatforming also financially affects content creators in other ways. For instance, Fuentes was removed from YouTube and forced to incur the cost of hosting his content on his website. On YouTube, he hosted the content for free and was able to monetize the content. Currently, “he has to run all of that infrastructure himself. He has to find the developers, he has to maintain the website, he has to pay for all that bandwidth,” Squire said.
However, the content creators in Squire’s report have survived even after deplatforming. Others have disappeared.
Squire notes that while deplatforming “works,” the creators of these websites and platforms often “bounce back because there is someone out there that will replatform them.”
Cloudflare, an internet infrastructure and security company, last year acknowledged in its Q3 2022 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that its departure from its neutral position, including the recent blocking of the Kiwi Farms online forum, has resulted in significant negative feedback and a loss of potential customers.
The company has recognized that taking actions against its customers, including banning them from using its products, may cause harm to its brand and reputation. Publicly traded companies such as Cloudflare are obligated to file quarterly reports, which include a section on risk factors.
ABOUT 60 PERCENT of the world’s pasture land (about 2.2 million km2), just less than half the world’s usable surface is covered by grazing systems. Distributed between arid, semi arid and sub humid, humid, temperate and tropical highlands zones, this supports about 360 million cattle (half of which are in the humid savannas), and over 600 million sheep and goats, mostly in the arid rangelands. The distribution of livestock over the different ecological zones is provided in Annex Table 2.











