EU Commission head issues veiled threat to Italy

Samizdat | September 23, 2022
The EU has “tools” to respond if the political situation in Italy goes in a “difficult direction,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday. She hinted that the country could face punishments such as those recently leveled against Hungary and Poland if the upcoming election results in the predicted right-wing sweep.
“My approach is that whatever democratic government is willing to work with us, we’re working together,” she said in response to a question over whether she had “concerns” about Sunday’s Italian parliamentary vote, in which the conservative Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) are projected to take first place.
“If things go in a difficult direction, I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland, we have tools,” von der Leyen explained.
While EC spokesman Eric Mamer was quick to clarify that von der Leyen was merely “stressing the role of the Commission as guardian of the [European] treaties with regard to the rule of law,” not everyone interpreted her words that way.
Matteo Salvini, leader of the populist League party, denounced von der Leyen’s “shameful arrogance” and called on the EC to “respect the free, democratic and sovereign vote of the Italian people!” In the last round of polls earlier this month, the League was projected to take home 12% of the vote.
The EC earlier this month recommended suspending €7.5 billion ($7.5 billion) in funding to Hungary – a third of the money it receives from Brussels – over alleged “erosion of the rule of law.” Brussels leveled a similar punishment at Poland last year after the country’s constitutional tribunal found that some Polish laws override those of the EU.
Italy’s snap parliamentary election was triggered by the resignation of PM Mario Draghi in July after his partners in the ruling coalition abandoned him. As of September 9, when the blackout on publishing election polls took effect, the Fratelli d’Italia were estimated to take 25% of the vote. In addition to the League’s 12%, coalition partner Forza Italia is predicted to garner 8%, meaning a victory for the conservative bloc is easily within reach. Fratelli d’Italia barely won 4% of the vote in 2018.
Like the rest of the EU, Italy has been wrestling with a cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by bloc-wide sanctions on Russian oil and gas. A general election had previously been set for next year.
China demands end of US theft of Syrian resources
The Cradle | September 23, 2022
The People’s Republic of China called on the US government to stop the plundering of Syria’s oil resources, in a press statement on 22 September.
“We call on the United States to respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, unilaterally lift sanctions, and end the theft of Syria’s national resources,” said China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin in a news briefing.
The call made by the Asian giant comes in light of repeated news that US armed forces have transported oil out of Hasakah governorate to military bases in Iraq.
The Syrian foreign ministry revealed the oil sector has incurred losses of at least $107.1 billion since the start of the US-sponsored war in 2011.
Meanwhile, Syria suffers from a severe energy crisis with repeated blackouts in various parts of the country.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin claimed that “this is not the first time that the United States military has stolen oil from Syria and they seem to be becoming more and more uncontrollable.”
Wenbin also called on the US government to investigate the claims made by Syria’s foreign ministry and compensate the country for any damages.
China’s foreign ministry spokesman highlighted that the US military has used at least 800 tankers in August alone.
“By June 2022, US military’s extraction, smuggling, and illegal transaction of Syrian oil, gas, and mineral resources have brought an estimated $18.2 bln of direct losses on Syria, making Syria’s humanitarian disaster much worse,” he added in his statement.
Wenbin described the situation in Syria relative to other countries such as Libya and Afghanistan, adding that “the rights and lives of the Syrian people are being taken away, instead of being protected.”
‘US Lifting Cyprus Arms Embargo Will Fuel Weapons Buildup on Both Sides of Island’
Samizdat – 23.09.2022
The US decision to lift the weapons embargo on the Greek Cypriot administration will spark an arms buildup on the north and south sides of the island, Turkish Cypriot President Ersin Tatar told Sputnik on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
The State Department last week lifted all defense trade restrictions on Cyprus after determining it met US legal requirements by denying Russian vessels access to ports and implementing anti-money laundering reforms.
On Saturday, Turkey’s defense ministry, in a statement condemning the move, said Ankara will continue to guarantee the existence, security and serenity of the Turkish Cypriots.
“This will obviously provoke us to ask for further arms from Turkey because we need to protect ourselves,” Tatar said. “It will only amount to arming both the south and the north.”
North Cyprus and Turkey, he added, protested this decision because it will provide more ammunition to Greek Cyprus, which already has plenty of arms.
“The Western world is rewarding Greek Cyprus by lifting this embargo so that they can buy any amount of guns and other artillery from the Americans,” Tatar said.
Lifting the embargo has complicated the situation, he added, and does not help prospects for a solution in Cyprus.
“With increasing tension you don’t have the right environment to be able to talk in a sensible manner to solve the long standing Cyprus problem,” Tatar said.
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared in 1983 with Turkey’s backing, although the island has been de facto divided since 1974. In late June, Cypriot President Nikos Anastasiades expressed his readiness to resume negotiations under UN auspices.
A Failed Globalist Experiment

By Eamon McKinney | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 22, 2022
European unity was always a questionable concept between a collection of diverse countries who have historically distrusted and disliked each other. The strength of that always questionable unity is now being tested as the EU is facing its greatest challenge. The initial enthusiasm among EU leaders for the conflict with Russia has waned considerably in recent months as the reality of its ludicrous and self-destructive war on Russia continues to backfire spectacularly on them.
With the long hot European summer now behind them the citizens of Europe are rising up in protest against their governments in huge numbers. While national leaders continue to lecture their people on the necessary sacrifices they must make to support Ukraine, fewer and fewer agree with them. With rapidly rising costs of living and the prospect of a winter without heat, anger against national governments is rapidly reaching breaking point. Germany, France, The Czech Republic, Austria and Italy have witnessed immense angry demonstrations that are seriously panicking their governments. To the extent that many are now trying to backtrack and seek solutions outside of EU directives, Hungary and Serbia have refused to tow the party line and have secured their energy interests with Russia. While the EU has demanded an energy sharing scheme among its member states, only energy-starved Germany seems keen.
Germany was the main economic beneficiary of the EU and it used its considerable influence to impose harsh conditions on the weaker EU states, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain in particular. Understandably these countries are reluctant to share their energy reserves with a country that showed little compassion for them following the 2008 financial crisis. German industries have benefited from low-cost energy from Russia for years which has greatly contributed to their global competitiveness. It was enthusiastically looking forward to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline until America intervened and forced its cancellation. Now German energy giants are seeking government bailouts to avoid bankruptcy, the once dominant manufacturing sector is facing complete destruction unless a rapid rapprochement with Russia is made. Even in that unlikely event, the damage to the German economy is done and any recovery could take years.
In a widely distributed talk, German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock (who no surprise is another WEF graduate) said that she will stand with Ukraine regardless of what the German voters think. A more honest translation would be that she stands with the WEF Globalists’ agenda and that the German people’s interests are not a consideration. If she gave a damn about the Ukrainian or the German people she would be trying to stop the war, but peace and the preservation of European lives are not the objectives. However repulsive her statement, it echoed exactly the sentiments of all the EU leaders, she represents her constituency perfectly, but that constituency is not the German people, it’s the Globalists.
An example of just how ridiculously inept and detached from reality the EU is can be found in their call for a price cap on Russian energy imports. Exactly how they think Russia will respond to that requires us to credit them with thinking at all, as several nations rightly pointed out, Russia will just stop all energy supplies. Many, among them France’s Macron has called for a price cap on all energy imports, not just the Russian ones. While America is fine with a European price cap on Russian energy, it strongly opposes it on U.S. energy imports. The destruction of its valued friend and ally Europe is just fine with America as long as there is a buck in it from them.
While increasingly angry citizens are demanding that their governments put national interests above those of Ukraine, they are largely missing the point. The interests of the Ukraine were never a consideration, the conflict was always about America’s obsession with the destruction of a rising Russia. The people of the Ukraine are just collateral damage in what is essentially just another bankers’ war for the interests of the Globalist financial powers. As Europeans are now belatedly beginning to understand, they are also just being considered more collateral damage in the furtherance of that Globalist agenda. None of the European leaders have any solutions to the crisis which they so enthusiastically led their countries into just a few months ago. Cold showers and Spartan energy rationing are not the solutions to the problem that the people want to hear. Preaching that they must sacrifice their futures for the Ukraine works better in the hot summer months than in the imminent cold, very cold European winter. Platitudes from Klaus Schwab’s puppet leaders are not going to placate cold hungry European people any longer. A brutal winter of discontent is inevitable for Europe, as temperatures drop the heat will rise against the politicians who sold out their countries’ interests to the Globalists. We can expect to see governments falling across Europe as public anger becomes uncontrollable.
The panic is not just being felt in European circles, The U.S. is also deeply concerned about the strength of European unity, or rather the lack of it. Biden has on more than one occasion called for Europeans to stay united in its proxy war against Russia. Biden is worried that any diversion from its sanctions against Russia will cause a split in the bloc. A rare moment of clarity from the senile U.S. President. The U.S. is very closely monitoring the unrest in Europe. While examining the results of its handiwork it might notice that while among the Western puppet leaders fractures are indeed increasing, unity among the peoples of the European nations is only growing stronger in common cause. The recent farmers’ protest in Holland was supported by farmers from all the European nations in a demonstration of true unity against the Globalist agenda. A unified cross border, anti-government movement is not the European unity Biden or the NATO warmongers had in mind. They will find that controlling corrupt Globalist European politicians is easier than controlling millions of angry, cold and hungry citizens.
Demonising Putin as the author of all Europe’s woes may have worked at the outset of the conflict, but no more. None of the many demonstrations being witnessed are aimed at Putin or Russia, the target of the ire is firmly against the governments that sold out their nations sovereignty to a globalist/U.S. elite. It is likely that Putin is more popular among Europeans in the know than the incompetent puppets running their own countries into the dirt. While Putin has now stopped the energy flow into Europe he has more cards yet to play. Uranium, fertilisers and foodstuffs among many other essentials are all still supplied to Europe, for now. The destruction of Europe is not in Russia’s interests, Putin doesn’t blame the people, he just hopes that they will wake up and recognise the true enemy.
The coming months will be a time of immense turmoil in Europe, great suffering is inevitable for millions of people sacrificed by their governments on the altar of globalisation. How long the EU can keep it together is the big question, few in Europe would be sad to see its demise. What many first considered a noble enterprise has now been exposed as an undemocratic institution that answers not to the people, but to a corporate oligarchy that owes no affiliation to any nation. In the tragedy that is the Ukrainian conflict some good may yet emerge. If European countries can restore their national sovereignty by exiting the widely despised EU they would be liberated from globalist control and be free to peacefully pursue their own legitimate national self-interest. The way it is supposed to be, the way the majority of European people want it to be. Strong “Exit” movements have existed in all of the member nations for years, Italy and Holland’s movement in particular had huge public support. The UK’s “Brexit” showed it can be done despite immense anti-Brexit propaganda, in a referendum, the people voted to leave. In light of more recent events, a referendum on exiting the EU would likely succeed in most countries.
The EU is a failed Globalist experiment, it never offered more than the pretence of a true democracy, at the unelected top, it was always a technocracy of hand-picked corporate frontmen. It has destroyed the economies of all its members through incompetence and corruption. It has caused chaos and social unrest in communities through forcing mass immigration on unwilling countries. It has interfered in the internal affairs of member states way beyond any powers granted them. It has presumed to write new laws which take primacy over a nation’s own justice system. It has created absurd new layers of bureaucracy and regulations which make European business’s largely uncompetitive globally. It is now dominated by the WEF and Klaus Schwab’s minions who are pushing the Great Reset and consider the Ukraine conflict as a step towards it. Statements made, such as that delivered by Annalena Baerbock on where her loyalties lie, should outrage all Europeans, it should also enlighten them.
Events this winter may well determine the future of Europe for the next century. Whether it is a Europe united with Russia as a peaceful trading partner, or a Globalist Third World hell hole, the European peoples’ actions in the coming months will decide which.
‘Referendums create an opportunity to remove tension, stop hostilities’
By Ekaterina Blinova – Samizdat – 23.09.2022
Referendums on territorial affiliation are taking place in the Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions on September 23-27. Earlier, surveys showed that a majority of residents supported the idea of joining Russia as subjects of the Russian Federation.
Voting in referendums on joining Russia began on September 23. Earlier, on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered an address to the nation to ensure security at the forthcoming plebiscites, and announced partial mobilization in the country. Putin’s speech was met with hostility by the US and its NATO allies, who branded the self-determination right of the referendum participants as a “sham” and vowed to never recognize the outcome of the votes.
“Europe fears that during the referendum even more regions of present-day Ukraine will want to distance themselves from the imposed European policy and request Russia’s help,” says Mehdi Khorsand, head of the Department of Economic Diplomacy of the Municipality of Tehran and expert on Eurasia. “At the same time, it will become a kind of threat to Europe, which for two centuries has been putting pressure on countries seeking to gain independence.”
The collective West, in particular Europeans and Americans, wants to keep an unquenchable long-term conflict in the region in order to weaken Russia, according to Khorsand. However, the ongoing referendums could create the conditions for bringing the conflict to an end, he underscores.
“Russia started its special [military] operation in Ukraine only for security reasons,” the Iranian expert notes. “If the government of Ukraine, after the tensions of 2014, had adhered to its obligations under the Minsk agreements, we would have never witnessed these hostilities, this conflict. It would have never begun in the first place.”
Donbass’ Thorny Way to Independence
After the US-backed February 2014 coup d’etat, Ukraine’s eastern regions called for autonomy resisting the rule of the military junta in Kiev. In response, Kiev started a “counter-terror operation” seeking to suppress “separatists” in the east. The Normandy Four, a format comprising Russia, Germany, France, and Ukraine, worked out a roadmap, the Minsk accords, to stop the bloodshed in Donbass and provide the breakaway regions with an autonomous status. Nevertheless, Kiev’s successive governments routinely sabotaged the provisions of the Minsk agreements preventing Donbass from gaining legitimate autonomy. In addition to that, the Ukrainian nationalist leadership made NATO membership the centerpiece of its policy, ramping up military training and resorting to the weaponization of the country.
“After 2014, Russia tried to negotiate with Ukraine about its demilitarization, not joining NATO, about the independence and autonomy of the eastern regions: Lugansk and Donetsk. But the Ukrainian government after 2014 committed a real genocide of the [ethnic] Russian population in the east of Ukraine, they began to literally ‘slaughter’ the Russians there,” Khorsand says.
Moscow repeatedly called on the other guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Paris and Berlin, to pressure Kiev to observe the accords. As these attempts failed, Russia came up with draft security agreements requesting guarantees of Ukraine’s non-admission to NATO. Moscow handed the drafts to the US and the transatlantic alliance in December 2021, reminding them of Western leaders’ pledge to not expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. The Russian leadership made it clear that it takes its national security seriously and would resort to military-technical options if the West were to ignore the drafts. Nonetheless, the US, the EU, and NATO rejected key provisions of Moscow’s proposals.
“Russia, given the seriousness of the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, did not see any other solution than the start of a special [military] operation to resolve the security problem,” Khorsand says.
Referendums as Path to Get Protection From Yoke of Kiev Regime
“We expect the referenda to end up with the majority of the inhabitants of these regions voting in favor of joining Russia. I do not rule out that the hostilities will end after the referendum,” Khorsand notes.
Russia recognized the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics on February 22; still, this decision made the regions merely a “buffer zone” between Russia and Ukraine, which did not guarantee their safety, the Iranian expert explains.
If admitted to the Russian Federation, the aforementioned regions, including Kherson and Zaporozhye, will have security guarantees as inalienable parts of Russia. The Donbass republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regional authorities announced on September 19 and 20 their intent to simultaneously hold referendums to join Russia. In his Wednesday speech, President Putin made it clear that Russia would protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty by all modern military means, adding that he wasn’t “bluffing.”
“As for the legality of the referendums, it is worth noting that the autonomy of the regions of Donbass (LPR and DPR) was fully accepted in the 2014 agreement (Minsk agreements) and mentioned in the terms of this document, respectively, this referendum, reflecting the will and desire of the people of the autonomous and sovereign republics of Donbass to join Russia is a legitimate action,” Khorsand says.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained in an interview with Newsweek that the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions used their sacred right to self-determination, which is codified in the UN Charter, when they announced their intention to join Russia.
“Of course, the US and Europe will be forced to take some other position after these legal referendums, because these referendums create an opportunity to remove tension between Russia and Ukraine, and to stop hostilities,” Khorsand concludes.
Western media continues to ignore how Ukraine is using NATO weapons to kill innocent civilians in the Donbass

© Eva Bartlett
By Eva Bartlett | Samizdat | September 23, 2022
On Monday, Ukraine slaughtered 16 civilians, including two children, with 155mm NATO shells, according to the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Denis Pushilin. The projectiles hit two adjacent neighborhoods, decimating residential and commercial areas – including a market that had previously suffered fatal attacks.
Scenes of death are nothing new for residents and reporters here in Donetsk, which is intermittently the target of Ukrainian attacks, like the one that hit its central region on August 4, killing six people, including an 11-year-old ballerina, her grandmother, and her ballet teacher.
But the carnage on Monday was worse than anything I’ve seen in my months of reporting here. Chunks of flesh littered the street – part of a hand, a foot, an ear. Someone had put a dead man’s phone on his stomach. It was ringing, the cheery ringtone incongruous with his lifeless body and the scenes and stench of death around him.
For most people, the concept of war is a distant one, and deaths are normalized by media reporting the numbers of victims and destroyed buildings – so most who hear of civilians being killed don’t really understand what a scene like this looks or smells like.
For the locals, it is also normalized, in its own way, after over eight years of Ukrainian attacks – a tragically grotesque kind of normality, where the post-bombing routine starts soon after the last explosions die down.
When I arrived at the scene, locals were already sweeping up glass shards and boarding windows, preparing to reopen their shops. Inspectors from the Russian Investigative Committee were on site collecting shrapnel and measuring the shell’s impact point, to determine the nature of the armament. When asked about what happened, they were careful to state that they could not say anything until the conclusion of their investigation.
An emergency vehicle arrived and workers began loading the bodies, or body parts, onto stretchers, clearing them away.
About 100 meters away, there was a gaping hole in the side of an apartment building. The shell had struck right where writing on the wall indicated the direction to the nearest basement, which was to be used as a bomb shelter. Doors to such stairways are generally permanently left open, so that anyone caught up in shelling might have a chance to survive, if they can make it to the door and basement in time.

© Eva Bartlett
Victims of another Ukrainian assault, which took place on Saturday, didn’t have that option. The center of Donetsk was hit by at around ten bombs over the course of 30 minutes around noon. At least four civilians were killed, one of whom I saw still on the ground. Some minutes later, her body was taken away. One of the shells hit a car driving along Artema Street, setting it ablaze and killing two civilians. By the time I reached that site, the vehicle had burned out, the dead taken away. Workers were already repaving the roads, sweeping debris and glass from sidewalks.
Western weapons killing Donbass civilians
When Russian and Donbass voices state that Ukraine is killing Donbass civilians with Western weapons, the reply is silence, derision, or inversion of reality: claims that Russia is bombing Donbass – which any ordinary resident here would disprove easily, having been under Ukraine’s shelling for over eight years.
War correspondent, Christelle Neant, wrote of Saturday’s bombings:
“After submitting the photos of the shrapnel I found on the spot to Adrien Bocquet, who is now a NATO weapons expert for the DPR’s representation in the JCCC (Joint Monitoring and Co-ordination Center on Ukraine’s War Crimes), he confirmed that they were American 155mm shells, some fired from Caesar guns and others from TRF1 guns.
The famous TRF1 guns that can fire (banned) 155mm cluster munitions, which I had mentioned in June, and which the Western press had assured that France had not supplied to Ukraine! Before learning at the beginning of September that Paris had indeed sold them to Kiev!”
Europeans in Germany, France and Italy recently held “#StopKillingDonbass” actions, denouncing the sale of Western weapons to Ukraine, and calling for it to end. It was rather fitting that the actions occurred the day after Ukraine bombed central Donetsk again.
These actions were followed by the release of a petition against arms supplies to Ukraine, which stated:
“Today, contrary to the fundamental principles set forth in Article 2 of the UN Charter, in particular, the principles of sovereign equality and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, our countries supply Ukraine with weapons that cause massive deaths and injuries of civilians in Donbass, including children.”
It concludes: “We demand an end to the financing of state terrorism and genocide against the people of Donbass, as well as the ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other acts of international humanitarian law since 2014.”
At this point, there is no safe region in Donetsk, nowhere is off-limits for Ukraine’s bombings, not maternity hospitals, nor busy markets. The issue does, however, appear to be off-limits for the reporting of Western corporate-owned media.
Iran: What is the Future of the Nuclear Deal?
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 22.09.2022
While many around the world hoped for a positive reaction from the United States to Iran’s latest response, the European trio at the talks in Vienna (E3 – the UK, Germany, France) have separately issued a statement that could undo all the positive results of a year of painstaking negotiations. After Tehran responded to an American text submitted through the European Union’s coordinator for the Vienna talks, Josep Borrell, the latter passed it on to Washington. The Biden administration called the latest Iranian response “unconstructive” but refrained from responding formally, prompting speculation about the impact of the US midterm elections on negotiations in Vienna over the resumption of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Still, after days of guesswork and speculation, a response was given, but not from the American side, which had intended to do so. E3 released a joint statement that seems only to have delighted opponents of the JCPOA and caused bewilderment around the world. “As we move closer to an agreement, Iran has reopened separate issues, related to its legally binding international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its safeguards agreement under the NPT concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This latest demand raises serious doubts as to Iran’s intentions and commitment to a successful outcome on the JCPOA. Iran’s position contradicts its legally binding obligations and jeopardizes prospects of restoring the JCPOA,” the E3 statement said demagogically and with no good reason.
This is despite the fact that Iran has long claimed that the IAEA has lost all credibility by making unfounded accusations that are politically motivated and emanate from the anti-JCPOA camp. In other words, and this fact has now become clear, the IAEA is simply a tool in the hands of the West, not an independent UN body. The E3 countries also seemed keen to make a poorly veiled threat against Iran, stating, “Given Iran’s failure to conclude the deal on the table, we will consult, alongside international partners, on how best to address Iran’s continued nuclear escalation and lack of cooperation with the IAEA regarding its NPT (non-proliferation treaty) safeguards agreement.”
The E3 joint statement was seen by experts around the world as an irresponsible move and a servile, obsequious submission to its master, the US. Reading this statement, one gets the impression that it is the E3 that is the aggrieved party that has lost over 300 billion dollars and 1,000 lives in the last 3 years because Iran withdrew from the JCPOA. Apparently, Brussels wants everyone to believe that Iran, not the US, has blatantly violated and completely reneged on all its obligations, subsequently violating all 11 commitments it had made to rectify the situation. After all, it is both well known and not disputed by anyone in the world that it was the US that unreasonably withdrew from the JCPOA and imposed further brutal sanctions on Iran, causing the Iranian people to suffer.
In addition to the separatist actions disregarding the views of Russia and China and the utter irresponsibility, the statement also undermined the ongoing and subsequent negotiations, deepening the atmosphere of distrust. Moreover, and quite obviously, the E3 countries have only strengthened the position of the opponents of the JCPOA, which is apparently what they were aiming for. “It is regrettable that by [issuing] such an ill-considered statement, the three European countries have followed in the footsteps of the Zionist regime down a path that will lead to the failure of negotiations. It is obvious that if such an approach continues, the E3 should also accept responsibility for its consequences,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kanaani said bluntly.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, trying to justify his loyalist position to the US, demagogically signaled a lack of expectation on his part that an agreement with Iran would in the near future restore Tehran’s shattered nuclear deal with world powers. Then, realizing that the best defense is a good offense, he unceremoniously declared that Iran had no reason not to sign and that European countries would remain “patient.” And what else could the 9th Federal Chancellor say after meeting in Berlin with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who insisted that restoring the 2015 agreement would be a “critical mistake”? Incidentally, Germany still pays reparations to those Jews who were forced by Nazi Germany to leave as evacuees.
It appears that provocative pressure from Israel as well as other factors have managed to halt or delay Washington’s progress towards a return to a nuclear deal with Iran. This is clear from statements by senior Israeli officials, analysis by Israeli research centers and the media. There was a real celebration in Israel, as officials could not hide their joy at the E3 statement. “Following the Americans, yesterday the E3 countries announced that a nuclear agreement with Iran will not be signed in the near future, that the IAEA’s files opened on Iran will not be closed,” Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid cheerfully told a cabinet meeting. He thanked the leaders of France, Britain and Germany for their “strong position” on the issue. Then a wave of boasting and bravado swept over the Prime Minister and he took all credit for the collapse of the nuclear deal, saying, “In recent months, we held a discreet and intensive dialogue with them, and presented them with up-to-date intelligence information about Iranian activity at nuclear sites.” And further: “Israel is conducting a successful diplomatic campaign to stop the nuclear agreement and prevent the lifting of sanctions on Iran.”
It may be recalled that as the negotiations approached a crucial milestone, Israel began to take active steps to counter this, including visits to Washington by Mossad director David Barney, Israeli National Security Advisor Eyal Hulata and Minister of Defense Benny Gantz. Israel said the diplomatic onslaught was aimed at preventing the renewal of the nuclear agreement, which Tel Aviv sees as a threat to its security. Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid said he would visit the US this month to meet US President Joe Biden ahead of the UN General Assembly meetings to discuss the Iranian issue. “Israel is conducting a successful diplomatic campaign to stop the nuclear agreement and prevent the lifting of sanctions on Iran,” World Israel News stressed. Apparently, Israel and its leadership have decided that they are above the UN, and only they should solve the world’s problems and only in their own interests. That is why now more than ever, the challenge of transforming our world from a unipolar to a multipolar one, where all countries have equal rights and resolve issues in the common interest, is relevant.
Lapid, who visited Germany to discuss his country’s concerns about the agreement, said that “it is not over yet – there is still a long way to go, but there are encouraging signs.” He was referring to Israel’s success in dissuading the US administration from returning to the agreement. The Times of Israel quoted an unnamed senior Israeli official as saying that during recent talks with Biden, the Israeli Prime Minister was told that the nuclear deal was not being discussed and would not be signed anytime soon. According to the website, Lapid has recently become increasingly convinced that Washington’s return to the nuclear deal is unlikely. Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers is “in the ER room” and unlikely to be extended any time soon, if at all, Israeli Minister of Defense Benny Gantz said after European leaders expressed doubts about Tehran’s willingness to revive the pact.
“We cannot predict when the deal will be signed by major world powers and Iran,” Aleef Sabbagh, a political analyst, told Al-Ahram Weekly. “Right now, it’s not even close.” He noted that pressure from Tel Aviv appears to have delayed the signing of the agreement, and Israel’s diplomatic war against the deal has so far achieved some of its goals. However, several Israeli analysts point out that the delay in finalizing the agreement is linked to some of its details, in particular the IAEA’s investigation into traces of uranium at three sites that Tehran has not previously disclosed. Iran at the same time is demanding the cessation of this investigation as a precondition for a deal, and is apparently not about to back down. Israel, for its part, will continue to apply pressure until the last minute to prevent the signing of the agreement, focusing its attention on organizing a tough international stance in support of the IAEA investigations. This would require the establishment of a mechanism to control the funds Iran gains access to in order to ensure that they do not fall to Tehran’s allies in the region.
The Israeli opposition, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claims that the US administration has decided to return to the agreement, but insists on more favorable terms. He also accuses the incumbent Lapid government of failing to convince Washington of Tel Aviv’s security demands, which would be harmed by the agreement. However, the current Prime Minister argues that his cabinet is working quietly and diligently and has so far succeeded in blocking the agreement. Israel often repeats that it will not be bound by the agreement if it is signed, and reserves the right not to allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Tel Aviv has also frequently threatened to resort to the military option to achieve this goal if “Israel’s security needs” demand it, despite all the peace treaty efforts of many countries around the world.
Why Ukraine referendum is a big deal
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
The referendum on September 23-27 in the Donbass and southern Kherson and Zaporozhye regions of Ukraine on their accession to Russian Federation is, prima facie, an exercise of the right of self-determination by the native population who reject the western-backed regime change in Kiev in 2014 and the ascendancy of extreme nationalist forces with neo-Nazi leanings in the power structure.
But it has other dimensions, too. In all probability, the referendum will overwhelmingly opt for accession to Russian Federation. In Donbass, it is a straightforward question: “Do you support the entry of the DPR into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?” For Kherson and the Zaporozhye Cossacks, the referendum ascertains three sequential decisions: secession of these territories from Ukraine; formation of an independent state; and its entry into the Russian Federation as a subject.
In 2014, all legal procedures for the admission of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation were completed in four days. An expeditious process can be expected this time around too. There is huge mass support within Russia for reunification with the ethnic Russian populations in the eastern and souther regions of Ukraine who suffered severe persecution during the past 8-year period, including brutal violence, at the hands of extremist Ukrainian nationalist elements in control of the state apparatus. This is a highly emotive issue.
In the post-cold war era, the genie of self-determination was first let out of the bottle by the West during the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia. Although the US midwifed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as far back as in 2008, the entity is yet to be accorded recognition by the UN. Serbia rejects the secession despite sustained western pressure.
That said, the Kosovo precedent will not stop the western powers from condemning the accession of regions of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
The big question today is about the Russian calculus. President Vladimir Putin has surely factored in that the accession of the “Russian regions” of eastern and southern Ukraine is an immensely popular decision in the domestic opinion. The most revealing comments on the topic have come from the former President Dmitry Medvedev.
Medvedev wrote in his Telegram channel: “Referendums in Donbass are of great importance not only for the systemic protection of the inhabitants of the LNR, DNR (Donbass) and other liberated territories, but also for the restoration of historical justice.”
In Medvedev’s opinion, these plebiscites “completely change the vector of Russia’s development for decades.” He adds, “And not only our country. Because after they (referendums) are held and the new territories are accepted into Russia, the geopolitical transformation in the world will become irreversible.”
Most important, Medvedev forewarns, “An encroachment on the territory of Russia is a crime, the commission of which allows you to use all the forces of self-defence.”
Furthermore, he says, once the process of annexation of the new territories is completed, “not a single future leader of Russia, not a single official will be able to reverse these decisions. That is why these referendums are so feared in Kiev and in the West. That is why they need to be carried out.”
What emerges is that Russia has given up hopes of any negotiated settlement. Moscow was initially optimistic that Kiev would negotiate, but the bitter experience turned out to be that President Zelensky was not a free agent. It is the Biden Administration that holds the stop watch for the proxy war. And Washington’s timeline is linked to the weakening and destruction of the Russian state, which has been the ultimate US objective. Lest we forget, Joe Biden played a seminal role in installing the new regime in Kiev in 2014 and in moulding Ukraine as an anti-Russian state.
Suffice to say, the referendum on Wednesday is Russia’s only available course of action under the circumstances, while Kiev maintains a maximalist position as advised by the US, UK and Poland.
The accession of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye creates a new political reality and Russia’s partial mobilisation on a parallel track is intended to provide the military underpinning for it. The accession signifies a paradigm shift insofar as any further attacks on these regions that are part of Russia can be construed by Moscow as attacks on Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Certainly, Kiev’s wanton attacks in future on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye will trigger Russian reaction. Any attack on them will be considered aggression and will give Moscow the right to respond “adequately.” The fact the Russian deployment in these territories will be significantly augmented and upgraded signals a willingness to use force.
Meanwhile, Russia’s special military operations will also continue until its set objectives are met. Which means, even more territories may come under Russian control, creating ever newer facts on the ground. Kiev needs to factor all this carefully.
The Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder has reacted as follows: “No one will take such bogus referendums seriously, and the US will certainly not recognise their results. How will this affect our and international support for Ukraine? This will not affect in any way, we will continue to work with Ukraine and our international partners to provide them with the necessary assistance to protect their territory.”
It is a sufficiently evasive statement. Neither Pentagon nor the Russian military command will risk brinkmanship. The likelihood, therefore, is that the accession of the new territories to the Russian Federation may not be militarily challenged by the US or NATO. That said, Russia is already at war with the NATO, as Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu said, albeit not in terms of weapons supplies, which “we find ways to counter,” but in the Western systems that exist — “communication systems, information processing systems, reconnaissance systems and satellite intelligence systems.”
The point is, the accession of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions to the Russian Federation will require the NATO and the US to reset the proxy-war algorithm. The CIA’s analogy of the Afghan jihad of the 1980s no longer holds good. Russia has avoided a quagmire in Ukraine and probably is turning the table on the NATO. To make things doubly sure, Moscow lifted the veil today on its newest ICBM, Sarmat.
In Putin’s national address on Wednesday, he had said: “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”
The results of the referendum must be determined not later than 5 days after the last voting day (Sept. 27), and the issue of accession to Russia is considered approved if more than 50% of the plebiscite participants vote for it. Significantly, the Russian State Duma is scheduled to hold plenary sessions in Moscow on September 27 and 28.






Part One, The Record, treats the history of garlic as evidence. From the clay garlic bulb placed in an Egyptian grave nearly six thousand years ago, through the Ebers Papyrus, through Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Pliny and Galen, the Arab physicians under Avicenna, the medieval herbals, Culpeper, and the plague years, to the last era in which Western physicians prescribed garlic as a matter of course, which ran from 1850 to 1945. It closes with the living traditions that never stopped using it, and with the folklore of charms, vampires and the evil eye.