Deputy head of Russia’s mission to the UN Dmitry Polyansky has criticized the Western media for its unwillingness to condemn the shelling of a maternity hospital in Donetsk by Ukraine.
“Where is Western media reaction?” Polyansky asked in a tweet on Tuesday. “All those BBC, Reuters, AFP, who were shouting about damage to [a] maternity hospital in Mariupol used by Ukrainian nationalists as a firing position?”
Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) officials reported that Kiev’s forces recently stepped up their indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk. On Monday, five people were killed and almost 40 others injured as several areas of the city, including a market, came under fire.
At least one of the shells hit a maternity hospital, damaging the building and shattering its windows. Fatalities and injuries were avoided due to the fact that patients and staff had taken shelter in the basement, according to DPR officials.
“Ukraine is deliberately targeting civilians. Will we hear a word of condemnation?” the Russian diplomat wrote.
He also shared a video of a reporter showing the damage done to the maternity hospital and patients hiding in the basement.
In an earlier tweet, Polyansky stressed that there were no military units in the areas that Ukraine shelled. “The West is fully responsible for these crimes” as Donetsk is being struck with NATO shells that were recently provided to Kiev by its foreign backers, he wrote.
Ukraine’s attack on the maternity hospital in Donetsk has been largely ignored by the Western media, but Reuters did dedicate a few lines to the incident in its report on Monday.
“Russian news agencies later reported that a shell had fallen on a maternity hospital in the city of Donetsk, triggering a fire and prompting staff to send patients into the basement. There was no independent confirmation of any of the attacks and Reuters could not ascertain whether they had taken place,” the agency wrote.
However, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that Russia struck a maternity hospital in Mariupol on March 9, the story made headlines in most major Western media outlets. Three people, including a child, were killed in the incident, local authorities said.
Russia’s Defense Ministry has denied targeting the medical facility at all, suggesting the whole thing had been staged by the Ukrainians, who detonated explosives on the ground. The authenticity of the photos presented by Kiev as proof of the claimed Russian attack has also been questioned by many online.
Marianna Vyshemirskaya, one of the pregnant women featured in the images that appeared on the front pages of many major outlets, later claimed that there had been no Russian airstrike on the hospital. She insisted that she told AP journalists about it, but they decided not to mention it in their reporting.
Vyshemirskaya, who was evacuated to the DPR from Mariupol and has since become a mother, also said her photos had been distributed without her consent.
Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would encourage you to watch because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.
This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.
“I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,” Wood says. “This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.
If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who we’re dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what they’re thinking, what’s in their head.”
COVID Was Technocracy’s Coup D’état
While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. He’d been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.
The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.
“At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracy’s coup d’état. They’re finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, they’re actually putting shoe leather to it and they’re making it happen, so I called it coup d’état early on,” Wood says.
Unfortunately, to quote Wood’s coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.
Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee — have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D.
“We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.
Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? We’re presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.“
Creating a New Normal on Our Own Terms
While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and it’s not going to right itself. No. It’ll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. It’s important to realize that we shouldn’t want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises we’re currently facing.
We can fully expect that the partially failed vaccine passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.
Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and it’ll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to what’s coming.
“If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup d’état that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebody’s orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. That’s obvious. I’m sure it’s self-evident.”
By Their Words and Actions, You Can Know Them
So, who instigated this global revolution? Who’s pulling the strings? Who’s the real enemy? It’s not the populace. It’s not even a specific nation. It’s a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:
“What’s going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people don’t have a clue what it means yet, but it’s promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.
This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. It’s the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and they’re the ones that are pushing it right now.
It’s easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Bill Gateses [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. It’s pretty easy to identify them today.
The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.
That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.
It’s hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and it’s all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. That’s another thing that’s really important to understand: This didn’t just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.”
Agenda 21 Laid the Groundwork
In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. That’s where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.
As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. It’s just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”
“There was a great book released in 1994 called ‘The Earth Brokers.’ The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They weren’t on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.
They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned … In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: ‘We argue that USAID — the United Nations conference on economic development — has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.
We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.’ What can we say, but ‘amen’ to that. Here we are today. It’s exactly what’s happened.”
The Plan to Own and Control All Life
“The Earth Brokers” also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.
“They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.
To which, today, we can say, ‘Bingo!’ That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. They’ve gotten the seeds, they’ve gotten the plants, they’ve gotten the animals.”
Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is “hacking the software of life.” He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.
Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.
Origins of Technocracy
Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:
“What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasn’t from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.
It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter — basically a con man — and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia … flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia …
By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.
When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, ‘If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, you’re fired.’
Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians don’t go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. That’s how they write history.
Well, there’s this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, there’s no newspaper articles. It’s just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.”
Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the ’90s.
The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasn’t very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.
Totalitarianism Versus Technocracy
While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. There’s no individual to blame or hold accountable.
The “dictator” is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.
“The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,” Wood says. “There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.
You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1 [March 29-30, 2022].
It was partly put on by the United Nations and there were a bunch of financial mucky mucks there. There was one in particular, Pippa Malmgren — she’s from America, but she’s in Great Britain — and she does financial wealth management services for the ultra rich.
She talked about the destruction of the fiat currency system, and she said, when it happens, there’s simply going to be a change-over. All the fiat currencies are going to go, and there’s going to be an implementation of digital currency. But she also made point that the nation state structures of the world are declining rapidly now. She saw, I guess, that the nation states are the target of destruction. They must go.”
This has been in the works for some time. Look at the European Union. While Europe has country borders, the EU member states have virtually no power to do anything anymore. They’re subservient to the EU’s wishes. “That’s why a lot of people in Europe call the EU a technocracy, they’re a bunch of technocrat elites — they’re unelected, they’re unaccountable,” Wood says.
Nobody can get to them and they’re making decisions for everybody else. So, while the nation states are still there in name, they’ve stripped of their sovereignty. The World Health Organization is now also in the process of stripping nations of their sovereignty through the so-called Pandemic Treaty, which will grant the WHO unprecedented power and influence to govern behind the veil of “global biosecurity.”
We also see the rule of technocracy in companies such as Google, which is meddling in the affairs of nations, oftentimes wielding more power over people than the state itself. So, it’s important to realize that the enemy is not a nation state.
Today’s enemy cannot be compared to anything that nation states have produced in the past, such as fascism, communism or socialism. This is an altogether brand-new entity. So, while technocracy feels like totalitarianism, today’s totalitarianism is an outgrowth of technocracy, and cannot be compared to any previous totalitarian regime.
“If you look at it in the context of the takeover genetic material on earth, this is the dangerous payload that we face. It’s not just the governance part of it. It’s not just the scientific dictatorship part of it, where people now can be manipulated in doing things that don’t want to do. We’re talking about the direct takeover of the human genome.
This is an incredible thing, because that means, potentially, that our genome of humanity could be changed,” Wood warns.
Unintended Consequences Are Probable
Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that the orchestrators of this technocratic takeover are in over their heads and will end up self-destructing. They’re playing a game that has never been played before, so there’s no telling what unintended consequences might be initiated.
One such unintended consequence could be a world war, and if that happens, gene editing the human genome will become irrelevant, because the living standards of the whole world will be pushed back hundreds of years. Wood comments:
“No question about it — World War III or a world war is going to be triggered. It’s not in the best interest, for instance, for the World Economic Forum to have a world war. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen either. So far, I think the Ukraine war is pretty orchestrated and scripted in many ways to the agenda of the World Economic Forum. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t lose control and the thing just goes nuts.
If that happens, I don’t know where I’d put that on the doomsday clock. I’m not really sure, but it is definitely a possible outcome. If it does happen, it will spoil everything for everyone for a very long period of time. As the Bible says, it’ll take seven years to go through the countryside and bury all the radioactive bones. That’d be very ugly.
It might not be [a nuclear war]. But it could be. They have the technology. I mean, just look what they can do by launching these pandemics and these bioweapons … Another thing that can happen — and again, we’re talking about waves of attacks, things that could bring us down and bring about this Great Reset — is some type of a cyber attack.
This has been in the news a lot lately. A cyber attack could be a false flag operation, but it doesn’t really matter what it is, whether it is or isn’t [a false flag], but some big thing, like taking down the power grid, or taking down JPMorgan Chase and nobody can get their money out for a period of a week.
Something like that would, again, put the fear of God into everybody. We’ll be back to the fear and panic; we’ll do whatever you say to get safety, et cetera. It will perpetuate the takeover, the coup that we’re looking at. These are two possibilities, near-term, that are very real. We’ve got different scenarios right now, but we know where this group of technocrat actors are going.
We understand their mindset, their philosophy, if you will. I hate to even call it that, but what is in their head? There’s no passion, there’s no compassion, there’s no love, there’s no mercy, there’s no grace, there’s nothing like that. It’s a completely inhuman endeavor to capture mankind into a scientific dictatorship, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”
Preparing Can Help Ease Your Anxiety
The Boy Scouts motto is “Be prepared,” and that is what I would encourage everyone to strive for at this time. Another motto to embrace would be “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” Prepare as best you can for any and every contingency. If you can, get out of the big cities and big urban areas. Rural areas where you can build community is your safest bet.
Prepare for sustained food shortages with long-term food storage. Secure a potable water source. Stock up on medical remedies. Prepare for supply chains of all kinds to fail and stock up accordingly. Transition out of fiat currency, either by spending it on things you’ll need in the future, or buying physical gold and silver.
Prepare for energy shortages, rolling blackouts and the complete shut-down of the power grid. Importantly, don’t rely on high-tech solutions. Include low-tech manual backups in your preps. If the thought of all of this scares you, remember that taking action is the best remedy. Knowing you’re prepared will ease a lot of anxieties.
Why Free Speech Is on the Chopping Block
Free speech is a universal concept. Everyone, everywhere, have a mind and want to express themselves without being censored or canceled for their views. Free speech is now under attack worldwide, and the truly massive attack on free speech began at the same time as the coup d’état started. This is because silencing dissent is required for the full takeover to occur.
“These technocrat transhumanist revolutionaries must destroy free speech at the same time that they take over the world, because they have to control the narrative,” Wood explains. “The attacks on free speech right now are absolutely legendary, off the charts, everywhere on the planet.
If Mattias Desmet is right, and I feel absolutely certain that he is, because I can read a history book as easy as anybody, when free speech is effectively silenced, that is when the killing of the scapegoat begins. It’s always the scapegoat that gets killed first. There may be other groups that get mixed in, but the people who are the scapegoat are the ones that will be attacked by the mass formation psychosis crowd.”
Eventually, the totalitarian regime will devour its own. It’ll kill its own leaders in the name of the greater good. But in the meantime, it’ll start by culling various scapegoats, one group after another.
“Original technocracy from the 1930s, was defined in their own magazine, which was called ‘The Technocrat Magazine.’ They defined themselves in 1938 as ‘the science of social engineering.’ That was what they said about themselves.
Technocracy is the science of social engineering and they talked incessantly in their literature about Pavlov and BF Skinner and how they could control people and mold people to the economy, to the utopia that they wanted to build.
They’ve had since 1938, at the very least, to think about how to develop the science of social engineering to be used against humanity. I don’t think we need to even think about it any further.
We can feel it today. It’s right in our face, every day. They’re using these techniques against the people of the world to manipulate them, to hypnotize them, to push them into mass formation psychosis. Somebody at the top knows exactly what they’re doing with this. That’s my point.”
And, again, tech companies like Google and Facebook play central roles in that effort. I look at Google as the Skynet of the Terminator series. They’re probably the worst offender of all the technology companies that are accelerating this. They the champions of social engineering. They own DeepMind, the most sophisticated artificial intelligence company on the planet, and they’re clearly using it for nefarious purposes. That said, they’re certainly not alone.
Action Plan Moving Forward
In closing, we need to give careful thought to how we might slow down, block or at least limit the devastation that’s been planned for us. At the top of that list, aside from preparing yourself and your family with the essentials for life, is to buck the narrative.
“Anytime you feel like you’re being given a role to play, just refuse to play that role,” Wood says. “I don’t care what it is, just don’t do it. If they say, ‘You need to wear a mask because blah, blah, blah — don’t wear a mask. Just don’t play the role they give you.’
I know, but there’s a lot of personal choice here. You got to make a personal decision on what it’s worth to you to do it. I personally haven’t worn a mask yet. It’s cost me. I haven’t flown an airplane for a long time. I didn’t go a lot of places.
It’s important to keep your mouth open, not shut. We need to reestablish human connection again. This has been denied us with all the social distancing and lockdowns and everything else. Get in touch with people. It hurts, I realize, for a lot of people, because relationships have been burned between children and parents and brothers and sisters. Get over it, deal with it.
You have to get out and reconnected with people again, because the future of humanity is in those connections.
Just don’t argue with them. If you love them, love them anyway, in spite of where they are. But it’s also important to get with like-minded people and spend time developing deeper relationships with people. Guys have lost the ability to have best friends, almost universally across the country.
Women are better at having best friends, but they’ve been denied best friends because everything’s been broken up. Get embedded in a local church and start going to these home fellowships, whatever, where people are meeting face to face and just talk to them …
We have a lot of answers and a lot of tangible things we can help people with. You need to do it, be prepared to do it. When you have the opportunity, open your mouth and help them out. At least, give them some hope, because right now the other side wants you to have no hope. They want to strip all hope away from you so that you will turn to the government or turn to the technocrats for help.
We need to help people with this whole hope business and not to sell hopium, as some people call it, but to give them some tangible help on what they can do right now to put up a defense around their own body, around their own mind or whatever it might be …
This is where we are as a world today — we, on the non-mass formation psychosis side, we’re all in. Whether anybody else recognizes that as immaterial, but we are all in this. This is the most important civilizational, existential thing that we’ll ever deal with in our lifetime.
It really is that important. It’s not something we can just say, ‘Well, it’s just another problem,’ kind of like, ‘We had problems with Jimmy Carter.’ No, it’s not that kind of problem. This is a bigger existential threat that we’re facing right now.
We must be dead serious. But there’s hope, I will say. And until it’s over, it’s not over. We can make a difference and we need to try. We just can’t throw up our hands and say there’s no point trying, I’m going to go home and get drunk. Klaus Schwab told you, with his own lips, that by 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy. They’re trying to make it happen. Yes, they are.
One of the reasons, by the way, that the World Economic Forum has met with the United Nations to speed up the agenda, closer on this side of 2030, is because of the mounting resistance around the world to the agenda. I’m convinced of this. I’ve been watching this since the beginning.
Americans can’t have 500,000 people in the street protesting anything, that doesn’t happen here. That’s just not our culture. But not Europe, at the drop of a hat, you’ll get a 100,000 people in the street, all screaming and banging pots and pans and hollering and carrying signs.
I know they see these massive hordes of people that are saying, essentially, ‘Hell, no’… This has to have an impact on them. I think that’s one reason they’re trying to accelerate the program right now and make it happen faster.
To me, that’s just kind of a little bit of a sign of resistance is working, and this to me, this ought to tell the resistance to double down — double down right now on whatever it is you’re doing. Do twice as much as you did last week or last month and continue to put the pressure on it.”
A Freedom of Information request filed by UH in connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book was blocked by UK Metropolitan police on “national security” grounds. The request sought information on the two sitting US Senators who met with Jeffrey Epstein at a Wexner-owned residence in the UK, a meeting where Met Police officers had provided security.
In connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, One Nation Under Blackmail, Unlimited Hangout filed a Freedom of Information request asking UK law enforcement and the Ministry of Defence the identity of two sitting US senators who were present at Foxcote House in North Warwickshire, UK on September 1, 2002. UH contributor Johnny Vedmore had previously obtained information from eyewitnesses of that meeting that, not only were two US Senators present at that location that day, but that Metropolitan Police officers had supplied security for the meeting. The FOI request was filed to Metropolitan Police, the UK Ministry of Defence and North Warwickshire Police and only a response from the Metropolitan Police was received.
The motive for UH’s FOI request is as follows. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein, as attested to by Epstein’s flight logs, was present in this part of the UK during this same period (from August 31, 2002 to September 2, 2002) and eyewitnesses saw him attend this specific meeting at this location with two attractive and glamorously dressed women on each arm. One of these women was Nicole Junkermann, a former model and apparent intelligence asset as revealed in Vedmore’s previous investigative work. The other woman was described by eyewitnesses as a tall brunette. Per those eyewitness accounts, Epstein personally escorted the two women into the room where the two senators were waiting.
Notably the house where this meeting took place, Foxcote House, has been owned by the family of Leslie Wexner, specifically his wife Abigail Wexner, since 1999. Wexner’s role in financing much of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities, legal and illegal, is a major focus of Webb’s upcoming book and Wexner has encountered considerable difficulty in explaining away his relationship with Epstein, despite the largely servile posture of mainstream media in this regard.
Given the circumstances, it seems highly likely that this meeting was a high-profile instance of Jeffrey Epstein engaging in the sexual blackmail of sitting American politicians. However, due to the well-known scandal around Jeffrey Epstein, his name was not used in our FOI request in order to avoid potentially “spiking” the response.
Despite the omission of Epstein’s name, Metropolitan Police responded to the request stating that they can “neither confirm nor deny whether it holds” the requested information. Their response goes on to state that confirming or denying “whether any United States of America (USA) senators were afforded protection could undermine the safeguarding of national security.” It also notes that it blocked providing the requested information on four other grounds aside from “national security” (five in total), including “international relations”, “law enforcement”, “health and safety”, and “personal information.” It also states that providing the requested information could place “those who are afforded protection, protection officers and members of the public at risk.”
Screenshot of the response from Met Police
UH has since re-filed a new, related FOI request asking why Metropolitan Police officers were providing protection to a meeting where Jeffrey Epstein was present, since his criminal activities are undeniable.
On Friday, the FDA released its risk benefit assessment of Moderna’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject mRNA into kids 0 to 17 years old. I’ve been reading it for the past two days and here are the things that stood out to me.
I. Introduction, a shell game to hide the bad data
The risk benefit document for Moderna is 190 pages single-spaced. It was released two business days before the June 14-15 VRBPAC meeting. A similar risk benefit assessment for Pfizer’s EUA application for kids under 5 will be released tomorrow (just 24 hours before the meeting). This guarantees that NONE of the members of the VRBPAC will have read either of these documents prior to the meeting — which is exactly what the cartel wants.
One of the ways that Moderna and the FDA rig the game is by adding endless layers of complexity to hide how bad the data really is. This should have been four separate documents — Moderna in adolescents 12 to 17, Moderna in kids 6 to 11, Moderna in kids 2 to 5, and Moderna in kids 6 months to 23 months. Looked at individually, the shot fails in each of these four age groups. But by lumping them together it creates noise that makes it difficult to understand what’s going on.
Another really pernicious thing that Moderna does is to further subdivide these populations into eight different subpopulations (Randomization Set, Full Analysis Set, Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Set for Efficacy, Modified Intent-to-treat Set, MITT1 Set, Safety Set, Solicited Safety Set).
See what they did there? The public just wants to know — does the product work and what are the side effects? By dividing the data into eight subcategories involving four different age groups now you have to wade through 32 different tables to try to make sense of what happened in the clinical trial.
They do something similar with the adverse events by dividing it across five tables x four age groups = 20 adverse event tables in all.
Subdividing the data in this way also allows Moderna to eliminate or hide data that it does not like. This is what people call “massaging the data” and it is unethical and a violation of scientific norms. We’ll return to this topic below.
II. No actual health benefits so Moderna/FDA use the immunobridging trick
The risks of Covid-19 are so low in the childhood population that there were ZERO severe cases of Covid-19 in either the treatment or the control group.
Therefore, the number needed to vaccinate, to prevent a single severe case of Covid-19 in the childhood population is infinity. (Technically it’s undefined because you cannot divide by zero, but you take my point). The FDA and CDC guidance documents for how to write a risk benefit assessment state that one must provide a number needed to treat, the absolute risk reduction, and the relative risk reduction. Moderna just skipped all that because the cartel makes its own rules.
Moderna is in a race against natural immunity. But natural immunity has already won because 74.2% of kids had natural immunity by February — so by now the number is probably closer to 100%. The God-given immune system in kids has already done its part to stop the pandemic and now the FDA wants to mess that up to enrich the cartel and keep the pandemic going forever.
So how does Moderna/FDA claim that this shot was “effective”? They use an unethical statistical trick called “immunobridging.”
It makes me mad that I even have to explain it because it’s such junk science. But we all need to know exactly how the FDA rigged the process so that we can explain to the jury at Nuremberg 2 why these monsters should be convicted so here goes:
Remember, the Moderna shots produced NO reductions in severe outcomes because the risk of Covid-19 in this age group is infinitesimally small (see studies: here, here, here, and here). So Moderna ignored the actual health outcomes and switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In the process, they engaged in two egregious sleights of hand:
First, Moderna claims that the sample size for each of the four subgroups of children is about 3,000. But when it came to looking at antibodies in the blood, Moderna threw out about 90% of the sample and only looked at the bloodwork of about 300 kids in each age group. No explanation was given for the criteria they used to exclude 90% of the sample from their analysis. We know that up to 30% of kids have no antibody response at all to Covid-19 shots so perhaps they actually started with a much larger sample and then threw out the data that showed no effect from the shot?
The second sleight of hand is that “no placebo recipients were included in the Immunogenicity Subset” (p. 26). Do you realize how huge this is? This is no longer an RCT at all — they did not include the bloodwork from anyone in the placebo group. So the study cannot rule out the possibility that the increase in antibody levels was not from the vaccine at all but could have been from natural immunity. Just astonishing.
After these sleights of hand, Moderna then compares the antibody levels in the blood of about 10% of the children against the antibody levels in a sample of about 300 adults ages 18 to 25 enrolled in a previous clinical trial. If the antibody levels are similar (which they are), Moderna claims, ‘And therefore it will prevent disease in the future in kids!’
A few problems with that claim:
The Moderna study only measured antibody levels two months after the second dose — the time period when the antibody levels are at their peak (what Berenson calls “the happy valley”). But real world experience with these vaccines shows that any efficacy quickly wanes to zero by six months and then goes NEGATIVE after that.
The second problem, and this is unresolvable and instantly disqualifying for Moderna, is that at the April 6, 2022, meeting of the FDA’s “expert advisory committee” one member after another acknowledged that there are no “correlates of protection” for these vaccines. What that means in plain English is that you cannot use antibodies (or B-cells, T-cells, or any other proxy) to predict whether someone is immune or not.
Eric Rubin, who serves on that committee and is also the editor of the NEJM stated it bluntly, “We know what kind of antibody response can be generated, we just don’t know if it works.” You can watch it yourself on video:
The third problem is that the Moderna study was completed back in mid-2021 — when the original Wuhan and Alpha strains were prevalent. Since then, the Omicron variant has entirely replaced the original strains and real world data show that both Moderna and Pfizer shots are not effective against the Omicron variant. So in spite of all of the chicanery (discarding 90% of the sample, immunobridging, claiming correlates of protection that are not valid) Moderna cannot show any evidence that this shot will be effective against SARS-CoV-2 as it exists now.
III. It’s all harms
Let’s talk about harms from this shot (and remember, it’s all harms in this population because the shot made no difference on real world health outcomes). And there, things get really weird really fast.
The median study follow-up duration was just 53 days after dose 2. After that they wiped out the control group. Here’s how they justified it:
Following authorization of an alternative COVID-19 vaccine for this age group on May 10, 2021, participants in the study were permitted to unblind to study treatment. Crossover vaccination with mRNA-1273 of participants initially randomized to placebo began in October 2021. (p. 26)
For each age category, Moderna spreads the adverse events across 5 different tables to increase the noise to hide the signal. But the bottom line is that the adverse events are off the charts.
In the adolescent population 99.2% of vaccine recipients reported at least one adverse reaction after any injection with 25.3% reporting a reaction that was Grade 3 or higher. (p. 54).
Holy sh*t those numbers are high. Grade 3 means: unable to return to work or school the next day because the person is so sick.
A different FDA staffer must have written the summary statements for the other three age groups because they don’t say it this plainly but the adverse event rates are similar across all of the children.
This adverse event data is so high it’s disqualifying.
But then things get even weirder — the adverse event rates in the placebo group were also very high in many, but not all, categories. Moderna used this to say, ‘well yes, the adverse event rate in the treatment group was higher than anything anyone has ever seen before but the rates were also somewhat high in the placebo group and so therefore nothing-to-see-here(TM).’
My strong suspicion in that Moderna rigged the placebo. Why wouldn’t they — the FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos (see Golomb 1995 and Golomb et al. 2010). The dirty little secret of the vaccine program is that manufacturers almost always use rigged placebos to create an artificially high “background rate” to hide adverse events. The brilliant quant Jessica Rose made a similar observation yesterday in her analysis of the FDA risk benefit document:
I still have a very strong suspicion that these ‘placebos’ are not saline and rather empty LNPs. [Lipid nanoparticles — the delivery vehicle that Moderna uses to get mRNA into the cell. An “empty LNP” would be the nanoparticles without the mRNA antigen.]
I’m almost certain this is what Moderna did. In the 2- through 5-year-old age group 37.5% of placebo recipients reported unsolicited adverse events as compared with 40% of vaccine recipients (see p. 139). A number that high in the placebo group would have been impossible if Moderna had used an inert saline placebo.
IV. The way that the FDA rigged the myocarditis data is absolutely sinister
I know that this article is already long but I need to flag one more essential point.
FDA review of the Moderna mRNA shot in adolescents has been held up for a year because the Moderna shot causes myocarditis in this age group — particularly in boys.
So I was curious to see how the FDA would attempt to get around this. And it’s all right there on pages 19 and 20. It’s one of the most chilling things I’ve ever read. The FDA’s argument goes like this:
‘Yes, by spring and summer of 2021 there were already seven high quality studies from around the world showing that mRNA shots increase myocarditis risk. By fall of 2021, the reports continued to come in from the U.K., Europe, Canada, and Nordic countries showing a 2x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from mRNA shots. Yes, the CDC’s own study of the Vaccine Safety Datalink showed a 2x higher risk of myocarditis from Moderna shots. By May of 2022, we have additional studies from the U.K., Denmark, several Nordic countries, Italy, and France showing a 3x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from the Moderna shot.’
In all, the FDA cited TWENTY-SIX STUDIES showing that mRNA shots in general, and Moderna in particular, increase the risk of myocarditis.
‘But not to worry!’ the FDA announces in the 4th paragraph in this section. The FDA, CDC, and Kaiser Permanente put their fixers on the case in February and March of this year and made the safety signal shrink down to a more manageable 7% to 50% increased risk of myocarditis and even those results were massaged to make sure that they were not statistically significant, so, nothing-to-see-here(TM). It was the same fixers who they always use — Tom Shimabukuro and John Su — whose entire job is making vaccine safety signals disappear. Those guys are absolutely going to hell.
‘So that’s that,’ the FDA announces. ‘Just ignore those 26 high quality studies from around the world showing an increased risk of myocarditis. Our fixers laundered the data for Moderna so we’re all good.’
V. What is to be done
Children’s Health Defense just launched an excellent 1-click call to action that I highly encourage you to do (and please share it with all of your friends).
Up until Monday night (June 13) at 11:59 p.m. eastern time you can officially register your profound displeasure with the FDA by submitting a formal comment (here) — look for the blue Comment button in the upper left corner of the website. 129,397 comments have already been received — let’s see if we can get that number above 140,000.
If you want to write to public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members, all of their email addresses are here:
Please be polite but let them know that they absolutely must vote NO on the EUA applications from Moderna and Pfizer.
VI. Conclusion
The FDA risk benefit document in connection with the Moderna mRNA shot in kids is dishonest. The public health establishment has abandoned science, logic, reason, rationality, empathy, health, and medicine. The FDA is more than happy to sacrificechildren in order to ingratiate themselves further with the cartel. The proposal to expand the Moderna EUA to kids 0 to 17 is a crime against humanity.
We are absolutely going to win this fight, either in the short term or in the long term. These shots will eventually be withdrawn from the market because they do not work and they cause catastrophic harms. The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee can save themselves a lot of misery (and additional criminal charges at Nuremberg 2.0) by rejecting these applications from Moderna and Pfizer this week.
The Economist puts the number even higher, at 199,000. This rate of non-Covid excess deaths among young people holds constant across European Union countries that employed strict lockdown measures, but disappears for Sweden, which did not employ such measures.
Summing our estimates across causes and age groups, we estimate 171,000 excess non-Covid deaths through the end of 2021 plus 72,000 unmeasured Covid deaths. The Economist has assembled national-level mortality data from around the world and obtains a similar U.S. estimate, which is 199,000 (including any unmeasured Covid) or about 60 persons per 100,000 population (Global Change Data Lab 2022). For the European Union as a whole, the estimate is near-identical at 64 non-Covid excess deaths per 100K. In contrast, the estimate for Sweden is -33, meaning that non-Covid causes of death were somewhat low during the pandemic. We suspect that some of the international differences are due to the standard used to designate a death as Covid, but perhaps also Sweden’s result is related to minimizing the disruption of its citizen’s normal lifestyles.
Hauntingly, the results of the NBER and Economist studies are a near-perfect match of the simple calculations of lockdown deaths performed in my book, Snake Oil.
As the New York Timesnotes euphemistically: “The rate of death from all causes for younger adults has risen by a bigger percentage than has the rate of death from all causes for old people.” It’s nice of the New York Times to finally print this fact, but they would appear to be, euphemistically, a day late and a dollar short—the “dollar” in this case being 200,000 young American lives.
Israel plans to build a new national park on nearly 1 million dunams (247,000 acres) of land in the occupied West Bank between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, Israel Hayom has reported.
The park will stretch between the illegal Jewish settlements of Kochav Hashahar north-east of occupied Jerusalem and Gush Etzion.
Tourist attractions such as the Mar Saba Monastery, Nabi Musa Mosque and the ruins of Hasmonean palaces, as well as hotels, will be within the proposed park. The area known as E1 to the east of Jerusalem has long been considered a red line and a point of no return for the internationally-backed two-state solution.
“We want to set up a new national park, the likes of which has never been seen in Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank], and create a single network, one product,” explained regional director-general Keren Geffen.
The announcement comes after the Israeli Defence Ministry reapproved the plan to advance a controversial settlement project in the E1 area of the occupied West Bank earlier this month. The Israeli government withdrew the plan in January amid international pressure.
The Civil Administration of the Israeli army, which authorises construction work in the occupied West Bank, published its agenda for an 18 July meeting to discuss objections to projects that have received initial approval. Two E1 plans totalling 3,412 housing units are the only projects on the docket.
A new political action committee (PAC) plans to unseat Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib over her clear support for the people of occupied Palestine, the Intercept revealed on Friday. The committee claims that it is “dedicated to empowering urban communities to narrow the wealth gap between Black and White Americans.”
More than 40 Black business and civic leaders launched the Urban Empowerment Action PAC in October. According to the Intercept, the committee “has picked its most prominent and first incumbent target this cycle: Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.”
It has labelled the challenge against Tlaib as its “premier race” and plans to spend at least $1 million to unseat her, arguing that Detroit, a city with a majority Black electorate, should be represented by a Black person in Congress. The PAC is backing candidate Janice Winfrey, Detroit’s city clerk, who slammed Tlaib’s vote against last year’s bipartisan infrastructure package and her criticism of US military funding to Israel, which Winfrey supports.
This particular PAC is primarily funded by billionaire hedge fund investor and philanthropist Daniel Loeb. Its founder remains unknown.
Tlaib is facing her second primary as an incumbent in August. She has secured $15 million for local community projects in this year’s House budget bill, made efforts to extend the child tax credit and secured the fifth-largest amount of Covid-19 aid allocated for America’s major cities.
“Her public scrutiny of unchecked US funding for Israeli occupation forces has made her a target of pro-Israel groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [of which Loeb is also a donor]… and Pro-Israel America, which endorsed Winfrey in March,” the news organisation pointed out. “If they manage to unseat Tlaib, conservative Democrats would score a monumental win.”
In what is obviously a tit-for-tat response to the Pentagon’s role in ginning up the Russia-Ukraine war, Nicaraguan officials have announced that they have invited Russian troops to visit the country for “humanitarian”and “training” purposes. They are saying that the visit will be “routine,” but there is actually nothing routine about it.
It will be fascinating to see how the Pentagon and its loyal supporters within the mainstream press respond to the announcement. So far, there have been no Pentagon reaction and no mainstream press editorials or op-eds coming to the defense of Nicaragua’s “right” to enter into a military alliance with Russia.
Don’t forget, after all, that that is the root cause of the crisis in Ukraine — the “right” of Ukraine to join NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur. If NATO ends up absorbing Ukraine, the Pentagon will be able to fulfill its longtime aim of installing nuclear missiles pointed at Russia’s cities along Russia’s border with Ukraine.
For its part, Russia has long made it clear that this was a “red line” that it would not permit to be crossed, just as U.S. officials refused to permit Soviet nuclear missiles to be installed in Cuba in 1962. That’s what precipitated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — the attempt to establish Russia’s control over the Ukrainian regime in order to prevent the Pentagon from fulfilling its longtime aim through NATO to install nuclear missiles along Russia’s border.
The U.S. mainstream press, which oftentimes acts like an American Pravda, has been vociferous in its defense of Ukraine’s “right” to join NATO. It’s an independent country, they have repeatedly pointed out, and, therefore, it has the “right” to join any military alliance it wants.
Okay, fair enough. But then what about Nicaragua? Isn’t it just as independent as Ukraine? Given such, why doesn’t it have the same “right” to enter into a military alliance with Russia or, for that matter, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, or Vietnam?
Why are the Pentagon and its mainstream press acolytes remaining quiet about those questions?
Wouldn’t it be darkly ironic if the Pentagon’s NATO machinations with Ukraine ended up producing blowback in the form of a permanent Russian military base in Nicaragua? Wouldn’t it be darkly ironic if Russia accepted an invitation from Nicaragua to establish nuclear missiles in Nicaragua?
What then would be the response of the Pentagon and its mainstream-press acolytes? Would they opine that while Ukraine has the “right” to join NATO, which would enable the Pentagon to install its nuclear missiles on Russia’s border, Nicaragua has no “right” to enter into a similar military alliance with Russia (or China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, or Vietnam)? If they were to take that position, would not their evil NATO machinations and hypocritical two-faced policies be on open display for all the world to witness?
Of course, none of this had to be. If the old, rotten Cold War dinosaur NATO had been dismantled at the end of the Cold War, which it should have been, the Pentagon could not have used it to engage in its Cold War machinations that ultimately have led to the deadly and destructive Russia-Ukraine war.
And now we are witnessing blowback from the Pentagon’s NATO machinations in the form of a possible Russia military base in Nicaragua or, even worse, another Cold War crisis similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
As I point out in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, President Kennedy was able to circumvent and nullify the Pentagon’s Cold War machinations during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and everyone in both Russia and the United States was better off for it. Unfortunately, however, as everyone knows, President Biden is no John Kennedy, and therefore, it is impossible to predict how this latest crisis will be resolved.
The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations held a videoconference on May 31 titled Russia’s War in Ukraine: How does it end? The president of the think tank, Richard Haas, chaired the panel of distinguished participants — Stephen Hadley, Prof. Charles Kupchan, Alina Polyakova and Lt. Gen. (Retd) Stephen Twitty. It was a great discussion dominated by the liberal internationalist stream that has so far guided President Biden’s national security team, which wants to help Ukraine fight a long war against Russia.
The striking thing about the discussion was the acknowledgement candidly articulated by an ex-general who hadactually fought in wars that there is no way Russia can be defeated in Ukraine, and, therefore, there has to be some clarity as to the stated endgame to “weaken” Russia.The gloomy prognosis was that European unity apropos the war is no longer holding.
Third, one plausible scenario would be that Russia turns Ukraine into a “frozen conflict” once the current phase of the war reaches the administrative boundaries of Donbass, connects Donbas to Crimea and incorporates Kherson and a “strategic pause and a stalemate in the not-too-distant future” may open the door for diplomacy.
Conceivably, a cold air of realism is blowing across the Washington establishment that Russia is winning the Battle of Donbass and an ultimate Russian military victory over Ukraine is even within the realms of possibility. Notably, Georgetown faculty member Prof. Kupchan injected a heavy dose of realism:
“The longer this [war] goes on, the more the negative knock-on effects economically and politically, including here in the United States, where inflation really is… putting Biden in a difficult position”;
“We need to change that narrative [that anybody who talks about a territorial settlement is an appeaser] and begin a conversation with Ukraine and, ultimately, with Russia about how to end this war sooner rather than later”;
“Where the front line ends, how much territory the Ukrainians are able to take back, remains to be seen”;
“I do think that the hot war aspect of this is more dangerous than many people perceive, not just because of escalation but because of the blowback effects”;
“I think we’re starting to see cracks in the West… there will be a resurgence of ‘America-first’ Republicanism as we get near the midterms”;
“This all leads me to believe that we should push for war termination and have a serious conversation after that about a territorial disposition.”
None of the panellists argued that the war must be won, or it still can be. But none recognised Russia’s legitimate security interests, either. Gen. Twitty warned that Ukraine may be close to military exhaustion; Russia has established maritime domain control in the Black Sea — and, yet, “as you look at the DIME—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—we’re woefully lacking on the diplomatic piece of this. If you notice, there’s no diplomacy going on at all to try to get to some type of negotiations.”
The liberal internationalists mistakenly believe NATO is the cornerstone of US national security. Despite the failure of Biden’s reckless decision to wage a proxy war against Russia, the US is transfixed on NATO and unwilling to consider a security deal with Moscow.
If the old narrative in Washington was about winning the war, the new narrative is daydreaming about “partisan activity aimed at Russian occupation forces.” Of course, this narrative is even less possible to verify independently than the tall claims previously.
It is in this twilight zone that President Putin situated his taunting remarks on June 9 drawing the historical analogy of Peter the Great’s 21-year long Great Northern War between 1700-1721 — Russia’s successful contestation of the supremacy of the Swedish Empire in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe. After attending a function marking the 350th birth anniversary of the iconic Russian emperor, Putin was chatting up with an elite audience of the best and brightest young scientists in Moscow.
Putin said: “Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. On the face of it, he was at war with Sweden taking something away from it. He was not taking away anything, he was returning. This is how it was… He was returning and reinforcing, that is what he was doing… everyone recognised it as part of Sweden. However, from time immemorial, the Slavs lived there along with the Finno-Ugric peoples, and this territory was under Russia’s control.”
“Clearly, it fell to our lot to return and reinforce as well. And if we operate on the premise that these basic values constitute the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in achieving our goals.”
Putin gave a complex message here about Russia’s total rejection of NATO supremacy. No matter what it takes, Russia will reclaim its heritage. That is first and foremost a promise to his countrymen, who rally behind Putin, whose poll rating today exceeds 80 percent (as compared to 33% for Biden.)
The point is, there are unspoken fault lines, too. It is noaccident that Russian discourses freely use the expression “Anglo-Saxon” to refer to the challenge on the country’s western border. Demons have been unleashed there. Indeed, what was the meaning of the trip to the Vatican by the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen for an audience with Pope Francis at this point?
The Irish professor Dr. Declan Hayes recently wrote an essay titled Holy War in Ukraine against the backdrop of violent assaults on Russian Orthodox priests inside their churches in the city of Stryi, Lviv region and in Zelensky-controlled Ukraine in general. He saw NATO’s “divide and conquer paw marks” all over them. “Although the fascist assaults on vulnerable Russian priests in front of their Galician congregations are one manifestation that the ghosts of Ukraine’s dark past have resurfaced, murals of the Virgin Mary posing with American Javelin missiles are another,” Prof. Hayes wrote.
Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu announced last week that a “land bridge” has been established to Crimea, one of Moscow’s key war aims, and it is working! It involved the repair of hundreds of kilometres of railway line. Simultaneously, the media reported that rail traffic from Ukraine to the border with Russia has been restored and trucks have begun carrying grain taken from the elevators in the city of Melitopol to Crimea.
Shoigu promised “comprehensive traffic” to and from Russia to Kherson and on to Crimea. Alongside, there’s been a steady stream of reports lately that the integration of the southern regions of Ukraine into Russia is rapidly progressing — Russian citizenship, number plates of cars, internet, banks, pensions and salaries, Russian schools, and so on.
Last week, the influential newspaper Izvestiya cited unnamed military sources claiming that any peace settlement at this point should also include Kiev’s acceptance of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as breakaway regions, in addition to Donbass and Crimea. The key question is no longer whether Kiev can retake the captured south, but how it can stall Russia’s “land bridge” from advancing further westward to Moldavia.
On the other hand, obduracy over peace talks may mean Kiev having to accept at a later date the loss of Odessa as well. But who is there in Europe in a position to bell the cat — reason with Zelensky? Besides, Zelensky is also riding a tiger. He survives on Anglo-Saxon support and in turn the Anglo-Saxons swim or sink with him.
There is no clear end in sight yet for this seamless war. At the end of the day, what stands out is that Putin has compared his actions with regard to Ukraine to Peter the Great’s reclamation of lost historical and cultural space (and lands) for the Slavic peoples during his 18th-century war against Sweden.
The events at the capitol have less to do with the Left vs Right and more to do with Us vs Them. Get ready for more censoring of the internet and shunning of people from society. We are now entering the beginning stages of the Chinese system of censorship. In two short years, social media companies went from promising a one time exception to ban Alex Jones to banning Donald Trump, the sitting President of the United States. It looks like that slippery slope was pretty steep. If you thought cancel culture was bad before, just wait to see what is coming. The attack on the Capitol will inevitably become just another attack on your rights.
“This war will be won on the battlefield”, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell said in April while announcing an additional 500 million euros in EU military assistance to Kiev. In May, the diplomat complained that the bloc had run out of hardware to provide Ukraine and urged the EU to boost its defence capabilities.
Russia and the EU are bound by the confines of geography and must coexist and talk to one another, the EU’s foreign affairs chief has indicated.
“Russia will continue to exist after peace negotiations, and it is necessary to define clearly how we intend to coexist with the country. It will be very difficult after what Russia has done in Ukraine… but we still have to try to coexist with the Russians on this continent”, Borrell said in an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche.
The diplomat assured that the channels of communication with Russia “were never closed”, pointing to Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer’s recent visit to Moscow, African Union Chairman Macky Sall’s trip to Sochi, and visits of United Nations envoys to Russia to discuss Ukraine’s grains exports. “We must continue to talk with Russia”, Borrell emphasised.
Asked about the fate of EU weapons aid to Ukraine, and whether they were achieving the results on the ground that Brussels was hoping for, Borrell characterised the arms deliveries as “war, not a picnic on the grass”, and that Russia was bombing the convoys. He admitted that over the past 100 days, the EU “used a lot of our capabilities in service of Ukraine and it is imperative that our stocks be renewed”.
Asked whether Brussels should help Ukraine directly militarily, Borrell stressed that he doesn’t “engage in theology”, and reiterated the need for EU aid to reach Ukrainian forces as quickly as possible, “because they are not waging a conflict with banknotes but with guns”.
“Having said that, all conflicts end with a ceasefire and negotiations, and it is necessary for Ukraine to be able to approach this phase from a position of strength”, the diplomat said.
The EU high representative for foreign affairs’ comments mark a stark contrast with sentiments he expressed in April about to need to “win” the conflict in Ukraine “on the battlefield”, and to tailor weapons deliveries to Kiev’s needs. “We need to continue to increase our pressure on Russia. We have imposed massive sanctions already but more needs to be done on the energy sector, including oil… Ukraine will prevail and rise back even stronger. And the EU will continue to stand by you, ever step of the way”, he promised at the time.
A month later, Borrell complained that the EU had run out of weapons to send, blaming “past budget cuts and underinvestment”.
The EU has committed to send over two billion euros in aid for the Ukrainian military, on top of roughly 4.1 billion euros to support Kiev’s economy. Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed providing Ukraine with an additional nine billion euros in fiscal support, to be paid back at the end of the year.
Since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Washington and Brussels have provided Ukraine with tens of billions of euros’ worth of military assistance and economic loans. But assistance has come with conditions, including requirements that the country open its markets, and carry out painful reforms aimed at liberalising its economy. Aid has also occasionally been tied to political preconditions, with then-former Vice President Joe Biden boasting in a 2018 panel meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations on how he had threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan to Kiev unless Ukraine’s president fired a prosecutor investigating the activities of a gas company working with his son Hunter.
France will adjust its six-year military spending plan in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, President Emmanuel Macron announced on Monday.
Macron said he instructed the government to “carry out a reassessment of the military spending program in the coming weeks, in the light of the geopolitical context.”
France “has entered into a war economy in which I believe we will find ourselves for a long time,” he said during the opening of the Eurosatory arms expo in Paris. The French president said that Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine created “an additional need to move faster and become stronger at a lower cost.”
“As for anyone doubting the urgency of these efforts, we only need take another look at Ukraine, whose soldiers are in demand of quality weapons and are entitled to a response from us,” Macron noted.
France and other NATO members are supplying Kiev with weapons, including armored vehicles, missiles, and drones.
Macron said Europe needs “a much larger defense industry” and should not rely on procuring weapons from elsewhere. The current program entails spending €295 billion ($308 billion) between 2019 and 2025 on modernizing the French military. The annual military budget is set to reach €41 billion ($43 billion) this year and €50 billion ($52 billion) in 2025.
Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe would boost its defense in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. She said EU countries had announced increases of their defense budgets to an additional €200 billion ($209 billion) in the coming years.
Russia attacked Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.
The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
Calling the US a “hacking empire” of the world, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged Washington to stop “malicious” cyber activities following reports that American hackers subverted a network in China to launch attacks on Russia and Belarus.
“China is gravely concerned about cyberattacks against other countries that originate from the US and use China as a springboard,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters at a press briefing on Monday.
Zhao was commenting on recent Chinese media reports that hackers, mainly from the US but also from NATO allies Germany and the Netherlands, recently hijacked a Chinese computer network for cyberattacks, 87% of which targeted Russia.
“Against the background of the Ukraine situation, such a move may produce the negative effect of misleading the international community and spreading disinformation,” Zhao said, pointing out that “a former US senior official called publicly for launching cyberattacks on Russia not long ago.”
This appeared to be a reference to Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state and presidential candidate, who made the calls in an MSNBC interview at the end of February. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
