Iran’s foreign minister says the United States’ complicity in Israel’s act of aggression against the country is “quite clear” as it has provided the regime with military equipment and airspace to conduct the terrorist raid.
Abbas Araghchi made the remarks on Sunday, a day after US officials claimed that Washington was not directly involved with the Israeli assault that targeted military installations and claimed the lives of four Iranian Army forces.
“The US is fully behind the Zionist regime and is complicit in all its crimes. In the operation two nights ago, the Americans’ participation is quite clear to us,” he said.
“The least they (the Americans) did was to provide a space corridor for the Zionist regime, as well as the equipment they already supplied [to Israel] somehow for participation in this operation.”
The top diplomat also noted that the United States bears responsibility for its “completely obvious” partnership in the occupying regime’s atrocities and escalation of tensions in West Asia.
He further said that Israel is committing crimes in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon using US weapons and enjoying Washington’s political support.
“It is a well-proven fact that without the US, Israel has no power in the region,” Araghchi emphasized.
In the early hours of Saturday, Israeli warplanes used the space available to the US military in Iraq to fire long-range air-to-air missiles in Iran’s Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam provinces in flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter.
Iran said that the attack was successfully intercepted and countered by the country’s air defense system and that it only caused limited damage to radar sites.
In an X post after the criminal raid, Araghchi said Iran reserves the right to duly respond to this aggression, which cannot be separated from Israel’s genocide in Gaza and bloodshed in Lebanon.
TEHRAN – Iranian officials will decide how to respond to the recent attack on Iranian territory carried out by Israel, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday.
“How to convey this power and resolve of the Iranian nation to the Zionist regime is for our officials to determine, and what is in the best interest of the nation and the country should be done,” Khamenei was quoted as saying by the Nour News agency.
Khamenei added that Israel’s attack should “neither be exaggerated nor downplayed.”
The Israel Defense Forces said overnight on Saturday that it had struck military targets in Iran in response to the attacks on the Jewish state on October 1. The CBS News broadcaster reported, citing sources, that the Israeli attack on Iran had been limited to military targets without involving nuclear or oil facilities.
According to IRNA, none of Iran’s oil facilities were damaged.
The Fars news agency claimed that Israel had struck a number of military bases in the west and southwest of Tehran. At the same time, the Tasnim news agency stated that the military centers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, elite units of the Armed Forces), located in the west and southwest of the Iranian capital, had not been damaged.
A Sputnik correspondent reported that at about 1:25 GMT, a second series of explosions was heard in the central part of Tehran, in the area of the Russian embassy, which lasted about a minute.
… On Saturday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also addressed the issue of the attacks in a post on X, strongly condemning the atrocity as a “reckless and cowardly assault” and a “violation of international law and the UN Charter.”
”We fully reserve our right to duly respond to this aggression, which cannot be separated from Israel’s genocide in Gaza and bloodshed in Lebanon. The world must unite against this common threat to international peace & security,” the top diplomat added.
Araghchi sent a letter to the United Nations, calling the attack “unlawful and aggressive” and denouncing the Israeli regime for violation of the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
He called on the UN to take a “firm stance and condemn” the regime.
Also on Saturday, Araghchi spoke to Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Bassam al-Sabbagh, and Badr Abdelatty, his counterparts from Qatar, Syria, and Egypt, asserting likewise that the Islamic Republic would undoubtedly deliver a “decisive and proper” response to any act of aggression against its territorial sovereignty and security.
He, meanwhile, urged the international community to try to prevent expansion of the scope of war to the entire region by taking “prompt and effective action” to enable realization of just ceasefires in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, which have been subjected to incessant deadly aggression by the Israeli regime since last October.
For their part, the foreign officials condemned the Israeli attack against the Islamic Republic, while laying emphasis on the need for enhancement of efforts at bringing about cessation of the regime’s aggression against Gaza and Lebanon, stopping its war machine, and reestablishment of stability and security in the region. – Full article
After a few cat and mouse days of Defense Secretary Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin’s denials, the Pentagon finally yesterday affirmed that there was evidence of a North Korean military presence in Russia. Asked what they were doing in Russia, Austin replied, “What exactly they are doing? Left to be seen. These are things that we need to sort out.”
For days, South Korea (no conflict of interest there) and Ukraine (nor there) had been claiming that thousands of North Korean soldiers had swooped in to rescue a beaten and bloodied Russian army from certain defeat at the hands of Ukraine (which has lost nearly a million men at arms in the nearly three year war). As the Russian army accelerates its pace, burning through the last fortified towns in eastern Ukraine, the mainstream media continues – with a few reluctant but panicked exceptions – to push the “Russia is losing” narrative.
The added twist of thousands of “evil communists” from North Korea screaming across the Russian tundra (on horseback, no doubt) promises to add new plot lines to the drama concocted by the mainstream media and most of Washington, and indeed the usual suspects are biting furiously at the bait.
Take US House Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael Turner. He is so outraged that there might be members of the North Korean military in Russia that he actually sent a letter to President Biden calling for war. “If North Korean military forces join Russia’s war against Ukraine,” Fox News reported him to say, “the US should consider the possibility of direct military action.”
Against whom? We are already involved in a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine. We are already directly involved in Israel’s seven-front war against its neighbors and Iran. Who does Chairman Turner think we should attack if North Korean troops are present in Russia? Russia? North Korea? China? All of them?
North Korea and Russia have just signed a treaty whereby their two militaries will more closely collaborate and even come to each other’s aid if one is threatened. While such an agreement may give Turner and the other neocons the vapors, it is nothing different than the mutual defense treaty the US has with its NATO partners and with many others on a bipartisan basis.
Treaties for me but not for thee? Is that the name of the “rules-based international order” game?
The hypocrisy runs even deeper. It is well-known and widely reported that NATO countries are training Ukrainian troops not only in NATO countries but inside Ukraine itself. So it’s absolutely fine for the US and its NATO partners to insert troops inside Ukraine to train its military to kill more Russians and to even operate sophisticated weapons systems inside Ukraine that the Ukrainian military could never operate on its own, but if Russia strikes up a deal with North Korea where the two armies can train together inside Russia, it’s a “red line” (as Chairman Turner wrote) that demands that we start WWIII.
It seems we are not sending our best and brightest to Congress.
What we are witnessing is the birth of a new narrative after some 500 Ukraine narratives have already collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions. Remember the two years of “Russia is losing” narrative? Well just this week NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, said in an interview with the German Spiegel magazine that Russia would emerge from this conflict actually STRONGER than when it entered!
But of course they are losing…
So what to do? Just as the Hollywood writers do once a sit-com has run too many seasons and is playing itself out, plot-wise, insert a new character. Insert a new twist, to bamboozle the viewers and give them a new reason to keep watching the program. It’s funny but not funny, because the future of the world hangs in the balance. Just like the film “Idiocracy” has become a documentary in our absurd times, so has “Wag the Dog.” The military industrial complex with its Hollywood-like allies producing endless narratives to keep the gravy train rolling…
P.S. if anyone believes this whole insane and hysterical anti-North Korea narrative is not political…well I have a bridge in Brazoria, TX, to sell you…
This article first appeared as an exclusive for Ron Paul Institute subscribers. Subscribe for free here.
If bullshit was fungible, both Israel and Ukraine would be rolling in dough and not need another dime of foreign aid. The nonsense spilling out of Tel Aviv and Kiev is legendary and much of the Western public is slurping it up like a ravenous dog eating a bowl of rabbit stew.
Let’s start with Israel. The Zionists used more than 100 aircraft to send an estimated 200 air-launched ballistic missiles into Iran. Israeli aircraft did not dare to fly inside Iran. And what happened? Iran, with Russian help, shot down the majority of the Israeli missiles. Iran showed no signs of panic or anger in the aftermath of the attack — not what one would expect if Israel’s assault had been a smashing success.
Compare for yourself. The first video show’s Iran’s October 1 attack on Israel. The second video shows what happened in the skies over Tehran.
It is true that some of the Israeli missiles got through and killed four Iranian soldiers. Yet, check out this headline in today’s Jerusalem Post:
The Zionist spin patrol is working overtime to paint lipstick on their pig operation. The Zionists convinced themselves that Iran’s strike on October 1 was meaningless, notwithstanding clear video — and later satellite imagery — of damage from Iran’s missile barrage. Now, when confronted with evidence of Iranian air defense knocking Israeli missiles from the sky, they simply pretend it did not happen.
Here is a typical response from an ardent Zionist upon reports that Israel’s attack was underway:
The Israeli attack has begun and apparently they had no problem getting past the Iran air defenses. Early reports are about attacks hitting around Tehran which suggests they are going after command and control and possibly military leadership. Too early to know what is happening but by morning the real war will be underway. So far they have not hit the oil which is a surprise as that would finally sink Kamala which Netanyahu wants to do. The oil markets may think this is all OK and oil prices will remain around where they are but this is just chapter one. Before this is over the nukes and oil will get destroyed by Israel. The nukes will be next up as there is no time to lose for Israel to stop any chance of Iran fining some way to use a nuke against Israel.
So, what was Mr. Big Predictor’s reaction as dawn broke in Tehran?
It seems this was a staged attack with the intent to send a message and not to do grave damage. Arab nations were told ahead of time and passed that along to Tehran. We will need to wait a few hours to see what really happened, but it now seems clear this was not the all out attack Israel is capable of and it is instead a tit-for-tat strike to keep the US onside for now until Trump takes over. Israel needs Thaad and supplies of arms for now, so it may be that Netanyahu decided to play ball with DC to get what it needs and not use weapons it currently needs in Lebanon. The oil market will get this wrong and not realize what is yet to happen next time.
What sane folks need to understand is that no amount of evidence will shake the Zionists from their delusional fantasies. It is akin to those Americans who still insist that we could have won in Vietnam. We just didn’t try hard enough.
While Israel is doing its victory dance over its totally awesome, amazing, incredible air strike in Iran, Hezbollah, which was supposedly decapitated and rendered impotent, is stepping up its missile and rocket attacks in Israel. Here is a list of Hezbollah’s operations in the last 24-hours.
1- On the afternoon of Friday, October 25, 2024, a gathering of zionist forces in the “Shoumera” settlement was targeted (https://t.me/PalestineResist/65037) with a guided missile, resulting in confirmed casualties.
3- At 06:00, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64867) a rocket barrage targeted a gathering of zionist forces around the town of Aita al-Shaab.
4- At 11:30, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64868) as part of the Khaybar series of operations and in response to the attacks and massacres committed by the zionist enemy, and with the call “At your service, Nasrallah,” Islamic Resistance fighters launched an aerial attack with a squadron of attack drones on the “Tel Nof” airbase south of “Tel Aviv,” hitting their targets accurately.
5- At 12:15, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64876) a rocket barrage targeted the “Mishar” base (the main intelligence headquarters for the northern region in Safad).
7- At 13:00, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64954) as part of the Khaybar series of operations and in response to the zionist enemy’s attacks and massacres, and with the call “At your service, Nasrallah,” Islamic Resistance fighters launched a qualitative rocket barrage at zionist forces gathered at the “Ayelet” base.
8- At 13:23, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64877) a rocket barrage targeted a gathering of zionist forces in the Al-Musharifa area in Ras Al-Naqoura.
20- At 18:00, (https://t.me/PalestineResist/64985) as part of the Khaybar series of operations and in response to the zionist enemy’s attacks and massacres, and with the call “At your service, Nasrallah,” Islamic Resistance fighters launched an aerial attack with a squadron of attack drones on the “Naoura” base east of Afula, hitting their targets accurately.
Speaking of barely hanging on, Ukrainian forces are retreating all along the 900-mile front.
Selidovo has fallen.An unexpected dash of the Russian Army and we are already at NOVOUKRAINKA.
Information is coming from the field that our troops, after a big breakthrough, were able to firmly establish themselves in Shakhtyorskoye and continue to push the enemy out of the village.
The prospects for a Shakhtar breakthrough are impressive.
As far as we understand, the goal is to reach Razliv and take up positions on the Volchya River with access to the rear of the enemy garrison in Kurakhovo.
Plus pressure from two flanking directions: on the AFU group in Bogoyavlenka, thus enabling their expedient removal, and on Velikaya Novosyolka – leveling the main “joy” of the counter oink last year.
By the way, the direction of the conscious flight of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the Dnipropetrovsk region is also a so-so idea – the enemy has no sensible fortifications between Pavlograd and Pokrovsk. So the AFU will not be able to pull off the trick of drawing us to the prepared lines and then splitting up between Pavlograd and Konstantinovka.
Then there is the Ukrainian/CIA story claiming that North Korean troops are fighting on the front because Russia has lost so many men, it had to import new cannon fodder. I believe this story was ginned up by an increasingly desperate CIA in order to create a cover story for bringing South Korean pilots to Romania to fly F-16s. The “news” about the North Korean troops first appeared in the New York Times under David Sanger’s byline on October 8. Sanger has a long history of being a willing conduit for CIA “leaks.”
Now it has become clear why the North Korea issue is being actively stirred up during the SMO. South Korea is sending its soldiers and officers to fight in Ukraine. Let me remind you that South Korea is a passionate, evil six of the USA (slang for “lackey”- in Russia, 6 is the lowest numbered card in a deck of cards). They are not as smart as Japan, but not as dumb as the Ukraine. Most importantly, they are high-tech. . . .
Last week, the first 16 pilots from South Korea’s 19th Air Wing arrived at NATO’s Romanian air base near Mihail Kogalniceanu. Apparently, South Korea sent the first squadron of the air wing, the most prepared and combat-ready, to the war in full force. This means they are planning to throw them into battle immediately.
Currently, the F-16 fighters allocated to Ukraine are also in Romania – at the Fetești air base on the border with Moldova. As soon as the South Korean pilots go there, this will be an indicator of the imminent use of these aircraft in Ukraine. In addition to the F-16 pilots, pilots of South Korean T-50 combat training aircraft, which are used in the southern army as light attack aircraft, have arrived at the air base in the commune of Mikhail Kogalniceanu. It is assumed that these aircraft may be useful as hunters for “Geraniums” in the protection of the Odessa port.
Remains to be seen if the South Koreans will actually enter the fight. If they do, they will learn that Russia ain’t playing games and many of those pilots will likely die. I discussed this issue with Judge Napolitano. I am also posting a live podcast that Andrei Martyanov and I did with Nima as Israel’s attack was wrapping up Friday night my time.
A federal judge earlier this month rejected a request by California-based Upside Foods for a preliminary injunction against Florida’s new law banning the manufacture, distribution and sale of “cultivated,” or lab-grown meat.
Upside Foods, which makes cultivated chicken, sued Florida in August, alleging the ban is unconstitutional and violates two federal laws that preempt Florida from imposing the ban.
A preliminary injunction is typically issued in a lawsuit if the court finds the plaintiff has a good chance of winning its case — a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” However, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said Upside’s argument, which boiled down to “if it’s a poultry product, states can’t ban it,” was insufficient.
Just because a product falls within the scope of the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and is under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) regulatory authority does not mean a state is “expressly preempted from banning the sale of that particular kind of poultry product,” Walker wrote.
Upside argued that the ban imposed ingredient and manufacturing requirements that clashed with provisions of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. However, Walker said Upside was unable to identify any federal law or regulation that created an “ingredient requirement” for cultivated meat. He also said that because the company didn’t produce its lab-grown meat in Florida, the manufacturing ban didn’t affect its premises, operations or facilities.
The ruling means the ban will remain in place while the lawsuit challenging its legality moves through the courts.
“We are not surprised by the judge’s rejection of Upside’s preliminary injunction,” Florida Sen. Jay Collins, who co-sponsored the original bill, told The Defender. “The dangers of cultivated meat far outweigh any misleading environmental claims. Floridians will not be lectured by billionaires like Bill Gates on how to feed their families.”
Upside’s attorney, Suranjen Sen from the Institute for Justice, said in a press release that the company plans to appeal the decision and is “confident that the courts will ultimately recognize that Florida cannot ban products simply to protect local industries from honest competition.”
Lab-grown or cultivated meat is produced from cultured stem cells taken from live animals or an animal cell bank and then reproduced in bioreactors using techniques borrowed from Big Pharma.
The cells are “fed” a mixture of sugars, amino and fatty acids, salts and vitamins to make them proliferate quickly. Once they’ve grown into a mass or a sheet — depending on the manufacturer — they are formed into meat-looking shapes like cutlets or nuggets.
Although the companies promote lab-grown meat in part by claiming it has environmental benefits, the process is energy-intensive. Research from the University of California, Davis, found that cultured meat’s environmental impact is likely “orders of magnitude” higher than real meat, based on current production methods.
Attorney Ray Flores, who worked in the natural health industry for 35 years, told The Defender that even if it provides environmental benefits, “Any environmental benefit is greatly outweighed by the possible dangers that these cutting-edge products may pose to one’s health.”
An investigation by The New York Timesrevealed several incidents during the development of some of Upside’s products that raised safety concerns. The company in 2018 found its chicken cell line contaminated with mouse cells. And in 2019, the cell line was found to be contaminated with rat cells.
That approval made the U.S. the second country in the world, behind Singapore, to allow sales of lab-grown meat. In January, Israel green-lighted the sale of steaks made from cultivated beef cells, The Associated Press reported.
Since the USDA approval, however, Upside has struggled to become profitable.
Upside doesn’t have products available in stores. Partnerships with restaurants are primarily how the company gets its products to consumers.
It had sold its lab-grown chicken to one restaurant in Miami and was planning to showcase it at Miami’s Art Basel event before the ban took effect, according to the judgment.
However, Crunchbase reported that the company halted its plans to develop a major facility in Glenview, Illinois, and restaurants that had tried it out have since pulled it from their menus. San Francisco Michelin-star restaurant Bar Crenn, its final sale venue, confirmed it was pulling the lab-grown meat from the menu in February.
In the original complaint, Upside and the Institute for Justice claim that the “growing patchwork of conflicting state laws governing cultivated meat” makes it more difficult for Upside to partner with national meat distributors “who generally will not carry products they cannot lawfully sell in every state.”
It also makes it more difficult for them to partner with restaurants. If not for the ban, they said, they would be reaching out to several restaurants to create partnerships.
More states move to ban lab-grown meat, federal regulators eye labeling requirements
A few weeks after Florida passed its bill, Alabama passed a similar law making the manufacture, sale or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells a Class C misdemeanor, with fines ranging from $100 to $10,000.
Iowa’s governor in May signed a bill prohibiting schools from buying lab-grown meat products and requiring clear labeling for lab-grown meats sold in other venues.
In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990; ‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’. Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless. And that’s true whether or not humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping, commercial aviation, the military and emergency services and (ii) products such as nitrogen fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. All the above require either the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives: easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii
Although wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. – because of its latitude, solar power contributes only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity – it has significant problems: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building, operating and maintaining the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable, comprehensive non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and large quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).v This means that the UK may be unable to generate sufficient electricity by 2030 for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and of the huge new data centres being developed to support the rapid growth of AI (artificial intelligence).
In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.vi
2. It would be socially and economicallydisastrous.
The Government aims for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 but has yet to publish a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s complicated by the imminent retirement of elderly nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants vii but it has yet to publish any detail. That of course would not be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems: a ‘solution’ that’s very expensive, controversial and commercially unproven at scale.viii This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.ix
Net Zero’s major problem however is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost; but with several trillion pounds seeming likely to be a correct estimate it would almost certainly be unaffordable.x The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale could destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden on millions of households and businesses. It could quite possibly mean that the UK would face economic collapse.
But Net Zero is already causing one serious economic problem: because of renewable subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing costs and capacity market costs, the UK has the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xi The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a comprehensive non-fossil grid and of providing gas-fired power plants fitted with CCS as back-up – can only make this worse. Unless urgent remedial action is taken, the government is most unlikely to be able to achieve its principal mission of increased economic growth.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall national security at most serious risk.xii It would also mean that, while impoverishing Britain, Net Zero would be enriching China.xiii
(ii) The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.xiv
3. In any case it’s pointless.
For two reasons:
(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries (especially China), commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce many key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote iii).xv
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.xvi As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As the UK is the source of just 0.72% of global emissions any further emission reduction it may achieve would essentially have no impact on the global position.xvii
In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier October 2024
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, he was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.
Kim Leadbeater, supported by Kit Malthouse, Christine Jardine, Jake Richards, Siân Berry, Rachel Hopkins, Mr Peter Bedford, Tonia Antoniazzi, Sarah Green, Dr Jeevun Sandher, Ruth Cadbury and Paula Barker, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.
It will be read a Second time on Friday 29 November.
Last time this question came before the House of Commons, it was readily defeated, but the personnel has changed considerably and of course the law in several other countries including Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and closer to home in the Isle of Man. We are all aware of the suffering of people nearing the end of their life but there are so many problems with changing the existing law (thou shalt not kill), quite apart from the ethical red line, that it’s hard to know where to begin. The proponents of this bill say they will introduce all sorts of safeguards but those countries who have gone ahead show us what a slippery slope we will be on. The most obvious one is how to absolutely prevent any coercion, which of course may be self-inflicted by those with declining health who feel they are a burden to their family. Second, any doctor will tell you how hard it is to predict how long someone will actually live with a terminal illness (remember Al-Megrahi released from prison in Scotland on compassionate grounds after doctors said he had less than 3 months to live and who survived a further 33 months back in Libya). Thirdly, once this crack in the door is opened, who will stop the rules moving from less than six months, to less than a year, to non-life threatening pain or anguish. All as a much cheaper and quicker solution than actually treating people’s underlying health issues and one with absolutely no reversability.
The slippery slope has been well illustrated in Canada and the Netherlands with examples highlighted in a Conservative Woman article here, including a 17-year-old girl with depression and others with non-terminal disability. In Canada ‘assisted dying’ is even being extended potentially down to infancy, where adults have determined there is no quality of life, and certainly it can’t be called ‘assisted’ if the child has no part in it.
Looking at the coverage from the recent Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry, it is also clear that during the covid period, elderly people in care homes were being given ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ directives, without their family’s knowledge and then being denied admission to hospital if they became ill. Coupled with liberal use of ‘end of life’ drugs, namely morphine and midazolam, they were apparently eased on their way with little regard as to whether they could have responded to standard treatments for pneumonia.
An organisation called Our Duty of Care has written the following open letter from doctors and other health professionals to the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full here. It particularly draws attention to the poor state of the NHS at present, with poor access to palliative care and the current mental health crisis. The letter is open for health professionals to sign urgently, so please do so if you are a medical practitioner and/or share it with any medical friends and family if you are as worried by these proposals as we are. There is also a separate declaration to sign. They are part of the ‘Care Not Killing Alliance’. Heartening is that the Welsh Assembly have just voted against a change to the law.
Dear Prime Minister,
We write with great concern regarding the introduction of a Bill to legalise doctor-assisted suicide. The NHS is broken, with health and social care in disarray. Palliative care is woefully underfunded and many lack access to specialist provision.[1] The thought of assisted suicide being introduced and managed safely at such a time is remarkably out of touch with the gravity of the current mental health crisis and pressures on staff.
It is impossible for any Government to draft assisted suicide laws which include protection from coercion and from future expansion. Canada has clearly demonstrated that safeguards can be eroded in a matter of just five years; it has been roundly criticised for introducing euthanasia for those who are disabled[2] and plans for the mentally ill have been paused because of international concern.[3]
The shift from preserving life to taking life is enormous and should not be minimised. The prohibition of killing is present in all societies due to the immeasurable worth and inherent dignity of every human life.[4] The prohibition of killing is the safeguard. The current law is the protection for the vulnerable.
Any change would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse; it would undermine the trust the public places in physicians; and it would send a clear message to our frail, elderly and disabled patients about the value that society places on them as people.
Far from one person’s decision affecting no one else, it affects us all. Some patients may never consider assisted suicide unless it was suggested to them. Nearly half those who choose assisted suicide in Oregon cite ‘feeling a burden’.[5]
As healthcare professionals, we have a legal duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of our patients. We, the undersigned, will never take our patients’ lives – even at their request. But for the sake of us all, and for future generations, we ask do not rush in to hasty legislation but instead fund excellent palliative care.
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) must pay about $7.8 million to six former employees who lost their jobs after the district denied their requests for accommodations for religious exemptions from BART’s COVID-19 mandate.
In the largest financial win yet for workers fired for failing to comply with COVID-19vaccinemandates, a federal jury composed of entirely vaccinated jurors on Wednesday awarded the plaintiffs between approximately $1.2 million and $1.5 million each to compensate for economic losses and mental anguish.
The case is one of hundreds filed across the country since 2021, representing thousands of workers who say they lost their jobs when their employers illegally denied their requests for religious accommodation to the COVID-19 mandate.
“These verdicts are seismic — a 7.8 San Francisco legal earthquake,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This amazing outcome represents so much hard work by our team, perseverance by these clients, and fairness from our judicial system.”
The workers’ attorney, Kevin Snider, told The Defender that because of BART’s mandate, “The workers were forced to either deny their faith or lose their jobs.” He said they chose the latter, demonstrating the sincerity of their religious convictions.
The lawsuit began as three separate cases representing 35 employees fired by BART. The three cases were later consolidated into a single lawsuit. Twenty-nine of the plaintiffs settled with BART, but the remaining six went to trial this month.
“These workers lost their jobs and have struggled for more than two years,” Snider said. “It was a devastating disruption to their lives and to their families. Being able to settle or get a jury verdict helps them to put closure on this and for those who went to trial, they felt heard and understood by a jury, which can be important.”
This was the second time the case went to trial. The first trial ended in a mistrial in July when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, as required in federal civil trials.
BART, which can appeal the decision, declined to comment. Bloomberg Law reported that BART filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law during the trial, which U.S. District Judge William Alsup said would be argued in December.
The motion argues that the plaintiffs have insufficient evidence to reasonably support their case, even if a jury finds otherwise. In response, the judge can allow the verdict to stand, order a new trial or overrule the jury’s verdict.
Religious objectors had option to comply, retire, resign or be terminated
The plaintiffs first sued BART in December 2022, alleging the agency violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
The BART system, which operates in five counties across the San Francisco Bay area, issued a mandate on Oct. 14, 2021, requiring employees to be fully vaccinated as a condition of employment.
Employees could apply for a religious or medical exemption. If granted, BART determined whether to provide them reasonable accommodation. Between October 2021 and February 2022, 204 of Bart’s 4,000-plus employees sought an exemption.
Approximately 179 of those were for religious beliefs by people practicing a variety of religious faiths, including various forms of Christianity, Islam and Ruism, according to Snider.
BART granted 70 of the religious exemptions and denied the rest, according to the complaint.
But even the employees granted an exemption were denied reasonable accommodation so they could continue working. Although BART acknowledged their right to a religious exemption, the agency said it couldn’t reasonably make accommodations, like allowing them to work at home or do weekly testing.
However, 1 in 3 of the employees seeking medical exemption were granted exemption and given accommodation, according to the complaint.
Instead of proceeding on the assumption that the accommodation requests were based on sincerely held religious beliefs, the complaint alleges, BART launched a probe into the sincerity of the employees’ beliefs.
Employees’ claims were investigated using an interviewer template that asked for a detailed explanation of their beliefs and why taking the COVID-19 vaccine would violate them. The template included questions like, “What do you think will happen to you if you take the COVID-19 vaccine?”
BART proceeded to deny all requests for accommodation from religious objectors and gave them the option to comply with the mandate, retire if qualified, resign or be terminated.
All of the plaintiffs refused to comply and lost their jobs.
Over the next couple of years, many of those employees, working with the Pacific Justice Institute, sued BART and settled their cases. The cases that couldn’t reach a settlement proceeded to trial — which Snider said carried a serious risk, because “San Francisco is probably the most difficult venue in the entire country to have a vaccine case.”
The trial happened in two phases. First, the jury was asked to rule on whether BART could have granted the requested accommodations. They rejected the agency’s argument that it couldn’t reasonably accommodate the employees seeking religious exemptions without facing an undue hardship.
Then they heard testimony about the sincerity of the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and the damages they suffered.
Sinder, whose firm represents plaintiffs alleging religious discrimination in more than a hundred vaccine mandate lawsuits across the country, said that he thought public opinion was slowly changing to favor workers.
A seven-year battle between the EPA and the public interest regarding the fluoridation of public drinking water has finally concluded. This is an excellent result by Siri & Glimstad partner Michael Connett in securing a court order against the EPA. Great job, Michael!
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen concluded the following in his ruling:
“[T]he Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children… [A] risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…”
“There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. The United States National Toxicology Program (“NTP”) – the federal agency regarded as experts in toxicity… concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L (i.e., “higher” exposure levels)…”
“In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States. And this risk is unreasonable under Amended TSCA. Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.”
The NTP report referred to above can be found here. While we wait for the EPA to take the next step, many municipalities have already acted to remove fluoride from their water systems.
Iran’s embassy in Brussels has vehemently dismissed baseless accusations and fabricated claims about Tehran’s alleged involvement in threats on European soil, saying the Islamic Republic stands at the forefront of the fight against terrorism.
The embassy issued a statement on Saturday in response to allegations leveled against Iran by EU Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli at the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday.
During the session, Dalli expressed growing concern about Iran’s alleged hybrid threats on European soil, claiming, “There are credible reports about: the role of Iranian state bodies in planning and aiding recent attacks in a number of Member States; about threats to members of the Iranian diaspora in Europe, and about cyber actions, or influence campaigns trying to create divisions in our societies.”
She also repeated allegations about Iran’s continued support for Russia in the war against Ukraine “through the provision of weapons, such as drones and, more recently, missiles.”
In its statement, the Iranian embassy said the Islamic Republic is a victim of terrorism itself and stands at the forefront of combating terrorism, particularly against the Daesh terrorist group.
“Iran strongly rejects any allegations regarding the alleged involvement of Iranian-affiliated institutions in so-called threats on European soil,” it added.
The statement also rejected the unfounded claims about Iran’s shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the conflict in Ukraine.
“Iran reiterated its neutrality policy towards this conflict and its support for resolving disputes through peaceful means and diplomacy,” the embassy said.
Instead of debating on fabricated illusory threats, the European Parliament member states are better off focusing on the most urgent and imminent threat to international peace and security as the result of the Israeli regime’s ongoing genocide and aggression in Gaza and Lebanon as well as its warmongering across West Asia.
Israeli crimes have brought about catastrophic consequences for civilians, human rights, and regional and international peace and stability, it emphasized.
“The EU Member States are expected to exercise maximum vigilance in the face of Iranophobic campaigns in Europe orchestrated by third parties, particularly the Israeli regime, whose aim is to destroy relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Europe,” the embassy said.
It urged the EU states to act responsibly and refrain from any measure that would make the long-standing relationship between Iran and Europe further adversely impacted.
Russia launched what it called a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion after warning that the US-led military alliance was following an “aggressive line” against Moscow.
Iran has maintained its policy of impartiality toward the conflict. However, the US and its Western allies have claimed that Iran is supplying ballistic missiles to Russia for direct use in the Ukraine war.
Iran has repeatedly rejected the unfounded accusations, saying the Western countries are escalating the war through the supply of advanced weaponry to Kiev.
Russia has also warned that the flow of Western arms to Ukraine is prolonging the conflict.
In the wake of Israel’s long-anticipated attack on Iran early on 26 October, Arab and Islamic countries responded by issuing harsh condemnations of Israel for its aggression, while the US and UK expressed their support for Israel’s assault, claiming it was in self defense.
Israel’s military claimed it carried out “precise strikes” targeting strategic military sites, including ballistic missile manufacturing sites and air defense batteries, on Saturday.
Iran said it “successfully confronted” the Israeli attack by activating its missile defenses.
Below are statements from the foreign ministries and government officials of various countries in response to the Israeli attack.
France urged both parties to refrain from escalation but did not condemn or express support for Israel’s attack.
“France urges the parties to refrain from any escalation and action likely to aggravate the context of extreme tension prevailing in the region,” the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
The US expressed support for Israel’s attack, calling it “self-defense” while stressing its forces did not participate.
“We urge Iran to cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end without further escalation,” US National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett told reporters.
“Their response was an exercise in self-defense and specifically avoided populated areas and focused solely on military targets, contrary to Iran’s attack against Israel that targeted Israel’s most populous city,” Savett added.
The UK also expressed support for Israel and claimed the attack was in self-defense.
“I am clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian aggression,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said.
“I’m equally clear that we need to avoid further regional escalation and urge all sides to show restraint. Iran should not respond.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not express support for Israel’s actions, but warned Iran not to retaliate. “My message to Iran is clear: We cannot continue with massive reactions of escalation. This must end now. This will provide an opportunity for peaceful development in the Middle East,” Scholz wrote on the social media site X.
In contrast, Jordan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli attack, calling it a violation of international law, an infringement on sovereignty, and a serious escalation that threatens regional stability and global security.
The Ministry’s spokesperson called on the international community to take responsibility and adopt immediate measures to stop Israel’s aggression on Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon as a first step toward de-escalation.
Saudi Arabia also condemned the Israeli assault but did not mention Israel in its statement.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its condemnation and denunciation of the military targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is a violation of its sovereignty and a violation of international laws and norms,” the official Saudi state news agency said.
“The Kingdom urges all parties to exercise the utmost restraint and reduce escalation,” the statement added.
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry said it was “gravely concerned” over the escalation in West Asia, including the Israeli air attack on Iran, and condemned all measures that threaten regional security and stability.
The UAE, which Israel views as an ally, issued a statement on its Foreign Ministry’s website saying it “strongly condemns the military targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expresses deep concern over the continued escalation and its impact on regional security and stability.”
The Ministry emphasized the “importance of exercising the highest levels of restraint and wisdom to avoid risks and the expansion of conflict.”
The Iraqi Prime Minister’s office stated that Israel “continues its aggressive policies and expansion of conflict in the region, employing blatant acts of aggression without deterrence. This time, its hand of aggression has targeted the Islamic Republic of Iran through an airstrike on Iranian targets early this morning.”
The statement said Iraq “reiterates its firm stance calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and for comprehensive regional and international efforts to support stability in the region.”
Qatar, which has been involved in ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, “expressed its strong condemnation and denunciation of Israel’s targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran, deeming the act a blatant violation of Iran’s sovereignty and a clear breach of international law.”
Turkiye expressed its “strongest condemnation” of Israel’s military actions, saying Israel was fueling instability in the region.
“Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza, preparing to annex the West Bank, and killing civilians in Lebanon, has pushed our region to the brink of a bigger war,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said.
Hamas issued a statement through Telegram condemning the Israeli assault and highlighting the role of the US in supporting Israeli crimes.
“The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) strongly condemns the Zionist aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting military sites in multiple provinces. We consider this a flagrant violation of Iranian sovereignty and an escalation that threatens the security of the region and the safety of its people, placing full responsibility on the occupation for the consequences of this aggression, supported by the United States of America,” the statement said.
Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why?
Present the average European politician, journalist or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.
What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism and rationality in European politics?
Europe’s Reality as a Social Construction
The political class that emerged in Europe after the Cold War have become excessively ideological and committed to narratives to socially construct new realities. The Europeans embrace of postmodernism entails questioning the existence of objective reality as our understanding of reality is shaped by language, culture and unique historical perspectives. The postmodernists therefore often seek to change narratives and language as a source of political power. If reality is a social construction, then the grand narratives can be more important than facts. Indeed, ideological narratives must be defended from inconvenient facts.
The European project had the benign intentions of creating a common liberal democratic European identity that would transcend the divisive national rivalry and power politics of the past. The relevance of objective reality is contested, and narratives about reality are believed to reflect power structures that can be dismantled and reorganised.
The prevalence of constructivism and focus on “speech acts” in the EU has led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entail legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power by constructing political realities and influencing outcomes. By reducing the focus on security competition in the international system, it is assumed that power politics can be mitigated.
Is it possible to socially construct a new reality? Do we transcend security competition by not addressing it or do we neglect the responsible management of security competition. Can we transcend national rivalries by focusing on common values or does the neglect of national interests result in decline?
Socially Constructing a New Europe
The concept of the “rhetorical trap” explains how the EU reached a consensus to offer membership to Central and Eastern European states when it was not in the self-interest of all EU member states to do so. The rhetorical trap was set by first having member states accept the ideological premise that the legitimacy of the EU project was based on the integration of liberal democratic states. By appealing to the values and norms as the foundation of the EU, a rhetorical trap was set as the sense of moral obligation shamed EU member states from vetoing the enlargement process. The use of language and framing could thus influence European states to not act in their own interests as they were shamed into compliance.
Schimmelfennig, who introduced the concept of the rhetorical trap, argues that “politics is a struggle over legitimacy, and this struggle is fought out with rhetorical arguments”.[1] The rhetorical trap simplifies a complex issue into a binary choice of either supporting the enlargement process or betraying liberal democratic ideals. The moral framing shuts down important discussions about the potential downsides of accepting new members and how to address these challenges in the best way. Dissent could be crushed as framing the issue as a moral imperative meant that those who even questioned the moral framing could be accused of undermining the sacred values that uphold the legitimacy of the entire European project.
The concept of “Euro-speak” entails using emotional rhetoric to legitimise an EU-centric understanding of Europe that de-legitimises alternative concepts of Europe. Centralising decision-making and transferring power from elected parliaments to Brussels is typically referred to as “European integration”, “more Europe”, or “ever-closer Union”. Neighbouring non-member states that adhere to the EU’s external governance are making the “European choice”, confirming their “European perspective”, and embracing “shared values”. Dissent can be delegitimised as “populism”, “nationalism”, “Euro-phobia” and “anti-Europeanism”, which undermines the “common voice”, “solidarity” and the “European dream”.
The language has also changed in terms of how the West asserts power in the world. Torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”, gunboat diplomacy is “freedom of navigation”, dominance is “negotiations from a position of strength”, subversion is “democracy promotion”, coup is “democratic revolution”, invasion is “humanitarian intervention”, secession is “self-determination”, propaganda is “public diplomacy”, censorship is “content moderation”, and the more recent example of China’s competitive advantage that is labelled “over-capacity”. George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak entailed constraining language to the point it became impossible to express dissent.
NATO and the EU: Redividing Europe or “European Integration”
Western leaders initially recognised that abandoning an inclusive pan-European security architecture by expanding NATO and the EU would likely provoke another Cold War. The predictable consequence of constructing a new Europe without Russia would be to redivide the continent and then fight over where the new dividing lines should be drawn.
President Bill Clinton cautioned in January 1994 that NATO expansion risked to “draw a newline between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[2] Clinton’s Secretary of Defence, William Perry, even considered resigning in opposition to expanding NATO. Perry noted that most people in the administration knew the betrayal would create conflicts with Russia, yet they believed it did not matter as Russia was weak.[3] George Kennan, Jack Matlock and a multitude of American political leaders also framed it as a betrayal against Russia and warned against redividing Europe. These concerns were also shared by many European leaders.
What happened to the discourse and warnings about instigating another Cold War? The narrative of the EU and NATO as a “force for good” that advance liberal democratic values had to be defended against the “outdated” narrative of power politics. Russian criticism of reviving the zero-sum security architecture of bloc politics was presented as evidence of Russia’s “zero-sum mentality”. Russia’s inability to recognise that NATO and the EU were positive-sum actors that transcend power politics allegedly revealed Russia’s inability to overcome the dangerous mindset of realpolitik, which was caused by Russia’s enduring authoritarianism and great power ambitions. The EU was merely constructing a “ring of friends”, while Russia allegedly demanded “spheres of influence”.
Russia was presented with the dilemma of either embracing the role of an apprentice aiming to join the civilised world by accepting NATO’s dominant role as a force for good, or Russia could resist NATO’s expansionism and “out-of-area missions” but then be treated as a dangerous force to be contained. Either way, Russia would not have a seat at the table in Europe. Liberal democratic tropes justified why the largest state in Europe should eventually be the only state without representation.
The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Yet, rather than recognising the predictable destabilisation of divided societies in a divided Europe, it is presented as positive-sum “European integration” despite the implicit decoupling from Russia. Societies prioritising closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimised for rejecting democracy while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists” who deprive their people of their European dream.
The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.
Western political leaders, journalists and academics seeking to mitigate the security competition by addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns are similarly accused of carrying water for Putin, repeating Kremlin talking points, “legitimising” Russian policies, and undermining liberal democracy. With the binary moral framing of good versus evil, intellectual pluralism and dissent are castigated as immoral.
Besides being plagued by war, Europe is also undergoing economic decline. The Europeans are buying Russian energy through India as an intermediary as they are morally obliged to follow failed sanctions. The virtue-signalling contributes to European industries becoming less competitive. The de-industrialisation of Europe is also caused by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, yet the event that is destroying decades of industrial development is memory-holed as the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine. Furthermore, the US offers subsidies to the subsequent uncompetitive European industries if they relocate across the Atlantic. In the absence of acceptable narratives, the Europeans simply keep silent and do not defend their national interests. The narrative of liberal democracies united by values rather than divided by competing interests must be defended from inconvenient facts.
Diplomacy, Neutrality & the Virtue of War
Diplomacy does not conform with the constructivist effort to socially construct a new reality. The point of departure in international security is the security competition in which efforts to increase the security of a state can decrease the security of another. Diplomacy entails enhancing mutual understanding and pursuing compromise to mitigate the security competition.
The social constructivists often consider diplomacy to be problematic as it “legitimises” the security competition that recognises NATO can undermine legitimate Russian security interests. Furthermore, it risks legitimising the opponent and creating a moral equivalency between Western states and Russia. The European elites believe that [they can] legitimise outdated and dangerous concepts of power politics by engaging in mutual understanding. The absurd conviction that negotiation is “appeasement” has become normalised in Europe.
Diplomacy therefore has been reimagined as a relationship between a subject and an object, between a teacher and a student. In this relationship, NATO and the EU consider their role as “socialising” other states. As a civilising teacher, the Enlightened West uses diplomacy as a pedagogic instrument in which states are “punished” or “rewarded” by their preparedness to accept unilateral concessions. While diplomacy historically has been imperative during times of crisis, the European elites believe they must instead punish “bad behaviour” by suspending diplomacy once a crisis breaks out. Meeting with opponents during crises runs the risk of legitimising them.
Neutrality was until recently considered a moral stance that mitigates security competition and enables a state to serve as a mediator rather than becoming entangled and escalating conflicts. In a struggle between good and evil, neutrality is also deemed to be immoral. The belt of neutral states that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries has now been dismantled and even war becomes a virtuous defence of moral principles.
How to Restore Rationality & Correct the Post-Cold War Mistakes?
The failure to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement that would remove the dividing lines in Europe and enhance indivisible security has resulted in a predictable catastrophe. Yet, course correction requires nothing less than reconsidering the policies of the past 30 years and the concept of Europe at a moment when animosity is rampant on both sides. The European project was envisioned as the embodiment of Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and an entire political class has based their legitimacy on conforming to the idea that developing a Europe without Russia was a recipe for peace and stability.
Does Europe have the rationality, political imagination and courage to critically assess its own mistakes and contribution to the current crisis, or will all criticism continue to be denounced as a threat to liberal democracy?
[1] Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: Rules and rhetoric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, page 208.
[2] B. Clinton, ‘Remarks to Multinational Audience of Future Leaders of Europe’, US Diplomatic Mission to Germany, 9 January 1994.
[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.
By Tony Cartalucci – New Eastern Outlook – 29.11.2017
The United States Air Force’s 59th Medical Wing’s molecular biology branch recently was revealed to have been collecting specifically Russian RNA and synovial (connective) tissue samples, prompting fears in Russia of a possible US directed ethnic-specific bioweapons program. … 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.
