Events in Syria and Future Prospects
By Mikhail Gamandiy-Egorov – New Eastern Outlook – December 12, 2024
The tragic events in Syria have clearly demonstrated that internal betrayal is one of the greatest challenges for any sovereign state. This is particularly true when such betrayal serves the interests of those seeking to destroy sovereign nations.
Terrorist groups
Terrorist groups, following a brief advance across several fronts and battles in which the government army effectively refused to engage, managed to capture the Syrian capital, Damascus. Initially, it seemed that this was merely a temporary disarray caused by years of complacency. However, it soon became evident that a large-scale betrayal had occurred within Syria’s political and military apparatus, favouring forces long intent on dismantling the country as a unified state.
Events in Syria as a Lesson
The recent takeover of power in Syria by overt Salafist terrorists is undoubtedly a tragedy, both for Syria itself and for all advocates of a multipolar world. However, it is likely that many representatives of Syria and other Arab nations have not yet fully grasped the far-reaching consequences of what has happened. These consequences are likely to be deeply tragic, both for Syria and for the broader region.
In reality, an undeniable fact remains: an outright terrorist affiliated with ISIL or al-Qaeda—no matter how his true masters might now attempt to portray him—has seized power in one of the world’s oldest nations. This was achieved, of course, not without the involvement of various regimes and intelligence agencies, ranging from the United States and Britain to Israel and Turkey. Furthermore, given the presence of sleeper cells linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL in nearly every Arab country, the future implications for Arab states could be catastrophic. Yet even now, many seem either unaware of this or, like the terrorists themselves, are merely executing the orders of their Western and Israeli patrons.
Nevertheless, no matter how certain hostile forces attempt to discredit Russia and Iran for their alleged failure to assist their ally, the reality lies elsewhere: when internal traitors in a given country gain the upper hand with the tacit approval of part of the population, external intervention becomes utterly futile.
This became clear to Russia—whose Aerospace Forces continued striking advancing terrorist positions—to Iran, which was reportedly ready to deploy a significant military contingent to Syria, and to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, whose fighters performed admirably in battles, including those near the Syrian city of Homs. Meanwhile, Syrian troops abandoned their positions and retreated in haste, despite Hezbollah still recovering from intensive clashes with the Israeli regime, which could reignite at any moment. In such circumstances, it became increasingly apparent that it would be entirely illogical for Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah to continue fighting terrorist forces if the Syrians themselves no longer wished to resist.
Necessary Conclusions and Prospects
There were, of course, evident mistakes at the level of Syria’s leadership. Mistakes that Moscow and Tehran had repeatedly pointed out in private discussions. The necessary reforms were not implemented in recent years, even though the opportunity was certainly there — thanks to the relative peace in Syria and the lull in hostilities. Notably, this peace was largely achieved through the efforts and support of Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. These reforms were essential in the military sphere and many other areas, but they never materialised.
That said, despite these significant unresolved problems, the situation could not have unfolded as it did without mass betrayal. This is clearly evidenced by footage taken by Russian forces stationed in Syria, which not only confirm the lack of proper preparation among Syrian troops at the onset of the terrorist offensive but also highlight the betrayal by certain members of Syria’s political and military elite.
Who were the external players involved? It is almost certain that the Anglo-Saxons, the Israeli regime, Erdogan’s Turkey, and possibly some Arab states played a role. However, this has become a secondary issue. What truly matters now is that advocates of a multipolar world must closely monitor any attempts at betrayal within their own countries and eliminate them at the very earliest stages of destabilisation attempts—by the harshest means necessary. Furthermore, all necessary reforms across key sectors must be implemented without delay.
As for the enemies and rivals of a multipolar world order, their problems are only beginning. Engaging in a multi-front conflict against Russia across different parts of the globe, the representatives of the Western planetary minority and their agents aimed to provoke a new hot front for our country. They failed — the plans were clearly understood by Russian leadership. Consequently, all new Syrian problems now fall squarely on the enemies of multipolarity. The reemergence of al-Qaeda and ISIL terrorists will likely lead to another massive wave of refugees, increasing security threats. The West and several other nations still fail to understand that controlling terrorists indefinitely is impossible. Eventually, these groups slip out of control, bringing with them inevitable consequences.
So, to all the initiators of this campaign: best of luck in your “successes”, especially as former allies are already turning on each other. Pro-Turkish militants are clashing with pro-American Kurds from the so-called “SDF”, with the direct involvement of al-Qaeda, ISIL, and the US and Israeli regimes. Meanwhile, we will calmly observe from our side. Particularly as Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, is now in Russia and has avoided the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. As for those Syrians who are pleased with the “improvements”, they can fully immerse themselves in a world of total chaos and lawlessness — or, excuse me, democracy, freedom, and progress. Finally, regarding internal traitors: they always meet a grim end.
Biden claims credit for toppling Syria’s Assad
RT | December 9, 2024
Outgoing US President Joe Biden has claimed credit for the fall of Damascus to a coalition of armed groups, including jihadists from Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS). Washington had weakened the supporters of former Syrian President Bashar Assad, the American leader has said.
The result of the lightning offensive of anti-government militants in the past two weeks was a “fundamental act of justice” and a “moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering citizens of Syria,” Biden said in a video address from the White House on Sunday.
“For years, the main backers of Assad have been Iran, [the Lebanese-based militant movement] Hezbollah, and Russia. But over the last week, their support collapsed, all three of them. Because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office,” Biden said.
Washington has been pushing for the ouster of Assad since 2011, when mass protests spiraled into a devastating civil war, in which foreign-armed Islamists emerged as dominant players among anti-government forces. HTS, one of the groups that took over Damascus on Sunday, was formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, a Syrian Al-Qaeda affiliate. The war was exacerbated further in 2014 when the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) rose as a regional threat amid the collapse of security in Syria.
In his speech, Biden highlighted the sanctions on Syria, as well as the US military presence in the country and its support for Kurdish militias in the northeast, which denied Damascus access to fertile lands and oil fields under their control. The US has also supported Israel in its military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon and its direct confrontation with Iran, Biden added.
“Our approach has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East,” Biden said, mirroring similar remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Through this combination of support of our partners, sanctions, diplomacy, and targeted military force where necessary, we now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region.”
The US president claimed that Washington was clear-eyed about HTS and its “grim record of terrorism and human right abuses.” Washington will “assess not just their words, but their actions,” he stated. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said on Sunday that HTS’ history of terrorism and atrocities is a concern for the US.
Abu Mohammed al-Julani, the current leader of HTS, has had a $10 million bounty posted on his head by the US since 2013. According to the US government, the fighters he led were responsible for kidnappings and massacres of civilians.
Why Biden Allowed Ukraine to Fire US missiles into Russia
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – December 5, 2024
Washington’s (and London’s) decision to allow Ukraine to fire their missiles into Russia is a clear escalation, but the timing explains most of the puzzle underlying this decision.
It is not just Biden being reckless. It is not simply madness, either. It is politics with a touch of global geopolitics.
The Biden administration, having lost both presidential and congressional elections to the Republicans, appears to be following a scorched-earth policy. Before Trump is sworn in, and before he can move towards a negotiated resolution of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) military conflict in 2025, the outgoing administration seems willing to make issues much more complicated – and deadly – than they currently are. At the heart of these calculated escalations is the American “deep state” unhappy with Trump’s success and the prospects of him pulling NATO back from Ukraine, thus undoing American hegemony. Trump claimed, during his campaign, that he will end wars. The American “deep state” does not want to let him do this – at least, not easily.
The Timing
For a long time, the Biden administration resisted allowing Ukraine to fire US missiles into Russian territory. This firing represents a “new phase” in the ongoing conflict for Moscow. There is potentially no other way for Moscow to see things. A pro-Democrats response is that the decision was motivated by the Biden administration’s desire to strengthen Ukraine’s position vis-à-vis Russia in the wake of upcoming possible negotiations. However, if this truly was the main intention, why did the Biden administration not reach the same conclusion during the peak time of the presidency, i.e., a year earlier, for instance? The Biden administration could have done the same escalation, hoping that this would push Russia to come to the negotiating table. Except, the Biden administration did not make such a decision for one chief reason.
They understood Moscow’s response would be deadlier, which would escalate the war more than Washington and NATO could handle. A deadly escalation, the Biden administration maintained, could cost them the elections. Now that they have already lost the elections – and there is nothing they can do about it now – they are escalating the war deliberately to scuttle the Trump administration. If the war escalates, it will make it harder for the Trump administration to negotiate with Russia. It will also make it harder for the Trump administration to negotiate with US allies in Europe as well. The more complicated the issue becomes, the more time it will take to find a resolution. Overall, this will give the Democrats a political opportunity to shift the blame to the Trump administration for its failure to quickly end conflicts. For the Democrats, this could be one of the key points they could raise in the midterm elections.
A key official of the Biden administration indirectly acknowledged the politics driving the decision. Matthew Miller, State Department spokesperson, defended the decision during a press briefing saying that the “American people elected Joe Biden to a four-year term, not to a term of three years and 10 months, and we will use every day of our term to pursue the foreign policy interests that, we believe, are in the interests of the American people.” One caveat is that the only interest that matters here is that of the Democrats.
The Reactions
The Trump administration understands this politics. In a post on X, Donald Trump Jr said the change was aimed at getting “World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives”. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, US Representative Mike Waltz, called it “another step up the escalation ladder … and nobody knows where this is going,” he said on Fox News. Former Trump cabinet member Richard Grenell also accused Biden of moving to “escalate the war in Ukraine during the transition period”. “This is as if he is launching a whole new war. Everything has changed now. All previous calculations are null and void,” he added.
This reaction makes sense because Ukraine has received only a few dozen of the ATACMS systems. If the Biden administration really wanted to strengthen Ukraine’s position, a first step would have been to ensure sufficient supplies of this system. If Ukraine is likely to fire up its entire stockpile too quickly to make any meaningful impact, the only sense this escalation makes is that it makes a negotiated end of the conflict much more complicated. Anymore escalation before Trump assumes control in January – and this escalation is very much possible – means the conflict will continue to rage in the months to come.
The End Game
Most people understand that the Trump administration would bring the conflict to an end. For one thing, Trump does not intend to use military conflicts to advance US foreign policy interests. Secondly, Trump has the “America First” policy at the heart of his politics. People who understand how misfit military conflicts are within the Trump camp include not only the Democrats but also Ukraine’s own president, who went on record two weeks ago to say that the conflict will end “sooner” now that Trump has won.
For the anti-Russia camp within the American “deep state”, this expectation is deeply unsettling. It would mean NATO will not be able to expand into Europe any further. NATO’s failure will create fresh openings for European states to chart their own foreign policy courses, including relations with Russia. In fact, this is already happening. When the German chancellor recently spoke with the Russian President, he did not do so to merely talk about the possibility of ending the conflict, but also to get a sense of their post-conflict bilateral relations. More importantly, Germany initiated the call. There is, thus, a possibility of Germany resuming gas supplies from Russia. Indeed, both leaders discussed the possibility of “cooperation” on energy trade.
In Washington, the fear is that this one call is going to encourage other European leaders to pick up their phones and talk to Vladimir Putin. It means Washington will lose control of the situation. These people in Washington do not want to let that happen; hence, a key geopolitical reason to escalate the conflict is to scuttle the end gam, which is very much on the horizon already.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Who is Massad Boulos, Tapped as Trump’s Advisor on Arab, Middle Eastern Affairs?
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 02.12.2024
Donald Trump lauded Massad Boulos as a “highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive experience on the International scene” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday.
US President-elect Donald Trump has announced Massad Boulos as his pick for the position of senior advisor on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs.
Who is Massad Boulos?
Boulos is a Lebanese American businessman who is also father-in-law to Trump’s daughter, Tiffany.
Boulos helped Trump win back the swing state of Michigan by flipping Arab American voters frustrated with Joe Biden’s policies supporting Israel in its war on Hamas in Gaza and on Hezbollah in Lebanon, campaign officials told Reuters.
He assured Arab Americans during the election campaign that Trump was committed to ending the wars in the Middle East.
“Let’s move to peace, and let’s move to rebuilding Gaza and rebuilding Lebanon,” Boulos told Sky News in October, adding:
“We want Gaza to be prosperous. We want the Palestinian people to be prosperous, to live in peace, to live in harmony, side by side with the Israelis and full security on both sides.”
Trump’s in-law has ties to various factions in Lebanese politics, including the Free Patriotic Movement (Christian party aligned with Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah), and the Lebanese Forces Party, according to media reports.
He is familiar with Suleiman Frangieh, leader of the Christian Marada Movement and a candidate for Hezbollah’s faction in the 2022-2024 Lebanese presidential election, Reuters noted.
Massad Boulos, who has acted as a go-between for Trump and Mahmoud Abbas in the past, met with the Palestinian leader on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September, a senior Palestinian official told The Times of Israel. Abbas reportedly voiced willingness to work with Trump to reach a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Boulos has friends who are close to Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad, according to media reports.
Sex education booklet handed out to 9-year-olds at Austrian middle school open day
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | December 2, 2024
Parents are outraged after a middle school in Austria distributed an educational booklet containing explicit content, including a “sex dictionary” and gender role-playing exercises, to elementary school students during an open day.
The material, deemed inappropriate by many, has sparked significant backlash.
The booklet, given as a souvenir to 9- and 10-year-old students visiting the middle school in Bezirk Melk district, Lower Austria, included graphic illustrations of naked individuals, including a wheelchair user and a Black man.
It also featured explanations of terms like “transsexual,” “intersexual,” “drag queen,” and “transgender.” One exercise asked students to consider what steps a boy named Leo would need to take to become Jennifer, including avoiding boys’ restrooms.
“This is going way too far for a 10-year-old girl,” a father of three told Kronen Zeitung who spoke of his shock when his daughter brought the booklet home. “You have to remember that this was given to children aged nine and ten. The gift clearly missed the target group,” he added, expressing dismay over the booklet’s focus on sexuality.
The origin of the booklet remains unclear, but several parents reported that it was distributed by the school’s headmistress.
The incident has prompted questions about oversight and the appropriateness of the material for young children.
The controversy has drawn criticism from political figures, including Michael Sommer, education spokesman for the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). “Children should be allowed to remain children and not be negatively influenced by left-wing rainbow propaganda during their early development,” he said, calling for an immediate halt to what he described as “transgender indoctrination.”
The incident highlights broader tensions in Austria regarding sex education and the inclusion of topics like gender identity in school curricula. Critics argue such materials are inappropriate for elementary-aged children, while proponents maintain that education on diversity and inclusion is essential for fostering understanding and acceptance.
Neighboring Hungary brought in legislation under the administration of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán prohibiting the distribution of such publications.
Under the child protection law, the Hungarian government acknowledged that parents primarily have the right and duty to decide how children are brought up and educated about questions related to their sexual behavior and gender identity.
Earlier this year, the Bulgarian parliament also passed legislation to prohibit the promotion of LGBT ideology in schools.
Trump’s Picks for Surgeon General and Top Posts at FDA, CDC Earn Mixed Reviews
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 25, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees to lead three key federal public health agencies “would help the incoming president shift the priorities of agencies that are linchpins in public health” — but they’re also “controversial,” according to NPR.
Trump tapped Dr. Marty Makary to head the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Dave Weldon to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and physician Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for surgeon general.
“The roles will be key to helping to enact Trump’s second term health agenda, which could include agency reform and changes to public health policies,” Axios reported.
The three agencies report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Earlier this month, Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), to lead HHS.
Weldon previously criticized COVID-19 vaccines and restrictions. Makary and Nesheiwat first expressed support for vaccines and other pandemic-related policies but have become more critical in recent years.
Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who has worked with the FDA as a consumer representative, addressed mainstream criticism of the nominations. She told The Defender that “the pharmaceutical and medical-industrial complex is very worried.”
She added:
“The pharmaceutical and food industries have faced little resistance from regulators and Congress. The strong pushback we’re seeing now suggests they fear what might happen under an administration willing to challenge the status quo.”
Dr. Joseph Varon, president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told The Defender, “Leadership in these agencies is critical for fostering trust in public health and ensuring evidence-based policies. We hope the nominees are committed to transparency, innovation and addressing the ongoing challenges in healthcare, particularly the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Makary: U.S. government the ‘greatest perpetrator of misinformation’
Makary, a public health researcher and surgeon at Johns Hopkins University, developed the surgical safety checklist, adopted by the World Health Organization and credited with saving many lives. Makary worked with the first Trump administration, including on surprise medical billing, NPR reported.
Earlier this year, Makary published “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets it Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.” The book highlighted evidence that many modern-day health crises in the U.S. were caused or hastened by the medical establishment.
According to The Gateway Pundit, “Makary was initially an advocate for the COVID vaccine but changed his perspective as more data became available.” NPR noted that Makary “voiced support for lockdowns early in the pandemic and encouraged universal masking” but later “became increasingly outspoken” against such policies.
In 2021, Makary called the Biden administration’s CDC “the most political CDC in history” for not being forthcoming with the public about COVID-19 and the vaccines. According to the New York Post, he criticized the CDC and Biden administration for their “unsupported claims” about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
Makary has also been vocal about the potency of natural immunity to COVID-19, criticizing the medical establishment’s “complete dismissal of natural immunity.”
In May, he criticized The New York Times for being slow to report on the thousands of people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines.
Last year, Makary said during congressional testimony that “public health officials have made many tragic mistakes during the pandemic.” Those mistakes included ignoring natural immunity, dismissing the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab leak, closing schools, masking toddlers and “pushing boosters for young people.”
In September, Makary appeared alongside Kennedy at a congressional roundtable hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on the chronic disease epidemic. During the roundtable, Makary said, “The greatest perpetrator of misinformation has been the United States government.”
In his announcement, Trump said Makary would work with Kennedy to “properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our Nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics being given to our Nation’s youth, so that we can finally address the Childhood Chronic Disease Epidemic.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s chief scientific officer, told The Defender Makary has a “steep learning curve regarding vaccines in general” but has taken “encouraging stances late in the pandemic about the COVID vaccine and countermeasures.”
Scott C. Tips, president of the National Health Federation, said Makary represents “a mixed bag of mainstream medicine and outside-the-box thinking.” He credited Makary for opposing “mandatory COVID-19 injection boosters” and criticizing the FDA’s rejection of natural immunity.
Epidemiologist and public health research scientist M. Nathaniel Mead praised Makary’s nomination. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a physician with a deeper understanding of what ails our healthcare system and what’s needed to restore integrity to the FDA after six decades of regulatory capture.”
“Makary seems uniquely positioned to bring meaningful change,” Witczak said. “He understands the systemic harm caused by overmedicalization and the corporate capture of healthcare. His history of challenging mainstream narratives during COVID shows he isn’t afraid to speak out.”
Weldon sponsored bill to ban mercury from vaccines
Dr. Dave Weldon is an Army veteran who served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1995 and 2009.
In a statement, Kennedy praised Weldon’s experience, saying he “will bring the truth and transparency needed to restore the public’s confidence” in the CDC.
In 2007, Weldon sponsored a bill that would have banned mercury from vaccines, expressing concern about “an enormous inherent conflict of interest within the CDC,” because the agency promotes vaccination while assessing their safety.
According to Politico, Weldon also “raised concerns about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and Gardasil, Merck’s papillomavirus virus, or HPV vaccine.
While in Congress, Weldon also introduced legislation outlawing human cloning and helped secure a deal that banned patents on human organisms, including genetically engineered embryos, according to The Associated Press.
According to NPR, Trump said Weldon would “proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic,” and “prioritize Transparency, Competence, and High Standards.”
John Gilmore, executive director of the Autism Action Network, said Weldon “was sounding the alarm on failures in the vaccine system 20 years ago.” He said Weldon attended conferences like Defeat Autism Now and listened to mothers of vaccine-injured children, which is “not a behavior many doctors are inclined to do.”
Hooker said he was “very encouraged” by Weldon’s nomination, and that he’d like to know more about Weldon’s position on “the bloated vaccine schedule as well as COVID-19 countermeasures.”
He credited Weldon with helping independent thimerosal researchers gain access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaborative project that monitors vaccine safety and conducts studies on vaccine side effects.
Hooker, who participated in that project, said “Our access to the VSD was rescinded months later because [the CDC] didn’t like our results, which included a definitive link between thimerosal and autism. Weldon indeed will need to implement myriad changes to the flawed and fraudulent process.”
Weldon is the first nominee for CDC director who will face a Senate confirmation process, due to legislation passed in 2022, NPR reported.
Nesheiwat: ‘egregious unethical & harmful’ to add COVID shots to childhood schedule
Nesheiwat, Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, is a medical contributor to Fox News and medical director at CityMD, a network of urgent care centers in New York and New Jersey.
Nesheiwat previously promoted the benefits of getting vaccinated against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, NPR reported. According to The Gateway Pundit, Nesheiwat has since changed her position and her “recent statements indicate a significant shift in her perspective.”
In October 2022, Nesheiwat tweeted, “If CDC approves a COVID vaccine addition to the routine schedule of vax for kids, it will mark the most egregious unethical & harmful decision to children. No mandates. Especially for a vax that can’t prevent disease.”
Nesheiwat has also questioned the efficacy of the COVID shots, tweeting in February 2023, “Covid vax does not prevent disease like we once thought it did per the cdc /Pfizer etc.,” and has tweeted in support of natural immunity.
In a statement, Trump called Nesheiwat an advocate for preventive medicine and praised her “commitment to saving and treating thousands of American lives.”
Mead said Nesheiwat’s about-face on vaccines “shows she has the ability to think critically,” which could help her “serve as a bridge builder at a time of deep division.”
A ‘historic opportunity to shake up the establishment’
Calling healthcare in the U.S. “horribly broken,” Hooker said the three nominees will face several challenges if confirmed because federal public health agencies require reforms.
Hooker said:
“Corporate influence, including the corporate capture of these agencies, is the biggest problem to be tackled. First and foremost, we need to protect children … from the highly flawed policies of these agencies.
“All influences from Big Pharma, Big Food and Big Ag need to be completely rooted out and the whole edifice should be rebuilt brick-by-brick to include only those policies that help and never harm children.”
Gilmore said public health agencies should publicize “all the data they have available.” He also called for a ban on vaccine mandates. “We have to be able to sue in a real court for vaccine injuries,” he added.
Varon called for independent clinical trials and for “independent scientific inquiry and reducing undue influence from corporate or political pressures.” He also called for promoting early treatment protocols for emerging diseases and giving physicians “the flexibility to treat patients with evidence-based approaches.”
“This moment represents a historic opportunity to shake up the establishment,” Witczak said. “After years of feeling like leaders were paying lip service — or working against the public — I finally see hope for meaningful reform. It’s time to restore these agencies’ missions to serve the public, prioritize safety, and act with integrity.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
War in Sudan and its Grim Prospects
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – November 29, 2024
Russia used its veto power in the UN Security Council (UNSC) to block a draft resolution calling for an end to the 20-month war in Sudan and the commencement of negotiations between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The draft resolution, widely seen as neo-colonial in its design, was proposed by the UK, which holds the UNSC presidency on Sudan, and Sierra Leone, a non-permanent UNSC member, which London appears to have pressured into supporting Western interests in this instance.
Reasons for the Russian Veto
During the drafting process leading up to the vote, several concerns regarding the wording were raised. However, following the vote, it became clear that constructive proposals from UNSC members were disregarded, and their legitimate concerns were not adequately addressed. The Chinese representative stressed that any UNSC resolution or action must “respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Sudan.” He warned that, “Imposing external solutions will only worsen the situation and will neither help end the war nor protect the civilian population.”
Explaining the outcome of the vote, the Russian representative stated: “The main problem with the British draft lies in its misunderstanding of who bears responsibility for protecting the civilian population, as well as border control and security within the country.” According to the Russian representative, “this should be exclusively a matter for the Sudanese government.” He further accused British diplomats of “clearly denying Sudan this right.” He concluded, “Our country will continue to consistently use its veto power to prevent such occurrences against our African brothers.”
Sudanese Support
According to Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the draft resolution’s wording violated Sudan’s sovereignty. An Arab diplomatic source at the UN explained al-Burhan’s position, stating that the draft “implied an equivalence between the SAF and the RSF, which is something al-Burhan could not accept, especially now that the army is making gains on the ground and receiving stronger political support regionally and internationally.”
Many diplomatic sources in the region agree that the draft resolution failed to reflect the balance of power on the ground, which, according to one, has “definitely shifted in favour of the SAF.” The army currently controls much of Sudanese territory, and al-Burhan enjoys greater international recognition than the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemeti. They point out that Hemeti heads the RSF, a militia created in 2013 by Omar al-Bashir to protect his brutal regime and responsible for numerous atrocities, particularly in Darfur. Hemeti, along with other RSF figures, has been accused by international humanitarian organisations of ethnic cleansing targeting non-Arab tribes in West Darfur.
The Rift Between al-Burhan and Hemeti
Al-Burhan appointed Hemeti as his deputy on the Transitional Sovereign Council (TSC) formed after the overthrow of al-Bashir. This move drew criticism from the African Union, which stated that it was “a very bad sign, showing that al-Bashir’s successors were attempting to recreate his dictatorial regime, albeit under a democratic façade.” The TSC, it seems, was designed more for the internal distribution of power within al-Bashir’s clique than for any other purpose.
The conflict began in mid-April 2023. Following al-Bashir’s removal, al-Burhan and Hemeti initially joined forces, seizing control but allowing for limited power-sharing with civilians. However, when al-Burhan dismissed the interim civilian government in October 2022, Hemeti seized the opportunity to oppose al-Burhan, claiming the move was “anti-democratic.” According to Arab diplomatic sources, including those who served in Khartoum, Hemeti’s pronouncements on democracy ring hollow. In reality, they say, Hemeti has always aspired to power and believed he could strike a deal with the civilian government to replace al-Burhan as commander-in-chief.
Sudan’s problems are largely driven by regional powers vying for control of the country’s natural resources and exploiting its strategic location. It’s no secret that an Arab capital, with significant investments and interests in Sudan, pushed the West to draft a self-serving resolution which they attempted to sneak through the UNSC. They failed! However, the West remains undeterred, continuing its sophisticated attempts to bring Sudan entirely under its control.
Attempts to Resolve the Conflict
The international community has been closely monitoring the situation in Sudan since the conflict began and, over the past year, has been working with like-minded regional partners to create an opportunity for peace. Cairo, a view shared by Ankara and Tehran, believes that the best chance for peace lies in a unified Sudanese army under a single command, arguing that “otherwise, the country will simply move from one war to another.” Over the past 11 months, a series of meetings have been held in Cairo with representatives from Sudan’s armed, political, and religious forces, aiming to forge a united front capable of cooperating with the SAF based on power-sharing and stability. As the SAF has made military gains against the RSF, the number of Sudanese actors willing to participate has increased. Many believe it is only a matter of time before the RSF is forced to acknowledge its weakening position, despite the support it receives from regional allies.
Since the start of the war, 11 million Sudanese have been displaced. The UN estimates that half are children, the majority of whom lack access to basic nutrition. Furthermore, a further 15 million Sudanese are suffering from food insecurity and a lack of access to essential healthcare.
It was only in mid-August that significant UN humanitarian aid reached Sudan via the Adre crossing point connecting Darfur to Chad. According to the UNHCR, just over 50% of the $2.7 billion budget required for humanitarian assistance in Sudan has been secured in 2023. The UN believes that “Sudan needs more than just immediate humanitarian aid; it needs a proper and workable peace plan. This is what we are working on, and we have the support of several global and regional capitals.”
According to David Patteritt, US envoy to Sudan, outgoing US President Joe Biden is making every effort to secure a deal on Sudan before leaving office on 20 January. However, according to Cairo’s Al-Ahram, this deadline is overly optimistic. The newspaper warns that “we’ll be lucky to see any movement by then, and a deal will take considerably longer,” suggesting that much will depend on the stance of US President Donald Trump’s new administration.
It is therefore abundantly clear who is fanning the flames of civil war in Sudan, attempting to profit from the Sudanese people’s suffering. But this is the 2020s, and neo-colonial politics, however alluringly packaged, no longer hold sway.
Victor Mikhin is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS).
Iran dismisses claims of plotting to assassinate former Canadian minister Irwin Cotler
Press TV – November 19, 2024
A senior Iranian diplomat has vehemently rejected the allegations of Tehran’s involvement in a plot to assassinate former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler.
Issa Kameli, an assistant to Iran’s foreign minister and the director-general of the department of America at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, dismissed the accusations as “ridiculous propaganda stunt,” emphasizing they are in line with the campaign aimed at spreading misleading and false information about his country.
He strongly denounced the anti-Iran claims, stating that such spurious and unfounded allegations come from a county which has turned into a safe haven for fugitive terrorists and wanted fraudsters.
The Iranian official noted that the baseless accusations against the Islamic Republic cannot divert the world public opinion from the ongoing Israeli crimes, including the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, and the complicity of Canada as one of the main sponsors of the occupying Tel Aviv regime.
This came after Cotler’s office said he had been informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) of an Iranian-backed attempt on his life on October 26, two days before he was purportedly set to be attacked, according to the Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada.
The octogenarian, who is Jewish, is said to have been under 24/7 protection by the RCMP for more than a year since the large-scale surprise attack by Hamas and other Gaza-based resistance groups against Israel on October 7 last year.
Cotler, who is now retired, was a member of parliament in Canada from 1999 to 2015. He served as the minister of justice and attorney general under the Liberal government of former prime minister Paul Martin from 2003 until 2006.
He has strong ties to Israel, and had previously tabled a motion in the Canadian parliament in 2013 asking that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) be sanctioned and designated as a terrorist entity. Canada officially took the measure against the IRGC in June of this year.
His daughter, Michal Cotler-Wunsh, is an Israeli politician and diplomat who previously served as a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament).
Saudi Arabia to expand teaching of Chinese language with 800 more teachers amid growing demand
MEMO | November 18, 2024
Saudi Arabia is set to expand the teaching of the Chinese language by creating 800 teaching positions, amid the growing demand for learning the Chinese language in the Kingdom.
According to China’s official news agency, Xinhua, the planned appointment of the 800 new teaching roles aligns with the spread of Chinese language classes across Saudi Arabia’s primary and middle schools.
The move follows the recent successful deployment of 175 Chinese language teachers in the Kingdom, who reportedly began teaching last month. It is part of a landmark agreement struck in 2023 between Riyadh and Beijing in an effort to strengthen bilateral cooperation in language education.
Under that agreement, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education collaborated with China’s Centre for Language Education and Cooperation in launching training programs for educators, conducted at Tianjin University in China, with the aim to equip teachers with the necessary skills.
The increased language cooperation between the two countries is part of the wider expansion in their relations across a variety of sectors, including trade, military, technology and energy.
The Flatline
The Stagnation of Life Expectancy

Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz | November 14, 2024
Life expectancy is one of the most relevant measures of health outcomes. Historical data on this issue tells the story of the revolutionary medical advancements of the last centuries. Over the last 100 years, life expectancy has risen dramatically. Rapid industrialization and scientific advancements have reduced the early mortality risk tremendously. Since 1900, life expectancy has doubled in nearly every corner of the globe. However, something extremely interesting happened at the turn of this last decade. For the first time in over 60 years, global life expectancy dropped. This wasn’t an isolated trend, by the way. Life expectancy had been flatlining for about the past 10 years globally, and 30 years in some developed nations, particularly the United States.

Life Expectancy Statistics according to Our World in Data
What’s the reason behind this flatline?
To dive into the hows and whys behind the stagnation, it is important to first understand how this data is measured and what it means for health outcomes. Life expectancy refers to the number of years the average person within a selected population can expect to live. Although there are various methods, the most common is referred to as “period life expectancy.” This method calculates the period during which a person born in the year of measurement can expect to live if the death rates stay constant.
Life expectancy is widely considered to be one of the most relevant indicators in the measurement of the health of a population. Experts believe that this is a more accurate measure than other comparable indicators, like total mortality. More broadly, some refer to it as a clear indicator of human progress.
Regardless of the many interpretations, it is clear that this is a relevant global health statistic.
Life expectancy is not only a health indicator—it’s a Biopolitikal indicator. It accurately quantifies the relationship between policy and the health outcomes of governed populations. This statistic can measurably grade the quality of public health policy. The coordination of those in charge of scientific/medical advancements, in conjunction with policymakers, has driven improvements. This outlines the importance of this measurement and how it is indicative of recent systemic failures on the Biopolitikal level.
Globally, the stagnation of this metric coincides with the increased incidence of chronic diseases. It seems that much of the detriment, not only in life expectancy data but in disease burden generally—particularly non-communicable disease burden—begins around the year 1990. The medical advancements of the prior century appear to have leveled off in their impact on health outcomes.
Among developed nations, the United States stands out, with life expectancy lagging behind comparable nations.

Life Expectancy vs Health Expenditures (Our World in Data)
The situation of the United States is quite particular in the sense that it represents some of the highest expenditures per capita on healthcare but lies around the mid-range of the spectrum in terms of overall health outcomes. In this specific chart above, it measures life expectancy. The United States has been the most affected country by the global chronic disease epidemic, by far.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report from earlier this year in February stated that around 130 million people suffer from some sort of chronic disease in the United States. The figure has risen by nearly 50 million in the last 30 years. This represents a clear Biopolitikal failure. One study out of California mentioned the increase in circulatory disease as one of, if not the main, contributors to the stagnation of American life expectancy “post-2010.”
This chronic disease data is reflected in life expectancy rates. From 1960 to 1990, the U.S. life expectancy rate rose nearly six years; in the next 30-year period from 1990 to 2020, it rose only two years. The correlation is clear.
The data is similar globally; however, the United States is a special case.
In the previously mentioned CDC report, they also estimate that around 90% of the over $4 trillion USD in yearly federal health expenditures go to managing chronic diseases. This shows that not only is the chronic disease epidemic costing the government trillions in taxpayer dollars, but also that some are making billions in treating them.
This, of course, is in the United States. But what does the global data suggest? In Europe, experts suggest that around 70% of all deaths on the continent originate from chronic diseases, specifically cancer and cardiovascular disease. Despite the economic disparities, data out of Latin America shows a very similar story. The WHO estimates that around 63% of men and 60% of women are considered overweight in the region.
These figures represent incentives for the system to keep the patient sick in perpetuity, contributing to stagnating life expectancy rates. However, this also represents an enormous opportunity for us to make a positive transformation in the Biopolitikal framework.
The Path Forward
To reverse this tendency we must course correct. The solution lies in the collective decision-making processes. A critical review of the current landscape is a necessity.
We must review certain aspects influencing the chronic health epidemic and the general detriment of health outcomes across the board. That means looking at the root causes. In my professional opinion, I would include in that list the current vaccine schedule. Is it really necessary for people to receive the nearly 70 vaccines that are on the recommended immunization schedules from the moment they practically leave the womb to adulthood? When most deadly infectious diseases have been eradicated globally. What effects are these having on children? Could this be why we’re seeing widespread immunosuppression in the global population?

Recommended child immunization schedule according to the CDC
Food and agriculture policy must be modified. Last week we discussed the effects of the dangerous chemicals and additives included in the global food supply. Many of these have been linked to long-term health issues, including hormonal disruption, obesity, ADHD, and chronic diseases. These additives compromise the nutritional value of food and contribute to the global rise in non-communicable diseases by promoting unhealthy dietary patterns.
Additionally, overmedication further exacerbates these ailments. Instead of addressing the root dietary issues, doctors resort to pharmaceuticals.
I would go so far as to argue that this critical review should extend to medical school curricula. Curriculums should be modified to include further training on nutrition, functional medicine, etc., giving medical graduates a new understanding to take on these public health crises.
Medical schools don’t teach you how to think; they teach you what to think.
Transforming, from a policy perspective, the way we look at public health is necessary. We as a society must collectively broaden our perspective to consider these alternative approaches.
Luckily, the point of inflection is now. Global attitudes toward this line of thinking are shifting rapidly. There is immense enthusiasm arising from the possibility of real reform coming to the highest levels of Biopolitikal decision-making.
With today’s announcement, it seems as though we are even closer than we think of it all coming to fruition. As of today, November 14th, President-Elect Donald J. Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services, definitely the most qualified for the position. As I have mentioned repeatedly in my substack posts, whatever the United States does, the world will follow. Parting from this principle, Global Biopolitiks is set to experience a massive shift in the coming years.
About me (Dr. Alejandro Diaz)
I am a Pediatric Allergist / Immunologist and Global Health Expert with extensive international experience. I have delivered conferences in over 27 countries around the globe on topics of medicine, migration, biosecurity, and related topics. This includes prestigious venues such as the White House, the US Capitol, the Romanian Parliament, the European Parliament in Brussels, the Mexican Senate of the Republic, the United Nations in Geneva, Japanese Parliament, among others.
My career encompasses diverse roles in healthcare including private practice, health systems, and advisory positions for medical service companies, governments, and government entities worldwide.
On the beginning of détente in Chinese-Indian relations
By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – November 7, 2024
The meeting of the leaders of India and China, which took place on October 23 on the side-lines of the latest BRICS summit, became one of the most significant events of the Kazan summit, in which 30 countries participated.
In a commentary on the Chinese Global Times, the term ‘détente’ was used to characterise the state of relations between them, two of the multiple participants in the ‘Big Global Game’ at its current stage, which began to form both as a result of the aforementioned meeting and as a result of certain previous events. This article is a reaction to the words of Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar that it is premature to talk about the normalisation of relations between the two countries and that “restoring trust and readiness to work together will, naturally, take time”.
Half a century ago, the term ‘détente’ was used at one point of the Cold War by very responsible (both to their own peoples and to the world as a whole) leaders of opposing military and political groups. One of the main tasks was to prevent the use of ‘doomsday devices’, which are today absent-mindedly juggled by self-asserted political connoisseurs due to schizoid propaganda.
However, it did not, of course, reduce the multitude of fundamental problems at the heart of the Cold War itself, which were not eliminated by détente. Today, the ‘détente’ that has seemingly begun does not eliminate the serious issues in relations between the two Asian giants. This is likely what was meant by the head of the Indian Foreign Ministry and his commentators from the leading Chinese newspaper, warning against premature euphoria about the results of the meeting of the Chinese and Indian leaders in Kazan.
Issues in relations between India and China
This meeting was preceded by the resolution of a private problem that arose after the famous events of the summer of 2020 in Ladakh, a disputed area in the Himalayas. That which was agreed upon on the eve of the meeting between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi boils down to the fact that the border guards based there will not face each other looking through a scope, but will rather engage in joint patrolling of certain paths passing through the territory that remains disputed.
There are several such disputed areas (with a total area of about 130,000km2). In the 50s and 60s, attempts were made to solve the territorial issue according to the principle of mutual and approximately equal concessions.
But something went wrong; what exactly went wrong is hard to pinpoint. This is the mystery of the whole issue of Chinese-Indian relations, the scale of which goes beyond the disputed territories. In order to define this ‘something’, international conferences are held with the participation of reputable Indologists and Sinologists who offer plausible hypotheses about this ‘something’.
10-15 years ago, it was defined by the word ‘Tibet’. More precisely, the state of bilateral relations after the liquidation of the virtually independent status of Tibet at the end of 1950. This status, in turn, turned out to be a consequence of the turmoil in China as a result of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911-1912. Since 1952, Tibet has ceased to be a sort of buffer zone between India and China and the military units of both countries are now separated by a 4,000,000 km line of actual control, which is not an internationally recognised border and will not become such until the parties resolve the issue of control over several of the above-mentioned disputed territories.
As a result of this and a number of subsequent events (this is first of all the 1959 rebellion in Tibet), the head of Buddhism in the world and about 100,000 Tibetan refugees found themselves in India, creating ‘authorities in exile’ there. This aids in keeping the ‘Tibetan issue’ – and suspicion in relations between India and China in general – in a tense state.
Over the past 10-15 years, radical changes have taken place in the status of these countries in the format of the ‘Big Global Game’. At the same time, the interests of both India and China extend far beyond national borders, intersecting on the territories of ‘external’ countries, which include all the countries of the Indian Ocean area and that are adjacent to India and China on the Asian mainland.
The situation developing within and outside Bangladesh requires special attention; a de facto coup took place in early September of this year and the country’s permanent (since 2009) Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, fled to India. Today, this serves as an additional reason for her to be accused of maintaining a ‘pro-Indian’ political vector, although she has actually been skilfully balancing the force fields created by two great neighbours of Bangladesh.
Relations between India and the current ‘transitional government’ of Bangladesh (which demanded the extradition of S. Hasina for her trial) have deteriorated markedly. This is especially notable against the background of a number of recent friendly gestures in Dhaka’s relations with Beijing (e.g. two Chinese navy ships visiting one of the ports of Bangladesh in the first half of October).
One may also recall India’s membership (along with the United States, Japan and Australia) in the Quad configuration, the latest summit of which was held in September in the US. Three weeks later, 10-day joint naval exercises between Quad countries took place in the Bay of Bengal. It is possible that, among other things, this was a warning signal to Bangladesh and China.
What to expect from future developments of Chinese-Indian relations?
It is difficult to make forecasts at the current stage of the radical reformatting of the world order. Therefore, assessments regarding the nature of further development of bilateral relations – both in China and in India – are reserved. The illustration in the Global Times article mentioned at the very beginning accurately reflects reality.
Nevertheless, a remark in another commentary from the same newspaper about the need to “reduce future fluctuations in Chinese-Indian relations so as to minimise geopolitical disruptions from third parties guided by hidden malicious intent” seems noteworthy. Everything is significant in this phrase, especially the term ‘fluctuations’, a word which could describe the entire period of bilateral relations between independent India and China.
The previous stage of bettering bilateral relations started during a meeting of the two countries’ leaders held in April 2018 in Wuhan, China. A year and a half later, this trend was confirmed during Xi Jinping’s return trip to India and his meeting with N. Modi. The ‘incident in Ladakh’ followed and bilateral relations again fell to one of their lowest levels.
As for the ‘third parties with malicious intent’, it is clear who is meant by this. Note that Russia is also a ‘third party’, but with the complete opposite ‘intent’. There can be little doubt that it was Russian assistance that facilitated the meeting of the Indian and Chinese leaders on the side-lines of the latest BRICS summit. Russian diplomacy should be acknowledged on this occasion.
Fully aware of the fact that various difficulties remain in Chinese-Indian relations, let us hope that this meeting will become the starting point of their long-term positive development.
Vladimir Terekhov is an expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region.
Russian gas exports to EU approaching ‘technical maximum’
RT | November 4, 2024
Exports of Russian gas to the EU and Moldova through Ukraine are approaching the maximum possible using existing infrastructure, Vedomosti newspaper has reported, citing data from energy giant Gazprom.
A total of 1.31 billion cubic meters of gas were delivered via this route in October, the outlet said in an article published on Saturday.
According to Gazprom’s figures, the average daily volume of Russian gas supplies through the Ukrainian gas transmission system last month amounted to 42.3 million cubic meters, representing a 5% increase compared to October 2023.
Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the EU slapped sanctions on Moscow and made it a top priority to curb its dependence on Russian energy. However, deliveries of Russian gas to the bloc continue almost three years later.
At the moment, the transit line through Ukraine and the European arm of TurkStream remain the only two conduits through which piped Russian gas can reach central and southern Europe.
Kiev has said it is not planning to extend the current transit agreement with Gazprom when it expires at the end of the year.
Earlier this week, Hungary – an EU member state – announced that it had imported 6.2 billion cubic meters of natural gas via the TurkStream this year. “This is the largest volume of gas to date” in annual terms, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said.
Last month, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) said the share of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the EU market had reached 20% this year, growing by 6% compared to 2023.
