Russia is jamming HIMARS rockets – Ukraine’s defense chief
RT | July 5, 2023
Russia has found a way to interfere with GPS-guided artillery rounds, including munitions for US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, Defense Minister of Ukraine Aleksey Reznikov has claimed.
When those systems first arrived on Ukrainian battlefields last year they were “highly accurate,” Reznikov recalled, in an interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday.
However, Russia, which has strong radio-electronic systems, eventually found a way to jam GPS-guided artillery and HIMARS projectiles, he acknowledged.
“It’s like a constant pendulum. This is a war of technology,” the minister said, describing the ongoing conflict between Kiev and Moscow.
“The Russians come up with a countermeasure, we inform our partners and they make a new countermeasure against this countermeasure,” he explained.
Reznikov reiterated Kiev’s earlier claim that “for the military industry of the world, you can’t invent a better testing ground” than Ukraine.
Kiev’s Western backers “can actually see if their weapons work, how efficiently they work and if they need to be upgraded”, he said.
Ukraine has been supplied with several dozen High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), which have a range of 85 kilometers (53 miles), by its foreign backer since June last year. Western outlets described the system as a game-changer in the conflict.
In May, CNN reported, citing five sources from the US, Britain and Ukraine, that the US-designed multiple rocket launchers had been rendered “increasingly less effective” from the intensive blocking by the Russian forces. The electronic jammers throw off the GPS-guided targeting system of HIMARS rockets to cause them to miss their targets, the channel said.
Throughout the conflict, the Russian Defense Ministry reported destroying dozens of HIMARS systems through the use of kamikaze drones and artillery fire. However, these claims have been disputed by Kiev and Washington.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that deliveries of more sophisticated weapons to Ukraine by the US and its allies could cross its ‘red lines’ and lead to a major escalation of hostilities. According to the Russian side, the supply of arms, intelligence sharing and training to Kiev’s troops already means that Western nations are de facto parties to the conflict.
Laid Low by the COVID Vaccine, Now They’ve Got a Bad Case of Federal Unresponsiveness
By Christian Britschgi | RealClear Investigations | June 28, 2023
In April 2021, Adele Fox received a single shot of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Within a few hours, the 60-year-old resident of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, started feeling shooting pains in her legs, arms, and neck. The pain didn’t abate over the next few days. Instead, it got worse and was accompanied by nausea and debilitating fatigue.
Within a few weeks, neurologists affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital diagnosed her with several serious conditions they say were a result of her COVID-19 vaccine, including small-fiber neuropathy (which causes a painful tingling in the extremities) and Sjögren’s Syndrome (which leaves patients pained and fatigued, and in extreme cases, can damage internal organs).
This shot, which was supposed to get Fox back to normal, instead left her with diminished ability to work and enjoy life. Persistent physical therapy and experimental treatments she’s taken since have done little to alleviate her symptoms.
“I used to do so much, and now it’s a struggle,” she says. “Sometimes you just get down.”
With her medical bills mounting and her condition not improving, Fox sought compensation for her damaged health. Federal liability protections prevent the vaccine-injured from directly suing vaccine manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson. Instead, claimants have to go to the federal government for compensation.
But as Fox would soon learn, the government has two starkly different injury programs for vaccines. One operates like a civil court with a neutral judge, lawyers on both sides, and a guaranteed right of appeal. In recent decades, it has approved about 75% of claims and pays out hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The other, which handles COVID-19 vaccines, has rejected almost every claim brought to it, awarding less than $10,000 since the pandemic. And in a nation nearly numb to the pandemic’s toll and its scandals, the program is adding seething frustration atop lasting injury to Fox and people like her in a little reported aftermath to the government’s much criticized performance on vaccines – ranging from erratic booster advice to broad-brush vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs.
Fox filed her claim two years ago, submitting hundreds of pages of medical documents about her condition and diagnoses. She’s nevertheless one of the 10,887 people still waiting on a decision. “You’re not even hearing anything from the organization that’s supposed be helping you,” she says. “The phone keeps ringing, no one is emailing, nobody is doing anything.”
The federal agency overseeing the program, the Health Resources and Services Administration, said in a statement to RealClearInvestigations that the current number of claims “significantly exceeds the previous volume in the program” and that the program has “hired additional staff to address this growth in claims, and the President’s budget requests additional funding to support the additional staffing needed to process claims.”
Tale of Two Compensation Programs
The government’s two contrasting vaccine compensation programs are similarly named and thus easily confused. The first, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created in the 1980s and covers most routine vaccines. The second, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), is a result of war-on-terror legislation in 2005 and now covers COVID-19 vaccines. Their bureaucratic differences help explain why a nation that has spent trillions of dollars on COVID relief programs has provided almost no assistance to people harmed by the vaccines that the government encouraged, and sometimes required, them to take.
The earlier program was supposed to shore up pharmaceutical companies’ willingness to make childhood vaccines in the face of persistent vaccine injury lawsuits, while also giving the vaccine-injured a fair and expedited process for compensation.
The vaccine-injured would not sue pharmaceutical companies. Instead, they’d petition the government in Federal Claims Court, where special masters (judges) would decide cases. Compensation came from a government-administered trust fund paid for by excise taxes levied on vaccine manufacturers.
Between 2006 and 2021, this court adjudicated cases from 10,602 petitioners and issued compensation to 7,618 of them. The compensation trust fund sits at $4 billion and pays out about $200 million in compensation and attorneys’ fees each year.
This earlier program bears little resemblance to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where the COVID-vaccine cases of Fox and many others are languishing.
It was meant to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to be part of the federal response to one-off, one-in-a-million events like a bioweapon attack or an outbreak of a deadly pandemic. Although almost one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States, and health authorities say boosters could become as common as the annual flu shot, it remains the only way people harmed by the shot can receive compensation.
It’s far from guaranteed they’ll get it.
Before the pandemic, this program received a little over 500 claims and had paid out compensation to only 30 people – mostly for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine injuries. In just the past two years, it has been asked to make decisions on over 10,000 injury claims related to COVID countermeasures.
As of June, it made decisions on just 919 of these COVID-related claims and rejected 894 of them. It has so far paid out only $8,593 in compensation to just four people who were injured by a COVID vaccine. The program has deemed another 20 people eligible for compensation, but has yet to pay them.
It’s not a judicial process either. Rather, it’s an administrative process overseen by Health Resources and Services Administration, which is housed within Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). People file a claim and government medical reviewers decide whether to pay out or not. That’s an awkward arrangement, given that HHS is deciding whether to pay for damages caused by products it approved and in some cases mandated.
Because it’s an administrative process, there’s no right to counsel and no neutral arbitrator. A denied claimant can file for reconsideration with HRSA, but otherwise has no right to appeal.
Unlike the earlier program, the CICP offers no compensation for pain and suffering and doesn’t pay attorneys’ fees. Most successful claimants have received compensation totaling a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. The highest award for a COVID-19 vaccine injury sufferer was $3,957.66 to a person who got myocarditis (a heart condition) from a vaccine.
It also has shorter filing deadlines. People have to file a claim within one year of vaccination, a much shorter window than the earlier program’s standard of three years from the onset of symptoms. Of the 894 claims that CICP has rejected, 444 of them were for missing the filing deadline.
CICP also only awards compensation in cases where there’s “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence” that someone’s injury is linked to a covered countermeasure. HRSA describes this as “a high evidentiary standard.” Renée Gentry, a practicing vaccine injury lawyer who directs the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at George Washington University, says it’s a much higher bar than what the earlier vaccine injury compensation program requires, which contributes to a much lower rate of successful claims.
The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program’s nature as a small emergency program has seen its capacity strained by a flood of COVID-related injury claims. Of the 11,806 COVID-related claims filed, 10,887 are still pending. Those four cases where COVID compensation was paid out didn’t come until after April 2023, over two years since the first vaccines were administered.
Pain and Suffering
The shortcomings of CICP are all too apparent for the people who are forced to wade through it. Even folks who seem to have done everything right are left waiting or disappointed by the program.
Fox filed her claim in May 2021, which was relatively early in the immunization campaign. She also had clear diagnoses from well-credentialed doctors linking her conditions to her COVID-19 vaccination. Fox says she provided the program with no shortage of documentation as well.
After filing all that paperwork, she hasn’t been idle either. After months of not hearing anything back from CICP, Fox started to reach out repeatedly to anyone she thought might be able to move the needle. She spoke repeatedly with representatives from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s and Rep. Chris Pappas’ offices. She also kept calling program administrators, trying to figure out what was taking so long.
“I’m sure they saw my number, and said ‘Ah, Fox, oh no, not her [again]’,” she jokes.
Her congressional representatives did reach out to CICP on her behalf. That was at least effective at getting program administrators to call Fox personally twice, once in July 2022 and again in June 2023. But each time, they could only offer her reassurance that her paperwork had been received. On both calls, Fox says she was told that the program was vastly overburdened by the flood of COVID-19 claims it had received. She, like thousands of others, would have to wait.
The few decisions on COVID-19 claims that have trickled out haven’t offered much relief to the people who’ve received them. That includes Cody Flint, one of the 894 people who’ve had their COVID-related claims rejected.
Flint was vaccinated in February 2021, when he received a single Pfizer dose. He says that he started to feel headaches and had affected vision within 30 minutes of the shot. He was still experiencing symptoms two days later when he headed to his job as a crop-dusting pilot.
While flying that day, he started to experience extreme tunnel vision, followed by a sensation he describes as “a bomb [going] off in my head.” He barely managed to get his plane back to his runway, where his coworkers found him slumped over his controls and shaking.
He was diagnosed with perilymphatic fistula (or tear of the inner ear) caused by elevated intracranial pressure – which could only be relieved through repeated draining of his spinal fluid. Given the timing of his symptoms and the fact that he’d passed a flight physical just a couple weeks prior, his doctors said his condition was almost certainly caused by the vaccine. His injury prevented him from returning to work as a pilot, and his mounting medical bills saw him draw down all of his savings.
In April 2021, Flint filed a claim. In May 2022 – just a few weeks after Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith asked HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra about his case specifically in a committee hearing – Flint’s claim was rejected. The program’s medical reviewers told Flint that it was more likely his injuries were caused by barotrauma from flying a plane.
He petitioned for a reconsideration of his case. His doctors argued that there was no way he’d have experienced barotrauma from flying just a few hundred feet off the ground. Commercial airliners, they noted, are pressurized at 6,000 to 8,000 feet of elevation. Flint’s lawyers also submitted recent studies linking the symptoms he’d experienced to COVID-19 vaccinations.
Nevertheless, a separate medical reviewer at HRSA upheld the CICP’s initial denial in January 2023. That letter succinctly stated that HHS has “no appeals process beyond this reconsideration” and “there is no judicial review of a final action concerning CICP eligibility.”
Efforts at Reform
The federal government’s liability protections for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t scheduled to expire until the end of 2024. Once they do, those claiming a vaccine injury will be able to pursue claims against vaccine manufacturers in state courts.
While liability protections remain in effect, the federal program is injured claimants’ only potential source of compensation.
Whether or not the HRSA succeeds in boosting staffing in line with its statement to RCI, those seeking compensation have started to get organized. They’ve formed the group React19, which is dedicated to advocating for additional research into the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. It’s grown into a network of tens of thousands of people who say they suffered adverse injuries from the shot. Flint, the pilot, is on its board of directors.
“It’s a very pro-vaccine community,” says Christopher Dreisbach, the group’s legal affairs director. “You say anything about vaccine injuries, you’re branded as anti-vaxxers. We are pro-science, we are not political. We’re just dealing with a very politicized issue.”
He says the politicization of vaccines has made their efforts at compensation reform a challenge.
When the CICP, and the 2005 Pandemic Response and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act that created it, were first being debated, Republican lawmakers were its main advocates, while its main critics were Democrats. The partisan politics of the program and liability protections for pharmaceutical companies has done a 180 since COVID.
In 2005, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee argued during the House floor debate on the PREP Act that the law’s liability shield would leave injured healthcare workers with little protection or chance of compensation. Come 2023, she would return to the floor of the House to argue in favor of mandating those same healthcare workers receive a vaccine covered by the PREP Act’s liability shield.
The PREP Act’s harshest critics during COVID, meanwhile, have mostly been Republicans.
“I call the PREP Act medical malpractice martial law,” says Rep. Thomas Massie, who complains that its liability shield is both incredibly broad and improperly preempts state law. “I think it’s sort of anathema to the way our government is set up. I found it hard to believe that Congress would pass something, much less that a Republican president would invoke it.”
In March 2022, Sen. Mike Lee introduced a bill that would have amended CICP to give claimants the same framework for pursuing compensation as the VICP. They could file in Federal Claims Court and receive an expedited, judicial adjudication of their injury claim.
Gentry argues that it would be far simpler to just move the COVID-19 vaccines into the VICP program, which already has a successful track record of adjudicating injury claims. In order for that to happen under the law that created the VICP, the CDC needs to recommend the vaccines for routine administration to children (which has already happened) and vaccine manufacturers would have to start paying excise taxes. That latter condition will require action from Congress.
VICP needs a number of updates as well, says Gentry, including expanding the number of special masters to handle the backlog of cases and increasing the available levels of compensation (which haven’t been updated since the 1980s).
Increasing the number of special masters is particularly important if the VICP program is going to be expected to process tens of thousands of COVID claims, she says. But she argues it’s the best way of getting the vaccine injured out of CICP and into a program that will work for them. “If you’re taking away someone’s constitutional right to sue, you really have to give them a reasonable and meaningful alternative and that’s what this program is, for all of its faults,” says Gentry.
While efforts at reform in Washington lumber on, React19 has started a privately funded compensation program that’s thus far paid out $552,000.
“Is that making a meaningful difference to all the vaccine injured everywhere? No, that’s not enough,” says Dreisbach, but he notes that it’s far more than what CICP has paid out. “That should be pretty embarrassing to the federal government.”
Study Finds Xanax, Valium Associated With Brain Injury, Suicide
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 1, 2023
About 30 million Americans are taking benzodiazepines like Xanax, Valium, and Klonopin- about 12.5% of the adult population. Doctors and psychiatrists have prescribed these drugs for decades to treat anxiety. But a new study reveals “benzodiazepine usage and discontinuing usage” can create “nervous system injury and negative life effects.”
Researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus said as patients enter the discontinuation phase of Xanax, Valium, and Klonopin, they face significant withdrawal symptoms.
“Despite the fact that benzodiazepines have been widely prescribed for decades, this survey presents significant new evidence that a subset of patients experiences long-term neurological complications,” said Alexis Ritvo, M.D, M.P.H., an assistant professor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of the nonprofit Alliance for Benzodiazepine Best Practices. She said the medical community must reevaluate how it prescribes benzodiazepines.
The study was a collaborative effort between CU Anschutz, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and several drug advocacy that specializes in raising awareness of benzodiazepine harms.
“Patients have been reporting long-term effects from benzodiazepines for over 60 years. I am one of those patients. Even though I took my medication as prescribed, I still experience symptoms on a daily basis at four years off benzodiazepines. Our survey and the new term BIND (benzodiazepine-induced neurological dysfunction) give a voice to the patient experience and point to the need for further investigations,” said Christy Huff, MD, one of the paper’s coauthors and a cardiologist and director of Benzodiazepine Information Coalition.
About 76.6% of the respondents had long-lasting symptoms after discounting the use of benzodiazepines. Almost half of the respondents had these ten symptoms for more than a year:
- low energy
- difficulty focusing
- memory loss
- anxiety
- insomnia
- sensitivity to light and sounds
- digestive problems
- symptoms triggered by food and drink
- muscle weakness
- body pain
The most alarming part of the study was the symptoms listed above were new and distinct and weren’t experienced before respondents used Xanax, Valium, and Klonopin. Many respondents reported damaged relationships, job loss, and increased medical costs. Also, 54.4% of the respondents reported suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide.
But don’t worry because doctors and the government tell us benzodiazepines are safe, just like they said OxyContin wasn’t addictive in the 1990s.
Kennedy Campaign Supporters Sound Like My Kind of People
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 30, 2023
Columnist Michelle Goldberg makes her disdain for presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. clear in her Friday New York Times editorial. She paints Kennedy as a dangerous “crank.” But, when Goldberg wrote in the editorial generally about supporters of Kennedy she encountered at a June campaign event in New Hampshire, her description seems to be closer to objective and is in line with what I have observed from afar.
Goldberg’s general description of the Kennedy supporters is also, in my view, quite positive. For Goldberg and many of her regular readers, though, her description is likely negative. The difference springs from differing views regarding the United States government and its expansive exercise of power.
Describing the people she encountered at a campaign speech by Kennedy in New Hampshire this month, Goldberg wrote:
The people I encountered believe that they are living under a deeply sinister regime that lies to them about almost everything that matters. And they believe that with the Kennedy campaign, we might be on the cusp of redemption.
This description of Kennedy supporters’ assessment of the situation Americans face makes me think they are my kind of people.
Also wrote Goldberg, “the movement around [Kennedy] represents a significant post-Covid social phenomenon: a coalition of the distrustful that cuts across divisions of right and left.”
That sounds like what America needs.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
The climate scaremongers: What is a normal climate anyway?
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | June 23, 2023
We are told we must limit global warming to 1.5 deg C. The target became official when the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate was signed. Its overarching goal was to hold ‘the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’ and pursue efforts ‘to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels’.
Why 1.5C? The previous threshold of 2C was a far too distant one, and few people would have been worried about something which might not happen for several decades, so the UN decided they needed to come up with something much more imminent. Hence their claim that ‘crossing the 1.5C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall’. A recent study even claims that global warming above 1C is already causing significant harm to humans.
What does this mythical figure of 1.5C really mean? As noted above, it is measured from pre-industrial levels, even though we have no clue what global temperatures were then. Indeed, we don’t know what they are now, despite scientists trying to convince us by coming up with global temperatures to hundredths of a degree.
We are said to have already reached about 1.2C of warming, which to be fair broadly corresponds with the long-running Central England Temperature series. But why choose pre-industrial times at all? What evidence is there that there was anything ‘normal’ about the climate 200 years ago?
The reason is very simple. 1.5C sounds a lot, and the whole objective is to scare the public. The reality is that everybody is used to today’s climate, and it is from this that any increases should be measured. But nobody would be scared by a threat of warming of a tenth of a degree or so in 30 years’ time.
The implication is that the climate was normal and unchanging before we started burning fossil fuels. But that period was known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) for a very good reason. We know from multiple sources that the LIA was probably the coldest period since the last Ice Age ended. Evidence from ice cores in Greenland, glacial records in Europe, Greenland, Iceland and Alaska, upper tree line studies in the Alps and North America and other data overwhelmingly supports this conclusion.
Even New Zealand did not escape the clutches of the LIA. Eminent historian Brian Fagan wrote in his seminal book, The Little Ice Age, that the Franz Joseph glacier there was ‘a mere pocket of ice on a frozen snowfield nine centuries ago . . . Then Little Ice Age cooling began and the glacier thrust downslope into the valley below, smashing into the great rain forests that flourished there, felling giant trees like matchsticks. By the early 18th century, Franz Joseph’s face was within 3 km of the Pacific Ocean . . . The high tide of glacial advance at Franz Joseph came between the late 17th century and early 19th century, just as it did in the European Alps’.
Fagan also described how the advance of glaciers in Switzerland obliterated thousands of acres of farming land, and what remained was far too cold to grow anything. As a result famine was rife.
It was not just glaciers that were the problem. A couple of years ago, a Portuguese scientist wrote a synthesis of the LIA in Europe in general and Portugal in particular. He tells a story of heavy rainfall and floods, heatwaves, droughts, cold wet summers, snow storms, famines and malaria.
It is clearly nonsensical and dishonest to claim that the climate was somehow ‘normal’ in pre-industrial times. And it is certainly deranged for anybody to suggest that the world’s climate is now worse.
The year in review – perfectly ordinary
THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has just published my annual review of the UK’s weather. Once again, I find little to be alarmed about.

Although 2022 was a comparatively warm year, the long-term mean temperature has been largely unchanged since the turn of the century. Rainfall and storm trends are, respectively, unexceptional and favourable.
Here is the report’s executive summary:
According to the Met Office, the UK climate ‘is continuing to change’, while weather is becoming more extreme.
But what does the actual evidence tell us?
Using official data up to 2021, from the Met Office and other sources, this paper examines UK climate trends, and assesses the truth of these claims.
The results are as follows:
• Although 2022 was the warmest on record in the UK, there has been no increase in long-term averages since the early 2000s.
• The annual temperature in 2022 was well within the bounds of natural variability, and was largely due to long spells of sunny weather in spring and summer.
• The summer of 2022 was only the fourth hottest according to CET, and not as hot as 1976, 1826 and 2018.
• Annual rainfall last year was only slightly below average.
• The number of days with extreme temperatures is not increasing, as fewer cold days are offsetting more hot ones.
• Long-term averages in rainfall in England and Wales, which have been rising since the 1970s, are similar to the 1870s and 1920s.
• While winters have become slightly wetter, there is little change in the other seasons. In particular, summers are not getting drier, as projections have suggested.
• Rainfall is not becoming more extreme, whether on an annual, monthly or daily basis.
• Sea levels have been rising at around 1.7mm a year around the UK, after taking account of vertical land movement, and there has been no acceleration in the rate of rise on multi-decadal scales.
• Wind storms have been declining in frequency and intensity since the 1990s.
In short, although it is slightly warmer than it used to be, the UK climate has changed very little. Long-term trends are dwarfed by the natural variability of weather.
Nor is there any evidence that weather is becoming more extreme. Nothing in the data indicates that climate will become more extreme in future.
The full report can be downloaded here.
Biden assesses impact of calling Xi a ‘dictator’

US ‘President’ Joe Biden appears at a White House welcoming ceremony for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday. © Getty Images / Anna Moneymaker
RT | June 23, 2023
US President Joe Biden has dismissed concerns that his comment this week referring to Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a “dictator” could hinder his administration’s efforts to mend Washington’s strained relationship with Beijing.
Asked about the remark at a White House press conference with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday, Biden denied that insulting Xi would undermine relations with China. “I expect to be meeting with President Xi sometime in the future, in the near term, and I don’t think it’s had any real consequence,” he said.
At issue was Biden’s comment on Tuesday at a political fundraiser in California, where he claimed that Xi had not known about an alleged spy balloon that was shot down after entering US airspace in February. “That’s a great embarrassment for dictators, when they didn’t know what happened.” The remark came just one day after US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken concluded a long-awaited and rare visit to Beijing, where Washington’s top diplomat met with Xi and sought to ease tensions between the superpowers.
The Chinese embassy in Washington delivered a formal protest on Thursday, just hours before Biden spoke dismissively of the controversy. “With the latest irresponsible remarks about China’s political system and its top leader, people cannot help but question the sincerity of the U.S. side,” the embassy said in a statement. “The Chinese government and people do not accept any political provocation against China’s top leader and will resolutely respond.”
The statement echoed criticism earlier this week by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning, who said Biden’s comment was an “open political provocation” and had “seriously violated China’s political dignity.”
Asked about becoming the first US president in recent memory to call his Chinese counterpart a “dictator,” Biden appeared to suggest that he was merely speaking his mind. “When we’re talking to our allies and partners around the world, including India, we let the idea of my choosing and avoiding saying what I think is the facts . . . is just not something I’m going to change very much.” He added that fears of a collapse in Sino-US relations were “hysteria.”
Beijing cut off military and climate ties with Washington last August, after then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a controversial visit to Taiwan. Blinken’s planned trip to China earlier this year was postponed in the aftermath of the balloon incident. Ning blasted Biden’s decision to shoot down the balloon, saying Washington had “abused force, fully reflecting the US bullying and hegemonic nature.”
Republicans mocked Biden for appearing to read his answer to a reporter’s question about his “dictator” comment. There was also an awkward moment during Thursday’s welcoming ceremony for Modi’s state visit, where Biden slowly lowered his hand from over his heart after apparently mistaking the Indian national anthem for the “Star Spangled Banner” for about 20 seconds.
Polish-German dispute on the rise
By Uriel Araujo | June 23, 2023
German-Polish relations have been in a crisis, and the climate just keeps getting uglier, as exemplified by recent developments. For instance, Alice Weidel, spokesperson for Alternative for Germany (AfD), Germany’s third-strongest political force today, called in a tweet the area of former East Germany a “Central Germany” – thus implying that territories which today belong to Poland are German lands. This has sparked outrage: Poland’s former PM Beata Szydło, in response, said the AfD could in the future power over all of Germany, thus creating a “dangerous scenario for Europe”, because, she claims, it is a party “whose leaders openly negate the existing borders.” She added that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has recently demanded the abolition of the right of veto within the EU and asked: “Should Europe go in this direction? Towards a German-dominated federation?” This provocation from a German political figure takes place in the context of a rising Polish campaign against Berlin.
Meanwhile, two families of Polish WWII victims are suing German companies Bayer and Henschel for €4.3 million over the persecution of Polish businessmen during the Nazi occupation of Poland. Brzozowska-Pasieka, head of the War Compensation Foundation (Fundacja Odszkodowań Wojennych), the Polish organization which represents the claimants, claims that these lawsuits are groundbreaking because they have been filed against private companies instead of the German state. Further claims on behalf of other families are being prepared. Commenting on the lawsuits, deputy culture minister Jarisław Sellin, lent his support, saying that “German companies which used forced laborers and actually participated in crimes during World War Two were never legally held accountable for what they did.”
Considering that Polish officials back these initiatives, one must see them as also part of a larger trend and context. Last month I wrote on the legal campaign Warsaw has been launching against Berlin for wartime reparations. It is accompanied by harsh anti-German rhetoric, which often describes Germany’s prominent role within the European Union as a “Fourth Reich”.
Polish discourse on the issue is not without its dose of hypocrisy: while criticizing Ukraine for celebrating genocidal Nazis, as recently as 2019, with Polish President Andrzej Duda’s support, Warsaw opened ceremonies honoring the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade of the National Armed Forces – an underground force which, in the end of Second World War, collaborated with the Nazis in their anti-Soviet struggle. This was denounced by Poland’s chief rabbi as “dangerous revisionism”. Moreover, Warsaw so far has refused to publish state archives which would expose the degree of Polish collaboration with the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is no wonder the German ambassador to Poland, Thomas Bagger, warned the country not to “open Pandora’s box”.
Behind the weaponization of WWII resentments lie also geopolitical goals. As I wrote in September 2022, Washington has apparently been promoting Warsaw’s ambitions regarding regional hegemony as mainly a means to counter Berlin, Poland in turn also benefits from this situation. For a while, Warsaw has, for example, been urging Washington to support the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) as a Western “counterweight” to Chinese investments in “critical infrastructure” – as Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau and his Romanian counterpart, Bogdan Aurescu, both wrote in a June 2021 piece published in Francis Fukuyama’s “American Purpose”.
Already in 2020, during the “Defender Europe 2020” military exercises, it had become clear that Poland aspired to become the main stronghold of American military presence in Eastern Europe – and the current conflict in Ukraine, since February 2022, has opened a window of opportunity in that regard.
By doing so, Poland aspires to establish itself as a new EU geopolitical center, while challenging Germany’s leading role in the continent. From a German perspective, this is ironic in itself, considering the fact that Berlin’s contribution to the EU budget has been the highest of any other member state, and therefore one could argue that the more recent EU member states such as Poland itself have been able to implement sustainable development policies largely thanks to Berlin’s disproportionate financial injections into the European budget. Therefore, according to this reasoning, Warsaw basically strives to get the maximum financial and economic benefits from its EU membership, at the expense of its “allies”, Germany especially.
For decades, Poland has arguably been on the path of refusing to contribute with the building of an intra-European system of relations. Warsaw pursues exclusively its own interests and shows no interest in building pan-European cooperation within a framework of mutual respect. Germany and France today are potentially forces for strategy autonomy in the European bloc (at least up to a certain point); Poland, on the other hand, is perhaps the main promoter of European “alignmentism”.
Warsaw, for instance, actively opposed the (now gone) Russian-German gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. The pipeline’s still unexplained explosion, denounced by journalist Seymour Hersh as an act of sabotage carried out by Washinton, remains an open wound in Germany – and a German investigation into allegations that Poland could have been used as a hub for the sabotage only make German-Polish tensions even worse. The Polish National Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that such suspicions are “not supported by the evidence.”
In any case, Polish-German and intra-Europeans tensions in all likelihood will keep building up, because the Polish government weaponizes anti-German feelings, as it also does with Russophobia, in its rewriting of history. These tensions mirror a short-circuit in the European narratives as well as the continent’s own ideological and geopolitical contradictions.
Why China ignores the US
By Fernando Gaillardo – New Eastern Outlook – 22.06.2023
Beijing rejected Washington’s offer to conduct negotiations between Ministers of Defense on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue Summit against the background of mutual misunderstanding.
The Singapore Security Summit for many years has served as a neutral forum for discussing controversies in the Asia-Pacific region, where even outspoken opponents can meet and clarify their mutual grievances without sacrificing credibility. This is why the PRC’s refusal to hold a meeting between Li Shangfu and Lloyd Austin has attracted increased global attention.
The formal reason for rejecting the request was that the Chinese Ministers of Defense was under US sanctions. Li Shangfu previously supervised the revamp of the PLA and promoted the purchase of Russian Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 air defense systems, which angered the Trump administration at the time.
Beijing’s neat diplomatic move is a camouflage for Washington’s complete disregard for China’s foreign policy approaches and interests, including a hint of encroachment on sovereignty. US Air Force conducts about 1,000 surveillance missions per year near China’s maritime borders, while checking the readiness of Chinese air defense forces. The Navy also seeks to come up big in its area of responsibility by regularly sending ships to areas contested by China. Remarkably, even during the persistent attempts of the State Department to organize a meeting at the forum, the ships coming from the US to Japan for exercises could not resist and circled around Taiwan, just in case.
The problem of the island that does not recognize Beijing’s authority is most revealing. Technically, the fact that Taiwan is part of the PRC was stated in The Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between China and USA, 1979, and then in the 1982 Communiqué, which reaffirmed the provisions of the previous document. The duplication was necessary because after the establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC, the United States passed a separate law that allowed to continue to pour weapons into Taiwan and justifying its military presence without recognizing it as a state.
Washington constantly broadcasts an interest in reducing tensions or even “resetting” relations, but is it worth trusting a partner that is constantly looking for loopholes to avoid even documented agreements? Given the recent demarches, Beijing has decided that there is nothing to talk about with the United States.
A few days after the event, the US media reported that the ministers did meet and, allegedly, discussed pressing issues, but there was no coverage of the event by officials of either country. According to “eyewitnesses” the ministers, in fact, crossed paths between venues and simply exchanged pleasantries, as required by protocol. It all sounds like a wounded hegemon is trying to make up for the reputational costs.
Democrat blames conservative media for hyping Trump assassination remark
Trump “needs to be shot”

RT | June 21, 2023
Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) excoriated “conservative media” for calling attention to a television appearance in which she appeared to call for the assassination of former US president Donald Trump, insisting in a statement on Tuesday that she had done no such thing.
“It is unfortunate that conservative media has taken an instance where I misspoke and misrepresented it as though I advocate for violence–I unequivocally do not,” Plaskett said. “I wish former President Trump no ill will or harm, only that justice be served in his case as with every other American who must face penalties for wrongdoing.”
Plaskett claimed to have misspoken during an MSNBC segment discussing the Republican candidate’s indictment over his alleged mishandling of confidential documents. “Having Trump not only have had the [nuclear] codes but now having the classified information for Americans and being able to put that out and share it in his resort with anyone and everyone who comes through should be terrifying to all Americans and he needs to be shot – stopped,” she had said, without elaborating on whether the latter word was meant as a correction or simply a clarification.
Several conservative outlets including Fox News and d the New York Post published articles about her supposed slip-up, including responses to the clip on social media calling for Plaskett to be investigated by the Secret Service or even criminally charged for threatening the former president.
“I do believe and did intend to say that he must be ‘stopped’,” the delegate, a non-voting member of the US Congress, continued, reiterating, “I do not advocate for anyone to shoot former President Trump.”
In April, Plaskett called for journalist Matt Taibbi to be charged with perjury based on a rival journalist’s claim that Taibbi had deliberately substituted the name of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) subsidiary for the Center for Internet Security (CIS) in order to falsely depict an unconstitutionally cozy relationship between the government agency and Twitter. Taibbi countered that the switch was a mistake he had immediately corrected – and which ultimately turned out to be true.
In her statement on Tuesday, Plaskett claimed she did not “encourage or condone political violence nor behavior that goes against democratic principles at any time.” That also appeared to clash with her sign-off from the MSNBC program, in which she remarked that “In the Virgin Islands, we’re celebrating our 175th year of emancipation through violent and organized slave rebellion to remove ourselves from chattel slavery.”
While running for Congress, Plaskett actively pursued (and received) campaign contributions from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after securing lucrative tax breaks for the pedophile in her role as general counsel for the islands’ Economic Development Authority.
Blinken Blinked: US Foreign Policy Chief’s Fruitless Flight to Beijing
By James Tweedie – Sputnik – 20.06.2023
Antony Blinken had hoped to reassert a constructive US role in the Pacific on his trip to China. Two experts both said he could only pick low-hanging diplomatic fruit, however.
At a press conference following meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang and President Xi Jinping on Monday, Blinken backed down from recent attempts by US House of Representatives speakers Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy to encourage Taiwan to assert formal independence from mainland China.
“We do not support Taiwan independence,” Blinken said. “We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.”
He also appeared to abandon Washington’s claims that China was supplying arms or munitions to Russia for its military operation in Ukraine, finally accepting China’s repeated refutations.
University of Manitoba professor Dr. Radhika Desai told Sputnik that the Biden administration “probably had to make some sort of visit” to China, even though the last scheduled meeting in February was canceled after the balloon incident.
She said the Chinese government was being “morally big” by tolerating Blinken.
“China, even though it doesn’t have to do it, is doing these things, is extending the olive branch,” Desai said. “It’s doing diplomacy as it should be done.”
Beijing’s graciousness stemmed from its concern for the world at large, she said.
“The United States and China are nuclear powers. They are the two big superpowers of the world,” Desai stressed. “For them not to talk means that you have a very dangerous world situation, and the Chinese are committed not to bring the world to the edge of nuclear disaster.”
The academic said the tensions between the two nations were just a symptom of declining US influence in the world.
“Why is the United States facing this conflicted situation vis-a-vis China?” Desai asked. “Because it is losing power.”
Blinken was also forced to admit that he had failed in his aim of re-opening a hotline between the two countries’ armed forces, a “difficulty” which Yang Tao, Foreign Ministry director-general of the Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs, said was due to US sanctions.
Journalist and expert on the political economy and geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific KJ Noh told Sputnik that meant the two nuclear powers “don’t have words to communicate with.”
“When you don’t have the words, you only have actions to communicate with or actions to interpret. And military actions can always be misconstrued or interpreted as threatening,” Noh said “And so we’re heading into a classical security dilemma.”
Overall, the Asia expert said, Blinken’s trip had meagre results because “the baseline was very low. It was a cold reception.”
“The key statement was that we agreed to continue to talk,” Noh said. “We talked and we agreed to continue talking, which in itself is not a bad thing, although it really is the lowest of the lowest-hanging fruit.”
Beijing’s message to Washington was to abide by the “five NOs” they agreed to at the 2022 G20 leaders’ summit in Bali, Indonesia.
“That’s to say that the US respects China system and doesn’t seek regime change,” Noh explained. “It doesn’t want a new Cold War, doesn’t seek to revitalize alliances against China, does not support Taiwan independence, and it has no intention to have a conflict with China and it’s not seeking to suppress China’s development.”
Ukrainian Officials Increasingly Not Returning From Abroad – Russian Intelligence
Sputnik – 20.06.2023
The trend of non-return to Kiev of representatives of the Ukrainian interior, foreign and defense ministries and special services, who are completing long-term business trips abroad, is gaining momentum, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Tuesday.
“Along with the mass exodus of the working age population from Ukraine, the trend towards non-return to Kiev of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, special services and the Ministry of Internal Affairs is gaining momentum,” the SVR said in a statement.
“This is what many employees of Ukrainian diplomatic institutions accredited in the EU countries do. After completing a long-term business trip, they remain in the host countries, changing their diplomatic status to refugee status,” the SVR said, adding that employees of foreign missions of Ukraine in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region do the same.
Additionally, the SVR said that “mop-ups” are underway in the foreign institutions of Ukraine as Kiev seeks to identify disloyal employees and ensure their early return to their homeland.
Ukraine plays “Light Brigade” with British advice
By DAVID P. GOLDMAN | ASIA TIMES | JUNE 10, 2023
American and European military observers in Ukraine described the Ukraine Army’s efforts of the past two days as a “suicide mission” that violated the basic rules of military tactics. “If you want to conduct an offensive and you have a dozen brigades and a few dozen tanks, you concentrate them and try to break through. The Ukrainians have been running around in five different directions,” complained a senior European officer.
“We tried to tell them to stop these piecemeal tactics, define a main thrust with proper infantry support and then do what they can,” the officer added.
“They were trained by the British and they’re playing Light Brigade,” the officer added, referring to the 1854 disaster at the Battle of Balaclava when misreported orders sent British cavalry into massed cannon fire.
Ukraine’s tanks charged directly into minefields without deploying mine-clearing vehicles first, contributing to the loss of 38 tanks during the night of June 8, including numerous of the newly delivered Leopard II tanks.
“A couple of Ukrainians tried to pull off a Guderian,” another military source said, referring to German General Heinz Guderian’s breakthrough at Sedan during the 1940 Battle of France. “But Guderian had 3,000 tanks, and these idiots have just gambled away the 30 they have.”
“And without air superiority,” the source added, “it’s a suicide mission.”
Russia’s KA-50 and KA-52 attack helicopters each carry enough missiles to kill 20 tanks, and can do so at a standoff distance of 10 kilometers. Ukrainian air defenses have been degraded by repeated attacks with cheap drones that force the Ukrainians to expend their limited inventory of S-300 and Patriot missiles. Of the 14 Leopard tanks Germany has provided to Ukraine, 3 have been destroyed, along with several of the Leopards provided by Poland.
The Ukrainian high command’s principle military advice has come from British officers embedded at headquarters in Kiev.
A Ukrainian concentration of forces remains possible as to date only three and possibly four Western-trained brigades have been used in Zaporoshye. That would require competent military decisions, not decisions motivated by political desperation.
