Lula Sealed His Deal With The Devil By Condemning Russia During His Meeting With Biden
By Andrew Korybko | February 11, 2023
Lula did indeed make a deal with the devil, in this case his US nemeses who were responsible for his imprisonment, in order to be sprung from jail and subsequently given a fighting chance to return to office. Upon doing so, this geopolitically repentant leader whose multipolar worldview was noticeably recalibrated behind bars did exactly as the US expected him to do, namely condemn Russia like all Sanders-style leftists have done and then rush to Biden to “kiss the ring”.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was just re-elected to a third non-consecutive term in office and is popularly known as Lula, did what had previously been unthinkable for the same man who used to be regarded as a titan of the global multipolar movement. After meeting with Biden, who was Vice President when the US orchestrated “Operation Car Wash” against him and his successor Dilma Rousseff, Lula released a joint statement in which he fiercely condemned Russia.
According to the official White House website, “They deplored the violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine by Russia and the annexation of parts of its territory as flagrant violations of international law and called for a just and durable peace.” No leader of Russia’s other fellow BRICS partners had ever expressed such sentiments, not even former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, which proves that Lula has indeed recalibrated his worldview since his imprisonment in a more pro-US direction.
This development wasn’t surprising since Lula had earlier condemned Russia by comparing its special operation in Ukraine to the US’ Hybrid War on Venezuela. At the same time, he put forth a G20-like peace proposal that wasn’t just ignored by Russia, but even indirectly criticized by it an insincere publicity stunt that actually goes against Moscow’s interests. Intrepid readers can learn more about the first incident here and the second one here since they’re beyond the scope of the present piece.
Nevertheless, by fiercely condemning Russia while meeting with Biden in DC, it should be obvious to all that Lula made a proverbial deal with the devil. In hindsight, it compellingly appears as though the information that was leaked about his case proving the courts’ political bias against him and which ultimately annulled their prior ruling (which thus let him run for re-election last year) was probably the result of a US intelligence operation aimed at once again manipulating Brazil’s political process.
Throughout the course of his first two terms and the unfinished one of his successor, the US regarded Lula as a titan of the global multipolar movement whose foreign policies posed a threat to its hemispheric hegemony. For that reason, they leaked the detailed materials implicating Lula, Rousseff, and other Workers’ Party members in a massive corruption scandal that would serve to discredit their rule, jail that aforementioned titan, and pave the way for installing a much more pliable leader.
The US’ Hybrid War on Brazil achieved all three of its initial goals but the last of them proved to be unsustainable after Bolsonaro refused to sanction Huawei in exchange for an official NATO partnership and later defied similar demands against Russia in a surprising flex of his independence. Not only that, but his conservative-sovereigntist worldview that’s inaccurately been smeared as solely being a so-called “far right-wing” one is the polar opposite of the ruling US Democrats’ liberal-globalist one.
While the sequence of events that reversed the primary outcome of “Operation Car Wash” began under the Trump Administration, objective observers already know that his military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) were working against him and his worldview this entire time. This was proven by their complicity in the Russiagate conspiracy theory, among many other examples, with their preemptive efforts to manipulate Brazil’s 2022 elections being another case in point.
The US’ “deep state” believed that their country’s interests would be best served by replacing increasingly independent Bolsonaro with a geopolitically repentant Lula, ergo why they worked so hard to reverse the same outcome that imprisoned the latter. They concluded that he’s no longer the multipolar titan that they previously thought he was, but is more akin to a Bernie Sanders-style leftist, which thus makes him amenable to manipulation in pursuit of their foreign policy goals.
Just like Sanders and his ilk fiercely condemned Russia, so too did Lula, which was entirely predictable once one realizes that this Brazilian leader has turned into a “fellow traveler” of the US left. The Workers’ Party has gradually been infiltrated by pro-US liberal-globalists who prioritize the promotion of so-called “woke” identity-centric politics at home over tangible improvements in poverty alleviation, workers’ rights, and accelerating the global systemic transition to complex multipolarity (“multiplexity”).
This observation explains why one of the three largest paragraphs of Lula’s joint statement with Biden included a pledge to fight racism and support LGBTQI+ persons. That’s not to deny the existence of racism in either of their countries, but just to point out that the Brazilian leader apparently believes that he can’t effectively counteract it with US assistance, which is a tacit deferral to the US’ de facto seniority in their revived partnership and thus by default confirms his country’s position as its “junior partner”.
Further evidence of the US’ successfully reasserted hegemony over Brazil in the aftermath of last year’s elections, which were manipulated by its intelligence services as was previously explained, can be seen by Lula agreeing to “strengthen democratic institutions” with Biden. This represents one of the most cringeworthy self-inflicted humiliations that any world leader has ever committed since it was during Biden’s term as Vice President that “Operation Car Wash” was orchestrated against Lula and his party.
He obviously knows that, yet he decided to “kiss the ring” and radically revise history as a quid pro quo for the US’ intelligence services once again manipulating Brazil’s domestic processes, albeit this time to release him from his unfair imprisonment. Lula went even further with his self-inflicted humiliation ritual by also agreeing in their statement to “build societal resilience to disinformation” together with the US despite the latter being the world’s largest fake news factory, which it earlier weaponized against him.
Another aspect of historical revisionism is evidenced by the remarks that preceded their meeting. The White House reported that Lula claimed that Brazil “isolated itself for four years” under Bolsonaro, who he claimed “didn’t enjoy to keep international relations with any country.” That’s factually false though since trade with China surged despite that former leader’s Sinophobic rhetoric on the campaign trail and he even visited President Putin in Moscow just before the special operation began despite US pressure.
These objectively existing and easily verifiable facts prove that Lula is lying through his teeth, which he believes he can do with impunity since he has the US’ support nowadays, unlike during his first two terms. He’s fully confident that nobody in the US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) will fact-check him since they also share his ideological opposition to the conservative-sovereigntist worldview that Bolsonaro imperfectly embodied. It’s therefore in all their interests to so radically revise history.
The newly declared Brazilian-US joint crusade against “extremism and violence in politics” that was also unveiled in their statement strongly implies that Washington will help Lula crack down on the opposition in the aftermath of his country’s January 8th event. About that, the US arguably had a role in orchestrating everything as well in order to create the pretext for Lula to consolidate his rule, which is especially important for them since he shares their liberal-globalist worldview in the domestic sense.
More about that incident and the US’ role within it can be read about in detail here and here since it goes beyond the scope of the present analysis just like Lula’s prior condemnation of Russia and his doomed-to-fail G20-like peace plan that were earlier touched upon in this piece too. They’re relevant for intrepid readers to review, however, if they hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the ways in which Brazil and the US are now closely cooperating behind the scenes during Lula’s third term in office.
What all of this goes to show is that Lula did indeed make a deal with the devil, in this case his US nemeses who were responsible for his imprisonment, in order to be sprung from jail and subsequently given a fighting chance to return to office. Upon doing so, this geopolitically repentant leader whose multipolar worldview was noticeably recalibrated behind bars did exactly as the US expected him to do, namely condemn Russia like all Sanders-style leftists have done and then rush to Biden to “kiss the ring”.
Lula then radically revised history alongside his counterpart in order to publicly patch up their well-known differences brought about by the US’ Hybrid War on his country that was partially overseen by none other than Biden himself and ultimately resulted in the Brazilian leader’s imprisonment. This self-inflicted humiliation ritual was the cost that Lula had to pay, which included condemning Russia and thus discrediting himself among the multipolar community, but he looked happier than ever as he did it.
USA Today: “Little by Little” Russia is Winning Key Ground War
Surprising admission deviates from usual narrative
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | February 14, 2023
USA Today raised some eyebrows when it deviated from the usual narrative by acknowledging “little by little” Russia is winning the ground war in a pivotal area of Ukraine, citing a quote given by a pro-Ukraine spokeswoman.
The admission was in relation to the battle for the city of Bakhmut in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region.
Russia has been fighting fiercely to take back the city since last summer, and now appears to be pouring more manpower into the region to finish the job.
“They have been trying to take the city since July,” Iryna Rybakova, press officer for Ukraine’s 93rd Brigade, told BBC. “Little by little they are winning now. They have more resources, so if they play the long game they will win. I can’t say how long it will take.”
Moscow has established control of both main roads into the city, with only one back route left open, making it increasingly difficult to get supplies to Ukraine troops.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office also admitted that the turf war had become “difficult,” while Donetsk Gov. Pavlo Kyrylenko said, “We’re seeing a very tough battle in which the Russians aren’t sparing neither themselves nor us.”
As Chris Menahan notes, the statements contradict legacy media narratives that Russia is running out of weapons and supplies, which has been the dominant mantra since just after the start of the conflict.
“Nonetheless, the US and NATO keep stringing Ukraine along with this BS to encourage them to fight their proxy war with Russia,” writes Menahan.
“The most likely outcome of this war is that Russia will take the Donbas and Ukraine will agree not to join NATO and recognize Crimea as Russian, which is an outcome that could have been achieved 10 months ago (with a tiny fraction of the deaths and the EU/global economy intact) if the US and NATO didn’t bribe the Zelensky regime with over $100 billion to keep the war going in perpetuity.”
For months now, numerous mainstream media outlets have been pushing the narrative that Russia is being routed in many areas of Ukraine and that the war could have entered its final phase.
Much of this appears to be little more than pro-NATO propaganda to boost morale, which paradoxically in the longer term could actually harm morale if Ukrainian forces aren’t prepared to dig in for a prolonged war.
How We Can Stop the Coming War With Russia
By Ron Paul | February 13, 2023
Twenty years ago this spring the US government was finally successful in lying us into war with Iraq. Administration after administration had sanctioned and bombed and even invaded the country, but finally 20 years ago next month the Bush Administration unleashed “shock and awe” to flatten a country that did not and could not threaten the United States.
After eight years of battle in Iraq perhaps as many as a million innocent people died, either directly or indirectly, from Washington’s aggression. No one was brought before a tribunal over the lies and destruction. No one even apologized. Washington’s puppet of the day, Ahmed Chalabi, brushed off the lies about Iraq’s WMDs by proclaiming that the war promoters were “heroes in error.” They got their regime change and that’s all they cared about.
The propaganda machine pushing the Iraq war seemed overwhelming at the time. At that time several fellow Members of Congress began to open communication across party lines to look for way to stop the war. From conservatives like the late Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. John Duncan, to progressives like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Jim McGovern, and so many more, we began to organize and strategize.
One tool we used to our advantage was the idea of an “improbable” coalition of left and right uniting to oppose the war. The media may not have been interested in our antiwar views, but they could not help themselves when presented with this “man bites dog” story. Time and again this “unlikely” group held press conferences, introduced various legislative tools, and communicated behind the scenes to try and grow the movement against the Iraq war.
Unfortunately with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, who ran as an antiwar candidate but then launched numerous military attacks abroad, that old coalition fell apart. Some progressives excused Obama’s militarism and lost interest in cooperating with conservatives. Some conservatives were driven by their personal dislike of Obama and lost sight of the target.
Suddenly, as we face the once-unimaginable prospect of a direct military conflict with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine, a beyond Left-Right coalition is emerging from its long slumber. This Sunday, February 19th, a broad and very diverse group will assemble in Washington, DC at the Lincoln Memorial to denounce Washington’s sleepwalking into World War III.
The “Rage Against The War Machine” rally promises to be the first large-scale rally against Washington’s aggressive war lobby in many years. I am looking forward to sharing the stage with my good friends and former House colleagues Dennis Kucinich and Tulsi Gabbard, as well as my good friend and fellow libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, and so many more speakers from a broad political spectrum.
Many of us have watched with alarm as the Biden Administration – with the enthusiastic backing of many Congressional Republicans – has continuously escalated involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict and now sits dangerously close to a direct, hot war with the largest nuclear superpower on earth.
How did we get here? Where are the sane voices and cooler heads? Just when it seemed they were nowhere to be found, here we are! I hope as many people as possible will join us and continue to come together for this important cause. We must join together while we still can. No war with Russia!
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
Ukrainian pilot: Performance of Western fighters inferior to Russian jets
By Drago Bosnic | February 10, 2023
In recent weeks, the Kiev regime intensified its efforts to acquire Western fighter jets to replace its rapidly dwindling inventory of Soviet-era aircraft. In the immediate aftermath of the Soviet dismantlement, Ukraine was left with one of the world’s largest and most advanced fighter fleets, including the then nearly brand-new Su-27 “Flanker”, one of the best air superiority aircraft ever designed. And while the ensuing post-Soviet economic collapse essentially halted any modernization efforts, Ukraine remained one of the leading European countries in heavyweight fighter jet deployment.
However, efforts to sustain (much less modernize) the country’s fleet came to nothing after the political West conducted the infamous 2014 Maidan coup and brought the Neo-Nazi junta to power. The new illegal foreign-backed authorities had trouble even with the basic maintenance, further exacerbating the Ukrainian Air Force’s troubles. Decades of deteriorating conditions for pilots and aircraft were now made even worse, as the much-needed defense ties with Russia were cut, denying the UAF access to enough spare parts and other assets necessary to keep its fleet airworthy. Hundreds of airframes were placed in long-term storage, as the country was struggling with providing funds and resources to sustain the massive Soviet legacy it was left with.
Over the next 8 years, the coup authorities conducted a thorough purge, crushing any opposition to the transformation of the country’s military into an armed wing of the Neo-Nazi regime. Only after this process was completed, the political West decided to fund sustainment and modernization efforts. However, despite years and billions of dollars invested in this endeavor, the Kiev regime forces were completely outclassed by the VKS (Russian Aerospace Forces), with Moscow fielding incomparably more capable fighter jets, including the Su-35S, a deeply modernized design based on the Su-27 still used in Ukraine, in addition to other platforms such as the superfast, high-flying MiG-31 and the brand-new Su-57.
Within only a week since the beginning of the special military operation, the vast majority of the Kiev regime’s air assets have either been destroyed or forced into hiding as the Russian military established air dominance and targeted most airbases under the junta’s control. There were still pilots trying to face the VKS, but their efforts were mostly in vain, as they would often get shot down from hundreds of kilometers away, either by Russian fighter jets or the Eurasian giant’s second-to-none long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. Moscow has both qualitative and quantitative advantages, as many of its pilots accumulated precious combat experience, including a record holder with over 800 combat sorties, a truly astounding achievement.
With the remnants of the former Ukrainian Air Force virtually wiped out, the Kiev regime is desperate to rebuild it with Western-made aircraft. However, the Neo-Nazi junta is faced with severe difficulties to achieve this goal. Logistics, training, finances and, most of all, time are the main issues preventing this. As the Russian Aerospace Forces dominate the skies, Kiev regime pilots are faced with almost certain death if they were to go up against the Eurasian giant. The Neo-Nazi junta’s intention to acquire Western fighter jets, particularly the F-16, certainly doesn’t make the Ukrainian pilots feel any safer. On the contrary, many are worried that the lightweight US-made aircraft is completely outclassed by Russian heavyweight fighter jets, such as the aforementioned Su-35, MiG-31 and Su-57.
A video taken during the summer of 2022 shows the Kiev regime pilot Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Fischer, who claimed that the F-16’s performance is significantly inferior to that of the Su-27. He based the assessment on his personal experience in flying both aircraft. “… I flew the F-16 the first day and loved it. However, in terms of performance, the Su-27 is significantly superior,” Fischer admitted. He then added that the Russian-designed jet has better flight performance in every category, including speed and maneuverability, giving it an incomparable advantage in dogfights and WVR (within visual range) engagements. The pilot concluded his remarks with an assertion that the Su-27 is “the king of dogfighting”.
It should be noted that the Su-27 jets in service with the Kiev regime forces are decades behind the newer generation derivatives used by the VKS, which operates significantly more advanced versions of the jet, such as the Su-30 and Su-35, with the latter essentially being a so-called “fifth-generation” aircraft in every aspect bar stealth. If the Ukrainian pilots themselves consider the basic Su-27 superior to F-16, then the US-made fighter stands no chance against the much more modern “Flanker” iterations used by Russia. The Su-27 jets in service with the Kiev regime were decimated by the VKS and Lieutenant Colonel Fischer himself seems to have met his untimely end flying precisely this aircraft.
Various sources, both Russian and Ukrainian, claim that the pilot was killed on June 5, 2022. Apparently, Fischer was piloting his Su-27P1M when he was shot down over the town of Orekhov in the Zaporozhye oblast (region). There is conflicting information on how exactly he was downed, with some sources claiming that his “Flanker” was struck by a Russian air-to-air missile, while others insist that the Kiev regime’s air defenses shot him down in a friendly-fire incident. Either way, Fischer’s fate, as well as his assertion that the F-16 is inferior to the Su-27 already fielded by the Kiev regime forces serve as a stark warning to other Ukrainian pilots that no Western-made jet will give them greater chances of survival, let alone an actual advantage over their Russian rivals.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The Final Report of the International Health Regulations Review Committee
The International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) published their final report and they have validated nearly everything that I have been saying for the last month and a half. Go figure.
By James Roguski | February 7, 2023
Final Report of the International Health Regulations Review Committee regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_5-en.pdf
I must admit. I am pleasantly SURPRISED.
Is it possible that my prayers have been answered?
Below are the TOP 10 things that I have been speaking up against followed by excerpts from the IHRRC Report.
For the most part, it seems like the IHRRC agrees with me.
Go figure.
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
Article 1- Definitions
In relation to the two proposed amendments to remove the word “non-binding” from the definitions of “temporary” and “standing recommendations”, the Committee notes that on a plain reading the proposed change would not affect the current understanding of the definition of standing or temporary recommendations as merely advice that is not mandatory. However, given that substantial proposals were made in relation to WHO recommendations in other related articles, the proposed amendments to these definitions could be understood as aiming to change the nature of these recommendations from non-binding to binding, and giving a binding effect to WHO recommendations and requests as proposed in other articles. That change would require a fundamental reconsideration of the nature of recommendations and the process for their adoption and implementation. The Committee further notes that during a public health emergency of international concern the recommendations may work better if they are not mandatory and advises against changing the nature of recommendations.
-Page 26
Article 42 – Implementation of health measures
The proposed amendments expand the scope of Article 42 in three ways: by making specific reference to recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16 (temporary and standing recommendations);
The proposed amendment to include a reference to temporary and standing recommendations seems to make application of these recommendations obligatory.
-Page 67
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
Article 2 – Purpose and scope
The Committee considers that the proposed amendment to replace “public health risk” with “all risks with a potential to impact public health” may not increase the clarity of this Article. Public health risks are already defined in Article 1.
-Page 27
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
Article 3 – Principles
The Committee strongly recommends the retention of the existing text “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” as an overarching principle in the first paragraph, and notes that the concepts of human rights, dignity and fundamental freedoms are clearly defined within the framework of treaties to which many of the States Parties to the Regulations have adhered. The inclusion of human rights in Article 3 of the current International Health Regulations (2005) was a major improvement on the previous 1969 Regulations.1 The reference to “respect for dignity, human rights and freedoms of persons” works not only as an overarching principle in Article 3, but also as a concrete reference point in the operationalization of all articles concerning public health response, response measures, additional health measures and recommendations.
-Page 28
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
NEW Article 13A – Access to health products, technologies and know-how for public health response
This proposed new Article addresses a range of considerations pertaining to the availability and affordability of health products, technologies and know-how. It goes further than the other proposed new Article 13A WHO-led international public health response in that it imposes obligations on States Parties as well as on WHO and it introduces a more robust final paragraph concerning the role and regulation of non-State actors.
WHO recommendations, as currently stated under Articles 15 and 16, were not envisioned for the purposes of establishing a medicines allocation mechanism or otherwise directing States Parties on increasing access to health products.
-Page 52
NEW Article 13A – Access to health products, technologies and know-how for public health response
However, the requirement in paragraph 1 for the Director-General to make an “immediate assessment of availability and affordability of required health products” may not be feasible due to the magnitude of such a list implied by the proposed amendment and the very high workload imposed on WHO during the initial stages of determining a PHEIC .
The Committee has concerns regarding the proposal in paragraph 1 to use Article 15 (temporary recommendations) for the purposes of establishing an “allocation mechanism.” Temporary recommendations, as defined under Article 1, are “non-binding advice and do not authorize WHO to direct States.
A different mode of authority may be required to establish an allocation mechanism.
It is unclear to the Committee what it means to comply with non-binding recommendations as per Articles 15 or 16.
-Page 53
NEW Article 13A – WHO-led international public health response
The Article goes further, however, in attributing to WHO several obligations that it does not currently have under the International Health Regulations (2005), including: to conduct an assessment of availability and affordability of “health products”; to develop an allocation and prioritization plan in the event that such an assessment reveals shortages in supply; and to direct States Parties to increase and diversify production and distributive functions for health products within individual States.
The Article further mandates WHO to establish a database “containing details of the ingredients, design, know-how, and manufacturing process or any other information required to facilitate manufacturing of health products” required to respond to potential PHEICs, and to maintain the database for all past PHEICs, as well as diseases identified in the International Health Regulations (1969).
This proposal also renders mandatory the temporary and standing recommendations addressed under Articles 15 and 16. The State Party making this proposal has also provided corresponding proposals to change the definitions of temporary and standing recommendations under Article 1 to render them coherent with new proposals in paragraph 1 of this proposal for a new Article 13A.
More fundamentally, it remains unclear how WHO could discharge the unprecedented set of new responsibilities attributed to it relating to health products and know-how under this proposed amendment, as these may arguably exceed its constitutional mandate. In order to be legally feasible, this amendment will require coherence with States Parties’ relevant national laws and other international obligations.
-Pages 54-55
NEW Article 13A – WHO-led international public health response
Finally, it is unclear whether reference to “WHO’s recommendations” in this paragraph refers to WHO’s authority to issue non-binding recommendations under Articles 15 and 16, or whether other forms of recommendations are envisioned. If indeed recommendations under Articles 15 and 16 are the targets of this addition in paragraph 1, the addition would be incoherent with the existing Regulations, as it would render these recommendations mandatory, whereas they were intended to be non-binding.
The Committee notes that the same State Party that proposed this new Article, has also put forward amendments to the definitions of temporary and standing recommendations, which propose removing the reference to “non-binding” in these definitions. If read in conjunction with this newly proposed Article, the proposed amendments to remove “non-binding” could be seen as a desire to make the temporary and standing recommendations binding, and therefore legally coherent with Article 13A, paragraph 1.
Similar to this proposal, paragraph 1 in the other proposal for a new Article 13A also makes explicit reference to Articles 15 and 16, and paragraph 2 creates a mandatory obligation on States to cooperate according to Articles 15 and 16.
Irrespective of legal coherence, changing temporary and standing recommendations into binding obligations may raise questions of feasibility. At this moment it is still unclear how to assess “compliance” with temporary recommendations issued during PHEICs, since they are defined as non- binding advice.
-Page 56
The IHRRC did not specifically address the types of “recommendations” that are listed in Article 18 (see below), they did raise concerns regarding articles 1, 13A and 42 that directly relate to the concept of changing non-binding “recommendations” to obligations.
Article 18 Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels
1. Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:
– no specific health measures are advised;
– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
– require medical examinations;
– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
Article 18 – Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels
The first part of the proposal about passenger information is not clear. If the proposed mechanism only concerns affected persons as per Article 1, then the mechanisms described in Articles 30, 37 and 38 and Annexes 8 and 9 can be used. If it is to cover all passengers, this would be a challenge to feasibility.
-Page 60
Article 23 – Health measures on arrival and departure
Regarding the proposal to introduce the possibility for health documents to include information related to laboratory tests, the Committee notes that this was a practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, within the context of the PHEIC and the related temporary recommendations. However, given that Article 23 applies to all situations, not only PHEICs, the Committee is concerned that such a requirement may overburden travellers, and may even raise ethical and discrimination-related concerns.
Lastly, the Committee recommends examining these proposed amendments in conjunction with Articles 31, 32, 35 and 36 and Annexes 6 and 7, as well as with the related proposed amendments thereto. Should any of these amendments be retained, definitions should be provided in Article 1 for the terms “information”, “digital” and “report”.
-Page 62
Article 27 – Affected Conveyances
The Committee considers the proposed amendment to be redundant.
The Committee notes that States Parties’ ability to regulate is subject to the international law of jurisdiction. Depending on the location of conveyance, State Parties may or may not have the legal power to fulfill their newly proposed obligation.
-Page 63
Article 35 – General rule
This Article states that, as a general rule, no health documents, other than those provided for under the Regulations or in recommendations issued by WHO, shall be required in international traffic.
-Page 65
Introducing an obligation for States Parties to recognize the health documents of other States Parties may pose many practical difficulties, especially considering that domestic legislation concerning privacy and personal information protection differs from one State Party to the next. Another concern, depending on how the amendments are implemented, is the appropriate level of protection of personal data under the applicable regional and international instruments.
As a general observation, the Committee recommends that the multiple proposals for amendments related to the digitalization of health information should be addressed in one single article and be harmonized with the provisions of Annexes 6 and 7.
-Page 66
Article 36 – Certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis
It is unclear how the specifications and requirements for such “other types of proofs and certificates” would be formulated and by whom, since the proposal only mentions a possibility for the Health Assembly to design and approve such certificates. It is also unclear whether “substitutes for” and “complementary to” are to be used interchangeably. This matters because the meaning is different. The proposal that such certificates may include test certificates and recovery certificates should be read in conjunction with the proposed amendments to Article 23, paragraph 1(a), introducing laboratory tests and/or information on vaccination as part of the information that may be required of travellers.
-Page 67
Annex 6
The comments made under Article 35 apply in general to Annex 6, for example, with regard to the feasibility of digital certificates in many countries, as well as not precluding future technological developments. Similar considerations apply to the feasibility of having the Health Assembly decide on the related technical requirements, since situations may change periodically at short notice.
-Page 87
Annex 8
It is unclear to the Committee how this additional question on the maritime declaration will facilitate application of the Regulations.
The issue of the digital format of vaccination cards is being addressed in other proposed amendments to Articles 31, 35 and 36 (see related comments).
-Page 88
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
Article 43 – Additional health measures
The proposals in paragraphs 4 and 6 establish a quasi-judicial process with tight deadlines and binding effects for recommendations, with the Emergency Committee having the final authority to decide on the appropriateness of health measures. This Committee is concerned that these proposals may unduly impinge on the sovereignty of States Parties and give binding effects to what are supposed to be recommendations.
-Page 68
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
New Article 44A – Financial mechanism for equity in health emergency preparedness and response
The Committee notes a divergence of views as to whether WHO has a financing function.
The Committee notes that, under Article 44, WHO already has a role, in collaboration with States Parties, to mobilize financial resources, and cautions against creating an explicit financing function for WHO under the Regulations.
-Page 71
The IHRRC did not specifically address the proposed amendment regarding increased censorship powers for the WHO in Annex 1, but they did state the following:
A balance is needed between ensuring more accurate scientific information on one hand and freedom of speech and the press on the other. How to strike that balance while navigating global policy and national regulatory landscapes will be an ongoing challenge.
-Page 21
In their final report, the IHRRC stated:
NEW Annex 10
The obligations set out in paragraph 1 of this proposed new Annex appear to be absolute and unconditional.
If requested to provide assistance, it is unclear what steps WHO or States Parties should take.
In summary, the Committee supports the idea of full cooperation and collaboration between WHO and States Parties, but the proposed new Annex 10 would be difficult to implement.
However, the proposed new Annex 10 goes well beyond that supporting function, containing provisions that exceed the scope of both the current Article 44 and the amendments proposed thereto.
-Page 89
OFFICIAL WHO DOCUMENTS:
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-2.html
1. Provisional Agenda
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_1-en.pdf
2. Draft Program of Work
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_2-en.pdf
3. Proposed Modalities of Engagement For Relevant Stakeholders
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_3-en.pdf
4. Provisional WGIHR timeline 2022–2024
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_4-en.pdf
5. Report of the Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_5-en.pdf
6. Proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_6-en.pdf
7. Article-by-Article compilation of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf
Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR)
Ex-Pentagon Analyst Doubts China Would Risk Sending Surveillance Balloon Over US
Sputnik – 04.02.2023
WASHINGTON – A former US defense official told Sputnik it is hard to imagine why China would risk sending an uncontrollable balloon with high-end surveillance equipment over the United States.
The Pentagon on Friday said it detected another Chinese surveillance balloon – this one transiting Latin America, which comes a day after the US identified the first one over Montana.
Beijing said the balloon over the US is a civilian airship intended for scientific research, however, Secretary of State Antony Blinken scrapped a high profile visit to China over the incident.
“It is hard to imagine why the Chinese would risk sending military-grade surveillance equipment in a vulnerable, uncontrollable balloon that cannot even be directed to a specific target,” former Pentagon analyst Chuck Spinney said. “These high altitude balloons basically go with the wind-flows.”
US constitutional historian and political commentator Dan Lazare said the US response has been a gross overreaction. Canceling an important diplomatic trip over something as trivial as this is absurd, he added.
China’s foreign ministry on Friday said the airship deviated far from its planned course and regrets the unintended entry into US airspace due to force majeure.
Croatia’s President Doesn’t Want Be West’s ‘Circus Poodle’ in Ukraine Crisis
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 31.01.2023
The Croatian head of state took flak from Zagreb’s NATO and EU allies last year after threatening to block Finland and Sweden’s NATO applications for membership, but was overruled by parliament, which ratified the accession protocols in July.
Croatian President Zoran Milanovic sparked a fresh rift with Brussels and Kiev after assuring that Crimea will inevitably remain part of Russia, and blasting the West’s “manic” desire to try to collapse Russia or institute regime change in the country.
“Between 2014 and 2022, we watched as someone provoked Russia with the intention of starting this conflict,” Milanovic told reporters Monday while discussing last week’s decision to send German tanks to Ukraine, referring to the 2014 US-backed Euromaidan coup in Kiev.
“What we are doing as the collective West is deeply immoral. German tanks will only unite Russia and China even more. My job as president is to get away from this, and not be a circus poodle. Any involvement in this [crisis] is extremely dangerous,” he said.
Warning that the tank deliveries would only prolong a pointless conflict, Milanovic said he is “against sending any lethal arms there” because as a nuclear power Russia cannot not be defeated.
“Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads. What is the goal [of the Ukraine conflict – ed.note]? The disintegration of Russia? A change of power? They are talking about ripping Russia apart. It’s manic. The Serbs and I hated each other less. It was a much more terrible war in our country than in Ukraine,” the Croatian president said, recalling the Western-instigated Slav-on-Slav bloodshed of the 1990s in Yugoslavia.
Stressing that “leading German generals are saying” that Crimea will “never be Ukraine again,” Milanovic urged the West to get off its high horse in talking about Russia “annexing” the Black Sea peninsula, and pointed out that Kosovo was “annexed” and “stolen” from Serbia by the West.
“Who annexed Kosovo? The international community, including us,” he said. “It was taken from Serbia by force, it was extraction, a part of Serbian territory was taken away.”
‘It’s Armageddon’
Milanovic expressed fears that “deranged emotions and hatred are leading Europe to great danger” amid the prospects of a full-on war with Russia. “The question is not how much we help Ukraine. This is not help, this is torture. They should have been forced to sit down at the negotiating table. 300,000 Ukrainians should die [to end the conflict?, ed.note]. It hurts my heart, as I’m watching this – it’s Armageddon.”
Milanovic’s remarks sparked outrage from Kosovo and Albania, while a Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman called them “unacceptable” for “calling into question the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The spokesman also expressed appreciation for the “steadfast support” Croatia has provided, notwithstanding the president’s sentiments.
Milanovic rivals his Serbian neighbors when it comes to outspoken criticism of NATO and EU policy amid the Ukraine conflict – with the difference being that Croatia is actually part of both Western-dominated institutions. The politician has spoken out repeatedly against Zagreb getting involved, and expressed doubts about the effectiveness of Western sanctions on Moscow, recently calling them “total nonsense.”
Milanovic’s rhetoric has not been matched by actual Croatian government policy, with the government of Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic towing the NATO and EU line and taking one of the toughest anti-Russian stances in the Western Balkans. The Croatian presidency is largely a ceremonial role, although nominally it is supposed to provide for cooperation on conducting foreign policy.
MbS urged Baghdad to set up Iran-Saudi meeting: Iraqi FM
The Cradle | January 31, 2023
As part of a diplomatic process aimed at mending strained relations between the two neighbors, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) reportedly pressured senior Iraqi officials to set up a face-to-face meeting between the top diplomats of Riyadh and Tehran. This was revealed by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Fuad Hussein, on 30 January.
In an interview with Rudaw TV on 29 January, the Iraqi Foreign Minister said that “Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran, will meet in Baghdad, at the request of Mohammed bin Salman. The event is still planned, and the time and date will be announced later.”
He also said that the Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers would meet in public and that Iraq would act as a middleman to ensure that the details of the private conversations were made public.
The Saudi diplomat stated earlier this month that his nation has spoken with Iran and is looking for a way to open a dialogue between the two.
In an effort to improve their bilateral relations, the two sides began negotiations in the spring of 2021 and held five rounds of talks in the Iraqi capital. However, Tehran suspended the negotiations after Riyadh executed 81 people under the pretext of being involved in “terrorism,” the majority of which were minority Shia Muslims.
Relations have recently become tenser due to Saudi Arabia’s alleged sponsorship of the protests in Iran in late 2022.
Iran’s Intelligence Minister, Esmail Khatib, was quoted by Iranian media as saying it is running out of patience and will no longer tolerate intervention, hostility, and incitement in a direct message to Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, in November, Iran sent an official warning message to the kingdom through diplomatic channels, confirming that it is fully aware of “the Saudi connection to Iran International.” Riyadh categorically denied this, saying it has “nothing to do with the outlet.”
HHS Office of Inspector General Maneuvers to Throw Fauci Under Bus Without Hurting Him
Audit finds lax oversight of EcoHealth grants for “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs)”
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | January 27, 2023
Three years after SARS CoV-2 broke out, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) just issued a dry-as-dust report on its audit of the NIH grants to EcoHealth Alliance “totaling approximately $8.0 million, which included $1.8 million of EcoHealth’s subawards to eight subrecipients, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).”
The auditors concluded that:
Using its discretion, NIH did not refer the research to HHS for an outside review for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) because it determined the research did not involve and was not reasonably anticipated to create, use, or transfer an ePPP. However, NIH added a special term and condition in EcoHealth’s awards and provided limited guidance on how EcoHealth should comply with that requirement. We found that NIH was only able to conclude that research resulted in virus growth that met specified benchmarks based on a late progress report from EcoHealth that NIH failed to follow up on until nearly 2 years after its due date.
In plain English, the NIH financed a company conducting dangerous and illegal research that likely resulted in or contributed to a viral pandemic that inflicted incalculable damage on the entire human race. Note the Orwellian sleight of hand trick of using the term “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens ePPP” instead of the “Gain-of-Function,” which the public now understands to be illegal.
And what does the OIG recommend be done about this? Its recommendations are written in such toothless and boring prose that the average reader will likely fall asleep before reaching the end of the paragraph.
We recommend that NIH ensure that EcoHealth accurately and in a timely manner report award and subaward information; ensure that administrative actions are appropriately performed; implement enhanced monitoring, documentation, and reporting requirements for recipients with foreign subrecipients; assess whether NIAID staff are following policy to err on the side of inclusion when determining whether to refer research that may involve ePPP for further review; consider whether it is appropriate to refer WIV to HHS for debarment; ensure any future NIH grant awards to EcoHealth address the deficiencies noted in the report; and resolve costs identified as unallowable as well as possibly unreimbursed costs.
The OIG report suggests that the HHS is now maneuvering to throw retired NIAID director Anthony Fauci under the bus for these “regrettable indiscretions,” while giving the appearance of taking corrective action. Fauci will enjoy his retirement, only occasionally interrupted by theatrical Congressional hearings that will result in zero disciplinary action. EcoHealth Alliance will continue receiving generous grants like the $3 million it was just awarded, and its officers will continue pocketing much of the money for themselves. Business as usual in the Land of the Racketeers will continue.
Australia Sees Heart Attacks Increase By 17% In 2022 – “Experts” Blame Pandemic
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 25, 2023
The public has been bombarded with a stream of news stories in recent months seeking to explain the steady rise of heart attacks in western countries in the past two years. The epidemic is most concerning due to the large number of young and otherwise healthy people that are being stricken with heart problems otherwise reserved for older or clinically obese patients.
Explanations for the trend blame everything from video games to climate change. Of course, these scapegoats do not explain the statistical leap in heart failure in the past two years. The most common narrative is that the covid virus is the cause – The problem with this theory is that there is zero evidence to support the claim that covid causes potential heart ailments. In fact, studies show that there is no such thing as “covid heart”, a false concept spread by the mainstream media at the onset of the pandemic.
Are the “experts” baffled? Or, are they trying to avoid the obvious culprit.
Australia is reporting a 17% increase in heart attacks in the first eight months of 2022 alone, and establishment paid researchers seem to be deliberately avoiding any mention of the covid mRNA vaccines. Instead, they are continuing to blame covid infection along with numerous peripheral and indirect triggers associated with the lockdowns.
Multiple studies now show a direct relationship between vaccine status and Myocarditis, specifically in young people, and the attempts to suppress such information by Big Pharma and governments are failing. If side effects are related to developing auto-immune disorders triggered by mRNA as some researchers suspect, then symptoms in many vaccinated people may not become visible for months or years. But, as time passes, the extent of the damage will become clear to the public.
Pro-vaccine studies related to the dangers often do not include unvaccinated people as a control group for determining side effects, which suggests a desire to hide health risks associated with covid vaccination. Eventually the questions and the deaths are going to become too prominent for the mainstream to ignore. Are torches and pitchforks the inevitable end for vaccine enforcers and Big Pharma?
‘Science Fiction Medicine’: Moderna Developing mRNA Injection to Treat Heart Failure
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 17, 2023
Moderna raked in significant earnings in 2022, based on $18.4 billion in sales of its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine — the company’s one and only product on the market.
But in a Jan. 9 update on the company’s “industry-leading mRNA pipeline,” Moderna told investors it is developing multiple new mRNA products — including a treatment designed to be injected directly into the hearts of patients who have sustained heart attacks or heart failure.
Moderna said it launched a phase 1B clinical trial of its mRNA-0184 injection, which it said: “encodes for relaxin, a naturally occurring hormone that is known to cause hemodynamic changes that are potentially beneficial for heart failure patients.”
The company stated:
“The mRNA sequence of mRNA-0184 is engineered to instruct the body to produce relaxin with an extended half-life, with the goal of producing a sustained clinical benefit in heart failure patients — this longer half-life may result in more durable effects compared to previous approaches.”
According to the Daily Mail, mRNA-0184 “uses the same technology as the company’s flagship COVID jab and is designed for people weeks or months after a heart attack to help them recover,” by “instructing human heart cells to generate a hormone that is known to improve blood flow, helping restore damaged heart muscles.”
Patients in the trial “have stable heart failure and the trial will determine how safe the shot is and how well patients can tolerate it, as well as perfecting the dosage amount and frequency.”
In a Nov. 4, 2021, presentation introducing the novel mRNA-0184 therapy, Moderna claimed its “relaxin program … is being developed to treat decompensated heart failure.”
Relaxin is “a naturally occurring hormone that is known to cause” changes to blood flow that are “potentially beneficial for heart failure patients,” according to the company.
A federal disclosure filed by Moderna on Dec. 21, 2022, regarding its phase 1B clinical study indicates that 98 participants are expected to be enrolled and that the study is expected to be completed by May 7, 2024.
The clinical trials are taking place at six locations in Poland and the U.K.
In an October 2022 interview with Sky News Australia, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said:
“We are now in a super exciting program where we inject mRNA in people’s hearts after a heart attack to grow back new blood vessels and re-vascularize the heart.
“It’s a bit like science fiction medicine but that’s what is really exciting to me.”
Prior to jumping into the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna had a long history of failure, as persistent safety concerns and other doubts about its mRNA delivery system threatened its entire product pipeline, according to investigative journalist Whitney Webb.
‘No safety track record’ for this type of genetic therapy, expert says
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, an outspoken critic of COVID-19 vaccines, was less enthusiastic than Bancel about Moderna’s mRNA injection targeting heart disease.
McCullough told The Defender :
“There is no safety track record for genetic therapies that introduce functional code for production of a protein for an uncontrolled quantity and uncontrolled duration of time. There are no assurances on long-term safety of mRNA technology.”
Previous similar efforts have failed, McCullough said, casting doubt on the possibility of success for the mRNA-0184 injection.
“In a large trials program, Novartis failed to show benefit with a similar hormone, serelaxin, thus the Moderna product looks unattractive as a heart failure therapeutic,” he said.
The Gateway Pundit, reporting on Moderna’s announcement, remarked, “In short, Moderna will fix the problem it created,” in a thinly veiled reference to the increased prevalence of heart disease and heart failure among individuals who received COVID-19 vaccines.
Moderna announces several more mRNA vaccines and therapeutics that are in its pipeline
Moderna stated that it has 48 programs in development, including 36 in ongoing clinical studies.
“Moderna continues to scale, now with 48 programs in development, including 36 programs in clinical trials encompassing mRNA infectious disease vaccines and mRNA therapeutics spanning seven different modalities,” the statement read.
Bancel said:
“We enter 2023 in a great position, with significant momentum across our clinical pipeline, a highly energized team and a strong balance sheet of over $18 billion of cash and cash equivalents.
“With our infectious disease franchise continuing to accelerate with exciting near-term catalysts for RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] Phase 3 data and Flu Phase 3 data, and recent breakthroughs in the development of individualized cancer treatments, as well as our rapid advancement in rare diseases and promising cardiology programs, the Moderna platform is delivering across several modalities.
“Our progress is meeting the high expectations we set out a few years ago, and with encouraging clinical data across the entire Moderna platform, we are accelerating our investments to deliver the greatest possible impact to people through mRNA medicines … 2023 is going to be a very exciting year for Moderna, and most importantly, for patients.”
These “exciting” developments, according to the company, include candidate vaccines and therapeutics for flu, RSV, cytomegalovirus and cystic fibrosis, as well as a “personalized cancer vaccine.”
As previously reported by The Defender, several Big Pharma companies, including Moderna, are vying to develop an RSV vaccine, despite repeated failed attempts to develop a vaccine for this illness in the past. These efforts have been ramped up just as many regions in the U.S. and worldwide are reporting outbreaks of RSV.
Moderna’s RSV candidate vaccine, which utilizes mRNA technology and is known under the identifier mRNA-1345, is currently in a phase 3 clinical study, according to the company’s announcement.
Moderna is also conducting two studies, with participants in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, of its candidate mRNA-1010 seasonal influenza vaccine, which also utilizes mRNA technology.
In conjunction with Merck, Moderna announced its mRNA-4157/V940 candidate vaccine — specifically, a “personalized” cancer vaccine that has been trialed on melanoma patients and which, according to Moderna, is the first treatment to have demonstrated “efficacy for an investigational mRNA cancer treatment in a randomized clinical trial.”
In addition to injectables, Moderna also announced the ongoing development of an inhalable mRNA therapy, VX-522, “mRNA targeted at treating the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis” that is “delivered to the lung.”
The company said it expects continued sales of its COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in 2023, stating “expected minimum COVID-19 vaccines sales of approximately $5.0 billion” and “potential additional contracts in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other key markets.”
Moderna’s announcement also referenced several recent acquisitions and new partnerships the company has entered into.
This includes the acquisition of OriCiro Genomics, “a Japanese company with a novel development approach for cell-free synthesis and amplification of plasmid DNA, a key building block of mRNA manufacturing.”
A “strategic research collaboration” with CytomX Therapeutics was also announced, “for [the] development of mRNA-based conditionally activated therapeutics for oncology and non-oncology conditions.”
Moderna’s ongoing partnership with Metagenomi, “to accelerate the development of in vivo gene editing therapeutics,” was also highlighted in its announcement. Metagenomi is funded by Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, producer of the widely used weedkiller Roundup, in 2018.
As previously reported by The Defender, thousands of lawsuits are currently pending in the U.S., claiming that Roundup causes cancer.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
Ukraine war’s first anniversary and beyond
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JANUARY 24, 2023
The first anniversary of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine falls on February 24. The Russian strategy of attrition war has not yet produced the desired political outcome but has been a success nonetheless.
The delusional “westernist” notions of the Moscow elite that Russia can be a dialogue partner of the West have dissipated thoroughly, with ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s stunning disclosure recently that the West’s negotiations with Russia regarding the Minsk Agreement were an “attempt to give Ukraine time” and that Kiev had used it “to become stronger.”
Moscow reacted with bitterness and a sense of humiliation that the Russian ruling elite were taken for a ride. This awareness impacts the Ukraine conflict as it enters the second year. Thus, the annexation of the four regions of Ukraine — Donetsk and Lugansk [Donbass], Zaporozhye, Kherson oblasts — and Crimea, accounting for around one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, is a fait accompli now, and Kiev’s recognition of it is a pre-requisite for any future peace talks.
Moscow’s initial optimism in February-March that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” (Sun Tzu) has also given way to the realism that the Biden Administration will not allow the war to end anytime soon until Russia is bled white and weakened. This led to the Russian withdrawal from Kharkhov and Kherson regions with a view to create a well-fortified defence line and dig in.
Putin finally accepted the army commanders’ demand for a partial mobilisation. The ensuing big deployment in Ukraine, alongside the build-up in Belarus, has put Russia for the first time in a commanding position militarily as the war enters the second year.
The Kremlin has put necessary mechanisms in place to galvanise the defence industry and the economy to meet the needs of the military operations in Ukraine. From a long-term perspective, one historic outcome of the conflict is going to be Russia’s emergence as an unassailable military power that draws comparison with the Soviet Red Army, which the West will never again dare to confront. This is yet to sink in.
Today, the Chief of the General Staff General Valery Gerasimov stated in an extraordinary interview with the journal Argumenti i Fakti that the newly approved Armed Forces development plan will guarantee the protection of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and “create conditions for progress in the country’s social and economic development.
Under the plan approved by Putin, the Moscow and the Leningrad military districts will be created, three motorised rifle divisions will be formed in the Kherson and the Zaporozhye oblasts (that have been annexed in September) and an army corps will be built in the northwestern region of Karelia bordering Finland.
The internal western assessment is that the war is going badly for Ukraine. Spiegel reported last week that Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) “informed security politicians of the Bundestag in a secret meeting this week that the Ukrainian army is currently losing a three-digit number of soldiers every day in battles.”
The BND told the German MPs that it is particularly “alarmed by the high losses of the Ukrainian army in the battle for the strategically important city of Bakhmut” (in Donetsk) and warned that “the Russians’ capture of Bakhmut would have significant consequences, as it would allow Russia to make further forays into the interior of the country.”
Again, a Reuters report quoted a senior Biden Administration official who was speaking to a small group of reporters in Washington on Friday that there is “a high possibility” that the Russians will push the Ukrainians out of Bakhmut, which western military experts have called the “lynchpin” of the entire Ukrainian defence line in Donbass.
On the other hand, the Biden Administration is hoping to buy time till spring to revamp the pulverised Ukrainian military and equip it with advanced weaponry. The old stocks of Soviet-era weaponry have been exhausted and future supplies to Ukraine will have to be from hardware in service with NATO countries. That is easier said than done, and the western defence industry will need time to restart production.
All the bravado that Kiev is preparing for an offensive to drive the Russians out of Ukraine has vanished. The signs are that a Russian offensive may have begun on the southern front, which is steadily advancing toward Zaporozhye city, a major industrial hub in Ukraine.
This offensive would have profound implications. Capture of the remaining 25% of the territory in Zaporozhye oblast, which is still under Kiev’s control, will make the land bridge between Crimea and the Russian hinterland impregnable to Ukrainian counter-offensive as well as strengthen the Russian control of the Azov Sea ports (which connect the Caspian Sea with the Black Sea and the Volga–Don Shipping Canal leading to St.Petersburg), apart from dramatically weakening the entire Ukrainian military deployment in Donbass and in the steppes on the eastern side of Dnieper River.
The big picture, therefore, as the war enters the second year is that the West is working feverishly on plans, with the Biden Administration leading from the rear, to deliver heavy armour to the Ukrainian military by spring, including German Leopard tanks. If that happens, Russia is sure to retaliate with strikes on supply routes and warehouses in western Ukraine.
On Thursday, Dmitry Medvedev, the outspoken former Russian president who is close to Putin and serves as deputy chairman of the powerful security council, explicitly warned, “Nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which their fate depends.”
However, there are mitigating factors. First, the results of Davos 2023 and the meeting of NATO defence ministers in Ramstein on Friday as well as the inter-party disputes in Washington over the budget and the US debt ceiling, etc. are pushing the Biden Administration to make a choice between a risky continuation of confrontation with Russia or slowing down the gravy train running through Ukraine, fixing their profits with the withdrawal from the project. For the Zelensky regime, this will mean that the good things in life may be coming to an end.
Last week, the influential Russian daily Izvestia featured an incisive essay authored by Viktor Medvedchuk, the veteran Ukrainian MP and oligarch-politician (based in Moscow currently) to the effect that “the process has started” in the unraveling of the regime in Kiev.
Medvedchuk reminds us of “an interesting trend” in Ukrainian politics. President Poroshenko had promised peace with Russia in one week but once in power did not fulfil the Minsk agreements, and “miserably lost the next election.” He was replaced by Vladimir Zelensky, who also promised a settlement with Russia in Donbass, but instead became “the personification of war. That is, the Ukrainian people are promised peace, and then they are deceived.” The western press has shoved under the carpet the reality that Zelensky’s support base is small and there is a silent majority that pines for peace.
The death of interior minister Denys Monastyrsky, a longtime aide to Zelensky, and his first deputy Yevgeny Enin in a helicopter crash in Kiev week ago in mysterious circumstances raises eyebrows, since the Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias operate out of his ministry. Only a day earlier came the surprise development of the resignation of Zelensky’s top adviser Alexey Arestovich for allegedly casting aspersions on the Ukrainian military.
In TV interviews since then, Arestovich has been voicing his misgivings about the conduct of the war. Then, there has been the murder of Denis Kireev, who was an important participant in the March peace talks with Russia. A major personnel shakeup today, following corruption claims, involved a deputy prosecutor general, the deputy head of the president’s office, the deputy defence minister and five regional governors so far.
Over and above this fluidity in Kiev, there is the ‘X’ factor — US domestic politics as it approaches the 2024 election year. The Republicans are insisting on an auditing of the tens of billions of dollars spent on Ukraine — $110 billion in military aid alone — making the Biden Administration accountable. The CIA chief William Burns paid an unpublicised visit to Kiev, reportedly to transmit the message that US arms supplies beyond July may become problematic.
On the other hand, revelations are growing on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, which may include sensitive materials on Ukraine. These are early days, but the 13-hour FBI search of his personal residence in Delaware on Friday is generating new questions about White House transparency on the issue. New developments in the document scandal could cut into Biden’s support as he prepares to announce a reelection bid.
All things taken into account, therefore, one tends to agree with Medvedchuk’s prognosis that the Ukraine conflict, as it enters the second year, “will either grow further, spreading to Europe and other countries, or it will be localised and resolved.”
Featured Video
Yemen joins the war – Red Sea could be blocked next – Saudi regime at risk
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A superpower and “the world’s sickest warrior state”
By Paul J. Balles | March 8, 2010
Living through five or six major wars has hardened me to what I thought were the extremes of inhuman cruelty and brutality.
Two things made those extremes almost bearable: the brutality always revealed – at least according to the media coverage – the viciousness of the enemy. It was therefore quite understandable when our “brave men and women” pulverized the enemy.
Films of Japanese torturing captive Americans somehow justified holding Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II; and only a small percentage of Americans found the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unreasonably vengeful at best, at worst, depraved.
The media giants in America portrayed the North Koreans as barbaric beasts with their captives, quite unlike their southern counterpoints – our allies during the Korean War. No one ever felt the need to explain how the South Koreans were a civilized breed while the North Koreans were absolute savages, at least according to the official line.
In Vietnam, our warriors justifiably (or so the media made us believe) dropped napalm on the North Vietnamese who had the gall to hide in villages and tunnels to ravage our invaders. At least it was accepted practice until some rogue photojournalist filmed a young girl screaming down a Vietnamese road in flames. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russian tanker approaches Cuba despite US oil blockade
- Marandi: Yemen joins the war – Red Sea could be blocked next – Saudi regime at risk
- Pro-Palestinian French member of European Parliament denied entry to Canada
- Pakistan to Host US-Iran Talks
- How Indonesia’s tilt toward the US left it stranded in the Strait of Hormuz
- US has no choice but to retreat from Iranian borders: Top commander
- Iran Retaliation Strikes Chemical Plant Near Dimona
- AWACS’ Destruction is a Major Loss for US Military – Ex-DoW Analyst
- Israel’s Iran Strategy Uses US Military & Gulf States as Its Pawns
- Iran: Trump wanted regime change, now just begging for Hormuz to open
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli police block Catholic cardinal from entering Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday
- Israel is assassinating journalists again, more than any other nation, anywhere, ever – Not a ceasefire Day 170
- Over 300 US service members wounded, majority have brain injuries – Not a ceasefire Day 169
- Researchers at Human Rights Watch Resign Over Blocked Report on Palestinian Refugee Return
- Jewish Groups Are Backing a War Americans Don’t Want
- Eric Fingerhut Thinks He’s the President of the Jews
- Top Jewish Philanthropists, Rabbis Urge Israeli President to Take Action Against ‘Jewish Extremists’
- Don’t Be Fooled. Zionist Leaders Have Always Wanted to Control Southern Lebanon
- Israel’s widespread use of torture is a core element of its genocide against the Palestinian people
- In Israel’s War on Iran, Many Middle East US Bases Rendered “All But Uninhabitable”
- No Tricks Zone
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
Aletho News 