Washington “botched up” and now Kiev must accept worse peace conditions – retired US Colonel
By Ahmed Adel | November 10, 2023
Kiev will have to accept even worse conditions in peace negotiations because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky put his faith in the United States, former Pentagon adviser and retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor said in an interview with the Judging Freedom YouTube channel. Macgregor’s voice is not alone in sharing this belief, especially now that the world’s attention has shifted from Eastern Europe to the Israel-Gaza conflict.
“When he halted the advance of his forces in response to a stated willingness on the Ukrainian side to accept neutrality, he was being very serious,” the former Pentagon adviser said of Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding that then Washington intervened in the dialogue between Moscow and Kiev, and “that was all botched badly.”
Macgregor agreed with independent commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano’s view that the conditions in the Ukraine negotiations will not be the same as two years ago. In addition, Western elites continue to lie, according to the retired US colonel.
“Zelensky was promised everything, and Zelensky believed it. He’s going to end up like everybody else that’s ever cooperated with us over time, out of a job and maybe lose his life in the process,” Macgregor pointed out.
Earlier, Macgregor highlighted that sooner or later, the US will have to admit the truth about defeat in the Ukrainian conflict publicly.
Russia has repeatedly expressed its readiness for negotiations, but the Ukrainian authorities have imposed a legal ban on them. The Kremlin also noted that there were no prerequisites for the situation to become peaceful now while achieving the objectives of the special operation remained an absolute priority for Moscow.
Macgregor’s comments echo what Karen Kwiatkowski, a former US Air Force lieutenant colonel, also said in an interview with Judging Freedom.
“I don’t think he’ll be in Ukraine. I don’t wish him ill, but I don’t think he’ll be in Ukraine, and if he is in Ukraine, he might be underground,” said the expert, adding that the Kiev regime “destroyed their country, lost half their population” but will still end up with a similar peace deal that was offered to them beforehand.
Kwiatkowski drew attention to the recent death of Major Yuri Chistyakov, assistant to the commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi. In her opinion, his apparent assassination signals the “collapse” of the Ukrainian political and military structure. She believes that Ukrainian politicians and generals are now worried about their survival.
The expert noted that reports about the West’s attempts to persuade Zelensky to conduct peaceful negotiations with Russia put him in a “terrible position he brought on himself in many ways. He’s done for.”
The entire world already sees Ukraine’s president as no more than a “US puppet,” she said. “The puppet master is done, the game was over, the show was over.”
Valerii Zaluzhnyi said in an article published on November 1 in The Economist magazine that Ukrainian forces have reached a stalemate and that “There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”
In the five months since launching its counter-offensive, Ukraine has advanced by just 17 kilometres in one section of the long front, which itself speaks of the catastrophic failure. More disturbingly, these measly gains in the much-lauded counteroffensive, with the propaganda behind it beginning in autumn 2022, have come at an immense cost.
Ukraine’s armed forces lost approximately 90,000 military troops killed and wounded during the counter-offensive it launched a few months ago without accomplishing any substantial tactical successes, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu announced on October 30.
“Only since June 4 – that is, since the start of the West’s widely publicised and generously funded Ukrainian counter-offensive – Kiev has lost over 90,000 military personnel killed or wounded, 600 tanks, and nearly 1,900 armoured vehicles of various classes. At the same time, no tactically significant successes were made on the battlefield,” Shoigu said.
With the world’s attention now nearly completely shifted to the Middle East, Kiev has an even weaker negotiating position than it already had because of the catastrophic failure of the counteroffensive and the near destruction of its military. For this reason, Zelensky, even if he continues to deny it, is under increased pressure to open negotiations with Moscow.
NBC News reported on November 4, citing one current US official and one former US official familiar with the discussions, that Washington and Brussels have begun talking with the Ukrainian government about possible peace negotiations with Russia, including what they might need to give up. Reportedly, the discussions started in October during a meeting including NATO members due to concerns that the Russia-Ukraine war had reached a stalemate.
However, this is a false belief since the war is only at a stalemate because Russia has been in a defensive position, except in Artemovsk (Bakhmut) and a few other locations, for over a year. Once Moscow launches its offensive, the stalemate will be broken in a way that will devastate Ukraine. For this reason, Macgregor and Kwiatkowski are urging Zelensky towards accepting a peace deal [to avert] the loss of more life and territory.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Russia Exits Cold War-era Pact, NATO Suspends Participation
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 7, 2023
Moscow formally exited the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and NATO announced it has suspended its participation in the agreement. The Cold War-era pact limited deployments of weaponry in Europe. The treaty has been on life support for over a decade as the North Atlantic alliance violated the agreement, and Russia suspended its participation in 2007.
On Tuesday, Russia declared the treaty was null and void. “Taking into account the direct responsibility of NATO countries for inciting the conflict in Ukraine, as well as the admission of Finland to the alliance and the ongoing consideration of a similar application from Sweden, even the formal preservation of the CFE Treaty has become unacceptable from the point of view of Russia’s fundamental security interests,” the Russian Foreign Ministry explained.
Shortly after, NATO said it responded by suspending participation in the agreement. “Allies condemn Russia’s decision to withdraw from the CFE, and its war of aggression against Ukraine which is contrary to the Treaty’s objectives.” The NATO statement continued, “Therefore, as a consequence, Allied States Parties intend to suspend the operation of the CFE Treaty for as long as necessary, in accordance with their rights under international law. This is a decision fully supported by all NATO Allies.”
The CFE was negotiated in the last years of the Soviet Union between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The agreement was meant to cap the deployment of conventional military weapons by both alliances. The treaty intended to reduce tensions on the continent by shrinking military forces to prevent large-scale operations.
After the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved, the North Atlantic alliance added former countries from both blocs as members. In 2007, the agreement suffered a major setback after the US announced plans to open military bases in Romania and Bulgaria that violated the pact. In response, Russia suspended its participation in the deal.
U.S. Out of Africa Now!
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | November 7, 2023
On October 26, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) forced a debate and vote on the U.S. military presence in Niger. The Senate overwhelmingly voted to keep our troops in that troubled country. There has been an increased focus on Africa due to widespread instability and a contest between superpowers for the continent. The presence of U.S. troops puts Americans in danger while failing to solve any of Africa’s problems.
During the Cold War era, the United States mostly relied on “soft power” in Africa, but U.S. military presence has continued to increase over the past 30 years. It is time to acknowledge that the U.S. military presence in Africa is a failure, bring our troops home, and replace violence with diplomacy and commerce. It is the right thing for America and the best thing for Africa.
Prior to the advent of the Global War on Terrorism, U.S. military actions in Africa were primarily evacuating American nationals in times of crisis, something which they did on many occasions due to frequent volatility. The first major U.S. deployment was the United Nations Operation in Somalia, which has transformed into one of the longest conflicts in American history while failing to make Somalia secure. The U.S. footprint has continued to expand; currently the largest U.S. base in Africa is in the small Red Sea nation of Djibouti, while there is also an enormous and expensive drone base in Agadez, Niger in the central Sahel. Further, the United States trains troops around the continent, having commandos deployed to at least 22 African nations in 2022.
When U.S. troops were first permanently deployed to Africa following 9/11 there were no known transnational terrorist organizations on the continent. The United States got a better excuse for its presence after the Islamic Courts Union took control of Somalia in 2006. The ICU were then expelled by an Ethiopian-led invasion, leaving in their wake an offshoot known as Al-Shabab which later pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Following the Ethiopian invasion, the United Nations authorized the African Union Mission in Somalia [ANISOM] which the United States has supported since it began in 2007 with a large air and ground presence.
Radical Islamic terrorism did not spread across Africa in earnest until the 2010s, when it was greatly spurred by U.S. and NATO actions across North Africa and the Middle East. Most notably, when a NATO coalition overthrew Libya’s longtime leader Gadaffi in 2011 fighters he had been employing looted his armory and returned to their home countries, restarting dormant rebellions. The war in Syria began around the same time, and ultimately led to the Islamic State and Al Qaeda gaining a great deal of power and territory in the Middle East. This was simultaneous to the increasing popularity of drone warfare within the Obama Administration, who saw it as a “cheap” way to conduct counter-terror operations throughout the Muslim world. When they were chased out of some of their strongholds by airstrikes, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State expanded rapidly in West Africa, giving the United States yet more of a justification to increase its military presence in the region, most notably in Niger.
For a time, the presence of U.S. combat troops in West Africa was such a well-kept secret that when four U.S. servicemen were killed in an ambush in Niger in 2017, multiple prominent legislators in charge of overseeing the U.S. military, including noted warmongers Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), acknowledged that they were not aware there were U.S. troops in the country. One exception to this was Representative Charlie Dent, who told CNN’s Chris Cuomo:
“With respect to Niger, I serve on the appropriations committee. I oversee military construction projects. We have a presence there. Not just there, but within that whole Lake Chad region, supporting local troops to support fight Boko Haram, support operations in West Africa and the operation in Mali. So we have all sorts of people in that region fighting a very dangerous foe, and ISIS in West Africa, especially.”
This is a stunning insight into the lack of thought the United States was putting into its military presence in Africa at the time—the civilian leadership in charge of overseeing military activity were unaware of the military’s presence in West Africa. The only oversight from Congress related to spending the money, which at the time included the construction of the Agadez drone base.
Persistent failure in Africa has not deterred U.S. policy makers from continuing the same strategies. Writing for The Intercept, journalist Nick Turse reports that in 2002 and 2003 the U.S. State Department reported just nine terrorist attacks in all of Africa, whereas in 2022 there were 2,737 in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger alone. The source for these statistics is the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, run by the U.S. Department of Defense which released a devastating report in early 2023 about security in the region following 20 years of heavy U.S. counter-terror involvement. The report states that terrorism fatalities across Africa rose by 48% in 2022 alone; the report notes the irony that terrorism has spiked since the Mali coup, for which poor security was used as a justification, but doesn’t mention the fact that there was almost no terrorism at all before the United States got involved in counter-terror operations in the region.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the training programs which are a key component of U.S. Africa policy have a proven track record of overthrowing the very governments they are meant to prop up. At least 12 coups by U.S. trained personnel have occurred since 2008, as of August 2023. A 2022 study showed that U.S. training makes soldiers more supportive of one-party states and less interested in preserving human rights. Following training, they see the value of reducing conflict within a state by taking sole power and also have been trained in skill sets conducive to conducting successful coups. Don’t worry though, AFRICOM commander General Michael Langley has full faith and confidence in our “curriculum” of telling them “please don’t do coups.”
Nowhere in Africa has U.S. troop presence achieved its goals. After 20 years, Africa has much more terrorism and fewer democratic governments. Both of those things are supposed to be key American objectives. The most important thing for the United States to have a productive future in Africa is to shed the Global War on Terror. Abukar Arman, a Somali geopolitical analyst and former diplomat, argued earlier this year that, “so long as U.S.’ policy toward Africa remains one driven by counter-terrorism and is implemented by AFRICOM drones that are accountable to no one, there will never be a sustainable strategic partnership with key countries such as Somalia.” He is correct that both the men running U.S. Africa policy and the machines which they use are drones and neither are producing desired results.
The U.S. Senate has shown that it intends to continue zombie policies by voting to stay in Niger and put our troops at unacceptable levels of risk without the potential of achieving any goals. The only wise path forward is to end our African terror war and engage with African nations as genuine partners in commerce and development.
Barcelona dock workers refuse to deal with weapons ships heading to Israel
MEMO | November 7, 2023
Workers at the Spanish port of Barcelona announced their refusal to allow any ships carrying weapons to operate inside the port, rejecting the violence practiced by Israel in the occupied territories, and accusing the UN of failing to carry out its role.
The workers said in a statement to their association that it is their duty to adhere to and defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at a time when the signatory countries have forgotten about it.
The statement continued: “We decided within the association not to allow ships containing war materials to operate in our port, for the sole purpose of protecting any civilian population, regardless of their location, as there is no justification for sacrificing civilians.”
The statement called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts, and for the UN to stop its complicit and negligent behaviour in order to maintain international peace and security and defend international law.
Earlier last week, the Belgian transport workers’ unions called on their members to refuse to load or unload arms shipments being sent to Israel.
“While genocide is under way in Palestine, workers at various airports in Belgium are seeing arms shipments in the direction of the war zone,” the trade unions said in a joint statement.
A Belgian government spokesman declined to comment on whether weapons were being shipped to the region via Belgium.
The unions said that loading or unloading these weapons means contributing to supplying regimes that kill innocent people.
The unions added: “We, several unions active in ground logistics, call on our members not to handle any flights that ship military equipment to Palestine/Israel, like there were clear agreements and rules at the start of the conflict with Russia and Ukraine.”
US, Israel to open second front in Lebanon
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | NOVEMBER 6, 2023
The announcement late Sunday night by the US Central Command [CENTCOM] headquartered in Doha about the arrival of an Ohio-class American nuclear submarine in its “area of responsibility” presages a significant escalation of the situation around the Palestine-Israel conflict.
It is very rare that the use of these submarines is publicised. CENTCOM provided no additional details but it posted an image that showed an Ohio-class submarine in Egypt’s Suez Canal. Interestingly, CENTCOM also separately shared an image of a nuclear-capable B-1 bomber operating in the Middle East.
Taken together, these US deployments, coming on top of the formidable presence of two aircraft carriers and warships hundreds of advanced jet fighters, are with an eye on “the other side of the equation,” as Secretary of State Antony Blinken quaintly described Hamas, Hezbullah, and Iran during his latest visit to Tel Aviv on Friday.
In a related development, perhaps, the CIA director, William Burns arrived in Israel on Sunday for urgent consultations. The New York Times reported that the US is “looking to expand its intelligence sharing with Israel.”
Arguably, the most charitable explanation for the deployment of a US nuclear submarine, which form part of the Pentagon’s “nuclear triad”, near the war zone is that the Biden Administration is preparing for an Israeli escalation into Lebanon to draw out Hezbollah, which may in turn trigger an Iranian reaction.
In his speech on Friday, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrullah seemed to anticipate precisely such a turn of events when he warned the US explicitly of consequences that couldn’t be any different from the catastrophic American involvement in Lebanon’s civil war in the early 1980s. Ironically, this is also the 40th anniversary year of the suicide bombing of the barracks housing US forces in Beirut International Airport in October 1983 in which 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers were killed forcing a US withdrawal from Lebanon.
Clearly, the locus of the US strategy in the present Middle situation may be shifting from diplomacy, which has lost traction. Blinken’s desperate attempts to address the mounting international criticism of Israel’s horrific war crimes by diverting attention to a “humanitarian pause” in the fighting has been unceremoniously shot down by Netanyahu.
The point is, after bombarding Gaza and its people with artillery and bombs, the Israeli army moved in on Friday. So far, it has reportedly advanced to the outskirts of Gaza City but not entered the Hamas stronghold. Fierce urban fighting is expected when it does.
Equally, the Biden administration’s clumsy attempt to promote a vague outline for a post-war Gaza that might include a combination of a revitalised Palestinian Authority, a peacekeeping force, etc. has been met with a distinct lack of enthusiasm at Blinken’s meeting in the weekend in Amman with the Arab foreign ministers – from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – who instead demanded an immediate ceasefire, while Blinken said the US would not push for one.
Blinken travelled to Ramallah from Amman where the head of the Palestine Authority Mahmoud Abbas apparently gave him short shrift saying that the PA would only be ready to shoulder full responsibility for the Gaza Strip in the framework of a “comprehensive political solution” that would include the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza — and, furthermore, that security and peace can only be achieved by ending the occupation of the territories of the “State of Palestine,” and by recognising East Jerusalem as its capital. The meeting lasted for less than an hour and ended without public statements.
Meanwhile, China and the UAE (by the way, Israel’s Abraham Accords partner) have since called for a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council in another attempt to seek an immediate ceasefire, which the Biden Administration will certainly oppose. Suffice to say, the Biden Administration feels boxed in and the only way out is for something to give way through the exercise of coercive means.
The US is watching with frustration as new regional equations are appearing among Muslim nations. The foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia held another phone conversation today. The OIC later announced that an extraordinary summit will be held in Riyadh on November 12 at the request of the current chairman, Saudi Arabia, to discuss Israel’s attacks on the Palestinian people.
As the death toll in Gaza crosses 10,000, feelings are indeed running high in the Muslim world. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said today that “all the evidence and indications show the direct involvement of the Americans in running the war” in Gaza. Khamenei added that as the war goes on, the reasons behind the US’s direct role would become more explicit.
The Fars News Agency, which is close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, also disclosed that Khamenei held a “recent meeting in Tehran” with the Head of Hamas political bureau Ismail Haniyeh where he told the latter that Tehran’s support for the resistance groups is its “permanent policy.”
Evidently, Tehran no longer sees a problem in acknowledging its dealings with the resistance groups. This is a paradigm shift indicative of the shift in the power dynamic, which the US and Israel seem to have decided to counter through use of force where diplomacy failed to make headway to isolate Iran.
The Chief of the Israeli General Staff, Herzi Halevi, said on Sunday during a meeting in the Northern Command, “We are ready to strike in the north at any moment. We understand that it can happen… We have a clear goal of restoring a significantly better security situation at the borders [with Lebanon], not only in the Gaza Strip.”
No power on earth can stop Israel in its tracks now. Its existence is inextricably linked to this war which will ensure abiding US commitment to its security as a key template of American global strategies for the foreseeable future. Therefore, Israel’s best chance of survival lies in expanding the scope of the war in Gaza into Lebanon — and possibly even into Syria — shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.
There is no question that the location of the US nuclear submarine to the east of Suez is an attempt to intimidate Iran from intervening, as Israel, with US backing, proceed to open a second front. The Israeli authorities have announced evacuation of people from settlements located in a zone up to five kms from the border with Lebanon.
A prolonged war of indeterminate timeline is set to begin in the Middle East. The Middle East that emerged after World War II is breaking loose and drifting away into the chronicles of history. As the call of the jihad begins, there is no knowing how the 80-year old American president will respond.
No, this won’t turn into a world war. It will be fought in the Middle East itself, but its outcome will decisively impact the making of a new world order.
What Message Does US Tomahawk-Carrying Submarine Send Amid Gaza War?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.11.2023
An Ohio-class guided missile submarine arrived in the Middle East on Sunday, as per a social media post by the US Central Command.
The Ohio-class guided missile submarine (SSGN) – depicted entering the Suez Canal northeast of Cairo by the US Central Command – is one of the four US underwater craft of this type converted to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles rather than nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.
Per the US press, each SSGN sub can carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which is 50% more than a US guided-missile destroyer and nearly four times what the US Navy’s newest attack submarines are equipped with.
The Tomahawk cruise missile can strike targets precisely from 1,000 miles away and has been used in combat more than 2,300 times by the US and its allies. Most recently, US Navy warships and subs fired 66 Tomahawk missiles at Syrian government facilities in 2018.
According to the US press, the heavily armed submarine sends “a message of deterrence” to Israel’s “regional adversaries, as the Biden administration “tries to avoid a broader conflict amid the Israel-Hamas war.”
The deployment of the submarine is triggering concerns, as per the DC-based think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. The crux of the matter is that the US has already amassed a huge military force in the Middle East over the unfolding Gaza war.
The think tank particularly refers to:
· two aircraft carrier strike groups, with roughly 7,500 personnel on each;
· two guided-missile destroyers;
· nine air squadrons (deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea region);
· 4,000 troops dispatched to the region, with another 2,000 on standby, in addition to roughly 30,000 troops already stationed in the region.
These figures do not include “several dozen” commandos deployed to Israel in order to “actively help the Israelis to do a number of things,” as per Christopher P. Maier, an assistant secretary of defense.
On top of that there are US top military advisers on the ground in Israel to work out strategies to defeat Hamas together with the Israel Defense Forces.
“The United States is barreling toward another war in the Middle East,” Jon Hoffman, a policy analyst in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, wrote for RS on Monday. “The conflict between Israel and Hamas is rapidly escalating across the region and risks dragging the United States directly into the fray.”
Spain ‘neo Nazi’ mercenary among others helping Israel in Gaza
MEMO | November 5, 2023
The Israeli occupation army has resorted to using foreign mercenaries as part of its genocidal campaign against the besieged Gaza Strip, according to a report on Friday by major Spanish outlet El Mundo.
Among the foreign fighters is a notorious Spanish mercenary who previously fought alongside Ukrainian neo Nazis following Russia’s invasion last year. Pedro Diaz Flores was previously presumed dead by the Russians, but he is alive and well, according to the newspaper who interviewed him.
“So I came for economy, for money. They pay very well, they offer good equipment and the work is calm. It is 3,900 euros [$4,187] per week, complementary missions aside,” he said of his motives for joining the occupation forces.
However, he insists that he fights in occupied Golan Heights, “we only provide security support to arms convoys or the troops of the Israeli armed forces that are in the Gaza Strip, we do not fight Hamas directly, nor are we involved in assault operations.”
“We are in charge of the security of the checkpoints and access control on the borders of Gaza and Jordan. There are many PMCs [private military companies] here and they share the work. Traditionally they have guarded border terminals between Eliat and Aqaba,” he added.
The article features an image of Flores, 27, alongside colleagues at a border checkpoint with the Gaza Strip.
Last month, speculation arose that mercenaries stationed in Ukraine have started to divert their attention to aiding and joining the Israeli military, while the focus of the West has also shifted in standing with Israel while it commits war crimes and massacres against Palestinian civilians.
Speaking yesterday during a briefing in Kyiv with visiting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said: “It’s clear that the war in the Middle East is taking away the focus” from Ukraine.
Canada’s military provocations on China’s doorstep to backfire: experts
By Guo Yuandan and Liu Xuanzun | Global Times |November 5, 2023
Canada has repeatedly hyped up “dangerous” interceptions by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) recently, but experts said on Sunday that the PLA’s lawful actions took place on China’s doorstep, and that Canada’s blind confidence could lead to troubles of its own.
In a recent event, two sorties by a vessel-borne helicopter from the Canadian Navy’s frigate HMCS Ottawa with unknown intentions approached China’s territorial airspace above the Xisha Islands, and despite the PLA naval and aviation forces’ lawful identification, verification and repeated verbal warnings, the Canadian helicopter not only refused to respond, but also took provocative maneuvers including flying at a very low altitude, Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang, a spokesperson of China’s Ministry of National Defense, said in a press release on Saturday.
The Canadian move violated China’s domestic law and related international law, infringed China’s sovereignty security, and was a malicious act of provocation with ulterior motives, Zhang said.
Canada then hyped up the event through the media to throw mud at China, Zhang said, citing a statement from the Canadian Department of National Defense and media reports claiming that PLA Navy J-11 fighter jets intercepted the Canadian CH-148 helicopter by releasing flares over the South China Sea on October 29.
The measures taken by the Chinese side were professional and up to standard, Zhang said. He urged the Canadian side to stop disregarding facts and hyping, strictly restrict the activities of its frontline naval and aviation forces, and prevent accidents at sea and in the air from happening.
It marks a third provocation from the Canadian military over the past month.
In mid-October, a Canadian CP-140 reconnaissance aircraft illegally entered China’s airspace over Chiwei Islet, approached China’s eastern coast and entered the Taiwan Straits for close-in reconnaissance, forcing the PLA Air Force to take lawful management and control measures.
On Wednesday, the Canadian Navy’s HMCS Ottawa frigate made a transit through the Taiwan Straits together with the US Navy’s USS Rafael Peralta destroyer, while the PLA handled the event in accordance with the law and regulations.
However, Canada’s high-profile provocations are not based on its own capabilities, but on its military strategy of following the US, Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Sunday.
The Canadian navy is weak, and it is not easy for them to deploy frigates to the Asia-Pacific region, Song said.
“Canada is blindly confident that it is a major Western country, and it thinks too highly of its capabilities,” Song said. “In fact, if Canada keeps making troubles around China, it could get itself into trouble.”
Zhang Xuefeng, another Chinese military expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that the Canadian military should realize how sensitive it is to conduct close-in reconnaissance on China’s doorstep.
It is childish for the Canadian military to provoke China, and Canada should not misread China’s restraint, Zhang Xuefeng said.
Compared to the PLA, Canada’s military presence near China is insignificant, so Canada should know its limit and not pull the chestnut out of the fire for the benefit of the US, Zhang Xuefeng said.
US in campaign to isolate Russia within the IAEA over Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant
By Uriel Araujo | November 4, 2023
As part of its overall strategy to isolate and “cancel” Russia, the US, for the last few months, has been pursuing, both publicly and behind the scenes, a policy aimed at ousting Moscow from international organizations, with a focus on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and also the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). A large part of this campaign has to do with the issue of Zaporizhzhia’s Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Europe’s largest atomic power station, where the IAEA established, last year, a permanent presence to monitor compliance with agreed principles aiming at nuclear safety.
In April, for example, the US Department of Energy sent a letter to Rosatom (Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company), stating that the US possesses “sensitive” nuclear technology at the ZNPP and warning Moscow not to “manipulate” it. In June, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in turn, without providing further details, said that Russian authorities were planning a “terrorist act” at the plant. In July, he further claimed Russian troops had planted explosive devices on the roofs of the reactor units there. It turns out an IAE team inspected said roofs and found “no evidence of explosives”, as the organization reported in September.
Hawkish voices within the US have been urging NATO to be “prepared” for “intervention” so as to protect the ZNPP and avoid a “nuclear disaster” brought about by Russian President Vladimir Putin – any such disaster would obviously bring terrible consequences for Russia as well and it remains unclear why Moscow would seek to have a nuclear catastrophe in the very region it currently controls and which has become part of its territory after the referendums.
The IAEA last month did voice its concern about threats to Zaporizhzhia’s Nuclear Power Plant. Its experts, deployed there, have reported hearing a number of explosions (albeit with no damage to the plant), which indicate an increase in military activity. On September 8, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi stated the agency is concerned about dangers facing the plant involving “heightened military tension”.
The IAEA and the US are not the only actors concerned about this. It would seem, however, that the main threat to the ZNPP comes from Ukraine. In June, Moscow itself asked the IAEA to ensure Kiev does not shell the nuclear plant. On Thursday, however, Ukrainian drones reportedly launched an attack near the facility, and Russian air defense forces shot them down. According to Russia’s defense ministry, Kiev “continues to carry out provocations” in the sensitive area. There is no reason to doubt this, as it is in line with Ukraine’s modus operandi in the last few years.
As I wrote before, if one is to believe Western media, Russia is but a kind of pariah state with no credibility at all. Thus, its allegations about Ukraine employing “human shields”, for example, were at first ridiculed. However, in August 2022, an Amnesty International’s report exposed Kiev as doing precisely that. Last year I also wrote on how Ukraine kept gathering data about chemical facilities in Donbass. On 19 June 2022, Ukrainian troops irresponsibly shelled the Yasinovka coke and chemical plant in the Kirovsky district of Makiivka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). Moreover, the Ukrainian military strategy has famously involved employing extremist paramilitary groups as proxies for terrorist attacks and provocations. The so-called “Freedom of Russian Legion” (FRL) and the “Russian Volunteer Corps” (RVC) paramilitary organizations, for example, have been behind a number of such acts. The latter, the RVC, is one of the most violent far-right groups worldwide, according to Telegraph’s journalist James Kilner, and is led by notorious neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin. The Ukrainian military intelligence agency itself confirmed that the RVC has a unit within the Ukrainian Foreign Legion. Kiev relies heavily on such extremist groups for warfare, the infamous Azov regiment playing a key role in its security forces since 2014 (see this Guardian piece by Shaun Walker, for instance) – such organizations of course are not notorious for being safety-concerned. Ukraine’s strategy has also involved attacking chemical plants and facilities. The hard truth is that thus far Kiev rejected all IAEA proposals for ensuring the safety of the ZNPP.
Zaporizhzhia, as well as Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, are typically described, plain and simple, as Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. The reality regarding these disputed areas, like everything else in the post-Soviet world, is far more complex. In late September 2022 referendums were held in Zaporizhzhia, as well as in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson. At the time of these referendums, the Russian Federation did not in fact fully control any of the four regions. The legality of such elections has been disputed by international actors, but their results are arguably coherent with previous polls and cannot be explained away by Russian military presence. In Crimea, many years before (2014), the majority of the population favored accession treaties for the region to become once again part of the Russian people, and this without any armed conflict and without the presence of any Russian forces
Interestingly, in November 2021, according to surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), which is part of the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research, 49% of the total Ukrainian population wanted to have no borders and no customs with Russia. Those are total figures, but we know that in Southern and Eastern Ukraine the percentage of people having “pro-Russian” attitudes has always been much higher, due to historical, language and ethnic reasons. More recently, over 8 years of armed far-right rise in the country and Ukrainian military campaigns against Donbass and Russian-speaking people greatly contributed to it. In early February 2022, before Moscow launched its military campaign, Kiev was massively bombing the Donbass region.
Today, any American hopes of victory in their proxy attrition war in Ukraine are now quite low, Israel being in the spotlight. House Republicans in the US have in fact just approved a $14 billion Israel aid package bill and lawmakers object to further aiding Ukraine. According to former US Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis (a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities), there is just “no amount of aid” that could grant Kiev a military victory. He writes: “If Ukraine was unable to break the Russian defensive lines after four full months of effort, after six full months of preparation, after receiving over $46 billion in military backing… by what logic can supporters of additional aid argue that giving another multi-billion dollar package will succeed where all previous efforts have failed? There is none.” Davis concludes that “It is time to acknowledge this obvious on-the-ground truth and seek out other pathways forward.”
From a Western perspective, such “pathways” should include reestablishing diplomatic channels to Moscow, in preparation for Kiev’s likely defeat, with commitments to ensure the rights of both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, as a way to seek a framework for peaceful Western-Russian competition and coexistence in the emerging de-dolarized polycentric world. Trying to isolate and oust Russia from major international organizations is clearly not the way to do it.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
Hungary calls for new European security architecture
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban addresses the 5th Demographic Summit in the Fine Arts Museum in Budapest on September 14, 2023. © Attila KISBENEDEK / AFP
RT | November 3, 2023
Hungary wants to see the creation of a new security architecture in Europe that would take into account both Russian and Ukrainian interests, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
Speaking at the summit of the Organization of Turkic States in Astana, Kazakhstan, on Friday, the Hungarian leader stated that the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine with money and arms had failed and, against this backdrop, Budapest was “advocating a plan B.”
The initiative, he continued, “is aimed at a ceasefire, peace negotiations and the construction of a new European security architecture that will be reassuring for Ukraine and acceptable to the Russians.” According to Orban, Türkiye, which has remained neutral in the stand-off between Moscow and Kiev while acting as a mediator between the two, will also play a prominent role in this potential arrangement.
Since the start of open fighting in the Ukraine conflict, Budapest has consistently urged Kiev and Moscow to engage in talks, while also resisting calls to support EU sanctions against Russia, particularly in the energy sector, arguing that the measures are detrimental to the bloc’s own economy. In May, Orban also predicted that “poor Ukrainians” would not be able to prevail over Russia given the circumstances, particularly NATO’s reluctance to send its troops directly to the battlefield.
Hungary, along with Slovakia, also opposed an aid package to Ukraine to the tune of €50 billion ($53.5 billion) approved by the European Parliament last month. The two nations pointed in particular to concerns about corruption in Kiev and argued that the aid was not working.
While Moscow has never closed the door on talks with Kiev, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree last autumn barring all talks with Moscow, after four former Ukrainian regions overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
In December 2021, shortly before the years-long Ukraine conflict moved to open fighting, Russia submitted proposals To NATO and the US on security guarantees, demanding that the West ban Ukraine’s accession to the military bloc and insisting that the alliance retreat to its borders of 1997, before it expanded. The overture in late 2021, however, was rebuffed by the West.
Orban is not the only EU leader to have raised the prospect of security guarantees as hostilities continued. Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that Western capitals should consider setting up a security architecture that would take into account Russian interests, once Moscow and Kiev engage in talks. These remarks, however, triggered outrage, both in Kiev and in several EU member states.
“Shedding” of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components and Products From The Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated – Part 1
It’s happening. The manufacturers and regulators knew it was a risk, yet, like numerous aspects of the Covid vaccine mRNA technology, did not test for excretion potential of spike proteins or LNP’s.
Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings | November 1, 2023
Awareness of the Federal Regulators and Vaccine Manufacturers
The data showing the toxicity and lethality of the vaccines started within weeks of the roll-out with hundreds of thousands of adverse events and hundreds of deaths reported to VAERS in January of 2021, far exceeding previous stopping points of any new medical product or vaccine.
Although ignored (to this day), anyone paying unbiased attention could see a further mountain of evidence develop, including a skyrocketing number of newspaper and television reports of healthy athletes and young people arresting and dying while doing normal everyday activities or sports (countered by corporate/government controlled media with a plethora of fact checking articles using cherry picked data to inform the world that what they are seeing is not factually true).
Then life insurance industry data emerged showing historically unprecedented rises in death claims being paid out amongst the healthiest sectors of society temporally associated with the proliferation of Covid mRNA vaccine mandates within schools, corporations, universities, health care institutions, federal contractors etc. Most telling of the deathly impact of mandates was the fact that the largest increases among the sudden, rapid rises in excess deaths occurred among employed white collar workers.
The reality is that these data are still ignored by media and public health agencies across the world. Even more worrying are the more recent reports finding universal contamination of every studied vaccine vial with large magnitude, excess levels of DNA fragments and DNA plasmids. Then the discovery that the DNA plasmids used in the manufacturing process contained genetic sequences that both promote DNA integration into the human genome as well as promote the development of cancer.
It truly is unimaginable that we now must consider the risks (and reality) of “shedding” of the vaccine products from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. This now has implications for nearly every human being walking the earth, vaccinated or unvaccinated (including me).
This series will explore the regulatory, scientific, epidemiological, and clinical data indicating that shedding is occurring. The health of who knows how many is now being threatened, with the extent of the risks likely both highly variable and difficult to predict, both in the short term and long term. That is unless we start to seriously study the phenomenon further. So, let’s review what is known.
Within 3 months of the rollout of the global Covid mRNA vaccination campaign, I was consulted by two different unvaccinated women in their late 30’s and early 40’s respectively, who reported that they were suffering acute menstrual abnormalities in the days following close exposure to a recently vaccinated practitioner (one visited a massage therapist and another an acupuncturist). Both had a history of highly regular, uncomplicated menstrual cycles over decades.
Since that time, at least twenty other unvaccinated and vaccinated people, both men and women, have reported to me compelling histories of typical post-mRNA vaccine adverse effects subsequent to close exposure to vaccinated family members, contacts, or friends.
Further, my partner Scott Marsland at our Leading Edge Clinic, who also specializes in treating Long Covid/Long Vax syndromes, has a growing series of detailed case histories of similar “shedding” events occurring. I will revisit this in a later post in this series, but I will briefly say here that our clinical observations conclude that symptomatic shedding events do occur. However, we have little idea of exactly how common it is occurring among the general population.
This is further complicated by the fact that even if it were occurring frequently, the vast majority of people suddenly developing typical vaccine side effects symptoms after exposure to a vaccinated person would never think to relate it to exposure to shed vaccine products. It is my belief that very few people in the general public are aware of the possibility it could occur. You know, because the regulators have assured the country that mRNA technology is “safe and effective.”
However, my general sense is that it occurs largely in people who have increased physiologic sensitivity to environmental exposures, toxins, or pharmaceuticals and that it is generally transmitted by someone recently vaccinated or someone who is producing a lot of spike protein. Note that is my “general sense.” More studies are required to fully understand both the frequency of and physiologic impacts from such events.
My ignorance as to the frequency of symptomatic shedding events is due to the fact that the concept of transmitting spike proteins (or lipid nanoparticles) from a Covid mRNA vaccinated person to another is one of the least studied and published-on aspect of the mRNA vaccine technology.
What is so shocking about that lack of research (actually nothing is shocking anymore) is that shedding has major global implications. Apparently it is not just me who thinks this because, as an expert on several aspects of Covid, I have been lecturing across the U.S, Europe, and South America in conferences, Parliamentary hearings, or invited lectures. Questions about shedding appear everywhere (in the dozens of Q & A’s that I have participated in, it is nearly always the first question. It is also a very common topic in the chat of our FLCCC weekly webinar.
Know that in this tonight’s FLCCC webinar, I will present a 15-20 minute overview of this series along with my private practice partner Scott Marsland. We expect to be deluged with questions after.
Anyway, I believe that by the end of this series on the science, epidemiology, and clinical observations of shedding, you will be convinced that it can and does occur.
From our Federal government, in this FDA document, the term “shedding” is defined as:
“The release of viral or bacterial gene therapy products from the patient by any or all of the following routes: feces (feces); secretions (urine, saliva, nasopharyngeal fluids, etc.); or through the skin (pustules, lesions, sores).”
They forgot to mention “exhaled breath.” More on that later. The “products” they refer to that can be transmitted from a Covid vaccinated person to another include not only the genetically programmed spike protein product, but also the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) containing the mRNA that is in the injections as well as naked mRNA that can be released from the LNP. Even more worrying is the recent shocking discovery that every single Moderna and Pfizer vaccine vial is contaminated with high levels of DNA plasmids potentially capable of integrating into the human genome. Contemplating that last one is disturbing, the implications of which we will not know for some time.
First off, let’s be clear that the Covid mRNA and DNA vaccines are gene therapy medicinal products (GMTPs or GTP’s) as stated in the FDA’s 2015 document on Gene Product Shedding Studies.
“Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.
Also note that in this European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, the mRNA vaccines also meet their definition of gene therapy medicinal products (GMTP’s).
Ok, now that we know what a gene therapy product is and that the Covid mRNA injection is actually a form of gene therapy (marketed to the public as a “vaccine”), what does that have to do with “shedding?” Again from the FDA document regarding the evaluation of the safety of gene therapy products, they emphasize the importance of studying shedding:
Shedding is distinct from biodistribution because the latter describes how a product is spread within the patient’s body from the site of administration while the former describes how it is excreted or released from the patient’s body. Shedding raises the possibility of transmission of virus or bacteria based gene therapy products (VBGT) from treated to untreated individuals (e.g., close contacts and health care professionals).
This guidance represents FDA’s current thinking on how and when shedding data should be collected for VBGT and oncolytic products during preclinical and clinical development and how shedding data can be used to assess the potential for transmission to untreated individuals.
So, with these findings in mind, it may be no wonder why the FDA insists on shedding studies:
Further on in the document, the FDA again emphasizes the importance of shedding studies:
Note that the FDA emphasizes the importance of doing human shedding studies and not just relying on animal studies:
To inform the design of human shedding studies, shedding data may be collected in animals following administration of the VBGT or oncolytic product. These data can help estimate the likelihood and potential shedding profile in humans, particularly when there is concern about transmission to untreated individuals. However, such data cannot substitute for human shedding studies for several reasons.
But again, no studies testing whether excretion of mRNA-containing LNPs, modified spike-encoding mRNA, or spike produced by vaccinated people have been done. Well, I shouldn’t say none, because in this paper the author cites a Pfizer document obtained by FOIA which apparently revealed that shedding was studied in the urine and feces of intra-muscular injected rats. Unfortunately, that document is no longer at the website referenced.
To summarize from the above, the FDA’s position is that:
- the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products
- Gene therapy products require shedding studies in both animals and humans
- Gene therapy product shedding raises the possibility of transmission from treated to untreated individuals
Note that much of the rest of this series of posts on shedding is guided by a masterful comprehensive review of the topic of gene therapy product shedding by independent researcher (by definition) Helene Banoun in Infectious Diseases Research. Hers is one of the only papers I could find that attempted to meticulously explore what is known about shedding of the mRNA gene therapy vaccines.
As already stated, an important point Banoun makes is:
There was no regulation of mRNA clinical trials prior to RNA vaccines, yet there is strict regulation of gene therapy products. It is difficult to justify that mRNA vaccines are not considered in the same way as gene therapies regarding this regulation; indeed the only difference is that they are (historically) supposed to protect against a disease and not cure it. Gene therapies are intended for a small number of people in poor health, whereas vaccines are used on a large scale on healthy people: it would therefore be wise to apply stricter rules to them.
She further points out another omission of the regulatory process:
Any experiment involving the deliberate transfer of a nucleic acid to a human must be preceded by Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (document on the regulatory standards is here), but approval was not given because of the emergency clearance given to mRNA vaccines.
Therefore, according to both the American and European agencies, mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products and should have been subjected to excretion studies of all secreted fluids (urine, exhaled droplets, saliva, sputum, nasopharyngeal fluids, semen, breast milk, feces, and sweat). Again, these studies were not done for mRNA vaccines nor for the DNA adenovirus vaccine (J&J).
So, where are the clinical human shedding studies? Well, I just learned of one that is about to be published (next ten days?) where the research team exposed a population of unvaccinated women to vaccinated individuals and their assessment outcome was the development of menstrual abnormalities. I know the results but want to respect the research teams right to present their original work. They have promised to share their manuscript with me and Paul Marik as soon as the peer-review and acceptance process is complete. I have no idea what journal they submitted to but I can be highly confident it is not the New England Journal of Medicine.
The entire reason why I did a “deep dive” into shedding science is because shedding was not studied when it absolutely should have been and I believe with near certainty that it occurs. Note my use of “near certain” is only to seem objective but it really is too late for that – both my partner Scott and I have diagnosed and successfully treated a number of shedding “victims.”
The lack of shedding studies prior to the mRNA rollout was, in my opinion, an insanely reckless and irresponsible omission (or willfully criminal, take your pick). As an evolving expert in the evaluation and treatment of Covid mRNA vaccine injury syndromes, I and others have identified the spike protein as the main component responsible for not only the pathogenicity of Covid but also of the vaccines, with this review paper proposing a new field named “spikeopathy” (study of the disease processes triggered by the spike protein).
If vaccine transcribed spike protein can be transmitted in sufficient quantity from vaccinated folks to unvaccinated ones, it stands to reason that adverse effects of the vaccine can develop in some unvaccinated people who came into contact (or close proximity) with vaccinated people. How did they get away with not studying this possibility?
An easy answer is they were doing science at “warp speed.” The more uncomfortable answer is that the “vaccines”, although meeting the definition of a gene therapy product, were actually not even legally considered a medical product at all and thus did not require a diverse range of safety studies (like on genotoxicity, reproductive risks, excretion potential etc). What? Why? How?
The reality is that the Covid vaccines, as a result of successive federal legislative actions which evolved over decades, was legally categorized as a “countermeasure” under a “public health emergency.” Such “countermeasures” require no specific regulatory approval process prior to dissemination. All a countermeasure needs is the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that “it may be effective.”
This is the conclusion derived from the legal investigatory work of various independent and legal experts and researchers like Catherine Watts, Todd Callender, and Sasha Latypova. If interested in learning more, I would watch this lecture by Sasha Latypova (scroll down the page to find her lecture). As they have uncovered, “countermeasures” (even gene therapy ones) do not legally require studies of excretion potential, bio-distribution, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, insertional mutagenesis etc.
They don’t even require FDA regulated clinical trials of efficacy or safety.
So why did Pfizer and Moderna even do the efficacy trials? Latypova maintains that they did this not only to satisfy the public’s confidence to increase vaccine uptake, but also to “fool” the public into thinking these vaccines were medical products subject to standard (albeit accelerated) pharmaceutical product regulatory processes.
This obscured the reality that they were instead classified as military “countermeasures” against a perceived (if not actual) bioweapon. To wit, the COO of Operation Warp Speed was a General from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the vaccine manufacturers were under contract with the DOD to produce the countermeasure, sometimes referred to as a “demonstration (demo)” and/or a “prototype” in numerous legal documents they uncovered.
Anyway, as a result of this lack of a legal requirement to fully study these products in a public health emergency, the list and types of studies that should have been conducted (but were not) is long. Researchers and clinicians have been screaming about this since they were rolled out. These cries were met with a deafening silence by governmental health agencies across the world.
I know, it is a lot to take in.
But the latest “word on the street” is that the finance and insurance industries may finally be waking up to this fraud and its devastating impacts on U.S disability and death rates. Knowledge of these society-wide impacts largely results from the work of two different research teams led by former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd and insurance industry consultant Josh Stirling).
This article describes the reasons why Pfizer and Moderna stock are crashing of late. Put more succinctly, from what I hear it is due to the hedge fund guys shorting their stock. I believe Pfizer is in even deeper trouble now that this “forensic” paper just got published finding that they hid vaccine trial deaths which obscured a 3.7 fold increased risk of cardiac death in the vaccinated arm of their trial.
“Shedding” Part 1– Shedding of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components and Products From The Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated – Part 1
“Shedding” Part 2 – The Bio-Distribution and Excretion Potential of Covid mRNA Vaccine Products
“Shedding” Part 3 – Can You Absorb Lipid Nanoparticles From Being Exposed To a Vaccinated Person?
“Shedding” Part 4 – Evidence of Placental and Breast Milk Transmission of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components
“Shedding” Part 5 – Evidence of Shedding Causing Illness In Others
“Shedding Part 6– Clinical Case Notes Describing Shedding Phenomena Among Leading Edge Clinic Patients
“Shedding” Part 7 – Shedding Via Sexual Intercourse – Clinical Reports
Featured Video
U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Invisible harm from ionizing radiation
By Bjorn Hilt | International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War | December 8, 2015
Besides the terrible effects of the burst of light that causes eye damage, the heat that sets everything flammable on fire, the electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all electronic devices, and the blast that produces winds with ten times the force of a hurricane, demolishing everything, the detonation of nuclear weapons also leads to the emission of large amounts of ionizing radiation, which has serious deleterious effects on humans and many other species. Ionizing radiation is, in fact, a lurking danger as we cannot see it, we cannot smell it, we cannot hear it, and we cannot feel it immediately. But we certainly get harmed from it.
To reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and the risk of deleterious effects, we doctors usually warn our patients against having frequent examinations or procedures that involve x-rays. That is because x-rays are ionizing radiation that can harm your body in the same ways as radiation emitted by nuclear detonations. The main difference is that, for medical purposes, the radiation is applied in a controlled way.
The international standard unit for the dose of ionizing radiation is the Sievert. National guidelines in many countries warn against people having a cumulative dose of ionizing radiation exceeding 0.001 Sievert/year. The dose from a full body CT scan is 0.01 – 0.03 Sievert.
The ionizing radiation to which everybody in the vicinity of a nuclear detonation is exposed is so high and immediate that measuring in Sievert does not have much meaning. Such exposures are measured in Gray, where five Gray is reckoned to be lethal to 50% of those exposed (LD50). Even though these types of exposures are not directly comparable, for the common types of ionizing radiation, 1 Gray equals approximately 1.3 Sievert. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Douglas Macgregor: U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive
- 9/11 was an Inside/Outside Job
- Israeli military court sentences Palestinian journalist to 4 years for ‘incitement’
- Iran, Russia, China Demand Guarantees Against Further Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites
- How the Latest Iran Sanctions Could Impact Central Asia
- Pakistan threatens Yemeni strikes on KSA ‘could trigger’ Mecca defense pact
- Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Qatar Warns of ‘Industrial Catastrophe’ If Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed
- Israeli Army Closes Tulkarem Zakat Committee Headquarters
- Blaming the Victim in the Gaza Genocide
- If Americans Knew
- ISRAELI MEDIA: Revealed: Netanyahu Received an Explicit Warning Days Before Oct. 7. He Didn’t Brief Israel’s Security Chiefs
- “Israel is a wonderful, safe place,” according to this totally objective expert
- The UK just announced it will comply with Int’l Court of Justice ruling from 2024. What does the ICJ ruling require states to do?
- Israel’s Quadcopter Drones Have Become a Weapon of Everyday Killing in Gaza
- Israel’s grip on American politics is finally being questioned
- Photos: Palestinians rebuild Gaza’s ruins with mud bricks, scrap
- Too many preemies in Gaza, no room in the NICU – Daily Update
- Front Row At the Revolution: Angry Americans are demanding liberation from the Israeli yoke
- Evangelical Zionist Huckabee attacks Jewish Ed Miliband, accuses UK government of ‘Jew hate’
- Macklemore Responds to Backlash Over “Free Palestine” Plea: “Wanting All Humans to Be Treated Equal Should Never Be Controversial”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 