Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UKRAINE: Hysterical Western Reaction, Retaliation – May Lead to Wider War

By Peter Ford | 21st Century Wire | February 26, 2022

Russophobe, germophobe, it’s all the same.

I simplify. But it’s striking how the loudest Russophobic voices include all the same voices which were similarly hysterical about Covid – the mainstream media, the Labour Party, and the liberal elite (which includes much of the Conservative Party), while the few voices calling for even a modicum of restraint or understanding of Russia include anti-lockdown Farage (on GB News) and Trump, both of the Right. Piers Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn, virtually alone on the Left have spoken up, while Starmer has forced 11 of his MPs who signed a Stop The War statement to withdraw their signatures.

The Labour Party in fact has tried to outflank the Tories on the Right, demanding the silencing of RT, the Russian broadcaster.

The Ukraine crisis rubs home the same messages we received loud and clear during the Great Covid Hysteria: Left and Right are meaningless now, the default option for any untoward contingency arising is to go to panic stations, muzzle any dissent, and bring in restrictions/interventions/sanctions without a thought about the side effects, or even direct consequences.

Just as Covid lockdowns were imposed regardless of wrecking society and economy, so the West is now imposing drastic sanctions on Russia without anybody even asking the question: well, might not Russia retaliate, with cyber attacks for example? It’s not appeasement to pause to consider if our moves might backfire, that’s just plain prudence and a sense of responsibility. And what about gas and petrol prices? Collapsing stock markets? Sterling, anyone?

Nor is it appeasement to appreciate that the problem didn’t begin just yesterday, that the West was asking for trouble sooner or later when it incorporated much of the former Soviet Union into its own sphere of influence (NATO membership), and started to establish forward military positions in Ukraine even though formally Ukraine was not a member of NATO. We poke the Russian bear and then cry in horror when it responds by showing its claws.

Grabbing other people’s land is always wrong. But tell that to the Americans, who have endorsed Israel’s annexation of Palestinian and Syrian territory without even a semblance of support from the inhabitants. The Americans have also stationed military forces in North East Syria, denying access to the region’s oil by the Syrian government, pretexting a pseudo-mission of ‘keeping ISIS out’ – when ISIS no longer poses any real threat. Tell NATO ally Turkey which mounted a similar ‘peacekeeping’ mission across its border into North West Syria, killing hundreds of Syrian government forces in the process and sustaining in control a local jihadi regime. Nobody in NATO breathes a word against any of this.

It’s not all bad news. The aggravation of the already dire energy situation is creating a new equation: people are realising you can have zero emissions, or you can be warm.

However, looking at the downside, the conflict over Ukraine could harm the cause of freedom supporters if the perception grows that we are siding with the nation’s enemies. Some might even say that our support for peace is toxic. But what is there to lose? We are demonised, harassed and persecuted already. And nobody else is interested in making peace, only in pouring fuel on the flames with arms supplies and punishing Russia with backfiring sanctions.

Putin may be making the same calculation, that he has nothing to lose. The West spurned feelers he put out about a neutral status for Ukraine, application of the Minsk accords on a settlement for the Eastern areas, and revival of arms limitation treaties. Why not go the whole hog and practise the same regime change tactics the West used or tried to use in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?

Peter Ford is a global affair analyst and former British Ambassador to Syria (2003-2006) and Bahrain (1999-2002).

February 26, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russian cargo ship seized by French authorities

RT | February 26, 2022

A Russian cargo ship has been intercepted in the English Channel by French authorities on suspicion of violating EU sanctions imposed following Moscow’s military offensive in Ukraine.

The vessel, which departed from Rouen, was transporting cars to St. Petersburg when it was redirected to the port of Boulogne-sur-Mer in northern France in the early hours of Saturday morning.

The press office for the Maritime Prefecture of the Channel confirmed to the media that the ship was “strongly suspected of being linked to Russian interests targeted by the sanctions.”

According to the statement, during a routine patrol of the channel, police “came across the Russian boat, an inspection aboard was made and the boat was ordered to return to the French port” for further investigations.

The Russian embassy in France confirmed the detention of a vessel.

”On February 26 at 07:00 in the territorial waters of France near the city of Boulogne-sur-Mer, the Russian cargo ship ‘Baltic leader’ was detained. Its crew lists 19 people,” the diplomatic mission’s representative told RIA Novosti.

The embassy said it plans to send a note of protest to the French Foreign Ministry and to take measures to protect the crew.

According to media reports, the 127-meter-long vessel had permission to sail in French waters. Following Russia’s military attack on Ukraine, launched on Thursday, the US, EU, UK and others have imposed harsh economic sanctions with the aim of creating “massive and severe consequences” for Moscow.

Moscow considers the sanctions unlawful and unjustified and claims that the military action has been the only option available to protect the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and to ensure that Russia would not be threatened by the expansion of NATO in Ukraine.

February 26, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

US warns of ‘global fallout’

The world economy will pay a heavy price if the West imposes new sanctions on Moscow, the US Treasury warns

By Alexey Viryasov | RT | February 17, 2022

If Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, the global economy will suffer an inevitable fallout as a result of newly unleashed Western sanctions on Moscow, the US Treasury secretary warned on Wednesday.

Speaking to French news agency AFP, Janet Yellen explained that the US and its European allies are preparing a “very substantial package of sanctions that will have severe consequences for the Russian economy.”

However, despite Washington wanting the highest cost to fall on Moscow, she admitted that there would be “some global fallout” from the measures.

The primary concern of Washington and Brussels is the potential impact of economic sanctions on the global energy market. As a major exporter of energy, Moscow supplies around 40% of the gas used by EU countries. The bloc’s energy security could be in danger if Moscow were to cut off its gas pipelines in retaliation for economic sanctions, some have claimed. And even if Russia doesn’t limit its supply, energy prices could still rise even further in the event of a large-scale conflict in Europe.

Earlier on Tuesday, US President Joe Biden warned that Americans would also have to pay a heavy price for the escalation around Ukraine.

“If Russia decides to invade, that would also have consequences here at home. But the American people understand that defending democracy and liberty is never without cost,” he said. “I will not pretend this will be painless.”

The recent spat over Ukraine between Moscow and NATO allies started when Russia allegedly began amassing troops on its Western border. Fears of war then led to some nations, including the US, opting to evacuate diplomatic personnel from Kiev. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied that it is planning a military incursion, claiming that troop movements near the frontier are due to planned training exercises.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

If you’re American and oppose war with Russia, expect to be smeared as unpatriotic

By Lauren Chen | RT | February 16, 2022

On Tuesday, after weeks of international uncertainty and fears of conflict, Russia announced it would be pulling its troops back from the border with Ukraine. This news came after repeated assurances from President Vladimir Putin and officials that Moscow had no desire for war, and that troop movements and positioning were merely training exercises.

Markets immediately responded to this development with renewed optimism, as the Dow jumped 400 points, European stocks closed higher on Tuesday, and natural gas and power prices fell. However, one group curiously silent in light of the seemingly positive turn of events was the war hawks, goaded by Western media, intelligence, and politicians, who in the preceding hours had all but assured the public that an invasion and armed conflict were inevitable.

And while the establishment neo-cons and neo-libs may say that their hawkish warnings and preparations were simply the logical conclusion given the information available at the time, it’s important to remember that throughout the recent hysteria, there have been voices who attempted to pull back the mounting calls for war. However, rather than address their reasoning, the pro-war camp instead resorted to smears in order to justify their peculiar need to stoke tensions with another global superpower.

Specifically, in one attempt to contextualize the intelligence communities’ assurances that Russia’s troop actions were a build-up to aggression against Ukraine, Green Party member and former presidential candidate Jill Stein reminded her social media followers of how officials had not just been wrong about previous conflicts, but had actually lied to the public to garner support for action in Vietnam and Iraq, among other wars. Similarly, many of these same insiders had also been less than truthful about recent stories involving Julian Assange and Russiagate.

The general response to Dr. Stein’s post was positive overall, in keeping with polling which suggests the American public has no interest in involving their country in new foreign engagements. However, the reaction from the pro-war camp was to accuse Dr. Stein of being a Russian asset. Because, of course, what other reason could there be for someone to oppose costly military intervention based on shaky intelligence other than disloyalty to their own country?

And in this same vein, Tulsi Gabbard, another vocal anti-war advocate who has fiercely criticized interventionist American foreign policy, has also spent weeks warning of the conflicting interests motivating those banging the war drums. Often, as Gabbard has pointed out, officials who are most supportive of American military action overseas are also those who stand to gain monetarily through defense contracts and spending.

What’s more, Gabbard has even gone so far as to suggest that by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, certain American actors might actually be trying to spark a new Cold War, not to benefit US security interests, but rather the military industrial complex. After all, historically, American policy has considered breaches in spheres of influence occurring in countries close to them, such as Cuba, to be acts of aggression. What makes Western encroachment in Ukraine any different?

As with Dr. Stein, however, sadly Gabbard’s criticisms were met with the usual accusations of being a foreign asset, with little to no attempt to address the actual substance of her position.

Across the aisle on the political right, one of the most prominent anti-war voices that has emerged is Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has likewise been attacked for his views. Carlson has frequently devoted time on his program to questioning whether, regardless of Russia’s intentions, involving the US in Ukrainian affairs is in America’s best interests, especially at a time when domestic problems abound. Additionally, Carlson has been skeptical of political attempts to paint Ukraine as a Western-style democracy in order to garner public support for any potential alliances or interventions.

For his efforts, Carlson has received especially vicious condemnation from the likes of David Frum, who in 2003 accused those who were against military action in Iraq of being “unpatriotic.”  In a scathing article in The Athletic, Frum accused Carlson and others on the antiwar right of spouting “Vladimir Putin’s talking points,” and ironically likened his position to “isolationists who hoped to profit politically from that passivity.”

Russia’s troop withdrawal may have temporarily neutered the pro-war momentum building in Western discourse. However, the overt hostility toward those who argue against escalating tensions with Russia may signal that it’s only a matter of time before establishment forces are once more arguing that it is not just beneficiary, but rather necessary, for Western militaries to strike before Russian forces can do the same.

Lauren Chen is a political and social commentator. She began as a YouTuber, and has since gained millions of views on the platform and hundreds of thousands of followers.

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

I was there: NATO and the origins of the Ukraine crisis

After the fall of the Soviet Union, I told the Senate that expansion would lead us to where we are today.

By Jack F. Matlock Jr. | Responsible Statecraft | February 15, 2022

Today we face an avoidable crisis between the United States and Russia that was predictable, willfully precipitated, but can easily be resolved by the application of common sense.

But how did we get to this point?

Allow me, as someone who participated in the negotiations that ended the Cold War, to bring some history to bear on the current crisis.

We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine’s borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president has advised against panic and made clear that he does not consider a Russian invasion imminent. Vladimir Putin has denied that he has any intention of invading Ukraine. His demand is that the process of adding new members to NATO cease and that Russia has assurance that Ukraine and Georgia will never be members.

President Biden has refused to give such assurance but made clear his willingness to continue discussing questions of strategic stability in Europe. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has made clear it has no intention of implementing the agreement reached in 2015 for reuniting the Donbas provinces into Ukraine with a large degree of local autonomy — an agreement with Russia, France, and Germany that the United States endorsed.

Was this crisis avoidable?

In short, yes. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers wrongly believed they were witnessing the end of the Cold War when It had actually ended at least two years earlier by negotiation and was in the interest of all the parties. President George H.W. Bush hoped that Gorbachev would manage to keep most of the 12 non-Baltic republics in a voluntary federation.

Despite the prevalent belief held by both the DC foreign policy establishment and most of the Russian public, the United States did not support, much less cause the break-up of the Soviet Union. We supported the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and one of the last acts of the Soviet parliament was to legalize their claim to independence. And — despite frequently voiced fears — Vladimir Putin has never threatened to re-absorb the Baltic countries or to claim any of their territories, though he has criticized some that denied ethnic Russians the full rights of citizenship, a principle that the European Union is pledged to enforce.

Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.

Was this crisis predictable?

Absolutely. NATO expansion was the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. In 1997, when the question of adding more NATO members arose, I was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In my introductory remarks, I made the following statement:

“I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.” Indeed, our nuclear arsenals were capable of ending the possibility of civilization on Earth.

But that was not the only reason I cited for including rather than excluding Russia from European security. As I explained to the SFRC: “The plan to increase the membership of NATO fails to take account of the real international situation following the end of the Cold War, and proceeds in accord with a logic that made sense only during the Cold War. The division of Europe ended before there was any thought of taking new members into NATO. No one is threatening to re-divide Europe. It is therefore absurd to claim, as some have, that it is necessary to take new members into NATO to avoid a future division of Europe; if NATO is to be the principal instrument for unifying the continent, then logically the only way it can do so is by expanding to include all European countries. But that does not appear to be the aim of the administration, and even if it is, the way to reach it is not by admitting new members piecemeal.”

The decision to expand NATO piecemeal was a reversal of American policies that produced the end of the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush had proclaimed a goal of a “Europe whole and free.” Gorbachev had spoken of “our common European home,” had welcomed representatives of East European governments who threw off their communist rulers and had ordered radical reductions in Soviet military forces by explaining that for one country to be secure, there must be security for all.

President Bush also assured Gorbachev during their meeting in Malta in December, 1989, that if the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to choose their future orientation by democratic processes, the United States would not “take advantage” of that process. (Obviously, bringing countries into NATO that were then in the Warsaw Pact would be “taking advantage.”) The following year, Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO jurisdiction to the east, “not one inch.”

These comments were made to Gorbachev before the Soviet Union broke up. Once it did, the Russian Federation had less than half the population of the Soviet Union and a military establishment demoralized and in total disarray. While there was no reason to enlarge NATO after the Soviet Union recognized and respected the independence of the East European countries, there was even less reason to fear the Russian Federation as a threat.

Was this crisis willfully precipitated?

Alas, the policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point.

Adding countries in Eastern Europe to NATO continued during the George W. Bush administration but that was not the only thing that stimulated Russian objection. At the same time, the United States began withdrawing from the arms control treaties that had tempered, for a time, an irrational and dangerous arms race and were the foundation agreements for ending the Cold War. The most significant was the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which had been the cornerstone treaty for the series of agreements that halted for a time the nuclear arms race. After 9/11, Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush and offer support. He was as good as his word by facilitating the attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It was clear at that time that Putin aspired to a security partnership with the United States as the jihadist terrorists who were targeting the United States were also targeting Russia. Nevertheless, Washington continued its course of ignoring Russian (and also allied) interests by invading Iraq, an act of aggression that not only Russia opposed, but also France and Germany.

Although President Obama initially promised improved relations through his “reset” policy, the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage “regime change” in Russia itself. American actions in Syria and Ukraine were seen by the Russian president, and most Russians, as indirect attacks on them.

And so far as Ukraine is concerned, U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep, actively supporting the 2014 revolution and overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.

Relations soured further during President Obama’s second term after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Then things got worse during the four years of Donald Trump’s tenure. Accused of being a Russian dupe, Trump passed every anti-Russian measure that came along, while at the same time flattering Putin as a great leader.

Can the crisis be resolved by the application of common sense?

Yes, after all, what Putin is demanding is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the “color revolutions” — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Now, to say that approving Putin’s demands is in the objective interest of the United States does not mean that it will be easy to do. The leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties have developed such a Russo-phobic stance that it will take great political skill to navigate such treacherous political waters and achieve a rational outcome.

President Biden has made it clear that the United States will not intervene with its own troops if Russia invades Ukraine. So why move them into Eastern Europe? Just to show hawks in Congress that he is standing firm?

Maybe the subsequent negotiations between Washington and the Kremlin will find a way to allay Russian concerns and defuse the crisis. And maybe then Congress will start dealing with the growing problems we have at home instead of making them worse.

Or so one can hope.

February 15, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Canadian Media STILL Pushing Crackpot Theory That Truckers Are Russian Agents

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 14, 2022

As the Canadian freedom convoy rolls on and continues to influence other protesters around the globe, Canadian media continues to push outright disinformation by suggesting that the Russian government is behind the movement.

When the convoy first came to prominence at the end of January, state broadcaster the Canadian Broadcasting Company began spreading completely unfounded claims that “Russian actors” were present among the Canadian truckers holding up major cities including Ottawa and Toronto, as well as border crossings.

The tenuous reasoning behind the theory is that Canada has expressed support for Ukraine during the country’s ongoing tensions with Russia.

Rather than admit that working class truckers are sick of enforced restrictions and vaccine mandates threatening their livelihoods, CBC floated the crackpot idea that Vladimir Putin is secretly behind the protests.

CBC continues to push the conspiracy theory, with correspondent Harry Forestell filing the following report Friday giving airtime to ‘New Brunswick cybersecurity expert’ David Shipley, who is adamant that the Russians are behind everything.

Shipley proclaimed “Who would have reason right now to cause as much chaos in Canada as possible? Well, at the top of that list is Russia.”

He continued, “We are actively engaged in a geopolitical battle about the future of the Ukraine. Our Foreign Affairs minister, our Prime Minister, others have been very vocal in our support for the Ukraine and it seems very likely that the tactics that we are seeing, the creation of the massive Facebook groups using fake identities or in the case now alleged by a U.S. media outlet, a stolen identity of a Missouri woman to create these groups and to foster this communication hundreds of thousands of people, this is the Russian internet research agency playbook writ large.”

Shipley has considered that possibly the truckers are Chinese agents too, but ultimately no, they’re Russian.

He declared “You have other enemies as well. You have China, you have other states but when I narrow down my list of suspects and I don’t have enough evidence to win in a court of law but I don’t need that right now, this smacks of the kind of move that Russia has made in the past, the United States, and is continuing to do around the world.”

When asked what the solution to this pressing Russian agent problem is, Shipley’s solution was to restrict and shut down the convoy’s social media presence.

You certainly don’t have enough evidence Mr Shipley because there isn’t any.

February 14, 2022 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Giant Ukrainian US lobbying campaign revealed

RT | February 13, 2022

Ukrainian lobbyists contacted US congressional offices, think tanks, and media figures over 10,000 times last year, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings reported by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on Friday.

The Quincy report pointed to the “extraordinary” scale of Ukraine’s lobbying campaign, noting that the lobbying efforts of Saudi Arabia – known as one of the largest foreign lobbies in Washington DC – pales in comparison.

According to the report, most of Kiev’s persuasive efforts focused on members of Congress, who were deluged with over 8,000 contacts – emails, phone calls, and meetings – in an effort to convince them of the need to block the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, among other issues.

The Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry (UFEOGI), the country’s largest energy trade group, would reportedly cite Ukraine’s PM, arguing that the pipeline was “no less an existential threat” to Ukraine’s “security and democracy” than “Russian troops on the border.” The pipeline, which is completed but still has to receive the green light from German regulators, would allow Russia to export gas directly to Europe without having to pay Kiev billions for the transfer of gas.

UFEOGI lobbyists apparently centered their efforts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who took just several days to channel the Ukrainian PM on social media. In his own message, Cruz likewise referred to the Russian pipeline as an “existential threat.”

The trade group also sought to reach out to senators who had previously backed legislation to thwart the completion of the pipeline, including several members of the Foreign Relations Committee with a history of anti-Russian votes. Cruz, Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) were all contacted at least 100 times last year, with some of these contacts resulting in their staffers meeting directly with Ukrainian energy lobbyists, the report claims.

The bill proposed by Cruz would have imposed bans on doing business with US companies for those involved with the Nord Stream 2 project, in addition to travel restrictions and asset freezes. It failed to pass, however.

A separate legislative proposal, put forth by Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and dubbed “the mother of all sanctions,” would punish senior Russian officials and banks in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. The Quincy report noted that one of Menendez’s former staffers, Brittany Beaulieu, now represents UFEOGI, as well as the ‘Civil Movement for a Just Ukraine’.

Apart from the US lawmakers, Ukrainian lobbyists also reportedly courted pro-NATO think tank the Atlantic Council, contacting it hundreds of times. The report noted that one of the richest men in Ukraine, Victor Pinchuk, is also one of the Atlantic Council’s international advisers, while his foundation is a major contributor to the think tank.

Ukrainian lobbyists also targeted the Heritage Foundation, which has been advocating selling more US weapons to Ukraine and ramping up US financial assistance to Kiev. The lobbyists reached out 180 times to high-ranking figures in the organization, including its VP, throughout 2021, according to the report.

The lobbyists also did not overlook the US media, contacting the Wall Street Journal’s newsroom at least 147 times last year, the report said, citing Quincy’s analysis of the interactions.

Russia has repeatedly denied plans to invade its neighbor, dismissing reports to the contrary as fake news. US media outlets, nevertheless, have attempted to predict the outbreak of hostilities down to the very day, citing anonymous government sources. Numerous US officials have argued that the invasion was looming, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan saying on Friday that it could begin “any time.”

On Saturday, however, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on the Americans to share the evidence they supposedly have of Russia’s intentions after having previously warned that reports of an imminent war risk destabilizing his country.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Valieva ‘repeatedly passed doping tests’ before and after positive result – ROC

RT | February 11, 2022

Figure skater Kamila Valieva passed doping tests in the period before and after the positive result announced on Friday, including returning negative tests at the Beijing Olympics, the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) has said.

Valieva is fighting for the right to remain at the Beijing Games after the International Testing Agency (ITA) announced that the 15-year-old had tested positive for a banned substance detected in a sample from December 25.

The sample was taken during the Russian national championships, and was sent to a laboratory in Stockholm accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Tests found the presence of the banned heart medicine trimetazidine, but the result was only reported on February 8 – one day after Valieva had won gold with the ROC in the figure skating team event in Beijing.

Valieva was provisionally suspended by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), but had that decision reversed upon appeal on February 9, freeing her to train and compete.

However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Skating Union (ISU) are both challenging the ruling with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is set to hear the case before Valieva is due to compete in the ladies’ singles event in Beijing on Tuesday.

In a statement on Friday, the ROC confirmed the positive test, but affirmed that it had taken place outside the Beijing Games.

“The doping test of the athlete [Valieva] who tested positive does not apply to the period of the Olympic Games,” read an ROC message.

“At the same time, the athlete [Valieva] repeatedly passed doping tests before and after December 25, 2021, including at the European Championships [in January] and already in Beijing during the figure skating tournament. All the results were negative.”

The ROC added that due procedure had been followed when the disciplinary commission of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) decided to lift the initial suspension, but noted that the IOC and ISU also have the right to appeal that decision with CAS.

“At present, the athlete has the right to train and compete in full without restrictions until the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides otherwise regarding her status in relation to the Olympic Games,” the ROC added.

Concerning the status of the ROC’s gold medal in the figure skating team event – where the medal ceremony has been delayed – the Russian statement added: “Given that the athlete’s positive doping test was not taken during the Olympic Games, the results of the athlete and the results of the team tournament during the Olympic Games are not subject to automatic review.”

Separately, ROC president Stanislav Pozdnyakov has questioned the timeframe surrounding Valieva’s case, asking why it took until after the figure skating team event in Beijing for the result to be announced, when the sample was taken back in December.

Led by Valieva, the ROC team had beaten the USA and Japan to gold in China, with Canada down in fourth.

A CAS panel is expected to hold an expedited hearing on Valieva’s case ahead of the ladies’ singles event on Tuesday.

The drug in question, trimetazidine, is used to treat angina or chest pain, but has been on the WADA banned list since 2014.

In an advisory note in 2018, WADA noted that trimetazidine – also known as TMZ – could be detected in urine samples as a false positive for lomerizine, a migraine medication which is permitted.

Some have questioned how trimetazidine could be used as a performance-enhancing drug, particularly in a sport like figure skating.

“Why it’s being considered as doping is not clear to me,” Yaroslav Ashikhmin, a member of the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, told RT.

“I personally use it extremely rarely, even in treatment, since its effect is not strong enough, it just slightly affects the heart function. You can say that it is a heart vitamin. Of course, it is a complete mess with doping control if this drug is identified as doping.”

The Russian figure skating federation said it has “no doubts” that Valieva is a clean athlete, adding that it will “make every effort to clarify the circumstances of the incident.”

Meanwhile, Valieva continues to train along with teammates Alexandra Trusova and Anna Shcherbakova, ignoring questions from the media after completing a session on Friday.

February 11, 2022 Posted by | Russophobia | Leave a comment

Why the Freedom Convoy is provoking unprecedented hysteria

By Rachel Marsden | RT | February 10, 2022

In the two weeks since the Freedom Convoy of Canadian truckers and their supporters began rallying in Ottawa to demand an end to all pandemic-related mandates and restrictions nationwide, it has become clear that this movement isn’t like other protest movements. And that’s a scary proposition for those in charge who thought that they’d manage and exploit this crisis on their own sweet time and schedule regardless of the actual science and reality on the ground.

There has long been an agenda to corral as many humans as possible unwittingly into a global dragnet through technological adoption. That’s what the revelations of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden were about back in 2013. A technological panopticon provides those in charge with the ability to monitor and ultimately control or sanction dissidents or outliers as the state pursues the self-serving agenda of a select few. Algorithms that exploit this massive online presence enable the state to accurately craft propaganda to be deployed to vilify them in the eyes of the general population, while portraying the state as the great protector — all while selling citizens out to the interests of a select few elites. Essentially, people are manipulated into arguing against their own good.

For those citizens who aren’t seduced by the mere convenience of technology or the narcissistic allure of social media, the fear of terrorism or of Covid-19 more actively encouraged onboarding to these dragnets. And that was before it was flat-out mandated with government-issued QR code health and vaccine passes that linked directly to your identity.

But then a bunch of truckers noticed that the threat of authoritarianism in Canada and elsewhere was closer than it may appear in their mirrors. And these essential workers decided to park their essential tools until officials stopped treating essential freedoms like they were negotiable.

Because Canadian mainstream media is so severely lacking in truly contradictory debate and diversity of thought, the protests risked sparking an unprecedented new awareness for those who had been force-fed government talking points while they may have already been starting to wonder why their entourage was triple-jabbed and still catching the virus. They were probably beginning to question the real value of the sacrifices that they were forced by government into making over the past two years under the illusion of safety.

Into this mix comes a group of people who aren’t paid activists or troublemakers, but rather everyday people with real jobs — and ‘essential’ ones at that, as previously hailed by the governments themselves. This makes the truckers a different breed of dissenters from Black Lives Matters, Antifa, or French Yellow Vest protesters. And that explains why the rhetorical big guns are now being deployed against them. The truckers, by demanding that life go back to exactly the way it was before governments started instrumentalizing the pandemic, could undermine any agenda to exploit the crisis for globalist advancement. This would especially be the case if the Freedom Convoy movement spread around the world, as it’s beginning to do. Here in France, for example, convoys departing from various cities are reportedly scheduled to arrive in Paris beginning on February 11.

Former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, a dual citizen of Ottawa and Globalistan, wrote in a recent Globe and Mail newspaper opinion piece: “[B)y now anyone sending money to the convoy should be in no doubt: You are funding sedition. Foreign funders of an insurrection interfered in our domestic affairs from the start. Canadian authorities should take every step within the law to identify and thoroughly punish them. The involvement of foreign governments and any officials connected to them should be identified, exposed and addressed.”

Unlike previous environmental protests that have raged in Canada to the detriment of the country’s future energy independence, and been backed by US-based think-tanks funded by American business interests close to Washington elites — all of which have apparently escaped Carney’s attention or interest — truckers don’t actually require ‘foreign funding’. They have actual jobs that pay quite well.

You’d think he’d know that, given his illustrious background as an expert in money. But good luck trying to exploit the ‘foreign bogeyman’ trope and attempting to find the scapegoat that you’re looking for. Carney is concerned about the ‘occupation’ by protesters, who are merely fighting against the government blockade of citizens’ lives for the past two years. And a bonus L-O-L for his effort to portray protests to regain basic freedoms as some kind of attempt to overthrow the government of Canada. Perhaps someone could provide him with a paper bag before he passes out?

Here’s your ground truth in Ottawa: “More than 100 Highway Traffic Act and other ‘Provincial Offence Notices’ were issued for offenses including excessive honking, driving the wrong way, defective muffler, no seat belt, alcohol readily available and having the improper class of driving license,” according to a Fox News report.

Well, you know what they say. Every hardcore coup d’état starts with a seat belt offense, right?

Meanwhile, US Homeland Security, already apparently attempting to ward off any potential future pushback against its own unpopular agenda, issued an advisory on February 7 conflating terrorism with “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions.” Would that include dissent against any government-approved narrative around the pandemic and related liberticidal measures?

Restrictions, mandates, and ‘vaccine passports’ in two Canadian provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan — are now ending, premiers of both jurisdictions announced on February 7.

The rest of the world now runs the risk of these trucker movements gaining momentum, before the restrictions and mandates can allow for the full implementation of a lasting solution of tracking and surveillance capable of monitoring populist blowback to government insanity.

The rally race between truckers and globalists is on! And with nothing less than democracy and freedom at stake.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France.

February 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

US State Department alleges Moscow prepared ‘crisis actor’ video to invade Ukraine, refuses to offer evidence

RT | February 3, 2022

The US has accused Russia of creating a propaganda video featuring crisis actors, staged fake explosions, and NATO military equipment such as Turkish drones, as a pretext for invading Ukraine in the coming days.

The claim was first published on Thursday morning by the Washington Post, which cited an unnamed US official quoting US intelligence assessments. It was then picked up by CNN and other outlets. On Thursday afternoon, State Department spokesman Ned Price said the government “made public” that intelligence, and echoed the description of the alleged video featured in the Post and CNN stories.

The video is “entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence” and is “one of a number of options the Russian government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially justify military aggression against Ukraine,” Price claimed. He added that the US is making the claim public as a way to deter Russia from its “destructive and destabilizing disinformation campaign” against Ukraine.

Pressed to show any evidence for the claim, Price said his own statement constituted evidence, and that it was “derived from information known to the US government, intelligence information that we have declassified.”

“If you doubt the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments, and want to find solace in the information the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do,” Price told AP’s diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee, dismissing his line of questioning.

“Russia never does such things,” Moscow’s ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told RIA Novosti on Thursday, when asked about the new US allegations.

As proof of alleged Russian ‘actions’ in Ukraine, the State Department spokesman quoted the allegation anonymous US officials made to CNN in mid-January, claiming that Russia had sent a “group of operatives” trained in urban warfare to attack “Russia’s own proxy forces” in the two disputed regions of eastern Ukraine, in order to create a pretext for an “invasion.”

Moscow dismissed these claims as “unsubstantiated” hearsay. Several days later, leaders of the Donetsk militia told reporters it was British-trained Ukrainian saboteurs that were planning attacks they would then attribute to Russia as ‘false flags’.

February 4, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russia responds to accusations of chemical weapons use

Russian ambassador to the United States says Washington is telling ‘outright lies’

By Jonny Tickle | RT | February 2, 2022

Russia is strictly adhering to the norms of international law, and suggestions that it is using chemical weapons are “fundamentally false,” the country’s ambassador to the US claimed on Wednesday.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday morning, Anatoly Antonov called the accusation a fantasy, and instead suggested that Washington is trying to “demonize” Russia. His rebuttal came after White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told journalists that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken “aggressive steps” on the global stage.

“This is a country and a leader who has, you know, used chemical weapons, who has invaded multiple countries in the past several years,” Psaki said, at a press briefing on Tuesday.

However, according to Antonov, both these suggestions are untrue, and Washington would be wise to “look in the mirror more often before blaming or lecturing others.”

“The US has not backed up with any credible evidence its fantasies built on outright lies about the alleged use of chemical weapons by our country,” the ambassador said. “The accusations against our country of ‘invading’ other states also have no grounds.”

According to Antonov, Russia has completely destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons, while the US has not.

“Russia adheres to the principle of ‘non-interference’ in the affairs of foreign countries and strictly follows international law – unlike the United States, whose modern history looks more like a chronology of US military operations in different parts of the globe,” the ambassador continued, accusing Washington of conducting “bloody” experiments around the world, which cause “nothing but chaos, instability, and loss of lives.”

The latest statement by Psaki is not the first time that Moscow has been accused of illegally using chemical weapons. Last year, Washington imposed sanctions on a number of Russian officials and businesses for the alleged poisoning of jailed opposition figure Alexey Navalny, in what the US dubbed “the use of a chemical weapon” in an “attempted assassination.”

“The U.S. government has exercised its authorities to send a clear signal that Russia’s use of chemical weapons and abuse of human rights have severe consequences. Any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and contravenes international norms,” a State Department press release said in March.

In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Washington of using Russia as a diversion from America’s internal issues.

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Media floats Russia theory for Canadian trucker protest

State-owned CBC suggests that ‘Russian actors’ may have instigated massive protest convoy that shut down nation’s capital

Rex Murphy: Reopen Parliament early for Freedom Convoy's ...

RT | January 29, 2022

A cross-country convoy of truckers that has jammed the streets of Canada’s capital in protest against Covid-19 vaccine mandates might seem like grass-roots pushback against government overreach, but broadcaster CBC Television has offered a more sinister explanation: Russia did it.

Speaking in an interview on Friday with Canada’s public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, CBC host Nil Koksal suggested that possible Kremlin meddlers might have brought about the massive “Freedom Convoy.” “Given Canada’s support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don’t know if it’s far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset,” she said.

Koksal didn’t offer any evidence to back up the theory or say who has raised such concern. Mendicino replied, “I’m gonna defer to our partners in the public safety, the trained officials and experts in that area.”

The interview came just before disgruntled truckers began to arrive in Ottawa on Friday night. Thousands of convoy participants and other protesters massed in the city on Saturday, bringing traffic to a standstill and sending Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into hiding. State-owned CBC said Trudeau and his family had been moved from his official residence to a “secure location.”

As many as 50,000 trucks were reportedly expected to flood into Ottawa, and traffic was snarled through much of the city. Some trucks were emblazoned with “F**k Trudeau” signs across their trailers, while other protesters demanded, “Mandate freedom.”

Government restrictions that went into effect on January 15 require unvaccinated Canadian drivers to quarantine for 14 days when they cross the border back into their country. Trudeau has condemned the angry truckers as holding “unacceptable views.”

Prior to floating the theory of a Russian bogeyman, Canadian media outlets have made other claims that appeared to smear the protesters, such as suggesting they are racist or extremist.

The Toronto Star said the convoy became a “magnet” for such undesirable elements as “conspiracy nuts, Western separatists, far right-wingers and worse.” Others have suggested that some participants want to carry out their own version of last year’s US Capitol riot.

A counter-protester was seen on Saturday saying, “F**k your white nationalist agenda,” while Canadian television reporter Mackenzie Gray was quick to post a Twitter message proclaiming “our first Confederate flag of the day here on Parliament Hill.” Multiple observers replied that Gray had spotted the “first fed of the day,” meaning a federal agent seeking to discredit the protest.

January 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »