Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

It’s Likely That Algeria Will Play An Important Role If West Africa Descends Into War

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 1, 2023

West Africa Is Gearing Up For A Regional War” as it bifurcates into two clearly defined blocs over whether to invade or defend Niger, which experienced a potentially game-changing patriotic military coup last week. The preceding hyperlinked analysis explains the rapidly emerging military-strategic dynamics more in detail, but they can be summarized as setting the stage for what might soon become the next proxy battleground in the New Cold War.

NATO supports a Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion to reinstall Niger’s ousted leader while Russia backs Burkina Faso and Mali, which have de facto merged into a federation and jointly announced that any attack on that neighboring nation will be regarded as a declaration of war against both of them. Those two are trilaterally cooperating with Guinea, which is also under military rule like they are and just threw its political weight behind the Nigerien junta, but it’s unclear whether it’ll militarily defend it too.

The Interim President of regional military powerhouse Chad earlier traveled to Niamey in an attempt to broker a compromise that could avert war, but he appears to have been unsuccessful, though his country also hasn’t yet committed to supporting either side of this potentially coming conflict. This places Chad in a kingmaker position since its decision whether and when to intervene could greatly determine the outcome.

Amidst these fast-moving developments, Russian publicly financed international media flagship TASS confirmed on Tuesday that the Algerian Chief of Staff arrived in Moscow the day prior to meet with his host’s Defense Minister. They also added that the President visited St. Petersburg in June to attend the International Economic Forum there, during which time he met with President Putin to clinch an enhanced strategic partnership deal, while the Prime Minister was there last week for the Africa Summit.

It deserves mentioning that Russia is Algeria’s top military partner and has remained so for decades, with this relationship persisting in spite of Moscow neglecting most of Africa until just a few years ago. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) confirmed in this spring’s “Trends In International Arms Transfers” report that a whopping 73% of Algeria’s military imports from 2018-2022 were from Russia, which testifies to the enduring strength of their military ties.

Accordingly, Algeria has one of the largest, best-equipped, and most modern militaries anywhere in Africa, which is why it’s rightly regarded as among the continent’s most powerful countries. For that reason, its Chief of Staff’s latest visit to Russia in the current regional context isn’t any small matter since it suggests that Algiers intends to coordinate with Moscow regarding the wider war that might be about to break out upon the expiry of ECOWAS’ ultimatum this Sunday to reinstall Niger’s ousted leader.

Although Algeria and Russia both condemned the Nigerien coup late last week, each of their respective statements were shared prior to ECOWAS making its ultimatum that was subsequently supported by France and the US, both of which have troops in that country. The previously mentioned Burkinabe-Malian joint statement importantly warned that an invasion of Niger risks repeating the Libyan scenario by destabilizing the entire region and thus exacerbating terrorist threats to everyone.

This is an accurate assessment that justifies Russia and Algeria working together to avert that worst-case scenario and jointly coordinating their response to it if this conflict ends up becoming inevitable, thus explaining why the Algerian Chief of Staff decided to visit Russia right after his Prime Minister just did. The reason for his visit is clearly to discuss the planned NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion of Niger, which also happens to border Algeria for those readers who aren’t aware.

It’s likely that Algeria will play an important role if West Africa descends into war by virtue of its geography and military prowess. At the very least, Algiers might refuse to allow French warplanes to transit through its airspace, thus forcing them to risk being fired at if they violate this possible order or find another route to Niger via Libya (which might also be formally closed off to them) or somewhere else. The point is that Algeria can greatly complicate France’s military logistics in any upcoming conflict.

Not only that, but this North African nation could allow Russia to transit through its airspace (provided that NATO doesn’t impede this through dangerous brinksmanship over the Mediterranean) to reliably supply the de facto Burkinabe-Malian federation with arms, food, and whatever else it might need. In a sense, this would be spiritually similar to the erstwhile Soviet Union’s intervention in support of Ethiopia during the Ogaden War when it was invaded by Somalia, though of course key differences exist.

Moving along, the other role that Algeria could play is a direct one, though it can’t be taken for granted that its leadership will feel comfortable with this since it could fear that any significant deployment towards or into Niger could be taken advantage of by its long-time Moroccan nemesis. If it decides to do so, however, then moving its forces – including air defense systems – closer to the frontier could possibly deter France and Nigeria. Should those two still attack Niger, then Algeria might intervene in its support.

The Burkinabe-Malian joint statement warning about a repeat of the Libyan scenario scares Algeria since it struggled against terrorism during what’s regarded as its “Black Decade” from 1991-2002, not to mention more recently but to a much lesser extent since the NATO War on Libya in 2011. Its objective national interests are therefore served by at the very least complicating France’s military logistics in any upcoming conflict even if it ultimately decides not to get directly involved like Burkina Faso and Mali will.

Additionally, many might not know that Algeria has consistently espoused a revolutionary ideology throughout the decades despite the radical changes in the world order since its independence. This explains why it retained ties with Russia despite the latter’s difficult decade after the USSR’s dissolution and also didn’t cut off relations with Syria over the past decade either even though the Arab League did. Algeria’s leadership thus also has an ideological interest in complicating an imperialist invasion of Niger.

Taken together, these security and ideological interests account for why the Algerian Chief of Staff just flew to Moscow. His country wants to coordinate with its strategic partner in responding to this regional crisis as well as the wider war that might soon break out. While Algeria’s role isn’t as important as Nigeria’s could be in leading the NATO-backed ECOWAS invasion of Niger nor Chad’s in possibly being the kingmaker, it’s still pretty significant and shouldn’t be ignored or downplayed.

August 1, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Niger junta says France plotting to ‘intervene militarily’

AFP | July 31, 2023

Niger’s new junta on Monday accused France of seeking to “intervene militarily” to reinstate deposed President Mohamed Bazoum as tension mounted with the former colonial power and neighbours.

Bazoum, a western ally whose election just over two years ago was a watershed in Niger’s troubled history, was toppled on July 26 by the elite Presidential Guard.

Guards chief General Abdourahamane Tiani declared himself leader — but his claim has been shunned internationally and the West African bloc ECOWAS has given him a week to hand back power.

Bazoum’s PNDS party on Monday warned Niger risked becoming a “dictatorial and totalitarian regime” after a series of arrests.

On Monday morning, Oil Minister Mahamane Sani Mahamadou — the son of influential former president Mahamadou Issoufou — and Mining Minister Ousseini Hadizatou were arrested, the party charged.

The head of the PNDS’s national executive committee, Fourmakoye Gado, was also arrested, it said.

The junta had previously arrested the interior minister, the transport minister and a former defence minister, the party said.

On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron vowed “immediate and uncompromising” action if French citizens or interests were attacked after thousands rallied outside the French embassy.

Some tried to enter the compound but were dispersed by tear gas.

‘Plotting intervention’

The junta on Monday accused France of plotting an intervention.

“In its search for ways and means to intervene militarily in Niger, France with the complicity of some Nigeriens, held a meeting with the chief of staff of the Nigerien National Guard to obtain the necessary political and military authorisation,” the putschists said on national TV.

They also said six people needed hospitalisation after the embassy security services fired tear gas against the rally.

A demonstration in support of the junta was also held in Zinder, eastern Niger, on Monday.

Tough ECOWAS warning

On Sunday, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) sounded a tough warning.

The bloc demanded that Bazoum be reinstated within a week, failing which it would take “all measures” to restore constitutional order, which “may include the use of force”.

“No more time for us to send a warning signal… It’s time for action,” said ECOWAS chairman Bola Tinubu, president of Nigeria — Niger’s neighbour to the southeast and the regional superpower.

Russia called for the swift return of “the rule of law” and “restraint from all parties so that this doesn’t result in human casualties”.

Niger became the third Sahel country in less than three years, following neighbours Mali and Burkina Faso, to be shaken by a military coup.

In all three nations, a jihadist insurgency strained fragile governments, stoked anger in the military and rained economic blows on some of the world’s poorest countries.

The overthrow of elected presidents has been accompanied by anti-French, pro-Russian demonstrations.

Crucial ally

Protesters say France, the country’s traditional ally, has failed to shield them against the jihadists, whereas Russia would be a stronger ally.

In Mali, a 2020 putsch led to a bust-up with France which last year withdrew its troops as the junta brought in Russian paramilitaries.

France also quit Burkina Faso after two coups last year brought in a junta that adopted a nationalist line.

The withdrawals prompted France to reconfigure its decade-long anti-jihadist strategy in the Sahel, concentrating on Niger, where it fields 1,500 troops with a major air base near Niamey.

The latest coup, according to the putschists, was a response to “the degradation of the security situation” linked to the jihadist conflict, as well as corruption and economic woes.

International critics have ratcheted up pressure, targeting trade and development aid.

ECOWAS has suspended all commercial and financial transactions, while France, the European Union and the United States, which has 1,100 troops in Niger, have either cut off support or threatened to do so.

Germany suspended financial aid and development cooperation on Monday, and UN humanitarian operations have also been put on hold.

Niger has seen four coups since independence from France in 1960 and numerous other attempts, including two previously against Bazoum.

The 63-year-old is a former interior minister whose elections marked Niger’s first peaceful transition of power since independence.

August 1, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Al Jazeera & Politico Shed Light On The Real Reasons Why Nigeria Might Invade Niger

By ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 1, 2023

The fast-moving developments since last week’s patriotic military coup in Niger strongly suggest that “West Africa Is Gearing Up For A Regional War” between NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS and the Russian-backed de facto Burkinabe-Malian federation over that country’s future government. Those readers who aren’t aware of what’s been happening should reference the preceding hyperlinked analysis for background before proceeding with the rest of this piece, which assumes familiarity with the subject.

Al Jazeera and Politico likely didn’t intend to, but two of their articles on recent events shed light on the real reasons why Nigeria might invade Niger. Respectively titled “A test of wills: Can ECOWAS reverse Niger coup and establish a new order?” and “What Niger’s coup means for Nigeria”, they both suggest that ulterior motives are at play beyond restoring that country’s ousted leader just for the supposedly principled sake of defending democracy.

Beginning with Al Jazeera’s piece, it starts off by quoting the speech that newly inaugurated Nigerian President Bola Tinubu gave at ECOWAS early last month after he was elected chairman of this regional bloc. He said that “We must stand firm on democracy. There is no governance, freedom and rule of law without democracy.” This outlet noted that his words were soon put to the test two weeks later, hinting that he’s pressured to make good on rhetoric about something that he didn’t expect would happen.

They then cite the opinion of a former director of political affairs at the ECOWAS Commission who declared that “With Tinubu’s posture, we can see that Nigeria is back on stage.” This person’s position makes them biased towards that group and its regional role, but their particular quote inadvertently reveals that Tinubu is talking tough towards Niger for the sake of boosting his country’s prestige. To their credit, Al Jazeera seemed to have picked up on this as well as evidenced by what they later wrote:

“Within Nigeria, Tinubu’s assertiveness is being perceived as an intent to shore up popularity abroad while he is increasingly unpopular at home. His victory in the February presidential election is being contested by the two largest opposition parties who cite widespread electoral malpractice and claim he was ineligible to run. A string of early reforms – including the removal of a popular fuel subsidy – intended to overhaul Africa’s biggest economy has also led to spiralling costs of living.”

This is a damning explanation of the ulterior domestic motives behind the ultimatum that Tinubu gave Niger on behalf of the bloc that he now chairs. It’s basically a risky distraction from problems at home that’s being justified on the pretext of defending democracy, which uncoincidentally aligns with one of the mantras of the West’s so-called ‘rules-based order’. Al Jazeera also cited an Africa expert at Oxford Analytica who alleged that reversing the recent regime change could help thwart terrorist threats.

On the other hand, a Nigeria expert at the International Crisis Group told them that “Military interventions could also be unpopular in Nigeria and possibly lead to protests.” They also warned that this could “reduce pressure on jihadists and bandits in the Lake Chad area and create room for the expansion of their operation.” All things considered, Al Jazeera’s article on this subject was surprisingly critical of Nigeria’s potential invasion of Niger, thus making it a refreshing read.

The same can be said for Politico’s, which is much shorter but still contains some similarly damning explanations of what’s really driving events behind the scenes. They started off by quoting a senior fellow at the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who fearmongered that “Not only will failure to act send a signal that Tinubu and ECOWAS can only bark, but not bite, it will embolden military adventurers in other West African countries as well as the Russia-backed Wagner Group.”

The reality is corrupt Western puppets’ neglect of their countries’ objective national interests led to deteriorating economic and security situations that prompted the region’s spree of military coups, not anything else. Regarding Wagner, these juntas then tend to turn towards this group (whose post-mutiny ties with the Kremlin are clarified here) since it specializes in “Democratic Security”, or counter-Hybrid Warfare tactics and strategies that readers can learn about in the foregoing hyperlinked analyses.

Russia’s interest in securing their national models of democracy from (mostly Western-emanating) hybrid threats is twofold since it sincerely wants to empower them to become sovereign subjects in the Multipolar World Order but it also benefits by stopping the West from exploiting their resources. If the West treated African states as truly equal partners like Russia does, then it would stamp out terrorism and stop subjugating them as vassals so that they wouldn’t have a reason to consider switching partners.

With this fact-check in mind, it’s clear that Politico’s cited CFR expert explained the reasons why the West wants Nigeria to invade Niger instead of even attempting to put forth a reason why it would allegedly be in that country’s national interests to do so. This New Cold War bloc fears that the region’s newest junta will ally with Russia via Wagner and thus further accelerate the collapse of their influence across the continent, though this might be averted if Nigeria forcibly reinstalls the old regime.

Just like Al Jazeera, Politico also deserves credit for implying that Tinubu has ulterior domestic motives behind doing the West’s bidding when writing that “Nigeria’s influence has been slipping in recent years, as it grapples with economic malaise and security challenges that festered under the prior president, Muhammadu Buhari. Since succeeding Buhari, Tinubu has been trying to placate different religious and ethnic groups at home upset over the February election results, which the opposition has disputed.”

What these two outlets’ pieces on this subject show is that newly inaugurated Nigerian President Tinubu might invade Niger out of desperation to distract from economic and political problems at home despite telling the world that this is to defend democracy in that neighboring nation. The corrupt confluence of his domestic interests and the West’s geopolitical ones greatly raises the odds that this could soon happen, though it remains to be seen whether it’ll succeed and how strong the blowback might be.

August 1, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Military intervention against Niger would be a declaration of war against Burkina Faso and Mali

RT | July 31, 2023

In the first-ever joint communique on Monday, the military governments in Mali and Burkina Faso warned the West and other African states against intervening in the neighboring Niger. Bamako and Ouagadougou would consider any such move as an attack on their own countries, they said.

“Any military intervention against Niger would amount to a declaration of war against Burkina Faso and Mali,” said point four of the joint communique, which a Burkinabe military spokesman deliberately repeated three times during a state television broadcast.

In case of such an intervention, the two countries would withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and “adopt self-defense measures in support of the armed forces and the people of Niger,” according to the statement.

A military intervention against Niger “could destabilize the entire region, as had the unilateral NATO intervention in Libya, which was at the root of the expansion of the terrorism in the Sahel and West Africa,” the two governments said.

France currently has 1,500 troops and a drone base in Niger, while the US has 1,100 troops and two drone bases, according to Financial Times.

Nigerien soldiers, led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani, ousted President Mohamed Bazoum last Wednesday. The African Union denounced the coup on Friday and gave the junta in Niamey 15 days to stand down or face “punitive measures.” ECOWAS issued its own ultimatum on Sunday, at the emergency meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, saying that it would “take all measures necessary to restore constitutional order in the Republic of Niger,” including the use of force, if Bazoum is not restored within a week.

Mali and Burkina Faso condemned the sanctions ECOWAS announced on Saturday as “illegal, illegitimate and inhumane.” They also expressed “fraternal solidarity” with the Nigerien people, “who have decided to take their destiny into their own hands and to assume before history the fullness of their sovereignty,” according to their joint communique.

The military governments of the two former French colonies have sought to sever their ties to Paris and rebuild their statehood with Russian assistance. Moscow has denounced the coup in Niger as an “anti-constitutional act,” however, and the Russian Foreign Ministry called on all parties to refrain from using force.

On Sunday, General Tchiani’s government announced it would suspend the export of uranium and gold to France, to the accolades of some of the local population.

“We have uranium, diamonds, gold, oil, and we live like slaves? We don’t need the French to keep us safe,” one pro-government demonstrator told the local news portal Wazobia Reporters.

Niger is the world’s seventh-largest producer of uranium, accounting for 4% of the global output. A French company controls about two thirds of the country’s output.

July 31, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Interpreting Russia’s Official Response To The Nigerien Coup

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 31, 2023

Last week’s patriotic military coup in Niger could be a game-changer in the New Cold War as was explained here, though this analysis here argues that it might be nipped in the bud if Nigeria ultimately does the West’s bidding by leading an ECOWAS invasion force aimed at reinstalling the ousted president. Those who aren’t already aware of the insight shared in those analyses should at least skim them in order to be brought up to speed and thus better understand Russia’s official response to this event.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on 27 July that “We believe the coup is an anti-constitutional act. We always occupy a clear position in such cases…We reaffirm our position that it is necessary to restore the constitutional order in Niger.” One day later on 28 July, his country joined its fellow permanent UNSC members in issuing a joint statement that “strongly condemned the efforts to unconstitutionally change the legitimate Government of the Republic of Niger on 26 July 2023.”

They also “expressed support for the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union…(and) underscored the urgent need for the restoration of constitutional order in Niger in accordance with the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance and expressed their support for regional and continental mediation efforts.” Two days later on 30 July, the AU and ECOWAS gave the junta a two-week and one-week ultimatum respectively.

If President Mohamed Bazoum isn’t reinstalled by then, they warned of “punitive measures” that could include the “use of force”. This sequence of events shows that the AU-ECOWAS duopoly is exploiting the UNSC joint statement as the pretext for invading Niger in order to secure their Western patrons’ interests there. None of this is surprising, however, which is why some might wonder why Russia agreed to the same statement that’s being taken advantage of to legitimize its rivals’ regional power play.

For starters, Russia always officially condemns anti-constitutional seizures of power, with this being more symbolically important than ever after Ukraine’s Western-backed and fascist-driven “EuroMaidan” coup in spring 2014. That said, this stance and its associated support of peaceful means for restoring the constitutional order in countries that experience these sorts of regime changes don’t automatically equate to it endorsing Western-encouraged invasions to this end.

It’s important to note that neither the AU nor its West African-Sahel ECOWAS enforcers put forth their ominous ultimatums by the time that Russia agreed to the UNSC joint statement on Niger. Even though it should have been foreseeable that these threats would follow, the fact that they hadn’t yet officially been made meant that there wasn’t any diplomatic pretext for Russia to break with precedent. For that reason, it supported the UNSC joint statement, which promoted mediation efforts.

The next point to make is that the West has been fearmongering that the Kremlin had a hidden hand in previous military coups in the West Africa-Sahel Region so it would have come off as very suspicious if Russia was reluctant to condemn this latest coup. That approach would have likely fueled an even more intense round of information warfare falsely alleging that Moscow was behind this regime change, thus justifying the planned Western-encouraged ECOWAS-led invasion on an urgent anti-Russian pretext.

And finally, since it can’t be taken for granted that the Nigerien junta will successfully repel this invasion in the likely scenario that it’s commenced sometime after the AU’s two-week ultimatum expires, it doesn’t make sense for Russia to signal support for what might very well be a doomed cause. Doing so would be detrimental to its soft power interests since the collapse of that junta could then be spun as a joint Western-African victory over Russia in the New Cold War.

None of this is to suggest that Russia is seriously opposed to the junta becoming an interim/transitional government, however, since precedent shows that it has no problem cultivating mutually beneficial relations with military rulers in the region like Mali’s and Burkina Faso’s. If the likely scenario of a French-backed ECOWAS-led invasion doesn’t materialize, yet without the coup leaders capitulating to pressure to reinstall Bazoum, then Niger will probably become Russia’s next strategic partner in the region.

July 31, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

US warns allies of potential isolation from deals over links to Iran, Russia

Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Press TV – July 29, 2023

The administration of US President Joe Biden has warned that Washington’s allies will face a “reputation risk” and potential isolation from lucrative deals in case of having links to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia.

Brian Nelson, the Treasury’s undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, raised the alarm in a meeting with Kenya’s President William Ruto on Friday.

He claimed that Iran and Russia were “isolated economically.”

“What we see is again of course Iran and Russia are isolated economically and either they are looking for partners and they are looking for new channels to have economic relationships,” Nelson claimed.

“From our perspective, that potentially creates a reputation risk and creates also a financial risk such that we are having a direct conversation about those risks that are associated with the expansion of economic relationship, which is a conversation not only are we having here but with countries around the world and we know that clearly is what Russia and Iran are seeking,” he added.

In what is construed as Washington’s direct interference in its allies’ affairs, Nelson warned them to be wary of the two countries’ economic reputation.

The warning comes as Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi embarked on an African tour earlier in the month, which took him to Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe at the official invitation of his counterparts from the three host countries.

Heading a high-ranking delegation, Raeisi forged new alliances and discussed possible avenues for the improvement of trade and political ties.

Raeisi stressed the need for enhancing relations with African countries, saying that the states are gifted with abundant natural resources and mines, and enjoy many potentials and areas for closer cooperation.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kana’ani described Raeisi’s continental tour as “a new turning point” which could bolster economic and trade ties with African nations.

A total of 21 documents on cooperation in different areas were signed during the three-state tour to Africa.

July 29, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin suggests alternative route to deliver goods to Africa

RT | July 27, 2023

The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) could provide Russian goods with a shorter route to Africa than the Suez Canal, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

Addressing a plenary session of the Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, Putin explained that Moscow is “actively engaged in reorienting transport and cargo flows towards the states of the Global South, including, of course, Africa.”

The INSTC, touted as an alternative to the Suez Canal, is a planned 7,200km multi-mode transit system that will connect ship, rail, and road routes for moving cargo between Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, India, and Central Asia.

“The International North-South Transport Corridor that we are developing is aimed at providing Russian goods with access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, from where they will be able to reach the African continent via the shortest sea route. Naturally, this corridor can also be used in the opposite direction – to supply African goods to the Russian market,” Putin stated.

Russia is seeking to ensure interconnectivity within the route and launch regular freight shipping lines, according to Putin. The volume of goods shipped via the INSTC is expected to almost triple over the next seven years, and the Russian leader suggested establishing a logistics hub for the corridor on the African coast.

“The opening of a Russian transport and logistics center in one of the ports on the African coast would be a good thing, a good start to this joint work. We consider it important to ensure wider coverage of the African continent with direct flights [and] participation in the development of the African railroad network – these are the key tasks that we propose to our African friends to work together on,” Putin said.

Russia has repeatedly said that the INSTC could become a substitute for the Suez Canal, the 193km waterway in Egypt that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. The popular route between Europe and Asia sees about 12% of global trade pass through it each day.

The construction of the INSTC began in the early 2000s, but developing it further has taken on a new impetus in light of Western sanctions, which have forced Russia to shift its trade flows from Europe to Asia and the Middle East.

The total cargo flow along the INSTC was 14.5 million tons in 2022, and the projection for this year is 17.6 million tons, according to Russia’s Transport Ministry. By 2030, the volume is expected to reach 41 million tons.

July 27, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Russia Will Not Renew International Grain Deal; Some Context

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | July 27, 2023

Like the war that necessitated it, Russia’s decision not to renew the United Nations and Turkish-brokered grain deal is bad for the world but not wholly unprovoked.

The deal allowed Ukraine safe passage for its grain laden ships through the mined and blockaded Black Sea ports so it could continue to export its agriculture to the world.

On July 17, Russia announced its decision not to renew the deal.

It has repeatedly been reported that Russia’s decision is retaliation for Ukraine’s recent sabotage of the Kerch Strait bridge that links Crimea to the Russian mainland. But President Vladimir Putin had announced the distinct possibility of suspending the agreement prior to the attack on the bridge.

During a July 13 question period, in a response to a journalist, Putin said, prior to the attack on the bridge, “We can suspend our participation in this deal.”

Putin gave two reasons for suspending the deal after having “extended this so-called deal many times.” The first is that, though it was Russia that suspended the deal, it was the West that broke it. “As for the conditions under which we agreed to ensure the safe export of Ukrainian grain, yes, there were clauses in this agreement with the United Nations, according to which Russian interests had to be taken into account as well,” Putin said. “Not a single clause related to what is in the interests of the Russian Federation has been fulfilled.”

Announcing the decision not to renew the deal four days later, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeated that charge; “Unfortunately, the part of the Black Sea agreement that concerns Russia has not yet been fulfilled. As a result, it has been terminated.” However, he added that “As soon as the Russian part [of the deal] is fulfilled, the Russian side will immediately return to the implementation of this deal.” Putin made a similar pledge in his answer to the journalist. One option, he said, is “not first the extension and then the honouring of promises, but first the honouring of promises and then our participation. What do I mean? We can suspend our participation in this deal, and if everybody once again says that all the promises made to us will be fulfilled, let them fulfil them—and we will immediately join this deal. Again.”

George Beebe of the Quincy Institute has written that “Russia’s withdrawal from the deal is part of classic negotiating behavior, after its repeated demands went unaddressed by partners to the deal.”

While Russia kept its promise to allow Ukraine to export its grain, Moscow argues that the West failed to implement their commitments on facilitating Russian exports of grains and fertilizer due to an impossible to navigate web of sanctions and the failure to reconnect the Russian Agricultural Bank to the SWIFT financial system to enable payments.

Though better known as the ‘grain deal,’ the deal was meant to facilitate the export of fertilizer as well. As early as the end of April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had complained that Russian cargo vessels carrying fertilizer were paralyzed in European ports. Russia has been unable to export its fertilizer. The world also watched silently with no condemnation when Russia’s Togliatti-Odessa pipeline that carries ammonia necessary for fertilizer was sabotaged.

The second reason is not about the failure to meet the conditions of the deal, but about the failure to meet the purpose of the deal. Putin has frequently pointed out that “this whole deal was presented under the pretext of ensuring the interests of African countries” whose food security was threatened. Instead, from Russia’s perspective, the deal has boosted the economy of Russia’s enemy by allowing Ukraine to export grain and boosted the economy of those supporting Russia’s enemy by allowing western Europe to import that grain while helping African countries barely at all.

Putin has repeatedly claimed that Ukrainian grain exported under the deal is not reaching Africa but is headed, instead, for Europe. He has claimed at various times that “about 45 percent of the total volume of grain exported from Ukraine went to European countries, and only three percent went to Africa.” In his response to the journalist, Putin again said that “only a little more than 3% went to the poorest countries—a bit over 3%. Everything else went to a well-fed and prosperous Europe.”

And he’s not wrong. Though Africa has benefitted from the deal indirectly by stabilizing global supply and prices, they have not been the direct beneficiaries. While only 12% of the grain has reached Africa, 40% went to Western Europe, according to the World Food Program. The biggest recipients of Ukraine’s grain have been China, Spain, Turkey, Italy, and the Netherlands. 80% of the grain has gone to upper-middle and high income countries, and 44% going to high income countries, but only 2.5% has made its way to low-income countries, according to the most recent UN data.

Russia, though, has sent many tonnes of grain to Africa; 11.5 million tonnes in 2022 and 10 million in the first half of 2023, according to Putin. And, in November 2022, Russia agreed to send grain to some African countries for free. Putin has repeatedly promised that, were the deal not to be extended, “Russia will be ready to supply the same amount that was delivered under the deal, from Russia to the African countries in great need, at no expense.” After the decision not to extend the deal, Putin wrote an article for African media repeating that promise directly to the people of Africa: “I want to give assurances that our country is capable of replacing the Ukrainian grain both on a commercial and free-of-charge basis… Notwithstanding the sanctions, Russia will continue its energetic efforts to provide supplies of grain, food products, fertilisers and other goods to Africa.” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that, despite Western obstacles in the form of logistics, ship insurance and payments, “We will help those in need, we will find a way to do it, both with grain and fertilizers.” The Kremlin says that the offer of free grain is on the agenda of the second Russia-Africa summit being held in St. Petersburg this week.

Though Russia’s decision not to extend the grain deal is harmful to the world, like the war itself, it has been presented as emerging without antecedents. The narrative has frequently been distorted by discussing the decision not to extend the deal in isolation from its important context. The decision was not spontaneous retribution for the attack on the Kerch Strait bridge; it was a long, thought out negotiation strategy in response to promises made to Russia not being fulfilled. The announcement of the decision was also accompanied by the assurance that Russia would immediately return to the deal when those promises were fulfilled. The decision was also the product of Russia’s frustration that the deal was not only failing to benefit Russia as promised, but that it was failing to benefit Africa as promised while supporting the economies of Ukraine and the wealthy Western European countries who are helping it in its fight against Russia.

July 27, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Russian military experts on the current state of the war

By Gilbert Doctorow | July 25, 2023

There is a lot of cheerleading for Russian military successes on the Western alternative news portals. There is also a fair amount of cheerleading coming from front line Russian war correspondents on Russian state television. But, as I have indicated in past essays, the more serious Russian news programs such as Sixty Minutes and Evening with Vladimir Solovyov also give the microphone to military experts from among Duma committee chairmen and others who actually bear responsibility and accountability for the war effort and are not just talking heads. These speakers are much more restrained in their remarks on the war’s progress and I use this opportunity to share with readers what I hear from such sources. I will be drawing in particular on what was said on the Solovyov show two days ago.

The most sober remark was that it is a mistake to gloat over reports that the Ukrainians have run out of reserves and that their soldiers at the front are now just old men and youths, who are demoralized and surrendering to Russians when they can. Saying that is to diminish our respect for the heroism of Russian soldiers who are facing, in fact, peer equals in the Ukrainian forces. This is a tough war.

Moreover, the Ukrainian reserves are not yet exhausted. Out of the approximately 60,000 elite troops that received training in NATO countries only 30 – 40% were killed or wounded in the battle for Bakhmut and subsequent Ukrainian counter-attack after 4 June. The Russians will not begin their own massive offensive to knock out the Ukrainian military until they are confident that most of the Ukrainian reserves have been depleted in the ongoing war of attrition.

Accordingly, what we are witnessing these days is localized attacks that have tactical, not strategic importance. Yes, the Ukrainians make advances here and there of a few meters at great cost in lost lives of the soldiers. Yes, the Russians make advances of three or four kilometers here or there, at significantly lower cost.  The Russians are biding their time. This is not a stale-mate as Western media keep telling their audiences.

Now let us turn to another aspect of the conflict that has grabbed the news over the past week when ground skirmishes between the hostile forces moved to the back pages of our newspapers. I have in mind the spectacular Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian port infrastructure in Odessa, in Nikolaev and yesterday in a river port of the Danube estuary just across from the Romanian border.  These attacks are described by official Russian military sources as “revenge attacks” for the damage inflicted on one of the roadways of the Crimean bridge by Ukrainian surface drones that exploded under bridge supports.

Of course, that is just Public Relations talk to satisfy the Russian public and overwhelm local outrage at the failure to defend what is, finally, vulnerable infrastructure. No, the reason for the Russian destruction of the Ukrainian port facilities day after day lies elsewhere. The missile strikes were not so much intended to inflict pain on the Ukrainians as to avert what could be naval battles on the Black Sea and a quantum jump in risks of total war. And, en passant, they demonstrated that the latest sea-launched Russian cruise missiles with 3,000 km range that fly just 15 meters above the sea at Mach 3 cannot be intercepted by present Ukrainian air defenses.

Let us remember that when Vladimir Putin announced that the grain deal with Turkey and the United Nations would expire on 18 July, the RF Ministry of Defense announced that any vessels headed towards Ukrainian ports ostensibly to receive export grain would henceforth be considered as carriers of arms to Ukraine and were fair game for destruction by Russian forces.

Immediately after this Ukrainian President Zelensky went on air with his proposal to Turkey that the grain exports by sea continue without Russian participation. The safety of the vessels would be assured by Turkish and other NATO naval convoys.  In the context of Erdogan’s latest turn to the U.S. and away from Russia, it appeared that Ankara was prepared to strike a deal with Zelensky.  If that were done, then the chances of naval battles between Russian and NATO vessels in the Black Sea would have soared.

And so the Russians decided to destroy the Ukrainian port facilities active in the grain trade and so to preempt the dangers in view. Erdogan was compelled to draw back from any agreement with Zelensky on resumption of the grain corridor mission.

To be sure, export of grain by ship is the cheapest solution to bringing Ukrainian grain to world markets. But there are other means, namely by rail and truck, traveling north and west across Bulgaria or Romania or Poland. These logistics were used last autumn to move a lot of grain, but that grain tended to disappear into the nominal transit countries where it provoked outrage among the farming communities of these countries for underpricing their own grain crops.  We may expect more of this political turmoil in Eastern Europe and protests against Ukraine in the coming months, and this also will serve the Russian objective of making Europe pay for its support of Kiev.

The U.S. State Department representatives have shrieked over the humanitarian disaster that the Russians were causing first by pulling out of the grain deal and then by destroying Ukraine’s export infrastructure in the Black Sea. Particular attention has been directed at the nations of Africa which purportedly represent a large proportion of the poor destination countries for Ukrainian grain.

It is interesting to note that notwithstanding vicious American propaganda against the Russian pull-out from the grain deal, the leaders of Africa have not gone for the bait.  Today 47 African leaders are assembling in Russia for highest level strategic talks and deal-making with their Russian counterparts. The Russians are offering free of cost grain to the poorest countries and contracts for grain supply to the others at normal commercial terms. The certainty of supply is assured by what the Russians say will be their biggest grain harvest ever during this season.

Though I denounce the U.S. State Department policies under Antony Blinken as a force for evil in the present world context, I do not mean to say that each and every player there is a villain. I am amused to see on Russian television images of the speeches to the United Nations about the grain corridor delivered by Rosemary Di Carlo, a former U.S. career diplomat who since 2018 has served in the UN as Under-Secretary General for Political and Peace-building Affairs.

Once upon a time, in 1998, I had conversations with Rosemary when she was in charge of cultural affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. We sat together at the head table of a gathering of American graduate students and professors on the academic exchange with Russia directed by a Cold War holdover NGO, IREX, for which I was briefly country manager back then. Rosemary talked about the theater season in Moscow and we discussed possibilities for assisting Russian museums and other cultural institutions to adapt to the post-Soviet realities of low government funding and finding private sponsors. She held a Ph.D. in Slavic literature. She was one of the relatively few career diplomats who actually understood and spoke Russian. Her heart was in the right place and I very much doubt that she is working to do the Russians a bad turn today.

Moral of the story above from start to finish: very often things are not what they seem.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

July 25, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Grain Deal Replacement? Russia to Offer Africa New Food Security Plan

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.07.2023

The second Russia-Africa Summit and Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum will take place in St. Petersburg on July 27-28, with President Putin expected to meet with the leaders and representatives of 49 different African countries which have confirmed plans to take part.

Russia will be offering African countries an alternative to the defunct Black Sea Grain Deal to ensure the continent’s continued food security, Russian Foreign Ministry ambassador-at-large Oleg Ozerov has said.

“Of course, it will be not only a discussion as such, but the discussion with solutions for African nations so that they leave St. Petersburg with clear understanding how these issues will be resolved,” the Russian diplomat, who heads the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, told Sputnik.

Russia has already provided assistance to some African countries earlier, including gratis fertilizer shipments to countries including Malawi and Kenya, Ozerov added.

Moscow suspended its participation in the Black Sea grain deal last week, citing Western countries’ failure to facilitate Russian food and fertilizer exports, and pointing out that just 3 percent of the grain shipped out of Ukraine under the agreement actually went to countries in need in Africa and Asia, with the vast majority instead ending up in Europe and Turkiye.

Failure to Bully Africa Into Submission

Western powers have failed to bully African countries into submission and to persuade them not to attend the upcoming summit in St. Petersburg, Ozerov said.

“Pressure is being exerted. It is of a permanent character. This pressure was exerted through various channels – through the diplomatic corps of Western nations, which literally on a daily basis are trying to dissuade representatives of African states from traveling to Russia, and which demand that African countries firmly pick a camp,” Ozerov said.

The West’s demands look “very strange,” the diplomat said, as they’re coming “from those countries which publicly proclaim democracy and freedom of choice, but in practice demand submission to their dictates.”

There are also other forms of pressure besides politics and diplomacy, the ambassador-at-large said, including economic and financial coercion, with “political conditions put in place for the provision of economic assistance to a number of states both through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where the United States uses its dominant position to put forward political conditions.”

Similar conditionalities are being set up by the European Union, “when the allocation of loans is conditioned on the termination of contacts with the Russian side, or their reduction to a minimum, the non-attendance of a summit or the non-participation in [other] events,” Ozerov said.

Nevertheless, the diplomat stressed that Russia has not seen “African states following this dictate en masse.”

“It’s now obvious that the Western bloc cannot bend all other countries to its will, for objective reasons,” Ozerov said, likely alluding to the G7’s falling political and economic weight in the world as the BRICS countries slowly move the planet in the direction of genuine political and economic multipolarity.

Delegations from 49 of Africa’s 54 countries confirmed their plans to participate in the Russia-Africa Summit by last week, with about half being represented at the highest level – by heads of state or heads of government, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Ozerov indicated that Russian and African leaders will be adopting an overarching policy declaration, joint action plan, as well as three documents on sectoral cooperation at the summit, with the latter concerned with “the fight against terrorism, the non-deployment of weapons in space and international information security.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry expects that these document will become a platform for joint work with African countries on the creation of a new configuration of international relations, based on equality and a multipolar world rather than on a “unilateral dictatorship,” the diplomat noted.

Security Cooperation

In the security sphere, the Russian ambassador-at-large pointed out that Russia has no military presence in Africa, with requests of certain African countries concerning only security assistance.

“We do not have military presence there. There are requests to Russia to provide security assistance. But it is not military presence. Military presence is when one sends troops. We are not sending them. We are sending instructors at the request of African states,” Ozerov said.

July 25, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposed, the multi-billion-dollar illusion of ‘HIV’: Part 3

Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here and Part 2 here. 

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | July 5, 2023

When Covid was first perceived as a threat to public health in 2020, many governments rejected advice that protection should focus on those most at risk. They jeopardised the health and lives of millions through repeated lockdowns and the reckless rollout of experimental mRNA injections. In the panic surrounding the arrival of the genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2, unnecessary deaths occurred as a result of inappropriate forced ventilation, neglect of antibiotic treatment of associated bacterial infections, and the banning of effective medical therapy such as ivermectin.

Awareness of the scientific hubris that brought Covid into being, and of the corruption and abuse of power that turned the virus’s escape into a mega-crisis, has become widespread. The internet made it possible for critics to air data countering the official narratives, despite persistent attempts at censoring so-called ‘misinformation’.

Far fewer people know that a similar medical madness came into being nearly 40 years ago, before the internet was with us.

In the Aids era, a new, lethal, sexually transmitted virus known as HIV was said to be putting us all at risk. ‘Aids does not discriminate’, we were told. A warning leaflet, heralded by a television advertisement featuring a giant tombstone, was delivered to every household in Britain.

It took nearly a quarter of a century before a senior World Health Organization (WHO) official admitted (in 2008) that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, there would be no global heterosexual pandemic.

Despite that admission, an HIV industry continues to thrive. It has proved an endless bonanza for drug companies, special interest groups and the medical research community. At least 100 journals are dedicated to HIV/Aids medicine, including Lancet HIV, and scores of major conferences are held every year. AIDS 2024, the 25th International AIDS Conference, will take place in Munich next July and is expected to bring together some 18,000 participants from around the world.

The band plays on, but has given no time or space for acknowledgement or examination of decades of painstaking work by a small but dedicated group of scientists who maintain that ‘HIV’ is a mythological entity.

As described here yesterday, the group was led by the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a biophysicist based at the Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, who critically analysed all aspects of the theory that Aids is caused by a deadly virus. She suffered endless rebuffs and abuse from the mainstream scientific community before her death in March 2022.

In 2017 the group posted on their website a highly referenced 80-page paper setting out their case that despite thousands of claims to the contrary, there is still no proof that such a virus has been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients.

They argue that because the true causes of Aids are not being adequately addressed, millions globally, and especially in poor countries, are being burdened with a false diagnosis of ‘HIV’ infection. Many of those who have tested ‘HIV’-positive, and even who are thought to be at risk of doing so, are being advised to take drugs whose claimed benefits come at the cost of serious toxicities. In Africa, while millions are malnourished, scarce resources are being diverted into fighting an illusory ‘HIV’ epidemic.

The Perth Group presents a case that the real cause of Aids, common to the various groups at risk of the syndrome, is prolonged breach of a chemical homeostatic process (called redox) that enables our body cells to balance energy expenditure with energy replenishment. Oxidising substances bring about the former, and antioxidants the latter. When cells are over-oxidised, this ‘oxidative stress’ depletes energy potential and can damage cell structures. The theory says Aids has this mechanism at its heart, and that the virus theory was questionable from the start because it was already known that over-oxidation leads to the appearance of ‘opportunistic’ infections seen in Aids. It maintains that Aids can be prevented and treated both by reducing exposure to oxidants, and through greater exposure to antioxidants.

The different groups of patients at risk of Aids had in common powerful oxidising stimuli in their lives. These included injected and ingested recreational drugs; nitrite inhalants used for sexual enhancement; repeated infections and many of the medicines used to treat them; blood-clotting agents given to haemophiliacs, previously made from the pooled blood of thousands of donors; and semen from unprotected anal sex.

Antioxidants include vitamins A, C and E and are available naturally in many types of vegetables, fruits, and grains. It was a tragedy for South Africa when President Thabo Mbeki was derided for suggesting more than 20 years ago that there could be dietary solutions to the immune deficiencies widely experienced on the continent.

The roots of the HIV theory, the Perth scientists say, lay in the feverish atmosphere of fear and anxiety that arose in the early years of Aids, when signals arising from disordered cells became misinterpreted as evidence of a new virus. An unvalidated test led to the mistaken belief that millions were infected. Once the global alert was sounded, it became almost impossible for contrary views to be heard.

The group emailed their 2017 deconstruction of ‘HIV’, the fruit of some 40 years of work, to seven top scientific and medical journals. They offered to prepare a concise version if the critique was thought ‘worthy of being brought to the attention of the scientific community’. Three of the journals failed to reply, despite repeated requests. None took up the offer.

I reported aspects of the group’s work myself in the 1990s while employed as science correspondent of the London Sunday Times, and subsequently in The Business and The European.

In recent years I have tried many times to draw their magnum opus to the attention of leading scientists. To help make it more accessible, I wrote a summary of the arguments, now also posted on the Perth Group’s website. This identifies six key pillars of the HIV/Aids paradigm which, according to their analysis, all involved a misinterpretation of what was actually going on biologically.

At the suggestion of a former president of the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of sciences, I wrote to three senior biologists asking for guidance as to how the group’s theory could at least be examined. None replied.

Recently, two experts in the field whom I greatly respect did have the courtesy to respond. One regretted that he was too busy to enter into discussion. The other, a UK pioneer of the search for an HIV vaccine, assured me he had worked with concentrated virus. When I asked him for a reference demonstrating proof that his concentrate was HIV, however, the publications to which he referred me came nowhere near doing that.

Part of the problem lies in the very nature of retroviruses, the family of microbes to which HIV is said to belong. When scientists were developing the HIV theory, it was not realised that the human genome is full of mobile genetic elements, called retrotransposons, that amplify themselves by first being transcribed from DNA to RNA, and then transcribed back into DNA. The second part of this process requires an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT), which plays a big role in gene expression.

Detection of RT was wrongly interpreted by the HIV pioneers as meaning a retrovirus was present.

In a 1988 Scientific American article describing the history of the purported discovery of HIV, Robert Gallo and the late Luc Montagnier, the two scientists most identified with the theory, wrote: ‘The specimen [tissue from the swollen lymph node of a gay man at risk of Aids] was minced, put into tissue culture and analysed for reverse transcriptase. After two weeks of culture, reverse-transcriptase activity was detected by the culture medium. A retrovirus was present.’

The mistaken belief that RT activity ‘is truly specific to retroviruses’, as Montagnier still maintained several years later, was central to the case that he was the first to discover HIV, a discovery for which in 2008 he and his co-worker Françoise Barré-Sinoussi received a Nobel prize. Yet it is now known that at least two-fifths of the human genome is made up of retrotransposons. Reverse transcriptase is ubiquitous in cells.

The Perth Group declare: ‘We wish it to be understood that the claim, “The evidence that Aids is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science”, cannot be substantiated.’

Even today, the group say, despite thousands of claims to the contrary, there is still no proof that ‘HIV’ has been isolated from the tissues of Aids patients.

Might this be why HIV/Aids protagonists become abusive in response to challenges to their beliefs, and how the illusions have been sustained for so long? You can build endless castles in the air on top of a fundamentally flawed idea.

Next: The missing particles

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Exposed, the multi-billion-dollar illusion of ‘HIV’: Part 1

Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series, written exclusively for TCW, he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here.

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | July 3, 2023

Three years into the Covid crisis, many are now aware of the disastrous advice on which so many governments blindly acted. False predictions of spread, fearmongering propaganda, lockdowns damaging young and old, suppression of cheap treatments to make way for a dangerous, experimental vaccine . . . so much of ‘the science’ turned out to be fiction, hugely profitable for a few but harmful for billions.

These failures have brought back into focus claims that the syndrome known as HIV/Aids was – and still is – being similarly mishandled and exploited by the worlds of medical science, public health and Big Pharma. Robert Kennedy Jr documents this in detail his best-selling 2021 book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.

What few people know however is that for almost 40 years a small group of scientists has deconstructed almost every aspect of the theory that Aids is caused by a lethal, sexually transmitted virus known as HIV. Their critique goes beyond questioning HIV as the cause of Aids. They say ‘HIV’ has never even been proved to exist. And the reason you have probably never heard of their work is that, like the doctors and scientists who challenged Covid insanities, they have been silenced at every turn.

With Covid, pressure to conform came through government-directed appeals to our higher nature through slogans such as ‘Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives’ and ‘Every vaccination gives us hope’. The implied claim was that anyone who thought differently was either an idiot or a murderer.

Similarly with Aids, advocates of the deadly virus theory sought to make those who questioned it sound as though they were lacking in compassion, irresponsible or stupid.

I was working as medical correspondent of the London Sunday Times in the 1980s when Aids suddenly became big news after American government scientists claimed to have identified a previously unknown virus as the cause of a mysterious cluster of symptoms related to severely depleted immunity. They included Kaposi’s sarcoma, a cancer affecting the skin and internal organs; severe candidiasis; and pneumonia caused by an out-of-control fungus. The symptoms proved resistant to treatment, and fatal in a number of cases.

The first victims were groups of gay men who were challenging long-standing homophobic attitudes in American society through what came to be known as the ‘fast-track’ gay lifestyle. This involved multiple sex partners and heavy drug use.

The partying was fun, I was later told, but it caused disease microbes to become pooled among participants such that almost every encounter carried a risk of infection. Prophylactic use of antibiotics staved off some illnesses but contributed to an underlying deterioration, and in some cases complete collapse, of the immune system.

The crisis at first met an unsympathetic response from the right-wing Reagan administration. The common histories of the victims led to dismissive descriptions of Aids as a ‘gay plague’. As numbers increased, however, outrage and anger grew. Those involved had often already suffered greatly from discriminatory attitudes and behaviour, and their efforts to end this bigotry through the Gay Lib movement looked to be under threat.

That was the context in which US biomedical researcher Robert Gallo found immediate acceptance when in 1984 he claimed to have identified a deadly virus, new to humanity, as the cause of Aids. The theory took off like wildfire and by the end of 1984 had come to be accepted by virtually everyone. The microbe Gallo said he had found became known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV.

It brought virologists, drug companies and public health experts to centre stage. Taxpayer dollars, eventually reaching hundreds of billions, were poured into Aids research and treatment through the US National Institutes of Health, in particular the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the leadership of Dr Anthony Fauci. Well-funded NGOs and activist groups sprang up with the aim of contributing to the fight against the disease.

Religious leaders warmed to the theory because it discouraged sleeping around. Politicians liked it because it put in place a new ‘enemy within’ against which they could claim to offer protection with advertising campaigns such as the UK’s ‘Aids: Don’t Die of Ignorance’ – a precursor of the intense propaganda inflicted on us with the advent of Covid-19.

Media people – including me, I am ashamed to say – vigorously promulgated warnings that the virus put at risk everyone and anyone who had sex. It felt good to be not just selling newspapers, but helping to sound the alert.

Young people were less readily taken in. James Delingpole has recalled how the ad campaign put a dampener on his sex life, though after the initial shock it became increasingly clear to him that the government had been overstating the case.

In fact, as the late Nobel Prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis and other scientists were to point out, there never was a body of scientific evidence demonstrating the validity of the ‘deadly new virus’ idea. That remains the case today, despite hundreds of thousands of papers having been published over the years predicated on the HIV belief system.

Henry Bauer, a retired professor of science studies who has drawn on numerous sources in documenting The Case Against HIV, says: ‘Anyone open to looking at the actual data . . . can find an enormous amount of evidence that the diagnosis of HIV as cause of AIDS is simply wrong.’

One lasting outcome of the theory was that by ‘democratising’ Aids, with the message that the disease did not discriminate and so everyone was at risk, it prevented the feared setbacks for the Gay Lib movement. Lesbian and gay rights became firmly established in American society, and in some other parts of the world.

In many other ways, however, the global hysteria to which the theory gave rise has had disastrous consequences, some of which continue to this day.

A failed cancer drug called AZT, pulled off the shelf by American government researchers because of an apparent anti-HIV effect, killed and injured thousands. It was administered in high doses not just to people with Aids but to gay men, haemophiliacs and others thought to be HIV-infected, earning hundreds of millions of pounds for the US drug company Burroughs Wellcome and its British parent, the Wellcome Foundation (later taken over by Glaxo). American and British government institutions promoted it vigorously as the ‘gold standard’ of Aids treatment. Doctors who stepped publicly out of line were hounded out of the profession.

Although later generations of drugs can genuinely help to support a failing immune system, 40 years of research has failed to bring either a vaccine or cure for the purported ‘HIV’ infection. Taken over long periods, the drugs themselves can kill, contributing significantly to the 800 or so deaths reported annually of ‘people living with HIV’ in the UK.

The most widespread and long-lasting harm, however, has been to the countless people around the world, especially in Africa and of African descent, terrorised with a false belief that they are victims of a sexually transmitted virus which only Western medicine has the means to hold at bay. The World Health Organization (WHO) claims that more than 80million people have been infected, and that about 40million have died from HIV. Three-fifths of purported new HIV infections are said by WHO to be in the African region. African Americans are eight times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV infection compared with the white population.

American taxpayers in particular have been burdened with the huge expense of maintaining an industry that has grown up around HIV/Aids. The US government spends more than $28billion a year on the domestic response, and expenditure globally between 2000 and 2015 totalled more than half a trillion dollars ($562.6billion), according to a University of Washington study. Yet the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), in a never-ending plea for more money, says the pandemic continues to take a life every minute.

In this series of articles I am going to describe the fruits of years of painstaking work by scientists based in Perth, Western Australia, collating evidence challenging almost every aspect of the ‘HIV’ theory. The essence of their case is that there is no ‘HIV’ epidemic, and there never will be a vaccine or cure, because there is no ‘HIV’.

If you find this hard to believe, I am with you entirely in the sense that it took me years to accept fully how wrong I had been in my early reporting on Aids. I documented this painful journey of discovery in my book AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, published in 1996 by Fourth Estate.

If you ask how it could be possible that for 40 years the scientific and medical worlds have failed to correct a belief in a mythological virus, the answer is more sociological than scientific.

Solidarity with the suffering of the gay community played a part – although genuine kindness, such as Louise Hay demonstrated in her early healing work with people with Aids, strongly and successfully challenged the medical view that they were certain to die. An arrogant, but ill-informed, neocolonial drive by countless NGOs to ‘do good’ in poorer parts of the world also contributed. But probably the most powerful and detrimental element in maintaining the deception was the money and influence involved, as governments went into partnership with the hugely profitable pharmaceutical industry. The resources poured into HIV/Aids created thousands of jobs, buying loyal collaboration and stifling dissent.

Highly experienced scientists who spoke out against the theory were ridiculed, defunded, gaslighted, and accused of killing people by weakening the public health message.

I experienced this pressure myself when I began to examine alternative ways of looking at Aids in the early 1990s, when I was  working as Sunday Times science correspondent. Joan Shenton of Meditel, producers of prize-winning but much criticised documentaries on the issue, alerted me to the fact that several distinguished scientists had challenged the idea that HIV could be doing all the damage attributed to it.

Andrew Neil, editor of the Sunday Times, which had serialised Michael Fumento’s 1990 book The Myth of Heterosexual Aids, supported my reports on an ever-deepening scientific challenge to the theory. Over a three-year period, condemnation came from just about every quarter. The deeper the critique went, the shriller the protests became.

In 1993, with the HIV/Aids industry still pointing to Africa as proof of how millions could become infected, Neil told me to go there to find out what was happening. Over six weeks, travelling through Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, it became increasingly plain to me that the entire pandemic was an illusion arising from diseases of poverty being reclassified as ‘HIV/Aids’.

My reports to this effect proved too much for the scientific establishment, and Nature – supposedly one of the top scientific journals in the world – declared that we must be stopped. Having decided that picketing our offices would be impractical, the magazine mounted a campaign of ridicule. The UK’s Health Education Authority started an Aids journalism award specifically in my dishonour. They said it was to counter the newspaper’s dangerously misleading coverage. There was incomprehension and abuse from all three main political parties, as well as from scientific and medical chiefs.

But we also heard from many doctors, health workers, gay men, and specialists on Africa, thanking the newspaper for its challenging coverage. An ‘HIV’ diagnosis at that time could still have the power of a witch-doctor’s hex, and people who had tested positive wrote to say that our reports were like a breath of fresh air.

Andrew Neil was undeterred by the hostile bluster, while insisting the paper was ready to publish any evidence that countered the dissident case we were presenting. In 1994 he left the paper for New York, and I left too after his successor John Witherow made it plain that he did not want me to continue this line of reporting. The literary agent David Godwin had been in touch, suggesting a book on the controversy, and this took shape over the following year.

When Fourth Estate published it in 1996, however, it became an early victim of ‘cancel culture’.  The late American gay activist Larry Kramer, at first a bitter critic of Fauci but later his friend and ally, was in the UK at the time of publication to address a conference on Aids. He picked up a copy at a pre-conference gathering, tore several pages, and spat in it, telling his audience: ‘Do the same if you come across this book. They will soon stop stocking it.’ It quickly disappeared from view, subsequently topping a list of ‘Books You’re Not Supposed to Read’ in a work on political incorrectness in science.

(From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, by Tom Bethell, Regnery, 2005)

I am republishing it now, with additional material including a summary of where the science of ‘HIV’ went wrong, because the story is so redolent of the misunderstandings, mishandling and downright lies surrounding Covid-19. As with Aids, huge grants from Big Pharma and ‘philanthropic’ foundations to researchers, medical associations, consumer groups, and civil rights organisations fuelled the Covid illusions.

There is one important difference. At first I thought the Covid fearmongering was as ill-conceived as that over ‘HIV’ and Aids. It soon became clear, however, that unlike ‘HIV’ this was a genuine pathogen. A disgracefully suppressed paper by the UK’s Professor Angus Dalgleish, working with Norwegian colleagues including a biowarfare expert, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the genetically-engineered nature of SARS-CoV-2 (see here and here).

Panic measures to try to hide its laboratory origin confirm that view. These were led by the Chinese, from whose Wuhan laboratory the virus almost certainly escaped, and by Fauci, whose NIAID had part-funded the work. Sir Jeremy Farrar, then director of the UK’s Wellcome Trust and now WHO chief scientist, also played a leading role in the cover-up.

Many are now aware of the adverse social, economic and health consequences of the Covid hysteria into which Fauci and others led us. Billions of people meekly accepted and even welcomed unprecedented lockdowns and other fearmongering measures, along with mass administration of the mRNA gene products. TCW Defending Freedom has been one of few voices constantly critical of the mishandling of Covid over the past three years, despite high-level, far-reaching efforts to silence and defund the site.

Much less widely understood is the way Aids became subject to similar mismanagement 40 years ago, with adverse consequences lasting until today.

July 3, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment