Part-1 of the three-part essay is here.
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Berlin on October 2 that the European Union seeks a “constructive dialogue and a positive agenda” with Turkey. She had just returned to the German capital after a 2-day summit meeting of the EU countries in Brussels. Germany played a key role at the summit in steering the EU-Turkey relationship away from a confrontationist path to which it was drifting lately. (See my blog EU marks distance from Indo-Pacific strategy.)
Merkel said, “We had a very long, detailed discussion about our relations with Turkey. We came to the conclusion that we would like to enter into a constructive dialogue with Turkey, we want to have a positive agenda,” adding that the Brussels summit had opened a “window of opportunity” for closer cooperation with Ankara.
Merkel disclosed that talks for closer cooperation between the EU and Turkey in the coming months would focus on migration issues, trade, modernising the Customs Union, and liberalised visa regime. In effect, Merkel has made a huge case for Turkish President Recep Erdogan at a particularly sensitive juncture for the latter when there is growing criticism in Europe regarding his regional policies.
In particular, there has been a nasty incident recently involving the Turkish and French navies in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was a rare, if not unprecedented, incident involving two NATO powers in the 7-decade old history of the western alliance.
Again, the US recently strengthened its military bases in Greece and has repeatedly called for restraint on the part of Turkey over its maritime disputes with Greece and vowed to intervene both politically and militarily in the tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Turkey and France support opposite sides in the Libyan civil war, while the US is aligned with militant Kurdish groups in Syria whom Turkey regards as terrorists. And as conflict erupted in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey witnesses the US, France and Russia swiftly drawing close in a phalanx to push back at Erdogan’s robust backing for Azerbaijan, including pledges of military help.
To be sure, Merkel spoke with great deliberation. Before leaving for Brussels, Merkel had addressed the German Parliament where she referred to complaints against Turkey’s human rights records, but went on to praise Turkey’s “amazing and remarkable” performance in hosting refugees, highlighting that Turkey is hosting four million refugees.
Interestingly, Merkel compared Greece to Turkey in a poor light. “We have to weigh very carefully how to resolve the tensions and how to strengthen our co-operation on refugees and on the humane treatment of refugees,” she said and proceeded to condemn the manner in which Turkey’s archetypal enemy Greece is handling the migrant camp in Lesvos (Greece).
With biting sarcasm, Merkel noted, “in recent days we have seen horrible images regarding the treatment of refugees. And not from Turkey, I would like to emphasise, but from Lesvos (Greece), from an EU member state.”
Without doubt, Germany has stood up to be counted as Turkey’s friend at a time when the latter faces growing isolation within the NATO and from the EU.
Seminal events
The well-known American professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt once penned an essay titled Great Powers Are Defined by Their Wars where he pointed out that explaining a great power’s foreign policy is a perennial question for scholars of international politics. He argued that major wars have powerful and long-lasting effects on a nation’s subsequent foreign or military policy.
Prof. Walt explained that wars are seminal events from which a great power’s subsequent behaviour follows, independent of its relative power, regime type or its leadership. In his words, “Those who fight in these wars are often scarred by the experience, and the lessons drawn from victory or defeat will be etched deeply into the nation’s collective memory. The experience of past wars is central to most national identities… If you want to understand the foreign policy of a great power, therefore (and probably lesser powers as well), a good place to start is to look at the great wars it has fought.”
Isn’t it a poignant historical memory for Berlin that the Ottomans were Germany’s allies in two world wars when it was hopelessly isolated by the the western powers?
On the other hand, take Russia and Turkey. Russia fought a series of twelve wars with the Ottoman Empire between the 17th and 20th centuries — one of the longest series of military conflicts in European history — which ultimately ended disastrously for the latter and led to its decline and eventual disintegration.
Russia had often fought the Ottomans at different times, often in alliance with the other European powers. Importantly, these wars helped to showcase the ascendancy of Russia as a European power after the modernisation efforts of Peter the Great in the early 18th century. In the Turkish Muslim psyche, however, Russia has figured as a protagonist which had played an historical role in the weakening of the Ottoman Empire in Central Europe, the Balkans and Transcaucasia.
The Russian conquest of the Caucasus mainly occurred between 1800 and 1864. In that era the Russian Empire expanded to control the region between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, the territory that is present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (and parts of today’s Iran and Turkey) as well as the North Caucasus region of modern Russia. Multiple wars were fought against the local rulers of the regions as well as the Ottoman Empire until the last regions were brought under Russian control by 1864 with the expulsion to Turkey of several hundred thousand Circassians.
Then followed the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) when Russia seized the the province of Kars and the port of Batumi on the Black Sea. In World War I, aligned with Germany, the Ottomans pushed against Russia as far east as Baku (capital of Azerbaijan) but then withdrew, lacking the strength to advance further, and subsequently in the post-war confusion, somehow contrived to regain Kars.
Suffice to say, in 1991 following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, when Transcaucasia became independent as the states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, a lot of blood-soaked history involving Russia and Turkey provided the backdrop. Incidentally, Erdogan’s family originally hailed from Rize Province in the eastern part of Turkey’s Black Sea region (where he grew up as a child), which was a site of battles between the Ottoman and Russian armies during the Caucasus Campaign of World War I and was occupied by Russian forces in 1916-1918, to be finally returned to the Ottomans under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. The Soviet Union returned Rize to Turkey in 1921.
‘Past is never dead’
Amidst all this, an interesting feature of the flow of history has been that from the days of the Roman Empire, Transcaucasia was usually a borderland between Constantinople (Istanbul) and Persia. Areas would shift from one empire to the other, their rulers would have varying degrees of independence and were often vassals of one empire or the other, depending on the size and proximity of the suzerain’s army. By around 1750 the area was divided between the Turkish and Persian vassals. The western two thirds were inhabited by Georgians, an ancient Christian people, and the eastern third mostly by Azeris, Turkic Muslims. And Russia of course was pushing close to the Black Sea and the Caspian against the Ottoman and Persian empires.
Professor Walt in his essay cited a famous quote from the American novelist William Faulkner, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Indeed, for Russia, Turkey or Iran, the current developments in Transcaucasia form part of a vast collective event that shapes their perceptions of danger and definitions of heroism, sacrifice, and even their identity.
In fact, the current line-up in the developing situation around Turkey speaks for itself: Germany voices sympathy for Turkey and offers an enhanced partnership; France lambasts Turkey and seeks EU sanctions against Turkey; France alleges Ankara’s dispatch of Syrian fighters to Nagorno-Karabakh; Germany appreciates Turkey’s big hand in addressing the refugee crisis gripping Europe; France coordinates with Russia at the highest level of leadership to pressure Turkey over Nagorno-Karabakh; the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the US join Russia and France’s call for cessation of fighting in Transcaucasia; Iran maintains neutrality and suggests a joint effort with Turkey and Russia to resolve the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile, Moscow has shed its initial ambivalence and is stepping into the arena on the side of Armenia, expressing “serious concern in connection with incoming information about the involvement in hostilities of gunmen from illegal armed units from the Middle East” — plainly put, censuring Turkey’s backing for Azerbaijan. And President Vladimir Putin underscores that he is voicing a common stance along with “the presidents of the countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group” (Russia, France and the United States). Simply put, Russia’s “competitive rivalry” with Turkey is surging.
Interestingly, Turkish President Recep Erdogan has openly drawn attention to the broader regional and geopolitical context in which the various unnamed powers are jockeying and covertly coordinating to encircle Turkey. Erdogan said on October 2, “If we connect the crises in the Caucasus, in Syria and in the Mediterranean, you will see that this is an attempt to surround Turkey.”
It doesn’t require much ingenuity to figure out the identity of the foreign powers he would have had in mind who are attempting to “surround” Turkey — France, the US and Greece (all NATO powers) and Russia, the scourge of the Ottoman Empire.
October 3, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | European Union, France, NATO, Russia, Turkey |
Leave a comment
As a futuristic, hi-tech dystopia increasingly takes shape around us, the concept of the Panopticon is more relevant than ever as it functions as the underpinning of the ever-growing mass surveillance grid.
For those who are not so familiar with 18th century social philosophy, a Panopticon was originally the design of a prison building by an English philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. The Panopticon prison’s architecture would allow one guard in a central guard tower to observe every inmate without those prisoners knowing that they were being observed, and so those incarcerated were left to assume that they were actually being observed all of the time. This prison would, in theory, allow that singular guard to maintain order over every inmate.
Much later, in the 20th century, the famous French philosopher, Michel Foucault, would use the concept of Bentham’s original Panopticon as a way to describe and explore “disciplinary power”. According to Foucault’s work, disciplinary power had been successful due to its utilisation of three technologies; hierarchical observation; normalising judgment; and examinations. Hierarchical observation refers to the fact that the observer in a Panopticon can be of any hierarchical position within the observing body, meaning that a prison guard, supervisor, or a governor could be the person viewing the inmates. Foucault would also insist that the normalisation of judgement is imperative for disciplinary power to exist. The final principle, the examination, is used to combine the first two principles of the observations and the resulting judgements to help decide on whether further actions should be taken or punitive measures be applied.
Among the most notable of Foucault’s analyses of the utility of the Panopticon is the following quote from his book Discipline and Punish: “The major effect of the panopticon is to induce in the inmate a state of consciousness and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” In other words, the uncertainty of whether or not an individual is being constantly watched induces obedience in that individual, allowing only a few to control the many.
In addition to Foucault, the concept of the Panopticon has been vigorously studied over the past few centuries and it has special relevance in understanding modern forms of mass surveillance. The aim of many of the modern day state surveillance apparatus function under a similar doctrine to the original ideology behind the invention of the Panopticon.
The British GCHQ, the US’s NSA, the Israeli’s Unit 8200, among many others, are the all seeing eyes of national intelligence agencies who have longed for a way to watch their populations remotely, i.e. online, without their citizens knowing whether or not they’re actually being observed. One man has striven to be at the center of the growing global Panopticon, from his base in the Panopticon’s birthplace — Britain. His name is Daniel Korski.
The Creator
When I first came upon the NHS Healthtech Advisory Board, a body created in 2018 to “advise” the UK’s Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock, its members opened my eyes to some of the darker actors involved in designing our tech-guided futures. One of the panelists on Matt Hancock’s team of tech pioneers, who are seeking “to transform technology in the NHS [National Health Service],” was Nicole Junkermann.
The Israeli Intelligence-Linked Team behind Carbyne911 (including Nicole Junkermann)
Junkermann’s multiple links with Jeffrey Epstein, which appear to have begun around 2002, exposed her as someone who couldn’t be trusted with the future direction of the UK’s healthcare system. Furthermore, Junkermann’s connections with Ehud Barak, Peter Thiel, and Jeffrey Epstein via her investment in the Israeli intelligence-linked surveillance company Carbyne911, made her entry into the United Kingdom’s government advisory panel very problematic for everyone involved. But she was not the only interesting character intimately involved in this particular government project.
While the Healthtech Advisory Board has been hailed since its creation as the brainchild of Matt Hancock, he was actually guided to the project by the man who was, and is, the real mastermind behind the board’s founding, a man who has been helping to quietly write the history of Britain from behind the scenes for the last two decades. He is somebody you’ve probably never heard of, even though his impact on public policy is felt not only in the United Kingdom, but globally.
This man has been a senior advisor to the US State Department, an advisor to Hamid Karzai in post-invasion Afghanistan, the team leader of the Basrah Reconstruction Team in post-invasion Iraq, the Head of Political-Military Affairs for the Office of the High Representative to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a Committee Specialist for the House of Commons Defence Committee. If that weren’t enough, he was also a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, an advisor to the Vice President of the European Commission, a special advisor to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, deputy head of policy at 10 Downing Street. Yet, even these are just some of the public offices he has held. This man’s name is Daniel Korski and he should be notorious.
Described as a “Foreign Policy Writer” and a “Post Conflict Expert”, Daniel Korski is currently only in his early forties and yet his experience is vast. How does one get the opportunities which have been afforded to Mr Korski? Do you need to be a member of a special club from a very young age? Everything about Korski points to military intelligence, so to find him on the same advisory board as a Mossad-linked Epstein associate isn’t too much of a shock, but it does deserve further scrutiny.
This is especially true now that Daniel Korski has left public office and set up a venture capital firm which specifically funds government-related tech startups. While Korski wants to publicly appear to have left government work, it is pretty clear that, upon further inspection, he hasn’t drifted too far from the authorities. So, let us look at Mr Korski’s history in more detail and work our way forward towards his more current projects. In doing so, I truly believe that you will not be able to deny his continuing role as an intelligence operative. You will also be shown evidence of his dystopian side projects and connections to one of the largest growing, government-backed mass surveillance projects in the world. This is an introduction to Daniel Korski, one of the creators of the current digital panopticon.
Daniel Korski’s Curious Past
Henryk Korski, grandfather of Daniel Korski eluded the Nazi’s whilst living in Poland in the 1940s. After the war, he would join the Polish Communist Party and by the mid-to-late 60s he was working in the Ministry of Foreign Trade. But a decade later, when his grandson Daniel was born, the whole family had already relocated to Copenhagen. If you were to go by Daniel Korski’s Wikipedia page then you would be told that his family were expelled from Poland in the late 1960s. But, if you were to look behind the scenes at Korski’s Wikipedia pages history then you’d discover that someone disagreed with that description of events.
On 21st April 2013 someone edited this part of Daniel’s Wiki page. This editor wanted people to know: “Korski is the son of Polish Jewish refugees, who fled persecution.” I decided to see if I could trace the I.P. Address of the person who made this change. I managed to track the computer to Brussels in Belgium and the edit was made while Daniel Korski was living in the Belgian capital when working as an advisor to the Vice President of the European Commission. It’s also just before he left that post and headed off to become a special advisor to the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron. It seems that Daniel Korski wanted everyone to believe that his parents had fled persecution in Poland, but was this true?
Daniel Korski himself would eventually head to Twitter to show people the evidence that his parents were Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. He would post two images of official court documents sealed in plastic sleeves and describe it as evidence of a pogrom. For those who are unaware, a pogrom is described as “an organized massacre, especially of Jews”. But do the documents supplied by Daniel Korski provide any evidence of a massacre of Jewish people? The straight answer is a definite no. The court papers Korski so proudly presents on Twitter do not mention Judaism at all, but they do mention Henryk Korski’s stance on the war between Israel and Egypt. The documents, which were written in Polish, relate to a court case involving Henryk Korski and his employer.
Henryk demanded to be reinstated into his previously held position in the Polish Ministry of Foreign Trade and compensation to be paid for the wages he had been denied. The court refused Mr. Korski’s application and the Korski family would soon move to Denmark, a decision which Henryk himself said turned out to be a lucky move. There is no massacre of Jews in Poland at this time and there is no pogrom involving Korski’s family either. In fact the last recorded pogrom happened in 1946. Instead, Daniel Korski is caught misleading the public in an attempt to appear as though his parents were Jewish refugees fleeing the threat of death in communist Poland. Is it any wonder then that in the same year as Daniel Korski was making up parts of his family’s history, he would also be appointed as vice president of the United Kingdom’s Jewish Leadership Council.
Daniel Korski grew up in Denmark, so how did he become such an important part of the British government? Korski didn’t start studying for his degree until 1997 when he was 20 years old. He would attend the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and would later attend Cambridge University for his Masters. He was either well connected or very talented, maybe even both, as by the age of 25 he was working for ex-Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown as Head of Political-Military Affairs while Ashdown was serving in the office of High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Korski would hold that position between 2002 until 2004 and he would then go on to be the Committee Specialist for the UK House of Commons Defence Committee. That short term position would be followed by his first official role overseas on behalf of the British government. In 2005, Korski would be in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was officially advising the Karzai government on counter-narcotic operations. He would also soon become part of the UK Government’s “Stabilisation Unit” for the war-torn country.
His next appointment, in 2007, was a move to Iraq as the team leader for the Basrah Provincial Reconstruction Team and during this work in Afghanistan and Iraq, Korski became a senior advisor to the US State Department. With all this experience, we are able to see that Daniel Korski, who was still only 30 years old, had very clear intelligence connections. So it will come as no surprise that in 2009 Daniel Korski helped to found the European Council on Foreign Relations where he would also be named a “Senior Policy Fellow”. Korski would, soon after the creation of the European CFR, become an advisor to the vice president of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton, also referred to as Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
In 2013, Korski would return to the UK as a special advisor to the David Cameron government. In May 2015, he would take up the position as deputy head of policy at 10 Downing Street and would stay in that position until Cameron stood down following his defeat in the EU referendum. The Brexit defeat hit everyone involved in the Cameron administration like a hurricane. Many of the politicians who orchestrated the lacklustre campaign for Britain remaining part of the EU immediately stepped down and some went into hiding.
Quite amazingly for any advisor to a Conservative government, Daniel Korski had managed to get through almost 15 years in leading Whitehall positions without being involved in a single sex scandal; at least that’s what he thought. Yet, on 14th November 2017, the Telegraph, in an article entitled “David Cameron aide denies groping television writer at Downing Street event,” the paper named Daniel Korski as the man who allegedly groped producer Daisy Goodwin. The article states:
“Daniel Korski, who left his post as special adviser following the Brexit vote, admitted that he had met the TV producer in Number 10 on two occasions, but said that any accusation of inappropriate behaviour was “not only totally false but also totally bizarre”
Ms Goodwin, 55, has claimed that she was “summoned” to Downing Street to discuss a proposed TV show when Mr Cameron was Prime Minister and an official told her she looked like a Bond girl before putting his hand on her breast as she went to leave.” Korski, by the time the sexual assault accusation had been made public, had started his own venture capital firm called simply “Public” or Public.io. Even though he was officially outside government at the time, Korski’s capitalist venture would specifically focus on tech startups designed for government applications. They set up base at an address in 1 Horseguards Avenue, Westminster, just opposite the HQ for the UK Ministry of Defence. Public.io also owns Eva Health Technology, previously named Microtest Ltd, which supplies patient management systems for healthcare professionals, including everything from simple customer booking software through to documentation software for vaccines.
In 2018, Korski would become Chairman and Co-Founder of the Govtech Summit, which is planned to be held each year in Paris and is a global stage to pitch next-generation technologies to governments from around the world. Govtech is a place where Daniel Korski and his Public.io business partner, Alexander de Carvalho, can introduce the world to such tech startups as Ehud Barak’s Carbyne, a company frequently advertised by Public.io and Govtech even though they are not direct investors in the Israeli firm. It was also in 2018 that the Healthtech Advisory Board, supposedly the idea of Matt Hancock, was formed and began to bring together such people as Nicole Junkermann and Daniel Korski to help create the future blueprint for the hi-tech “transformation” of the UK’s public health sector.
Some members of the Healthtech Advisory Board, (Rear) Daniel Korski, Parker Moss, Nicola Blackwood, Nicole Junkermann (Front) Dr Ben Goldacre and Matt Hancock
But Korski, since leaving official government employment, has been involved in other activities too. One of his other enterprises is with a man who already has a foothold in the mass surveillance business via a government application and who intends to repeat his early successes on a global scale, as well as many other interesting characters. Please, take your predesignated seats, strap yourself in and welcome to Daniel Korski’s Panopticon.
Enter the Panopticon
Nicole Junkermann and Daniel Korski have many common interests in the big tech sector. In 2017 and 2018, they both began to invest in and focus on mass surveillance technology and future healthcare-related tech with great intensity. If one didn’t know any better, one might come to the conclusion that both Junkermann and Korski had inside knowledge of a coming healthcare crisis, such as a pandemic. Conveniently for Korski’s and Junkermann’s investment portfolios, the current pandemic has become an excuse for government to take away our current civil liberties and implement widespread mass surveillance technologies on an unwitting public.
While Junkermann was personally investing with Epstein and Thiel in Ehud Barak’s Carbyne911, Korski was supporting similar projects in the UK. On 26 March 2018, Daniel Korski became the director of the UK registered company Panopticon Technologies Limited. If you were to go to their previous website, Panopticon.Tech, then you’d be met by a dead link, but the Wayback Machine captured their original site twice in 2018.
The founding team at Panopticon Technologies included:
- Sir Mark Rowley QPM who is described as “one of the most respected and decorated police leaders in the UK”. Rowley had led the national police counter terrorism effort as Assistant Met Commissioner in the UK.
- Alastair Aitken CBE, who helped restructure the Army in the UK, informed by his three decades of experience in the UK military. He was also heralded as helping to redesign US military strategy and was involved in every complicated war zone over the last three decades.
- Mark Austin, a former global board member of PricewaterhouseCoopers and senior executive at IBM. An expert in finance, technology and corporate governance.
- Dale Murray, a partner in the digital strategy consultancy Founders Technology. She was a co-founder of Omega Logic as well as being another advisor to David Cameron on the “Business Taskforce”.
- Max Chambers, who is also part of Korski’s Public.io and was a former senior advisor to David Cameron. He was principal adviser on all aspects of home affairs policy, including security, immigration, counter-extremism, policing and criminal justice.
There are two other important players who also played major parts in the creation of Panopticon Technologies. One is Mike Iiams, the CEO and President of Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc., one of the leading electronic monitoring companies globally. The second is a man named Alasdair James Eli Truett. These last two men should be examined in greater detail.
SCRAM Systems and Mike Iiams
Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc. was founded in Colorado by Michael Leonard Iiams among others. Iiams would go on to be a very successful President and CEO of Alcohol Monitoring Systems/SCRAM for almost 20 years. His name would also be on the patent as one of the inventors of the SCRAM Systems Bracelet, a useful technology designed specifically for use by professional law enforcement. America has a well-developed law enforcement technologies industry and it also has plenty of problem drinkers. Police departments all over the country are equipped with some of the most state-of-the-art equipment available. One of the first successful forms of police technology to be widely adopted by many states was an alcohol detection system, which was used to track problematic drinkers who would commit offences while under the influence. This system was a simple tool in dealing with crimes related to alcohol abuse.
In 1985, Dr. Daniel J. Brown of Indiana University School of Medicine published studies on the subject of measuring volatile substances through the skin including sensing alcohol in sweat. By 1991, the first patent was filed for the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) System. In 2005, the SCRAM system was monitoring 1,700 offenders a day and the program was active in 30 states. Over the following decade and a half, improvements in technologies have seen the addition of further functions on top of the capabilities of the original device. By the rollout of the 4th generation of this technology, it had reduced in size and included the introduction of GPS tracking that would also allow the police to monitor people on house arrest.
Today, this technology has developed into a multifaceted tracking bracelet that allows officers to monitor suspects via a tablet or a mobile phone and it is being rolled out globally. Mike Iiams inclusion into Korski’s Panopticon Technologies came just before SCRAM Systems tagging technology won UK Home Office backing for its use in tackling Britain’s problem drinkers. In 2020, national rollouts were announced in Wales, England, and the Netherlands with the intention to continue its expansion into other countries. According to Public Health England, alcohol-related crime costs the UK economy more than £21.5bn a year and the Ministry of Justice has declared that the Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) can be imposed by courts in accordance with community-based orders, which allows for the use of these “next-generation” SCRAM Systems bracelets, referred to in the UK as “peace tags”.
Although Mike Iiams is not listed as a director of Panopticon Technologies in the official UK companies database, he is listed as someone with significant control of the company with shares of over 25%. Iiams has also worked for the accounting firm Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. in Alaska, during the building of the TransCanada pipeline, and has been in a senior executive role with JD Edwards, which is now part of Oracle.
Alasdair James Eli Truett
The other person of significance, who was at one point a director at Panopticon Technologies alongside Korski, is Alasdair Truett. Truett’s involvement in the project makes for a fascinating addition to PT, as his background is in military intelligence. Truett’s LinkedIn shows him simply as an officer in the British Army for over 20 years between 1997 and 2017, but the title of officer seriously understates Lt Col Alasdair Truett MBE’s experience.
In the British Army, “Alasdair was advising, planning and executing domestic and overseas intelligence and security policy and operations,” as described on the homepage of Cerebra Global Strategy. His profile goes on to tell us:
“He has operated at the political, strategic and tactical levels for national intelligence, national influence, small and large scale wars and counter-terrorism. Since 2017, Alasdair has provided advice and commercial services to leaders in governments and corporates on a spectrum of matters to do with national, corporate and personal intelligence, security and leadership.”
Truett was not just your average garden variety grunt with a gun on the British Army payroll, Lieutenant Colonel Alasdair Truett was in fact a very focused specialist in the field of military intelligence. Truett claims to have only been at Panopticon Technologies for its first 7 months of operation, afterwards he would found both Fortisat, followed by Cerebra Global Strategy Ltd.
In a Cyber Unplugged podcast entitled Social Engineering: The Threat Is Coming From Inside The House, Truett describes Fortisat as “a national security advisory and business intelligence company that looks at ‘human network intelligence’ and offers advice to governments on emerging technologies that will enhance their national security.”
Flash in the Pan(opticon)
So, why has Panopticon Technologies recently gone dark? Although it is still an active company, the pulling of the Panopticon.Tech website seems to suggest that the enterprise is on hold, or about to be abandoned. But these data hungry lobbyists for government mass surveillance often work in the shadows.
What do we know about Panopticon Technologies? They described themselves as “a new, ethical, tech-enabled UK security company” and have stated that “we are passionate about new technology and providing immigration, police, intelligence and probation officers with high quality hardware and software to enhance their day-to-day work in monitoring offenders and protecting the public.” But their method, described as using “new behavioural and compliance models powered by cutting-edge analysis,” may have been too much for supporters to bear after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Korski and his Public.io, led by Max Chambers, may have been rash to launch PT so publicly in the first place. For a Panopticon to be successful, the inmates must know that there is the potential for them to be observed and that is very much the society we find ourselves in today. In this vast cyber-Panopticon, the masses are being observed by the few, and people like Daniel Korski, Alasdair Truett, Nicole Junkermann, Ehud Barak, and Mike Iiams lobby governments to expand and normalise their own homeland mass surveillance programmes. It only takes one government to agree to private companies being responsible for the mass surveillance of their populations for this trend to begin to take a permanent place in our societies. Now, with Covid-19, there are many excuses to implement panopticonic technologies to further the observation power of the few over the many.
Korski has positioned himself to be one of the most influential players in the modern UK government tech sector. He has used his many UK government connections to benefit himself financially and has been eager to remain publicly affiliated with the ruling UK Conservative government since leaving Whitehall. Korski’s Public.io venture capital firm is located at the heart of the UK MoD and is just a stone’s throw away from the UK Parliament. His entry into military intelligence at such a young age suggests he was recruited by an intelligence agency before attending university. He would start studying for his first degree later than most, at the age of 20, leaving us with a small two year gap in his timeline.
Before he’d even reached his thirties, and with no obvious experience in fighting the war on drugs, Korski would become a counter-narcotic operations advisor to the relatively recently installed Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai. Karzai’s brother, Wali Karzai, would later be revealed to have been on the payroll of Western intelligence agencies and also one of Afghanistan’s most prominent, and notorious drug traffickers. His drug trafficking activities were allegedly protected by his brother’s government and his CIA benefactors.
Korski was also heavily involved in the UK government’s stabilisation and reconstruction projects in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He was even acting as a senior advisor to the US Department of Defense just before he would help create the European Council on Foreign Relations. His intelligence links led him to become one of the most important advisors during the David Cameron government.
His links with military intelligence have become clearer since he’s officially left the halls of power, with Korski’s Panopticon Technologies bringing some of the leading advocates for government overreach who also have deep links to military intelligence. Alasdair Truett, Alastair Aitken, Mark Rowley and Max Chambers have all had leading roles in the creation of the modern intelligence networks in the UK for both homeland security and global intelligence strategies. Korski’s work on the Govtech summit has been keenly supported by French President Emmanuel Macron, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Matt Hancock. Korski’s work has also been a vehicle for the normalisation of the use of public big data by private companies.
Daniel Korski listens to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau at Govtech Summit 2019
The NHS Healthtech Advisory Board gives us a brief glimpse inside the on-going creation of the modern digital panopticon. It let us see some of the intelligence-linked tech sector giants vying for opportunities to gain access to mass national databases. Junkermann’s Carbyne911 and Korski’s Panopticon Technologies are the monsters lurking in the shadows of the big tech world. They are constantly circling the part of the public sector that they see as soft targets, because control over the data from the public sector means access to every piece of private information from every citizen. Korski and Junkermann may have beautiful smiles and a charming way about them, but they are simply cogs in a machine leading us towards a dystopian future.
So, who is Daniel Korski actually working for? His deep love and support for the European Union suggests that his whole-hearted allegiance is to the European project. But with his globalist back story, his establishment connections, and his association with both public and private intelligence agencies, Daniel Korski would be a useful asset for any power with a similar agenda of creating a digital Panopticon.
Johnny Vedmore is a completely independent investigative journalist and musician from Cardiff, Wales. His work aims to expose the powerful people who are overlooked by other journalists and bring new information to his readers. If you require help, or have a tip for Johnny, then get in touch via johnnyvedmore.com or by reaching out to johnnyvedmore@gmail.com
October 2, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | European Union, Israel, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
By Paul Antonopoulos | October 2, 2020
Yesterday, it was agreed upon at the European Council special meeting that Belarus will be sanctioned. However, the scope of the sanctions and the long path to agree on them, demonstrates that the European Union is in a crisis and cannot project its power as it wishes. German Chancellor Angela Merkel described the bilateral agreement on Belarus and the strategic approach to Turkey as a step forward. The chancellor stated that “we had many discussions today on the issues of Belarus and Turkey, Cyprus and Greece. In short, I can say that they were completely successful.”
This comes in the aftermath of the Greek and Cypriot Prime Minister’s continually vetoing any sanctions against Belarus unless the European Council agreed to a strong joint statement against Turkey and for sanctions to be implemented by December if Ankara continues to violate the maritime space of Greece and Cyprus. Diplomatic sources in Athens revealed that despite the insistence of the majority of the European Council to pass a strong statement against Turkey and a pathway towards sanctions, Germany became isolated and had to eventually give up its resistance to stop an appeasement policy towards Turkey.
None-the-less, with Athens and Nicosia satisfied with the European Council’s statement and plan for sanctions against Turkey, the path was now open for Belarusian officials to be sanctioned without veto objections. This is despite Belarus not being a European Union member or candidate state, or threatening military action against EU member states like Turkey does.
“It was a long and difficult debate, because of course Greece and Cyprus demanded their rights as our member states. But we also had a very frank discussion about the need to look at all of our relations with Turkey,” Merkel said with seeming disappointment. “We can say today that there are sanctions against actors in Belarus, which means that the European Union is now taking action against those who oppose the democratic movements. I think this sends a very important signal.”
Minsk announced today the imposition of sanctions against European officials in response to those imposed by the European Union on Belarusian officials. The European Union claims that the officials who have been sanctioned are involved in the alleged suppression of anti-government protests and/or falsifying the August 9 elections in which President Alexander Lukashenko won 80.10% of the vote. Belarus’ foreign ministry said it had drawn up a list of European officials barred from entering the country, but added that the list would not be made public.
The European Union agreed to impose sanctions on some 40 Belarussian officials, however, Lukashenko is not among them. This in itself is a sign of weakness and desperation from the European Union as it strangely does not sanction Lukashenko, who won the election, but only those associated with him.
Lukashenko in recent years has been trying to court the European Union while also resisting further integration with Russia, even clashing with Moscow over gas and oil prices. Although protests against the election result had the appearance of a Ukraine-like colour revolution, the European Union immediately expressed solidarity, burning all bridges that had been built between Minsk and Brussels. This has only pushed Belarus firmly back into Russia’s sphere. The Belarusian President and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin held a meeting for over four hours in Sochi last month, which Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said was “constructive, lengthy and substantive in content.” The meeting also resulted in a $1.5 billion loan for Belarus.
It is evident that the attempted colour revolution failed to materialize, Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya has not amounted much domestic influence and Lukashenko will not be removed from power soon. Rather than attempting to quickly repair relations to bring Belarus back closer to Brussels, the sanctions demonstrates that the European Union is moving forward with its foreign policy blindly and against their own interests.
The problem the European Union has is that if it repairs its relations with Lukashenko, it will mean an acknowledgment of weakness as they were not able to achieve what they wanted in Belarus. This is in the midst of the European Union already being deeply divided between a small German-led bloc and the rest of the Union in policies towards Turkey.
Another conundrum for Brussels is that from Lukashenko’s perspective, the European Union is now untrustworthy. Successive provocations, like having diplomats lay flowers where rioters died and saying Lukashenko is an illegitimate president, has likely created a permanent rift between Minsk and Brussels. Therefore, coupled with newly passed sanctions, the European Union has lost all influence they once might have had on Minsk, and therefore weakened their own interests while strengthening Russia’s by forcing the deepening of Belarus’ ties with Moscow.
With the European Union’s divorce with the United Kingdom becoming uglier, having tense relations with Turkey, and the endless rift it has with Russia – all completely different issues to each other – European policymakers have demonstrated that they are incapable of self-reflection and identifying weaknesses and failures in their foreign policy. For what the European Union wanted to achieve in Belarus, it has been a serious failure. By not sanctioning Lukashenko, Brussels has left a door open to normalize relations. However, from Lukashenko’s perspective, he will likely end his years-long flirtation with Brussels and move to more deeply integrate Belarus with Russia.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
October 2, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Belarus, European Union |
Leave a comment
The Israeli and Italian governments concluded a major arms deal, according to a statement issued Wednesday by the Israeli Defense Ministry.
According to Israeli sources, the deal would allow Israel to sell “Spike anti-tank guided missiles and aircraft simulators in exchange for training helicopters to replace the Israeli Air Force’s aging fleet”.
Intense talks, which led to the agreement, began last February.
The military exchange is estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars and its consequences are expected to last for at least two decades. According to the newly-signed agreement, Italian military contractor Leonardo will provide Israel with 20 years of aircraft maintenance.
“The agreement signed today is another expression of the close security and economic relations between Israel and Italy,” Israeli Defense Ministry Director-General Amir Eshel said in a statement, which was quoted in The Times of Israel.
Israel is currently the eighth leading weapons exporter in the world, and its military hardware, touted as ‘combat-proven’, is coveted by many countries.
September 25, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | European Union, Israel, Italy |
Leave a comment
By Paul Antonopoulos | September 22, 2020
Yesterday there was a meeting between all of the EU’s Foreign Ministers to pass sanctions against Belarus. It created massive controversy and revealed the significant divide between Mediterranean and Northern European nations. The EU has been completely disinterested in Turkey’s blatant violations against the maritime space and continental shelf of Cyprus, one of its 27 member states, for well over a year and a half now. However, following the Belarusian elections on August 9, the EU rapidly mobilized to sanction President Alexander Lukashenko and another 40 individuals associated with him. This was on the allegations of electoral fraud and state-perpetrated violence and repression against opposition supporters. To the great frustration of the EU, Cyprus was the only country to veto sanctions against Belarus.
Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs went on Twitter and said that Cyprus is “hostage taking” the EU on sanctions against Belarus, which “sends a wrong signal to Belarusians, our societies and the whole world.” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said on Twitter that “some colleagues should not link things that must not be linked,” referring to Cyprus vetoing Belarusian sanctions so long as Turkey is not sanctioned. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, now the Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, was especially angered and in a series of Tweets complained that “Cyprus is profoundly embarrassing the EU with its linking of Belarus sanctions to unrelated issues,” that Cyprus is “misusing” its veto rights, and that “the meeting of EU foreign ministers […] will unfortunately be remembered for Cyprus again blocking any sanctions on Belarus.”
To be clear, Cyprus, one of the smallest countries in the EU with only 1.2 million inhabitants, is not taking a great moral stand to oppose sanctions against Belarus, which is neither an EU member, an EU member candidate, or a direct threat to any EU members. Rather, Cyprus is making a stand as the EU is prioritizing sanctions against Belarus as they believe it will weaken Russian influence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. The EU has been very slow in their response to Turkish threats against Greece and Cyprus, with many member states not wanting to sanction Turkey, yet wanting fast tracked sanctions against Belarus. Cyprus will approve sanctions against Belarus as soon as sanctions against Turkey are approved by the other EU member states.
The EU’s reluctance to sanction Turkey is curious considering it is militarily threatening two EU member states, Greece and Cyprus, yet wants to prioritise sanctions on Belarus, which as previously stated, is neither an EU member, an EU member candidate, or threatening EU members. Brussels continues the line of an imagined Russian threat via Belarus against the Baltic countries and Poland, while ignoring the open and direct threats of Turkey against Greece and Cyprus.
Unsurprisingly, Bildt was exposed in a report by the Stockholm Center for Freedom in having very intimate and close relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, perhaps including indirect funding. Bildt, as a northern European Swede, is not threatened by Turkish aggression due to the obvious restrictions in geography. This is the same reason for the indifferent attitudes of the Baltic countries, Sweden, Germany and other northern European countries for their disinterest in Turkish aggression against Cyprus and Greece. And herein lays the polar differences between Mediterranean and Northern Europe, which is beginning to split the EU apart.
Although Moscow continually announces its desire for cooperation with the EU, Northern Europe, led by the Baltic states and Poland, continue to pressurize Russia because of a perceived threat against these states. Russia, unlike Turkey, does not violate the sovereignty of any EU member state, nor does it make near daily military threats.
Turning Cyprus from a victim of Turkish aggression, especially considering that the latter invaded the northern portion of the island in 1974, to perpetrator, is not only an egregious injustice to Turkey’s history of violations, it also plays right into Erdoğan’s endeavour to once again avoid sanctions. This year the Dutch vetoed an EU stimulus package to help European economies struggling with COVID-19 restrictions and the Austrians vetoed Operation Irini to prevent Turkish arms from reaching Libya. Yet, only the Cypriots are being harshly criticized for their veto on Belarus sanctions. The double-standards that characterize the Berlin-led EU foreign policy strategy in dealing with the Eastern Mediterranean crisis exposes internal inconsistencies within the Union.
What many Northern Europeans refuse to acknowledge is that Cyprus, Greece and the wider European Mediterranean region, do not have the luxury of friendly neighbors like Sweden and Germany do, and rather have to contend with an aggressor state like Turkey that openly announces its intentions to invade Greek islands and the rest of Cyprus, whilst simultaneously being militarily involved in fellow Mediterranean countries like Libya and Syria.
A small state like Cyprus, that does not have a professional military, has very limited options in dealing with such aggression, especially when its EU colleagues rush to shield Ankara from sanctions rather than defend Cyprus from an external threat. This comes to the crux of the so-called raison d’être of the EU – a supposed unity between Europe. However, Northern Europe has only demonstrated to Mediterranean Europe that there is certainly no unity, especially when two of its 27 member states are being directly threatened and violated by an external state.
On August 29, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a “Pax Mediterranea” which can be interpretated as a new Mediterranean order, one becoming increasingly independent of the EU and involving the close cooperation of Mediterranean states. With Northern Europe disinterested with security issues in the Mediterranean as they prioritize their economic relations with Turkey, there is every chance we will see a significant bloc emerge in the Mediterranean that better serves its own interests rather than those of Northern Europe.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
September 22, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics | Belarus, Cyprus, European Union |
Leave a comment
By Lucas Leiroz | September 21, 2020
Five years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel unilaterally allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa to enter European territory, causing the EU to enter one of the biggest crises in its history. The lack of a previous agreement with the other European governments has created great political instability on the continent that has never been overcome. However, when Berlin considered the number of foreigners in its territory “sufficient”, it simply closed its borders, keeping thousands of immigrants captive in other European countries waiting for a new destination. As a result, many European states were overcrowded with immigrants, while Germany rejoiced in cheap labor for its companies.
Now, history seems to repeat itself. Recently, the EU announced a new immigration and asylum policy, supposedly based on “solidarity” and humanitarian values, but which, once again, failed to reach a consensus within the organization’s countries. Interestingly, the new EU migration policy comes precisely from Germany, but this time the author of the project is Ursula von der Leyen, current President of the European Commission and a member of the Christian Democratic coalition that supports Angela Merkel.
Von der Leyen presented to the European Parliament a proposal to abolish the “Dublin-3”, a regulation according to which immigrants arriving in Europe are forced to register immediately in the country in which they are located. This norm had been causing a serious imbalance in the immigrant population in countries like Greece, Malta, Italy and Spain, but the big problem is that until now Von der Leyen and her supporters have not announced which mechanism will replace the current regulation, just stating that it will be a policy based on “governance and solidarity”, keeping obscurity until the final version of the project is presented.
The total disagreement between the members of the Union is leading to different solutions presented unilaterally by the members. The intention is simple: to survive, in the face of an uncertain future. Italy is working to establish strategies together with Libya to curb migratory flows. Greece is asking for EU support to rebuild the Lesbos camp. On the other hand, Budapest and Warsaw demonstrate total antipathy to humanitarianism as a basic principle of migratory policies. Hungary and Poland have already expressed officially that are not interested in receiving Muslim immigrants. Being culturally and ethnically homogeneous nations, these countries see with fear and terror the multiculturalism that increasingly penetrates Western Europe as a result of intense migratory flows.
In fact, the whole of Europe sees Van der Leyen’s plans with suspicion, simply because they see her as a representative of the interests of Angela Merkel, who is responsible for the 2015 migration crisis. Apparently, the abolition of Dublin-3 will mean nothing more than a mechanism to facilitate the distribution of immigrants across European territory, which will be imposed as a Union policy, disregarding the national interests of member states. Van der Leyen is simply continuing, five years later, what Merkel started in 2015: a policy of distributing cheap labor on European soil disguised by humanitarian principles.
As previously mentioned, Germany closed its borders when deemed necessary. But the “more migrations” speech remains the main agenda for Merkel and her representative in Brussels. So, what remains to be seen is whether Germany will also participate in the “solidarity distribution” of the immigrants currently located in southern European camps due to Dublin-3 or will it again restrict the entry of foreigners because it considers that there is “a sufficient amount” of them.
Apparently, Berlin created a major state of crisis and instability in Europe but managed to keep itself reasonably out of the worst consequences, because, unlike other countries, it closed its borders when it considered it necessary. Now, the Germans are trying to disperse a huge surplus of immigrants and refugees on European soil under a humanitarian flag and their dogma is supported unconditionally by NGOs, political parties and the business sector interested in precarious and low-cost foreign labor.
Apparently, there will be a scenario of uncontrolled migration, completely out of alignment with the national interests of any European state. This will generate a new movement of dissatisfaction in the bloc and could lead to new divisions and to the resurgence of radical nationalist tendencies that are already being born in several countries. For now, we can foresee new “exits” appearing in the coming years, or, worst case scenario, real waves of cultural and social conflicts – as it is already happening in France – in a large number of European countries.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
September 21, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, Progressive Hypocrite | European Union |
Leave a comment
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
Iran’s foreign minister says the country will meet its strategic needs by purchasing weapons from Russia and China, and has no need for European weapons once the UN embargo is lifted in October.
Mohammad Javad Zarif made the remarks in a televised interview on Saturday night in reaction to a possible initiative by France, Germany, and the UK to restrict the sale of weapons to Iran following the October expiration of the UN arms embargo against the Islamic Republic.
“We haven’t been a customer of European weapons, and they haven’t sold us weapons after the 1979 revolution. … They even ran a campaign during the 1980s imposed war [between Iran and Iraq] to prevent the delivery of arms to Iran,” Zarif said.
“We won’t force them to sell us weapons now, as we don’t need their weapons,” he noted.
Zarif said one-fourth of the arms purchases end up in the Persian Gulf region, while Iran is not part of this trade.
“However, Iran can meet its strategic needs through the countries it interacts with, like Russia and China; though it is self-sufficient in many cases, and is an exporter [of arms] itself,” Zarif said.
Thanks to God’s grace and the efforts of the country’s Armed Forces, “Iran has become self-sufficient in many cases, but in cases of need, other countries will have the right to trade with Iran once the UN embargo is lifted,” the Iranian top diplomat added.
Following a humiliating failure at the UN Security Council to secure an extension of the arms embargo against Iran, the United States recently threatened to use its “secondary” sanctions to block any arms trades with Tehran after the expiry of the UN ban next month.
US Special Representative for Venezuela and Iran Elliott Abrams claimed on Wednesday that Washington could deny access to the US market to anyone who trades in weapons with Tehran.
Sanctions “will have a very significant impact” on arms manufacturers and traders that seek to do business with Tehran, he told reporters.
The US initiative is expected to prevent European companies from selling weapons and military equipment to Iran.
‘Europe trying to save face after failure against US’
Zarif further pointed to the recent statement by France, Germany, and the UK in which they claimed they have “gone beyond their own commitments” towards Iran by launching the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), a European mechanism which was supposed to facilitate trade with Iran amid the US sanctions.
“They are joking. The three self-proclaimed world powers failed to stand up to the US bullying. They failed, even though they may not have made so much efforts,” he said.
“Europeans had 11 commitments to fulfil, and the INSTEX was not even one of them, but a prerequisite for them. They failed to fulfil them and said Americans didn’t let them. If we accept their own words, they admitted Americans have kept them [from doing their part].”
“This is below Europe’s dignity. The economy of the European Union is bigger than America’s. Then why did you fail to resist the US’ bullying, which is now impacting you?” Zarif said, adding that the European statement is just meant to save their face.
His comments came in reaction to a statement by France, Germany and the UK delivered to the IAEA Board of Governors at the September 2020 meeting.
They said in the statement, “The E3 has worked hard to preserve the [2015 nuclear] agreement. We have gone beyond our own commitments to facilitate legitimate trade with Iran, including by introducing the INSTEX mechanism.”
‘Iran not to interfere in US elections’
In his Saturday interview, Zarif also denied the claim that the Islamic Republic is going to interfere in the upcoming US presidential elections.
“Despite Donald Trump’s claim that Iran is waiting for another person, these remarks only serve electoral purposes,” Zarif said.
“Iran is an independent country and does not meddle in US internal affairs,” he added.
Zarif said the US should first try to avoid coup plotting and violating people’s choices in other countries before accusing Iran of interfering in its elections.
He made the remarks in an apparent allusion to the CIA-orchestrated 1953 coup in Iran, which toppled the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
‘Israel would defend itself had it possessed enough power’
Zarif further referred to the recent deals signed by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their relations with the Israeli regime in the hope that Tel Aviv could bring them peace and security.
“Our neighbors unfortunately think the regime can defend them. If Israel had such a power, it would have defended itself against the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas,” Zarif said.
He expressed regret that a regional country is forced to sign a deal with Israel so that Trump can use it for his presidential campaign.
“This happens when a country depends on the US for its defense,” Zarif said.
Bahrain and the UAE signed US-brokered normalization agreements with Israel during a ceremony in Washington on Tuesday.
The controversial event was slammed by many Arab and Muslim figures as a blatant betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
September 19, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | European Union, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Sanctions against Iran, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
MINSK The participation of former Belarusian presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya in the upcoming meeting of EU foreign ministers next week will amount to interference in Belarus’ internal affairs, Belarusian Foreign Ministry spokesman Anatoly Glaz said on Saturday.
“It could certainly be funny and curious if it were not so sad. It is quite obvious, in fact, that such actions, if any, are an impudent and open interference in the internal affairs of our country and complete disrespect for its citizens,” Glaz said.
“Why hold any elections at all if it is possible to simply appoint someone all the way convenient from abroad and pretend to build a relationship with them?” the spokesman said.
If the meeting ends up taking place with Tikhanovskaya’s participation, Glaz said there would be no need left to prove that “a course to undermine Belarus’ sovereignty is being implemented.”
“Of course, our principled and understandable position on this matter has already been communicated to the EU envoy in Minsk, as well as to the relevant persons in Brussels,” the spokesman added.
EU foreign ministers are scheduled to convene this upcoming Monday in Brussels. Tikhanovskaya’s press secretary Anna Krasulina has confirmed the Lithuanian-exiled Belarusian ex-presidential candidate’s attendance.
September 19, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Belarus, European Union |
Leave a comment
The European Parliament has pushed to halt construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Germany and Russia, and for an international investigation into the alleged poisoning of Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
A resolution passed on Thursday called on European Union member states to “continue to isolate Russia in international forums,” encouraging the European Council “to prioritize the approval of the EU Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions” against what it called “the Russian regime.” The ‘Magnitsky’ sanctions are named after a Russian tax auditor, and associate of American-turned-British billionaire Bill Browder, who died in a Moscow prison in 2009.
532 MEPs voted for the resolution, 84 were against and 72 abstained. A total of 688 out of the registered 705 MEPs took part in the voting. It’s important to note that the measure is advisory and not legally binding, but rather intended as an advisory for EU governments.
The European Parliament also reiterated its “previous position to halt the Nord Stream 2 project.” This is a gas pipeline set to connect Germany directly to Russian energy supplies.
“It is necessary to immediately start an international investigation, with the participation of the EU, United Nations, Council of Europe and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” the resolution states. It names Alexey Navalny as “a leading Russian opposition politician, lawyer, blogger and anti-corruption activist” who has become “one of the few effective leaders of the Russian opposition.”
The vote on Thursday took place without a debate – there had been discussion on Tuesday in the parliament.
Earlier this month, European Commission President Charles Michel condemned “in the strongest possible terms the attempt to silence opposition leader (sic) Navalny.”
Sanctions against the Russian authorities have been rumored ever since news of Navalny’s alleged poisoning first broke. In late August, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun explained that Washington was prepared to take strong measures against Moscow, which would make sanctions related to the 2016 US presidential election “pale in comparison.”
September 17, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | European Union |
Leave a comment
The German Chancellor said that the fate of the most important Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream 2” will be decided not by Germany, but by the European Union as a whole. This is how she sees the response to the situation with Aleksey Navalny. It may seem that this is a terrible omen for the gas pipeline, which has already seen billions of euros invested into it for construction. But what did Angela Merkel really mean?
The fate of Nord Stream 2 was again in question. No sooner had the project’s supporters celebrated the removal of the Danish obstacle (Copenhagen, after much delay, gave permission for the pipe to be laid through its territorial waters) than Germany, which until recently was an advocate for construction and one of the main beneficiaries of construction, began to seemingly make obstacles.
Berlin, dissatisfied with the position of Moscow in the case of Aleksey Navalny, intends to put the question of a possible curtailment of the project to a pan-European discussion. Why does Angela Merkel want to close “Nord Stream 2” – and does she in general want to?
Legacy
Germany has long called for putting an end to “Nord Stream 2”, which in the understanding of a number of western activists “increases Europe’s dependence on Russian energy carriers”. They did not even require Angela Merkel to deliver a funeral speech over it. “The easiest option for Germany would be to simply withdraw its support for Nord Stream 2, allowing American and European critics to kill it,” the BBC writes. And now, against the background of the Navalny case, the aggressiveness of the project’s opponents has increased by an order of magnitude.
Until recently, it seemed that they were banging their heads against the wall of German pragmatism. Germany’s position on Nord Stream 2 was really reinforced concrete: German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation with Moscow in the case of the “poisoning of Aleksey Navalny”, but was not going to abandon Nord Stream 2 because of this. After all, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas correctly notes, “those who call for the cancellation of the project should understand the consequences of such a step”.
Firstly, Berlin needs Nord Stream 2 from an economic point of view. “Germany has a very weak position in terms of energy. They are closing a lot of power plants – nuclear, coal,” says Donald Trump. Germany and the EU do not have reliable suppliers of cheap gas that are an alternative to Russia. In addition to getting cheap blue fuel (much needed for the export-oriented economy of Germany), Germany will earn good money on the transit of Russian gas, becoming a hub country.
“If the project is stopped, the German consumer will pay for it,” said Klaus Ernst, a member of the Bundestag from the Die Linke party. In addition, Berlin is also thinking about the security of Europe under its patronage – the internal political situation in Ukraine is deteriorating, and no one can guarantee that the militants not controlled by Kiev will not decide to stop the gas export of the “aggressor country” to Europe. Well, or threaten to stop if the EU does not issue another loan to Kiev.
Finally, the issue of reputation is also important. Angela Merkel was not just a supporter of Nord Stream 2, but also a lawyer. She defended the project against those who advocated abandoning infrastructure projects with “Putin’s Russia” – human rights activists, urban lunatics, agents of influence of the US. If now, because of the Navalny case, Merkel changes her position on the “stream”, then she will be criticised for political short-sightedness.
Moreover, by both opponents of Nord Stream 2 (for catching on too late) and supporters of the project, who are dissatisfied with the fact that Angela Merkel has called into question Germany’s energy security because of some political matter. Not to mention the fact that it caused serious damage to German business (Uniper and Wintershall invested almost a billion euros each in Nord Stream 2). And since Frau Chancellor leaves her post at the end of 2021, it is important for her who she will remain in history.
“It all depends on the Russians”
However, Angela Merkel’s pragmatism seemed to be beginning to bend under the pressure of numerous critics and human rights activists calling for “punishing Putin for another poisoning of an opponent”. In their opinion, Germany is the leader of the European Union and (against the background of Donald Trump’s actual refusal to “protect freedom around the world”) a potential leader of the entire liberal community, so it has no right to stay away from the Navalny case. Therefore, Angela Merkel announced the possibility of imposing sanctions against Nord Stream 2 ,and, according to media reports, intends to initiate a pan-European response to the case of Aleksey Navalny. And gather all the EU countries together to decide how to respond to Russia’s behaviour – and part of this reaction may be the suspension of Nord Stream 2.
This suspension will be a serious blow to Moscow. After all, this is not just about an important infrastructure project – there are much bigger things at stake. “The curtailment of Nord Stream 2 will send a clear signal with long-term consequences: German business will leave the Russian market even faster, and Vladimir Putin’s attempts to modernise Russia with the economic assistance of EU countries will finally turn to dust,” writes Deutsche Welle correspondent Miodrag Soric. At the same time, as they make it clear in Berlin, the blow can be avoided. “Our further actions depend on the behaviour of the Russians,” explains German Health Minister Jens Spahn.
“I hope the Russians won’t force us to change our position on Nord Stream 2,” says Heiko Maas, alluding to the fact that the Kremlin is expected to fulfil European demands concerning the Navalny case, and that they are waiting for prompt implementation, and “not by the end of the year or even within a few months”. These demands are very simple and not burdensome – not taking the blame, but just admitting the fact of poisoning, as well as starting an investigation.
Why shouldn’t they be implemented?
One of the reasons is as old as the Russian-west conflict. Moscow does not want to create a dangerous precedent for itself. The Kremlin, in fact, is being forced to admit a politically motivated accusation – after all, the Bundeswehr, whose laboratory declared “the indisputable fact of Navalny’s poisoning”, refused to provide the Russian authorities with any material evidence, citing “the secrecy of the methods and procedures used”.
If Russia now accepts this position on faith under the threat of sanctions, then the inspired western partners will threaten the same sanctions and issue other ultimatums: non-interference in the affairs of Belarus, withdrawal from Syria, etc. And this is not to mention the organisation and information support of other provocations that should be expected before the difficult political transit in Russia in 2024. If the blackmailer issues an ultimatum, the only way to escape from it is to refuse to fulfil any, even the most insignificant demands.
Divergence?
In addition, it makes no sense for Russia to make concessions to Berlin, because the position of Angela Merkel has never changed. Germany, as before, is not going to close Nord Stream 2 – it just behaves more elegantly and cunningly. Yes, it is partly bluffing for the sake of forcing Moscow to make concessions – but at the same time it may be an elegant attempt by Frau Chancellor to pass between the European trickles. By putting the issue up for European discussion, Angela Merkel is calling out those who support punishing Russia, confirming her political leadership – and at the same time putting a tricky block on accepting any tough sanctions.
The fact is that decisions at such meetings should be made by consensus. And if Angela Merkel had raised the question of approving the construction of Nord Stream 2, she would not have received a green light – after all, a number of EU countries (Poland, the Baltic states) are categorically opposed to the implementation of this infrastructure project. However, Frau Merkel (apparently) will ask about something else – should Russia’s punishment for the Navalny case be extended to Nord Stream 2? And here one should not expect any consensus on the completion of the project – the positions of the European countries are too different.
Recall that the pan-European decision concerning the Skripal case was only the collective expulsion of a certain number of Russian diplomats.
And this is despite the fact that back then the grounds for sanctions were much more serious than now. Firstly, there were at least some grounds for blaming Russia for what happened – there was a recording of “Petrov and Boshirov” arriving in Salisbury, as well as information provided to the media that these people work for the Russian special services. Secondly, it was about the use of weapons of mass destruction on the territory of the European Union, which can be interpreted as an attack by the Russian Federation on European citizens. Whilst here we are talking at best about poisoning – without any evidence of Russian guilt. And Moscow can only be accused of unwillingness to take Europe’s word for it. The most important infrastructure projects are not stopped for this by respected countries.
Angela Merkel’s proposal has another advantage for Russia – it protects (at least for a while) Nord Stream 2 from threats from other EU states. There is a risk that some less conscious countries (for example, Denmark) may take their own sanctions against the project. For example, revoke permission to lay a pipe through their waters. Bringing the issue to a pan-European discussion puts unilateral sanctions on pause.
And since Navalny is not dead, but is on the mend, time will cool the hot European heads, and the idea of blocking Nord Stream 2 will go off the agenda. At least for a while.
September 11, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics, False Flag Terrorism | European Union, Germany, Russia |
Leave a comment
Mérida – The Venezuelan government has invited the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) to monitor the December 6 National Assembly (AN) elections.
Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza wrote on Twitter that letters had been sent to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell explaining electoral guarantees and inviting the bodies to send observers.
“Your participation in this process will have a positive contribution to an atmosphere of democratic understanding between Venezuelans and support political, peaceful and negotiated solutions to existing issues,” the letter read.
At the time of writing there have been no reactions from either the UN or the EU. While both have previously voiced support for dialogue processes, the European bloc recently vowed not to recognize the parliamentary election, which will elect 277 deputies for the 2021-2026 term.
The appeal to the international instances comes on the heels of President Maduro granting pardons to 110 opposition figures. This includes a number of AN deputies and other leaders charged or convicted for taking part in activities such as the violent “guarimba” street protests, the 2018 assassination attempt against Maduro, or the April 30, 2019 failed putsch.
On Thursday, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its allies submitted their electoral candidates, with eight current cabinet members heading the list and subsequently replaced. Current state television VTV president Freddy Nanez replaced Jorge Rodriguez as communications minister, Noris Herrera replaced Blanca Eekhout as communes minister, Carolys Perez took over from Asia Villegas as minister for women, while there were also changes at the prisons, mining, youth, urban agriculture and indigenous peoples ministries.
The electoral scenario has also led to bitter infighting amongst the opposition ranks. On Wednesday, two-time former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles called on opposition leader Juan Guaido to stop “playing at government on the internet.”
“Either you’re the government, or you’re the opposition. You can’t be both,” he said during an online broadcast.
The comments came in response to criticism from Guaido after Capriles and fellow opposition member Stalin Gonzalez held a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu concerning electoral participation and guarantees.
“These negotiations were held without the knowledge and permission of the ‘Interim Government’ and our international allies,” read a statement published by Guaido’s office.
The opposition lawmaker proclaimed himself “interim president” in January 2019 and was immediately backed by Washington and its allies. He went on to lead several unsuccessful efforts to overthrow the government by force, but a host of scandals saw his position increasingly questioned by other high-ranking opposition figures.
Guaido has lobbied for a boycott of the December AN elections and called on opposition figures to join a “unitary path” to oust the Maduro government which would extend his “interim presidency” into 2021.
However, other anti-government politicians have refused to rally behind him, with some urging voters to take to the polls, and hardline figures such as Maria Corina Machado calling for a foreign intervention.
For its part, Washington downplayed talk of a possible military intervention, with the Trump administration’s Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams criticizing opposition leaders “who only think that the magic moment of a military intervention will arrive” in a recent interview.
However, the veteran official, who is known for his role in the Iraq war and the Reagan administration’s Central America policy, has reiterated that the US will continue supporting Guaido while tightening sanctions against the Venezuelan economy.
September 4, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | European Union, Latin America, United States, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg will convene an emergency meeting on Friday to discuss the situation involving Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny, the alliance’s spokeswoman, Oana Lungescu, said on Thursday.
Navalny is currently undergoing treatment in a German hospital after suffering a medical emergency in late August. Berlin on Wednesday said that a German military laboratory possessed undeniable proof of the 44-year-old’s intoxication with a nerve agent from the Novichok group. The Russian Foreign Ministry noted in response that the German government’s claims of Navalny’s poisoning lacked evidence and added that it was perplexing why Berlin first addressed the EU, NATO and third parties, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, instead of contacting Russia directly.
Lungescu took to Twitter to announce the upcoming meeting.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the day that there had been no contacts between Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the issue of Navalny. He also noted that Russia was interested in shedding the light on the situation as much as anyone else, however, Germany did not provide any information.
EU Urges Russia to Cooperate With OPCW in Navalny Case for Impartial Probe, Borrell Says
The European Union urges Russia to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the situation with Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny to ensure an impartial international investigation, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in a statement.
“The European Union condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny. … The European Union calls upon the Russian Federation to fully cooperate with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure an impartial international investigation,” the statement says.
The EU is calling for an international response to the situation with Navalny and reserves the right to impose sanctions, Borrell added.
The EU will continue to closely monitor the situation and consider possible implications, he said.
September 3, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Economics, False Flag Terrorism | European Union, NATO, OPCW, Russia |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 