After Touting Military Resolution of Ukrainian Crisis, EU’s Borrell Now Wants Dialogue With Moscow
Samizdat – 13.06.2022
“This war will be won on the battlefield”, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell said in April while announcing an additional 500 million euros in EU military assistance to Kiev. In May, the diplomat complained that the bloc had run out of hardware to provide Ukraine and urged the EU to boost its defence capabilities.
Russia and the EU are bound by the confines of geography and must coexist and talk to one another, the EU’s foreign affairs chief has indicated.
“Russia will continue to exist after peace negotiations, and it is necessary to define clearly how we intend to coexist with the country. It will be very difficult after what Russia has done in Ukraine… but we still have to try to coexist with the Russians on this continent”, Borrell said in an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche.
The diplomat assured that the channels of communication with Russia “were never closed”, pointing to Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer’s recent visit to Moscow, African Union Chairman Macky Sall’s trip to Sochi, and visits of United Nations envoys to Russia to discuss Ukraine’s grains exports. “We must continue to talk with Russia”, Borrell emphasised.
Asked about the fate of EU weapons aid to Ukraine, and whether they were achieving the results on the ground that Brussels was hoping for, Borrell characterised the arms deliveries as “war, not a picnic on the grass”, and that Russia was bombing the convoys. He admitted that over the past 100 days, the EU “used a lot of our capabilities in service of Ukraine and it is imperative that our stocks be renewed”.
Asked whether Brussels should help Ukraine directly militarily, Borrell stressed that he doesn’t “engage in theology”, and reiterated the need for EU aid to reach Ukrainian forces as quickly as possible, “because they are not waging a conflict with banknotes but with guns”.
“Having said that, all conflicts end with a ceasefire and negotiations, and it is necessary for Ukraine to be able to approach this phase from a position of strength”, the diplomat said.
The EU high representative for foreign affairs’ comments mark a stark contrast with sentiments he expressed in April about to need to “win” the conflict in Ukraine “on the battlefield”, and to tailor weapons deliveries to Kiev’s needs. “We need to continue to increase our pressure on Russia. We have imposed massive sanctions already but more needs to be done on the energy sector, including oil… Ukraine will prevail and rise back even stronger. And the EU will continue to stand by you, ever step of the way”, he promised at the time.
A month later, Borrell complained that the EU had run out of weapons to send, blaming “past budget cuts and underinvestment”.
The EU has committed to send over two billion euros in aid for the Ukrainian military, on top of roughly 4.1 billion euros to support Kiev’s economy. Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed providing Ukraine with an additional nine billion euros in fiscal support, to be paid back at the end of the year.
Since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Washington and Brussels have provided Ukraine with tens of billions of euros’ worth of military assistance and economic loans. But assistance has come with conditions, including requirements that the country open its markets, and carry out painful reforms aimed at liberalising its economy. Aid has also occasionally been tied to political preconditions, with then-former Vice President Joe Biden boasting in a 2018 panel meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations on how he had threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan to Kiev unless Ukraine’s president fired a prosecutor investigating the activities of a gas company working with his son Hunter.
Russia accuses US of concealing data on biolabs
Samizdat | June 12, 2022
The US has been concealing information about its “military biological activity” in the post-Soviet states, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Sunday. This, according to Zakharova, raises “serious questions” about Washington’s compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).
In an interview with TASS published on Sunday, Zakharova said, “the United States prefers to remain silent about the ongoing work in the post-Soviet space and does not provide information within a framework of the BTWC confidence-building measures.”
“Assertions that the activity of the Pentagon and related structures is focused solely on health issues are not true. Clearly, health care assistance does not require the involvement of the US military,” Zakharova said.
She added that Washington’s claims that it is collecting biomaterial and monitoring the epidemiological situation “only reinforce and intensify” Russia’s fears over America’s compliance with the BTWC.
Moscow’s recently published evidence regarding the alleged sprawling network of US-funded biolabs across Ukraine only adds to the suspicions, Zakharova said.
In a series of briefings starting in March, the Russian military has presented evidence of the Pentagon’s involvement in funding laboratories in Ukraine. According to Russia’s Investigative Committee, the US poured more than $224 million into biological research in Ukraine between 2005 and early 2022. Western pharmaceutical giants, nonprofits, and even the US Democratic Party were involved in the scheme, Moscow claims.
The Pentagon has “significantly expanded its research potential not only in the field of creating biological weapons, but also obtaining information about antibiotic resistance and the presence of antibodies to certain diseases in populations of specific regions” while working in Ukraine, Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, the head of the Russian Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Force, said in May.
Zakharova also pointed out that the US has not yet withdrawn its reservation to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of biological and chemical weapons. The US was among the countries that declared the protocol would cease to be binding regarding enemy states that do not observe the prohibitions of the protocol.
In this regard, “the question quite reasonably arises about the real goals of the Pentagon’s international military biological activity,” Zakharova said.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon published the ‘Fact Sheet on WMD Threat Reduction Efforts with Ukraine, Russia and Other Former Soviet Union Countries’. In the document, the US military said that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US and its partners have led “cooperative efforts to reduce legacy threats from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons left in the Soviet Union’s successor states, including Russia.”
According to the Pentagon, the US has “worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health,” by providing support to “46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades.” These programs have focused on “improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation.”
In the same paper, the US military accused Russia and China attempting “to undermine this work by spreading disinformation and sowing mistrust in the people and institutions all over the world that contribute to WMD threat reduction.”
According to Zakharova, Moscow considers this publication part of Washington’s “information campaign” aimed at justifying its military biological activities in the post-Soviet space and to “divert the attention of the international community from its true non-transparent and unseemly direction.”
Zelensky’s delay in opening sea corridor threatens the globe with hunger
By Paul Antonopoulos | June 10, 2022
Hundreds of Ukrainian mines floating in the Black Sea threaten to halt tens of millions of tons of grain from being exported. Ukrainian officials claim it would take six months to clear the mines, something which directly contradicts the long-held claim that Russia’s naval blockade is preventing the export of wheat.
Markiyan Dmytrasevych, an adviser to Ukraine’s Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food, said that regardless of any agreement with Russia, thousands of mines would remain floating around the port of Odessa, making the export of wheat difficult. According to Dmytrasevych, it will take until the end of the year to clear out all the mines, thus making a mockery of the months-long disinformation campaign that Russia was blockading Ukrainian wheat shipments and therefore responsible for any global food shortage.
Russia and Ukraine collectively supply about 40% of the wheat consumed in Africa, and due to the war and consequential anti-Russia sanctions, prices have already risen by about 23% across the continent. The two countries also account for about 33% of the world’s grain supply, and wheat prices have skyrocketed by a third since February 24.
To derail a global food crisis, Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline will have to be demined. However, demining efforts require specialized equipment to scour wide swaths of open water, something Kiev was fully aware of when it began mining the Black Sea.
NATO issued a warning on June 1, stating: “Drifting mines have been detected and deactivated in the Western Black Sea by coastal nation’s authorities. The latest statement of regional authorities, confirming another sighting of a mine, shows the threat of drifting mines in the Southwest part of the Black Sea still exists.”
Along with the obvious problem associated with traversing mine-laden waters, shipping insurance for vessels heading to the region has skyrocketed. “There is clearly a growing nervousness around the region in the insurance market, especially in relation to the Black Sea,” Marcus Baker at insurance broker and risk adviser Marsh told Reuters.
Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky told the Financial Times that while, in theory, he supports a maritime corridor, no Russian vessels should be allowed access. “On UN-led talks to restore access to Ukrainian Black Sea ports, Zelensky was willing to back the idea of a maritime corridor to enable grain exports from Ukrainian ports as long as no access was given to Russian ships,” the paper reported. “There was no need for a dialogue with Moscow to resolve the blockade given that the only threat to world food supplies was coming from Russia.”
However, despite Kiev now acknowledging that demining efforts could take up to six months, Zelensky is still attempting to blame Russia’s naval blockade as the reason why 75 million tons of grain could be stuck in Ukraine after the summer season.
Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš is also disingenuous to the situation, questioning to the Atlantic Council on June 8 whether “a US or French warship [should] go through the Bosphorus and dock in the port of Odesa?”. Of course, his suggestion completely omits that US and French warships would not only have to break the Russian blockade, but also traverse mined waters.
None-the-less, Ukraine is in a difficult position. As the country unrelentingly refuses to negotiate an end to the war with Russia on the open orders of Washington and London, Ukraine does not want to weaken its coastal defenses around Odessa. However, at the same time, it has been exposed that Ukraine’s Black Sea mines are responsible for halts in the export of wheat, and not Russia’s naval blockade as Western leaders, officials and media led to us to believe for months.
Despite offering a way out of the emerging food crisis by calling for the demining of the Black Sea and the creation of a maritime safe corridor, Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko tweeted on Wednesday that the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “are empty.”
“Ukraine has made its position on the seaports clear,” Nikolenko tweeted. “Military equipment is required to protect the coastline and a navy mission to patrol the export routes in the Black Sea. Russia cannot be allowed to use grain corridors to attack southern Ukraine.”
As Kiev stubbornly continues to carry out the demands of the US and UK, it appears that the establishment of a safe corridor for the export of grain from Ukraine will not emerge anytime soon, thus artificially creating a global food crisis that can be relatively easy to resolve, despite the inevitability of high wheat prices. Most disingenuously though is the continued portrayal that Ukraine is not responsible for the halt of exports, however, even this has been exposed to the point that Western media cannot ignore Kiev’s refusal to demine its coast.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
On Ukraine, ‘progressive’ proxy warriors spell disaster
Urging leftists to support the Ukraine proxy war, Bernie Sanders aide Matt Duss whitewashes the US role, attacks The Grayzone, and advocates dangerous militarism.
By Aaron Maté | The Grayzone | June 7, 2022
The unanimous vote by progressive lawmakers for the $40 billion Ukraine funding bill has been followed by a near-unanimous refusal to defend it. To date, no member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus – with the sole exception of Cori Bush – has publicly explained why they chose to hand over billions of dollars to the weapons industry and intensify a proxy war against nuclear-armed Russia.
Amid this resounding silence, Matt Duss, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, has stepped in to fill the void. In a New Republic article titled “Why Ukraine Matters for the Left,” Duss attempts to convince fellow progressives that the “provision of military aid” to Ukraine “can advance a more just and humanitarian global order.” Duss has only praise for a Biden administration that, in his view, “should be applauded for its judicious reaction to the Ukraine crisis.” By contrast, Duss opts to launch an attack on dissident journalists, myself included, who don’t share his enthusiasm.
To make his case, Duss omits an abundance of inconvenient facts, betraying either considerable ignorance of the Ukraine-Russia conflict or a deliberate effort to distort it.
While apologia for US hegemonic projects is normal in DC foreign policy circles, Duss’ contribution is particularly noteworthy given his painstaking attempt to cast himself as an outsider. “Our political class,” Duss states, “advocates military violence with a regularity and ease that is psychopathic.” Duss’ comment is both accurate and wildly ironic, given his choice to advocate our political class’s military violence in Ukraine — with the remarkable ease that he identifies in others as psychopathic.
When it comes to how the Biden administration has handled the Ukraine crisis, Duss cannot identify a single fault. “The Biden team clearly did not seek this war,” Duss claims, and “in fact… made a strenuous, and very public, diplomatic effort to avert it.”
Duss does not explain what the administration’s “strenuous” diplomacy entailed, perhaps because even its top officials now openly admit that none existed.
In an interview with War on the Rocks, State Department counsellor Derek Chollet was asked if NATO expansion into Ukraine was “on the table” in pre-invasion contacts with Russia. “It wasn’t,” Chollet replied. The White House, Chollet explained, “made clear to the Russians that we were willing to talk to them on issues that we thought were genuine concerns they have that were legitimate in some way,” including “arms control.” (emphasis added) But when it comes to “the future of Ukraine” and its potential NATO membership, Chollet said, this was deemed a “non-issue.”
To Duss, the Biden administration’s (openly admitted) refusal to even discuss Russia’s core demands – and to only entertain issues that it deemed to be “legitimate” on Russia’s behalf – is apparently a “strenuous diplomatic effort.” If “diplomacy” amounts to enforcing US hegemony, as many in DC seem to believe, then Duss would have a case. But in the rest of the world, where diplomacy entails constructive dialogue with a semblance of parity, he does not.
Duss also takes aim at the argument, advanced by prominent leftists including former Brazilian President Lula da Silva, that a US-European pledge that Ukraine won’t join NATO “would have solved the problem” with Russia.
To refute Lula, Duss stresses that “in the weeks leading up to the war, U.S. allies, specifically German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron, signaled clearly” that Ukraine’s NATO ascension “was not going to happen.” According to Duss, it is Putin who sabotaged their efforts by invading, and who “has now made that discussion moot.”
Duss omits what also happened in the weeks leading up to the war. While Germany and France did indeed float a proposal to keep Ukraine out of NATO, it was Ukraine – with US backing – that rejected it. According to an account in the Wall Street Journal, Scholtz proposed to Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb. 19 – five days before Russia’s invasion — that Ukraine “renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal,” signed by both Putin and Biden. But Zelensky rejected Schultz’s plan, a response that “left German officials worried that the chances of peace were fading.” In dismissing the Germans’ NATO proposal, Zelensky joined the Biden White House, as State’s Derek Chollet acknowledged and other Biden officials made clear in public.
Ignoring US-Ukrainian rejectionism, Duss then declares that “it seems absurd to suggest that even an ironclad public pledge from President Biden that Ukraine would never be accepted into NATO would have convinced Putin to draw back the 180,000 troops he had placed on Ukraine’s borders.” Perhaps, but that very public pledge happened to be the centerpiece of Germany’s last-minute diplomatic effort – one that Duss himself invoked, and that Zelensky (along with Biden) chose to reject.
Duss’ whitewashing of the Biden administration’s rejection of diplomacy before the Russian invasion carries over to the period since.
Since Russia’s invasion, Duss says, the White House has “acted with restraint and care not to get drawn into a wider war with Russia.” While it is true that Biden has opted not to start World War III – in other words, has opted not to trigger a global suicide pact — he has done anything but act with “restraint.” One day before Duss’ article was published, Biden authorized the delivery of medium-range advanced rocket systems to Ukraine. These rockets have the capacity to strike inside of Russia; the US is acting on Ukraine’s assurance that it won’t.
Duss may support undermining diplomacy in Ukraine and shipping off billions of dollars worth of heavy weaponry instead, but this can only be described as “restraint” if the sole measure is an immediate — rather than merely prospective — nuclear holocaust.
Duss is so impressed with Biden’s handling of the war that he cannot even detect a tangible path that could end it. “As of this writing,” Duss declares, “I have seen no evidence of a settlement in the offing—as in, a deal that Putin would actually entertain, let alone accept—that we’re refusing to ‘push for.'”
If Duss cannot see evidence of a realistic settlement that Russia could accept, then he is being willfully blind. Russia’s explicit proposals, issued before the war and after, including two weeks into the invasion, called on Ukraine to “cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.”
It is worth noting that the latter is Russia’s only new condition: for the eight years before the February invasion, Russia formally accepted the Minsk accords, which, to end the Donbas war, would have kept the Donetsk and Lugansk regions inside Ukraine’s borders, with limited autonomy.
Duss is free to argue that Russia’s terms for ending the war are unacceptable. But to pretend that Russia has not even laid out those terms, is to essentially advocate that the war never end.
By omitting Russia’s stated terms for a settlement, Duss also allows himself to erase one of the invasion’s key causes: the 2014 Maidan coup, and the ensuing eight-year Donbas war that had left more than 14,000 people dead by the time Russian forces crossed the border on February 24th.
In his 2500+ word piece, Duss makes no mention of the Donbas war and how it began: the 2014 ouster of a democratically elected Ukrainian president, with new leadership selected by Washington; the coup government’s assault on Ukraine’s ethnic Russian and anti-coup citizens, who launched a rebellion in the Donbas; the critical role of fascists and neo-Nazis in the Maidan coup and the Donbas war since; the fascist-led sabotage of the 2015 Minsk accords, which could have put an end to the conflict. By omitting this history, Duss can also omit how the US has helped undermine the Minsk agreements by siding with Ukrainian’s far-right and choosing to use the Donbas war to “fight Russia over there” (Adam Schiff) and “make Russia pay a heavier price,” (John McCain), because Ukraine’s “fight is our fight.” (Lindsey Graham).
After ignoring Russia’s stated grounds for a peace settlement, Duss goes on to disingenuously claim that the Ukrainian government has been pushing for one.
“Ukraine presented Russia with a far-reaching set of proposals over a month ago, including a commitment to ‘permanent neutrality,’” Duss claims. “Volodomyr Zelenskiy continues to offer to negotiate directly with Putin to end the war.”
It is true that Ukraine presented Russia with a 10-point plan in late March. But Duss omits what happened immediately after: while Russia “signaled its preliminary support,” (RAND analyst Samuel Charap) Ukraine’s Western backers sabotaged it, and Zelensky acquiesced. In early April, Ukrainian and Russian officials were finalizing details for a Zelensky-Putin summit. But UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev and ordered him to halt diplomacy. Citing sources close to Zelensky, Ukrayinska Pravda reports that Johnson informed his Ukrainian counterpart that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with.” Johnson also relayed that even if Russia and Ukraine chose to sign security guarantees, the UK and its allies would not take part – rendering any such agreement worthless.
Zelensky clearly received the message, as Duss’s own source makes clear. When Duss claims that Zelensky “continues to offer to negotiate directly with Putin to end the war,” he links to a Reuters article that reveals such an “offer” to be hollow. Zelensky, Reuters reports, said he would only negotiate with Putin if Russia first withdrew entirely from Ukraine – an obvious non-starter. “Get out of this territory that you have occupied since February 24,” Zelensky said. “This is the first clear step to talking about anything.” Zelensky also “ruled out suggestions… that Ukraine should make concessions for the sake of securing a peace agreement that would allow Putin to save face.”
Thus, returning to Duss’ rendering, Zelensky’s “far-reaching proposals” were immediately rescinded under Western orders, and Zelensky’s “offer to negotiate” was premised on a condition that would have made negotiations impossible.
None of this is to suggest that Russia was justified in launching an invasion of Ukraine. To defend the use of force, which has been so catastrophic, Russia has to meet a high burden of evidence that, in my view, it has not. But one does not need to defend Russia’s invasion to see through Duss’ attempt to whitewash the US role in provoking and prolonging it.
Tellingly, Duss is openly hostile to journalists who have reported on the context that he has omitted. Out of nowhere, Duss introduces an attack on The Grayzone, the Max Blumenthal-founded news outlet that I work for. While Duss has nothing but praise for Biden, he has nothing but ad hominems for us (“pernicious authoritarian agitprop,” “atrocity-denying grifters” “click-baiting provocateurs”). After sharing this vitriol, he then immediately declares that engaging with us is “wasting time.”
I feel the same way about his juvenile name-calling, but interested readers can judge for themselves whether his insults are supported by facts. (He links to two “sources,” one a Medium blog post that, true to the neo-McCarthyite norm, peddles innuendo that The Grayzone is funded by Russia, among other smears).
If Duss is genuinely concerned about wasting time, he also might reflect on why he devotes ample space to paying lip service to progressive principles, only to ultimately endorse policies that flagrantly violate them. “Centering opposition to U.S. imperialism and militarism is an entirely appropriate starting point,” Duss states. Yet Duss’ desired end point would see leftists center U.S. imperialism and militarism, with disastrous results: among them, prolonging a proxy war against a nuclear armed power, threatening a worsening global food crisis, and sentencing more Ukrainians to death.
Even putting aside US complicity in the Ukraine proxy war and its dangers for the planet, progressives like Duss might wish to consider the likely political consequences. One obvious guide is the election of 2016, when Donald Trump won over a significant portion of voters by claiming to oppose the military interventionism that Duss is now urging progressives to embrace. Having seemingly learned nothing from 2016, Democrats in 2022 are again ceding anti-war sentiment to Republicans, 68 of whom voted against the $40 billion Ukraine bill in the House and Senate (versus zero Democrats).
As at least some Republicans vote against the proxy war, Biden has defended the domestic pain caused by his Ukraine proxy war by blaming “Putin’s Price Hike” and trying to argue that “defending freedom is going to cost.” Biden’s defense of “freedom” in Ukraine is now costing him a transatlantic flight to grovel at the feet of the Saudi autocracy, in the hopes of staving off a humiliating cost in the November midterms.
Continuing his mealy mouthed approach, Duss both claims to support diplomacy while simultaneously declaring it to be unattainable. The US, he says, “should certainly be actively engaged in finding a diplomatic path to end the war, and avoid committing to maximalist aims that could foreclose one.” But yet, according to Duss, “for the moment that path is unclear.”
If the path toward peace for Ukraine is unclear to Duss, then that can only be because he has chosen to erase the factual background and the diplomatic solutions on offer, thereby reinforcing the “maximalist aims” that he claims to oppose. Duss’s proxy war apologia will certainly win him a warm reception in establishment DC circles. For the US progressive movement, Ukraine, and the rest of the planet, it only spells disaster.
US government admits participation in Ukrainian biolabs
By Lucas Leiroz | June 10, 2022
In a recent statement, US government officials finally admitted that the country helped to build and maintain biolaboratories on Ukrainian soil over the last two decades. The declaration comes from the Pentagon, which reinforces the military importance of the program of biolabs abroad. However, US officials still insist on the evidently fallacious narrative that the laboratories were intended for “peaceful” use.
In an online statement on Thursday, June 9, US Defense Department’s representatives said that Washington has been involved in the activities of 46 biolabs within Ukrainian territory, whose objectives, according to them, would be to act cooperatively with local experts in order to improve Ukraine’s biological safety and human and animal health.
“The United States has also worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades (…) “This work, often conducted in partnership with outside organizations, such as the WHO and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), has resulted in safer and more effective disease surveillance and detection (…) Ukrainian scientists have acted consistent with international best practices and norms in publishing research results, partnering with international colleagues and multilateral organizations, and widely distributing their research and public health findings”, Pentagon’s spokespersons said.
The representatives also emphasized that there was no research being carried out in Ukraine involving the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. In this sense, the use of the biolabs would be restricted to activities related to the search for peaceful medical knowledge and without any military purpose, which seems contradictory, considering that there were US military personnel operating in these facilities, such as in all US biolaboratories in other countries.
In fact, if the function of the biolabs really existed only in a non-military way, the units could be managed by civilian institutions of the US government, instead of having the active participation of the armed forces and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, in this case, the American health authorities would be the ones called upon by the government to provide public clarification on the case, not the Pentagon. In the current conjuncture, the American authorities seem to contradict themselves successively, unable to hide the obvious truth that the country was producing biomedical research of a military nature in Ukraine.
In addition, the security policy surrounding the research carried out there raises suspicions about its possible peaceful use. Although in the statement it is claimed that the US acted in partnership with Ukrainian and international organizations, there was no publicity of data on the results of research in these units. In fact, the very existence of the laboratories had previously been denied by some American authorities – although some specific people, such as the Undersecretary Victoria Nuland, have also admitted, showing how there are continuous contradictory statements by the US government.
It seems that in the current situation, after Russia has exposed so much data about the clandestine activities of such labs and their supporters, there is no longer any way Washington can deny the existence of the activities, so it tries to maintain damage control through a “partial confession”, admitting the existence but denying the use for production of biological weapons.
Furthermore, even if we consider all the Pentagon’s statements true, many questions will remain unanswered. The sources of funding for the laboratories, according to data presented by the Russians, involved a wide network of private agents, including Big Pharma companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna, and Hunter Biden himself, son of the US president, known worldwide for carrying out illegal activities in Ukraine. None of this has been clarified by the Pentagon or any other American authority so far.
In addition, by not answering about private funding sources, the US government raises even more suspicions on the possible biological weapons research. It is true that there was American public money applied in the operations of the biolabs, but Russia denounces the existence of private investments that have not been recognized by the US so far. This means that there were at least two sources of funding for such activities. One of these sources was the US government itself, which supposedly financed peaceful biomedical research, while the other source, which involves pharmaceutical companies and corrupt agents, remains unofficial and, consequently, without clear purposes. Certainly, it was the private source that financed illegal research with bioweapons, which could not be included in official US state accounting documents. There are many questions Washington has yet to answer.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Ukraine says no to Russia’s call for de-mining ports to allow grain shipments
Press TV – June 8, 2022
Ukraine has rejected calls from Russia to de-mine its ports around the Black Sea to resume grain shipments, accusing Moscow of trying to “attack” the port of Odessa, the largest seaport in the crisis-stricken country.
Sergiy Bratchuk, a spokesman for Odessa’s regional administration, in a statement on Wednesday, noted that Russia “dreams of parachuting troops” into the city and that Moscow’s army “wants to attack” Odessa.
“The moment we clear access to the port of Odessa, the Russian fleet will be there,” Bratchuk said. He had earlier said that any exports from Odessa must be “escorted by NATO countries.”
His remarks followed a statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday about de-mining the Ukrainian ports.
“To solve the problem, the only thing needed is for the Ukrainians to let vessels out of their ports, either by de-mining them or by marking out safe corridors, nothing more is required,” Lavrov said.
Speaking alongside Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Lavrov said the main problem was that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had “categorically refused” to resolve the issue of the mined ports.
“If they’ve now changed their position, then on our side there are no complications, let’s see how the preliminary agreements we discussed yesterday and today can be put into practice,” Lavrov stressed.
Defense ministers of Russia and Turkey discussed a potential grain export corridor from Ukraine on Tuesday, according to reports.
Russia’s Sergei Shoigu and Turkey’s Hulusi Akar evaluated “all measures that can be taken regarding the safe shipment of grains, sunflower, and all other agricultural products,” according to the Turkish ministry.
Turkey, a NATO member, shares a sea border with both Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea. Ankara has offered its services to accompany maritime convoys from Ukrainian ports.
Ukraine, one of the world’s biggest exporters of grain, has not been able to export the commodity since the onset of the conflict in the country in late February. Kiev and the West accuse Russia of creating the risk of global famine by shutting Ukraine’s Black Sea ports.
The West has also accused Russia of blocking Ukrainian grain exports from the Black Sea.
Russia, however, says no action was required on the Russian side because it had already made the necessary commitments to solve the problem.
Moscow has also denied responsibility for the international food crisis, blaming Western sanctions.
The West’s unprecedented sanctions against Russia have sent the prices of grain, cooking oil, fertilizers, and energy skyrocketing.
In a separate statement on Wednesday, the Kremlin said that for Russian grain to be delivered to international markets, sanctions on the country must be lifted.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there have been “no substantive discussions” about lifting the sanctions.
Russia and Ukraine together produce virtually 30 percent of the global wheat supply.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia also reassured earlier this week that his government would “guarantee” peaceful passage to ships leaving Ukraine’s ports.
Ukraine, which is a major exporter of corn, barley, sunflower oil, and rapeseed oil, used to export most of its goods through its main ports on the Black and Azov seas. But it has been forced to export by train or via its small Danube River ports since February.
Since the war in Ukraine, wheat and corn prices have jumped 41 percent and 28 percent, respectively,
Experts warn that rising food prices and shortages in the fragile emerging markets in Africa and West Asia could lead to a humanitarian disaster.
Last month, the Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said difficulties in the global food market have been building up for a long time, but “the crisis was further exacerbated due to the introduction by Washington and its satellites of illegitimate sanctions against Russia.”
Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements and Moscow’s recognition of the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin said one of the goals of what he called a “special military operation” was to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.
‘Beacon of democracy’ Kiev regime’s practice of kidnapping people spirals out of control
By Drago Bosnic | June 6, 2022
Ever since the Obama administration orchestrated the 2014 Euromaidan color revolution (US/NATO’s weapon of choice when hijacking entire nations), the mainstream media have been feeding the political West’s populace the narrative of Ukraine being the “freedom and democracy lighthouse in the dictatorial post-Soviet darkness”. However, after the start of Russia’s special military operation more than three months ago, this narrative went into orbit. Still, in order to proclaim a country “the beacon of freedom and democracy”, let alone claim the said country could “teach Americans and the world a thing or two about democracy”, certain standards should be met.
One of the first postulates of freedom and democracy should be the freedom of thought, speech and expression. This includes both mass media and individuals. However, one problem with this is that not even the West respects these basic principles, as most alternative sources of information there have been suppressed. Thus, in practice, Ukraine does follow the political West’s definition of “freedom and democracy”. Worse yet, Ukraine goes even further in implementing it. And it does so by physically removing any individual with “dissenting” views and opinions. All one needs to do is disagree with any of the Kiev regime’s decisions, policies or laws and they’re immediately removed. As in, quite literally taken, or more precisely, kidnapped by the regime, in particular its SBU enforcers, in a manner echoing the “best” CIA and NSA practices.
In recent months, these practices have escalated out of control. On June 3 the Donetsk People’s Republic Ombudsman Daria Morozova stated that Donetsk People’s Republic services have provided information on mass abductions of people by the special services of Ukraine, primarily the infamous SBU. Ukrainian services carry out illegal mass arrests on ideological grounds. Most disturbingly, this also includes the kidnapping of minors.
“With the start of the special operation, ideologically motivated kidnappings not only resumed, but also acquired a massive character,” Morozova commented on the situation in Ukraine. “I received reports of mass abductions, including of minors. At present, I have received a certain number of applications from relatives of those abducted on the territory of Ukraine,” the official stressed.
Morozova described the illegal detention of citizens as “methods of the US and UK.” The abducted are kept in special prisons and are subjected to “illegal methods of interrogation” or more precisely, torture. The ombudsman cited statistics from the Office of the UN High Commissioner – from April 2014 to April 2022, up to 4,000 people were arbitrarily detained by Ukrainian services in connection with the situation in Donbass, with approximately 60% of arrests made without legal grounds.
In Kharkov, Ukrainian security services kidnapped the daughter of Vladimir Demchenko, an officer of the DPR People’s Militia. He spoke about this at a briefing on June 3 in Donetsk. The Special Operations Forces (SOF) of Ukraine have already contacted the military and tried to force him to cooperate with them.
“I received a message via Telegram: ‘Dad, they took me because of you, tomorrow at 11:00 they will get in touch.’ They told me that they represent the special operations forces and added ‘you will talk to us or it will be different from what you want.’ The conversation we had lasted about 21 minutes, during which they tried to persuade me to cooperate,” Demchenko stated.
Another instance of the Kiev regime’s view on “freedom and democracy” is the fate of Elena Berezhnaya, the founder and director of the Institute for Legal Policy and Social Protection. For nearly three months, she has been in the dungeons of the SBU. Berezhnaya, one of the most prominent human rights activists in Ukraine was arrested by the SBU on March 16 in her Kiev apartment and thrown into the Lukyanovka pre-trial detention center. As of this writing, there has been no contact with her, and nothing is known about her condition. Berezhnaya has been reporting on the state of human rights in Ukraine since 2014. She provided irrefutable evidence of the atrocities committed by numerous Neo-Nazi groups and their connections with the Kiev regime, including crimes against civilians and violations of the rights of Russian-speaking citizens.
Berezhnaya is well known for her report to the German Bundestag, in which serious Kiev regime violations of the European Convention on Human Rights were documented in detail. OSCE also received her reports on justice in Ukraine and the disastrous consequences of reforms and discriminatory laws passed by the Kiev regime. Despite regular and close cooperation with international organizations, they completely ignored the kidnapping and arrest of the Ukrainian human rights activist and did not even try to arrange her release. The SBU accused Berezhnaya of “treason” – a very serious charge used as an excuse for arresting any dissident with supposedly “pro-Russian views.”
Days prior to Berezhnaya’s arrest, on March 10, a well-known Ukrainian poet and publicist Yan Taksyur was detained by the SBU and thrown into a Kiev pre-trial detention center without the right to protection, treatment or any information about his condition. Taksyur also has cancer, making his arrest all the more troubling. The 70-year-old poet is a Soviet and Ukrainian satirist known for ridiculing and criticizing the parasitism and crookedness of Ukrainian elites. The SBU “found signs of treason” in his works, namely in his articles titled “Fascism will not pass or the Banner of Victory in the darkness of Enslavement” and “Classics in Ukraine or return the Russian book to Kiev!”
The Kiev regime’s repressive state apparatus conducts particularly harsh reprisals against the leaders of the Ukrainian left. The founder of the Ukrainian Union of Left Forces, publicist and political scientist Vasily Volga was also detained back in March. During his arrest, Volga was wounded and then tortured during interrogation. He was also denied medical care. The Kononovich brothers from Kiev were also arrested and subjected to severe torture. Mikhail and Alexander Kononovich were the leaders of the Ukrainian Komsomol and their “crime” was the condemnation of the Kiev regime’s attempted ethnic cleansing and armed aggression in Donbass. As of this writing, no information about their fate is available. Neither relatives nor lawyers have been able to contact them.
Orthodox journalist Dmitry Skvortsov, writer-historian Alexander Karevin, TV presenter and political scientist Dmitry Dzhangirov, political scientist Yury Dudkin, leader of the “Faithful Cossacks” Leonid Maslov and hundreds of others have also been subjected to searches, threats and detention in Kiev. The SBU freely conducts government-approved mass terror, while nothing is known about many of those arrested. Arrests are being carried out in all cities controlled by the Kiev regime.
A prominent Odessa-based journalist Yuri Tkachev was also arrested. During a search, SBU supposedly “found” explosives Tkachev apparently left in plain sight in his Odessa apartment. Also in Odessa, SBU kidnapped the daughter of Mikhail Vyacheslavov, a man killed in the 2014 House of Trade Unions fire. Elena was accused of attending rallies, where Odessans paid tribute to the memory of people which Neo-Nazis burned alive in the House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of how the Kiev regime sees “freedom and democracy”. Suppression of free speech, freedom of thought and expression might pale in comparison to the horrendous war crimes the Western-backed Neo-Nazi regime is committing in Donbass, however, the sheer hypocrisy of portraying the Kiev regime as a “beacon of freedom and democracy” makes the political West complicit in all of the crimes committed against not just the people of Donbass, but the people of Ukraine itself as well. The crimes we know of so far (which, in reality, might be orders of magnitude worse) should be more than enough to strip the Kiev regime of any legitimacy. That is, if there’s any legitimacy left.
On the Darknet: Ukrainians flood Europe with NATO arms shipments
Free West Media | June 6, 2022
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the US and other NATO countries have been sending state-of-the-art heavy weapons to Kiev. But many of the weapons systems do not end up at the front – but on the internet.
The Darknet is becoming an online wholesaler for war materiel. And the customers are also based in Europe.
Anti-tank missiles, automatic weapons, ammunition, drones or even mines – the warehouses of Darknet dealers are full. Thousands of weapons systems sent by Western allies to Ukraine can be found for sale on the internet.
Europe soon threatened by rocket launchers?
“It is surprising to say the least that after the fall of Mariupol, the United States was willing to send an additional 40 billion dollars to Ukraine where it had already lost another 14 billion dollars. In reality, two-thirds never reached their destination,” Thierry de Meyssan pointed out.
The FGM-148 Javelin is a man-portable anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). The US developed this weapon system to be able to combat heavily armoured vehicles such as main battle tanks and lighter military vehicles. It is hard to imagine what terrorists with weapons like these could do in a European city centre. Austrian daily eXXpress reported on this serious threat.
How many of these systems are already in Europe – presumably in the hands of criminals or terrorists? Police could eventually face massive problems with armed terrorists. It is easy to see how this could become a major security risk for large cities in Europe.
Darknet sales
It has never been easier to get hold of various NATO shipments – directly from Ukraine – to anywhere in the world to anyone with money. The assortment from Kiev includes rifles, grenades, pistols, body armour. Just one of the listed sellers already had 32 successful transactions to his name.
Already during the Balkan War, authorities witnessed how thousands of handguns had simply disappeared – and were then sold on the black market to criminal organisations or even to terrorists.
High-tech armament and an assortment of automatic weapons can now be ordered from the comfort of a screen. Grenades, incidentally, have been on special offer. If criminals moreover get hold of bullet-proof vests it would make it difficult for the police to stop them in the future.
Executive Director of Europol Catherine De Bolle stated in an interview with Welt am Sonntag recently that her agency was bracing for an influx of illegal weapons into Europe originally shipped to Ukraine by Western countries, including Greece, Sweden, Spain and Germany. She noted that the “weapons from [Kosovo] are still being used by criminal groups today”.
Jihadists and other radicals are already in the war zone, according to the database of the SIS (Schengen Information System).
Weapons outlive conflicts
“It would be prudent to consider the immediate and long-term security implications of arms transfer decisions and apply lessons hard-learned from past armed conflicts,” the US-based think-tank Stimson Center said about this development back in March.
“The United States and its partners may be doing a disservice to the very people they aim to protect without considering the potential risks of the infusion of weapons to the country. While there have been noteworthy pledges of additional military assistance, the lifecycle of an arms transfer is often quite long. Arms promised today may not be available for months or even years to come, at which point the situation on the ground will have evolved. Though these pledges have symbolic value they may have little real effect on the battlefield.”
The think tank furthermore warned: “From Afghanistan to Iraq to Colombia, well-intentioned transfers have a habit of outliving their political contexts, and risk fueling new conflicts, being captured by illicit groups, or contributing to enduring ecosystems of insecurity.”
The authors warned that the strategic risks of transferring arms to an area of active hostilities include exacerbating the conflict, extending the duration thereof, increasing its lethality, and contributing to civilian harm. “Moreover, arms have a long shelf life, and will still be around long after the guns inevitably fall silent,” they concluded.
Foreign-supplied tanks destroyed in Kiev – Russia
Samizdat | June 5, 2022
Russian airstrikes have destroyed foreign-supplied tanks in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, Moscow said on Sunday.
Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said during a regular briefing that Russian forces carried out airstrikes “on the outskirts of Kiev, destroying the T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles that were supplied by Eastern European countries and kept in railcar repair facilities.”
The spokesman did not specify where the tanks came from, but Poland previously said it had donated T-72 tanks to Ukraine.
Konashenkov said that military targets were also hit in Donbass, as well as in eastern and southern Ukraine, including multiple rocket launchers and a US-made mobile counterfire radar.
Ukraine’s General Staff earlier reported that Kiev was among the areas hit by Russian forces. Mayor Vitali Klitschko said that one person was hospitalized.
On Saturday night, the Donetsk authorities said Ukrainian troops shelled the city, killing five civilians and wounding 20.
Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly accused each other of shelling residential areas and killing civilians.
Poland Suddenly Realized That It Can’t Indefinitely Fund Ukraine & Its Refugees
By Andrew Korbyko | One World Press | June 2, 2022
The nostalgic neo-imperial rush of reconstituting the long-lost Commonwealth through Poland’s recent merger with Ukraine into a de facto confederation proved to be short-lived after Warsaw suddenly realized that it can’t indefinitely fund Kiev and its refugees. Everything seemed picture-perfect at first after President Duda and his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky lavished praise on one another’s countries in late May while speaking before the Rada. They wistfully spoke about returning to the halcyon days when there were no borders between them and pledged to create a customs union to that end, among other comprehensive connectivity initiatives. This de facto confederation sounded good on paper but Poland quickly realized that its budget simply can’t afford this ambitious geopolitical project.
The first signs of trouble came just a few days later after Prime Minister Morawiecki demanded that nearby Norway immediately give all of the extra profit it’s made from energy sales thus far this year to Warsaw and Kiev. Oslo of course refused, which was then followed by Poland complaining that Germany didn’t replace the 200 older tanks that Warsaw gave to Kiev with newer ones like it claimed its neighbor had promised. Berlin denied that any such deal was ever clinched, which ultimately left Poland in the doldrums after it finally dawned on its decision makers that they just got played by Germany into transferring half of their country’s tanks to that former Soviet Republic in exchange for literally nothing at all.
Upon panicking, Poland then demanded that the UN’s headquarters for Ukrainian reconstruction be based in its country instead of the one that the international community will purportedly try to rebuild, most likely through the scheme that Zelensky shared during the World Economic Summit in Davos whereby his partners can literally take control over “a particular region of Ukraine, city, community or industry.” Warsaw obviously wants to get the lion’s share of this or at the very least skim some of the funds off the top for supposedly facilitating this process, which can in turn help it make up for the untold billions of dollars that it’s already spent on Ukraine, ergo why it wants to host that headquarters.
That demand, like practically everything else that Poland has asked for thus far such as Duda’s earlier idea during his last visit to Kiev that the US-led West reinvest Russia’s stolen foreign assets into rebuilding Ukraine (which would serve to subsidize Poland’s de facto confederation with it), wasn’t enthusiastically embraced by its allies like Warsaw expected. It might still come to pass, even if only in part, but Poland now knows that it can’t continue indefinitely funding its geopolitical project with Ukraine to the same extent as it had expected. That’s why it’s suddenly slashing its generous aid to Ukrainian refugees, cutting off free fuel deliveries, and positioning itself as Kiev’s “economic hub”.
The ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS per its Polish abbreviation) party’s Ukrainization of Polish society was intended to weaponize these “new arrivals” as “agents of influence” in the other half of the de facto reconstituted Commonwealth. They expected this to be financed by Brussels via its promised refugee aid tranche of around €150 million, which hadn’t yet been disbursed as of last weekend. In any case, Poland is demanding billions more in aid, after which Politico reported in their latest article about the surging costs of that country’s refugee program that “Brussels also said Poland could tap €1.2 billion in unused funds from REACT EU… to support Ukrainian refugees.”
The EU also approved approximately €35 billion in grants and loans to Poland as part of a COVID recovery program yet is withholding this assistance until it complies with Brussels’ demands to reform its judiciary. In other words, Poland was played by everyone– especially Germany – into taking on the bloc’s leading role in comprehensively supporting Kiev and its millions of refugees, only to be left in the lurch without any substantial assistance until it unilaterally concedes on a significant issue of national interest connected to its strategic autonomy. The irony is that while Poland sought to colonize Ukraine, it was Poland itself that was just further colonized by the EU.
The lesson to be learned is that some countries’ leaderships can be easily manipulated by appealing to their imperial nostalgia just like PiS was by its so-called “allies”. By pushing them to take the lead in “temporarily” shouldering the costs of what’s portrayed as a “multilateral effort”, external forces can get them to go so far that they can’t reverse their policies without incurring some serious cost to themselves, even if only reputational or connected to electoral politics. The manipulated leadership is therefore pressured to stay the course no matter what with the expectation that “just a little bit more” is all that’s needed to finally unlock the promised funds that might never come.
In an ideal world, everything would have gone according to PiS’ plan. The US-led West would have given Warsaw its billions of dollars’ worth of seized Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine in accordance with its desires. Norway would have been guilted to chip in and Germany would have also already replenished the whopping one-half of Poland’s tank arsenal that PiS dispatched to Ukraine, while the UN would have unreservedly established its Ukrainian reconstruction headquarters in Warsaw. Brussels, meanwhile, wouldn’t have attached any political strings to its promised refugee aid to Poland. None of that has yet to happen, though, and instead Poland is now forced to slash funding to Kiev and its refugees.
The Neo-Commonwealth project therefore isn’t off to a good start, having already been hated by genuine Polish conservative-nationalists from the get-go and now even possibly triggering the wrath of those liberal-globalists in society who demand that everyone chip in to continue funding Kiev and its refugees to the same extent as before. Poland simply can’t afford that though which is why it’s had to walk back its initially ambitious plans, though only after having already committed to merging with Ukraine into a de facto confederation, a game-changing development that it’s already too invested in to reverse. All the while, the West is laughing at the “village idiot” that it easily got to do its bidding.
Featured Video
Iran Blockade Complications
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A low-fat, high-carb diet has been the largest public health experiment in history. It’s past time for a rethink.
By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | November 25, 2020
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
Why is this happening? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran Blockade Complications /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
- Pirates of Mediterranean: Israel does as it pleases in the Sea of Three Continents
- Minab children massacre not ‘unfortunate situation’ but ‘heinous war crime’: Tehran
- OPCW Forced To Pay Damages To Whistleblower Who Found Evidence Of False Flag In Syria
- Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
- Iran slams US leadership, debunking fabrications, false war costs
- Here’s why Iran is sovereign and Germany is not
- Israel pours $730m into global propaganda machine as reputation collapses
- Leaked audios reveal pro-Israel groups ‘paid’ for US pardon of convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez
- Congress Extends Section 702 Spy Program 45 Days
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 