Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The CIA Admits Its Long-Time Presence in Ukraine

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | March 13, 2024

On February 25, The New York Times published an article titled “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin.” This report was not the result of any leak, but was clearly authorized from the highest level: the CIA brought reporters in to tell the story. Though many spoke on the condition of anonymity to “discuss intelligence matters and sensitive diplomacy,” they do not even create the pretense that this is a story that the CIA doesn’t want the public to know. The clear purpose, stated almost explicitly near the end of the article, is to guilt the Republicans in Congress into supporting Ukraine aid, with the argument that we are “in too deep” and cannot abandon them like our erstwhile allies in Afghanistan. The impact of the article was muted and it was barely discussed outside of those critical of Ukraine aid, because neither the CIA nor the Times seem to have realized the implications of these admissions: it shows that the post-Maidan government of Ukraine pro-actively made itself the base of a hostile conspiracy against Russia.

The short summary of what The New York Times presents is that after the U.S.-backed “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014, the newly appointed spymaster went to the intelligence headquarters to find that all of the files had been destroyed when the previous government left. He immediately called the CIA and MI6 to form an alliance to counter Russia. They created a specialized anti-Russia division, staffed exclusively by people born after the fall of the USSR (at that time, no older than 23) and began training them in spying on and sabotaging Russia. The Ukrainian intelligence agents were anti-Russia zealots who expressed a hatred of all Russian speakers, not simply opposition to Putin’s regime or Russian imperialism. The CIA were unable to control their proteges, who carried out violent missions against Russia and the allied “People’s Republics.” This is described as an American “beachhead” against Russia in Ukraine. Since the February 2022 invasion, the CIA has been involved in acts of war against Russia from a network of U.S.-funded bases across Ukraine.

We haven’t heard any of the normal pontificating about “operational security” and “sources and methods” since this was released. The CIA wants us to read this investigation, and the government isn’t pretending otherwise. Besides the transparent purpose—that it should guilt people into funding Ukraine—there are a few other theories as to why this was released. The first would be that it is a “limited hangout,” meaning they are admitting this much in the hopes people don’t look further into it. The next is that it is what some call “pre-bunking,” which is to say that they know a scandalous story is coming out and this is to get ahead of it. But it takes at least a few weeks to produce a story of this size, if not a couple of months, so it would be really risky to release this hoping it would come out before other information that they could not control the release of; the Times claims to have conducted over 200 interviews with only two authors. The other possibility is that it signifies a coming break up between the CIA and Ukrainian intelligence, which is possible, given that The New York Times published another article titled, “Mutual Frustrations Arise in US-Ukraine Alliance,” which described the relationship in terms clearly meant to invoke a troubled marriage. However, the most likely answer is the simplest: they are proud of what they have done, and think by telling the world it will encourage more funding.

By publishing this in The New York Times, the idea that the CIA was highly active in an anti-Russian conspiracy operating in Ukraine is another thing that has moved from the realm of “conspiracy theory” to “of course it’s true, and here’s why that’s a good thing.” But for all of this, there has been very little discourse about the story, and most of that has been from skeptics of arming Ukraine. It did not have the impact that they wanted, but it seems to have not had impact at all. The supporters of Ukraine throughout the media do not have anything to say about this specific Times article, despite that publication being the gate-keeper of respectable discourse and usually once it prints something it can be discussed everywhere. If this was a ploy to get more funding, it doesn’t seem to have worked.

What both the CIA and The New York Times failed to understand about their story is that it reinforces many of Russia’s key points. The most important of which is that we have constantly been told that Russia presents a threat to all of its neighbors and that Finland and Poland need to be afraid (though they certainly don’t act like it) and that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine they will roll their tanks into Brussels. It doesn’t seem anyone actually believes this, but they say it. The Times exposed a different story, which shows that, as Russia has said, Ukraine was a unique situation for a variety of reasons. Per the Times, it is true that an anti-Russia spy conspiracy was centered in Ukraine, by people who hate all Russian speakers. It’s obvious to a reader that these are drastically irresponsible people driven by ethnic hatred-—towards the people who inhabit a region they want us to help them reconquer and rule. It is a different question if any of what we learn in this article “justifies” a large military invasion which has caused enormous human suffering on both sides, but the CIA has chosen to admit that post-Maidan Ukraine went to great efforts to pose a threat to Russia. This shows that there is no reason to believe Russia poses a threat to any neighbors who would choose to pursue a policy of peace and good relations. I suppose it is no surprise that they would admit everything we are meant to believe about the war is a lie, but expect us to support their war anyway.

March 13, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Harvard Fires Professor Who Co-wrote Great Barrington Declaration

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 12, 2024

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., an epidemiologist and professor of Medicine at Harvard University, on Monday confirmed the university fired him.

Kulldorff has been a critic of lockdown policies, school closures and vaccine mandates since early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, he published the Great Barrington Declaration, along with co-authors Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., and Stanford epidemiologist and health economist Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.

In an essay published Monday in City Journal, Kulldorff wrote that his anti-mandate position got him fired from the Mass General Brigham hospital system, where he also worked, and consequently from his Harvard faculty position.

Kulldorff detailed how his commitment to scientific inquiry put him at odds with a system that he alleged had “lost its way.”

“I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard,” Kulldorff wrote. “The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired.”

He noted that it was clear from early 2020 that lockdowns would be futile for controlling the pandemic.

“It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health,” Kulldorff wrote.

“We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world — all will suffer.”

That viewpoint got little debate in the mainstream media until the epidemiologist and his colleagues published the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by nearly 1 million public health professionals from across the world.

The document made clear that no scientific consensus existed for lockdown measures in a pandemic. It argued instead for a “focused protection” approach for pandemic management that would protect high-risk populations, such as elderly or medically compromised people, and otherwise allow the COVID-19 virus to circulate among the healthy population.

Although the declaration merely summed up what previously had been conventional wisdom in public health, it was subject to tremendous backlash. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health called for a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration and of the authors, who were subsequently slandered in mainstream and social media.

Collins and other figures, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky who would go on to head up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic, sought to undermine their credibility, Kulldorff wrote.

His tweets contradicting CDC policy that people with natural immunity must be vaccinated were flagged by the Virality Project, a government front group, and censored by Twitter.

“At this point, it was clear that I faced a choice between science or my academic career,” Kulldorff wrote. “I chose the former. What is science if we do not humbly pursue the truth?”

Kulldorff said he was also fired from the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group because he disagreed with the decision to completely pause the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus COVID-19 vaccine after a safety signal was detected for blood clots in women under 50.

He spoke out in op-eds and social media to argue the Johnson & Johnson shot should remain available for older Americans alongside the Pfizer and Moderna shots — the only other shots available in the U.S. market.

While Kulldorff’s arguments advocating the Johnson & Johnson vaccines may be flawed, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote today on his Substack, Kulldorff’s story reveals a “more powerful truth.”

“He found out the hard way that there is no crossing the tracks of the institutional freight train that is the Big Pharma-Government Health system of institutional capture that persists in America today,” Schachtel wrote.

“He threatened the gravy train that produced hundreds of billions of lawsuit-protected taxpayer dollars that were making their way to Pfizer and Moderna,” Schachtel added. “And for that sin, he was swiftly removed from his role on the CDC working group.”

Harvard also denied Kulldorff’s vaccine exemption requests. He publicly opposed the Harvard mandates and pushed for the university to rehire those who were fired and to eliminate its mandate for students.

The university last week dropped its COVID-19 mandate for students.

“Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders,” Kulldorff concluded. “Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.”

To right the wrongs that have been done, he said, the broader scientific community must restore academic freedom and end “cancel culture.”

“Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it,” he wrote. “The scientific community will gradually lose public support and slowly disintegrate in such a culture.”

Harvard Medical School did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Israel Tightens Grip on Aid Entering Gaza

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 12, 2024

The head of the UN aid organization for Palestinians, UNRWA, reported that Tel Aviv has rejected aid shipments for Gaza because the supplies included children’s scissors and other life-saving mediations. Israel has used a multitude of tactics to reduce the flow of aid to a trickle, as top UN officials warn of an intentional famine in Gaza.

On Monday, UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini explained that the Israeli restrictions on Gaza are getting even more severe, to the point that child scissors were rejected. “A truck loaded with aid has just been turned back because it had scissors used in children’s medical kits,” he posted on X. “Medical scissors are now added to a long list of banned items the Israeli Authorities classify as ‘for dual use.’”

Aid groups have repeatedly condemned Tel Aviv’s tight restrictions on aid, pointing to its policy of rejecting entire shipments even if one banned item is found. According to Lazzariri, the list of prohibited goods includes “basic and lifesaving items: from anesthetics, solar lights, oxygen cylinders, and ventilators, to water cleaning tablets, cancer medicines, and maternity kits.”

Aid shipments in the Strip have plummeted from 500 to under 100 per day. Tel Aviv has deployed a series of bureaucratic and military obstacles to prevent aid from reaching the starving Palestinians. Israeli officials have blocked aid deliveries from being offloaded at the port while government agencies continue to reject visas for international aid workers.

Israeli citizens have also helped to block aid shipments by staging large protests at checkpoints, with the military standing by as demonstrators prevent the transit of life-saving aid. Additionally, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have attacked several aid shipments and the police that escort the convoys.

Michael Fakhri, special UN rapporteur on the right to food, told Mondoweiss that the Strip is now on the brink of famine, also noting the official death toll of 31,000 is an undercount. “We’ve never seen children pushed into malnutrition so quickly. This was all preventable.” He continued, “I have no doubt – and this is again in consultation with experts all over the world – we all have no doubt that the horror, the numbers, the degree of hunger, the degree of death from malnutrition will be higher than we’re able to measure right now.”

Last week, a group of seven UN experts said the famine in Gaza was a deliberate Israeli policy of collective punishment. “Israel has been intentionally starving the Palestinian people in Gaza since 8 October. Now it is targeting civilians seeking humanitarian aid and humanitarian convoys,” the UN experts said. “Israel must end its campaign of starvation and targeting of civilians.”

While President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated over months that he is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow more assistance into Gaza, less aid has reached the Strip. Rather than use Washington’s substantial leverage over Tel Aviv to reverse course, the White House has resorted to complicated and deadly methods of bringing small amounts of aid into the Strip.

The US and several other countries have used air drops to get food to starving Gazans. However, people on the ground report the drops are often difficult to access, while a botched airdrop resulted in five people being crushed to death last Friday.

During his State of the Union address, Biden declared the US would establish a temporary pier allowing aid to reach Gaza via a sea corridor. Tel Aviv says it will only permit the shipments if it has control over the process, all but ensuring Israel will continue severe restrictions on life-saving medicine even if the military can build a functioning dock.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nord Stream Sues Insurance Companies in London Court – Reports

Sputnik – 12.03.2024

The operator of Nord Stream gas pipelines has sued its insurers in a London court for 400 million euros ($436 million) for their refusal to cover damages following the explosions, the Financial Times reported, citing court documents.

The operator reportedly sued Lloyd’s of London and Arch Insurance companies in February.

The Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines, built to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were hit by explosions in September 2022. Nord Stream’s operator, Nord Stream AG, said that the damage was unprecedented, and it was impossible to estimate the time repairs might take.

Russia considers the explosions of the two pipelines an act of international terrorism. There are no official results of the investigation yet, but Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report in February 2023, alleging that the explosions had been organized by the United States with the support of Norway. Washington has denied any involvement in the incident.

To date, none of the Western countries involved in the subsequent investigation – Sweden, Denmark, and Germany – have presented explanations of what happened or named a culprit. Moreover, Sweden announced on February 7 that it would drop its investigation into explosions.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Economics, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Does the Fate of US Arms in Ukraine Create Pause for Thought Ahead War with China?

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 12.03.2024 

In recent months, advanced US weapon systems provided to Ukrainian forces have been cornered and destroyed on the battlefield by Russian troops. This includes the first ever confirmed footage of a US M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), the destruction of several M1 Abrams main battle tanks, and the further loss of several more Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Newsweek reported.

Last year, the US Department of Defense admitted that a US-made Patriot air defense battery sustained damage in a Russian missile attack, according to CNN. This year, in an article by Forbes, it is admitted that a Russian short-range Iskander ballistic missile destroyed at least two Patriot missile launchers.

These developments end decades of US claims regarding the superiority of its weapons systems, including boasts that Russia’s Soviet-era equipment “won’t be a match” for US arms, as the Business Insider claimed regarding M1 Abrams being sent to Ukraine.

Busting the Myth of American Military Supremacy 

The Business Insider article, like many others across the Western media, repeated the myth of the superiority of America’s military technology based on flawed analysis of its performance during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. In both instances, the US pitted its best troops and equipment against poorly trained Iraqi forces using Soviet-era equipment already obsolete at the time.

The lopsided results of the fighting in both conflicts were cited as evidence of American superiority over Soviet and then Russian Federation military technology. It also serves as the basis of assumed military superiority over Chinese military power. Such lopsided fighting was imagined by Western analysts ahead of US weapons arriving at the battlefield in Ukraine, and despite the poor performance of these systems in Ukraine, such lopsided fighting is still imagined amid any potential conflict between the US and China.

However, for analysts carefully studying the evolution of modern warfare from 1991 to present day, the disparity between Western military technology and that of even non-state armed organizations was closing. During the 2006 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah used modern Russian anti-tank weapons to inflict heavy casualties on Israeli forces, Haaretz reported. Hezbollah’s enhanced military might allowed it to stop the advance of Israeli Merkava main battle tanks and supporting troops well before their stated objective of reaching the Litani River.

The Syrian Arab Army’s successful use of Soviet and Russian-made air defense systems during the ongoing conflict in Syria has forced US, European, and Israeli warplanes to launch attacks using longer-range stand-off weapons. These same air defense systems have been used to intercept Western cruise missiles, reducing damage to targets across the country.

Russia’s intervention in Syria at the invitation of Damascus in 2015 was followed by an effective use of modern Russian air power, cutting the supply lines of Western-backed militants, and aiding Syrian forces on the ground in encircling and destroying them.

It was becoming clear that should modern Western weapon systems face modern Russian military technology, the myth of Western military superiority would be shattered. It was also becoming clear that a similar gap was closing in terms of US military technology and its Chinese counterparts.

On the battlefield in Ukraine, Russian forces using modern Russian weapons are eliminating Ukrainian brigades trained and armed by the US and other NATO members. Despite high expectations ahead of Ukraine’s 2023 offensive, up to 9 NATO-trained and armed brigades were decimated in months of fighting. The New York Times would report at the end of 2023 that despite Ukraine’s massive offensive campaign, Russia had gained the most territory that year.

While it is true that Ukraine did not have enough time to properly integrate the Western arms transferred to it from 2022 onward, the performance of both Western and Russian weapons on the battlefield has made it clear that, now more than ever, the idea of Western military superiority is a more nostalgic interpretation of history, and far from a current reality.

Beyond the performance of Western and Russian weapons on the battlefield themselves, both Western and Russian military industrial capacity has been put to the test. Western private industry-run arms manufacturing had failed to develop surge capacity needed for the protracted, large-scale fighting now taking place in Ukraine. Russia’s military industrial base inherited and then enhanced and modernized such surge capacity from the Soviet Union and, according to the New York Times, despite sanctions, is now outproducing the collective West.

Additionally, because of the complex nature of modern Western arms, a vast network of logistics, sustainment, and maintenance is required to keep these arms operating on the battlefield. A recent press release by the US Department of Defense Inspector General reveals that no such system was created for US weapons transferred over to Ukraine and that without it, “the Ukrainians would not be capable of maintaining these weapon systems.” 

Such support was not provided to Ukraine because of the massive undertaking such support requires. For any given fighting force, one many times larger is required to support, sustain, and maintain that force and the weapons and vehicles it uses.

Taken together, all of these weaknesses revealed about Western military technology do not bode well for the United States ahead of any potential conflict directly or by proxy against China.

The Gap Between US and Chinese Military Power is Narrowing

Not only does China have many weapon systems comparable to the systems Russia is employing in Ukraine now, China has acquired some of the best Russian military technology from Russia itself. This includes the Su-35 warplane and the S-400 air defense system.

The US Department of Defense admits the growing capabilities of Chinese military systems, particularly in terms of missile technology, both surface-to-surface missiles and air-to-air missiles launched by warplanes, comparable to or exceeding the capabilities of American missiles, Air and Space Forces Magazine reported.

A 2023 Reuters article would likewise cite the US Department of Defense, admitting that China’s navy was already larger than the US Navy.

Even as Russia’s military industrial base is outcompeting the collective West, China’s industrial base is larger still. Any difficulties the US is having outproducing Russia in terms of military equipment and ammunition will pale in comparison to China’s military industrial output.

Together with the fact that any potential conflict the US seeks to provoke with China will take place in the Asia-Pacific region, thousands of kilometers away from US shores, and considering the extensive nature of the networks required to support US military technology on the battlefield, the idea of Washington fighting and winning any armed conflict against China appears particularly and increasingly absurd.

Even if Washington’s strategy is to subordinate China not with the threat of fighting and winning a war against China in the Asia-Pacific region, but to hold peace and stability in the region hostage by threatening war regardless of its outcome, the US finds itself in a difficult and increasingly weak position year-by-year.

Current US foreign policy is predicated on the premise, “might makes right.” However, the US is clearly no longer “the mightest.” As it provokes conflicts around the globe directly or by proxy, it risks suffering severe consequences its previous advantages in terms of military power had protected it against decades ago.

Continuing to pursue an unsustainable policy like this will end in disaster for Washington and for the American people. However, the US could always pivot toward a policy of coexistence and cooperation, built on mutual respect for other nations like Russia and China as well as the primacy of national sovereignty of all nations.

While the US would no longer be the most powerful nation on Earth, it would still assume a prominent and respected position within a multipolar world. Conversely, if it continues pursuing a foreign policy of belligerence, it still will no longer be the most powerful nation on Earth, but will arrive at that conclusion under much more difficult conditions.

What is unfolding on the battlefields of Ukraine is giving the collective West insight into what it itself may undergo if it continues provoking conflict within a world where Western supremacy has diminished and the rest of the world is now capable of asserting their own best interests within their borders and regions of the world above the collective West and its ambitions worldwide.

The collective West insists on its continued pursuit of global primacy at its own peril.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US Intel Debunks Biden, Admits Russia ‘Doesn’t Want Direct Military Conflict’ With NATO

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 12.03.2024

US and NATO officials have spent months claiming that Russia has plans to attack bloc countries and calling on the West to prepare for a costly, decades-long confrontation with Moscow. President Putin squashed these allegations in December, calling them “complete nonsense.”

Russia “almost certainly” doesn’t want to go to war with the US or NATO. That’s the view of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community report.

“Russia almost certainly does not want a direct military conflict with US and NATO forces and will continue asymmetric activity below what it calculates to be the threshold of military conflict globally. President Vladimir Putin probably believes that Russia has blunted Ukrainian efforts to retake significant territory, that his approach to winning the war is paying off, and that Western and US support to Ukraine is finite, particularly in light of the Israel-HAMAS war,” the assessment, presented to US officials in early February but released publicly only on Monday, indicated.

The ODNI listed off all its usual claims about the tools the US expects Russia to use to advance its global interests, ranging “from using energy to try to coerce cooperation and weaken Western unity on Ukraine” (it’s worth recalling here that it was the US, not Russia, which blew up the Nord Stream pipeline network) “to military and security intimidation, malign influence, cyber operations, espionage, and subterfuge,” tools Washington itself has used repeatedly throughout its unipolar moment since 1991.

The report admitted that despite “enormous damage at home and abroad” resulting from the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine, Russia “remains a resilient and capable adversary across a wide range of domains and seeks to project and defend its interests globally and to undermine the United States and the West.”

Kissinger’s Nightmare

The report highlighted deep US concerns about the prospects of enhanced Russian-Chinese cooperation – an eventuality which gurus of US foreign policy like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski spent their careers warning about and seeking to avoid by dividing the Eurasian mega powers.

“Moscow’s deep economic engagement with Beijing provides Russia with a major market for its energy and commodities, greater protection from future sanctions, and a stronger partner in opposing the United States. China is by far Russia’s most important trading partner with bilateral trade reaching more than $220 billion in 2023, already surpassing their total 2022 volume by 15 percent,” the document indicated.

On the economic front, the ODNI expects Russia’s GDP to record “modest growth” this year (the IMF expects a 2.6 percent bump in Russia’s GDP – up from 1.5 percent projected last fall), and says the country’s economic ties with non-Western countries will continue to strengthen.

“Moscow has successfully diverted most of its seaborne oil exports and probably is selling significant volumes above the G7-led crude oil and refined product price caps, which came into effect in December 2022 and February 2023, respectively – in part because Russia is increasing its use of non-Western options to facilitate diversion of most of its seaborne oil exports and because global oil prices increased last year,” the report said.

On top of that, US intelligence expects Moscow to maintain “significant energy leverage,” even in Europe, where it remained the second-largest supplier of liquefied natural gas through the first half of 2023 despite Brussels’ self-defeating restrictions.

Assuring that the NATO proxy war in Ukraine has “incurred major, lasting costs for Russia,” the ODNI nonetheless admitted that the defensive strategy Moscow took in the face of Kiev’s summer counteroffensive “plays to Russia’s strategic military advantages and is increasingly shifting the momentum in Moscow’s favor.” Russia’s defense sector is engaged in “significantly ramping up production of a panoply of long-range strike weapons, artillery munitions, and other capabilities that will allow it to sustain a long high-intensity war if necessary. Meanwhile, Moscow has made continual incremental battlefield gains since late 2023, and is benefitting from uncertainties about the future of Western military assistance,” the report said.

Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are listed as the four major state actors “engaging in competitive behavior that directly threatens US national security,” with China specifically listed as a power which “vies to surpass the United States in comprehensive national power and secure deference to its preferences from its neighbors and from countries around the world, while Russia directly threatens the United States in an attempt to assert leverage regionally and globally.”

Iran is listed as a threat to “US interests, allies, and influence in the Middle East” and a nation which “intends to entrench its emergent status as a regional power while minimizing threats… and the risk of direct military conflict.” As for the DPRK, the ODNI expects North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to “continue to pursue nuclear and conventional military capabilities that threaten the United States and its allies,” with strengthening economic, diplomatic and defense ties with China and Russia expected to help Pyongyang achieve “international acceptance” of the DPRK’s status as a nuclear power.

The ODNI report’s section on Russia, and specifically the passage admitting Moscow’s lack of desire to wage a shooting war against US and NATO runs contrary to months of claims by officials ranging from President Biden to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg to a host of US and European media that if Russia is “allowed to win in Ukraine,” its next target will be bloc countries.

“We can’t let Putin win,” Biden warned in December 2023, while urging Congress to approve his $61 billion in proposed new aid for Ukraine. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there… He’s going to keep going. He’s made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks a NATO ally – well, we’ve committed as a NATO member that we’d defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops,” Biden claimed.

“It’s complete nonsense – and I think that President Biden understands that,” Putin retorted. “Russia has no reason, no interest – no geopolitical interest, neither economic, political nor military – to fight with NATO countries,” he said.

But even after the ODNI assessment was published for internal use in February, US and NATO officials continued with the “aggressive Russia” narrative.

Last month, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg urged the West to “prepare ourselves for a confrontation that could last decades,” and claimed that “if Putin wins in Ukraine, there is no guarantee that Russian aggression will not spread to other countries.”

In his interview with Tucker Carlson last month, Putin said it was “absolutely out of the question” for Russia to attack NATO members unless they began aggression first. “We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest,” Putin said.

The ODNI report finally admits what Russia has been saying all along. The question is: why now?

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Biden, Along With NATO, Is Losing His Grip on Reality

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 12, 2024

The state of the union speech was an insight into how the senile U.S. president is stuck in the past, out of touch with the reality of a multipolar world.

While many will wonder whether he wrote the speech himself or it was drafted for him, President Joe Biden made his case to the American public in simple terms. Vote for me, as I am living the dream of USA 80 years ago. The references to the second world war should have shocked the American public who are more concerned about the price of groceries, gas pumps and their utility bills rather than what was going on in 1941.

And yet 1941 for any half-rate history teacher in Alabama would seem an odd choice of dates to pluck out of nowhere and use as a reference point to present America as an unchallenged superpower. As it was, after all, the date where German troops took on their greatest challenge – Russia – and were mercilessly defeated through, amongst other military considerations – being both deluded about their strengths and poor military planning.

Those two points might be on the minds of western elites while Biden used the podium to once again beg Congress to approve his aid package for Ukraine. As even the BBC correspondent in Ukraine admitted – that Russia was now advancing and its troops no longer taking villages but now towns – it would seem that NATO planners have indeed repeated the Barbarossa lesson. Is this the real reason why the bill cannot get passed? The Americans have realised they have simply bitten off more than they can chew in Ukraine and the humiliation already of three U.S.-made Abrams tanks – the most cumbersome, impractical and overrated piece of modern U.S. military hardware ever conceived – along with a general ground swell of opinion that the war can never be won is weighing down on them. Even the Guardian newspaper recently published an opinion piece by Simon Jenkins who argued the case the NATO had become “reckless” in Ukraine, citing the carelessness of the German phone tap which revealed the plan to hit the bridge in Crimea, seemed to draw a new water line of despondency.

Perhaps this explained why Biden didn’t take too much time on harping on about Ukraine in his speech, preferring more to use the opportunity to strike out at Trump – a tactic which surely confirms that he is as stupid as he looks as it will surely backfire on him and raise Trump’s prowess ever further. Instead, Biden attempted at great length to divert cash back into the pockets of humble Americans who don’t understand how the so-called trickle down affect is supposed to work – how big businesses making huge profits don’t always distribute their gains throughout the financial system – by admitting that it is not working. On paper, the figures show that the U.S. is doing well. Try explaining that to millions of Americans facing hardship on a scale never before seen. Biden is going to be remembered in history as the buffoon who left office while two wars raged in the world, while he raised taxes from corporations and can’t remember where he is, or what day of the week it is. He will be remembered for the fiasco of the pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and for his incoherent dithering. And for that bloody ice cream.

But one has to wonder if there is a slight, but noticeable change in policy in the White House towards the Ukraine war – and how the West gets out of it and still keeps face. Victoria Nuland, the very architect of the Ukraine war itself, is to step down from her post in the state department, remembered really only for her transformation from a babe to the monster from the black lagoon with her own facial transformation cruelly portrayed on social media posts with the before and after photo montage. It is reported by the NYT that she has resigned but the only real question is whether she was pushed out or not and by whom. Is there a new strategy in the pipeline to pull out of Ukraine as well, one which she woefully disagreed with? Is this perhaps part of the reason why, I’m informed, that eight German special forces soldiers hastily left Ukraine in the last few days following the phone tap scandal which exposed the Germans for being the amateurs they are?

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

How Washington Killed the Nuclear Arms Control System

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | March 12, 2024

During the Cold War, world populations faced the ongoing nightmare of a nuclear attack coming out of the blue. All it would have taken was one miscalculation by either side. Such a trigger could even have taken the form of a false alert. We know that at least one such incident nearly led to catastrophe.

In 1983, the Soviet Union’s alert system indicated that there were incoming missiles on their way. Fortunately, the alert commander ordered a double check to be sure the indications of a missile launch from NATO were genuine. That check confirmed that the alert was erroneous. Given the dire state of East/West tensions, World War III would have at the time been almost certain if the commander had not been extra cautious.

The end of the Cold War ended the prospect of such a nightmare scenario. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton’s administration “found new causes to promote using American power, a fixation that would lead to serial campaigns of intervention and social engineering.” U.S. leaders, especially Secretary of State Madeline Albright, went out of their way to demonstrate Russia’s impotence publicly. In particular, they humiliated Russia’s Serbian clients both in Bosnia and in Serbia itself. Washington’s treatment of the Serbs caused renewed East/West tensions and began to generate a second Cold War.

Even more directly, the United States and its principal European allies provoked Russia with multiple rounds of NATO expansion. In April 1998, NATO admitted Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary over Russia’s vehement objections. Expansion continued under both George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. The result was a steady increase in military tensions. In addition to provoking Russia by mistreating its Serbian clients, Washington expanded NATO eastward, creating a threat within Russia’s core security zone.

There were multiple rounds of eastward expansion involving Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barrack Obama. The mythology has also developed that Donald Trump was soft on policy toward Russia, if not an outright traitor. The reality was the opposite. U.S. policy towards Russia hardened significantly under Trump. That point was most obvious with regard to Trump’s attitude towards crucial arms control agreements.

Under Trump, the United States had adopted several measures that again raised the extent of tension. An especially unhelpful action took place during Trump’s administration when hawkish U.S. officials decided that the United States should withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in August 2019. Such intermediate range missiles had always been Russia’s Achilles’ heel and Russian leaders were hypersensitive about their country being at a disadvantage with respect to such weapons. Threatening to withdraw from that agreement was extremely unhelpful. The situation worsened when Washington followed up by deciding to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty in November 2020.

As Western-Russian relations deteriorated further, Russian President Vladimir Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on higher alert in February 2022 following the advance of Russian forces deeper into Ukraine. Later in the year, relations became even more confrontational. The “architecture of disarmament and nonproliferation is now gradually being dismantled. On [November, 2023] President Vladimir V. Putin signed a law revoking Russia’s ratification of the global treaty banning nuclear testing. In pushing through the de-ratification, Putin said that he wanted to “mirror” the American position. Although the United States signed the treaty in 1996, it has never been ratified.  Since the United States has never ratified the treaty, Russia’s move was more symbolic than practical. But it leaves only one significant nuclear weapons pact between Russia and the United States in place: the New START treaty.” If Russia further weakens its commitment to the test ban, that will create yet another arena for instability.

It is sobering to consider the state of global nuclear arms control today to what it was at the end of the Cold War. It is alarming that Moscow and Washington have returned to the state of nuclear rivalry and confrontation in less than a quarter century. An unparalleled opportunity for peace has been wasted.    

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Pentagon reveals $10 billion arms ‘hole’ due to Ukraine – media

RT | March 12, 2024

The Pentagon wants the US Congress to allocate $10 billion to compensate for weapons it has delivered to Ukraine and to replenish its own stocks, American media reported on Monday citing senior officials.

Unless the deficit is covered, the “ongoing hole” will put a strain on the US military itself, one source told Politico. The White House has requested over $60 billion in supplemental Ukraine assistance, but the Republican-controlled House has stonewalled repeated calls by US President Joe Biden to release the money.

The official said the “big funding piece waiting in the supplemental” needs to be approved for the US arsenal to be replenished. Otherwise “it would come back on our own readiness, on our own stockpile, to a certain extent.”

The $10 billion shortfall was created due to the differences between the listed value of weapons drawn from stockpiles and the cost of replacing them with new ones. For instance, if older munitions are sent to Ukraine, the Pentagon will replace them with a newer and more expensive version.

Politico was among the first to report the story, saying the remarks were made on condition of anonymity. Voice of America later confirmed the deficit issue, citing Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks and another unnamed military official.

Last June, the Pentagon announced that it could deliver additional weapons to Ukraine, after realizing that the cost of stockpiled arms was lower than it thought. It said it was free to provide an extra $6.2 billion in aid under its existing authorization thanks to the re-evaluation.

By the end of last year, the Biden administration had provided more than $75 billion in cash and equipment for Ukraine’s war effort, by far surpassing other Western donors. The deliveries stopped after the Congress-approved money pot ran dry, the White House said in mid-January.

The anonymous source said the Pentagon still had the authority to send $4.4 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, but Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has been “reluctant” to tap into that fund, according to Politico.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

GOD IS UNDERWRITING ISRAEL’S GENOCIDE BOND

SO THE US SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION & GOLDMAN SACHS AGREE GENOCIDE IS NO SECTION 17(A) FRAUD ON BOND INVESTORS

By John Helmer | Dances with Bears | March 10, 2024

Last week it happened that God and the United States Treasury managed to underwrite a record issue of Israel Government bonds to continue the war against the Arabs in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq – and Iran if necessary.

The war financing comprised $2 billion of five-year bonds, and $3 billion each of 10 and 30-year bonds.

The US Treasury guarantees bond holders that if Israel defaults on repayment of its obligations, the US will pay instead. Notwithstanding this, the Israelis were obliged to offer an extra 1.35%, 1.45%, and 1.75% more in interest over the going rate for US Treasury bonds for the same length of term.

The Reuters news agency headline on March 6 celebrated “Israel sells record $8 billion in bonds despite Oct 7 attacks, downgrade”. The propaganda agency based in New York quoted Israel’s Accountant-General as claiming the bond placement “results showed an “unprecedented expression of confidence in Israel’s economy by the world’s largest international investors”.*

In fact, according to well-informed bond trade sources in Europe, with the higher interest rates the market has just demanded from the Israelis, the spread between the Israel bonds and US Treasuries has never been wider, and the worse this spread will become for Israel. This is a vote of no-confidence from the market which the Israelis, the Americans, and their media are trying to keep secret.

The longer the war is protracted, the more obvious the costs of Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) failure will become – and the deeper the negative bond sentiment will grow. By converting secrecy into money, the market is signalling that it has begun to turn against Israel – and profit at Israel’s expense.

Also unprecedented is the secrecy in which the “expression of confidence” has been managed by the US, French, and German banks acting as managers of the Israeli bond issue;  and of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has had regulatory oversight of the process. The debt financing has been reported as a “private placement”; this has removed the requirement that the Israelis produce a public prospectus explaining how they think their war – plausibly genocide, according to the International Court of Justice in its ruling of January 26, 2024  – is going, and how long the IDF claim it will last.

This does not remove the legal requirement on the two US banks engaged in marketing the bonds to US investors, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, to submit a formal application for SEC approval of what is called a letter of consent. However, asked to confirm the contents of the letter of consent application for the sale of the Israeli bonds, and its official approval, the SEC has refused to give any answer.

Goldman Sachs was asked the same questions. The bank also refuses to say.

Last October the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon,*  issued a personal letter to the bank’s employees claiming the Hamas operation was a “violation of fundamental human values”: Solomon then proposed a $2 million gift of bank funds “to organizations providing critical support and humanitarian relief in Israel”; plus additional bank money, three bank dollars for every one contributed by bank staff making donations under $25, and one for one if the staff contribution was over $25. Asked how much money has been raised for Solomon’s gift to the Israelis, the bank is refusing to reply.

In other words, Israel’s public genocide is a private secret among Americans who are paying for it, and among US government officials responsible for regulating the scheme according to US law.

According to well-informed bond traders, this deal-making is worth in fees to the dealmakers, led by Goldman Sachs, about $100 million.

The following week, the downgrade by the Moody’s rating agency confirmed the inflection in market sentiment against Israel, with worse to come. 

A month ago, Bloomberg’s Israeli reporter Galit Altstein was assigned the job of printing all the  material he could find promoting the sale of the bonds. The headline of his report implied that Israel would be able to finance its war despite the Moody’s downgrade and the longer-term risks in the small print of the Moody’s report.

Source: https://origin.www.bloomberg.com/ — February 11, 2024.

According to Bloomberg, about $58 billion in new debt would be issued this year, up by a third from the prewar year. About 80% of that total is usually raised in the domestic Israeli market; but if Israeli investors lack the funds or are fleeing to safe havens for their money, a much larger percentage of the issue will have to be raised from international investors, most of them in the US. This, conceded Bloomberg’s Israeli informants, would require “private placements, which are typically bought by a few investors at most. Those have been arranged by banks such as Goldman Sachs  and Deutsche Bank.”

“Domestic issuance in the first two months of this year,” Altstein reported for Bloomberg, “is projected to total the equivalent of more than $9 billion, a 350 percent rise from the same period last year… The cost of insuring against an Israeli default — as measured by credit default swaps — is now higher than that for lower-rated sovereigns such as Mexico and Indonesia, indicating some investors are nervous.”

Israeli financial media reporting indicates that the $8 billion in bond sales completed this month were entirely placed outside Israel.

In the money markets, nervousness fetches a rising price; in the case of Israel’s genocide bonds the only way to keep that price rise secret is through private placements. They are operations run by banks like Goldman Sachs which avoid the requirements of issuing a prospectus; obtaining a credit rating from a ratings agency which evaluates the prospectus claims; and making a market with semi-public meetings with investors and answering their questions. What Goldman Sachs does instead, according to those familiar with the bank’s operations, is to “dump the issue in state or institutional pension funds which can be counted on to hold the issue until maturity, and ask no questions.”

But even passive pension fund managers have their fiduciary limits: Israel’s war began to trigger withdrawals from both Israeli state and corporate bonds by Norwegian pension funds last November; by Danish pension funds after the genocide ruling by the ICJ  in January.

An index tracking ten Israeli corporate bonds for the banking, telecommunication, pharmaceutical, and real estate sectors, shows market demand for Israeli debt issues fell in the first month of the war, but then began recovering above the pre-war levels.

ISRAEL BOND INDEX SHOWS RECOVERY FROM WAR STRIKE

Source: https://www.marketvector.com/

By opting for private placement, the Israelis, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America agreed to avoid having to issue prospectus claims about the war against the Arabs which, if truthful, might reveal how false Israeli government claims about the war have been so far; and if false, would create a legal liability for the Israelis and the banks to being charged with a Section 17(a) fraud.

In the US Securities Act, which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforces, Section 17(a) “makes it unlawful to ‘employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud’, ‘obtain money or property’ by using material misstatements or omissions, or to ‘engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.’ This provision is closely tracked by Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, which is used more widely by investors suing for fraud.”

The ICJ ruling against Israel in January has not stopped or even paused the IDF operations in Gaza, the West Bank, or on the northern front with Lebanon. However, the court has established a benchmark for “material misstatements and omissions” in what the Israel bond marketeers can say without running into Section 17(a) fraud litigation. This makes Israel’s war financing riskier and a bond prospectus impossible; it also makes the interest rate cost to the Israelis more expensive. For Goldman Sachs and the other banks engaged, that has meant more profit with higher fees.

Asked what the market was thinking about the private placement of the Israeli paper, a veteran European trader refused to reply. Other traders in Switzerland answered in generalities until  Israel’s bonds were mentioned; then there was stonewalling. “It’s certain there’s an omerta,” a trade source commented. “The Israeli finance ministry has claimed the bond offer drew 400 investors from 36 countries making bids totalling $38 billion. But there is no mention of how the bonds were actually allocated. I suspect there were many token offers and only a few selected buyers got most of the issues.”

The Israeli financial source Globes claims “demand for the issue was led by first-rate strategic investors such as pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, and institutions that have been holding Israeli securities for many years.”

A bond trade source at an international institution points out that “when issuing a bond, the lead manager charges a fee. The net proceeds are going to be obviously less. The question is how much is Goldman Sachs charging in fees? This is usually stated in a prospectus but we don’t have that in the Israeli case. If the issue is difficult to place, the lead manager will contract with other banks to share the burden. They will then use a portion of the fees to make a market for the issued instruments and stabilize the pricing. Again this should be disclosed.”

In the results given by Israeli officials to Reuters on March 6,   it was reported that Israel sold $2 billion of five-year bonds, and $3 billion each of 10 and 30-year bonds. “This is unusual,”  the trade source comments. “If you need to restructure your economy you would expect most of the costs will be upfront, with payback from the higher efficiencies or higher profits reimbursing the borrowed funds later. This should not take ten or thirty years, so another calculation is in play.”

He believes the Israel government’s calculation is that the war on the military front is going to get worse, and the economic war for longer than can be acknowledged publicly. “So they are trying to lock in as much money for the long term as they can now, leaving less to pay back in the short term. They say they are aiming to raise $58 billion over this year, but we are already three months in — they have $50 billion still to go. At this rate of timing and at this pricing, they won’t make it.”

“As for the fees charged by a lead manager for an $8 billion debt issue, these can vary depending on several factors including the complexity of the issuance, prevailing market conditions, and negotiation between the government and the lead manager. Typically, lead managers charge a percentage fee based on the size of the offering, often from 0.5% to 2% of the total amount raised. Therefore, for an $8 billion issue, lead manager fees could range from $40 million to $160 million. However, these figures are indicative and could vary based on the specific terms of the deal.”

“I speculate that the fees will be around $100 million. The princes at Goldman Sachs are being rewarded handsomely. We will have to wait and see if they will regret it. The buyers should also be asking the fee question. If there is no answer, then these Israel bonds are not being bought or placed based on financial reasoning. It’s political, ideological, religious.”*

The SEC last published an Israel bond prospectus in June 2018. The amount of the placement is not recorded.

The US Government was identified as the guarantor of the debt paper. “The amount of guarantees that may be issued to Israel under the loan guarantee program may be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or estimated to have been extended by Israel for activities that the President of the United States determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program. Under the program, the United States issues guarantees with respect to all payments of principal and interest on certain bonds issued by Israel. The proceeds of the guaranteed loans may be used to refinance existing debt. Under the $9 billion loan guarantee program, between September 2003 and November 2004 Israel issued guaranteed notes totaling $4.1 billion face value. Israel has not issued any notes under the loan guarantee program since November 2004, and up to $3.8 billion of U.S. loan guarantees (subject to the reductions described above) remains available.”

There has never been a determination by the President that the guarantees should be suspended because of “activities… inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and Israel”. For the Biden Administration, genocide is not an “inconsistent activity”.

The map accompanying the 2018 prospectus shows the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights as subject “to agreements between the State of Israel (the “State” or “Israel”) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization”.  The Golan Heights are legally Syrian territory, and there is no agreement. Gaza is marked separately without explanation – and without an agreement with the Hamas administration of Gaza. According to the document, before the date of the prospectus, Israeli military operations against Hamas in Gaza “did not materially affect the Israeli economy.” To claim this now is not only propaganda, it would be a material misstatement — in SEC terminology, a Section 17(a) fraud.

Click to enlarge view on source: https://www.sec.gov/  — page D-1.

During the marketing of the $8 billion in bonds, there were highly confidential briefings for selected investors. According to Globes, “prior to the offering, Israel’s Accountant General Yali Rothenberg and his team led rounds of extensive meetings in Europe and the US.”

US bond trading sources believe it likely that Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, the two US banks identified as placing the bonds in the US market, sought to protect themselves from what Rothenberg and his Israeli officials said at these meetings, and from later reaction by bond buyers if the war goes longer and much worse for Israel than they were led to believe. A letter of consent seeking approval from the SEC is protective cover from Section 17(a) fraud liability in the absence of SEC review and approval of a prospectus.

Scott Schneider is head of public affairs and press spokesman at the SEC. He speaks for Gary Gensler, chairman of the SEC since 2021.* The SEC was asked by email whether “the widely publicized Israeli government bonds to be issued this year on a private placement basis are subject to SEC supervision to the extent of requiring a formal application for consent to the issues.” He was also asked to say what letters of consent have been approved by the SEC in relation to earlier Israeli issues.

Left to right, Yali Rothenburg, Israel’s Accountant General; Gary Gensler, SEC Chairman; Scott Schneider, SEC press spokesman.

There was no reply to the email, and no reply when the questions were repeated by telephone to the SEC press office in Washington.

When clarification of the letter of consent issue was then requested from Goldman Sachs, the press spokesman in New York, Jen Blackhall, promised a response, but none there came. The stonewalling by Goldman Sachs has also extended to the patsy question asked – how much in charity funds have been donated to Israel on CEO Solomon’s request to his staff last October.

Bond traders in London, Europe, and the US consulted for this story believe that the most reliable indicator that the money markets have begun to turn against Israel can be found in the spread between the interest rates (or yield-to-maturity**) of Israel’s bond issues compared with US Treasuries. For more details, click to read.

COMPARISON OF THE SPREAD BETWEEN 10-YEAR ISRAEL & US BONDS, MARCH 11, 2023-MARCH 11, 2024

Source: https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/

The positive-negative spread between Israel’s 10-year government bond yield and the United States’ 10-year Treasury yield indicates when Israel’s yield is lower or higher than that of the US Treasury at that particular point in time.

The source, Worldgovernmentbonds.com, explains: “In the case of government bonds, the yield spread also means credit spread. These countries usually differ regarding credit quality. A positive spread means that the percentage yearly return of one bond over another is higher. For example, if one bond is yielding 5% and another is yielding 3%, the spread is 2%, or 200 basis points (bp).”

What remains unclear is whether the private-placement Israel bonds are included in the charting; if they are excluded, this is an attempt to keep the political and military meaning of the spread from becoming obvious outside the bond market.

The international bond trade source explains: “Until the war, Israel was able to finance itself at a lower cost than the US government, if you look at the 10-year bond spread in basis points [percentage points] between them. Then at the start of the war the situation reverses itself. Israeli bonds lose their advantage. The Israeli government is now having to pay a premium in interest rate over US Treasuries in order to secure buyers. Last week’s reports show that Israel is committing to pay 135 basis points over comparable 5-year US Treasuries, 145 basis points over 10-year Treasuries and 175 basis points over US 30-year bonds.  For comparison, US 5-year bonds currently yield 4.15%, 10-year Treasuries are at 4.16%, and 30-year notes yield 4.30%.”

“Note that the chart is lagging behind the new $8 billion placement, and has not yet registered the widening of the spread against Israel. This is because the chart is based on all bonds which have a residual maturity of ten years, so it is showing an average. This average indicated that Israel’s 10- year residual maturity bonds were trading at a positive spread of 4.9 basis points (100 basis points = one percent) to the US equivalents. Worldgovernmentbonds.com does not provide a listing of the issues included in its calculations, but future charting can be expected to reveal the latest private placements will accelerate the widening of the spread. With $50 billion more in private placements still to go, the cost to the Israelis will become higher than ever before – and the spread will be pushed wider. That is if the private placements are included in the charting.”

“The outcome of the latest Israel government bond issue is nothing for them to cheer about. The previously favourable spread compared to their US Government guarantor has evaporated and now reversed itself. The same goes for the loss of money market confidence in Israel.”

[*] When an international court of law determines that a religious organization like the state of Israel is plausibly genocidal, it is relevant to note the religious affiliations of organizations which may be assisting in the genocide with money or propaganda. For example, the Reuters executive responsible for ethics and standards is Alix Freedman, who is Jewish. The SEC Chairman since 2021 is Gary Gensler, who is Jewish.   The Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon is Jewish.
[**] The yield to maturity (YTM) of a government bond is a measure indicating the total return investors can expect to receive if they hold the bond until it matures, taking into account its current market price, the coupon payments, and the time remaining until maturity. For more details, click to read.

March 11, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Biden’s ‘Nighttime in America’ State of the Union

By Ron Paul | Institute for Peace and Prosperity | March 11, 2024

Last week President Biden delivered a dark and angry speech meant to convince the low percentage of Americans who still feel positive about his presidency that everything is fine and will only get better if he is re-elected for a second term.

Unfortunately we have come a long way from the optimism of a Ronald Reagan, who won a second term partially on the popularity of his “Morning in America” campaign commercials. Reagan was far from a perfect president, but it was that sense of optimism in otherwise difficult times that resulted in a record re-election victory. Biden’s speech, by contrast, was dark and angry, attacking not only his political opponents but even seeming to threaten the Supreme Court!

As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley observed recently, “In some ways, the State of the Union speech may have died when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up the address of former President Donald Trump… While many in the media celebrated her lack of decorum and respect, she tore up something far more important than a speech. She shredded decades of tradition of civility and any remaining residue of restraint in our politics.”

We seem to be becoming a nation that would rather scream at each other than listen to each other.

The message of Biden’s speech was that if you do not support the re-election of Joe Biden, you are an insurrectionist and hate America and democracy. Seven years after the launch of the “Russiagate” hoax against then-candidate Donald Trump, it becomes clearer that the line “our democracy” means it’s only democratic when their side gets elected.

It is understandable that Biden is so angry. Despite all the lying with statistics about the economy, Americans can clearly see for themselves how inflation is undermining the standard of living. Of course this is not all Biden’s fault – Republicans in control of the House show little interest in cutting spending – but people generally blame the president for the state of the economy.

We are no better off on foreign policy either. President Biden started his speech by comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin with Hitler, claiming that Putin is “on the march” in Europe just as Hitler was in 1941, and that just as in those days, if he is not stopped in Ukraine he will continue to rampage through the continent. It was blatant fearmongering, based on no evidence. In fact, as Putin told Tucker Carlson just weeks ago, he has no interest in taking the war beyond Ukraine. But Biden is determined to spend another $61 billion on the failed proxy war in Ukraine and he is willing to say whatever he feels necessary to get that money.

Biden also introduced a bizarre plan to build a temporary pier on the shores of Gaza so that the US could deliver aid to starving Palestinians. Considering the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of missiles we have shipped to Israel, wouldn’t it just be easier to inform the Israeli prime minister that we would either be delivering aid to Palestinians over land, or else?

In all, Biden’s final State of the Union before the election reveals a president and administration that is out of gas and out of ideas. It also reveals a country deep in bankruptcy – both moral and economic. It is high time for a nationwide movement toward liberty.

March 11, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | | Leave a comment

Imperial Assisted Suicide

By John Weeks | The Libertarian Institute | March 11, 2024

The United States Imperial Government (USIG) claims to be keeping the peace, underwriting the liberal, rules-based international order and safeguarding the global security architecture. This is not true. What the USIG is actually doing is killing people, helping get lots of people killed, and assisting foreign states as they commit corporate suicide. Israel’s ongoing, “plausibly genocidal” slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank is the latest example of this.

The United States is an empire and empire is murder-suicide. Since 9/11, U.S. soldiers have directly killed more than 400,000 civilians and indirectly contributed to the deaths of more than four million civilians. Meanwhile, more soldiers who served in the U.S. government’s Global War On Terror have committed suicide than have been killed in combat. Four times more.

The American People have not escaped suffering as the USIG and its empire have dished out catastrophic devastation in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Mali. The cost of living has exploded. Our infrastructure is in shambles. Public trust in government has collapsed. The military’s “recruitment landscape” is in free fall. And things are so bad at home the government has found a new job: attacking “tent cities” filled with “under-sheltered” people. Murder-suicide.

Then there are the vassal or “client” states. In the propaganda, the empire defends these states from…whatever. But in reality, it helps these states murder people all while creating the conditions for these states to kill themselves. This has been demonstrated recently in Afghanistan (state committed suicide), Ukraine (state is trying to commit suicide) and Israel (state is thinking about committing suicide).

In October, 2001, the USIG invaded Afghanistan and smashed the Taliban-controlled state. In its place was installed a new state with a new military, which Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton describes:

“The new regime was also largely a coalition government of ethnic minorities, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, being leveraged against the 40 percent plurality Pashtuns, dominant in the east and south of the country where the Taliban are from.”

This coalition regime could not exist without billions of U.S. dollars in its coffers, U.S. boots on the ground, and U.S. air power in the sky. As predicted by Horton, as soon as U.S. forces began their withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan state (along with its military) immediately killed itself. The Taliban resurrected their state which the U.S. had smashed almost twenty years earlier.

In February 2014, the USIG backed a violent, neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine. Instead of smashing the entire state, the coup overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych’s administration. Unlike Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban government in a box, the Ukrainian government under new management was capable of existing without a massive U.S. military presence. It was not, however, capable of winning a war with Russia. It took eight years, but the USIG managed to provoke a war with Russia.

Ukraine has been defeated but the imperial wizards in DC refuse to admit this truth and seek peace. There could have been a peace deal two years ago, when it was still fashionable for Americans to fly the Ukrainian flag outside their front doors, but the USIG crushed it. The Ukrainian state is bleeding out and continuing the war at this point puts the entire Ukrainian nation at risk. Russia could seize all of Ukraine and downgrade it from sovereign nation to a Russian aircraft carrier.

Israel has been fortunate to never have its state murdered or regime changed by the USIG. Quite the opposite; Israel has intervened in USIG affairs to a shocking extent. The Israel lobby wields massive influence in Washington DC, so much so that President Joe Biden is risking his re-election chances by refusing to stop producing Israel’s “plausibly genocidal” mass killing spree in Gaza.

This gleeful and live streamed spree of sadism has not been good for Israel. Its state is provoking the global community to view it as a deranged pariah, including the great powers of Russia and China. Even within America, the people want a ceasefire. We want it to stop.

Meanwhile, Israeli society is cracking. Approximately 200,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes in the south and north of the country. The IDF has suffered thousands of casualties, the economy is destabilized, and fear has blanketed the land.

And now Israel is planning an invasion of southern Lebanon. Such an invasion would be a hoped for but unexpected gift to Hamas. Experts such as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Lt. Col Daniel Davis, Alastair Crooke, John Mearsheimer and Robert Pape have all warned against the invasion. They have argued that Israel risks catastrophic fallout from such a move, from mass causalities to provoking a regional war and even suffering strategic defeat.

Israel supporters seem confident in its security state, despite its massive failure on October 7. Tel Aviv appears to be operating with the assurance that the U.S. military will step in with strike packages and boots on the ground if and when needed. And yes, DC will let American cities die while it views Israel as too big to fail.

But the empire is beset by incompetence and anyone who paid attention to the self-immolation of the Afghan state and the slow suicide of the Ukrainian state knows this isn’t going to end well.

Taiwan, watch your six.

March 11, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »