U.S. Senate Again Rejects Call to Abolish COVID Vaccine Mandate for Teen Pages

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 21, 2023
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday for the third time introduced legislation to lift the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for young adults in the U.S. Senate Pages Program — and for the third time, the resolution failed.
The Senate Pages program, which pays young adults ages 16 and 17 to assist on the senate floor, requires applicants be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 — including all boosters.
Paul last week introduced the same resolution but it failed to pass. His first attempt, which also did not pass, was a broader resolution introduced on Sept. 7 that sought to remove COVID-19 testing, vaccination and masking requirements for pages.
A press release issued Wednesday by Paul’s office said Senate Democrats “for the third time” refused to “follow the science” and “unanimously objected” to the resolution.
According to Paul, the requirement is politically motivated, not based on science, and puts healthy American young adults at risk for vaccine-induced myocarditis.
In a senate floor speech before the vote, Rand cited numerous studies that reported an increased risk of heart inflammation with each successive COVID-19 vaccination.
Paul said:
“Why are we forcing these kids to do something that I would say is against medical advice to be a page in our program here?”
“How would you feel if your perfectly-healthy football player or band member is given the vaccine and comes home with heart inflammation?”
Risk of vaccine-related myocarditis is greater than risk of hospitalization from COVID-19
Rand pointed out that a study by epidemiologist Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, Ph.D., reported the risk of myocarditis in teenage boys after receiving a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was roughly 5 times greater than the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.
“So you’re asking yourself, ‘Well, can my kid go to the hospital or get the heart inflammation?’” Paul said. Both are rare, he said, but there is a greater chance of heart inflammation.
Paul noted that among healthy children and young adults, there is a “nearly zero” risk of dying from COVID-19.
The public knows this and has “largely resisted” vaccinating their children against COVID-19, he added.
The argument that young people be vaccinated to protect more vulnerable populations does not hold up, Paul said, because “No serious scientist now argues that COVID-19 vaccines stop transmission. No one.”
He added, “Yet here we are, with Democrats saying, ‘You’re not smart enough to make your own decisions. We will make these medical choices for you.’”
‘In a free society, no one should be forced to receive an injection’
Paul called out Democrats for endorsing authoritarianism by expecting “submission” from U.S. parents. He said:
“They don’t want you to have the choice to keep your kids safe and make a decision whether or not your kid, who may well have already had COVID, needs yet another vaccine … They just want you to shut your eyes, be quiet and do as you’re told.”
Paul said the Democrats’ medical policy for citizens is to, “Shut up. Do as you’re told. Take the injection. We don’t care if your kid might get sick. We don’t care if you have a choice. We don’t care if you have any say in your kid’s medical care.”
“In a free society,” he added, “no one should be forced to receive an injection into their body that they do not wish to have.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
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.
US Intel Insiders Admit Ukraine Counteroffensive is Lost — Seymour Hersh

By James Tweedie – Sputnik – 22.09.2023
While the Biden administration continues to throw good money after bad and pour arms into Ukraine, analysts in Washington’s security agencies are increasingly skeptical that it will achieve any kind of victory.
A US intelligence official has told veteran journalist Seymour Hersh that the proxy conflict with Russia in Ukraine is a lost cause.
The award-winning investigative reporter wrote on his blog that “significant elements in the American intelligence community” assess that the “demoralized Ukraine Army has given up on the possibility of overcoming the heavily mined three-tier Russian defense lines.”
One anonymous official said the fighting only continues “because Zelensky insists that it must.”
“There is no discussion in his headquarters or in the Biden White House of a ceasefire and no interest in talks that could lead to an end to the slaughter,” Hersh wrote.
Kiev and Washington claim Ukraine’s NATO-armed and trained forces are making steady progress. But almost four months after the launch of the offensive on June 4, they have advanced only a few kilometers on two narrow axes, capturing a handful of abandoned and ruined villages — at the cost of more than 71,000 casualties and hundreds of tanks and artillery guns.
“It’s all lies,” the source said. “There were some early Ukrainian penetrations in the opening days of the June offensive, and the Russians retreated to sucker them in. And they all got killed.”
He revealed that “major elements” of Kiev’s forces had “virtually canceled the offensive” — an assessment borne out by a recent fall in Russian Ministry of Defense reports of casualties inflicted on Ukrainian assault groups on the main southern fronts around Rabotino in Zaporozhye and south of Vremevka in Donetsk.
The intelligence agent said US President Joe Biden had been foolish to arm Ukraine and lay the ground for the conflict, knowing that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be forced to respond militarily.
“The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going,” the official told Hersh. “The truth is if the Ukrainian Army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die anymore, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House.”
Nagorno-Karabakh and the failure of Armenia’s ‘colour revolution’
By Paul Robinson | Canadian Dimension | September 22, 2023
Thursday was Armenia’s independence day. This year, however, there was very little for Armenians to celebrate. Just one day earlier, the authorities of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh had in effect capitulated to Azerbaijan following a brief offensive by the Azerbaijani armed forces. The future of the region’s predominantly Armenian population remains uncertain, but the province’s complete integration into Azerbaijan is now inevitable and dreams of an Armenian Karabakh seem to be permanently shattered.
Despite its Armenian population, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic as a result of a decision by the Soviet government in the early 1920s following the Bolshevik conquest of the Caucasus. Armenians, however, never reconciled themselves to this decision and when the Soviet Union began to unravel in the late 1980s, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh lobbied for their territory to be transferred to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. After the dissolution of the USSR, newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan fought what became known as the First Karabakh War, which resulted in an Armenian victory. Nagorno-Karabakh became de facto independent, while Armenia gained control of a swathe of Azerbaijani territory around it.
Subsequent diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan failed. Azerbaijan bided its time, built up its armed forces, and in 2020 launched the Second Karabakh War, recapturing part of Nagorno-Karabakh. Poised to recapture the rest, the Azerbaijanis halted their offensive after the Russian Federation brokered a ceasefire which saw the Armenians hand back the Azerbaijani territory around Nagorno-Karabakh. This kept what remained of the latter out of Azerbaijani control but dependent on a narrow corridor through Azerbaijani territory protected by Russian peacekeepers.
In this way, the Russians saved Nagorno-Karabakh from complete conquest. This did not, however, earn them much gratitude from Armenia’s Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, who had come to power in 2018 as a result of what has been called a “colourless colour revolution.” Since the 2020 war, Pashinyan’s relations with Russia have gone from bad to worse, and following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Pashinyan and his government have sought to reduce their dependence on Moscow, hinting that they would leave the Collective Security Treaty Organization, of which both Armenia and Russia are members, and more recently announcing the holding of joint military exercises with the United States. Last year Pashinyan also caused a stir by seeming to recognize Azeri sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan has now stepped in to exploit the situation, launching an attack on Nagorno-Karabakh that after just one day of fighting forced the Karabakh authorities to agree to completely disarm. The region’s reintegration into Azerbaijan is now bound to follow. Artin DerSimonian of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft comments that Azerbaijan’s actions are a direct consequence of the fact that “the Russian army is pinned down in Ukraine” as well as of “Prime Minister Pashinyan’s unwillingness to directly engage Armenian forces in this fight.” Azerbaijan’s victory seems complete.
Pashinyan and his followers are attempting to blame Russia for this debacle, claiming that Moscow allowed Azerbaijan to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh in order to discredit Pashinyan, remove him from power, and install a pro-Moscow Armenian government. The thesis is an odd one. There is, after all, no good reason why Russia should fight Azerbaijan when the Armenian government itself has proven unwilling to do so. Absurdity has, however, never stopped people believing conspiracy theories, and this one may help Pashinyan deflect blame to some degree. Whether it helps him enough, though, remains to be seen.
For while some Armenians may blame Russia, many others point the finger at Pashinyan himself. Dr Pietro Shakarian, a postdoctoral fellow at the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg, argues that “Pashinyan’s premiership has been a disaster for the Armenian people.” Until recently, says Shakarian, “Pashinyan was able to cling to power by relying on an array of manipulative populist tactics. However… his recent recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan became widely viewed among Armenians as an unambiguous act of betrayal. … Today he is almost universally disliked in the country.”
Pashinyan came to power on the back of a wave of protests against the corruption of what was called the “Karabakh clan,” a group of Armenian politicians who originated from Nagorno-Karabakh and who had run Armenia for many years. These included Presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan. According to Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan, Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan, “hatred towards the ‘Karabakh clan’ started to be projected on Karabakh as a whole.” Consequently, many Armenians were reluctant to fight to defend it.
Beyond that, Pashinyan gave the impression of wanting to rid Armenia of the problem of Karabakh, viewing it as an impediment to his desire to turn Armenia politically westwards. Poghosyan notes that Pashinyan’s “primary goal is to normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, which will decrease the dependence on Russia and bring Armenia closer to the West. From this perspective, Nagorno-Karabakh was more a liability than an asset.” Pashinyan’s detractors, therefore, accuse him of betraying the people of Karabakh in pursuit of his broader pro-Western and anti-Russian political ambitions.
Dr. Shakarian comments that the loss of Karabakh puts into question “Russia’s whole position in the Caucasus.” “Many Western war hawks understand this,” and will seek to exploit it, he says. By contrast, Dr. Poghosyan is somewhat more ambiguous about the likely geopolitical consequences, arguing that it is harder for Armenia to turn westwards in practice than it is in theory. According to Poghosyan, “The only way for Armenia to move out of the Russian orbit and move towards the West is to accept some protection from Turkey and, in a midterm perspective, replace Russia with Turkey as a primary economic and security partner of Armenia. It will result in at least de facto Turkish and Azerbaijani control over the southern part of Armenia. … Will Pashinyan go for that? No clear answer exists.”
Equally unclear is Pashinyan’s political fate. Both Poghosyan and Shakarian express some doubt that the protestors who have now come out to demand Pashinyan’s resignation will be able to sustain their protests for long. Pashinyan himself, meanwhile, is insisting that he will remain in power. What is clear, though, is that like so many other so-called colour revolutions, the Armenian revolution of 2018 has not ended well.
Paul Robinson is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He is the author of numerous works on Russian and Soviet history, including Russian Conservatism, published by Northern Illinois University Press in 2019.
Biden’s 2024 Campaign Will Continue Flagging “Misinformation” To Big Tech
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 21, 2023
The Biden regime’s practice of flagging content for censorship and pressuring platforms to remove content that it deems to be “misinformation” is so pervasive that it’s the subject of a major censorship lawsuit where an appeals court recently ruled that the Biden admin violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.
Despite this ruling, Joe Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign plans to continue flagging so-called misinformation to social media platforms, “reaching out” to social media companies, and working with media outlets to “fact-check untruths.”
Additionally, it may target “deepfakes” in states with laws against the technology and use “applicable copyright laws.”
According to POLITICO, Biden’s campaign will hire hundreds of staffers and volunteers to monitor online platforms as part of this effort.
Not only is Biden’s campaign planning to continue engaging in actions similar to those that were flagged by an appeals court for violating the First Amendment, but one of the leaders of the Biden campaign’s effort will be Rob Flaherty, a former White House Digital Director who is a defendant in the First Amendment lawsuit that the appeals court ruled on.
Flaherty is currently a deputy campaign manager for Biden’s 2024 campaign.
Documents that were uncovered as part of the censorship lawsuit against the Biden admin revealed that Flaherty was one of the Biden White House’s most aggressive censorship proponents.
Flaherty demanded that Facebook censor then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Fox News and Outkick host Tomi Lahren. He also pressured Facebook to suppress The Daily Wire and the New York Post while boosting The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Additionally, he pushed for the censorship of “borderline content” (a term that Facebook uses to describe content that doesn’t violate the rules but could result in “vaccine hesitancy”) and “coded language.” If Facebook employees didn’t censor to his liking, Flaherty would berate them.
POLITICO notes that “Biden has continued to back Flaherty as his social media attack dog,” despite the ongoing lawsuit and an investigation into Big Tech-federal government censorship collusion led by Jim Jordan.
Flaherty told POLITICO that “the campaign is going to have to be more aggressive pushing back on misinformation from a communications perspective and filling some of the gaps these companies are leaving behind.”
The Biden campaign plans to focus its misinformation targeting efforts on leading Republican candidates, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ “Covid anti-vaccine rhetoric.”
As Biden’s 2024 campaign doubles down on pressuring social media platforms to censor, the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the censorship lawsuit that accuses the Biden White House of violating the First Amendment.
The Biden campaign’s admission that it will be flagging so-called misinformation in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election follows a major censorship controversy that erupted in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election.
Just three weeks before the 2020 election, a bombshell story alleging that Joe Biden was involved in a corruption scandal was censored by Big Tech platforms.
51 former intelligence officials subsequently signed a letter suggesting the story was part of a Russian “disinformation” campaign and the Biden campaign used this talking point to downplay the story, despite the laptop being real. The FBI also warned Facebook about a “dump” of “Russian disinfo” just before the Hunter Biden laptop story broke.
79% of Americans believe “truthful” coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.
DHS still withholding information in its efforts to censor “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation”
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 22, 2023
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is continuing to hold back information about its efforts to police online speech in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The Americans For Prosperity (AFP) Foundation, a political advocacy group, has spent years attempting to get the DHS to hand over records on its efforts to censor “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.” However, the DHS has responded by heavily redacting any records it turns over to the group.
The DHS is citing FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” to justify the redactions.
Kevin Schmidt, the Director of Investigations at AFP, blasted the DHS for obfuscating the contents of the documents.
“If DHS believes it has the authority to police people’s online speech, it should be open with the public about what those authorities are,” he said.
He added that the DHS’s use of FOIA Exemption 7(E) “suggests the DHS is either overstating its authorities or it’s abusing FOIA exemptions to avoid transparency.”
Despite the heavy redactions, the documents do show the DHS arguing it has the authority to target “MDM” — its acronym for misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.

Another document shows that the DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board had a “Ukraine MDM Playbook” before it was shut down.

The AFP Foundation isn’t the only entity that’s struggled to get the DHS to hand over information on its speech policing activities. It has previously stonewalled Congress’s attempts to get details on the DHS’s “anti-disinformation” practices.
Additionally, the DHS has been accused of attempting to avoid transparency by using channels such as Slack and personal cellphones to hold meetings about its misinformation efforts.
Canada Launches UN Declaration Pledging Restrictions On Online “Disinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 22, 2023
A “global” declaration – that only manages to garner the support of 27 out of 193 UN member countries. How dreadfully humiliating – some might say.
But rest assured, Canada’s government will find a way to spin this abysmal result of its effort to use this year’s (likely, as ever, a waste of time and taxpayer money) UN General Assembly gathering in NYC to push some of its own agenda – or the agenda it’s tasked to push.
First, what is this yet another “global declaration” – and why has it failed so spectacularly? (The answer may in fact be the same.)
According to an announcement by the Canadian government, cited by the press, the purpose of the “global” declaration is to combat “disinformation.”
“Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online,” is what it’s called, and besides the “trusty” Canadians, the Dutch were also seemingly randomly thrown (an EU country, one or the other) into drafting it.
And look who was readily on the side, to sign it: the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.
There are (not many, though) more countries here, but their alignment on “issues” was never in question; and now, instead of a UN General Assembly as a place of the meeting of the minds and meaningful discussions, we have it as a showdown for a world aligning into different, this time huge and truly global blocs, to showcase their different allegiances.
How dreadful – for world peace, going forward.
Meanwhile – what does the Canadian document that only managed a meager backing at the UN have in mind?
It’s “necessary and appropriate measures, including legislation, to address information integrity and platform governance.”
If any of us tried to make the Canadian proposal more ludicrously broad-worded than this is, I’m sure we’d not succeed. But there is an attempt to narrow the “declaration” down. If suitable, “we” go back to “international human rights law.”
So – those who sign the document will do so in a way that complies “with international human rights law.” (?)
Problem: a number of full-fledged UN members are saying, the very UN founding Charter really any longer means anything – having been broken by the likes of Canada, time and time again.
There’s other usual declarative tosh as you might see from these governments’ daily briefings – the only time they ever try to narrow down or clearly define any of the “definitions” is when they mention the tech they’d like to better control – such as ChatGTP.
Almost Half of US’ F-35 Fleet Not Capable of Flying at Any Time – Watchdog
Sputnik – 22.09.2023
WASHINGTON – Almost half the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that are supposed to be operational are not capable of flying and it will cost $1.3 trillion to keep them operational, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.
“The F-35 fleet mission capable rate – the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions – was about 55% in March 2023, far below program goals,” the report said on Thursday.
The GAO called this level of operational readiness “unacceptably low.”
“The program was behind schedule in establishing depot maintenance activities to conduct repairs. As a result, component repair times remained slow with over 10,000 waiting to be repaired – above desired levels,” the report said.
Organizational-level maintenance has also been affected by a lack of technical data and training, the report added.
It will cost $1.3 trillion to keep the full F-35 fleet operational and flying even if or when all the repair and maintenance bottlenecks, as well as ongoing development problems with the aircraft’s cannon, ejector seat, software and hardware are fixed, the report said.
However, despite the downfalls associated with the F-35 program, the report also determined that the Biden administration and the Department of Defense remain committed to a $1.7 trillion expenditure on buying a total of 2,500 F-35s for the US armed forces.
“In the coming decades, the Department of Defense plans to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion on nearly 2,500 F-35s,” the report stated, acknowledging that the majority of the funds will go to operating, maintaining, and repairing the aircraft.
The F-35 aircraft now represents a growing portion of the Defense Department’s tactical aviation fleet with about 450 of the aircraft fielded, the GAO said.
From the start of the F-35 program, officials have dealt with a variety of major setbacks with the fleet, ranging from costly fixes to sensitivities with overheating and lightning strikes.
More recently, the program made global headline news after a US Marine Corps F-35B crashed in South Carolina and sent authorities on a hunt after being unable to track the fighter once its pilot safely ejected.
Meet Ukrainian Military’s American Spokesman
Transgendered Sarah Ashton-Cirillo advocates free speech and killing journalists
BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
As our world gets weirder by the second, it has become ever harder to know if what we are presented with is real. Every time someone sends a report or video that is purportedly a representation of factual reality, I try to evaluate if it’s indeed real or if it’s propaganda, black propaganda, satire, or the creation of a mentally ill person.
This morning I saw a story about an American transgendered woman named Sarah Ashton-Cirillo who claims to be a soldier and an official spokesman of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces. She is in the news because of a publicized spat she is having with Senator JD Vance of Ohio who has made an inquiry to determine is Sarah Ashton-Cirillo really is an official English language spokesman for the Ukrainian TDF. Spoiler Alert: She really is.
Vance became aware of Ashton-Cirillo after he saw a video of the spokesman announcing that journalists who disseminate Russian propaganda will be hunted down and killed. In this video, she proclaims:
Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia’s war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served.

In response to Senator Vance’s query, Ashton-Cirillo posted yet another video in which she proclaims her support of the First Amendment, but hastens to add that reporting Russian propaganda is not protected by the First Amendment.

Who adjudicates what is Russian propaganda and what is merely critical reporting of the Ukrainian government and its U.S. government supporters?
The question touches on something I have frequently written about on this Substack—namely, the strange rise of ORTHODOXY in recent years. There are, we are told, certain major issues in which the ORTHODOX—that is, official U.S. government and MSM representations—cannot be questioned or criticized. Those who do question these orthodoxies will be censored, censured, or—if Ashton-Cirillo has her way—hunted down and killed.
The top four orthodoxies are what I call the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle. They are:
1). COVID-19 vaccines are saving mankind. Anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is guilty of heresy.
2). The U.S. proxy war in Ukraine is a sacred mission and no negotiated settlement with Russia shall be countenanced. Anyone who criticizes the Ukrainian and U.S. governments, and any attempt to understand the war from the Russian point of view, is guilty of heresy.
3). Human induced climate change will soon destroy the earth if trillions aren’t spent to overhaul our entire energy policy. Anyone who questions this proposition is guilty of heresy.
4). The concept of biological sex is a mere “construct.” Skilled surgeons and endocrinologists can transform a boy into a girl or vice versa. Anyone who questions this assertion is guilty of heresy.
I reject the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle as fanatical, obscurantist, mentally ill nonsense.
Lavrov’s claim that America is at war with Russia is no ‘exaggeration’
By Drago Bosnic | September 20, 2023
Since the start of Russia’s special military operation (SMO) against NATO’s crawling encroachment on its borders, the United States has been adamant that it’s “not a party to the conflict” and that it supposedly “doesn’t want escalation with Moscow“. However, time proved both of these statements to be patently false. According to the claims of the Neo-Nazi junta itself, the US controls the targeting of every long-range weapon deployed by the Kiev regime forces. On the other hand, the falsehood of the laughable claim that Washington DC “doesn’t want war” is painfully obvious to anyone remotely familiar with its neverending escalation aimed against Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is certainly aware of all this, although basic diplomatic etiquette prevented him from stating the obvious in the past. And yet, after well over a year and a half of being exposed to the blatant hypocrisy of the political West, it seems that even the usually reserved Lavrov has stopped holding back, as trying to follow diplomatic protocols when dealing with someone who openly breaks them is simply futile and ultimately self-defeating. Namely, in recent remarks for the press, the Russian Foreign Minister said that the US is waging war against Russia. Strong statement, one might say, but who could possibly refute it given the ongoing events?
Even if we don’t count statements made by top-level US officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin’s admission that Washington DC wants to see a “strategic defeat” inflicted on Russia and President Joe Biden’s Freudian slip that “Putin cannot stay in power“, the evidence that supports Lavrov’s claim is simply overwhelming and we’re seeing it every single day. He also pointed out the fact that the US is not only transferring enormous amounts of so-called “lethal aid” to the Neo-Nazi junta (worth hundreds of billions at this point), but is actually controlling these weapons through direct decision-making while maintaining plausible deniability.
Lavrov himself also reiterated Austin’s admission that this is because the belligerent thalassocracy wants to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. The statements about US belligerence were given while he was speaking on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on the morning of September 17, where he pointed out that “no matter what it says, it [the US] controls this war, it supplies weapons, munitions, intelligence information, data from satellites, it is pursuing a war against us”. Lavrov also stated that Ukraine is simply being used as a springboard to achieve American strategic goals, as it was being prepared for the ongoing conflict years in advance.
“There is a real plot around the topic of the so-called (peace) negotiations, as well as attempts to turn everything upside down through pseudo diplomacy,” he said just two days prior, adding: “The West has been saying for months that this ‘peace formula’ is the only basis for negotiations. It starts from innocent topics … and then comes to the purpose for which it was concocted – inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, to restore the borders of Ukraine as they were in 1991, court-martial the Russian leadership, force Russia to pay reparations, and then ‘mercifully’ agree to sign a peace agreement.”
Lavrov made the said comments on September 15, referring to the abortive Saudi-hosted “peace talks” and added that this pattern of double standards and hypocrisy is also used when dealing with most other countries.
“These are exactly the dirty methods that the West uses not only in relation to Ukraine but in many other areas of global politics,” he stated.
The recent direct endorsement US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave for the Kiev regime’s long-range strikes on targets within Russia is yet another proof of Lavrov’s claims. Namely, during an interview with ABC News on September 10, Blinken stated that it was supposedly “up to Ukraine” whether or not it should target Russia proper with US-made long-range weapons. The idea that the Kiev regime could ever make such a decision on its own is beyond laughable, which means that it’s the belligerent thalassocracy itself that ordered the Neo-Nazi junta to target areas deeper within Russia in order to inflict maximum damage with minimal investment or risk for itself.
Blinken’s statement came only a day after ABC News reported that the US would provide the ATACMS to the Kiev regime. The range of these missiles, while hardly groundbreaking, is enough to jeopardize not only Russian supply lines, but also civilian infrastructure hundreds of kilometers behind the frontlines. And yet, this isn’t the only danger Lavrov pointed out thus far, as back in early June, he warned that nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets could lead to an uncontrollable escalation that Russia will certainly not tolerate. He stressed that Moscow would be forced to respond militarily, meaning that NATO would also be held directly responsible in that case.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
