Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘What Are They Hiding?’: RFK Jr. Unhappy Biden Delayed Release of JFK Documents

By Ian DeMartino – Sputnik – 07.07.2023

Despite a 1979 House review that concluded two or more shooters and co-conspirators were likely involved in the assassination, only Lee Harvey Oswald was accused of killing former US President John F. Kennedy. Oswald maintained his innocence until he was gunned down by Mafia-connected nightclub owner Jack Ruby before his trial.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current 2024 presidential hopeful and nephew to assassinated former US President John F. Kennedy, is not happy that current President Joe Biden decided to delay the release of government documents related to the 1963 assassination.

On June 30, the Biden Administration quietly released a memo before the holiday weekend, announcing that some government documents related to the assassination would not be released as planned, a decision that angered Kennedy Jr. The White House has stated that to date, some 99% of the records have been released; however, multiple records include redactions.

“It’s not about conspiracy – it is about transparency,” the environmental and anti-vaccination figure said on Twitter on Sunday. “In a midnight Friday night announcement the White House has delivered the bad news that President Biden will be maintaining secrecy indefinitely on some JFK assassination related records.”

The 1992 John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act mandated the release of all government documents related to the killing by October 2017. However, the bill included a clause that allowed the release of documents to be delayed if it was “made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations.”

Biden said in his memo that the “postponement of public disclosure of that information is necessary to protect against identifiable harms to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, and the conduct of foreign relations that are of such gravity that they outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”

That explanation, which was the same justification used by former President Donald Trump when he delayed the release of the records, was not enough to satisfy Kennedy Jr., who called the postponement “unlawful.”

“The assassination was 60 years ago. What national security secrets could possibly be at risk? What are they hiding?” he questioned.

Kennedy Jr. has become more vocal about the alleged involvement of the CIA in his uncle’s assassination. He recently said ex-CIA Director Allen Dulles helped cover up the CIA’s role in the former president’s death. Dulles was fired by President Kennedy, and was a member of the Warren Commission, which was established to investigate the fatal shooting.
He also recently stated that the first instinct of his father was that the CIA was behind the murder.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Memo Shows Mayo Clinic Doubles Down On Censorship

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 7, 2023

Reports this week expose Mayo Clinic as “doubling down” on speech restrictions it previously chose to impose affecting Dr. Michael Joyner.

The information comes from an internal memo sent to Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science, which is interpreted as sticking to a policy of preventing this medical organization’s members from speaking freely.

Previously, Joyner, a professor, was punished for his public statements related to his research, concerning public health, including topics such as Covid, and transgenderism and, in general, making comments that were construed as being against some government policies, that is, something that was well within his right to do.

But Mayo Clinic took the stance that what was more important, and takes precedence was for Joyner to toe the line – i.e., stick to “prescribed messaging” and rather than focus on his medical expertise, worry more ardently about the clinic’s chosen “brand” and (ideological?) standing it derives from that.

The Joyner incident came to light in early June, and after Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) urged the health facility to withdraw the decision. Mayo Clinic’s Chief Communication Officer Halena Gazelka a while later the same month penned the memo, recommending to those in charge to effectively ignore the criticism.

One of the key points of the controversy is that the college has made a “promise” to its teachers and students of the right to free speech – which clearly wasn’t exercised when Joyner got suspended, and had a gag-order placed on him.

In the memo, Gazelka fairly brazenly advises college leadership to keep saying that Mayo Clinic continues to be “fully committed to academic freedom and expression.”

Joyner, who is still banned from talking to reporters without the college’s permission, might be surprised to learn this.

Furthermore, in the same vein of “tweaking reality,” the memo wants the college to push the narrative that Joyner’s punishment did not come as a result of his statements about transgender athletes, but because of his criticism (“unprofessional comments”) regarding the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) regulation of convalescent plasma.

There’s also a whiff of character assassination here, as the memo recommends framing the whole thing as sour grapes on Joyner’s part:

“Dr. Joyner’s comments about the NIH did not reflect the expression of a scientific or academic opinion but instead were an expression of his personal frustration with the NIH’s regulation of a therapy he had championed,” wrote Gazelka.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Bizarre New Attack on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: He Promotes the ‘Ugly Message that Being Autistic is Bad’

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | July 7, 2023

It seems clear that most parents of autistic children in America love the children and see great value in the children’s activities and thoughts. It also seems clear that most of these parents also would prefer that their children could live free from the effects of autism and that a way is found to prevent autism from developing in other children.

That is commonsensical.

But, when people in the media are looking for any and every basis to tar Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his presidential campaign, his dedication to the ordinarily perceived of as admirable goal of seeking to reduce the prevalence of autism is twisted by opponents into a vicious perspective.

MSNBC columnist Eric Garcia wrote in Sunday editorial focused on Kennedy that “the crux of his baseless claim that vaccines cause autism is the ugly message that being autistic is bad.”

Notice the language Garcia uses. He does not write that Kennedy says people with autism are bad people. Yet, it is just that misreading that would make the “ugly message” designation make any sense. What we have here is nonsense that many readers will fix in their minds into a condemnation of Kennedy for something the author did not state and offered no evidence to support.

Working to prevent autism is an activity rooted in the promotion of human happiness and health. If it is condemnable as an “ugly message,” it would seem that individuals working to prevent cancer, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, and other serious medical problems should be similarly condemned.

Kennedy is a candidate for president, so it is right that he be criticized. But, media people, can you at least keep the criticism rational and not rooted in deception?

Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

How the Taliban crushed the CIA’s heroin bonanza in Afghanistan

The Taliban has not once, but twice eradicated Afghanistan’s poppy cultivation, the world’s largest source of heroin.

By William Van Wagenen | The Cradle | July 7, 2023

In the aftermath of the chaotic US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir warned in the Washington Post of the dangers of “ignoring one important consequence of the Taliban takeover: the coming boom in Afghanistan’s narcotics trade.”

Mir then boldly predicted that, “in the next few years, a flood of drugs from Afghanistan may become a bigger threat than terrorism.”

This projection of an international drug trade boom seemed plausible, considering the longstanding accusations that the Taliban funded their two-decade insurgency against the occupying forces by controlling opium production. In fact, it was believed that 95 percent of heroin used in Britain originated from Afghan opium.

It comes as a surprise then, that a June 2023 report published by Alcis, a British-based geographic information services firm, revealed that the Taliban government had all but eliminated opium cultivation in the country, wiping out the base ingredient needed to produce heroin. This outcome mirrored a similar move by the Taliban in 2000 when they were in power the first time.

Ironically, instead of praising Kabul’s new leaders for quashing the source of illicit drugs, the international community responded to this development with criticism. Even the US Institute for Peace (USIP), which is funded by the US government, argued that “The Taliban’s successful opium ban is bad for Afghans and the world.”

Such western displeasure towards the Taliban’s efforts to dismantle the global heroin trade may seem perplexing at first glance.

However, a closer examination of events in Afghanistan reveals a different perspective. Under the guise of the “War on Terror,” the 2001 US and UK invasion was driven in part by the desire to restore the heroin trade, which the Taliban had abruptly terminated just a year earlier.

The western powers sought to reestablish the lucrative flow of billions of dollars that the heroin trade provided to their financial systems. In fact, “For 20 years, America essentially ran a narco-state in Afghanistan.”

‘Dollar for Dollar’

To understand the origins of the Afghan heroin trade, a review of US involvement in the central Asian nation is necessary, beginning in 1979 when the CIA embarked on a covert program to undermine the pro-Soviet Afghan government in Kabul.

The US covertly supported an umbrella of Muslim guerrilla fighters known as mujahideen, with the hope that provoking an insurgency would entice the Soviet Army to intervene. This calculated move would force the Soviets into occupying Afghanistan and engaging in a protracted and costly counter-insurgency campaign, thereby weakening the Soviet Union over time.

To accomplish this, the CIA turned to its close allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for help. Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan facilitated a meeting between CIA Director William Casey and Saudi King Fahd, in which the Saudis committed to matching “America dollar for dollar supporting the mujahedeen.”

The US and Saudi Arabia, with help from Pakistani’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), set up training camps for the mujahideen in Pakistan, and supplied them with advisors, weapons, and cash to fight the Soviets.

Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, the founder of the Hizb-i-Islami militia, was among the most prominent mujahideen leaders, receiving some $600 million in aid from the CIA and its allies.

Journalist Steve Coll writes in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars that Hekymatyar recruited from the most radical, anti-western, transnational Islamist networks to fight with him, including Osama bin Laden and other Arab volunteers. CIA officers “embraced Hekmatyar as their most dependable and effective ally,” and “the most efficient at killing Soviets.”

Caravans of opium

Aid to Hekymatyar and other mujahideen leaders was not limited to cash and weapons. According to renowned historian Alfred McCoy:

“1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer.”

The process involved smuggling raw opium gum to Pakistan, where it was processed into heroin in laboratories run by the ISI. The finished product was then discreetly transported via Pakistani airports, ports, or overland routes.

By 1984, Afghan heroin supplied a staggering 60 percent of the US market and 80 percent of the European market, while devastatingly creating 1.3 million heroin addicts in Pakistan, a country previously untouched by the highly-addictive drug.

McCoy states further that, “caravans carrying CIA arms into that region for the resistance often returned to Pakistan loaded down with opium.” Reports from 2001 cited by the New York Times confirmed that this occurred “with the assent of Pakistani or American intelligence officers who supported the resistance.”

In May 1990, the Washington Post reported that the US government had for several years received, but declined to investigate, reports of heroin trafficking by its allies, including “firsthand accounts of heroin smuggling by commanders under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.”

Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets did finally withdraw in 1989, the country fell into civil war as the major CIA-backed factions began fighting among themselves for control of the country. Mujahideen leaders became warlords and committed terrible atrocities against the local population while fighting amongst themselves.

It was during this anarchy that religious students from the madrassas (seminary schools), the Taliban, emerged with the help of Pakistani intelligence to take control of the country in 1996, subsequently inheriting the opium trade, which continued unhindered for several years.

In July 2000, however, Taliban leader Mullah Omar ordered a ban on all opium cultivation. Remarkably, the Taliban successfully slashed the opium harvest by 94 percent, reducing yearly production to only 185 metric tons.

Five months later, in December 2000, the US and Russia used the UN Security Council to impose harsh new sanctions on Afghanistan, citing the Taliban’s refusal to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, in which 17 US sailors were killed. Bin Laden had taken refuge in the Islamic Emirate in 1996 after he was expelled from Sudan.

The New York Times reported that US officials sought to impose the new sanctions, despite warnings from the UN that “a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.”

Following the attacks on 11 September, 2001, Bush administration officials demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden once again. Mullah Omar insisted the US first provide evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt, but President Bush refused this request and ordered the US air force to begin bombing Afghanistan on 7 October.

In the wake of the bombing, Mullah Omar dropped the demand for evidence, and offered to hand over Bin Laden to US ally Pakistan for trial. Bush administration officials once again refused.

Journalist and author Scott Horton highlights in his book Fool’s Errand a peculiar aspect of the US campaign: the lack of a clear focus on capturing or eliminating Bin Laden. In fact, President Bush had already stated on 25 September that success or failure should not be defined solely by capturing Bin Laden.

Horton notes further that US planners made no initial effort to hunt down Bin Laden and the foreign Arab fighters supporting him. Instead, head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks prioritized partnering with Afghan warlord Rashid Dostum to take control of the north of the country, and establish a “land link” to Uzbekistan.

Turning to the warlords

To also capture the capital, Kabul, and other key cities in the south, Alfred McCoy notes the CIA:

“Turned to a group of rising Pashtun warlords along the Pakistan border who had been active as drug smugglers in the south-eastern part of the country. As a result, when the Taliban collapsed, the groundwork had already been laid for the resumption of opium cultivation and the drug trade on a major scale.”

Though US forces were too late to prevent Bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan, the US bombing campaign came just in time for the beginning of poppy planting season. Poppies are planted in the autumn so that the juice from the plant, from which opium is extracted, can be harvested in spring.

McCoy clarified further that, “the Agency (CIA) and its local allies created ideal conditions for reversing the Taliban’s opium ban and reviving the drug traffic. Only weeks after the collapse of the Taliban, officials were reporting an outburst of poppy planting in the heroin-heartlands of Helmand and Nangarhar.”

In December, one of these rising Pashtun warlords, Hamid Karzai, was appointed Chairman of the Afghan Interim Administration and later president.

By the spring of 2002, large amounts of Afghan heroin were once again being transported to Britain via daily flights from Pakistani airports. The Guardian observed the case of a 13-year-old girl who was stopped after she stepped off a Pakistan International Airlines flight from Islamabad to London carrying 13kgs of heroin with a street value of £910,000.

Industrial scale

Thanks to the “land link” established by General Franks, heroin also immediately began flowing north from Mazar-e-Sharif, under CIA ally Rashid Dostum’s control, to Uzbekistan and then to to Russia and Europe.

The flow of heroin was witnessed by Craig Murray, the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who explained that Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek, facilitated the smuggling of heroin from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it was then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to Moscow and then Riga. As Murray noted:

“Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker… The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.”

‘A hands off approach’

In addition to Dostum, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, quickly secured a prominent role in the Afghan heroin trade.

Credible reports emerged that Wali Karzai was deeply involved in the heroin trade, however, according to the New York Times, the incidents were never investigated, “even though allegations that he has benefited from narcotics trafficking have circulated widely in Afghanistan.”

Senior officials at the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) complained that the Bush “White House favored a hands-off approach toward Ahmed Wali Karzai because of the political delicacy of the matter.”

The Times later reported that according to a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official, a major source of Wali Karzai’s influence was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium-growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar. This allowed Karzai to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

Like Dostum and Hekmaytar, Wali Karzai built his heroin empire while on the CIA payroll. The agency began paying Karzai in 2001 to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operated at the agency’s direction in and around Kandahar and to rent a large compound for use as the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. The CIA also appreciated Karzai’s help in communicating and sometimes meeting with Afghans loyal to the Taliban.

Karzai also served as the head of Kandahar’s elected provincial council. According to a senior US military officer in Kabul quoted by the Times, “Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it.”

The blame game 

In late 2004, as reports of Karzai’s involvement in the heroin trade were emerging, Alfred McCoy writes that “the White House was suddenly confronted with troubling CIA intelligence suggesting that the escalating drug trade was fueling a revival of the Taliban.”

A proposal from Secretary of State Colin Powell to fight the heroin trade was resisted by US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, and then-Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. As a compromise, the Bush administration used private contractors for poppy eradication, an effort that New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall later described as “something of a joke.”

Additionally, reports of a 2005 cable sent by the US embassy in Kabul to Powell’s successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, viewed Britain as being “substantially responsible” for the failure to eradicate poppy cultivation. British personnel chose where the eradication teams worked, but those areas were often not the main growing areas, and “the British had been unwilling to revise targets.”

The cable also faulted President Karzai, who “has been unwilling to assert strong leadership.” The State Department nevertheless defended him, saying, “President Karzai is a strong partner, and we have confidence in him,” despite reports of his brother’s key role in the heroin trade.

But the problem went beyond Wali Karzai. A UN report for the World Bank published in February 2006 concluded the Afghan heroin trade was operating with the assistance of many top Afghan government officials and under the protection of the Afghan Ministry of Interior.

As evidence of CIA and Afghan government involvement in the heroin trade grew, the focus of the western media shifted towards blaming the Taliban for using drug profits to fund their insurgency against foreign forces.

However, historian Peter Dale Scott challenged this narrative, citing UN estimates that the Taliban’s share of the Afghan opium economy was a fraction compared to that of supporters of the Karzai government. Scott emphasized that the largest share of the drug trade was controlled by those aligned with the Afghan government.

The surge

In early 2010, the Obama administration announced a “surge” of 33,000 US troops to help pacify the country, with a particular focus on key districts known for poppy cultivation. One such district was Marja in Helmand province, which McCoy referred to as “the world’s heroin capital.”

Despite the surge’s mission, US commanders seemed unaware of Marja’s significance as a hub for heroin production, fueled by the surrounding opium fields that accounted for 40 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply.

In September 2010, eight months after the start of the surge, “unsubstantiated” reports emerged that British soldiers were involved in trafficking heroin out of Afghanistan using military aircraft at airports in Camp Bastion and Kandahar.

Camp Bastion, jointly operated by the UK and the US, was located near Lashkar Gah, another major center of poppy cultivation. In 2012, it was alleged that poppy cultivation was taking place just outside the base’s perimeter, with British soldiers providing protection to farmers against Afghan security forces.

By late 2014, British and US forces withdrew from Camp Bastion, handing it over to Afghan forces, who renamed it Camp Shorabak. However, according to a UN report, “the opium-growing area around Britain’s main base in Afghanistan nearly quadrupled between 2011 and 2013.”

Despite the withdrawal, opium exports from Camp Shorabak apparently continued, and a small number of British military personnel returned in 2015 in what was described by the Ministry of Defense as an advisory role.

In 2016, Obaidullah Barakzai, a member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan, claimed, “It’s impossible for a few local drug smugglers to transfer opium in thousands of kilos. This is the work of the Americans and British. They transport it by air from Camp Shorabak.”

After US forces chaotically withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban once again succeeded in eliminating poppy cultivation, showing it was far from a “dedicated drug cartel” after all.

Follow the money

In November 2021, an opium merchant claimed that “All the profits go to the foreign countries. Afghans are just supplying the labor.”

Peter Dale Scott noted that according to the UN, some $352 billion in drug profits had been absorbed into the western financial system, including through the US’ largest banks in 2009. As a result, Scott said the “United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad.”

In 2012, the Daily Mail reported that HSBC, Britain’s biggest bank, faced up to £640million in penalties for allowing “rogue states and drugs cartels to launder billions of pounds through its branches,” and for becoming “a conduit for criminal enterprises.”

The billions in profits flowing from the Afghan heroin trade into western banks have now been eliminated by the Taliban not once, but twice in the past two decades.

Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s pronouncement in July 2000 that poppy cultivation was “un-Islamic” was, therefore, a more likely cause of the US sanctions imposed in December of the same year, and of the US invasion of Afghanistan a year later, than was any US desire to apprehend Bin Laden and dismantle Al-Qaeda.

In March 2002, just six months after the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, a journalist asked President Bush, “Where’s Osama bin Laden?” Bush replied, ‘I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”

The Afghan drug trade serves as a stark reminder of the intricate connections between geopolitics, illicit economies, and global finance, and the need for greater transparency and accountability in addressing these complex issues.

The historical evidence also challenges the simplistic narrative that the Taliban largely controlled the Afghan drug trade, highlighting the dominant role played by the US-backed Afghan government and its allies in the CIA.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Fake News” from NBC on US-Russian talks about an ‘off ramp’ to the Ukraine war in April 2023 that never took place

By Gilbert Doctorow – July 6, 2023

News portals in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe were quick to pick up a feature item today on NBCNews.com entitled “Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians.” The subtitle goes on: “The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.”

The very notion that such talks could have taken place elicited disparaging comments from the usual suspects who would not miss a chance to be in the public eye: former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, and Matt Dimmick, a former Russia and Eastern Europe director at the National Security Council. Said comments form part of the NBC report.

This news item also surfaced on Russian state television in the early evening edition of Sixty Minutes under the heading “Fake News.” Their panel discussion opened with an announcement from the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responding to what is said in the second paragraph in the NBC article, which reads:

“In a high-level example of the back-channel diplomacy taking place behind the scenes, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with members of the group for several hours in April in New York, four former officials and two current officials told NBC News.”

Per Lavrov, no such meeting ever took place and there are no back channels.

And then the Sixty Minutes panel was off to the races, as we say.

They listed the former U.S. officials who were said to have taken part in the meeting – Charles Kupchan, Richard Haass, and Thomas Graham, all members of the Foreign Relations Council and, as they stressed with truculent humor, all are decidedly very former. Their heyday was decades ago and today none of them holds a rank that would justify Lavrov’s spending any time with them, let alone discussing the basic principles for some negotiated settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war. They are just a bunch of old academics who get together to reminisce about the arms control negotiations of the distant past and similar issues long ago laid to rest.

After breaking its fake news story, NBC spent the greater part of its article talking about how back channel communications, dubbed Track Two talks, function and what utility they have in general.

To be sure, backchannels have served a constructive purpose in U.S. – Russian relations in the not too distant past, though I doubt that journalist Josh Lederman has a clue about this. Thomas Graham’s former mentor and associate, Henry Kissinger, had been an important initiator of such an outreach back in the summer-early autumn of 2008 when he, too was a former, not active political actor. But then Kissinger was and is Kissinger, not some flunky. That was in the time just after the Russia-Georgia war, when relations between the two countries were very tense, almost as seriously as today. And, most importantly, at the time Kissinger’s was not the only backchannel operating. In parallel there was another channel headed by a couple of members of the U.S. Senate. The end result was a paper on steps to improve bilateral relations that became known as the ‘re-set’ in the early days of the first Obama administration. Whether that initiative was creative enough to go beyond atmospherics and set the groundwork for a real change in the relationship is a different matter. The answer to that, of course, is ‘no.’

The likes of Kupchan, Haass and Graham cannot be compared to the operators of the 2008 backchannel and it was no wonder that the Sixty Minutes panel thumbed its noses at them. I, for one, have in the past taken the measure of two of these three as thinkers and found that Haass and Kupchan are muddle headed and their writings are mired in contradictions. Supposedly what they write and publish in the house organ Foreign Affairs magazine is peer vetted, but it helps not a whit. When everyone is aligned and no one disagrees, when there are no debates, only back slappers, then the quality of thinking sinks.

See my critique of Kupchan’s article ‘Nato’s final frontier: Why Russia should join the Atlantic Alliance” in Stepping out of Line (2012) pp. 199 -208  and my piece “Richard Haass: the Absent Voice at Valdai-Sochi” in Does Russia Have a Future (2015) pp 259-262

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Keep Ukraine out of NATO, US experts argue

RT | July 7, 2023

Welcoming Ukraine into NATO would force the US to choose between nuclear war with Russia or abandoning its security commitments to Kiev, two American analysts claimed on Friday.

“The security benefits to the United States of Ukrainian accession pale in comparison with the risks of bringing it into the alliance,” Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine.

If Ukraine were to join the alliance amid the ongoing hostilities, Logan and Shifrinson argued, the US and all of NATO’s European members would immediately be pulled into open war with Russia, with the potential for a nuclear exchange. However, even if the conflict were to be resolved, Ukraine and Russia will still have competing territorial claims, and a membership offer would risk reigniting the conflict, this time with NATO as a direct participant, they added.

“Under these circumstances, an American commitment to fight for Ukraine would be open to question,” they continued. If Ukraine were a NATO member and US policymakers chose not to intervene on its behalf, the bloc’s entire collective defense principle would be undermined, resulting in “a true credibility crisis for NATO.”

Furthermore, with the US protected by its nuclear arsenal and the vast Atlantic Ocean, the two analysts argued that America faces no direct threat from Russia, while Ukraine – due to its geography – forms “a bulwark” between Western Europe and Russia “irrespective of NATO membership.”

“American time, attention, and resources are needed elsewhere,” Logan and Shifrinson wrote, concluding that “the United States should accept that it is high time to close NATO’s door to Ukraine.”

Since the 2008 Bucharest Declaration, NATO’s official policy is that Ukraine will become a member of the bloc at an unspecified future date. Kiev, however, is unhappy with this non-commitment, with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky reportedly threatening not to attend NATO’s upcoming summit in Lithuania unless the US-led bloc offers “concrete” security guarantees or a roadmap to full membership.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda has already ruled out a membership offer at the Vilnius summit. French President Emmanuel Macron, however, has called on the alliance’s leaders to offer Kiev bilateral or multilateral security guarantees, as well as a “path” to full-fledged membership. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace and a number of Eastern European leaders have called for Ukraine to be fast-tracked into the bloc without the usual “membership action plan” that prospective members must complete.

The White House, meanwhile, maintains that Ukraine “would have to make reforms to meet the same standards as any NATO country before they join.”

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US military short of recruits with most youth disqualified

By Uriel Araujo | July 7, 2023

Already in September 2022 the Pentagon was voicing concerns about ammunition and arsenal shortages while US President Joe Biden was announcing an extra $3 billion military aid to Ukraine. Things are not so good with its transatlantic allies: in March 2023, Europe’s military was described as being in an “appalling state” by a Foreign Affairs article – a situation which is hard to escape amid today’s deindustrialization.

Last month, the US was announcing it would spend yet another $325 million to replace tanks destroyed by Russia during Ukraine’s costly and failed counteroffensive. The hard economic costs and depletion or arsenals, however, should not be Washington’s only concern: since 2020, merely 23% of young Americans (aged 17-24) are “eligible for military service without a waiver” and most ineligible youth are disqualified “for multiple reasons”, such as overweight, poor medical health, and drug abuse.

In their Atlantic piece, Former US Army Officer Jason Dempsey (an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security) and former US Marine officer Gil Barndollar (a senior fellow at Defense Priorities) paint a very worrisome picture, from an American point of view. The 50-year old “all-volunteer force” (AVF), as the US military has come to be known after its last draftee in 1973, they write, has become “unsustainable”, facing threats in “three fronts” – namely cost, capacity, and, more importantly, “continued ability to find enough Americans willing and able to serve.”

Military pay and benefits have skyrocketed since 911, actually rising by more than 50 percent. Its high cost is one of the factors that make the US military small. When faced with medium-sized campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, it already found it challenging to provide just enough troops. Thus, Dempsey and Barndollar argue it could be broken by any “major conflict”. For example, they write, just over the past year of confrontation, Russia and Ukraine both have had casualties that are equal to at least half the active-duty U.S. Army, and current US military doctrine says that a force is destroyed after taking 30 percent casualties. In other words, the US itself could not endure what its ally Ukraine does.

In any case, merely 9 percent of young US citizens would seriously consider military service, a figure which is near the all-time low since the so-called All-Volunteer Force began. To broaden the recruiting pool, service branches loosened their restrictions on things such as neck tattoos and other standards. In June last year, the US Army went so far as to briefly drop its requirement for a high school diploma. Even so, the US military simply can’t seem to find recruits and keeps falling short of its enlistment quotas.

The AVF crisis is part of a larger societal crisis, even civilizational. Consider this fact: US citizens are currently enduring its worst drug crisis ever, fueled by epidemic opioid abuse. According to Council on Foreign Relations deputy editor Claire Klobucista and expert Alejandra  Martinez, this state of affairs endangers the US “public health, economic output, and national security.” Opioid drugs (both legally manufactured medications and illicit narcotics) already are by far the leading cause of fatal overdoses in the country.

Or consider this: right now, the US Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services says that the Food and Drug Administration agency (FDA) is still dodging oversight and failing to provide answers regarding an ongoing baby formula shortage crisis. There is more: even though it is supposedly the world’s richest nation, the US healthcare system is collapsing, with hospitals closing down, overcrowded and understaffed facilities, and lack of items such as ICU beds. The country is also facing a mental health crisis, with 40% of parents reporting their children struggle with anxiety or depression, among other issues.

Given all these domestic and systemic issues, it is no wonder that most youth either do not qualify or do not want to be part of the military. Considering that many young people, due to so many factors, simply do not qualify for service, bringing back the draft (with all the political costs) would simply not solve the issue. This is one of the reasons why the US increasingly needs to fight proxy wars.

In November 2022, while addressing the Naval Submarine League’s annual gathering in Arlington, Virginia, US Navy Admiral Charles Richard, then head of US Strategic Command had this to say about the Ukraine crisis: “this is just the warmup. The big one is coming.” He added: “It isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested a long time.” At the time he urged policy makers and Pentagon chiefs to return to the 1950s and 1960s dynamism in order to face such challenges.

Those are bold and ambitious calls for a declining, overburdened and overextended superpower which is actively pursuing a dual containment policy targeting both Russia and China simultaneously. In addition, it aims to maintain its naval hegemony as a sea power while also engaging in land wars as part of a Mackinder-like struggle for the Heartland. Like the meme-famous pelican, it seems to want it all. However, appetite and capacity are not to be confused. It remains to be seen whether or not American society will continue to have what it takes for all that and just for how long. Right now, the prospect is not looking good.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Now that government COVID malfeasance is exposed, what will the GOP do about it?

By Daniel Horowitz – conservative review – July 6, 2023 

We are now 2+ years into consuming reams of information showing the vaccines were devastating to humanity. What will Republicans do about it other than whine about censorship? Refusing to focus on vaccine injury and the perfidy of the government-vaccine complex is an act of self-censorship.

There is a bizarre dynamic unfolding as it relates to GOP sentiment toward the vaccine. All Republicans recognize and decry the growing evidence of the government’s collaboration with big tech to censor all information about vaccine injury. Yet they seem to be more upset about the censorship of the information than about the information itself. Why is there no push from Republicans to defund the vaccines and fix the regulatory and legal structures that allowed Operation Warp Speed to occur and that continue to gaslight the next iteration of rushed, dangerous vaccines?

In an extraordinary ruling on Independence Day itself, Louisiana federal Judge Terry Doughty issued a broad injunction against all government agencies on working with social media companies to censor politically unfavored speech. Citing “substantial evidence” of government’s “dystopian” violations of the First Amendment, Judge Doughty prohibited the federal government from “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The injunction not only includes the HHS agencies censoring COVID information, but also the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the State Department, the DOJ, and the White House censoring all forms of protected speech.

This ruling comes a week after the House Judiciary committee produced a preliminary report showing DHS’ CISA was behind the censorship enterprise. It turns out that CISA funded a nonprofit group to work with social media on a process, known as “switchboarding,” which would “trigger content moderation” to “ensure priority treatment of misinformation reports.”

Republicans seem united in combating this censorship and plan to include provisions in the relevant appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024 to block funding for these surveillance and censorship programs. However, where is the same degree of outrage about the dangers of the vaccines themselves?

We now have over two years of information showing ubiquitous injury stemming from damage to all parts of the body, particularly cardiac and neurological. Whether it’s VAERS, European data, countless independent studies, epidemiological data, excess deaths and “died suddenly” mysteries correlating with the take-up of the vaccines, health insurance data, life insurance data, or disability data – we have enough evidence to convict this shot for murder if it were a human standing for trial. Yet not only have these vaccines not been defunded, the same framework that rushed their approval has already been used for countless other new vaccines.

The government’s new shell game is to concede the existence of these problems, but play semantics with the term “rare” when describing their risk. Science Insider published a piece acknowledging the “rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness,” including blood clotting, heart inflammation, and neurological disorders. Even Peter Marks, the man at the center of Operation Warp Speed, admitted, “We can’t rule out rare cases.”

“If a provider has somebody in front of them, they may want to take seriously the concept [of] a vaccine side effect,” admits the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, two years after emails show he ignored concerns of rushing the vaccine amidst a pileup of adverse event reporting.

However, what is rare? The CDC’s own pharmacovigilance program showed a 7.7% rate of clinical-level injury. Coupled with the underreporting rate in VAERS, there were likely millions of severe and long-term injuries, including several hundred thousand deaths in the U.S. So yes, we can suggest that 92% of people didn’t experience clinical levels of injury and 98%-99% didn’t experience long-term and deadly injuries. In that sense, I guess you can say it’s rare. But how many people are we talking about when 5.5 billion people were given at least one dose? Potentially, millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of injuries! Just consider the fact that 25% of injuries reported to VAERS and about a third reported by the European Medicines Agency are considered serious, well beyond the standard of 15%.

House Republicans can no longer ignore the problem with the vaccines. They must also stop ignoring the endless approvals of monkeypox and RSV shots based on dubious data and the same rushed framework. To that end, Speaker McCarthy should take the following actions.

  • Defund all COVID shots in the HHS, DOD, and FDA funding bills.
  • Create a commission of members of Congress to examine the rationale, safety, and efficacy data of all vaccines, beginning with the new ones recently approved and in the pipeline.
  • Refuse to sign off on the Senate version of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act unless major reforms are enacted curtailing pandemic authorities.
  • Bar any involvement in a WHO pandemic treaty or expansion of the International Health Regulations.
  • Repeal immunity for vaccine manufacturers, including the provision in the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 that extends the immunity to vaccines offered to pregnant women.

To this day, we still can’t get Republicans to shake their support for the V-word even in red states. Last week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, the consummate COVID fascist governor, used his line-item veto to strike a provision from the budget ending vaccine mandates in colleges. “University and college dormitories and student housing are congregate settings where such policy may be of great importance to ensure resident safety,” said DeWine of vaccine mandates in his veto message. It takes a new level of cognitive dissonance to support mandates on those who don’t want the shot out of fear of harming those who did supposedly get the protection that evidently fails to protect unless the other person gets it!

Republicans all agree that our government engaged in an unprecedented operation to cover up the truth about vaccines. How come their curiosity stops at the degree of exposing the cover-up with no interest in delving into what exactly they are trying to cover up? After all, this is the only product that automatically goes into every arm of every baby multiple times after birth with a set schedule mandated by schools. Certainly the COVID shots are proven to be poison, but is there no interest in uncovering the broader truth?

© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Majority of US Voters Believe Biden Involved in Son Hunter’s Foreign Business Deals – Poll

Sputnik – 06.07.2023

WASHINGTON – A majority of likely voters in the United States believe that US President Joe Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, which are under investigation by US House lawmakers, a Rasmussen Reports poll revealed on Thursday.

More than half of respondents, 58%, said that it was likely that Biden was involved in his son’s foreign business deals, with 44% believing it “very likely,” the poll said.

One-third of respondents said it was unlikely Biden was involved in the foreign business deals, and 10% are unsure.

The poll comes amid an investigation by the US House Oversight Committee into alleged criminal acts committed by the Biden family, including corruption and influence peddling. Earlier this month, panel chairman James Comer characterized the alleged actions as “organized crime.”

The committee’s probe is partially based on accusations from a confidential FBI informant, who alleges that Joe and Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from a Ukrainian energy company. Lawmakers are also investigating deals tied to China.

However, Biden has denied ever speaking to his son about his business deals, contradicting testimony from an IRS whistleblower involved in matters related to Hunter Biden.

The survey polled 1,054 likely US voters on June 28-29 and July 2. The poll maintains a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points with a 95% confidence level.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Corruption | , | Leave a comment

Palestine urges US to retract from building embassy in Jerusalem

MEMO | July 6, 2023

The Palestinian Presidency urged the US, on Thursday, to retract plans to build its embassy in Jerusalem because it will be built on Palestinian “private property”, Anadolu Agency reports.

The statement was in response to Israeli approval plans submitted by the US to build the embassy on lands the statement said were confiscated from Palestinian owners by Israel in 1948.

It described the move as “illegal” and “a violation of international law” because it will be built “on private property confiscated in 1948 from Palestinian owners, some of whom are holders of US citizenship”.

The Presidency said moving ahead with building the embassy “gives legitimacy to racist Israeli laws such as the absentee property law designed to legitimise the theft of Palestinian property”.

It added that the move is a “joint American-Israeli blow to any remaining hopes for a two-state solution.”

Former President, Donald Trump announced the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017. The US moved its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May the following year.

Jerusalem remains at the heart of the decades-long Mideast conflict, with Palestinians insisting that East Jerusalem — illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 — should serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe Says No to China Decoupling

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 06.07.2023 

Following active US diplomacy over the past few years, Europe seems to have now decided to say no to the US geopolitics of “decoupling” from China. This is nothing short of a major diplomatic blow for the US, although this blow has not received as much attention in the mainstream Western media due to its overt focus on events related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The recent visit of Chinese Premier Li Qiang to Europe, where Li not only met the German Chancellor but also addressed a conference on development financing organised by French President Macron. More than that, the fact that two of the European Union’s most powerful states received and interacted with China’s number two became possible, first and foremost, because of the available space for continuing trade partnership with China. That is one key reason why the EU now favours the politics of “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling”.

While the idea of “de-risking” would literally mean reducing dependence on China – which some might see as a good sign – “de-risking” mainly means better management of trade and economic ties with China. After all, the EU sees China as an economic competitor. Therefore, devising new strategies to manage this competition makes perfect sense not only for the EU but also for China. As a leading US media outlet said in one of its reports, the EU has basically decided not to “piss China off.”

The real question is: Why is the EU, despite China’s overall pro-Russia position on Ukraine, devising a strategy that does not involve the kind of “decoupling” that the EU has effected vis-à-vis Russia in terms of energy supplies? There are several crucial reasons for the ongoing strategic rethinking in the EU vis-à-vis China.

First of all, the EU leaders tend to believe that China itself is eager to maintain stable economic ties with the EU. As opposed to Beijing’s estranged ties with the US, China intends to maintain a healthy, although competitive, environment with the EU. Doing this is very much possible since the EU is not as deeply entangled with China in geopolitical flashpoints, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, as the US is. For the EU, therefore, continuing trade ties with China present an opportunity that should be exploited to the best possible extent, even if this continuation does not fit very well with the nature of the US-China ties.

Secondly, the EU is a 27-member bloc, which can be – in fact, it is – internally very diverse, with many EU countries following or favouring alternative policy positions. This internal divergence makes it extremely difficult for any given actor within the EU to impose its position on the bloc. This internal divergence also means that finding consensus on minimum common ground is equally difficult.

We have seen that German and French leaders have visited China in the recent past, but we have also repeatedly seen President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen taking a tougher position on China, showing how the three key EU leaders are not necessarily unanimous, making it extremely difficult for a) the US to make the bloc follow a single set of policies of “decoupling”, and b) the EU to devise its best China policy that stresses “de-coupling” over “de-risking”.

Even though some countries advocate a tougher position, the declaration of the latest EU summit in Brussels said that “Despite their different political and economic systems, the European Union and China have a shared interest in pursuing constructive and stable relations, anchored in respect for the rules-based international order, balanced engagement and reciprocity,” adding that Europe “does not intend to decouple or to turn inwards” or adopt policies “to harm China, nor to thwart China’s economic progress and development.”

Thirdly, the EU does not see the kind of interest that “decoupling” would yield for the bloc, as a potential “decoupling” would supposedly serve the US and harm the EU. Unlike the US, the EU, as it stands, is not trying to preserve its own hegemony by engaging China in a conflict.

Therefore, the EU’s stance – and the language it has been expressed in – is markedly different from the language the US officials normally used to report on their interaction with China. For instance, after Blinken met Chinese officials in June, he said he “warned” China about its foreign policies. Earlier in February, Blinken had sent yet another warning to China about its support for Russia.

But the EU, as is evident from the latest declaration, has a position that stresses cooperation over warnings and conflict. Although the EU disagrees with various policies of China, including its Ukraine stance, there is no desire within the bloc, on the whole, to pick a conflict with Beijing and deliver yet another economic blow to the continent, which is still not fully recovered from the effects of “decoupling” from Russia. “Decoupling” from China, therefore, will “kill”, to quote Hungary’s foreign minister, “Europe’s economy.” Various assessments prove this scenario.

For instance, the Seeheimer Circle, an official think tank inside the party of the German Chancellor, released a paper last April on Germany’s relationship with China calling for a “multi-dimensional” – that is, open – policy towards the Asian giant. An “abrupt end to trade relations with China” would be “an economic disaster,” the paper argued, rejecting an “anti-China strategy.”

Therefore, while a potential “decoupling” from China might help the US regain its position of economic and financial dominance at the global level, the EU sees no glory. The EU leadership is cognizant of this fact, which is why key EU leaders are not in line with the US. Instead, various EU pronouncements show an ongoing struggle within the bloc with regard to developing a strictly European strategic vision vis-à-vis China.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Is China’s export control a precise counterattack against US, Japan and the Netherlands?

Global Times | July 6, 2023

The measures taken by China in recent years to safeguard national security and interests have often been subjected to excessive interpretation and reaction from the US and Western countries. The recent decision by China to implement export controls on gallium and germanium-related items is no exception. Although Chinese authorities have said this is a common international practice and not targeted at any specific country, certain countries have felt “targeted,” leading to a series of doubts, questions, and even accusations.

There are mainly two points that these people are criticizing about. First, they believe that China is indeed targeting specific countries by precisely counterattacking the semiconductor equipment export controls imposed by the US, Japan and the Netherlands. Does this contradict China’s consistent opposition to the abuse of export controls? Second, they claim China’s actions may violate regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are detrimental to the stability of the semiconductor supply chain. Both of these points are baseless.

Whether it is a precise counterattack against the discriminatory policies of the US, Japan, and the Netherlands toward China can be left for them to ponder. It is nothing wrong to make those who have done bad things to China feel uneasy and unsettled. Gallium and germanium are key raw materials used in the production of semiconductors, missile systems, solar cells, and other high-tech products. If China exports them to these countries, but they prohibit the export of high-tech products made from these materials to China, this is clearly unfair in terms of trade. If the US uses them to produce high-end military equipment, it may even pose a threat to China’s national security. China’s export control is justifiable in terms of reason and law. It needs to be emphasized that this is entirely different from the US’ abuse of export controls.

China’s export control measures have always adhered to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, and are committed to maintaining the security and stability of the global production and supply chains. As for whether these measures violate WTO regulations this time, it is more of a technical issue. China is recognized as an exemplary member of the WTO, in sharp contrast with the US, who has trampled on WTO rules and principles. Despite having larger reserves of germanium than China, the US has protected germanium as a defense reserve resource since 1984 and has hardly conducted any mining activities. In a sense, China’s implementation of export controls on gallium and germanium may have come a bit late. China has no reason to excessively deplete its strategic resources to meet the demands of unfriendly countries.

Currently, there is an abnormal phenomenon in the international community. The US has engaged in too many acts of undermining international rules and seems to be unconcerned about the accumulating “debts.” It is a bit taken for granted. On the other hand, China’s legitimate actions are often magnified and exaggerated by external forces. What’s even more despicable is that the US often takes the lead in pointing fingers at China, without any sense of guilt or shame. The US, which seriously lacks a moral bottom line in the international arena, enjoys morally blackmailing China, which is truly absurd. Dealing with such a US, China also needs to adapt.

To contain and suppress China, the US has imposed various export restrictions on China to an unprecedented extent, and these restrictions are escalating and expanding. There are currently no signs of any easing or cessation. It is reported that the Biden administration is considering a new round of high-tech investment bans on China. When the US treats China in this way, it should not expect China to remain silent and not fight back; that is impossible. However, China will not be as unscrupulous and rule-breaking as the US. Nevertheless, we do have a considerable toolbox to retaliate and make countries that harm China’s interests pay a price.

The US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is about to visit China. Is China announcing the export control measures at this time to give Yellen a warning? This is overthinking. China doesn’t need to do this, but it will not postpone or cancel planned measures just because a senior US official is coming to create a favorable atmosphere. That’s how things stand. The people who are most dramatic about China’s every move are often the ones with the strongest malicious intent toward China. Their interpretations are bound to be distorted, so it is necessary to make them feel uncomfortable.

July 6, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »