Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CIA Threatens Turkish Businessmen Over Trade With Russia

Samizdat – 26.08.2022

ANKARA – The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used intimidation against Turkish businessmen involved in trade with Russia, prying into their real estate contracts with Russians, Turkish daily Yeni Safak reported on Friday.

According to the newspaper, the CIA Turkey chief called and “openly threatened” the officials of construction companies with links to housing purchases made by Russian entities and individuals. The CIA official reportedly interviewed Turkish businessmen, asking them about the number of houses sold to Russians, the currency used in transactions and other confidential details.

Another instance of “meddling” in Turkish internal affairs includes a letter which, according to Yeni Safak, US Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo sent to Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD). The letter, reportedly dated this Monday, threatened to impose sanctions on TUSIAD members that were doing business with Russia.

Adeyemo also held a phone call with Turkish Deputy Finance Minister Yunus Elitas last Friday, in which he raised concerns that Russian entities and individuals are attempting to use Turkey to circumvent sanctions imposed by the West.

The US and a number of aligned countries began imposing sanctions on Russian individuals and entities in response to the launch of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in late February. So far, Turkey has not joined the sanctions regime against Moscow.

August 26, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Senators demand NIH, HHS preserve all related documents, communications, promise ‘full-throated investigation’ of Fauci

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 24, 2022

Two U.S. senators on Tuesday — the day after Dr. Anthony Fauci announced plans to leave his government posts in December — formally requested the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) preserve all documents and communications related to Fauci.

Fauci on Monday said he will retire as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden in December to pursue “the next chapter” of his career.

In a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) demanded Becerra “immediately confirm” that HHS is preserving all records related to Fauci and  Dr. Francis Collins, who was director of the NIH from August 2009 to December 2021.

“This request applies to all documents, records, memoranda, research, correspondence, or other communication or any portion thereof relevant to any involvement of Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins,” the letter stated.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in a letter to Lawrence Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D., acting director of the NIH, asked Tabak to “ensure the preservation of all documents and communications within Dr. Fauci’s possession related to his tenure at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

Marshall stressed that it is “imperative” that all HHS workers are made aware of their “legal responsibilities to collect, retain, and preserve all documents, communications, and other records in accordance with federal law.”

He also reminded Tabak of his obligation, as the head of HHS, to ensure the preservation of all records and that any employee “who conceals, destroys, or attempts to conceal or destroy a federal record may be subject to fine and imprisonment for up to three years.”

Marshall pointed out that HHS previously refused to provide information to Congress:

“HHS and component agencies, including NIH in particular, continue to obstruct numerous congressional investigations through refusal to provide responsive information.

“In addition to withholding information from Congress, private parties note that NIH refuses to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests until forced to do so by court order.”

Marshall went on to list “recent egregious examples” of NIH’s failure to meet record-keeping requirements and said that “even one” such example “should instigate immediate oversight action by HHS.”

Marshall’s letter outlined four “notable recent concerns” with NIH’s record-keeping, including past accusations that NIH destroyed records, potential conflicts of interest within the HHS Office of Inspector General, NIH’s practice of “self-policing” and NIH’s failure to ensure required reporting of clinical trial results.

‘Fauci’s resignation will not prevent full-throated investigation into origins of pandemic’ — Rand Paul

Paul, in his letter to Tabak, also emphasized the need to preserve NIH documents for investigation purposes.

Paul wrote:

“This information is critical to ensure that Congress has access to information necessary to conduct proper oversight regarding events that took place during Dr. Fauci’s tenure with the agency.

“Specifically, I request you preserve all records, e-mail, electronic documents, and data created by or shared with Dr. Fauci during his tenure at NIH that relate to COVID-19 including, but not limited to, NIAID-funded coronavirus research.”

In an email today, Paul told The Defender :

“Dr. Fauci misled the American people on public health guidance throughout the pandemic, lied to Congress under oath, and funneled tax dollars to fund dangerous research in communist China.

“The American people deserve transparency and accountability from the NIH regarding the COVID-19 pandemic regardless of Dr. Fauci’s future employment plans.”

On Monday, Paul tweeted, “Fauci’s resignation will not prevent a full-throated investigation into the origins of the pandemic. He will be asked to testify under oath regarding any discussions he participated in concerning the lab leak.”

For more than a year, Paul has advocated for a thorough investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and pushed for a criminal investigation of Fauci, whose NIAID research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China Paul suggested may have been involved in creating the virus.

Following up on a threat he made in mid-July of 2021, Rand sent an official criminal referral on Fauci to the U.S. Department of Justice on July 26, 2021.

Paul asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Fauci for allegedly lying to Congress when he said the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

The week before he sent the official criminal referral, Paul asked Fauci if he wanted to retract the statement he made to Congress during a May 11 hearing. Paul said, “Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?”

Fauci replied he would not retract the statement and was adamant he never lied before Congress.

However, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson said on June 2, 2021, that evidence showed Fauci was “implicated in the very pandemic he had been charged with fighting.”

Emails obtained by BuzzFeed via the Freedom of Information Act show “Fauci supported the grotesque and dangerous experiments that appeared to have made COVID possible,” Carlson said.

The emails, which date back to the early winter of 2020, show Fauci was worried the public would think COVID-19 originated at the Wuhan lab. Why?

“Possibly because Tony Fauci knew perfectly well he had funded gain-of-function experiments at that very same laboratory,” Carlson said.

The emails showed Fauci and other top virologists shared an article from ZeroHedge suggesting COVID-19 was a man-made bioweapon. Despite it being a “plausible explanation,” said Carlson, ZeroHedge was banned from social media.

Carlson said:

“Until recently, you were not allowed to suggest that COVID might be man-made. Why couldn’t you suggest that? The fact checkers wouldn’t allow it. Why wouldn’t they? Because Tony Fauci assured the tech monopolies that the coronavirus could not have been manmade. And so the tech monopolies shut down the topic.”

NIAID has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, as The Defender previously reported.

In March 2021, the Wuhan lab deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website. It also deleted descriptions of gain-of-function experiments on the SARS virus, according to Dr. Joseph Mercola.

“The NIH/NIAID has funded GOF [gain-of-function] research to the tune of at least $41.7 million,” Mercola said. “Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina.”

After 2014, when federal funding of gain-of-function research was banned, the research was funneled to the Wuhan lab via the EcoHealth Alliance.

Mercola added:

“In August 2020, the NIAID announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases that will conduct GOF experiments to ‘determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans.’”

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Fairfield, Iowa.

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.

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Is Gaslighting Us About Taiwan

By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2022

Since Nancy Pelosi’s purposeless diplomatic visit to Taipei on August 2, cross-strait tensions have soared between China and Taiwan. Pelosi’s envoy has effectively reduced U.S.-China relations to its lowest point since at least 1995—when diplomatic efforts between Washington and Taipei instigated a tit-for-tat military standoff between Washington and Beijing.

In response to Pelosi’s visit, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) launched an unprecedented series of military drills in six marine sectors around Taiwan. The drills included anti-submarine and sea assault operations and a simulated blockade of the island. Chinese fighters and warships crossed the Taiwan Strait’s median line every day that the drills took place.

The high point of Beijing’s response occurred immediately after Pelosi’s departure from Taiwan when it launched a rocket barrage over the island.

After the trip, U.S. officials and pundits redoubled their attempts to cast Beijing’s response as an unprovoked overreaction as they had done in the days preceding it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s August 1 pre-visit statement is emblematic of the war party’s post-trip spin:

What I can say is this: this is very much precedent in the sense that a previous speaker has visited Taiwan, many members of congress go to Taiwan, including this year and so if the Speaker does decide to visit and China decides to create some kind of crisis or otherwise escalate tensions, that would be entirely on Beijing. We are looking for them, in the event she decides to visit, to act responsibly and not to engage in any escalation going forward.

Blinken’s statement, and the cacophony of hawkishness that echoes it, are classic examples of gaslighting.

In modern parlance the term “gaslighting” broadly denotes a pattern of manipulation that victims experience in abusive relationships.

Psychology Today defines it thusly:

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

The phenomenon was professionally documented, perhaps for the first time, in a 1969 article published in The Lancet. Entitled “The Gas-Light Phenomenon,” the article examines three case studies in which families attempt to rid themselves of an unwanted member by convincing said member, and the target institution, that the member qualifies for admittance due to a mental condition the family manufactured.

The 1969 article named the phenomenon after the 1938 play “Gas Light,” in which a husband attempts to rid himself of his wife by “driving her into a mental asylum.” The story was later popularized by the 1944 film of the same name staring Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotten.

The specific gaslit arguments that the hawks employ against China are as follows:

1. Beijing is overreacting.

On August 4, the National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator John Kirby told reporters:

China has chosen to overreact and use the Speaker’s visit as a pretext to increase provocative military activity in and around the Taiwan Strait. We anticipated that China might take steps like this. (Emphasis Added)

Kirby’s statement itself betrays his desired narrative. He implies that Pelosi’s visit was a convenient pretext for Beijing to justify an increase in its military activity in the strait. This framing does not comport with reality. On the contrary, Beijing repeatedly warned against the visit. Even if Beijing was insincere in its warnings and was looking for such a pretext, Pelosi provided it.

Furthermore, Kirby himself admits that Washington anticipated Beijing’s reaction. Despite this, the White House took no action—formal or otherwise—to prevent Pelosi from going.

2. Pelosi’s visit has precedent.

The war party line, that Pelosi’s trip has precedent, is true—but only to the extent that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did indeed fly to Taiwan in 1997 to meet with the then-president of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui. That is where the similarity ends.

In truth, the 1997 trip occurred under very different circumstances.

For one, Gingrich visited Beijing and Shanghai before flying to Taiwan. Second, Beijing also opposed Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan. Chinese officials begrudgingly approved of the Taiwan stop only after Gingrich threatened to cancel the Chinese leg of his tour. Third, Gringrich’s visit occurred shortly after the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis–an event that began when President Clinton issued a visa to Lee Teng-hui to speak at Cornell University. After having just deescalated from the brink of war, it is likely that Beijing desired normal relations with the United States. Fourth, in 1997, the United States did not have the regular military presence in the Indo-Pacific that it now has. Fifth, Pelosi’s 2022 trip expressly considered “mutual security,” which in the Indo-Pacific can only mean confronting China. Finally, in 1997 the Chinese military only possessed a fraction of the strength it now does.

In his August 1 statement, Blinken stated “many members of Congress go to Taiwan.” This is also true, however, China always objects to these delegations and normally responds to them with military exercises.

3. Beijing’s military drills are a reckless and unprovoked provocation

The undeniable truth is that before learning of Pelosi’s visit, Beijing was not planning military exercises anywhere near the size and scope of those performed after her visit. Beijing repeatedly warned Washington of the dire consequences of the visit. Pelosi went anyway. Washington did nothing to stop her. Beijing directly cited the drills as a consequence for the visit.

This observation is not to say that Beijing is a completely innocent victim. It should not be conducting the drills, but there is no evidence to suggest that the drills would have happened absent Pelosi’s visit. Actions have reactions.

4. Pelosi’s visit does not contradict longstanding U.S. policy.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 expressly “terminate[s] governmental relations between the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan.” The United States does not and should not have formal or informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

What is it called when the sitting Speaker of the House, the third in line to the presidency, has a meeting with the sitting president of Taiwan?

5. Pelosi’s visit is not a danger to China.

According to the One-China policy, Taiwan is China. This is official United States policy—at least on paper.

Through the decades, especially since the beginning of the Trump administration, the United States has been moving away from the One-China policy and its “strategic ambiguity” regarding the actions it will take to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Pelosi’s visit is a late stage step toward a formal American repudiation of the One-China policy. Indeed, her delegation has likely ushered in a new era of militarization in the region, all of it likely foreseen—and perhaps desired—by the U.S.

Since Pelosi’s visit, two additional congressional delegations have visited the island. The first delegation arrived August 14 and was composed of Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and four other members. The delegation reportedly asked Taiwanese lawmakers how they felt about “strategic ambiguity” and if they would like the policy changed to “strategic clarity.” The delegation discussed regional security and increasing economic ties between Washington and Taipei.

The second delegation arrived in Taiwan on August 21 and met with Taiwanese officials about formalizing economic ties, mainly the production of superconductors. The delegation came in after the White House announced formal trade talks to occur this fall.

Increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwan will further economic decoupling between both the U.S. and China and Taiwan and China. Economic ties between each are a major impediment to war. Furthermore, close military ties between the U.S. and Taiwan could give the U.S. a permanent military presence within China, as was the case before 1979. China will not allow this to happen.

American China hawks have used the above arguments to manufacture consent for increasing confrontation over Taiwan, including forthcoming “‘air and maritime transits’ in the Taiwan Strait” that could lead to war. Much like the Lancet’s case study, these hawks must convince the American public to distrust their own perceptions of reality to do so.

How else could anyone believe that Beijing’s actions came out of the clear blue sky?

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at http://www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

US ices its ‘Ministry of Truth’

Samizdat – August 25, 2022

The US Department of Homeland Security finally shut down the Disinformation Governance Board on Wednesday, over a month after a review panel convened to rescue the idea advised doing just that – and months after widespread condemnation of the project forced the agency to reconsider.

Citing the “prior recommendation” of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which voted unanimously to dissolve the group last month, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas officially announced the termination of the Disinformation Governance Board and revoked its charter.

The committee’s final report affirmed that there was no need for a disinformation board, arguing the agency had fallen prey to mission creep. Instead, it was the DHS’ job to “address the disinformation threat streams that can undermine the security of our homeland,” speaking to the public in plain language and emphasizing “the importance of truth.”

Co-authored by former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, the report also blamed the use of the emotionally loaded term “disinformation” for sinking the project, arguing it had inflamed the public’s imagination regarding the new group’s ambitions. “The actual work of the department has been exaggerated, and the real work is extremely straightforward.”

“They don’t have a red pencil to correct everything in the world that’s not true,” Chertoff clarified.

Launched in April, the Disinformation Governance Board immediately came under fire from civil liberties and free speech advocates, who were already concerned about the Biden administration’s cozy relationship with social media and worried about the partisan leanings of its director, Nina Jankowicz. The author and self-styled disinformation expert previously worked for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and as a lobbyist targeting Russia and Belarus with “democracy assistance” programs while promoting disinformation of her own, including dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as a Russian fabrication. Leaked documents reveal she was also in the employ of the UK’s Integrity Initiative, a shadowy influence operation that meddled with the political process at home and abroad under the guise of “defending democracy.”

While the DHS initially tried to defend what critics were denouncing as Biden’s “Ministry of Truth,” it was ultimately forced to put the program on ice, bringing in Chertoff and Gorelick to attempt to salvage the idea. However, the HSAC determined last month there was “no need for a Disinformation Governance Board.”

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Study Exposes Misinformation Campaign Pushing Pro-American Narratives on Twitter, Facebook

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 24, 2022

Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory released a study showing a “series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years” that pushed pro-Western misinformation on Twitter, Facebook and five other social media platforms. The operations targeted people living in Central Asia and the Middle East.

An investigation was launched after Twitter and Merta turned over the data on two overlapping accounts to Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory. The accounts were removed in July and August for violating teams of services, including “platform manipulation” and “inauthentic behavior.” The fake accounts deployed misinformation to set narratives supporting Western geopolitical goals.

According to the executive summary, “Our joint investigation found an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia.” It continues, “The platforms’ datasets appear to cover a series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years rather than one homogeneous operation.”

One operation by the covert accounts was directed at Central Asia. A narrative the fake accounts tried to spread was painting Russia as the looming enemy. “Assets in the group consistently portrayed Russia as a threat to Central Asia. A recurring narrative claimed that Russia is abusing Russian-Central Asian partnerships, namely the CSTO, to extract one-sided benefits…The assets also said Central Asian countries must leave these organizations if they wish to retake their full sovereignty from Russia.”

The Central Asia operations also sought to portray Russia as a villain and support the Ukrainian war effort. On several occasions, the accounts attempted to generate hashtag campaigns supporting Kiev.

The covert accounts campaigns against Iran linked to articles from fake media outlets to spread misinformation. The report says, “Several suspended accounts were linked to two sham media outlets operating in Persian.” However, not all the posts are linked to phony media outlets. The accounts frequently linked to stories from US government-funded sources like Voice of America.

A different operation attempted to set the discourse on the war in Yemen. “These accounts shared content critical of Iranian and Houthi rebel activity in Yemen. Posts accused Houthi rebel leaders of blocking humanitarian aid deliveries, acting as proxies for Iran and Hezbollah,” the report authors wrote.

While Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory do not name a culprit for the misinformation campaigns, they say the accounts were likely ineffective at spreading misinformation. “The data also shows the limitations of using inauthentic tactics to generate engagement and build influence online. The vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets.”

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Drones Flying in Afghan Airspace, Taliban Says as Group Yet to Confirm Death of al-Zawahiri

Samizdat – 25.08.2022

Afghanistan on Thursday accused the US of flying drones over its territory without official permission.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said his government raised the issue with the US as it considers operating drones without its consent to be an act of aggression.

The spokesman also mentioned that the alleged killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the al-Qaeda network, is still a claim, and “the investigation has not yet been finalized.”

On August 1, US President Joe Biden announced that Zawahiri was killed in a “precision” strike in Kabul, where the terrorist mastermind had, as Washington claimed, moved to “reunite with members of his immediate family.”

Under the Doha peace deal which was struck between the US and the Taliban in 2020, the group reportedly agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in areas under their control.

According to media reports, al-Zawahiri had been in charge of the terror group al-Qaeda since 2011.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercises raises alarms in Pyongyang

By Ahmed Adel | August 25, 2022

South Korea and the United States began the joint Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) military exercises on August 22, resuming large-scale field training after a four-year pause. Following the Singapore summit in 2018 between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and then US President Donald Trump, joint land exercises were cancelled and the scale of the UFS exercises was significantly reduced. However, with US President Joe Biden in power and the consequential destabilisation because of Washington’s desperate attempt to maintain a unipolar order, these exercises have resumed.  

Trump tried to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program as a shield to ensure its security. An important basis for this US decision was the policy of then-South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who actively established dialogue with North Korea. Incumbent President of South Korea Yoon Suk-yeol has reviewed inter-Korean relations and promised to carry out regular military drills and strengthen his country’s missile defence capabilities. As a result, South Korea fully resumed joint military exercises with the US.

Western media reported that this year’s UFS exercise includes a series of drills in specific hypothetical situations, modelled on an all-out war, simulating joint attacks, as well as operations such as supplying weapons and fuel to the front, and moving weapons of mass destruction. In the past, the US and South Korea mobilised tens of thousands of troops and a large number of aircraft, warships and tanks to participate in similar exercises. 

According to a shared statement, South Korea and the US are holding these drills in response to North Korea, which has increased the number and scale of missile tests over the past year. North Korea is not a credible threat to the US though and is unlikely to attack South Korea unprovoked, meaning that their missile tests are a demonstration of its defensive capabilities. 

North Korea traditionally views joint US-South Korean military exercises as preparations for an invasion, a legitimate concern since it was the US who internationalised the Korean Civil War that has kept the peninsula divided ever since.  

The joint US-South Korean military exercises are sure to provoke an outraged response from Pyongyang. Although Pyongyang can limit itself to harsh rhetoric, the recent cruise missile launches are a pre-emptive response to the US-South Korean military drills. In general, the provocative exercises have pushed tensions to a new level.

At the meeting on August 9 in the Chinese city of Qingdao, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his South Korean counterpart Park Jin exchanged views on the latest situation on the Korean Peninsula and how to resolve tensions. At that time, the date and scope of the UFS exercise were announced. It is possible that this caused the Chinese side to voice their concerns about the US-South Korea exercise plan and the possible impact it can have on stability in Northeast Asia. 

After the talks, the South Korean minister asked Beijing to play a constructive role in persuading Pyongyang to choose dialogue over a military response. At the same time, Park Jin acknowledged that peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula is facing unprecedented challenges, but without acknowledging this was at his own country’s behest as it continually invites a non-regional actor to interfere in affairs. 

For his part, Wang Yi called Pyongyang and Seoul as the two real masters of the Korean peninsula, making it clear that China expects South Korea to make responsible decisions regarding bilateral relations and without outside influence. But, this year’s UFS military exercise shows that Seoul is not ready to act confidently and independently.

It appears that the current US-influenced South Korean government is incapable of managing the security situation on the Korean peninsula. This concerns China as it already faces US provocations regarding Taiwan and it does not want another major flashpoint opened on its border.

The North Korean government regularly asks China to play a constructive role. South Korean leaders are well aware that, in fact, China is the only country with some kind of leverage and influence over Pyongyang. In general, Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration does not want to increase confrontation with China, but at the same time acts as a US lackey towards North Korea.

Yoon Suk-yeol tried to avoid trouble and repeatedly reassured that South Korea’s participation in some American initiatives was not directed against China. South Korea wants to join US economic initiatives, but this always comes at a price of serving American geopolitical interests. 

During his talks with his South Korean counterpart, Wang Yi affirmed that China supports the improvement of North-South relations, adheres to a two-way phased approach, and promotes denuclearisation and building a peace mechanism on the peninsula. 

But just because Chinese concerns may be acknowledged, it does not mean that North Korea feels anymore relaxed about the provocative exercises. In fact, given the context of the US instigating war in Ukraine and attempting to destabilise the Taiwan Straits, Pyongyang has very legitimate concerns with Washington’s intentions on the Korean peninsula. 

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Democrats and Republicans Pretend They Have Massive, Unbridgeable Differences So They Can Unite Seamlessly on War

Bernie and Lindsey share a moment of collegiality. Photo by Matt Stone via Getty Images
By Michael Tracey | August 24, 2022

After endless rounds of Hamlet-style legislative tedium, Congressional Democrats finally muscled through a $430 billion spending bill this month which deals with a smattering of their domestic policy priorities. Because Republicans opposed the bill en masse, and Democrats supported it en masse, one might look at this development and conclude that standard-fare partisanship is just as indelible a feature of US politics as it’s ever been. After all, the partisan affiliation of Senators and House members was perfectly predictive of their voting behavior vis-a-vis the “Inflation Reduction Act.” When the rubber hits the road, it turns out Republicans and Democrats really do have competing, irreconcilable interests — right?

Thanks to these occasional instances of classically polarized partisan sausage-making, elected officials and media operatives can claim at least some basis for their frantic insistence that some titanic gulf separates the two parties. The ever-presence of bi-directional Culture War agitation can heighten this impression — upon which it always becomes existentially crucial that one or the other party gets put into power at the next election. Make sure to vote in the upcoming Midterms, because these Midterms just happen to be the most consequential Midterms of all time, at least since the 2018 Midterms. The fate of humanity hinges on whether Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, didn’t you know?

On the other hand, if you’re one of the vanishingly few Americans who’d like to think that your vote this year could meaningfully alter the course of US foreign policy, you’re bound for disappointment. Because even as both parties tried to make it seem like the “Inflation Reduction Act” vividly demonstrated the intractable differences between them, they were simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite: that at least in regards to another set of issues which genuinely are “existential,” in that they impinge on such matters as whether you’re likely to get incinerated in a large radiation blast anytime soon, there is almost no meaningful distance at all between Democrats and the GOP. Over time, if anything, whatever distance might have previously existed has meaningfully shrunk. Because with limited and marginalized exceptions, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly functioning as a unified bloc on the questions which most centrally bear on America’s posture as a global military and economic hegemon. As that posture becomes more fraught and antagonistic across multiple theaters, the two parties have become more and more ardent in constricting the range of acceptable debate. Democrats may spend the bulk of their time on social media or in front of TV cameras piously shrieking that the empowerment of Republicans would guarantee the implosion of “democracy,” and Republicans may make funhouse-mirror versions of the same argument. But this phony baloney two-way theater obscures just how much their worldviews have converged.

Earlier this month, the Senate approved the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO by a vote of 95-1 — formalizing the process by which those two countries have opted to repudiate their historic doctrines of military neutrality. (Finland is abandoning the precedent it adhered to throughout the entirety of the Cold War, while Sweden is abandoning the precedent it has adhered to since the reign of Napoleon.) Speaking from the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) joyously declared how “glad” he was that NATO enlargement is something “we can all pretty much agree on.” In a touching moment, Carper noted that he had both the “same initials” and the “same views” on the subject as his colleague Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) — perhaps the most ideologically zealous interventionist in the Senate. Cotton also happens to be one of the few remaining US political figures of any notoriety who’s still refused to budge in his conviction that it was a really great idea for George W. Bush to invade Iraq. And unless he just happens to have an unusually specific fondness for Iowa and New Hampshire, Cotton is clearly preparing to run for president — so it should bring Democrats great pleasure that someone they’re in such fundamental agreement with is gearing up to throw his hat in the ring.

“Probably one of the easiest votes I’ll ever make in the United States Senate,” announced Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), who seemed particularly appreciative that he barely had to give the Finland/Sweden issue more than a moment’s thought. “John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate,” chimed in Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). And indeed, there’s little doubt that McCain would have reason to celebrate from beyond the grave: the US political class, whatever their surface-level partisan or factional disagreements, is barreling toward unshakable “unity” on the expansion of US hegemonic power, now arrayed with growing fervor against the reviled tandem of Russia and China. One of McCain’s favorite themes was always “unity,” but a peculiar kind of “unity” whose purpose was mainly to facilitate wars.

Even the lone senator who did vote against the accession of Finland and Sweden this month, Josh Hawley (R-MO), did so on grounds that made abundantly clear he had no objection on principle to the expansion of NATO — much less to the accelerated deployment of coercive US power around the world. What he objected to was simply that expanding NATO at this juncture reflected ineffectual resource allocation, as Hawley preferred that whatever the US may now be obliged to expend in Scandinavia should instead be expended in East Asia, to prepare for an allegedly looming war with China. Hawley stressed that he opposed bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO only insofar as it would be a hindrance to the US implementing “a coherent strategy for stopping China’s dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan.”

Hawley explained, “Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be,” whether because “we don’t have enough advanced munitions” or because the current fleet of US attack submarines is “sinking.” Fundamentally, Hawley argued, the US is “simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts.” And his objection to NATO expansion boils down to a preference for “handling” a conflict in the Pacific over one in Europe — not, it should be noted, a preference for mitigating conflict in the first place. But even going by his own stated rationale, it’s unclear what the operating principle is for Hawley: in 2019, he voted for the accession of well-known military powerhouse North Macedonia to NATO. All that’s seemingly changed in the interim is that Hawley has taken to framing his views more in terms of opposing what he calls a “globalist foreign policy” — which somehow coincides with his advocacy for dramatically ramping up US militarization on the other side of the globe in East Asia.

Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), among the dwindling group of national politicians one might expect to raise at least a perfunctory objection to NATO expansion, conceded during the Senate debate this month: “In this new world I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion.”

It wasn’t always this way. In 1998, 19 senators voted against the accession to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — not enough to prevent the proposal from obtaining the required two-thirds majority, but enough to at least prompt a reasonably robust debate, one which far exceeded the pittance that accompanied this month’s vote. Figures as high-profile as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Hillary Clinton’s predecessor, argued against NATO expansion on the floor of the Senate in extremely stark terms: Moynihan declared his opposition stemmed from a keen wariness about “the dangers of nuclear war in the years ahead,” and said NATO expansion needlessly “put ourselves at risk of getting into a nuclear engagement, a nuclear war, with Russia — wholly unanticipated, for which we are not prepared, about which we are not thinking.”

Moynihan’s primary sparring partner during that 1998 debate was none other than Joe Biden, then the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who appointed himself point-person for the entire process of shepherding NATO expansion through the necessary procedural formalities. In fact, Biden’s conviction in the eternal virtue of NATO expansion seems to be one of the few positions he’s held consistently over the course of his comically long, decades-spanning career. That first round of expansion in 1998, Biden declared at the time, would mark “the beginning of another 50 years of peace” — a prophecy that today some might quibble with.

Though he didn’t succeed, Moynihan’s opposition showed it wasn’t an automatic career-ender to be associated with skepticism of this particular strand of US military expansionism — nor was raising concerns about the specter of nuclear war considered contemptibly “cringe.” Moynihan remained a highly revered figure among his colleagues; a new expansion of Penn Station in NYC was even just named after him last year. With a hot war raging today in Ukraine, in which the US is effectively the leading co-combatant against Russia, the risk of nuclear war is much more acute than when Moynihan warned about it 24 years ago. But almost no political figure of any prominence even appears to be “thinking” about the matter anymore. Indulge in such “thinking,” and you’re liable to be denounced as a Putin agent for your trouble, and/or field a barrage of angry accusations that you’re somehow in league with right-wing “insurrectionists.”

A few who voted against NATO expansion in 1998 are still in the Senate, like Pat Leahy (D-VT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — all of whom just supported Finland/Sweden accession this month, apparently without a second thought. (Leahy, at age 82, was technically absent for the vote due to hip problems.) Even Harry Reid (D-NV), who’d later become the Senate Majority Leader and therefore presumably could not be dismissed as some fringe agitator, voted against NATO expansion in 1998. There were weeks of formal debate back then — Senators actually engaged one another directly with arguments and counter-arguments, an extreme rarity in an otherwise stultified environment. And while Biden’s side prevailed, there was at least some notional sense that another “side” existed. Today, there is functionally just one “side,” with politicians flocking in unison to install another 830 miles of NATO “security umbrella” (by way of Finland) right smack dab on the border with Russia. This would’ve been almost unthinkable in 1998, even for the most ardent NATO expansion advocates — but today the move was swiftly ratified with hardly a critical word uttered.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was in the House at the time, not the Senate, and therefore did not specifically vote on the provision to amend the NATO treaty. But in 1997 he made a point to put some observations on the record concerning a concurrent measure that set the groundwork for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join NATO (which ultimately happened in 2004, thanks to the friendly bipartisan cooperation of Biden and George W. Bush). Sanders asked on the floor of the House: “First of all, Russia clearly perceives that the expansion of NATO into the Baltics would be an aggressive, wholly unjustifiable move by the United States… since the Cold War is over, why are we militarily provoking Russia?”

Today, Bernie is essentially mute on the subject — except when he votes unfalteringly in favor of the latest NATO-related initiative, such as the Finland/Sweden measure this month, or the $40 billion Ukraine war funding bill in May. And for the most part, he can’t even be bothered to explain his reasoning — which in a way is understandable, since it’s not like there’s some steady drumbeat of “progressive” activists/media holding his feet to the fire on these issues. Could figures who opposed NATO expansion in 1998 theoretically argue that conditions in 2022 have changed so radically that they’ve in turn changed their position? Yes, they could theoretically argue that. But they’re barely even asked to justify their positions, as the near-total eradication of any dissension on the matter has given way to an impenetrable consensus, such that no justification need be given.

The Washington Post was candid in 1998 about the reasons “approval was virtually assured” for NATO expansion, notwithstanding the minority of opposition led by Moynihan. “Pressure from ethnic constituencies and the prospect of new markets for the American defense industry at a time of shrinking US demand,” the newspaper reported, had already sealed the deal. Try mentioning either of those factors in polite company today with regard to the current posture of US foreign policy in Eastern Europe. You’ll probably find you’d prefer to stick with more standard-fare squabbling about things like the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Is Russia limiting gas flows to Europe?

Gas pipelines form Russia to Europe (Welt)
Swiss Policy Research | August 2022

Is Russia limiting gas flows to Europe? The surprising answer is: no.

Many people in Europe and the US seem to believe that Russia, in response to Western sanctions, has been limiting gas flows to Europe. Yet this is not the case.

There are currently five major pipelines that supply – or could supply – Russian gas to Europe: Nord Stream I and Nord Stream II through the Baltic Sea to Germany; the Jamal pipeline through Poland to Germany; the Soyuz and Brotherhood pipelines through Ukraine; and the TurkStream pipeline through the Black Sea and Turkey to Southeast and Central Europe (see the map above).

All of these pipelines are currently out of service or run at limited capacity, though not because of Russian retaliation, but because of Western sanctions or political decisions:

  • The Jamal pipeline is closed because Poland has terminated the operational agreement with Russia (after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and to become independent of Russian gas).
  • The Soyuz pipeline – which accounts for about one third of the gas delivered through Ukraine – has been closed by Ukraine after LPR forces took control of the gas compressor station.
  • Nord Stream I runs at limited capacity because Canadian and EU sanctions have prevented the repair and return of a Siemens gas compressor turbine.
  • Nord Stream II was completed in late 2021 but has never entered service due to US political pressure on Germany; Germany canceled certification of the pipeline on February 22.
  • TurkStream – which in 2014 replaced the South Stream project – remains operational, but because of EU sanctions, Bulgaria has denied euro payment to the Russian Gazprom Bank. In contrast, Hungary has defied EU sanctions and continues to receive gas through TurkStream.

There is also a widespread misconception that Russia demanded “payment in rubles” to retaliate against Western sanctions. Yet this is not the case, either. Instead, after Western sanctions against the Russian central bank froze about $300 billion in Russian foreign exchange reserves, Russia decided that euro and dollar payments for gas have to be made to an account at Russian Gazprom Bank and will then be converted into rubles by the Russian central bank (to avoid seizure by the US/EU).

Why is Russia not (yet) actively limiting or stopping gas flows to Europe? Simply because Russia is interested in earning revenue from gas exports, being seen as a reliable supplier, and avoiding further escalation of the Ukraine conflict and direct confrontation with NATO countries. However, Russia did put pressure on Kazakhstan to prevent Kazakh oil exports via Turkey instead of Russia.

Why then is Europe jeopardizing its own gas supply through sanctions against Russia? The initial goal likely was to cripple Russian export revenues and the Russian economy. Yet this has largely failed as international oil and gas prices have risen to record highs. Thus, Russian oil and gas revenue has actually increased since the outbreak of the Ukraine war (though tech sanctions are still biting).

However, the Western response can only really be understood from a US perspective, not from a European perspective. From a US perspective, cutting off Russian gas flows to Europe is a means to isolating Russia, pressuring Europe into supporting the US proxy war in Ukraine, and forcing Europe to switch to American or Arab LNG gas supplies. The most obvious example of this strategy is the Nord Stream II pipeline, which the US blocked despite a German-Russian agreement.

More broadly, the US role in Ukraine is to be seen in the context of the US strategy in Eurasia. Back in June, former US Secretary of State and former CIA director, Mike Pompeo, explained in a speech at the Hudson Institute: “By aiding Ukraine, we undermined the creation of a Russian-Chinese axis bent on exerting military and economic hegemony in Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East. This would further devastate the lives of Americans and our economy here at home. () We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China.”

In spite of reduced Russian gas flows, most European countries – including Germany – will still reach their gas storage target levels for the winter season, though at significantly higher market prices. This has already led to some bizarre situations, such as Germany’s largest fertilizer producer having to halt production, while fertilizer shortfalls are being replaced by imports from Russia, which have been exempted from sanctions.

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Journalists who challenge NATO narratives are now ‘information terrorists’

By Vanessa Beeley | The Wall Will Fall | August 23, 2022

A US state department sponsored round table on ‘countering disinformation’ was recently held at the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.

According to the press release – “NGOs, mass media and international experts” took part in the round table discussions. Delegates discussed ‘disinformation methods’ used in Ukraine and abroad. On the agenda was legal and state prevention of ‘fakes and disinformation in the context of cyber security’.

Andrii Shapovalov, head of the Ukrainian Centre for Combatting Disinformation emphasized that those who ‘deliberately spread disinformation are information terrorists’. Shapovalov recommended changes to the legislation to crack down on these terrorists – reminiscent of the pre-WW2 Nazi Germany suppression of media and information channels. Shapovalov determined that ‘information terrorists should know that they will have to answer to the law as war criminals’.

It goes without saying that the crushing of dissent is essential for public support for NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine to be maintained. Russian media has already been wiped from the Western-controlled internet sphere. Ukrainian ‘kill lists’ such as the infamous Myrotvorets already include the courageous Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett and outspoken Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters.

Bartlett was also doxxed on Twitter by former UK Conservative Party MP Louise Mensch who alerted Ukrainian Special Forces to her presence in Donetsk. A few days later an attack was carried out on the hotel in Donetsk housing multiple journalists including Bartlett – coincidence?

German journalist Alina Lipp has been effectively sanctioned and threatened with prosecution by the German government for reporting on the daily atrocities committed by Ukrainian Nazi forces against civilians in Donetsk and Lughansk. Lipp told Stalkerzone :

“They just closed my bank account. Then they closed my father’s account. A month ago, I noticed that all the money disappeared from my account – 1,600 euros. I realised that something was happening in Germany. A few days ago, I received a notification from the prosecutor’s office, and a criminal case was opened against me for supporting the special operation. In Germany, special operations are considered a crime, and I am also a criminal. I face three years in prison or a huge fine.”

British journalist Graham Philips has illegally been sanctioned by the UK regime without any investigation or Philips being given a ‘right to reply’. Most mainstream media reports on this violation of his human rights describe Philips as ‘one of the most prominent pro-Kremlin online conspiracy theorists’. A familiar smear deployed by NATO-aligned media outlets to dehumanise and discredit challenging voices.

Philips like many other journalists being targeted lives in Donbass which has been threatened with brutal ethnic cleansing by the NATO proxy Ukrainian Nazi and ultra-nationalist forces since Washington’s Victoria Nuland- engineered coup in 2014.

These journalists transmit the voices of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who have been subjected to horrendous war crimes, torture, detention and persecution for eight years and ignored by the West. For this they are now to be designated ‘information terrorists’ – because they expose terrorism sanctioned by NATO member states.

Organisations are springing up in the UK like Molfar Global whose ‘Book of Orcs’ project employs 200 alleged volunteers to identify ‘Russian (Orcs) war criminals’ and to compile a legal ‘kill list’. The ‘Orc’ terminology is another dehumanisation process, converting Russian citizens and military into fantasy science fiction monsters to soften western publics to the measures being taken to silence and punish them for… being Russian or speaking Russian. They state on their website homepage:

“Every Russian occupier must be identified and punished according to the law. War crimes and and crimes against Humanity have no statute of limitations. That is why we set ourselves the goal of finding everyone and preventing them from escaping justice”

Who determines who should be put on the list? Who determines their fate? What justice? In a country like Ukraine steeped in corruption – where executions or the disappearance of dissidents and political or media opposition is a regular occurrence – who is to be made accountable for action taken against those listed on the ‘Orc hit list’? This is lawless justice that falls under the umbrella of US “rules based global governance” – comply or die and newly furnished legislation will make your death or state-sanctioned assassination a legal one.

The organisers of the round table were the National Security Service Academy, the US State Department/Department of Defence-funded Civilian Research and Development Fund (CRDF Global Urkaine), the International Academy of Information, the US state department-linked National Cyber Security Cluster.

The tentacles of US and UK dominated intelligence agencies are spreading further and deeper into society trying to strangle kick back against their respective regime oppressive domestic policies and foreign policy perpetual war objectives. We are all under attack, we are all facing the same fate as Julian Assange if we do not break the cycle and start to fight back.

If you oppose imperialist wars, racism, Nazism, terrorism, violent extremism, global health tyranny, technocratic supremacy, predator class elitism and pharmaceutical-controlled Eugenics- you are a ‘terrorist’. We are all ‘terrorists’.

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

US Carries Out Airstrikes Targeting “Iranian-Backed” Groups in Syria

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 23, 2022

US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced it carried out airstrikes in Syria on Tuesday. The Department of Defense claims the bombs hit facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and were in retaliation for an attack on US personnel in Syria.

The CENTCOM press release asserts that Iranian-supported groups attacked US forces in Syria on August 15, and Tuesday’s bombing was necessary to protect American troops. “Today’s strikes were necessary to protect and defend US personnel. The United States took proportionate, deliberate action intended to limit the risk of escalation and minimize the risk of casualties,” the Pentagon said.

A Pentagon statement on August 15 said a US base in al-Tanf, Syria, was attacked by a series of drones causing no damage or injuries. There was no claim of responsibility for the attack. The White House has not provided evidence that an Iranian-backed group carried out the attack.

The US occupies about a third of Syrian territory with 900 troops. Washington claims its forces remain in Syria to ensure the enduring defeat of the Islamic State. However, Iranian-backed groups support the government of Bashar al-Assad, an avowed enemy of ISIS. In recent months, ISIS has carried out several attacks against Assad’s forces, killing scores of soldiers.

President Joe Biden asserted he had Constitutional authority to carry out the strikes. “The President gave the direction for these strikes pursuant to his Article II authority to protect and defend US personnel by disrupting or deterring attacks by Iran-backed groups,” the press release said.

While Article II may give Biden the power to defend US troops, Congress has never passed a declaration of war or authorization of military force for Syria. Without Congressional authorization, three successive American presidents bombed Syria.

The strikes also come as Washington and Tehran have made significant progress towards reviving the Iran nuclear agreement. The US and Iran have been engaged in indirect talks for over a year. Reuters reported Monday that Tehran had dropped two key demands, paving the way for a deal that would see the US and Iran return to compliance with the nuclear deal.

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Biden celebrates Ukraine’s independence day with biggest arms package yet

Samizdat | August 24, 2022

US President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that the US will send an additional $2.98 billion worth of weapons to Ukraine. In an announcement coinciding with Ukraine’s Independence Day, Biden said that the US envisions Kiev fighting for some time to come.

According to a White House statement, Ukraine will receive “air defense systems, artillery systems and munitions, counter-unmanned aerial systems, and radars to ensure it can continue to defend itself over the long term.”

On Tuesday, US officials told the Associated Press, Reuters and CBS that the package would include at least three different drone systems, such as the hand-launched Puma drone, the longer-range ScanEagle surveillance vehicle, as well as the UK-made Vampire drone, which has not previously been provided to Kiev.

Referencing Ukraine’s independence day, which celebrates its split from the Soviet Union in 1991, Biden said that “today is not only a celebration of the past, but a resounding affirmation that Ukraine proudly remains – and will remain – a sovereign and independent nation.” Given his vow to support the Ukrainian military “over the long term,” and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s declaration on Tuesday that the alliance would back Kiev “for as long as it takes,” Biden evidently plans for the conflict to be a long one.

However, several US media outlets reported on Tuesday that the contents of Wednesday’s arms package may not reach the battlefield for months or even years. Unnamed US officials told the Associated Press that Washington expects Ukrainian forces “to fight for years to come.”

Bankrolling the Ukrainian military has been a costly endeavor for the US. With the American economy wracked by inflation and rising energy costs, the Biden administration has thus far committed more than $54 billion in military and economic aid to Kiev since February.

Meanwhile in Ukraine, Russia continues to advance on Ukrainian positions in the south of the country and on the borders of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, where Kiev has spent the last eight years building a network of bunkers and fortifications. While Ukraine does not publish casualty figures, President Vladimir Zelensky said earlier this summer that 60 to 100 Ukrainian soldiers were being killed in Donbass on a daily basis, with another 500 injured.

August 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »