Posts Tagged ‘Ukraine’
Where Are the National Intelligence Estimates? Seymour Hersh, April 30, 2024
Posted on: May 18, 2024
Congress just passed an enormous aid package for wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but the White House is ignoring news it does not want to hear
It has been a triumphant fortnight for the Biden White House.
First the House and then the Senate overcame meek opposition and at last voted to pass foreign aid bills worth more than $95 billion that include military funding to continue Ukraine’s war against Russia and Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
The vote was praised by America’s newspapers:
a New York Times report said that the issue before Congress was whether the United States “would continue to play a leading role in upholding the international order and projecting its values globally.”
The Associated Press channeled the House leadership, calling the vote “a turning point in history—an urgent sacrifice as US allies are beleaguered by wars and threats from continental Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific.”
Twenty-Eight Republicans Tell Biden They’re Against More Ukraine Aid Amid Zelensky Visit
The pleasure in the vote shared by the White House and Congress, and the mainstream press’s enthusiasm, were more than a little off-putting to those with memories of past wars.
Billions of American taxpayer dollars are going to support a war in Ukraine that many believe cannot be won, and perhaps could easily be settled, with more billions going to support the war in Gaza that could cost Biden thousands of votes in contested states where there is intense opposition to the ongoing Israeli attacks.
But there was much more to the legislation, officially known as the “Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act 2024,” that did not make it into congressional debate or the reporting about it.
At least 14 of the specific procurement requests for funding Ukraine’s military needs, including weapons, intelligence support, general operations and maintenance provided by American taxpayers, called for the president and his secretaries of state and defense to report to Congress about what was done and when within a given time period.
The reality is that such requirements are almost always ignored at the time they are due and usually fulfilled months later by junior officials in the State Department and the Pentagon, with the questions and answers there for all—that is, almost no one—to read.
But the questions posed in the bill remind some in the American intelligence community of the sorts of deeper issues that were formerly raised by a one-time staple: National Intelligence Estimates.
NIEs are produced on request from the president and his senior policymakers by a team of National Intelligence Officers at work at America’s senior intelligence office, the National Intelligence Council.
These men and women are scholars in their fields and are committed to supplying non-political assessments. They are housed at CIA headquarters but are known to be fiercely independent.
I was told that the president and his top national security aides, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, have yet to request a study that delves deeply into any of the international crises of the day: the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Read the full article on the author’s Substack.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Le Premier ministre slovaque évoque la « conspiration von der Leyen-Pfizer »
Posted on: May 11, 2024
dans Bioéthique, Santé et Science — par Pierre-Alain Depauw — 4 mai 2024
Le Premier ministre slovaque Robert Fico et le parlement slovaque parlent ouvertement de la « conspiration von der Leyen-Pfizer », le contrat controversé entre la Commission européenne et le géant pharmaceutique.
L’accord oblige la Slovaquie – comme tous les autres pays de l’UE – à transférer des millions d’euros à Pfizer d’ici 2026.
Il n’y a, a priori, pas d’échappatoire. Mais en raison du changement de gouvernement dans le pays, l’accord est au moins discuté et la nouvelle majorité gouvernementale essaie de trouver un moyen d’en sortir.
Des doses de “vaccin” inutiles, des millions d’euros perdus et des victimes par milliers
C’est peut-être la première fois qu’un chef de gouvernement s’exprime aussi ouvertement sur ce sujet. Devant le parlement slovaque, il est fait état de plus de 20, 000 victimes de la vaccination contre le Covid.
Et bien que, même dans le discours dominant, plus rien ne justifie que les États-nations aient encore besoin de doses de vaccin, ils sont obligés de continuer à acheter d’énormes quantités de fioles de Pfizer.
Robert Fico a déclaré :
« Bien que la Slovaquie n’ait pas eu besoin d’une seule dose de ce vaccin pour 2022, elle a reçu 6 millions de doses supplémentaires pour 151 millions d’euros. »
« En août 2023, 3,8 millions de vaccins stockés en Slovaquie auraient expiré.
Mais le fabricant (c’est-à-dire Pfizer, ndlr) a ensuite prolongé la date de péremption sans autre forme de procès – (une pratique qui a déjà été vue à de nombreuses reprises, ndlr) – jusqu’au printemps 2024. »
Le ministère slovaque des Finances reconnaît aujourd’hui que le pays a subi des dommages financiers considérables, ce qui aurait été impensable sous le précédent gouvernement gouvernement.
Reprenant les termes du Centre d’audit, le ministre a été clair : « Nous avons souligné le danger que d’importants fonds publics soient utilisés pour acheter des vaccins contre le Covid-19, dont la Slovaquie n’a en fait pas besoin. »
Le Premier ministre slovaque a parlé non seulement des enquêtes contre Ursula von der Leyen et la Commission européenne – un fait trop souvent dissimulé dans les grands médias – mais aussi des victimes de la vaccination et du traitement du Covid :
« Quelqu’un a gagné beaucoup d’argent. Et comme si cela ne suffisait pas, 20 000 personnes ont également été tuées. »
Pierre-Alain Depauw
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an exclusive interview published by Rossiya 1 and RIA Novosti on Wednesday:
The era of Western elites being able to exploit other nations by the so-called “golden billion” and other peoples across the world is coming to an end,
The president stated that over the past few centuries, the so-called “golden billion” has grown accustomed to being able to “fill their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money” as they have been “parasitizing” other peoples in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
”But they must understand that the vampire ball is ending,”
He added that the citizens of the aforementioned regions, which have been continuously exploited by the West over the past 500 years, have started to associate Russia’s struggle for sovereignty with “their own aspirations for sovereignty and independent development.”
At the same time, Putin noted that Western elites have a very strong desire to “freeze the current situation” and preserve the “unjust state of affairs in international affairs.”
Previously, in his keynote address to Russia’s Federal Assembly last month, Putin stated that the West, with its “colonial habits” of “igniting national conflicts all over the world,” intends to do everything it can to stall Russia’s development and turn it, as it did Ukraine, into a dying failed state.
”In place of Russia, they want a dependent, withering, dying space, where they can do whatever, they want,” he said.
The president followed up on those comments in Wednesday’s interview, stating that many Western elites, who have been “blinded by their Russophobia” were “thrilled” when they were able to push Russia to the point where it had to launch its military offensive in Ukraine in order to end the war unleashed by the West in 2014.
”They were even happy, I think, because they believed that now they would finish us off using a barrage of sanctions, having practically declared a sanctions war against us, and with the help of Western weapons in the hands of Ukrainian nationalists,” said Putin, suggesting that this mindset was behind Western calls to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield.”
Now, the West appears to have realized that defeating Russia in this way is not only unlikely, but impossible due to the unity of its people, the fundamental foundations and stability of its economy and the growing potential of its military, the president said.
”Those who are smarter” have now come to the conclusion that it is necessary to change their strategy in relation to Russia, Putin surmised.
The EU want a war against Russia in order to finalizes and strengthens its centralized dictatorship tendencies.
Posted on: March 8, 2024
It has been experienced many times throughout history: A society “so-called democratic” creates a war in order to increase its army, reduce liberty and open the door wide for clientelism.
The USA is forcing the EU to get armed against Russia, the vast territory that extended its natural resources and wheat in order for the European countries to raise armies and fight against themselves for centuries.
The Centralization of the EU is aggravating these dictatorial tendencies and each country is trying to increase its military budget. The current farmers upheaval is countering more centralization power and toward the maintain of liberty.
L’UE veut sa guerre pour verrouiller sa dictature
Les Carnets de Nicolas Bonnal
lundi 26 février 2024
Le virage totalitaire de l’UE est ancien, il colle même à son ADN, et De Gaulle l’avait pressenti au moment de la commission Hallstein.
Jusque-là elle a été lente cette Europe pantagruélique et elle découvre comme Tocqueville que le meilleur moyen d’établir sa dictature est la guerre ; contre la Russie, comme pour Hitler ou Napoléon.
La Russie fournit l’adversaire idéal (vive la Pologne ou les pays baltes dont parlait déjà avec confiance Rumsfeld il y a vingt ans), et ce au moment où les insectes, les vaccins, les contraintes et l’esclavage numérique font leur apparition dans les cours de récréation sous l’œil bienveillant et malthusien de la cité totalitaire et affairiste de Davos.
Tocqueville a bien traité de l’épineux problème de la guerre en démocratie (elles le sont toujours en guerre, voyez mon texte sur Athènes et la Guerre du Péloponnèse°. Et cela donne – dans ce qui devrait être le livre de chevet de tout le monde (Tome II, 3e partie, ch. XXII) :
Tocqueville ecrit: « Il n’y a pas de longue guerre qui, dans un pays démocratique, ne mette en grand hasard la liberté. Tous ceux qui cherchent à détruire la liberté dans le sein d’une nation démocratique doivent savoir que le plus sûr et le plus court moyen d’y parvenir est la guerre. »
Ici il est presque rassurant Tocqueville. On ne possède pas encore d’armée européenne (elle viendra cet été au moment des vacances après la réélection de l’Ursula ou de son successeur sinistre) :
« Après tout, et quoi qu’on fasse, une grande armée, au sein d’un peuple démocratique, sera toujours un grand péril ; et le moyen le plus efficace de diminuer ce péril, sera de réduire l’armée : mais c’est un remède dont il n’est pas donné à tous les peuples de pouvoir user. »
La clé de la guerre c’est la centralisation et l’accroissement du pouvoir civil ; Jouvenel reprendra cette argumentation dans son chapitre sur la guerre et le pouvoir (la démocratie s’adapte mieux à la guerre que les tyrannies ou les trop civilisées monarchies) :
« Le péril est d’une autre sorte. La guerre ne livre pas toujours les peuples démocratiques au gouvernement militaire ; mais elle ne peut manquer d’accroître immensément, chez ces peuples, les attributions du gouvernement civil ; elle centralise presque forcément dans les mains de celui-ci la direction de tous les hommes et l’usage de toutes les choses. Si elle ne conduit pas tout à coup au despotisme par la violence, elle y amène doucement par les habitudes. »
Stoltenberg et consorts nous ont promis une guerre ad absurdum, une guerre définitive (la population de l’Europe est déjà vieille et pauvre, et pas très équipée ou motivée) et éternelle, qui va durer trente ans alors que ni les conditions démographiques ou économiques, industrielles ou militaires, ne sont réunies. Mais le but est clair :
« Tous ceux qui cherchent à détruire la liberté dans le sein d’une nation démocratique doivent savoir que le plus sûr et le plus court moyen d’y parvenir est la guerre. C’est là le premier axiome de la science. Un remède semble s’offrir de lui-même, lorsque l’ambition des officiers et des soldats devient à craindre, c’est d’accroître le nombre des places à donner, en augmentant l’armée.
Ceci soulage le mal présent, mais engage d’autant plus l’avenir. Augmenter l’armée peut produire un effet durable dans une société aristocratique, parce que, dans ces sociétés, l’ambition militaire est limitée à une seule espèce d’hommes, et s’arrête, pour chaque homme, à une certaine borne ; de telle sorte qu’on peut arriver à contenter à peu près tous ceux qui la ressentent. »
La cour des ambitieux se précipite.
On voit à la télé française (je ne l’ai pas, on m’en parle) que les militaires, les journalistes et les politiciens adorent cette guerre contre la Russie comme ils adoraient celles contre l’Allemagne.
Ce n’est pas pour rien : on va en profiter de cette guerre en haut lieu (voyez l’Ukraine) pour se remplir les poches et se doter « des pleins pouvoirs républicains » :
« Mais chez un peuple démocratique on ne gagne rien à accroître l’armée, parce que le nombre des ambitieux s’y accroît toujours exactement dans le même rapport que l’armée elle-même.
Ceux dont vous avez exaucé les vœux en créant de nouveaux emplois sont aussitôt remplacés par une foule nouvelle que vous ne pouvez satisfaire, et les premiers eux-mêmes recommencent bientôt à se plaindre ;
car la même agitation d’esprit qui règne parmi les citoyens d’une démocratie se fait voir dans l’armée ; ce qu’on y veut, ce n’est pas de gagner un certain grade, mais d’avancer toujours.
Si les désirs ne sont pas très-vastes, ils renaissent sans cesse.
Un peuple démocratique qui augmente son armée ne fait donc qu’adoucir, pour un moment, l’ambition des gens de guerre ; mais bientôt elle devient plus redoutable, parce que ceux qui la ressentent sont plus nombreux. »
On répète quand même :
« Tous ceux qui cherchent à détruire la liberté dans le sein d’une nation démocratique doivent savoir que le plus sûr et le plus court moyen d’y parvenir est la guerre. »
Nous avons une guerre interminable contre le terrorisme et ce, alors que les USA sont les protecteurs de l’islam intégriste ; et nous avons cette guerre mortelle contre la Russie qui, avec le coup de la Grèce, prend un air de choc des civilisations dirigé contre l’orthodoxie.
Espérons qu’il y ait un Dieu pour les chrétiens que nous ne sommes plus. Mais je ne sens rien dans cette situation que nous n’ayons déjà vécu dans le passé.
Putin apolitical pragmatist subverted The Mainstream & Alternative Media’s Expectations: Putin Interview with Tucker
Posted on: February 12, 2024
ANDREW KORYBKO. FEB 9, 2024
He isn’t the monster or madman that the Mainstream Media portrays him as, though he also isn’t the anti-Western revolutionary mastermind that the Alt-Media Community claims either.
President Putin is simply an apolitical pragmatist that solely wants to preserve his country’s conservative-nationalist society, robustly develop its economy, and ensure its objective national security interests, all while cooperating with others in pursuit of mutual benefit.
Tucker’s interview with President Putin was preceded by the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the Alt-Media Community (AMC) alike hyping up their audiences with unrealistic expectations.
Both predicted that the Russian leader would spew a bunch of talking points, which the former described as propaganda while the latter speculated that they’d crush the West’s reputation, but both were proven wrong. Instead of a simple talk show, President Putin clarified from the start that this would be a serious conversation.
He didn’t waste any time proving his intent either, immediately jumping into a detailed historical review of what can be described as the ‘Ukrainian Question’ between Russia and Poland over the centuries, after which he segued into how this subject was addressed during the Soviet period.
The purpose in doing so was to comprehensively inform his audience of the context leading up to the special operation, taking care to explain each side’s motives and nuances in order for them to fully understand everything.
As he approached the end of the Old Cold War, President Putin then reaffirmed Russia’s sincere interests in cultivating a new era of relations with the West, pointing out that he even once asked Clinton if his country could join NATO and explored joint anti-missile cooperation with Bush Jr.
Both initiatives ultimately failed for reasons that he attributed to the American elite’s obsession with dominance, hinting throughout the interview that the CIA is the one that’s really calling the shots on foreign policy.
Instead of mutually beneficial cooperation, the US-led West continued pushing their subjectively defined zero-sum interests at the expense of Russia’s objective national ones, which took the form of expanding NATO eastward in violation of their word and trying to Balkanize Russia in the Northern Caucasus. (Russia agreed on the unity of Germany under the constraint of Not joining NATO)
Even so, President Putin kept pressing on with the vision that he admitted several months ago was naïve in hindsight, which manifested itself through Russia’s actions during “EuroMaidan” and afterwards.
He revealed that former Ukrainian President Yanukovich was told by him to stand down and not use serious force against the armed opposition at the time, being advised to go along with what he himself admitted was a coup through peaceful means via an impromptu round of anti-constitutional elections.
In response to his naivete, the CIA completed its armed coup plans despite Germany, France, and Poland acting as guarantors of the aforementioned agreement just the day prior.
That violent regime change prompted Crimea to democratically reunify with its historical homeland after the putschists vowed to oppress Russians, around which time Donbass rebelled and the Ukrainian Civil War broke out after Kiev bombed that region and invaded it.
Once again, President Putin preferred peace and pragmatism to war and ultimatums, opting for the Minsk Accords over all else even though the German and French leaders later admitted that they never intended to honor them.
This sequence of events as described by none other than President Putin himself contradicted the MSM and AMC’s expectations of him as a “monster, madman, or mastermind”, revealing him to actually be an apolitical pragmatist with no bloodlust, psychological instability, or ideological motivations whatsoever.
The only reason why he commenced the special operation was to ensure the integrity of his country’s national security red lines in Ukraine after NATO clandestinely crossed them and refused to retreat.
There was never any ulterior agenda since he remains committed to the view put forth in his summer 2021 magnum opus that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people that only diverged in superficial ways as a result of external meddling throughout the centuries.
That’s why he sought to swiftly end the latest phase of the long-running conflict that his special operation was meant to end shortly after it began via the Istanbul peace process, only to once again be hoodwinked, with all due respect to him.
After President Putin ordered his troops to pull back from Kiev as a goodwill gesture for clinching the agreement that the Ukrainian delegation had already initialed, former British premier Johnson convinced them to scrap that detailed political-military pact in favor of continuing the fight.
Nevertheless, the Russian leader still said that he envisages a political end to the conflict, but reminded everyone that Ukraine must first repeal its legislation banning talks with Moscow in order for this to happen.
The world will never be the same whenever this proxy war ends, however, since he believes that it dealt a powerful blow to America’s prior dominance.
In fact, a large degree of this was self-inflicted after its elite convinced decisionmakers to attempt to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, which was always a political fantasy.
To that end, they even weaponized the dollar, though this backfired by accelerating de-dollarization processes (including among American allies) that in turn undermine the basis of US power.
The emerging Multipolar World Order that’s taking shape should focus on collective security instead of separating into blocs, he said, and he hopes that international law as enshrined in the UN Charter will once again be respected by all with time.
AI and genetics should be regulated just like nuclear weapons, though there has to be mutual trust for that to happen, which is obviously lacking.
In the interim, pragmatic agreements are possible on other issues like spy swaps, but not much else is expected.
Everything that President Putin spoke about in his interview with Tucker, from the historical background of the ‘Ukrainian Question’ to details about the evolution of Russian policy as well as his interactions with American leaders, subverted the MSM and AMC’s expectations because it wasn’t simple talking points.
Quite the opposite, this was a series of master classes on those complex subjects that likely went over the heads of most, but it was still important to discuss for the sake of those who are interested.
The first takeaway for average viewers/readers is that American foreign policy is actually controlled by elite members of its permanent bureaucracy (‘deep state’) such as those in the CIA, not the President, since Clinton and Bush’s initial interests in cooperating with Russia were scuttled by that agency.
The second point is that foreign meddling in Ukraine turned the question of its people’s identity into a geopolitical weapon for weakening Russia, which wants to live in peace and prosperity with that country.
Third, President Putin only commenced his country’s special operation after feeling that the failure to do so would lead to irreversible security challenges that risked culminating with time in Russia’s Balkanization, which he explicitly claimed that the West is pursuing as a means of containing China.
The fourth point is that it’s this obsession with dominance among its policymaking elite (i.e. CIA) that’s responsible for destabilizing the world, with the final point being that he wants peace via diplomacy.
As was pointed out earlier, he isn’t the monster or madman that the MSM portrays him as, though he also isn’t the anti-Western revolutionary mastermind that the AMC claims either.
President Putin is simply an apolitical pragmatist that solely wants to preserve his country’s conservative-nationalist society, robustly develop its economy, and ensure its objective national security interests, all while cooperating with others in pursuit of mutual benefit. He’s neither a villain nor a hero, but just himself.
Note: Putin is a history storyteller. Americans do not know history (they don’t have any but the slaughtering OF THE ORIGINAL Indians), But Americans are a minor audience, nowadays.
Adonis Diaries 