All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a new report from the Oakland Institute, War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land, exposes the financial interests and the dynamics at play leading to further concentration of land and finance.

“Despite being at the center of news cycle and international policy, little attention has gone to the core of the conflict — who controls the agricultural land in the country known as the breadbasket of Europe. Answer to this question is paramount to understanding the major stakes in the war,” said Frédéric Mousseau, Oakland Institute’s Policy Director and co-author of the report.

The total amount of land controlled by oligarchs, corrupt individuals, and large agribusinesses is over nine million hectares — exceeding 28 percent of Ukraine’s arable land. The largest landholders are a mix of Ukrainian oligarchs and foreign interests — mostly European and North American as well as the sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia. Prominent US pension funds, foundations, and university endowments are invested through NCH Capital, a US-based private equity fund.

Several agribusinesses, still largely controlled by oligarchs, have opened up to Western banks and investment funds — including prominent ones such as Kopernik, BNP, or Vanguard — who now control part of their shares. Most of the large landholders are substantially indebted to Western funds and institutions, notably the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank.

Western financing to Ukraine in recent years has been tied to a drastic structural adjustment program that has required austerity and privatization measures, including the creation of a land market for the sale of agricultural land. President Zelenskyy put the land reform into law in 2020 against the will of the vast majority of the population who feared it would exacerbate corruption and reinforce control by powerful interests in the agricultural sector. Findings of the report concur with these concerns. While large landholders are securing massive financing from Western financial institutions, Ukrainian farmers — essential for ensuring domestic food supply — receive virtually no support. With the land market in place, amidst high economic stress and war, this difference of treatment will lead to more land consolidation by large agribusinesses.

The report also sounds the alarm that Ukraine’s crippling debt is being used as a leverage by the financial institutions to drive post-war reconstruction towards further privatization and liberalization reforms in several sectors, including agriculture.

“This is a lose-lose situation for Ukrainians. While they are dying to defend their land, financial institutions are insidiously supporting the consolidation of farmland by oligarchs and Western financial interests. At a time when the country faces the horrors of the war, the government and Western institutions must listen to the calls made by the Ukrainian civil society, academics, and farmers to suspend the land law and all land transactions. The necessity to prioritize an agricultural model no longer dominated by oligarchy and corruption, where land and resources are controlled by and benefit all Ukrainians, is the way forward for post war reconstruction,” Mousseau concluded.

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.

Featured image: View of the wheat field during the harvesting season near Krasne village, Ukraine July 5, 2019 © FAO / Anatolii Stepanov

Annex: War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land

By Frédéric Mousseau and Eve Devillers, The Oakland Institute

Executive Summary

The war in Ukraine has been at the center stage of foreign policy and media reports since February 2022. Little attention, however, has been given to a major issue, which is at the core of the conflict – who controls the agricultural land in the country known as the “breadbasket of Europe?”

This report addresses this gap – identifying the interests controlling Ukraine’s agricultural land and presenting an analysis of the dynamics at play around land tenure in the country. This includes the highly controversial land reform that took place in 2021 as part of the structural adjustment program initiated under the auspices of Western financial institutions, after the installation of a pro-European Union (EU) government following the Maidan Revolution in 2014.

With 33 million hectares of arable land, Ukraine has large swaths of the most fertile farmland in the world.1 Misguided privatization and corrupt governance since the early 1990s have concentrated land in the hands of a new oligarchic class. Around 4.3 million hectares are under large-scale agriculture, with the bulk, three million hectares, in the hands of just a dozen large agribusiness firms.2 In addition, according to the government, about five million hectares – the size of two Crimea – have been “stolen” by private interests from the state of Ukraine.3 The total amount of land controlled by oligarchs, corrupt individuals, and large agribusinesses is thus over nine million hectares, exceeding 28 percent of the country’s arable land. The rest is used by over eight million Ukrainian farmers.4

The largest landholders are a mix of oligarchs and a variety of foreign interests – mostly European and North American, including a US-based private equity fund and the sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia. All but one of the ten largest landholding firms are registered overseas, mainly in tax havens such as Cyprus or Luxembourg. Even when run and still largely controlled by an oligarch founder, a number of firms have gone public with Western banks and investment funds now controlling a significant amount of their shares.

The report identifies many prominent investors, including Vanguard Group, Kopernik Global Investors, BNP Asset Management Holding, Goldman Sachs-owned NN Investment Partners Holdings, and Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. A number of large US pension funds, foundations, and university endowments are also invested in Ukrainian land through NCH Capital – a US-based private equity fund, which is the fifth largest landholder in the country.

Most of these firms are substantially indebted to Western financial institutions, in particular the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the private sector arm of the World Bank. Together, these institutions have been major lenders to Ukrainian agribusinesses, with close to US$1.7 billion lent to just six of Ukraine’s largest landholding firms in recent years. Other key lenders are a mix of mainly European and North American financial institutions, both public and private. Not only does this debt gives creditors financial stakes in the operation of the agribusinesses, but also confers a significant level of leverage over them. This was evidenced by the debt restructuring of UkrLandFarming, one of Ukraine’s largest landholders, which involved creditors including the Export-Import agencies of the US, Canada, and Denmark, among others, and led to important orga- nizational changes including layoffs of thousands of workers.

This international financing directly benefits oligarchs, several of whom face accusations of fraud and corrupt dealings, as well as the foreign funds and firms associated as shareholders or creditors. Meanwhile, Ukrainian farmers have had to operate with limited amounts of land and financing, and many are now on the verge of poverty. Data shows that these farmers receive virtually no support compared to agribusinesses and oligarchs.5 The Partial Credit Guarantee Fund established by the World Bank to support small farmers is only US$5.4 million, a negligible amount compared to the billions channeled to large agribusinesses.6

In recent years, Western countries and institutions have provided massive military and economic assistance to Ukraine, which became the top recipient of US foreign aid – marking the first time since the Marshall Plan that a European country holds this top spot.7 As of December 2022, less than one year into the war, the US has allocated over US$113 billion to Ukraine, including US$65 billion of military aid,8 which is more than the entire budget of the State Department and USAID globally (US$58 billion).9

The report details how Western aid has been conditioned to a drastic structural adjustment program, which includes austerity measures, cuts in social safety nets, and the privatization of key sectors of the economy. A central condition has been the creation of a land market, put into law in 2020 under President Zelenskyy, despite opposition from a majority of Ukrainians fearing that it will exacerbate corruption in the agricultural sector and reinforce its control by powerful interests.

The findings of the report validate this concern, showing that the creation of a land market will likely further increase the amount of agricultural land in the hands of oligarchs and large agribusiness firms. The latter have already started expanding their access to land. Kernel has announced plans to increase its land bank to 700,000 hectares – up from 506,000 hectares in 2021.10 Similarly, MHP, which currently controls 360,000 hectares of land, seeks to expand its holdings to 550,000 hectares.11 MHP is also reportedly circumventing restrictions on the purchase of land by asking its employees to buy land and lease it to the company.12

Additionally, by supporting large agribusinesses, international financial institutions are in effect subsidizing the concentration of land and an industrial model of agriculture based on the intensive use of synthetic inputs, fossil fuels, and large-scale monocropping – long shown to be environmentally and socially destructive.13 By contrast, small scale farmers in Ukraine demonstrate resilience and a great potential for leading the expansion of a different production model based on agroecology, environmental sustainability, and the production of healthy food.14 It is Ukraine’s small and medium-sized farmers who guarantee the country’s food security whereas large agribusinesses are geared towards export markets.

In December 2022, a coalition of farmers, academics, and NGOs called on the Ukrainian government to suspend the 2020 land reform law and all market transactions of land during the war and post-war period, “in order to guarantee the national security and preservation of territorial integrity of the country in wartime and post-war reconstruction period.”15 As explained by Prof. Olena Borodina of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU), “Today, thousands of rural boys and girls, farmers, are fighting and dying in the war. They have lost everything. The processes of free land sale and purchase are increasingly liberalized and advertised. This really threatens the rights of Ukrainians to their land, for which they give their lives.”16

At a time of tremendous suffering and displacement, wherein countless lives have been lost and massive financial resources spent for the control of Ukraine, this report raises major concerns about the future of land and food production in the country, which is likely to become more consolidated and controlled by oligarchs and foreign interests.

These concerns are exacerbated by Ukraine’s staggering and growing foreign debt, contracted at the expense of the population’s living conditions as a result of the measures required under the structural adjustment program. Ukraine is now the world’s third-largest debtor to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)17 and its crippling debt burden will likely result in additional pressure from its creditors, bondholders, and international financial institutions on how post-war reconstruction – estimated to cost US$750 billion – should happen.18 These powerful actors have already been explicit that they will use their leverage to further privatize the country’s public sector and liberalize its agriculture.19

The end of the war should be the moment and opportunity for just the opposite, i.e. the redesign of an economic model no longer dominated by oligarchy and corruption, but where land and resources are controlled by and benefit all Ukrainians. This could form the basis for the transformation of the agricultural sector to make it more democratic and environmentally and socially sustainable. International policy and financial support should be geared towards this transformation, to benefit people and farmers rather than oligarchs and foreign financial interests.

Introduction

Ukraine has been at the center stage of foreign policy and media reports since the February 2022 Russian invasion, which has led to widespread destruction and tragic loss of lives. The country has been able to resist and push back on much of the Russian war efforts, largely due to the massive military and economic assistance from Europe and the US. In 2022, Ukraine became the top recipient of US foreign aid – marking the first time since the Marshall Plan that a European country holds this top spot.20 As of December 2022, less than one year into the war, US assistance alone amounted to over US$113 billion,21 nearly twice the entire budget of the State Department and USAID globally (US$58 billion).22

The war is seen by many as a threat to global food security given the importance of both Ukraine and Russia as major exporters of food and fertilizers. Though the rise in global food prices in 2022 was to a large extent due to speculation in world markets,23 concerns revolved around the fact that both countries are major food exporters, especially to a number of food deficit countries in the Global South. This led to the Black Sea Grain Initiative, an agreement signed in July 2022 under the auspices of the United Nations, which has permitted substantial food exports from the region to continue.24

Ukraine has large swaths of the most fertile farmland in the world. Known for its rich, black soil, it has 41 million hectares of agricultural land, 33 million hectares of which are arable – equivalent to one-third of all arable land in the European Union.25 Despite the concerns around food supply and constant monitoring of the fighting, little attention has gone to the issue at the core of the conflict – who actually controls the agricultural land in the country known as the “breadbasket of Europe?” This question is paramount to fully understand some of the major stakes in this war.

This report intends to answer this question. It first identifies the interests controlling agricultural land in Ukraine and then analyzes the dynamics at play around land tenure in recent years in the country. This includes the land reform in 2021 – a part of the structural adjustment program designed under the auspices of Western financial institutions. The report then analyzes the activities, agenda, and priorities of these institutions – increasingly involved in the financing of Ukrainian agriculture – as well as the impact of the war on landholding in the country.

Click here to read the full report.

Amidst Chaos of War, a New Report Exposes the Stealth Take-over of Ukrainian Agricultural Land

The original source of this article is The Oakland Institute

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/report-exposes-takeover-ukrainian-agricultural-land/5828453

Ammunition with depleted uranium has led to the contamination of land in Ukraine.
Depleted uranium has already set off a global information bomb. … «Barbarian attack» and contaminated lands for thousands of years. As a result of the use of such projectiles, a radioactive cloud is formed in the air, the particles of which enter the human body. The result is a bunch of diseases, including oncology

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis

«Adherence to UN 2030 Sustainability Agenda». Colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector.

By F. William Engdahl

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on November 16, 2022

***

Most people are bewildered by what is a global energy crisis, with prices for oil, gas and coal simultaneously soaring and even forcing closure of major industrial plants such as chemicals or aluminum or steel. The Biden Administration and EU have insisted that all is because of Putin and Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. This is not the case. The energy crisis is a long-planned strategy of western corporate and political circles to dismantle industrial economies in the name of a dystopian Green Agenda. That has its roots in the period years well before February 2022, when Russia launched its military action in Ukraine.

Blackrock pushes ESG

In January, 2020 on the eve of the economically and socially devastating covid lockdowns, the CEO of the world’s largest investment fund, Larry Fink of Blackrock, issued a letter to Wall Street colleagues and corporate CEOs on the future of investment flows. In the document, modestly titled “A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance”, Fink, who manages the world’s largest investment fund with some $7 trillion then under management, announced a radical departure for corporate investment. Money would “go green.” In his closely-followed 2020 letter Fink declared,

“In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant re-allocation of capital…Climate risk is investment risk.” Further he stated, “Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change.” [i]

In a separate letter to Blackrock investor clients, Fink delivered the new agenda for capital investing. He declared that Blackrock will exit certain high-carbon investments such as coal, the largest source of electricity for the USA and many other countries. He added that Blackrock would screen new investment in oil, gas and coal to determine their adherence to the UN Agenda 2030 “sustainability.”

Fink made clear the world’s largest fund would begin to disinvest in oil, gas and coal. “Over time,” Fink wrote, “companies and governments that do not respond to stakeholders and address sustainability risks will encounter growing skepticism from the markets, and in turn, a higher cost of capital.” He added that, “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects… we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” [ii]

From that point on the so-called ESG investing, penalizing CO2 emitting companies like ExxonMobil, has become all the fashion among hedge funds and Wall Street banks and investment funds including State Street and Vanguard. Such is the power of Blackrock. Fink was also able to get four new board members in ExxonMobil committed to end the company’s oil and gas business.

Image is by Michael Buholzer / Copyright WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM/swiss-image.ch

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

The January 2020 Fink letter was a declaration of war by big finance against the conventional energy industry. BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (the TCFD) and is a signatory of the UN PRI— Principles for Responsible Investing, a UN-supported network of investors pushing zero carbon investing using the highly-corrupt ESG criteria—Environmental, Social and Governance factors into investment decisions. There is no objective control over fake data for a company’s ESG. As well Blackrock signed the Vatican’s 2019 statement advocating carbon pricing regimes. BlackRock in 2020 also joined Climate Action 100, a coalition of almost 400 investment managers managing US$40 trillion.

With that fateful January 2020 CEO letter, Larry Fink set in motion a colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector. Notably, that same year BlackRock’s Fink was named to the Board of Trustees of Klaus Schwab’s dystopian World Economic Forum, the corporate and political nexus of the Zero Carbon UN Agenda 2030. In June 2019, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a strategic partnership framework to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. WEF has a Strategic Intelligence platform which includes Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

In his 2021 CEO letter, Fink doubled down on the attack on oil, gas and coal. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” Fink wrote. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.” ^[iii]

In just two years, by 2022 an estimated $1 trillion has exited investment in oil and gas exploration and development globally. Oil extraction is an expensive business and cut-off of external investment by BlackRock and other Wall Street investors spells the slow death of the industry.

Video: BlackRock, the Company that Owns the World

Biden—A BlackRock President?

Early in his then-lackluster Presidential bid, Biden had a closed door meeting in late 2019 with Fink who reportedly told the candidate that, “I’m here to help.” After his fateful meeting with BlackRock’s Fink, candidate Biden announced, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels…” In December 2020, even before Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, he named BlackRock Global Head of Sustainable Investing, Brian Deese, to be Assistant to the President and Director of the National Economic Council. Here, Deese, who played a key role for Obama in drafting the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, has quietly shaped the Biden war on energy.

This has been catastrophic for the oil and gas industry. Fink’s man Deese was active in giving the new President Biden a list of anti-oil measures to sign by Executive Order beginning day one in January 2021. That included closing the huge Keystone XL oil pipeline that would bring 830,000 barrels per day from Canada as far as Texas refineries, and halting any new leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Biden also rejoined the Paris Climate Accord that Deese had negotiated for Obama in 2015 and Trump cancelled.

The same day, Biden set in motion a change of the so-called “Social Cost of Carbon” that imposes a punitive $51 a ton of CO2 on the oil and gas industry. That one move, established under purely executive-branch authority without the consent of Congress, is dealing a devastating cost to investment in oil and gas in the US, a country only two years before that was the world’s largest oil producer.[iv]

Killing refinery capacity

Even worse, Biden’s aggressive environmental rules and BlackRock ESG investing mandates are killing the US refinery capacity. Without refineries it doesn’t matter how many barrels of oil you take from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In the first two years of Biden’s Presidency the US has shut down some 1 million barrels a day of gasoline and diesel refining capacity, some due to covid demand collapse, the fastest decline in US history. The shutdowns are permanent. In 2023 an added 1.7 million bpd of capacity is set to close as a result of BlackRock and Wall Street ESG disinvesting and Biden regulations. [v]

Citing the heavy Wall Street disinvestment in oil and the Biden anti-oil policies, the CEO of Chevron in June 2022 declared that he doesn’t believe the US will ever build another new refinery.[vi]

Larry Fink, Board member of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, is joined by the EU whose President of the EU Commission, the notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen left the WEF Board in 2019 to become EU Commission head. Her first major act in Brussels was to push through the EU Zero Carbon Fit for 55 agenda. That has imposed major carbon taxes and other constraints on oil, gas and coal in the EU well before the February 2022 Russian actions in Ukraine. The combined impact of the Fink fraudulent ESG agenda in the Biden administration and the EU Zero Carbon madness is creating the worst energy and inflation crisis in history.

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Notes

[i] Larry Fink, A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance, Letter to CEOs, January, 2020, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2020-blackrock-client-letter

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Tsvetana Paraskova, Why Are Investors Turning Their Backs On Fossil Fuel Projects?, OilPrice.com,

March 11, 2021, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Are-Investors-Turning-Their-Backs-On-Fossil-Fuel-Projects.html

[iv] Joseph Toomey, Energy Inflation Was by Design, September, 2022, https://assets.realclear.com/files/2022/10/2058_energyinflationwasbydesign.pdf

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Fox Business, Chevron CEO says there may never be another oil refinery built in the US, June 3. 2022, https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chevron-ceo-oil-refinery-built-u-s

The original source of this article is Global Research

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-blackrock-larry-fink-created-global-energy-crisis/5799286

History: Hitler was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

feature image: Hitler, Schacht and Prescott Bush

First published by Global Research in May 2016, Minor edits by Global Research. Title as in the original.

Incisive historical analysis.

From World War I to the Present: Dollar denominated debt has been the driving force behind all US led wars.

Wall Street creditors are the main actors. They were firmly behind Nazi Germany. They financed Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Rockefellers funded Hitler’s election campaign.

Wall Street also “appointed” the head of Germany’s Central Bank (Reichsbank).

Standard Oil of New Jersey provided crude oil to Nazi Germany throughout WWII

Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of Volkswagen.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 26, 2023

***

World War II: More than 80 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.

If we are to approach the problem of “responsibility for the war”, then we first need to answer the following key questions:

Who helped the Nazis come to power?
Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe?

The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which the world was plunged into in the wake of World War I.

The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out as a means to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany and its ability to control political processes in Central Europe.

To implement this strategy, the following stages were envisaged:

From 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
From 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for Nazism (“national socialism”);
From 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
From 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.

WWI “War Reparations”

In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with WWI war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations.

After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.

To solve this problem, creditor nations tried to impose extremely difficult conditions for the payment of war reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes which led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured German Marks.

The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.

The Anglo-American ruling elites, in order to take the initiative in their own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out:

“It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”

The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference.

Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”,which then recommended H. Schacht in consultation with Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England.

In December, 1923, H. Schacht became Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial elites.

In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with the stabilization of the German Mark.

One Bank to Rule Them All: The Bank for International Settlements

To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan.

While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country.

The Weimar Republic

By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for:

“the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”

The consequences of this were not slow to appear.

This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”.

The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt [were indebted] , and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country would suffer complete bankruptcy.

Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country.

The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.

The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller’s “Standard oil”.

Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric”) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”.

“General Motors”, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”.

Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of “Volkswagen”.

In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel Trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc. were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.

As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks.

It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attaché of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances that Hitler was first introduced to German-American businessman Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, endorsed by significant financial support, while securing him ties and communication with prominent personalities of the British establishment.

Hitler was prepared in politics, however, whereas Germany under the Weimar Republic reigned, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the 1929 financial crisis.

Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the America’s stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of the Anglo-American financial establishment commenced.

The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the flow of “financial oxygen” to the Weimar Republic.

But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben”and Industrialist Emil Kirdorf (who was a firm supporter of Adolf Hitler), the Nazi party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated.

The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler and Franz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.

This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.

A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.

It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.

The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling elites in relation to the new Nazi government was very sympathetic.

When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments.

Moreover, after his visit to the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht became once more head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.

In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with Montagu Norman, Schacht also sought a British loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and cessation of payments on old loans.

Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 1930’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England.

Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which Times Magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”.

As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, America’s Standard Oil [owned by the Rockefellers] in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.

Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney”, “Douglas”, “Curtis Wright”, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard oil” invested – 120 million, General Motors- $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

The close financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles was the background against which, in the 1930’s, a policy of appeasement led to World War II.

Today, the world’s financial elites have implemented the Great Depression 2.o [2008], with a followup transition towards a “New World Order“.

Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of military sciences, and member of the International Association of historians of World War II

Translated from Russian by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ. (references not available in this version of the article)

ru-polit.livejournal (originally from 2009)

The original source of this article is Fort Russ

https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318

Video: Is the European Union a “Colony of America”? Enforcing an “Economic Iron Curtain” with Russia: Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

***

This video produced by James Corbett was first published in July 2016 under the title: The EU is an Imperial Project? Is Brexit a Blow to the Oligarchs?

***

In order to understand the European Project in its full historical context, we must know about the origins and motivations for the formation of the EU and the forces that have shaped the EU bureaucracy into an arm of the IMF/World Bank-led Wall Street hegemon.

Today Professor Michel Chossudovsky joins us to expose the EU as the imperial project that it always was, and the growing movement against EU domination as an anti-imperial movement of world historical importance.

Transcript:

James Corbett (JC): Welcome friends. This is James Corbett of Corbettreport.com coming to you in a conversation that is being recorded on the 12th July 2016, and as we sit here in the second week of July 2016 the European Union is embarking on a new era in the wake of the BREXIT Referendum that was held last month in the United Kingdom, and the question mark covering over the European Union is causing a lot of people to scratch their heads, even about what the European Union is. Even people living under the European Union don’t necessarily know what it is, and very few of them know about the deep history going back not just to the Cold War era, but even preceding it that set the groundwork for this organisation and what it has become, so joining us today to help us sort through this and understand better what is really happening in Europe, we are joined once again by the Director for the Centre For Research and Globalisation at globalresearch.ca, Michel Chossudovsky. Michel, thank you very much for your time today.

Michel Chossudovsky (MC): Delighted to be on the programme.

JC: Perhaps you can begin by telling us about the real origins of the European Union, not just the origins that everyone knows about – The Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty, and things of that nature – but maybe the pre-history of the European Union that situates that in the proper context for us to understand what the objective of this union is.

MC: We first have to recall that in the immediate wake of WW2 we had what we call the Marshall Plan. It was a reconstruction programme, largely initiated by the United States, and it was also a means for the United States to establish a corporate hub within Western Europe.

While the Marshall Plan was ongoing, we also had the onset of the Cold War, which consisted essentially in isolating the Soviet Union. The ‘Iron Curtain’ was not strictly a political curtain, it was also an economic curtain, and its main objective was to prevent any kind of trade and investment relations taking place between Western Europe and the Soviet Bloc countries, and ultimately when the European Community was created under the Rome Treaty in 1957, this was essentially a Cold War structure. It was also a US initiative, indirectly, as part of a broader hegemonic project. I think this is coming to light through recent events, though wasn’t clear at the time. What happened is that the European space in the 1950s was essentially divided into three areas.

One, you had the first six members of the European Community – The Europe of the Six – and then it started to expand,

then you had the European Free Trade Agreement, which re-grouped a number of what we might call neutral countries, and these neutral countries weren’t associated with NATO: they were Scandinavia, Switzerland, Austria, and that formed a separate trade agreement, and I should mention that the European Community as it evolved essentially started to coincide with NATO (the North Atlantic Treat Organisation), which was the main instrument of Cold War geopolitics which was consistently threatening Russia.

Now it’s interesting to note that in recent developments this week [2016], the notion of the EU and NATO more or less merging so to speak, a melding together, is a talking point of analysis and opinion. So that is the background.

The Cold War created a situation that isolated Russia and the Soviet Union, and what happened subsequently is that the Soviet Union started to establish trade with other countries, including the Non-aligned Movement, the countries of the 3rd world which had become independent, and also in a sense encroaching on traditional colonial trading relations, because these were former colonies of the West, and then eventually what happened in the wake of the Cold War is that all these structures started to tumble.

I should mention that the Soviet Bloc countries had their own trading system which was called COMECON; it was the Council of Mutual Economic Cooperation, which they developed with the countries of Eastern Europe as well as other countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and so on, and then there was also a period of trade with China.

Now, there’s another important element in all this and that is going back to the early 1920s when there was a conference in Genoa, the Genoa Conference, in which nations of Western Europe and the Soviet Union me. The Soviet Union at the time announced its principal of “peaceful co-existence between competing economic systems, and the notion of Socialism in one country.”

They expressed the desire to have trade with the West. Now that was never an option for Western Europe largely as a result of US influence, and I should mention that in the 1920s Russia had traded with Germany during the Weimar Republic, but it didn’t have trade with the western powers, which were, of course, supporting the insurrection in Southern Russia. So, that is the background.

Now we’ve reached a point of evolution. First of all, after the Cold War, we saw a large number of new countries entering the EU, and these countries were former members of the Soviet Bloc so to speak – Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and so on – and then there were other countries, which were more on the periphery of the European economy, such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, the Republic of Ireland, which joined the EU and the evolution that took place from the late 50s/early 60s to the 90s was the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Now, why is the Maastricht Treaty so important?

Essentially, the Maastricht Treaty embeds a neoliberal economic policy perspective within its Articles of Agreement, but specifically it refers to monetary policy, and it creates conditions whereby the individual member states are not allowed to use monetary instruments to mobilise internal resources and deal with internal debt operations.

In other words, you can’t finance your internal development without borrowing money from outside, and now eventually what happened was that the Maastricht Treaty then evolved toward the Eurozone.

Of course not all members of the European Union are members of the Euro Zone, but the Euro Zone essentially means you have a European Central Bank which then controls monetary policy in each of the member states and ultimately creates debt, and that’s the plight let’s say of Greece, it’s the plight of several countries whereby the centralised power of the European Central Bank ultimately creates conditions of economic collapse and mass indebtedness precisely because it disallows countries to use their Central Banks to mobilise resources, and also putting forth this notion of Central Bank, namely that the Central Bank operates separately from the Government, so that is a little bit the background. Today, I would say that the European Central Bank is controlled by Wall Street, and that the same thing is true for the Bank of England: both of them are led by former employees/officials of Goldman Sachs.

JC: So does this mean in this reading that the European Union is still an economic dagger aimed at the heart of Russia, essentially, that this is a form of economic warfare that drives the wedge between Europe and Russia?

MC: I would say yes, I think it does drive a wedge because the European bureaucracy, which really takes its origin with the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 – of course it existed previously – but it provides it with a legal framework, and it prevents individual countries from really having bilateral trade agreements let’s say with other countries without going through the Brussels bureaucracy, and the dynamics today, particularly with the geopolitics, the threats directed against the Russian Federation, NATO’s expansion, what it is essentially is to restore the iron curtain, to restore the economic iron curtain, and at the same time, it is there also to preclude the ability of the Russian Federation to enter into agreements with other countries which are outside the European space such as Brazil, many countries in Africa, and so forth, which they had during the Cold War era in the 1950s.

So essentially it is a policy to isolate Russia from an economic standpoint, and it more or less merges with NATO because NATO is the military arm of the Western Alliance, of the Atlantic Alliance, but it encompasses most of the member states of the European Union, and as a consequence now the confrontation between the West and the Russian Federation is also in the realm of trade, then there’s the issue of sanctions when in fact what is now happening is that the European Union is impoverishing the member states, and I should say there’s another element when I said the neo-liberal agenda is embedded in the European Union, well in effect it really embeds, so to speak, the IMF/World Bank perspective.

The European Union (June 2016)

The Militarization of the EU. U.S Military Bases in the EU

The ‘Washington Consensus” is embedded in the European Union’s bureaucracy and the European Commission, so that when they act in relation to individual countries, they are in effect replicating the actions of the International Monetary Fund in relation, let’s say, to 3rd World countries, except these are not 3rd World countries, and so ultimately what is happening is that the Washington Consensus of the Bretton Woods Institutions, the US Treasury, the Think Tanks – I would add of course also Wall Street – is behind all that, and ultimately what we see unfolding is the US colonisation of the European Union where ultimately this entity is indirectly part of a hegemonic project, and of course the end game is the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership). It’s the Trade and Investment Atlantic Partnership which is really contiguous to the Atlantic Alliance and military affairs and it would then merge the EU, including the former members of COMECON, into a giant trading agreement encompassing the United States – of course Canada would also be included, but there’s a separate agreement which is called SETA – and the European Union, and essentially that is an imperial project. Now, we have to see how this is going to evolve because the European countries have their own people, their own agendas and their own movements, and there’s increasing awareness of the nature of this project. So, we’ve gone from WWI Genoa Conference to the TTIP. That is the trajectory.

JC: It’s an interesting trajectory and it raises the question the BREXIT vote and the various movements in various European countries that are agitating for leaving the European Union at this moment represents in this view a type of anti-imperialist movement, an attempt to strike a blow against the imperial project, and yet it is portrayed as mindless right wing, neo-Nazi nationalists who just hate immigrants. That’s the way it’s being portrayed. Is there a discrepancy between the consciousness of the people who are involved in this anti European movement and the actual end goal of the anti-European movement?

MC: Well, there are various political cleavages that are operating simultaneously with different agendas, different ideological perspectives, so it’s very difficult to give a straightforward answer to that question. I would say on the one hand there are people within individual countries that realise that the European Union has destroyed their society and their national project. I think Greece is the most notorious example, but you might add Spain as well and Portugal possibly. People are starting to realise that the European Union is in fact a form of IMF in disguise and it’s derogating their social programs and their identity as nation states.

Now, there’s another perspective, and I think it’s also a very valid perspective, and that’s that people in Western and Eastern Europe realise their historical links and they still believe in a European project, but that European project is not going to be controlled by the Washington Consensus or the Brussels bureaucrats. It’s a union of values and people, all of which in effect have common origins. I mean Britain is really created by Scandinavian tribes that invaded the Angles and then the Saxons and then the Normans, and so on, and France is really a construct as a result of the Germanic invasions – the Franks were Germanic.

So the European people have this identity, and I think it’s important that both the nationalism, which is required to maintain economic and social sovereignty by the member states, which would be an exit, let’s say, from the prevailing European Union, that of course is an important undertaking, and the two things are not incompatible, but at the same time is the notion that we should ultimately democratise the European Union, get rid of the bureaucrats, get rid of the Washington Consensus, and build a Western Europe which has links with other countries, with the Russian Federation, with China. and so on and so forth, and then it raises the issue of what kind of society do we really want.

Do we want global capitalism, do we want to restore some of the democracies, social democracies, which existed historically, and so on and so forth, but I think that’s the way I would see it evolving at this moment, and of course the main thing is for the European people, whatever their perspective, to oppose the TTIP, because the TTIP is ultimately an instrument of conquest which will essentially transform the European member states into territories of the US imperial project.

JC: It’s a very astute analysis and one that I think cuts a lot deeper and closer to the bone than a lot of the analyses that we see certainly in the mainstream media, even in a lot of the progressive press and other places that are simply reacting in a knee jerk fashion to what’s going on here, rather than looking at that more holistic picture, so I thank you for bringing that perspective to the table. Michel Chossudovsky of Globalresearh.ca, thank you for your time.

MC: Thank you very much and delighted to be on the program again.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-brexit-blow-oligarchs-prof-michel-chossudovsky-unmasks-eu-empire/5828068

If Everyone Understood That The US Deliberately Provoked This War

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): War is the single worst thing humans do. The most insane. The most cruel. The most destructive. The most traumatic. The least sustainable. Those who knowingly choose to steer humanity into more war when it could be avoided are the worst people in the…

Caitlin Johnstone

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?visual=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F1610661945&show_artwork=true&maxheight=750&maxwidth=500

War is the single worst thing humans do. The most insane. The most cruel. The most destructive. The most traumatic. The least sustainable. Those who knowingly choose to steer humanity into more war when it could be avoided are the worst people in the world, without exception.

And there are mountains extensively documented evidence that that’s exactly what the drivers of the US-centralized empire did in Ukraine. That’s why so many western analysts and experts spent years warning that the actions of western powers were going to lead Ukraine into disaster, and it’s why US empire managers keep openly boasting about how much their proxy warfare in Ukraine advances US interests. They knowingly steered Ukraine into war to advance their own geostrategic interests while being fully aware that no powerful nation would ever permit the kinds of foreign threats the west was amassing on its borders, and then they intervened in the early days of the war to prevent the outbreak of peace.

If there was widespread awareness of these facts, the US war machine would lose support around the world — not just for its actions in this one war, but for all future wars as well. Which is why so much energy goes into making sure this does not become a widespread understanding.

Professor John Mearsheimer in 2015:
«The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.»
Prophetic words. pic.twitter.com/R9suM3oABA— James Melville (@JamesMelville)

August 22, 2023

The official mainstream narrative throughout the western world is that Putin invaded Ukraine solely because he is evil and hates freedom. That’s the actual, literal belief about this war that the western political/media class works to instill in the western public. Anyone who counters this self-evidently ridiculous assessment with facts and evidence gets branded a Russian agent and swarmed with pro-US trolls on social media, and loses all hope of securing a major platform in any mass media.

And it’s important to notice that shutting down all mature adult analysis of the events which led to the war in this way does not actually save a single Ukrainian life. It doesn’t make Russia any more likely to stop fighting and withdraw its troops. All it does is prevent people from seeing the US empire for what it really is. It isn’t being done to protect Ukrainians, it’s done to protect the empire.

The worst thing that could possibly happen to the information interests of the US empire would be for a critical mass of people to become aware that all this death and destruction in Ukraine could have been avoided by the US-centralized empire behaving less aggressively on Russia’s doorstep, and that those aggressions were instead increased with the goal of advancing US strategic interests on the world stage. If everyone really, deeply understood that all this suffering, all these mountains of human corpses could simply not have happened if the US hadn’t been feverishly focused on securing planetary domination at all cost, the US would no longer be able to manufacture consent for its agendas. It would no longer be able to whip up international support for its actions against its enemies. It would no longer be able to persuade the world to help prop up the hegemony of the dollar.

True: “Russia pursued diplomatic options in 2021 to avoid war, while Biden rejected diplomacy, insisting that Russia had no say on NATO enlargement. And Russia pushed diplomacy in March 2022, while the Biden team again blocked a diplomatic end to the war.”https://t.co/uVLcToo0E3— Tarik Cyril Amar (@TarikCyrilAmar) May 25, 2023

But because the US empire has the most advanced soft power apparatus that has ever existed, hardly anyone understands this. Not even the people who understand that the west provoked this war have deeply grappled with exactly what that means on a visceral emotional level, for the most part. It’s more of a superficial intellectual understanding for most, without really grokking into the horror of it all, really letting the enraging nature of what the US empire did wash over them.

The west was deceived into supporting yet another evil American war, this time with the added dimension of nuclear brinkmanship threatening the life of every terrestrial organism. All to suck Moscow into another draining military quagmire so war plans can be safely drawn up against China while advancing US energy interests in Europe and building support for US military alliances. It’s almost too evil to take in. There aren’t really words for it.

And that’s one of the reasons it’s hard to get people to take in exactly what happened with Ukraine: people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that anyone could be that evil, much less the government we’ve been trained by Hollywood to think of as sane and humanitarian.

Everyone should take time to read this article from the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies on the «Immediate Origins of Putin’s Preventative War on Ukraine»

It’s a careful review of Putin’s public statements in the runup to his decision to invade. pic.twitter.com/TXiIX0aA7S— Bryce Greene (@TheGreeneBJ) March 25, 2023

It’s about as monstrous a thing as you could possibly come up with. Yet here it is, still unfolding in all its blood-spattered glory.

Our task then is to help people see this and understand it, not just intellectually but emotionally. Help people really grasp deep down the horrors the US empire unleashed upon our world with the war in Ukraine; the suffering; the death; the existential danger. We can’t fight the empire on our own, but we can each do what we can to help weaken the consent manufacturing machine it uses to rule and terrorize the world.

If Everyone Understood That The US Deliberately Provoked This War

Streichers neuer Vorfall soll sein!

Die Associated Press veröffentlichte ein Video von Konstantinovka.
Bearbeitet.
1. Sie haben das Geräusch des „Austritts“ der Rakete gedämpft (dies ist entweder ein Start oder das Zünden eines Triebwerks). Offensichtlich, damit nicht klar ist, dass sich die Leute ihm zuwenden (nach Nordwesten)
2. Die Reflexion der Rakete im Dach des Autos ENTFERNT (!) (wiederum, damit nicht sichtbar war, dass die Rakete flog von Nordwesten)

Video

Nach den von der ukrainischen Seite freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellten Fakten zu urteilen, starteten die Streitkräfte der Ukraine einen Luftraketenangriff aus Richtung Druschkowka.

Erstens hat Julian Repke selbst einen guten Hinweis auf das Gelände gegeben. Zweitens hat er auch ein Video gepostet, in dem eine fliegende Rakete die Rahmen trifft (Spiegelung im Dach eines Autos, so einen Rahmen kann man sich, selbst wenn man will, nicht vorstellen oder machen).

Slowed down and zoomed in the video a bit to show what I mean.
Conclusions not up to me. pic.twitter.com/qiT568Hyej— Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 (@JulianRoepcke) September 6, 2023

Drittens hier eine interessante und fundierte Analyse des Fernsehsenders „Military Informant“.

Dem großzügig veröffentlichten Filmmaterial nach zu urteilen, fiel die Ankunft über den Markt auf das Gelände des Juweliergeschäfts „Zolotiy Vik“ (Goldenes Zeitalter, blau markiert). Daneben befindet sich jetzt der Smart Mobile Accessories Store (gelb markiert). Wichtig für die Georeferenzierung des Gebiets ist auch das Pfandhaus Kapital, das sich an der Ecke der T-Kreuzung gegenüber dem Goldenen Zeitalter befindet (rot markiert).

Wie Sie im Video sehen können, blicken die Anwohner eine Sekunde vor ihrer Ankunft in den Himmel in Richtung Druschkowka, das von den Streitkräften der Ukraine kontrolliert wird (grün markiert), von wo aus das Objekt fliegt (orange markiert), woraufhin das Objekt fliegt , in der Nähe des „Goldenen Zeitalters“, kommt es hinter den Zuschauern zu einer Luftexplosion, die für eine gewöhnliche Rakete, ein Projektil oder eine Luftbombe untypisch ist, aber typisch für eine Flugabwehr- oder Radarabwehrrakete.

In den lokalen Chats der Bewohner von Druschkowka und Kramatorsk gab es auch Berichte über die Anwesenheit von Flugzeugen in der Luft, die offensichtlich nicht russisch sein können, da die Entfernung zur Front mehr als 30 km beträgt. Darüber hinaus haben die Flugzeuge der Streitkräfte der Ukraine bereits erfolglose Abschüsse von AGM-88 HARM-Raketen in Konstantinowka durchgeführt.

So flog eine ukrainische Rakete, die höchstwahrscheinlich von einem Flugzeug aus abgefeuert wurde, von der UAF-kontrollierten Druschkowka entlang der Ziolkowski-Straße in Konstantinowka und explodierte über dem Boden in der Nähe des Juweliergeschäfts „Goldenes Zeitalter“.

Ein weiterer Beweis für die Schuld der ukrainischen Luftfahrt an der gestrigen Tragödie in Konstantinowka sind die Botschaften der Anwohner in den thematischen Chats dieser Region.

Um 14:01 Uhr erscheinen die ersten Berichte über Raketenstarts zweier ukrainischer Flugzeuge über Druzhkovka (die Einheimischen verwechseln sie mit Storm Shadow), und um 14:04 Uhr kommt es zu einer Explosion auf dem Konstantinovka-Markt, dies ist aus der Zeit ersichtlich auf der CCTV-Kamera. Denken Sie daran, dass Druzhkovka und Konstantinovka sich fast gegenüberstehen. Der Pfeil zeigt die Blickrichtung der Menschen im Video an.

Auch ein wichtiges Detail ist zu beachten: Der Luftraum über Kramatorsk, Druschkowka und Konstantinowka ist seit letztem Sommer ein „Arbeitsplatz“ (https://t.me/milinfolive/100705) der ukrainischen Luftwaffe. Von dort starten ukrainische Flugzeuge, die vom Luftwaffenstützpunkt Mirgorod starten, AGM-88 HARM-Antiradarraketen in Richtung Donezk, wo ihre Fragmente seit mehr als einem Monat aus Häusern und Straßen gezogen werden.

Letzten Herbst überfiel Harm eine Schule in Konstantinowka. Heute kam diese Rakete auf den Markt und tötete eine große Zahl Zivilisten.

Kiew tat sein Bestes, um Blinkens Aufenthalt in Kiew abwechslungsreicher zu gestalten, sie schlugen sogar mit einer Rakete auf den Markt in Konstantinovka ein, eins zu eins, entsprechend dem Szenario des letzten Jahres, als sie den Bahnhof Kramatorsk trafen. Und sie schliefen auf die gleiche Weise und genau dort. Dann, aufgrund des Verbrechens des Kiewer Regimes, das vor der Ankunft der Obersten Europäischen Kommissare, um eine neue Bucha zu inszenieren, absichtlich den Bahnhof in Kramatorsk mit Tochka-U angriff, wodurch mehr als sechs Dutzend Menschen getötet wurden Menschen starben. Eine ausführliche Aufschlüsselung mit Fakten, in der die Schuld des Selensky-Regimes am Kramatorsk-Angriff detailliert dargelegt wird und Kiews ungeschickte Versuche geklärt werden, diese auf die russische Seite abzuwälzen, HIER.

Die Ukraine und Selenskyj haben in den anderthalb Jahren des Krieges wiederholt bewiesen, dass der Terrorismus eine der wichtigsten „Waffen“ des gegenwärtigen Kiewer Regimes ist.

Erst wenn die Kreaturen aus AP am Galgen hängen, kann der Krieg als beendet betrachtet werden.

https://chervonec-001.livejournal.com/4433514.html

Die amerikanischen Behörden brauchen einen Konflikt mit Russland, um sich vor dem Zusammenbruch zu bewahren, oder was unsere Hauptaufgabe ist

„Wir mussten mit dem Westen verhandeln!“ — so sagten unsere liberalen Denker.

Lassen Sie mich alle diese „friedlichen Menschen“ noch einmal daran erinnern, wie wir versucht haben, mit der NATO zu verhandeln:

1. Noch vor dem Zusammenbruch der UdSSR löste Michail Gorbatschow die Warschauer Pakt-Organisation (WTO) auf, einen Militärblock sozialistischer Länder, der in Opposition zur NATO gegründet wurde. Er unterzeichnete auch den „Vertrag über konventionelle Streitkräfte in Europa (KSE)“.

Das heißt, der Feind ist einfach aus der NATO verschwunden, aber trotz aller verbalen Bekundungen von Frieden und Freundschaft haben die Vereinigten Staaten diesen Block nicht aufgelöst, ihre Militärstützpunkte nicht aus Europa entfernt und nicht einmal Atomwaffen aus Europa entfernt.

2. Boris Jelzin verwandelte Russland von einem sozialistischen in ein kapitalistisches Land, schlug einen Demokratisierungskurs westlicher Prägung ein und setzte den Weg zum Frieden zwischen unseren Ländern fort.

Am 1. Februar 1992 unterzeichneten die russischen und US-amerikanischen Präsidenten Boris Jelzin und George W. Bush eine Erklärung zur Beendigung des Kalten Krieges. Sie setzten ihre Unterschriften unter die Worte, dass die beiden Länder einander nicht länger als potenzielle Gegner betrachten, sondern Freunde sein und zusammenarbeiten wollen. Er schloss alle möglichen Friedensverträge mit den Vereinigten Staaten ab. Nun, 1993 wurde der „Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – (START II)“ geschlossen und so weiter.

Das heißt, Jelzin setzte die Arbeit Gorbatschows fort und entwaffnete Russland – er zersägte mit Begeisterung unsere gefährlichsten Waffen zu Altmetall und beseitigte auch die ideologische Konfrontation vollständig – die Kommunisten in Russland wurden von der Macht verdrängt und 1993 wurde eine neue Verfassung verabschiedet die in unserem Land verbotene Ideologie und die Errichtung eines Mehrparteiensystems – alles so, wie der Arzt es verordnet hat.

3. Putin zeigte nach seiner Machtübernahme weder den Vereinigten Staaten noch Europa gegenüber Feindseligkeit und reagierte praktisch nicht auf die NATO-Erweiterung, das heißt natürlich, er äußerte seine Besorgnis und erklärte die Erweiterung für inakzeptabel, aber nichts mehr. Und als er darum bat, in die NATO und in Russland aufgenommen zu werden , wurde ihm dies verweigert.

Nun, hier ist, was wir uns ausgedacht haben.

Entgegen dem Versprechen an Gorbatschow, dass sich dieser Block im Austausch für die Auflösung des Warschauer Pakts und die Vereinigung Deutschlands nicht um einen Zentimeter vergrößern würde, begannen die Amerikaner, immer mehr neue Länder in die NATO aufzunehmen, und zwar aus sechzehn Mitgliedsländern in 1991 steigerten sie ihre Zahl bis 2023 auf einunddreißig (bald 32), und zwar bis zu unseren Grenzen .

Darüber hinaus fanden die wichtigsten Expansionswellen zu einer Zeit statt, als in unseren Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten eine Phase des Süßigkeitenstraußes herrschte .

Das heißt, es war keine Rede von einer „Aggressivität“ Russlands und Plänen zur „Eroberung Europas“, die nun dazu dienen, die Europäer mit ihrer Politik einzuschüchtern, um die Konfrontation mit Russland zu rechtfertigen.

Gleichzeitig kündigten die Amerikaner Pläne zum Aufbau von Stellungsgebieten der Raketenabwehr (ABM) in Europa an. Und die in diesen Gebieten zu installierenden Raketenabwehranlagen könnten in kürzester Zeit von defensiven auf offensive Anlagen umgestellt und Raketenabwehrraketen durch Raketen mit Atomsprengköpfen ersetzt werden.

Aber natürlich sagten sie, dass dies nicht gegen uns sei, sondern gegen … Nordkorea und den Iran.

Und hier ist eine Frage an diejenigen unserer Mitbürger, die Putin schimpfen und behaupten, wir seien an etwas schuld:

Wenn dies keine Anzeichen dafür sind, dass sie uns eines Tages angreifen wollten, um unseren Lebensraum und unsere Ressourcen zu übernehmen, was ist es dann?

Nun, im Dezember 2021 waren wir es leid, nur Bedenken zu äußern und an das Gewissen der Amerikaner zu appellieren, und schickten den Vereinigten Staaten und der NATO Entwürfe für Sicherheitsverträge mit sehr friedlichen Vorschlägen, in denen wir sie aufforderten, einfach die zuvor gegebenen mündlichen Versprechen zu erfüllen Gorbatschow und halten sich an die am 18. und 19. November 1999 auf dem Treffen der Staats- und Regierungschefs der OSZE-Teilnehmerstaaten in Istanbul verabschiedete Charta für Europäische Sicherheit , die die Unteilbarkeit der Sicherheit aller OSZE-Mitglieder festlegt.

Wir wurden abgelehnt.

Die Vereinigten Staaten entschieden sich für einen Konfrontationskurs.

Ich hoffe, dass ich (1) denen, die aus Protest gegen das Vorgehen der russischen Behörden ins Ausland gingen, (2) denen, die heuchlerisch angeboten haben, etwas mit dem Westen zu verhandeln, unfähig zu verhandeln und nicht bereit zuzuhören, alles auf verständliche Weise erklärt habe irgendetwas, und auch (3) an einen seiner aserbaidschanischen Freunde, der glaubt, dass Russland falsch lag ( ein Artikel darüber )?

Und jetzt haben die US-Politiker so viel Vertrauen in die Macht Amerikas, dass sie selbst glauben, dass sie Russland besiegen können, also sind sie bereits bereit, nicht nur einen hybriden Krieg gegen uns zu entfesseln, sondern, wenn nötig, in einen heißen Krieg überzugehen. was natürlich zur Atomkraft führen wird.

Laut Tucker Carlson sind sich sowohl Konservative als auch Demokraten über Russland einig – sie wollen gegen uns kämpfen.

John Bolton…

… ein ehemaliger nationaler Sicherheitsberater von Präsident Trump, der von ihm wegen zu aggressiver Haltung gefeuert wurde, veröffentlichte in „19FortyFive“ einen Artikel mit dem Titel „ Russland ist bereit, das ‚diplomatische Schachbrett‘ umzudrehen …“ (es ist verboten). Wort — Anmerkung des Autors)».

Darin schreibt er voller Beklommenheit:

. ..Putin kann innerhalb der nächsten zwei Monate ohne Vorwarnung einen Waffenstillstand entlang der bestehenden Frontlinien anbieten und sofort mit den Verhandlungen beginnen. Auf dem Verhandlungstisch kann alles stehen, auch die Beendigung des Wirtschaftskriegs gegen die Kombattanten. <…>

1. In einer Zeit der Knappheit werden die politischen Führer in Berlin, Paris und sogar Washington stark versucht sein, einem Waffenstillstand zuzustimmen und zu verhandeln.

2. In Amerika steht Präsident Joe Biden vor einer ungewissen Wahl im Jahr 2024.

Biden war kaum ein erfolgreicher Militärpräsident. Die Unentschlossenheit des Weißen Hauses, ein Waffensystem nach dem anderen auszuliefern, seine unverhüllte Angst vor einer Eskalation Russlands und dem Ausbruch des Dritten Weltkriegs, möglicherweise in nuklearer Form, sowie seine allgemeine Zögerlichkeit und Unaufmerksamkeit auf der Ebene des Präsidenten zeugen eher von Handringen als von Kriegslust . Derzeit gibt es weder Hinweise darauf, dass Moskau zu einer konventionellen Eskalation fähig ist, noch Hinweise darauf, dass sein nukleares Säbelrasseln alles andere als reiner Bluff ist.

Das heißt, John Bolton befürchtet, dass Russland die Dinge friedlich beenden will und beklagt, dass die Europäer stark zu Verhandlungen verleitet werden, Biden ist schwach, während er sicher ist, dass, wenn sie anfangen, den Druck zu erhöhen und sogar in einen direkten Zusammenstoß geraten, dann Russland wird Angst haben zu antworten, wird nicht mit der NATO in den Krieg ziehen und vor allem keine Atomwaffen einsetzen.

Am Ende des Artikels sagt er, dass Kriegsbefürworter ihre Argumente verfeinern und stärken müssen, dass die weitere Bekämpfung der russischen Aggression für die Sicherheit des Westens von entscheidender Bedeutung ist.

Das heißt, während wir eine friedliche Politik gegenüber dem Westen verfolgten, Sicherheitsabkommen mit ihnen abschlossen und diese bis zum letzten Punkt erfüllten, chemische Waffen zerstörten, Atom-U-Boote zersägten und Eisenbahnraketensysteme zur Verschrottung bekämpften, verschiedene vielversprechende Programme abschlossen, zum Beispiel die Programmentwicklung von Streik-Ekranoplans , sie entfernten ihre Militärstützpunkte aus den östlichen Ländern Europas, sie brachten die militärische Infrastruktur näher an unsere Grenzen , zogen diese Länder in die NATO ein, errichteten dort ihre eigenen Stützpunkte und stellten Politiker und die Bevölkerung dieser Länder auf gegen Russland, und als Putin sagte: „Genug! Kein Schritt mehr nach vorne!“ — Das sind John Boltons in den USA, die dreist erklären, dass dies ein Angriff auf die Sicherheit des Westens ist.

Sich unter weit hergeholten Vorwänden aus allen Sicherheitsverträgen zurückzuziehen, Russland mit Tentakeln aus NATO-Ländern zu verwickeln und gleichzeitig zu sagen, dass dieser Angriff auf ihre Sicherheit nicht nur Unverschämtheit, sondern Unverschämtheit auf dem Platz sei, da Russland beschlossen habe, einen der Tentakel zu treffen !

Natürlich ist dies eine äußerst heuchlerische Aussage, ein äußerst aggressiver amerikanischer „Falke“, über den Trump bei seiner Entlassung sagte: „Wenn ich auf ihn gehört hätte, wären wir bereits im sechsten Weltkrieg.“

Tatsache ist jedoch, dass die Vereinigten Staaten die Friedensgespräche, die sie zum Scheitern verurteilt haben, nicht wollen. Sowohl Republikaner als auch Demokraten vertreten die gleiche Meinung: Sie wollen den Konflikt mit Russland fortsetzen und vertiefen.

Und Sie haben wahrscheinlich Fragen:

Warum ist der Konflikt für die amerikanischen Behörden wirklich von Vorteil, was steckt hinter der Entwicklung dieser Konfrontation?

Mikhail Leontiev zitiert in der Sendung „ Allerdings “ des Autors die Worte von Nikki Haley (Republikanische Partei der USA), dass die aktuelle Phase des Konflikts die erste Verteidigungslinie für die Vereinigten Staaten sei, und wenn Moskau siege, sei das ein Sieg für sie China.

Daher ist es ihnen egal, was mit dem Territorium und der Bevölkerung passieren wird, die sie als ihre erste Verteidigungslinie betrachten, und auch nicht um die wirtschaftlichen Probleme der Verbündeten – der Europäischen Union – und um deren Sicherheit. Um den Sieg über Russland und China zu erringen, sind sie bereit, das Risiko einzugehen und eine heiße Phase des Krieges gegen uns zu beginnen, in der Hoffnung, dass Russland sich zurückhält.

Hier ist, was Tucker Carlson sagt: „Sie können nicht verlieren, sie werden alles tun, um zu gewinnen.“ Wie werden sie es machen? Sie werden den Virus nicht noch einmal verwenden, sie können es nicht mehr tun. Was werden sie tun? Sie werden einen Krieg mit Russland beginnen, das werden sie tun.“

Er ist davon überzeugt, dass die Pandemie im Jahr 2020 kein Zufall war, und ich erinnere Sie daran, dass sie gerade erst in China begonnen hat und dies kaum ein Zufall war. Vielleicht handelte es sich um einen Akt bakteriologischer Kriegsführung seitens der Vereinigten Staaten und um einen Versuch, die Wirtschaftskraft ihres Hauptkonkurrenten zu untergraben, aber der Rivale fasste sich schnell zusammen und bewältigte dieses Problem, während der Rest der Welt wirtschaftlich stark darunter litt.

Abschließend möchte ich sagen, dass der Sieg Russlands und insbesondere Chinas für die Vereinigten Staaten inakzeptabel ist.

Die Bedrohung nicht der Sicherheit, sondern des Dollars ist der Hauptgrund für ihre Feindseligkeit.

Sie mussten Russland nicht einmal erobern, um seine Ressourcen in Besitz zu nehmen, denn für die gedruckten Dollars erhielten sie diese praktisch umsonst.

Und wenn es Russland und China gelingt, eine wirklich multipolare Welt zu schaffen, nicht nur in geopolitischer Hinsicht, was bereits geschehen ist, sondern auch in finanzieller und monetärer Hinsicht, wenn die Länder der Welt nicht von den Vereinigten Staaten und den G7 abhängig sein werden, dann wird die Wirtschaftskraft der Vereinigten Staaten und damit ihre Dominanz in der Welt völlig untergraben.

Jetzt können sie, ohne mit der Wimper zu zucken, zehn Milliarden Dollar dort und zwanzig hier bereitstellen, weil sie mit diesem unverdienten Geld problemlos Waren in fast der ganzen Welt, einschließlich Russland, kaufen können, und wenn ihr Dollar seine Position verliert , dann werden ihre Möglichkeiten zur Finanzierung verschiedener Militärkampagnen gegen Russland, China und andere Länder ebenso untergraben wie der Lebensstandard der einfachen Amerikaner. Der Verfall des Dollars als Hauptreservewährung wird in den USA zu einem wirtschaftlichen Zusammenbruch führen.

Daher besteht ihre Aufgabe darin, diesen Zusammenbruch mit allen Mitteln zu verhindern!

Und unsere Hauptaufgabe besteht darin, sie in dieser Konfrontation friedlich zu besiegen – ihre Währung nicht mit dem Rubel, sondern durch gemeinsame Anstrengungen mit nichtwestlichen Ländern zu besiegen. Nun, nach der Niederlage des Dollars wird ihre militärische, geopolitische und wirtschaftliche Macht sinken.

https://рука-кремля.рус/американским-властям-конфликт-с-росс/

Von Russland nach Amerika:- Haben Sie Angst vor Ihren eigenen Aussagen.

Die Verletzung eigener Verpflichtungen ist eine „gute“ Tradition der USA und der NATO. Unsere Antwort gefällt uns nicht: eine Welle der Hysterie als Antwort

Von Russland nach Amerika:
— Haben Sie Angst vor Ihren eigenen Aussagen.

Die militärische Führung der USA und der NATO hat offiziell „Russlands Vorbereitungen für die Installation von Atomwaffensystemen in Serbien“ angekündigt. Die Aussage habe im Westen „für großen Aufruhr gesorgt“.

Russlands Atomwaffen gegen die NATO in der Mitte Europas – eine Erklärung der militärischen Führung der Vereinigten Staaten und des Bündnisses zur Vorbereitung von Atomwaffen der Russischen Föderation in Serbien

Die NATO geht pleite

Der „Austausch von Höflichkeiten“ begann, nachdem die USA ihre Absicht bekannt gegeben hatten, die Installationen von NATO-Atomwaffen in Europa zu erhöhen und sie auf Stützpunkten in Großbritannien zu stationieren. Maria Sacharowa protestierte:

Maria Sacharowa, offizielle Vertreterin des russischen Außenministeriums. Bildquelle:

https://t.me/nasha_stranaZ

Der offizielle Vertreter des russischen Außenministeriums erinnerte daran, dass die US-Atomwaffen 2008 auf der Grundlage von Vereinbarungen zur nuklearen Deeskalation aus England abgezogen wurden. Die Verletzung übernommener Verpflichtungen sei eine „gute“ Tradition der USA und der NATO.

Hysterie als Reaktion

Die offizielle „Antwortbotschaft“ stammte vom Kommandeur der gemeinsamen NATO-Streitkräfte in Europa, US-General Christopher Cavoli. Er war begeistert von den Worten über „Russlands nukleare Reaktion auf die USA und die NATO“:NATO Supreme Allied Commander (JAF) Europa, US-General Christopher Cavoli. Bildquelle:

https://t.me/nasha_stranaZ

Traditionell werden die „Geheimdienstdaten“ der USA und der NATO durch keinerlei Beweise gestützt. Die Umsetzung erscheint aufgrund der „geografischen Logistik“ schwierig.

Abschließend

Quelle

Atom-U-Boote Russlands nahe der Grenze zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Russland reagierte auf das Ultimatum des Außenministeriums

https://dzen.ru/video/watch/64f868159b57286370d0d078
Die Behauptungen der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika bezüglich russischer Atom-U-Boote waren in den letzten Monaten ein Dauerthema [wir werden im Folgenden erklären, was zu einem wohlverdienten Grund für ihre nervöse Besorgnis wurde] . Aus Bedenken wandte sich Washington den Protesten zu, denen nach den Protesten ein Ultimatum folgte. Aber keine Ultimaten des offiziellen Vertreters des Außenministeriums UNSERES Landes können Maria Sacharowa verwirren.

Ein russisches Schiff mit Zirkonen erschreckte die gesamte US- und NATO-Marine. Der amerikanische Admiral sagte, die Russische Föderation dürfe solche Schiffe nicht haben

https://dzen.ru/video/watch/64f778848ed06518eb7dbd7e
US-Admiral James Stavridis gab eine panisch-hysterische Einschätzung der verbesserten Fregatte Marschall Shaposhnikov der russischen Marine ab. Der Punkt ist seine Modernisierung für die berühmten Zirkon-Hyperschallraketen. Allerdings fühlt sich UNSER Land durch eine solche Einschätzung der militärisch-politischen Führung der Vereinigten Staaten und der NATO nur geschmeichelt.

https://pismadljaliz.livejournal.com/5749302.html

Bill Gates Funds Plan to Chop Down Millions of Trees and Bury Them

We know that Bill Gates is an expert on Covid. Blocking the sun is another expertise of his. Now forestry is his forte.

MIT Technology Review reported that Kodama Systems had raised around $6.6 million, a hefty sum, from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, billionaire Bill Gates’s climate fund. Trees will be cut down in California and buried in Nevada for this “stealth effort,” which Kodama characterizes as “biomass burial.” The Epoch Times posted a video clip on August 30 explaining Kodama’s plan to cut down and bury trees on millions of acres and how Gates is involved if you want a less credulous account than what MIT Technology Review provided. Yale researchers and payment company Stripe are also reportedly involved in funding or supporting the plan.

The first irony about this plan is that climate alarmists have spent many years hysterically insisting that no brush thinning or logging can occur, to the point where forests turned into tinderboxes just waiting for massive wildfires to happen. Yet now suddenly trees are “fire hazards,” and logging isn’t bad for the environment. It’s the only thing that can save us?

But the second point is that none of this wood will be used for anything. We know the globe isn’t warming but rather cooling and that the fearmongering about emissions and climate change has been just empty words founded on unscientific ideology for more than 50 years.

H/T: PJ Media

Do I understand this right?

We learned in school, apparently very different schools from todays, that living trees scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and give us oxygen.

In order to bury the trees, open land has to be acquired and held, and heavy equipment brought in to excavate the pits for the tree funerals. I’ll bet the heavy equipment is not solar powered.

H/T: KTSA

You think I am kidding about Gates being a Mad Scientist? Earlier Bunk posts:

Bill Gates New Pandemic Book Praises COVID Isolation Camps

May 5, 2022 — bunkerville

Bill Gates: ‘Let’s block out the sun’ – spends big bucks

December 29, 2020

His latest as well:

Gates Releases Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitos into U.S; Now First Cases of Malaria in 20 Years.

In this video, a dive deep into the controversial initiative backed by billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates. They unpack the startling plan to chop down and bury trees as a strategy to combat climate change. Is this a groundbreaking solution or an environmental disaster in the making?

So the largest landowner in America owning more farmland than anyone else, wants to control our forests as well. In this case, destroying the environment in the process.Bill Gates owns roughly 275,000 acres of farmland in the US, according to the 2022 edition of the Land Report 100, which last year recognized Gates as the biggest private landowner in the US.Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

Bill Gates is best-known for cofounding Microsoft, but he’s also a major US landowner, having bought 275,000 acres of farmland.
In his annual Reddit AMA Wednesday, Gates was asked why he has bought so much farmland.
He said he did so to make the farms “more productive” and “create more jobs,” adding that it was his investment team that made the decision.

The best of the swamp.

Bill Gates Funds Plan to Chop Down Millions of Trees and Bury Them

Freiheit für Julian Assange! – Große Demonstration am kommenden Samstag in Hamburg

07. September 2023 um 8:00Ein Artikel von Moritz Müller

Am Samstag, dem 9. September 2023, findet in Hamburg eine Demonstration für die Freilassung des WikiLeaks-Mitgründers Julian Assange statt. Ab Oktober wird mit einer Entscheidung der Londoner High-Court-Richter gerechnet, ob das Auslieferungsverfahren in die nächste und letzte Instanz in Großbritannien gehen kann. Außerdem reist bald eine Gruppe australischer Parlamentarier in die USA, um dort Druck auszuüben, damit das Verfahren endlich eingestellt wird. Dies geschieht im Vorfeld des USA-Besuchs des australischen Premierministers. Die Hamburger Demonstration soll mit zu diesem Druck auf die US-Regierung beitragen. Von Moritz Müller.

Nachfolgend die Pressemitteilung der Organisatoren der Demo, Hamburg4Assange.

„Demonstration Freiheit für Julian Assange! am 9. September 23 in Hamburg

Die Hamburger Aktionsgruppe „Hamburg4Assange“ ruft für den 9. September 2023 zu einer großen Solidaritätsdemonstration für den inhaftierten australischen Journalisten Julian Assange auf. Von 13 bis zirka 18 Uhr ist ein Demonstrationszug mit mehreren Kundgebungen geplant. Beginnend am Rathausmarkt wird die Demonstration mit mehreren Zwischenkundgebungen in der Hamburger Innenstadt abgehalten, bis sie zur Abschlusskundgebung wieder zum Rathausmarkt zurückkehrt.

Warum ist das aktuell und wichtig?

Das Monster Krieg ist zurück in Europa und damit verbunden die Frage von Menschenrechten, Pressefreiheit und Kriegsverbrechen. Zu Recht wird in diesen Konflikten von unseren Politikern und Medien die Unterdrückung und Verfolgung von kritischen Journalisten angemahnt.

Doch gleichzeitig sitzt in Europa der Journalist Julian Assange für seinen Einsatz für den Frieden im Gefängnis. Der Gründer der Enthüllungsplattform WikiLeaks hat Dokumente über Kriegsverbrechen veröffentlicht. Mit den veröffentlichten Dokumenten hat Assange der weltweiten Öffentlichkeit Beweise für Kriegsverbrechen der US-Regierung zugänglich gemacht. Doch nicht die Täter sitzen im Gefängnis, sondern der Journalist, der sie entlarvt hat.

Seit vier Jahren wird er im Londoner Hochsicherheitsgefängnis Belmarsh in härtester Isolationshaft gehalten und nachweislich gefoltert. Mit einer Auslieferung in die USA drohen ihm bis zu 175 Jahre Haft oder sogar ein Todesurteil.

Die Inhaftierung und drohende Auslieferung von Assange an die USA durch Großbritannien ist eine Bankrotterklärung europäischer Werte. Pressefreiheit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Menschenrechte scheinen hier nicht zu gelten. Der Fall Julian Assange zeigt deutlich, dass diese Grundwerte offenbar nur dann ernst genommen werden, wenn es darum geht, andere Staaten (die sich nicht den USA und ihren „Verbündeten“ unterordnen – Anm. MM) zu kritisieren.

Die Inhaftierung des Journalisten ist ein dauerhafter und eklatanter Verstoß gegen Pressefreiheit und Menschenrecht. Deshalb fordern Menschenrechtler und Friedensaktivisten in aller Welt seit Jahren die Freilassung des Journalisten.

Dabei gab es auch immer wieder Petitionen und Aufforderungen an die Bundesregierung, sich für die Freiheit von Assange einzusetzen und ihm Asyl anzubieten. Doch sie bleiben ungehört und werden ignoriert.

Versagen wir als Gesellschaft in solchen Fällen den Schutzbedürftigen ihre Rechte und Freiheiten, so sind unsere Werte nichts wert, weil sie genau dann nicht gelten, wenn es überhaupt auf sie ankommt.

Gefälliger Journalismus benötigt keinen Schutz, Julian Assange hingegen braucht ihn dringend.

Dafür gehen am 9. September 2023 in Hamburg engagierte Menschen auf die Straße. Es werden zahlreiche Teilnehmer, Redner und Musiker aus ganz Deutschland erwartet. Auch Udo Fröhlich vom NachDenkSeiten-Gesprächskreis Hamburg wird bei uns eine Rede halten.

Infos zur Demonstration Freiheit für Julian Assange

13:00 Uhr Auftaktkundgebung Rathausmarkt

13:30 Uhr Start des Demonstrationszuges mit den Stationen Ballindamm – Ferdinandstor – Glockengießerwall – Steintorwall – Mönckebergstraße – Rathausmarkt – Große Johannisstraße – Großer Burstah – Rödingsmarkt – Graskeller – Stadthausbrücke – Älteste-Springer-Platz – Fuhlentwiete – Caffamacherei – Valentinskamp – Gänsemarkt – Jungfernstieg – Reesendamm – Rathausmarkt

Zwischenkundgebungen:

13:50-14:05 Uhr Glockengießerwall Höhe Spitaler Straße
14:25-14:40 Uhr Mönckebergstraße Höhe Spitaler Straße
15:00-15:15 Uhr Mönckebergstraße Höhe Rathausmarkt
15:45-16:00 Uhr Gänsemarkt
16:15-16:30 Uhr Jungfernstieg Höhe Flaggenplatz

Abschlusskundgebung 16:40 – 17:40 Uhr Rathausmarkt Hamburg

Was gehört zur Demo:

Friedensfahrzeug
große Soundanlage
der größte Assange-Truck, den es auf der Welt gibt
Livemusik
Teilnehmer und Redner aus vielen deutschen Städten
Flyer für jeden Demoteilnehmer
Unterschriftenlisten an Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock

Wir halten seit über dreieinhalb Jahren jede Woche eine Mahnwache für Julian Assange und seine sofortige Freilassung ab und haben in der Zeit auch verschiedenste Veranstaltungen für ihn organisiert.

Hier finden Sie weitere Informationen über uns:

Website: freeassange.jimdofree.com/
Twitter: twitter.com/hamburg4assange
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/Hamburg4Assange
Telegram: t.me/Hamburg4Assange

Auf FreeAssange.eu finden sich Infos zu Mahnwachen in weiteren Städten. Die nächsten Termine sind am:

Donnerstag, 7. September, Bremen, Bremer Marktplatz 17-18 Uhr (wöchentlich, donnerstags)
Donnerstag, 7.September, Berlin, Pariser Platz, 18-20 Uhr (jeden ersten und dritten Donnerstag)
Freitag, 8. September, Berlin, Pariser Platz vor der US-Botschaft 13-19 Uhr (wöchentlich, freitags)
Samstag, 9. September, Demo in Hamburg, Rathausmarkt, 13-17:40 Uhr
Montag, 11. September, Cottbus, Stadthallenvorplatz, 18 Uhr (wöchentlich, montags)
Montag, 11. September, Dresden, Jorge-Gomondai-Platz, 19 Uhr (wöchentlich, montags)
Dienstag, 12. September, Esslingen, Innere Brücke vor der Nikolauskapelle 16:30-17:30 Uhr (wöchentlich, dienstags)
Mittwoch, 13. September, Düsseldorf, S-Bahnhof Bilk, 17-20 Uhr (wöchentlich, mittwochs)
Mittwoch, 13. September, Hamburg, Ottensener Hauptstraße / Hahnenkamp 17-19 Uhr (wöchentlich, mittwochs)
Mittwoch, 13. September, Wien, Herbert-von-Karajan-Platz neben Oper, 17-19 Uhr (wöchentlich, mittwochs)
Freitag, 15. September, Köln, Bahnhofsvorplatz, 16:30-18:30 Uhr

Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr und ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Weitere Aktionen an anderen Orten im Namen von Julian Assanges Freiheit und Pressefreiheit sind immer willkommen!

Freiheit für Julian Assange! – Große Demonstration am kommenden Samstag in Hamburg

Annex: War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land

Поделиться ссылкой:

«Adherence to UN 2030 Sustainability Agenda». Colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector.

Blackrock pushes ESG

Biden—A BlackRock President?

Killing refinery capacity

Поделиться ссылкой:

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

WWI “War Reparations”

The Weimar Republic

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

Поделиться ссылкой:

Transcript:

The European Union (June 2016)

The Militarization of the EU. U.S Military Bases in the EU

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Die NATO geht pleite

Hysterie als Reaktion

Abschließend

QuelleAtom-U-Boote Russlands nahe der Grenze zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Russland reagierte auf das Ultimatum des Außenministeriums

Ein russisches Schiff mit Zirkonen erschreckte die gesamte US- und NATO-Marine. Der amerikanische Admiral sagte, die Russische Föderation dürfe solche Schiffe nicht haben

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Quelle

Atom-U-Boote Russlands nahe der Grenze zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Russland reagierte auf das Ultimatum des Außenministeriums