C’est la fin pour les programmes d’aide somptueux de l’UE : Le “Green Deal” meurt en premier

https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/cest-la-fin-pour-les-programmes-daide-somptueux-de-lue-le-green-deal-meurt-en-premier

Le “Green Deal” de l’UE devait coûter 620 milliards d’euros. Tout avait été convenu. Cependant, comme le rapporte Eurointelligence, ce pacte n’est presque plus financé, en raison de l’aide “somptueuse” apportée par l’Ukraine. La Commission ne dispose que de 82,5 milliards d’euros. Des cacahuètes ! L’agenda vert est donc sur le point de disparaître de la scène politique.

La semaine dernière, le président Macron (reflétant les réalités économiques) a commencé à revenir sur les mesures vertes : l’Europe, a-t-il dit, “est allée assez loin” . Cette semaine, le Parti populaire européen aurait envisagé de retirer son soutien au “Green Deal” de la Commission européenne, qui comprend, par exemple, un objectif européen d’élimination des émissions nettes de carbone d’ici à 2050.

Pourtant, pas plus tard qu’en 2020, l’UE s’était mise d’accord sur un budget septennal de 1100 milliards d’euros. Deux ans plus tard, cette somme a déjà été allouée cinq ans trop tôt. “Deux ans seulement après le budget septennal, Bruxelles est à court d’argent”, souligné le Premier ministre Viktor Orbán : “Comment cela est-il possible ? Qu’est-il arrivé à l’économie ? Où est l’argent ?”

Il semble que la Commission ait déjà dépensé tous ses fonds de réserve alloués au budget septennal de l’UE (un montant total de 30 milliards d’euros de réserves) qui devait durer jusqu’en 2027. Cela signifie que les ministres des finances de l’UE devront apporter de nouvelles contributions au budget communautaire, a déclaré la présidente de la Commission, Von der Leyen.

Où est passé l’argent ? (Orbán connaît bien sûr la réponse) : “Tandis que cette guerre [en Ukraine] fait rage, nous avons prélevé sur le budget de l’UE les 30 milliards d’euros [c’est-à-dire toute la réserve] pour soutenir financièrement l’Ukraine… Ces [réserves] sont maintenant épuisées” .

Aujourd’hui, comme l’a clairement indiqué Von der Leyen, les États membres de l’UE doivent apporter des contributions supplémentaires, pour un total de 66 milliards d’euros, au budget de l’UE – simplement pour passer le cap de 2023. Or, sur ces 66 milliards d’euros supplémentaires, 50 milliards d’euros ont déjà été affectés à des prêts et des subventions pour l’Ukraine (en plus des 72 milliards d’euros déjà accordés à Kiev depuis le début de l’opération militaire russe en Ukraine en février dernier), et 15 milliards d’euros à des programmes en faveur des migrants et des réfugiés. Seul un milliard d’euros est prévu pour améliorer la compétitivité de l’UE.

Et ce n’est pas le pire parce que la prochaine grande question, selon Von der Leyen, est de savoir comment soutenir l’Ukraine jusqu’en 2027. Le commissaire au budget, Johannes Hahn, a déjà fait le tour des capitales pour demander plus d’argent maintenant, et beaucoup plus pour 2024-2027. Madame la Présidente demande 72 milliards d’euros (à raison de 18 milliards d’euros par an) de contributions supplémentaires pour financer le budget de l’Ukraine et ses besoins en infrastructures de 2024 à 2027.

Avec cet appel de fonds, c’est la première fois que la Commission européenne est contrainte d’implorer les États membres de l’UE de lui fournir des fonds supplémentaires après seulement deux ans d’un budget septennal. Le cadre de dépenses de l’UE est confirmé tous les sept ans, la dernière fois en juillet 2020. Les modifications du budget de l’UE sont “censées” être approuvées par une décision unanime de tous les États membres. La Hongrie, pour sa part, se demande si l’unanimité sera respectée.

Le 16 juin, le ministre allemand des finances, Christian Lindner, a déclaré au journal Die Welt que l’Allemagne ne pouvait pas se permettre de verser plus d’argent au budget de l’UE : “Compte tenu des coupes nécessaires dans notre budget national, nous ne sommes actuellement pas en mesure de verser des contributions supplémentaires au budget de l’Union européenne” , a déclaré Linder à des journalistes à Bruxelles, ajoutant que d’autres États membres étaient parvenus à la même conclusion.

À la fin du mois de mai, Lindner a fixé des objectifs d’économie stricts aux ministères allemands afin de combler le déficit financier de 20 milliards d’euros. Depuis, Lindner a quelque peu assoupli son approche de l’austérité. Les réductions sont controversées – et les discussions sur le financement supplémentaire du budget de l’UE ne sont pas terminées, a souligné le bureau du chancelier Olaf Scholz.

Lindner a expliqué que l’UE avait atteint le maximum de son budget à long terme jusqu’en 2027, en grande partie en raison de l’aide somptueuse apportée par l’Union à l’Ukraine.

Lindner a expliqué que bien que l’Allemagne ait traditionnellement été le plus grand contributeur de l’Union, elle a été forcée de faire des coupes, car son économie s’est contractée. Après une décennie d’augmentation des dépenses, le gouvernement allemand a adopté des plans visant à réduire son budget de 30,6 milliards d’euros pour l’année prochaine, affectant des domaines tels que la santé, la garde d’enfants et les transports publics, ce qui a déclenché des batailles politiques féroces au sein de la coalition gouvernementale et au-delà des clivages politiques.

L’explosion de la dette publique due à la pandémie de coronavirus et la crise énergétique déclenchée par la guerre de la Russie en Ukraine signifient que des réductions drastiques sont désormais inévitables, a déclaré le ministre des finances, Lindner. Il a insisté sur le fait que le pays reviendrait à des politiques budgétaires plus strictes qui respectent le frein à l’endettement inscrit dans la constitution du pays et qui limite les dépenses.

Comme toujours, ce sont les dépenses de guerre qui finissent par faire imploser les empires ! On peut se demander combien de citoyens européens sont pleinement conscients de l’ampleur des dépenses de Von der Leyen en faveur de l’Ukraine. En fin de compte, ce sont eux qui en supporteront les coûts, bien sûr.

C’est la fin pour les programmes d’aide somptueux de l’UE : Le “Green Deal” meurt en premier

L’homme d’aujourd’hui entre Dieu et son singe

L’homme d’aujourd’hui entre Dieu et son singe

Au cours de l’année 2020, nous avons découvert l’une des causes profondes qui empêchent de nombreuses personnes de comprendre l’essence des événements de la pandémie de Covid-19 et les objectifs ultimes de ce projet mondial. Il s’agit d’une infirmité spirituelle et intellectuelle extrêmement grave, à savoir l’absence d’une perspective chrétienne de la vie. D’où l’incapacité de saisir par l’esprit toute la dimension mondiale et les enjeux eschatologiques de cette opération. D’où l’incapacité à rassembler des composantes apparemment disparates de la réalité, telles que le gel économique mondial et l’assignation à résidence, l’imposition de masques et les vaccinations forcées, le développement rapide du réseau 5G, l’expansion de la robotique et de l’Intelligence Artificielle, la puce électronique, la suppression de l’argent liquide et l’annulation de la propriété privée, la dépopulation et la numérisation complète du monde, le génie social et génétique, le Développement Durable et le changement climatique, la déruralisation forcée et l’urbanisation accélérée comme forme d’incarcération moderne, et la censure de l’internet.

En fait, sans être un expert dans tous ces domaines, n’importe quel homme de bon sens pourrait commencer à bien comprendre cette question en faisant appel à la vision chrétienne. En d’autres termes, pour comprendre les plans de l’Occultisme Mondial visant à réduire radicalement la population de la planète, à assassiner par vaccination, par puçage, par bombardement électromagnétique et par d’autres méthodes technologiques, et à établir un contrôle total sur les ressources et les personnes, la première tâche consiste à comprendre l’essence spirituelle, maléfique et démoniaque de l’élite mondialiste.

Malheureusement, la majorité des auteurs antisystème qui critiquent l’agenda mondialiste qualifient cette hyperclasse mondiale de psychopathes ou de fous. Cette clique est pourtant parfaitement rationnelle. Ceux que nous appelons les maîtres du jeu ne souffrent pas de déviations mentales, mais représentent la forme ultime de la perversion, et ce parce que, comme nous le savons, celui qui inverse les valeurs et renverse les hiérarchies n’est autre que « le prince de ce monde » (Jean 14:30), et que les soi-disant mondialistes ne sont que ses outils dociles et les hommes de paille qui couvrent le visage de ceux qui se trouvent derrière le rideau.

Ses enjeux ne sont pas économiques, même si la Grande Réinitialisation qu’il met en œuvre est basée sur le concept appelé Nouvel Ordre Économique Mondial. Le but ultime est d’assassiner en masse la population qui est devenue un boulet pour les maîtres du monde après le saut technologique qui permet de remplacer les ressources humaines par des ressources techniques. Et les survivants de cet holocauste planétaire seront réduits à l’état de sous-hommes, génétiquement modifiés par des vaccins et téléguidés par des moyens d’Intelligence Artificielle, dépourvus de toute autonomie de pensée et d’action.

Ainsi, la guerre de Satan contre Dieu et sa création entre maintenant dans une phase décisive et finale. Et l’homme, chacun d’entre nous, se trouve au cœur même de cette guerre spirituelle ou religieuse. Dans les conditions de cette guerre totale, soit l’homme s’allie consciemment à Dieu et combat donc ouvertement, par la prière et l’action quotidienne, soit il se joint à Satan, tombant dans ses pièges tentateurs. Il est impossible de se soustraire à cette réalité.

La chute de la cosmogonie et de l’anthropologie chrétiennes vers l’anthropocentrisme (rationalisme, positivisme, matérialisme) est une forme de déshumanisation, un obscurcissement de la raison. Arrivés à cette condition ou ce conditionnement intellectuel, la grande majorité de ceux qui contestent et exposent le Système opèrent avec la boîte à outils théorique inoculée par celui-ci au cours de plusieurs générations.

Les experts de notre camp révèlent et décrivent avec la plus grande compétence et responsabilité civique les aspects scientifiques et techniques des moyens par lesquels les serviteurs du Nouvel Ordre Mondial mettent en œuvre nos meurtres de masse et la distorsion de l’identité organique des êtres humains par la fusion du biologique, du physique et du technologique dans la Quatrième Révolution Industrielle prophétisée par Klaus Schwab et l’homme sombre à ses côtés Yuval Noah Harari. L’« Homo Deus » qu’il promeut n’est autre que celui promis par le serpent à Eve :

« Car Dieu sait que le jour où vous en mangerez, vos yeux s’ouvriront et vous serez comme des dieux, connaissant le bien et le mal. » (Gn 3,5).

L’homme augmenté n’est rien d’autre que l’homme démonisé.

Dans le camp de la résistance antimondialiste, nous avons de notre côté un nombre impressionnant de grandes personnalités qui guident notre combat d’idées contre les forces qui convoitent d’établir un gouvernement mondial tyrannique dans un très court laps de temps. Mais nous devons reconnaître que le système de coordonnées théoriques avec lequel ils opèrent est celui établi par la science moderne comme substitut à la vision religieuse du monde. En d’autres termes, alors que nous restons prisonniers d’une optique déformée, tronquée et façonnée selon les modèles de l’hérésie gnostique, nos ennemis savent très bien qui ils servent et qui est leur maître. Ils savent d’où viennent leur puissance et leur inspiration maléfiques, alors que nous aspirons à nous croire autosuffisants et autonomes.

Je ne me sépare pas du tout de mes camarades de lutte métapolitique qui sont incroyants ou d’autres religions. Au contraire, j’ai tout le respect et je suis sûr que face à un ennemi commun nous devons consolider nos forces au-delà de toute différence. Mais je me sens obligé de montrer la vulnérabilité de notre camp à nos adversaires. Ils ont choisi leur maître, nous avons rejeté le nôtre.

Le diable cherche à usurper le trône du roi du monde, à l’imiter, à parodier Dieu. C’est sa sinistre caricature. En ce sens, la définition du diable est bien connue, attribuée à Martin Luther : « Le diable est le singe de Dieu, qui est imité entièrement ». C’est que le diable n’a pas les qualités pour rivaliser avec Celui qui l’a aussi créé.

Et voilà qu’à l’aide de l’ennemi de l’humanité, obsédé par le pouvoir absolu et l’esprit de destruction de la création divine, arrive la Technologie. Celle-ci n’est pas neutre, ce n’est pas un simple outil de l’homme, elle a une profonde charge spirituelle de nature maléfique. Ce n’est pas la technologie au service de l’homme, mais l’homme serviteur de la technologie. De nombreux auteurs du XXe siècle, chacun avec ses moyens propres, comme Martin Heidegger, Jacques Ellul, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell et tant d’autres ont amplement démontré comment la technologie devient un moyen d’aliénation et d’asservissement de l’homme. En d’autres termes, la science sans la foi a des effets catastrophiques. Le scientisme, le positivisme, la technolâtrie sont en effet des outils démoniaques de destruction, de perversion, de mutilation de la création divine.

C’est ainsi que l’homme diabolique en est venu à se croire omnipotent, omniscient, omniprésent [ou voyant tout] et même immortel. L’œuvre du malin a atteint sa fin logique. La courbe descendante du monde moderne devient de plus en plus raide, et notre chute dans l’abîme de la technocratie diabolisée s’accélère de plus en plus. L’homme-masse (mais aussi l’homme-masque !) vit comme si de rien n’était, tend le bras pour recevoir le vaccin salvateur et se prépare avec joie à la folie du paradis terrestre offert par la technocratie démoniaque.

Comment les dissidents répondent-ils à ces défis ? Seulement par des commentaires compétents et des analyses pertinentes ? Est-ce suffisant ?

Sommes-nous encore capables de nous laisser envahir par la nostalgie du Paradis ? Sommes-nous capables d’invoquer le nom de Jésus-Christ sans craindre d’affecter notre prestige académique ? Pouvons-nous encore retrouver le sens mystique de la Croix ?

L’homme d’aujourd’hui entre Dieu et son singe

Washington’s Afghanistan Debacle is Prelude to NATO’s Ultimate Disaster in Ukraine

Ukraine is ultimately going to make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park. From the Strategic Culture Editorial Board at strategic-culture.org: This week marks two years since the United States and NATO abandoned Afghanistan in ruins. The country is wracked with poverty and devastating war impact. The same fate awaits Ukraine, except on a […]

Ukraine is ultimately going to make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park. From the Strategic Culture Editorial Board at strategic-culture.org:

The glaring fact – absurdly ignored by Western media – is that Afghanistan’s struggle for recovery is a result of the 20-year destruction that the U.S. and NATO inflicted on that country.

This week marks two years since the United States and NATO abandoned Afghanistan in ruins. The country is wracked with poverty and devastating war impact. The same fate awaits Ukraine, except on a far greater scale.

A key likely difference is that the political and military consequences for the U.S.-led bloc will be unavoidably calamitous for Washington’s presumptions of imperial power.

Two years ago on August 15, 2021, Taliban insurgents swept into the Afghan capital, Kabul, ousting the U.S.-backed president, Ashraf Ghani, who fled the country. By the end of that month, all American and allied NATO forces withdrew in a chaotic, hurried retreat from Afghanistan that saw desperate people clinging to the undercarriages of aircraft as they took off from runways. It was a debacle on U.S. President Joe Biden’s watch.

The forced abandonment of Afghanistan marked the end of 20 years of U.S. military occupation in the Central Asian nation. The Americans had invaded in November 2001 out of dubious revenge for the alleged 9/11 terror attacks which occurred two months prior in New York and Pennsylvania and on the Pentagon headquarters in Virginia state. The official narrative beggars belief.

In any case, the military quagmire Washington subsequently created in Afghanistan became futile and unsustainable. Biden eventually got his nation out of the mess, but he hardly deserves praise for ending an “endless war”.

Biden tried to make a virtue out of a disgrace and a colossal criminal episode. Tellingly, no sooner had the U.S. brought its troops home, and Washington’s militarism was at it again, stoking the conflict in Ukraine and intensifying hostility towards both Russia and China.

The Taliban fought the Americans and their NATO partners-in-crime to a standstill despite overwhelming odds against them. The Islamist movement is in power for the second time having previously ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, when the Americans invaded under the cynical banner of “Operation Enduring Freedom”. You have to give it to the Americans and their Western media servants for having total audacity in Orwellian deception and self-delusion.

Abandoning Afghanistan should be a matter of acute shame for the Americans, as well as grounds for war crimes tribunals for prosecuting Biden, his predecessors and other Western leaders. The Americans and their NATO lapdogs went there purportedly to “build democracy” and defeat the Taliban whom they accused of complicity in the 9/11 atrocity. Those accusations were always flimsy, if not preposterous. The U.S.-led war on Afghanistan like the contemporaneous one waged on Iraq (2003-2012), which was equally disastrous, was always about Washington asserting imperial power and pursuing notions of “full-spectrum dominance” over geopolitical rivals, Russia and China.

Remarkably, but not surprisingly, there was little coverage this week in the Western media about the second anniversary of the Afghanistan debacle. The shameful retreat of the U.S. forces is on par with their rag-tag withdrawal from Saigon in former South Vietnam in 1975 at the hands of Vietnamese insurgents.

What little Western media coverage there was tended to perversely lay the blame for poverty and the ruinous aftermath of war on the Taliban government. Some 15.5 million Afghans or nearly 40 percent of the population are in dire food insecurity, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. A major factor causing the deprivation is the seizure of $7 billion in Afghanistan’s central bank assets by Washington in response to the Taliban takeover. Washington continues to refuse any handover because of “human rights concerns”.

The glaring fact – absurdly ignored by Western media – is that Afghanistan’s struggle for recovery is a result of the 20-year destruction that the U.S. and NATO inflicted on that country.

The same horrendous legacy of war and military machinations can be seen in several other nations where Washington and its Western accomplices have inserted themselves under the guise of “building democracy”: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, among others.

Currently, in the West African state of Niger, the Americans and their European neocolonialist allies are preparing a military invasion to reverse a popular coup carried out against a Western-backed puppet president last month.

The NATO war machine in service to its American master never pauses from its ruinous trundling over nations deemed to be targeted for U.S. imperialist interests. How much more proof is needed to demonstrate NATO as an imperialist terror organization?

Ukraine is facing a similar tragic fate. The 18-month-old conflict is a proxy war against Russia instigated by Washington and its Western lackeys in NATO. The slaughter in that country continues unabated because Western powers relentlessly pursue their anti-Russia agenda, paid for with the blood of Ukrainians and subsidized by the Western public. The latter has been hoodwinked by an unremitting barrage of lies and deceitful war propaganda by the servile Western media, which bends over backwards to cover up the vile Nazi nature of the Kiev regime and suppress all historical context leading up to the conflict.

In the same way that Afghanistan and countless other nations were finally jettisoned by Washington when it tires of its machinations through failure, Ukraine will also be cast aside like a soiled rag. Ukrainians will endure for decades to come the horror and hardship of war as a failed state created by U.S. imperialism.

The Kiev regime under puppet president Vladimir Zelensky has gorged itself on rampant corruption in the same way that the U.S.-backed Kabul regime did before the Taliban kicked it out.

Ukraine has no chance of winning against superior Russian forces. The despicable Kiev regime infested with Nazis will one day collapse under its own weight of corruption, and Washington and its European vassals will slink away to leave Ukraine like a fuming cesspit, albeit extracting its natural wealth forever through debt repayments and foreign capital ownership. Unless, of course, Ukrainians take a radically different political path, perhaps reuniting with Russia as Crimea and the Donbass regions have done.

For the moment, Washington and its imperial partners continue the charade of boasting about their support to Ukraine for “as long as it takes”. But they and their propagandist media know that the game is up as Russia succeeds in taking on the might of the 31-member NATO military bloc.

NATO has fatally embroiled itself in a proxy war in Ukraine in a way that will rebound much more consequentially than its previous criminal escapades in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The financial repercussions for Europe in particular are already manifesting with a vengeance of state fiscal duress, economic malaise, bankruptcies, and public collapse. The problems of mass immigration from NATO wars will also compound unbearably.

But more fatally, perhaps, is the huge political impact of the abject failure that is awaiting Washington and NATO once the reality of defeat in Ukraine becomes unavoidable. Western media are already coyly admitting the debacle. That debacle will amplify in time. There will be much gnashing of teeth and recriminations over the U.S.-led fiasco in Ukraine. The fallout among NATO members over Afghanistan was palpable; over Ukraine, it will be explosive for the bloc’s brittle sense of unity and purpose.

If Afghanistan can be perceived as a disaster for Western pretensions and reckless deception, Ukraine will rebound with even more shattering repercussions.

A day of reckoning is due for the decades-long criminal U.S.-led warmongering via its NATO war machine. That day may be sooner than realized.

Washington’s Afghanistan Debacle is Prelude to NATO’s Ultimate Disaster in Ukraine

La Cedeao es una jaula de grillos (afortunadamente para Níger)

Los Jefes de Estado Mayor de los países de la Cedeao se reunieron ayer en Accra, la capital de Ghana, para discutir una posible intervención militar en Níger. La reunión acabará hoy.

La reunión estaba originalmente prevista para el pasado sábado, pero se pospuso para una fecha posterior “por razones técnicas”. Se produce tres semanas después del golpe militar que derrocó al presidente Mohamed Bazum.

La Unión Africana no está en sintonía con la Cedeao. El lunes el Consejo de Paz y Seguridad de se reunió para analizar la situación en Níger, una reunión calificada de “tensa”, “interminable”, que se prolongó durante “más de diez horas”, aunque finalmente, triunfaron las vías diplomáticas. El Consejo de Paz y Seguridad se opuso al uso de la fuerza en Níger.

Es la posición oficial de la Unión Africanas, una verdadera bofetada a la Cedeao, dice la prensa africana.

Dentro de la Cedeao no hay unanimidad. Uno de sus países miembros, Cabo Verde, se ha opuesto abiertamente. “Todos debemos trabajar por el restablecimiento del orden constitucional en Níger, pero en ningún caso mediante una intervención militar o un conflicto armado en este momento”, dijo el Presidente José Maria Neves la semana pasada.

Ayer Abdel Fatau Musah, comisario de Asuntos Políticos, Paz y Seguridad de la Cedeao, reiteró la postgura oficial de la organización: “La diplomacia siempre sigue siendo una opción” para encontrar una solución a la crisis de Níger, dijo. La “Comunidad le dará una oportunidad a la diplomacia”, añadió, aunque amenazó que “la fuerza militar de reserva estará lista para responder, si todas las soluciones fallan”. La posición de la Cedeao para la restauración del orden constitucional en Níger es firme, y se ejecutará “por cualquier medio disponible”.

La Unión Islámica de Benin, lo mismo que la Conferencia Episcopal católica, se oponen a la intervención militar.

Con motivo de la XI Conferencia sobre Seguridad Internacional, inaugurada en Moscú, Argelia volvió a advertir sobre la tensa situación en Níger, un país con el que comparte más de 1.000 kilómetros de frontera.

El martes el jefe del Estado Mayor de los ejércitos argelinos, el general Said Chengriha, alertó del peligro que se cierne sobre Níger y abogó por un “enfoque realista y con visión de futuro basado en la trilogía de seguridad, paz y desarrollo”.

Argel ha pedido la reincorporación de Bazoum a su cargo. “En el contexto de los acontecimientos en Níger, Argelia pide un retorno a la lógica constitucional lo antes posible, lejos de la interferencia extranjera que creará más inestabilidad en la región”.

Es una advertencia contra cualquier intervención militar extranjera en Níger. Los países del Sahel están muy presionados y, a su vez, presionan en direcciones muy diferentes, por no decir opuestas.

FUENTE: mpr21.info

La Cedeao es una jaula de grillos (afortunadamente para Níger)

DIE UKRAINISCHE GEGENOFFENSIVE STOCKT – WELCHE ÜBERRASCHUNG!

Von Elmar Hörig

 —

19. August 2023

Verheizt in einem sinnfreien Abnutzungskrieg: Ein Ukrainischer Panzer rollt Richtung Front (Foto:Imago)

Die groß angekündigte “Gegenoffensive” der ukrainischen Armee scheint zu stocken. Nach Einschätzung der US-Geheimdienste, berichtet die “Berliner Zeitung” heute, werde das Hauptziel, Russlands Landbrücke zur Krim zu “kappen”, nicht erreicht. Angeblich machen es “…die von den Russen zur Verteidigung der besetzten Gebiete angelegten Minenfelder und Schützengräben den ukrainischen Truppen besonders schwer, die strategisch wichtige Stadt Melitopol im Südosten des Landes zu erreichen.” Deshalb wird es den Ukro-Truppen wohl nicht gelingen, in die Stadt einzudringen. Sogar die Rückeroberung von kleineren Städten in der Nähe von Melitopol, darunter Tokmak, wird als “extrem schwierig” angesehen.

Das alles wundert mich, ehrlich gesagt, überhaupt  nicht. Wie kann man verlangen, eine Großmacht wie Russland zu schlagen? Da würde sich sogar die NATO schwer tun. Eine Gegenoffensive würde nur Sinn machen, wenn man den eigenen Luftraum beherrscht – und das ist nicht der Fall. So verheizt man nur junge Menschen an der Front auf beiden Seiten.

Zurück bleiben Schutt und Asche

Aber vielleicht ist genau das so gewollt? Ich verstehe es jedenfalls nicht mehr. Europa hat A gesagt, und jetzt sollte doch eigentlich das B kommen; ansonsten wäre alles für die Katz gewesen… all das Leid, alle Folgen die dieser Krieg mit sich zieht – Flüchtlinge, Hunger und enormer Geldverlust. Wofür das alles am Ende? Die Guten, und damit sind natürlich wie immer nur “wir im Westen” gemeint – werden das Ding vergeigen. Und zurück bleiben Schutt und Asche. Bachmut hoch zehn.

Meine bescheidene Sicht, wie es weitergehen wird: Der Frontverlauf wird sich nur marginal verändern. Dieser Krieg dauert noch mindestens zwei Jahre. Danach wird Europa ein massives Problem haben. Den Amis wird’s wurscht sein! Was ich bin froh, dass ich die besten Jahre Deutschlands miterleben durfte. Schade, dass der Traum in einen Albtraum übergehen wird. Wie sang Bob Dylan? “The Times They Are a-Changin’“!

Die ukrainische Gegenoffensive stockt – welche Überraschung!

One of the results of the US-Russia war: Africa rebels against imperialism – Elijah J. Magnier, dossierSul

[my illustration] Vladimir Putin alongside African leaders delegates at the second Russia-Africa summit in Saint Petersburg, on July 28, 2023 (Mikhail Tereshchenko / TASS)]

Amidst the war between the US and Russia, events unfolding on the African continent are signalling a significant rebellion against imperialist control due to the wider impact of the war on the global geopolitical landscape.

The war between the West and Russia on Ukrainian soil is still ongoing and its outcome is yet to be known. However, its effects are being felt on several fronts. The most important of these is the significant economic impact caused on the European continent, whose leaders have chosen to engage in a war without tangible benefits.

A notable consequence of the conflict is the emergence of a rebellion against long-standing US unilateral dominance of the world. This rebellion would not have taken root if Russian President Vladimir Putin has not courageously accepted the challenge and actively participated in the conflict that Washington had meticulously prepared for Moscow.

A key result of this shift is the public defiance of African countries against Western domination. These nations are raising their voices against decades of exploitation, resource depletion, abject poverty and rampant corruption left behind by the imperialist powers. The vast African continent, with a population of over one billion two hundred million people, has considerable natural resources, including 40% of the world’s gold reserves, 30% of various minerals, 90% of platinum and chromium, 12% of petroleum and 8% natural gas.

The region is undergoing significant political changes in response to the global turmoil. Military coups in the Sahel region of Africa, such as Guinea (2021), Mali (2021) and Burkina Faso (2022), brought military officers from the middle and poor classes to power. As a result, these newly formed governments announced their intention to create their own union, different from the one created in 1960.

France, which had a significant presence in Africa, was expelled from most countries after these military coups. Only Niger, which supplies 20% to 30% of France’s uranium needs, and Chad, where France has military bases, maintain a French military presence.

Last April, Chad expelled the German ambassador, Jean-Christian Gordon Crick, because he had criticized the head of state, General Mohamed Deby, son of Chad’s leader, Idriss Deby (who died fighting the rebels in 2021), for not holding elections in the country.

Neither France nor the United States of America took a stand against Chad for fear of losing their essential military bases in the country. However, the African popular classes welcomed the expulsion of the German ambassador. African popular classes in several Sahelian countries celebrated the departure of France, expressing their frustration with the rise of extremist movements, corruption, poverty and inequality, and the failure of the West to deal with these issues and to quell rebellions.

Pressure from the World Bank, which is saddling African countries with debt and is imposing austerity measures, has turned many African nations against foreign investors and multinationals. US-based Exxon Mobil and France’s Total have also faced opposition in Mozambique, where widespread rebellion has erupted over perceived unfair exploitation of the country’s second-largest natural gas field.

In response to Africa’s shifting alliances with Russia and China, the United States has increased its presence on the continent, establishing military bases and entering into negotiations with countries such as Zambia and Ghana to counter the growing Sino-Russian-African relationship. The United States is pressuring African leaders to cut ties with China and Russia. However, the St. Petersburg conference demonstrated Africa’s determination to diversify its options and seek independence from unilateral domination. African leaders believe that competition between the world’s superpowers is healthy and can bring better opportunities to the African continent.

At the second Russia-Africa Summit, which was attended by 49 of the 54 African countries, including 17 presidents, African leaders reaffirmed their quest for freedom of choice. Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed them warmly and eased their concerns by offering free grain, fertilizer and vital financial facilities, mainly to Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Central Africa and Eritrea. Putin promised to deliver what Africa needed in terms of food at low prices and financial ease. The gesture was received with enthusiasm and sparked a new economic and political vision that emphasized Africa’s central role in the world.

The African authorities would not have gone to Russia in the midst of a fierce war between the country and the United States if President Putin had not dared to accept the Western challenge and stand firm in the face of the Western alliance. Russia has demonstrated that it is not afraid of a war being waged – as US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin put it – by top military officials from over 50 countries at the Ramstein base in Germany. Africa’s participation at the summit, including the presence of the Egyptian president, underscored the continent’s willingness to explore multiple options and to embrace China and Russia, despite Western calls to marginalize Russia. The presence of Egyptian President Adel Fattah el-Sisi shows how the Middle East is also diversifying its options, moving away from unilateral US dominance. In fact, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iraq have already decided to establish strong economic and trade ties with China and Russia, just one year after the war between the US and Russia in Ukraine. The Middle East and Africa are no longer under the domination of the US and the West.

Blessed with a third of the world’s mineral wealth and 65% of its arable land, Africa has long suffered from hunger, poverty, conflict and coups. However, with officials from Western, Russian and Chinese nations in attendance, the continent is witnessing a realignment of geopolitical and economic trends. This shift is challenging the Western influence that has dominated the continent for decades and is being accelerated by Africa’s growing ties with China.

The war between the US and Russia, fueled by the belief of dragging Russia into a destructive cycle, has inadvertently led to unintended consequences in other continents such as Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. These unintended consequences are undermining the hegemony of the United States and its allies, which are facing diminishing influence on the world stage.

During a crucial vote in the General Assembly in March last year, there was a significant shift in Africa’s position, which called for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and an end to the war. A remarkable 31% of African countries were absent from the vote, 15% abstained and 1% voted against the resolution. This unprecedented stance has raised alarm bells among Western powers that have historically occupied and exploited Africa and exercised their influence over policy decisions on the continent. This newfound assertiveness came after Africa’s increased engagement with the world, especially China. It has been instrumental in developing more than 46 ports and land roads in Africa, connecting nations and linking them to the global economy. This transformation raised concerns in the West, which previously benefited from keeping Africa underdeveloped and dependent.

The impact of the ongoing war further underscore that the United States miscalculated in provoking Russia and underestimated the consequences on other continents, such as Africa, where regional dynamics have changed dramatically. As Africa and other regions, including the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, are experiencing unforeseen shifts in geopolitical alliances and economic trends, the influence of the United States and its allies continues to wane.

Africa’s bold moves to diversify its partnerships and assert its independence from unilateral domination is challenging the status quo and promote a new global balance of power. With a wealth of natural resources and a growing population, Africa is increasingly becoming a major player in international relations, attracting the attention of countries in conflict seeking to strengthen their position on the world stage.

As the war between the US and Russia continues to unfold, it is clear that the world is witnessing a significant shift in geopolitical dynamics. The rebellion against imperialist control that arose in Africa is just one example of the conflict’s unforeseen consequences. As Africa is signalling its willingness to explore diverse partnerships and challenge long-standing dominance, the global order is being reshaped, prompting countries to reassess their positions and realign their strategies.

As events are unfolding, the full extent of the war’s impact on Africa and the wider international community remains uncertain. But one thing is certain: the war between the US and Russia is contributing to a tectonic shift in global geopolitics, with Africa at the forefront of asserting its independence and defining its destiny. The continent’s growing influence and evolving alliances could redefine the post-Cold War balance of power and impact international relations. Africa is opposing unilateral domination amidst global geopolitical shifts [end]

The original article

Elijah J Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and senior political risk analyst with over 35 years of experience

Related

African revolution

France is expelled from its former colonies in West Africa

[Sharing] One of the results of the US-Russia war: Africa rebels against imperialism — Elijah J. Magnier, dossierSul

Biden verliert weiterhin den Kampf gegen Demenz.

Video

Nach dem Ende der Pressekonferenz vergaß ich, meinen Ohrhörer zum Übersetzen hervorzuholen und dem südkoreanischen Präsidenten und dem japanischen Premierminister die Hand zu schütteln.

https://t.me/c/1911164275/1710

Der militärisch-industrielle Komplex Deutschlands und der Konflikt um die Ukraine: Wem der Krieg am Herzen liegt

Deutsche Militärkonzerne wollen die Gewinne aus unmenschlichen Entscheidungen der Regierung des Landes anrechnen

Am 14. August stattete der deutsche Finanzminister Christian Lindner Kiew einen unangekündigten Besuch ab. Trotz des Mangels an offiziellen Informationen über die Ziele und Ergebnisse des Besuchs berichteten die Medien , dass es darum ging, wie das deutsche Ministerium dazu beitragen würde, ausländische Direktinvestitionen in die Ukraine zu locken.

Beratungsunternehmen raten deutschen Investoren, sich die Investitionsmöglichkeiten in der Ukraine genauer anzusehen; Lebensmittel, Bau- und Leichtindustrie, Landwirtschaft und Logistik werden als attraktiv bezeichnet. Besonders hervorgehoben wird das Vorhandensein von Gasressourcen – gemeint ist offenbar Schiefergas, dessen Förderung in Deutschland selbst aus Umweltschutzgründen verboten ist. Interesse besteht auch an Lithium – dieses Metall wird für die Herstellung von Batterien benötigt, die bei Dekarbonisierungsprozessen stark nachgefragt werden; Der US Geological Survey zählt die Ukraine jedoch nicht zu den zehn Ländern mit den höchsten Lithiumreserven. Doch die Ukraine ist als Stromexporteur attraktiv: Nach der Abschaltung der eigenen Kernkraftwerke im April dieses Jahres hat sich Deutschland schnell zum Stromimporteur umgeschult. Und wenn die aktuellen Pläne zum Ausstieg aus der Kohle in der Elektrizitätswirtschaft umgesetzt werden,

Die ukrainische Seite nennt die Verteidigungsindustrie offen als einen der für Investoren attraktiven Sektoren , obwohl die militärisch-politische Konstellation nach dem Konflikt völlig unvorhersehbar ist.

Die Bundesregierung gewährt bereits heute finanzielle Garantien für deutsche Investitionen in der Ukraine. Neben den Deutschen bieten nur zwei Länder solche Garantien: die USA und Polen. Es sei daran erinnert, dass an der Geberkonferenz in London, die im Juni stattfand, 60 Länder teilnahmen. Nach Angaben des Bundeswirtschaftsministeriums wurden mit Stand April 2023 Garantien in Höhe von 221 Millionen Euro für 11 Investitionsprojekte ausgestellt, 21 Projekte befanden sich in der Prüfung.

Eines dieser Projekte erhielt ein breites Medienecho. Es geht um die Absicht des größten deutschen Militärkonzerns Rheinmetall , ein Panzerwerk zu bauen. Die ersten Informationen über solche Pläne erschienen im vergangenen Dezember; Im März bekräftigte der deutsche Konzern als Reaktion auf eine russische Warnung, dass Russland eine solche Anlage als militärisches Ziel betrachten würde, sein Engagement für den Plan. Auf eine aktuelle Sekundärwarnung des russischen Außenministeriums antwortete Rheinmetall- Chef Armin Papperger, dass das Werk durch ein eigenes Raketenabwehrsystem gut geschützt sei, und bezog sich dabei vermutlich auf die Flugabwehrkanone Skynex. Zu diesem Schutz kommt aber höchstwahrscheinlich noch ein natürlicher Schutz hinzu: Es gibt Gerüchte, dass der Standort der Pflanze tief unter der Erde in der Karpatenregion bestimmt werden kann.

Die finanzielle Absicherung dieser Direktinvestitionen erfolgt durch den Bund. Neulich hat die interministerielle Kommission, der die Ministerien für Wirtschaft, Finanzen, Auswärtige Angelegenheiten sowie das Ministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung angehören, die bestehenden Garantien ergänzt. Jetzt geht es nicht nur um den vollständigen Ersatz möglicher Schäden bis hin zum Investitionsverlust (in Bezug auf eine solche Anlage – wenn sich beispielsweise herausstellt, dass das Raketenabwehrsystem nicht so zuverlässig ist, wie A. Papperger behauptet, und die der Kerker ist nicht so tief), sondern auch um die Garantie des fälligen Einkommens (Abdeckung der Risiken der Umwandlung und Übertragung von Zahlungen auf Kredite).

Nach Berechnungen des Kieler Instituts für Weltwirtschaft lag Deutschland bis Mitte 2023 beim Umfang der Militärhilfe für die Ukraine weltweit an zweiter Stelle – natürlich nach den Vereinigten Staaten Zustände.

Deutsche Unternehmen, die ihre Produkte in die Ukraine versenden, werden vom Bund bezahlt . Ende Juni lag der Auftragsbestand bei 30,1 Milliarden Euro, das sind 17 % mehr als vor einem Jahr.

Rheinmetall behauptet, dass es im Juli eine Woche gegeben habe, in der das Unternehmen Verträge über die Lieferung von Verteidigungsgütern im Rekordwert von 7 Milliarden Euro in seiner Geschichte unterzeichnet habe. Der Bund schloss mit Rheinmetall einen Rahmenvertrag und unterstützte damit die Wertsteigerung der Unternehmensaktien an der Börse.

Die Geschichte dieses Unternehmens begann übrigens im 19. Jahrhundert. Zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts konkurrierte dieses Unternehmen (damals Rheinische Metallwaren und Maschinenfabrik Actiengesellschaft ) erfolgreich mit dem bekannten Krupp. Heute hat Thyssenkrupp einen Anteil militärischer Produkte am Umsatz von 5 % (Daten von 2022), während Rheinmetall bereits 70 % hat (im letzten Jahr waren es 63 %).

Seit der Zeit, als der Ingenieur und spätere „Kanonenkönig“ Heinrich Erhard in Düsseldorf den Bau der Anlage leitete, hat sich viel verändert. Bemerkenswert ist die Liste der Aktionäre des modernen Rheinmetall : 70 % der Aktien befinden sich im Streubesitz, von den restlichen 30 % befinden sich mehr als die Hälfte im Besitz der amerikanischen Investmentholdings Wellington Management Group LLP , BlackRock Inc. und The Capital Group Companies Inc . , FMR LLC und The Goldman Bank Sachs Group Inc.

Die derzeit großzügige staatliche Unterstützung spiegelt sich in der Unternehmensleistung wider . Seit März 2023 steht Rheinmetall auf der Liste der 40 größten deutschen Unternehmen nach dem DAX- Index (symptomatisch ist, dass der Militärkonzern gleichzeitig den Medizinkonzern Fresenius Medical Care von der Liste verdrängte ). Der Börsenwert des Konzerns ist inzwischen auf fast 11 Milliarden Euro gestiegen. Im Jahr 2022 stieg die Zahl der Mitarbeiter im Unternehmen um 1.100 Personen; Im Jahr 2023 beabsichtigte das Management, die Mitarbeiterzahl um weitere 3.000 auf knapp 29.000 zu erhöhen.

Nicht nur Rheinmetall , sondern die gesamte Rüstungsindustrie Deutschlands wächst sprunghaft. Und das zu einer Zeit, in der die Wirtschaft des Landes nicht aus der Rezession herauskommt: Den Ergebnissen der ersten beiden Quartale dieses Jahres zufolge war das BIP rückläufig, im dritten Quartal lag das Wachstum bei Null . Das klassische Bild der Kriegswirtschaft – wenn auch in sehr geglätteter Form.

Die Etappe in der Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands im Zeitraum 1933-1945, in der die Leitung der Volkswirtschaft des Landes und ihre Einbindung in die internationale Arbeitsteilung im Einklang mit den nationalsozialistischen Lehren erfolgte Das Dritte Reich endete mit einem Misserfolg. Nun steht in der Doktrin der Scholz-Regierung die Hilfe für die Ukraine fast an erster Stelle – in der Folge geht das Sterben der Ukrainer auf den Schlachtfeldern weiter und nimmt katastrophale Ausmaße an.

Während Militärunternehmen mögliche Gewinne zählen. Es kann jedoch sein, dass die Situation sich so entwickelt, dass sie mit Verlusten rechnen müssen. Schließlich muss sich jemand für den Bevölkerungsrückgang in der Ukraine verantworten.

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2023/08/18/vpk-germanii-i-konflikt-vokrug-ukrainy-komu-voyna-mat-rodna.html

AUKUS a cover for the Coalition’s nuclear power agenda

By Jim Green, Aug 18, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-a-cover-for-the-coalitions-nuclear-power-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR0tsw-FLtHUY-EFgpbh_b1Lm2jlJSceGe5qkDm0EaLfgKe7NPUlExm4DQw

The federal Coalition’s dissenting report on a Senate inquiry into nuclear power claims that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”

The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power on August 11. The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia. A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.

The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future”.

The Coalition Senators put forward a suite of false and questionable claims in their dissenting report: that nuclear power is expanding worldwide; it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.

The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

The Coalition’s economic illiteracy

The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.

It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same”. He bases his calculation on the assumption that a small modular reactor (SMR) would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year. But reactors typically generate about 7.2 TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300 MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2 TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.

Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”

SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.

Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear lobbyist to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.

Cost blowouts

The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”

Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from A$25-30 billion per reactor?

The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”

However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.

As for private-sector SMR projects, not one has reached the construction stage anywhere in the world — and perhaps none ever will.

The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission commissioned research on the economic potential of two SMR designs: Generation mPower and NuScale Power.

Generation mPower was abandoned in 2017, and NuScale is struggling. Despite lavish US government subsidies, NuScale is struggling to secure private-sector finance to get the project off the ground and it still has licensing hurdles to clear.

NuScale’s latest cost estimates indicate it has no hope of competing with renewables. NuScale estimates capital costs of A$14.4 billion for a 462 MW plant, with levelised costs estimated at A$138 per megawatt-hour. The Minerals Council of Australia states that SMRs won’t find a market unless they can produce power at a cost of A$60‒80 / MWh.

NuScale’s history can be traced to the turn of the century but it hasn’t even begun construction of a single reactor. Likewise, Argentina’s SMR project can be traced back to the last millennium but it hasn’t completed construction of a single reactor.

A dog whistle to climate denialists

The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that nuclear must be in the mix “if we are serious about the reduction of emissions to meet targets”.

But the Coalition isn’t serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. They oppose the Labor government’s “reckless pursuit” of 82 per cent renewable power by 2030. They oppose the modest emissions reduction target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

They waved around a lump of coal in Parliament. They collaborate and conspire with the Minerals Council of Australia, who supplied the lump of coal and who made a global top 10 list of climate policy opponents.

Promoting nuclear power doesn’t provide the Coalition with any cover or credibility. The Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, speaks for those of us with a genuine interest in reducing greenhouse emissions. The Council issued a policy statement in 2019 concluding that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia — and probably never will be”.

Economist Prof. John Quiggin notes that, in practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. Prof. Quiggin has also described nuclear advocacy in Australia as a dog whistle to climate denialists:

“Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s call for nuclear power, made as part of his Budget reply speech, should not be taken too seriously. … Dutton’s renewed call can best be understood as a dog whistle to the climate denialists who dominate the party’s base, allowing him to oppose practical measures for decarbonisation without explicitly embracing denialism.”

Nuclear-powered submarines

When announcing the AUKUS agreement in September 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.”

Morrison also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine programme.”

However the Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”

They argue that even if nuclear power is more expensive than alternative energy sources, those costs are worth bearing “given how it could contribute to our national defence”.

The Coalition Senators’ arguments are flimsy. The current configuration is for Australia to acquire second-hand US nuclear-powered submarines in a decade or so, with new submarines acquired roughly a decade later. The submarines wouldn’t require refuelling. Nuclear waste storage and disposal won’t be required for at least 20 years.

Establishing a nuclear power industry to support the nuclear submarine project would be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Further, if a nuclear power industry is necessary to support the submarine project, then countless billions of taxpayer dollars will be necessary to establish that industry — the decision won’t be left to energy marketplace investors as the Coalition Senators argue elsewhere in their dissenting report.

The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for two reactors under construction at Hinkley Point — the only reactor construction project in the UK — could amount to £30 billion (A$58.6 billion).

AUKUS a cover for the Coalition’s nuclear power agenda

Assange Be Weary: The Dangers of a US Plea Deal

By Binoy Kampmark / CounterPunch, https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/18/assange-be-weary-the-dangers-of-a-us-plea-deal/

At every stage of its proceedings against Julian Assange, the US Imperium has shown little by way of tempering its vengeful impulses. The WikiLeaks publisher, in uncovering the sordid, operational details of a global military power, would always have to pay. Given the 18 charges he faces, 17 fashioned from that most repressive of instruments, the US Espionage Act of 1917, any sentence is bound to be hefty. Were he to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the US, Assange will disappear into a carceral, life-ending dystopia.

In this saga of relentless mugging and persecution, the country that has featured regularly in commentary, yet done the least, is Australia. Assange may well be an Australian national, but this has generally counted for naught. Successive governments have tended to cower before the bullying disposition of Washington’s power. With the signing of the AUKUS pact and the inexorable surrender of Canberra’s military and diplomatic functions to Washington, any exertion of independent counsel and fair advice will be treated with sneering qualification.

The Albanese government has claimed, at various stages, to be pursuing the matter with its US counterparts with firm insistence. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has even publicly expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in finding a “diplomatic solution” to Assange’s plight. But such frustrations have been tempered by an acceptance that legal processes must first run their course.

The substance of any such diplomatic solution remains vague. But on August 14, the Sydney Morning Herald, citing US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy as its chief source, reported that a “resolution” to Assange’s plight might be in the offing. “There is a way to resolve it,” the ambassador told the paper. This could involve a reduction of any charges in favour of a guilty plea, with the details sketched out by the US Department of Justice. In making her remarks, Kennedy clarified that this was more a matter for the DOJ than the State Department or any other department. “So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think there absolutely could be a resolution.”

In May, Kennedy met members of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange Group to hear their concerns. The previous month, 48 Australian MPs and Senators, including 13 from the governing Labor Party, wrote an open letter to the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, warning that the prosecution “would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press. It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law.”

In a discussion with The Intercept, Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s brother, had his own analysis of the latest developments. “The [Biden] administration appears to be searching for an off-ramp ahead of [Albanese’s] first state visit to DC in October.” In the event one wasn’t found, “we could see a repeat of a very public rebuff delivered by [US Secretary of State] Tony Blinken to the Australian Foreign Minister two weeks ago in Brisbane.”

That rebuff was particularly brutal, taking place on the occasion of the AUSMIN talks between the foreign and defence ministers of both Australia and the United States. On that occasion, Foreign Minister Penny Wong remarked that Australia had made its position clear to their US counterparts “that Mr Assange’s case has dragged for too long, and our desire it be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve said that publicly and you would anticipate that that reflects also the positive we articulate in private.”

In his response, Secretary of State Blinken claimed to “understand” such views and admitted that the matter had been raised with himself and various offices of the US. With such polite formalities acknowledged, Blinken proceeded to tell “our friends” what, exactly, Washington wished to do.

Assange had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. The actions that he has alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.”

Such an assessment, lazily assumed, repeatedly rebutted, and persistently disproved, went unchallenged by all the parties present, including the Australian ministers. Nor did any members of the press deem it appropriate to challenge the account. The unstated assumption here is that Assange is already guilty for absurd charges, a man condemned.

At this stage, such deals are the stuff of manipulation and fantasy. The espionage charges have been drafted to inflate, rather than diminish any sentence. Suggestions that the DOJ will somehow go soft must be treated with abundant scepticism. The pursuit of Assange is laced by sentiments of revenge, intended to both inflict harm upon the publisher while deterring those wishing to publish US national security information. As the Australian international law academic Don Rothwell , the plea deal may well take into account the four years spent in UK captivity, but is unlikely to either feature a complete scrapping of the charges, or exempt Assange from travelling to the US to admit his guilt. “It’s not possible to strike a plea deal outside the relevant jurisdiction except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

Should any plea deal be successfully reached and implemented, thereby making Assange admit guilt, the terms of his return to Australia, assuming he survives any stint on US soil, will be onerous. In effect, the US would merely be changing the prison warden while adjusting the terms of observation. In place of British prison wardens will be Australian overseers unlikely to ever take kindly to the publication of national security information.

Assange Be Weary: The Dangers of a US Plea Deal