Zelensky the Proxy Stooge Comes to America With Singular Mission

By Leo Hohmann
Leo’s Newsletter

September 25, 2024

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky began his visit to the United States in Pennsylvania with a stop Sunday at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, where he thanked American workers producing the 155mm artillery shells Ukraine uses to kill Russians in a nasty border war with its fellow slavic neighbor to the east.

I wonder how those American workers feel making weapons for the leader of perhaps the most corrupt country in the world, Ukraine, which is being used by a corrupt Washington Unitparty to poke the Russian bear in the eyeball. Maybe they’re not aware of the geopolitical ramifications of their work. I doubt many are or they would be looking for other, less provocative jobs.Popular Mechanics How …Popular MechanicsBest Price: $5.38Buy New $15.03(as of 12:47 UTC — Details)

But Zelensky is a master at spinning lies and clever propaganda, playing Westerners who fall easy prey because of their lack of knowledge about the history of the Ukraine-Russia dispute. Even the BBC, in a March 2022 article, acknowledged Zelensky’s speeches appear crafted to “shame” Western parliaments into giving him more money and weapons.

“It is in places like this where you can truly feel that the democratic world can prevail,” Zelensky posted on X, praising the Pennsylvania factory, which has boosted production to try to meet Ukraine’s endless needs for more shells. “Thanks to people like these — in Ukraine, in America, and in all partner countries — who work tirelessly to ensure that life is protected.”

That statement is utterly laughable as life is being destroyed every day in Ukraine and in Russia because of a senseless and bloody war that no politicians seem to want to end.

Zelensky the dictator wants you to think he represents freedom and democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has remained in office well past his term’s experation date and refuses to hold elections. He’s shut down all media that criticizes the war, and he’s banned all opposition political parties.

In perhaps the most vicious action, Zelensky’s government has persecuted the Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church, seizing its churches and monasteries and throwing many of its priests in jail.

With all the pleasantries aside, the dictator Zelensky’s primary mission in the U.S. begins tomorrow when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly’s annual gathering in New York City and shares his so-called “Plan for Victory” while saving the granular details for his meeting with Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday.

“The U.S. president will be the first to see it in full,” Zelensky said in a video address before leaving Kiev. “Of course, I will also present the Plan for Victory to all leaders of partner countries who, like President Biden, are world leaders and can become leaders of peace by helping us.”

Note the Orwellian language. “Leaders of peace” while they push forward with endless war, making no attempt to end it.Socialism: An Economic…Ludwig von MisesBuy New $20.44(as of 01:22 UTC — Details)

“The victory plan is a plan that swiftly strengthens Ukraine. A strong Ukraine will force Putin to the negotiating table. I’m convinced of that,” Zelensky told the New Yorker in an interview last week while invoking more Orwellian doublespeak.

This war has done anything but “strengthen Ukraine.” It has dealt the Ukrainian people a crushing blow.

Zelensky said more Western support will lead to a diplomatic end to the war. Does he honestly believe that?

Force Putin to the negotiating table? This is a big lie that most of the ignorant American masses will swallow whole.

Truth is, Putin was already sitting and waiting for a partner at the negotiating table one month after the war started, in April 2022. He reportedly was willing to pull back his troops under two very reasonable conditions. Ukraine needed to guarantee it would not join the NATO military alliance and stop shelling Ukrainian towns and villages that are populated with mostly Russian-speaking Ukrainians. In other words, stop threatening Russia with Ukrainian NATO courtship and stop using your military in an aggressive manner.

Read the Whole Article

History: Adolph Hitler was Financed by Wall Street, the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

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

By Yuri Rubtsov and 

Prof Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research, September 23, 2024

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

feature image: Hitler, Schacht and Prescott Bush

Below an Introductory Article by Michel Chossudovsky, followed by Yuri Rubtsov’s article entitled

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

This carefully researched article by Yuri Rubtsov sheds light on the role of Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve in financing the Nazi government of Adolph Hitler. (scroll down)

The Power of the U.S. Dollar

1932 Secret Agreement

Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Election Campaign

by

Michel Chossudovsky 

November 21, 2023

minor corrections, September 22, 2024

Introduction

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 in 1941. 

“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.” (Y. Rubtsov, text below)

Upon the accession of Adolph Hitler as Chancellor in March 1933, a massive privatization program was initiated which bears the finger-prints of Wall Street.

Dr. Hjalmar Schacht –re-appointed in March 1933 by Adolph Hitler to the position of President of The Reichsbank— was invited to the White House (May 1933) by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“After his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion” [equivalent to $23.7 billion in 2023, PPP estimate] (Y. Rubtsov, op cit)

Article clipped from Herald and Review - Newspapers.com™

Newspapers.com 

Barely a year later, in April 1934, The Economist “reported that military expenditure was forcing the Minister of Finance to look for new resources” including the privatization of the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) (quoted in Germa Bel, p. 20). The Nazi government also sold off State owned shipbuilding companies, State infrastructure and public utilities.

With a “Nazi- Neo-Liberal” slant, –no doubt with “conditionalities”- the privatization program was negotiated with Germany’s Wall Street creditors. Several major banking institutions including  Deutsche Bank and Dresden Bank were also privatized.

“[T]he government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.

In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Germa Bel, University of Barcelona)

The proceeds of the privatization program were used to repay outstanding debts as well as fund Nazi Germany’s buoyant military industrial complex.

Numerous U.S. conglomerates had invested in Nazi Germany’s arms industry including Ford and General Motors: 

Both General Motors and Ford insist that they bear little or no responsibility for the operations of their German subsidiaries, which controlled 70 percent of the German car market at the outbreak of war in 1939 and rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the German army.

… In certain instances, American managers of both GM and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. (Washington Post,  November 30, 1998)

“A Famous American Family” Sleeping with the Enemy. The Role of Prescott Bush

Of significance: “A  famous American family” made its fortune from the Nazis, according to John Loftus’ documented historical analysis.    

Prescott Bush (grandfather of George W. Bush) was a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. , and director of the Union Banking Corporation , closely linked to the interests of German corporations, including Thyssen Stahl, an important company involved in the arms industry of the Third Reich. 

The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.

Image: (right) Senator Prescott Bush with his son George H. Walker Bush. (1950s)

.

Thyssen was a partner of  Prescott Bush.

.

“From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen –-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine– talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.

… What the Allied [Nuremberg] investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.

He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts–from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker, Thyssen’s partners … were the father and father-in-law of a future President of the United States. (John Loftus, The Dutch Connection, September 2002).

John Loftus was  a (former) U.S. Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor. during the Nixon Administration. 

The American public was not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record had been carefully withheld by the mainstream media. In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US Senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.  … 

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.”

( Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power,  Guardian, September 25, 2004, emphasis added)

Screenshot, The Guardian 

Prescott Bush entered politics in 1950. In 1952 he was elected Senator for Connecticut, a position which he held until January 1963.

Evidence of the Bush family’s  links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior) and George W. Bush entered politics, not to mention Bush Senior’s stint at the CIA. 

The U.S. media remained totally mum. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):

“After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enem\\y national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.

While Prescott Bush’s company’s assets, namely Union Banking Corporation  were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (See below), George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with  Nazi Germany.

“In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.

There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.” (John Buchanan, op. cit)

Up until Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Wall Street was trading with Germany.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor (1941-1945), Standard Oil “was trading with the enemy” selling oil to Nazi Germany through the intermediation of so-called “neutral countries” including Venezuela and Argentina.

Without the U.S. supply of oil to Nazi Germany instrumented by Standard Oil of New Jersey (owned by John D. Rockefeller and Associates), the Third Reich would not have been able to invade the Soviet Union.  This is fully documented in the book of  Dr.Jacques Pauwels:

“World War II is widely celebrated as a “crusade” in which the US fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship.” 

While America liberated Western Europe in June 1944, the unspoken truth is that American corporations actively collaborated with Nazi Germany:

“Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT.

Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. …

(Jacques Pauwels , emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky,  November 21, 2023, updates, September 22, 2024

***

History: Hitler was Financed

by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Yuri Rubtsov

May 2016

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:  

  1.  From 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
  2. From 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for Nazism (“national socialism”);
  3. From 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
  4. 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.

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 ChancellorThe 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 Global Research

Copyright © Yuri Rubtsov and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2024

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

The Pact for the Future Was Adopted Without a Vote

ByJacob NordangardGlobal Research, September 24, 2024

The Pharos Chronicles – Jacob Nordangård, PhD

The Pact for the Future and the annexed Global Digital Compact and Declaration of Future Generations was adopted after a short round of statements, where Russia (backed by Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Venezuela, and Nicaragua) issued their discontent with the negotiation process and called for the inclusion of an amendment.

Russia’s key objection was that United Nations should not be allowed to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. Apart from that, they don’t want to give more power to the High Commissioner on Human Rights, they object to the speeding up of nuclear disarmament, and they don’t want to “equate non-governmental actors with states when making decisions on international technological agenda”.[1]

As a countermeasure, the Republic of the Congo (speaking on behalf of the African Union) proposed a motion that no action would be taken on the draft amendment, which was accepted by all but seven nations (and fifteen that abstained).

.

.

.

.

The General Assembly then adopted the Pact without a vote![2]

The fact that Russia is involved in a war against Ukraine, and that the supporting nations have autocratic rule, is not exactly beneficial to the genuine opposition to the Pact (for reasons of true democracy, national sovereignty and freedom of speech), as any critique of any kind risks being dismissed as part of Russian intelligence operation and/or supporting the views of totalitarian regimes.

The Media Silence Surrounding the UN Pact for the Future

It remains to be seen what happens with the Russian claim that they will distance themselves from the Pact, while the work on implementing it (with the stated goal to “safeguard future generations” and “turbocharge Agenda 2030” with the help of strategic foresight, anticipatory governance, and behavioural design) continues in global forums for cooperation like the G20 and BRICSwith Russian participation.

Despite their expressed dissatisfaction, Russia supports the UN’s central role in “coordinating the positions of member states and searching for collective responses to global challenges”. They did not block the adoption the Pact and will, without a doubt, implement the actions that they did not object to.

Russia especially welcomes The Declaration on Future Generations, the “bridging of the digital divide” for the SDGs, and a reform of the International Financial Architecture.

BRICS (with its ten member states) is chaired by Russia this year. Digitisation is high on the agenda with The Digital BRICS Forum held this week.

The fact is that the BRICS-members Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, United Arab Emirates voted against Russia (and Iran), whereas China abstained.

The main concern of the BRICS countries is that Western Powers will be the main beneficiaries of the pact, not that the digital tools can be used for population control, online censorship, and for influencing our behaviour.

They want to be assured that they are included as equal partners in the emerging new world order with its digital world brain.

As a comment to my article The Media Silence Surrounding the UN Pact for the Future, the Swedish Government finally published a press release this Friday (September 20th, only two days before the Summit) about the delegation that would attend Summit of the Future, probably confident that no media attention would be given before the meeting.

The silence during the two years of negotiations is how “democracy” is defended from being “hijacked” by “backward thinking” and “anti-globalist” factions among the general public.

.

Screenshot from Sveriges Television’s news program Rapport about the adoption of the Pact for the Future, Sunday 22 september.

.

On the day of the adoption of the Pact, several newspapers, Swedish Radio and national television, woke up from their slumber and published the news about the Pact for the Future having been adopted.

I guess that our leaders now will inform us that “we” have agreed to the conditions spelled out in the Pact.

Have your government or media also finally informed you of the Pact? Please post links if you have any.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Notes

[1] Statement from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20240923090000000/qRMMeMjhrye_/PRAIRU_h_nyc_ru.pdf

[2] United Nations, World Leaders Pledge Bold Action to Protect Present, Future Generations amid Climate Crisis, Conflicts Gripping Globe, as General Assembly Adapts Pact for Future, press.un.org/en/2024/ga12627.doc.htm

All images in this article are from the author

The original source of this article is The Pharos Chronicles – Jacob Nordangård, PhD

Copyright © Jacob NordangardThe Pharos Chronicles – Jacob Nordangård, PhD, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pact-future-adopted-without-vote/5868594

The US Strategy for Europe, “A Punching Bag against Russia”: Can Europe Come Back to Its Senses?

By Drago Bosnic

Anyone remotely familiar with the US strategy for Europe knows that the belligerent thalassocracy plans to use the “old continent” as a punching bag against Russia. This unflattering fate is not something the Europeans want, but the rabid Russophobia they’re being fed is clouding their judgment. Washington DC managed to convince many in the European Union that Moscow is their enemy and that they should fight it at all costs. However, Brussels keeps forgetting that many Western invasion forces have been trying to do that for nearly a millennium, virtually always resulting in the Russian military marching through various European capitals, including Berlin and even Paris. These failed invasions are then used as an excuse that the Kremlin is supposedly “aggressive”, even though it wasn’t the one to initiate these wars. However, Russia was always the one to finish them, to the chagrin of the political West that started them.

Despite taking the suicidal collision course with Moscow, from time to time, there are faint voices of reason coming from the “old continent”. Unlike America and the United Kingdom, which are not only sending long-range weapons, but are also guiding them, Germany decided to tread carefully. Namely, according to its Chancellor Olaf Scholz, “Germany has made a clear decision about what we will do and what we will not do”. He insists that “this decision will not change”. What’s Scholz speaking about specifically was the question of delivering the “Taurus” KEPD 350, a Swedish-German air-launched subsonic cruise missile with a stated range of over 500 km. The Neo-Nazi junta has been “begmanding” this weapon for years, insisting it would be a “game changer”. The obvious question arises, why is Berlin so worried about this? What happened to the Bundeswehr’s belligerence and “readiness to resist (the mythical and ‘evil’) Russian aggression”?

Namely, back on March 1, Margarita Simonyan, the Editor-in-Chief of RT, released a bombshell report containing the leaked conversation between high-ranking German military (Bundeswehr) officers casually talking about striking the Crimean Bridge with up to 20 “Taurus” cruise missiles. The conversation, nearly 40 minutes long, includes the part where the Bundeswehr officers also talked about maintaining plausible deniability. This tells you all you need to know about the supposed “non-involvement” of NATO when it comes to various terrorist attacks and sabotage operations targeting Russian infrastructure, both within and outside of the country. The leaked conversation also revealed the dangerous self-delusions of the political West’s top leadership, as the officers argued that destroying the Crimean Bridge “would be very good and that it wouldn’t be too sensitive for the Russians because of the land bridge”.

Germany’s ‘Military Schengen’ Proposal: To Ease the Movement of NATO Troops across the European Union”

The scandal made Berlin far more careful in its posture toward Moscow, as the Kremlin now knew that the political West was directly involved in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. It should also be noted that Scholz made his comments immediately after President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would consider NATO a party to the conflict and that “adequate measures” would be taken to ensure the world’s most vile racketeering cartel pays the full price of its crawling aggression. Russian President doesn’t issue such warnings unless he’s dead serious, meaning that NATO should think twice before continuing to provide targeting and guidance to Western-made weapons. However, the US, UK and other powers are intentionally ambivalent about this issue, refusing to come clean about whether they support such long-range strikes. NATO already broke international arms control agreements by delivering the existing missiles to the Kiev regime.

Namely, according to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a multilateral arms export control mechanism that limits the proliferation of missiles and related technologies that could ease their development and manufacturing, the transfer of weapons with a range of 300 km or more is strictly prohibited. MTCR came into force in 1987, when the political West was terrified of the prospect of having second-to-none Soviet missile technologies proliferate to other countries. This would’ve made it impossible for the belligerent power pole to conduct its endless wars of aggression against the entire world. However, as is usually the case, NATO supports arms control agreements only when it suits them and can never be trusted to keep its word about complying with their limitations. This is precisely what forced Russia to develop hypersonic weapons and update its nuclear doctrine and strategy.

Scholz also effectively repeated Putin’s warnings, saying that the Neo-Nazi junta is unable to use the “Taurus” missiles without the direct involvement of the Bundeswehr. On the other hand, the German military doesn’t oppose the delivery of such long-range weapons and even supports the participation of its officers in targeting and guidance, as evidenced by the leaked Bundeswehr audio. However, over half of all German citizens oppose the delivery of the “Taurus” missiles. An April poll by Forsa Institute, requested by the German RTL television channel, showed that only 37% of Germans support it, while 56% oppose such a move. On the other hand, Berlin’s economic troubles are creating multifaceted pressure on German society, which is far more concerned with finances than war with Russia. Namely, the country is still going through an unprecedented deindustrialization and it has no way to turn back the clock.

Namely, according to Manager Magazine, Volkswagen (VW), one of the largest automotive corporations in the world, could cut up to 30,000 jobs (of its 300,000 employees). Such a massive company losing 10% of its workforce will be a huge blow to Germany. Worse yet, Liz Heflin reports via Remix News that VW’s 13,000 employees in the R&D department will most likely see cuts of up to 6,000 people (or nearly half), while “investments is to be slashed by up to €20 billion in the medium term”. Reports earlier this month suggested that VW was planning “historic factory closures for the first time in the company’s 87-year history”. The corporation cited “soaring business costs, including energy and labor, along with logistics chains”. All this suggests that the suicidal anti-Russian sanctions have only damaged Germany’s economy, which is not only deprived of Moscow’s energy, but also of access to its massive, 150 million strong market.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Drago Bosnic, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/europe-come-back-senses/5868555

Is the US Abandoning Europe Because of High Cost and Low Yield? Peter Koenig

Transcript of an interview on 13 September 2024 with NTV Russia, Yury Ryabokon

By Peter Koenig and Yury Ryabokon

The interview with NTV was based in response to a Bloomberg article of 9 September 2024 where Andreas Kuhn, geopolitical analyst, writes that America will abandon Europe next, and this, regardless of who wins the election.

.

.

.

.

.

.

It has ceased to be profitable for the United States to support Europe, and it is much more profitable to focus resources on Southeast Asia. See the full article here.

The newscast of NTV. includes only small segments picked out from a long interview with Peter Koenig (which was not featured by the NTV channel), see minutes 26:10 and 28:15.

Below, we provide the complete transcript with  Peter Koenig which NTV decided not to publish. (censorship?)

See video (Russian) below (after transcript)

.

.

Transcript

NTV: What are your views on this?

Peter Koenig (PK): The US abandoning Europe may be a good thing.

It would finally bring back autonomy to Europe – a type of sovereignty it has not known since the end of WWII, because Europe – the European Union (EU) has gradually and ever faster become a vassal state, or union of states, of the United States, doing the bidding for Washington, including supporting a US proxy-war on her territory – Ukraine against Russia.

It seems regardless who wins the Presidency, Europe has ceased to be of primary interest for the US. It was never profitable in the sense of money.

It was a strategic dominance. 

Controlling Europe is moving closer to Russia, and at the same time moving NATO troops ever closer to the borders of Russia – and this despite the promise by then Secretary of State James Baker, who in 1991 replied to Mr. Gorbachev’s worries about NATO expansion, “not one inch further”.

That promise was broken multiple times.

With the right EU leaders in place, the unelected EU Commissioner, as well as the heads of Germany, France, Holland and so on; and with the indoctrinated climate hoax, the EU could be manipulated to economically destroy itself, committing economic suicide, so to speak. Germany is a prime example, as the economic leader of Europe. 

Under no circumstances could Germany prosper, and establishing friendly relations with Russia, something many Germans and German businesses saw as a logical development – was a no-no. 

To top it off, in September 2022, US-led secret services blew up the Nordstream Pipeline, supplying crucial and inexpensive gas from Russia to mainly Germany but also other European countries. Germany did not protest, instead supported ludicrous claims that it may have been Russia, and lately, it could have been Ukraine.

In the meantime, while “sanctioning” anyone not following strict orders from the EC, to not buying petrol or gas from Russia, Europe in 2023 / 2024 has imported more oil and gas from Russia than before February 2014 – the year of US-instigated Maidan Coup.

No longer through a direct pipeline but via India, Turkey, and Ukraine – knowing that energy from Russia was a lifeline for the faltering European economy. 

One could call it hypocrisy – or lie-propaganda.

A new alliance between Germany – and by extension Europe – may bring back the Eurasian market; Eurasia being the largest contiguous landmass (36% of the earths total landmass) on earth (55 million sq.km), housing 5 billion people (about 2/3 of the world population) and controlling about half of the world’s GDP.

Pulling Europe away from Eurasia was one of the goals of the two hot world wars. Russia, the Soviet Union, was and still is the stumbling block. Thanks God.

Why Is Europe in the Pits? “Its Economic Suicide”

In brief, Europe must be economically and financially wiped out, so to speak, for the US to remain the world’s hegemon.

Now, Europe is so far ahead in her auto-destruction, that the US may, indeed, direct her attention to other parts of the world, like to Asia and the rapidly emerging Global South, with the BRICS at the center.

NTV: How will Trump throw Europe if he wins?

PK: This is a good question. Trump is like a roller-coaster, difficult to assess. 

He probably must follow the script imposed from above, leaving Europe to the wolves.

However, Europe is still very much bound to the US through NATO. Of the 32 NATO members, 30 are in Europe.

Will Trump do away with NATO, as he often hinted at?

I doubt it.

His action vis-à-vis Europe is difficult to predict.

How about his relation with Russia? Sometimes he says he is friends with President Putin, other times he said Mr. Putin disappointed him.

He will go after Iran and China – in one way or another, if his talks are to be believed.

But even that is not sure.

Iran is not the same Iran he knew. Today, Iran is a close ally of China and Russia, and is part of the BRICS, aspiring to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran has strong backing.

Trump and Europe: wait and see.

NTV: How will Kamala Harris do it? Bloomberg writes that it is as hypocritical as possible: talking about the unshakable support of Europe, but at the same time cutting costs for the military presence. What do you think?

PK: Kamala is a puppet. Sorry for the term. She has no agenda. All her agenda items are following a script given from “above”, pretty much the same as with President Joe Biden.

The recent debate with Trump indicated that very clearly. She talked the line of the common narrative, no mater whether this narrative if full of lies.

Plus, as has emerged in the meantime, she was told what to say through special earpieces. And it was clear to a child, the ABC moderators were biased towards her.

Trump, instead of taking her up on these untruths matter of factly, his emotions run through with him, making his answers often ridiculous.

That is just a sideline.

Kamala will follow instructions from the Globalists.

NTV: Why has Europe ceased to be a beneficial ally for the United States?

PK: Europe has not ceased to be beneficial for the US. As mentioned before, Europe is an important Globalist ally through NATO – with 30 of the 32 member states being European.

These 30 members finance a lot if not most of the NATO budget, they bear de facto a heavier burden than the US and Canada, no matter on the monetary budget, despite what former President Trump said.

But the hegemon feels that Europe no longer needs its immediate attention because it has been driven so far ahead in its effort of self-destruct, that an alliance with Russia – and with Eurasia – for example through the Chinese Belt and Road is no longer a significant risk.

But that is Washington’s assessment. And often their assessments have not much to do with reality.

It needs little change in European politics – a sense of returning to sovereignty – to become a game-changer. Many, if not most of Europeans feel that Russia and by extension Eurasia are natural partners of Europe, and that potential – for which Mr. Putin was always open – should be explored.

Image: Mario Draghi

NTV: What do you think about Mario Draghi’s [former President of the European Central Bank] recent report that the EU is turning into an economic outsider?

PK: Mr. Draghi is right. The EU is not only a European outsider, but is an economic disaster – and so is the Euro, the little brother of the fiat dollar.

Mr. Draghi is right for precisely the reasons mentioned before. Europe has let itself become a vassal of Washington, following all instructions, orders of “sanctioning” Russia and China, and has totally lost her independence. 

Is it too late to bring Europe back as an economic power?

It is never too late. European leaders must take back their countries – and even at the detriment of the EU, become sovereign nations again with their own sovereign currencies – and being able to deal with whomever they want, east and west – not being captive to Washington’s wishes and whims.

The US’s hegemony is gone so or so.

It’s just a matter of time for the final straw to break.

So, the sooner Europe realizes that their survival, economically and socially, is autonomy and sovereignty, plus cooperation with Russia and the East, the better.

NTV: AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: How much does the United States spend annually to protect Europe? A) Considering Ukraine? B) Excluding Ukraine?

PK: Who really knows.

On Europe per se – the US spends nothing in my opinion. There are no American subsidies to the EU or any European country. It’s rather the other way around, Europe largely helps fund NATO – and, as we all know, NATO has long become obsolete, and become an aggressive war machine of the US. So, whatever Europe funds for NATO, is a direct contribution to the wars fought by or on behalf of the US. 

Those who believe NATO exists to defend Europe should start thinking again.

As to the funding of Ukraine – it is also not well-known. Recent figures that were advanced by the US State Department were about 200 billion dollars. 

Is this really all?

Does that include weaponry?

Or does it include reimbursable loans?

All that is kept on purpose pretty wishy-washy.

In any case, the US is not planning to lose any money on Ukraine, as Ukraine is rapidly being privatized by BlackRock and Co.

That means, sizeable returns from investments in agriculture (one of the most fertile soils in the world – Ukraine was formerly called Europe’s breadbasket) – and huge reserves in natural resources, rare earths, gold, silver — other minerals.

NTV: And why did Europe suddenly decide at one time to shift the care of ensuring its security onto the shoulder of the United States?

PK: Is this statement correct?

It is rather the US telling Europe you do not need your own defense, because we – you and the US – have NATO, a common defense force.

Europe, or most of Europe fell for it.

Except French President De Gaulle, who exited NATO in 1966. He was a visionary, against NATO from the bottom of his heart, saying France and by extension Europe MUST be able to defend herself. President Sarkozy, a WEF implant, rejoined NATO in 2009.

undefined

General Charles de Gaulle on the Chemin du Roy, Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, 1967 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Europe would be and is totally capable of building up her own defense forces, and I mean DEFENSE – not offense. And this outside of NATO.

Europe has no natural enemies.

Europe’s “enemies”, like Russia and the East, China and so on, have been invented by the US.

There is hope for Europe to become independent again – and to link up with her natural neighbors, and partners, like Russia and the rest of Eurasia.

But it needs perhaps a shock to bring western leaders out of their vassalic slumber.

Video in Russian

*

*

Click the share button below 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.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Peter Koenigis a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Peter Koenig and Yury Ryabokon, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-abandoning-europe-high-cost-low-yield/5868562

Israel’s Tally of War Crimes in Lebanon Increases in Wake of Exploding Pagers

The Israeli bombing of a residential neighborhood in Beirut is also a war crime.

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Israel escalated attacks against Lebanon on September 23, marking the deadliest day of Israeli bombings in that country since 2006. Israel’s strikes in southern and eastern Lebanon, as well as the capital city of Beirut, left a death toll of at least 274, including women, children and paramedics. The Israeli military targeted “medical centres, ambulances and cars of people trying to flee,” according to Al Jazeera, which cited Lebanon’s Health Minister Firass Abiad as the source for the information. Israel also targeted civilian homes, which it claimed were housing Hezbollah weapons.

This latest targeting of Lebanese civilians comes on the heels of Israel’s detonation of hand-held electronic devices in civilian areas of Lebanon onSeptember 17 and 18, when Israeli forces remotely triggered multiple explosions of electronic pagers and walkie-talkies that killed at least 37 people, including a 9-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, and maimed or injured 3,250 people, 200 critically. About 500 people suffered severe eye wounds and others received grave injuries to their hands, faces and bodies. The blasts occurred in residential buildings, barber shops, grocery stores, cars and at funerals. Many civilians, including government and hospital workers, were killed.

Elias Warrak, an ophthalmologist at Mount Lebanon University Hospital in Beirut, treated several of those injured by the blasts. He told the BBC that between 60 percent and 70 percent of the patients he attended had to have at least one eye removed. “Some of the patients, we had to remove both eyes. It kills me. In my past 25 years in practice, I’ve never removed as many eyes as I did yesterday [September 17].”

Image: A car fire allegedly caused by an exploding pager (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

undefined

Israel’s weaponization of 3,000 to 4,000 pagers and walkie-talkies programmed to explode simultaneously constituted “terrifying” violations of international law, according to 22 independent United Nations experts, including 13 special rapporteurs.

The radios and pagers were reportedly distributed to people associated with Hezbollah, which includes both military and civilian individuals. “At the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,” the experts noted. “Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices would inevitably violate humanitarian law, by failing to verify each target, and distinguish between protected civilians and those who could potentially be attacked for taking a direct part in hostilities.”

booby-trap is defined as something designed to kill or injure unexpectedly when a person performs an apparently safe act like answering a pager. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby-traps that are disguised as harmless objects when they are constructed and designed with explosives. They breach the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions.

War Crimes of Murder, Attacking Civilians, Indiscriminate Attacks, Violence to Spread Terror

“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time,” the U.N. experts wrote. “Such attacks could constitute war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks.”

Israel Bombed Lebanon Today, Killing Hundreds. The U.S. Is Sending More Bombs

The U.N. experts declared,

“It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary,” adding, “A climate of fear now pervades everyday life in Lebanon.”

Amal Saad, an expert on Hezbollah, told Drop Site News, “Everyone’s scared to send text messages, to make calls, and they’re afraid to open laptops. It’s definitely led to some level of complete disorientation, fear, confusion, paranoia. It has huge psychological effects.” Saad noted that the purpose behind the explosions “was to terrorize and paralyze and demoralize.”

Volker Türk, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, likewise denounced the attacks in a statement, calling them “shocking, and their impact on civilians unacceptable,” and saying that “the fear and terror unleashed” was “profound.” Türk wrote,

“Simultaneous targeting of thousands of individuals, whether civilians or members of armed groups, without knowledge as to who was in possession of the targeted devices, their location and their surroundings at the time of the attack, violates international human rights law and, to the extent applicable, international humanitarian law.”

The independent U.N. experts urged states to bring to justice those who ordered and executed the attacks, under the well-established doctrine of universal jurisdiction.

But the weaponized electronic devices weren’t the only recent war crimes Israel has committed against Lebanon.

Israeli Bombing of Residential Beirut Neighborhood Was a War Crime

On September 20, an Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in a residential Beirut suburb killed a top Hezbollah leader along with at least 37 Lebanese people, including three children and seven women, and injured at least 68. This constituted a war crime as it was an intentional attack with knowledge it would cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians and was clearly excessive in relation to the military advantage Israel sought.

U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan celebrated the attack, calling it “justice.” Mohamad Elmasry, professor in the media studies program at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, described Sullivan’s statement as “shocking.” Elmasry told Al Jazeera, “The United States has a long history of its war crimes and it has been covering for Israeli crimes not only during the past 11.5 months [in Gaza] but for decades now – giving Israel cover at the UN and in other diplomatic circles and supplying Israel with weapons to target civilians.”

Indeed, the U.S. routinely vetoes U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for its war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory and has pressured countries in the U.N. General Assembly to facilitate Israeli impunity.

But on September 18, the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the State of Palestine’s resolution demanding an end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in accordance with international law, as recently affirmed by the International Court of Justice. The historic resolution calls for sanctioning Israel, that is, forbidding member states from doing business with Israel or promoting the legitimacy of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. The vote was 124 in favor and 14 against with 43 states abstaining and 12 states not voting. Only the U.S., Israel, and several island states voted “no.”

This is the first time the General Assembly (which is the democratic body in the U.N. system) has called for sanctions against Israel. The resolution reflects the opposition of the international community to Israel’s lawless behavior. It remains to be seen if and how the 124 states that voted for the resolution will implement it.

Since September 18, Israel has continued to commit war crimes in Lebanon. It has launched additional attacks on civilians, including the September 20 bombings of an apartment building in Beirut, and the current targeting of civilian apartments, ambulances and medical centers, killing and wounding mounting numbers of civilians.

Israeli officials claimed that Hezbollah was storing thousands of long-range rockets in civilian homes. They sent people in Lebanon text messages and automated calls cautioning them to move away from Hezbollah’s weapons caches. But Lebanese civilians could not know how close they were to potential military targets, human rights groups said. UNIFIL, which is the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, has “grave concern for the safety of civilians in southern Lebanon” amid what it called “the most intense Israeli bombing campaign” since October 7.

As it continues its genocidal campaign in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel is demonstrating that it is fully prepared to commit war crimes in Lebanon as well. In addition to their illegality, Israel’s actions imperil the entire region, and indeed, the world.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace.

A member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyersshe is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.  

Featured image: Image from a news article on Mehr News about the September 2024 pagers explosions in Lebanon (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

The original source of this article is Truthout

Copyright © Prof. Marjorie CohnTruthout, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-tally-war-crimes-lebanon-increases/5868570

To Promote Peace, You Must Fight StatismBy Oscar GrauThe Libertarian Institute

U.S.-Zionist imperialism in the Middle East is far from coming to an end. The Hamas attack of October 7 on Israel triggered a highly murderous phase in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The subsequent retaliation of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and their killing tens of thousands of innocents and continual provocations has elevated the possibility of a soon-to-come war between Israel and Iran, with the additional chance of involving the United States. To make matters worse, the American relationship with Israel in all these decades has made possible an unfortunate tolerance of the Gazan genocide to many conservatives.

The American ability to produce humanitarian disasters, either with NATO or the IDF, is anything but new, proving over and over again that freedom and human rights do not matter to the U.S. government, which has supported the slaughter of innocents in the Middle East or done the killing itself. Besides, the creation of many more millions of refugees has provoked social turmoil in several European countries suffering from subsidized immigration. And yet, all this is actually assisted by the political leadership of these European countries. Meanwhile, in the Russia-Ukraine war, every time the U.S. government and its allies help President Volodymyr Zelensky with arms and money, they contribute to the death of ever more people by fueling a war provoked by NATO.10-Minute Strength Tra…Deboo PT, EdBuy New $9.29(as of 01:59 UTC — Details)

The necessity of the state is undoubtedly one of the worst myths that still persists in the public mind. Who demands the manufacture of weapons capable of simultaneously killing thousands of people? Who forces or convinces thousands of people to dress in uniform and shoot others? Who builds military bases all over the world? These situations would be impossible without the state. While technology is always advancing, it begins as a neutral tool, and only becomes a factor when the state’s ends are mass weapons of war.

It’s because of ideology that wars in the past century have been more devastating and total than those of previous eras. These destructive ideas include democratic nationalism, the fiat-money system, the abandonment of old ways in warfare, and the increasingly disregarded methodological individualism embodied in the concept of justice. In reality, democratic nationalism became one of the most important causes of the real Hobbesian war of all against all manifested in World War II, which destroyed tranquility, subjected the national economy of several countries to the prerequisites of war, and annihilated the lives of millions. So it is certainly not enough for states to murder or oppress their own subject populations; indeed, which crimes do states pursue and punish most intensely in their own territorial monopolies? Economist Murray Rothbard responds:

“The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of person and property, but dangers to its own contentment: for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, conspiracy to overthrow the government.”

In the meantime, a new arms race came into being post-war. States competed in the development, innovation, and growth of their armies and weapons, qualitatively and quantitatively, making them more powerful and more effective. The race is materially based on the unique ability of states to externalize their costs. As inflation, taxation, and the manipulation of money and credit helps states, the richer they become, the easier it is to afford the race, which underpins the enrichment of the military-industrial complex and solidifies the preparation for war. And although not all states are involved with the same eagerness, all are involved by extension and definition in this arms race, equipping their military forces and purchasing on the global arms market. In fact, industries specializing in technology for mass destruction are established and thrive because states are their only financiers, diverting market resources to militaristic and warmongering initiatives. The military-industrial complex as we know it is not the result of free-market capitalism, but of statism—its intervention, its central banks, and so on.

Linked to the understanding of justice as an individual matter, private defense removes the need or diminishes incentives for military-sized weapons aimed at large destruction rather than individual execution. In the private world, where we have not yet forgotten how to live in peace, virtually no person or security company would ever consider the manufacture and use of highly destructive weapons. The need to avoid collateral damage, the concern for personal justice and defense, the search for profitability, and the private and voluntary financing of customers wanting to live in peace, happen naturally. Indeed, human tendency toward cooperation is so obvious that it suffices to realize that interpersonal conflict is actually rare and not a predominant feature of social life.

True, there will always be a global arms market, since defense and justice are not needs that appear with states, but exist independently. In reality, neither requires the existence of states. But unlike states, which do not compete or worry about the loss of voluntary customers, private security and justice services have incentives to be managed in a way that is not only economically profitable, but also peaceful. They cannot externalize the cost of their aggression or negligence as states do, nor do they have the legal means to systematically commit crimes and escape unscathed from the consequences or risks common among private individuals. Thus, private security and justice services lead people to care more about peace and the rights of others than is possible under statist terms.

The approach to justice and defense as an exclusively individual and private matter is precisely something that statism has no way of emulating. And given the normal non-isolated human coexistence, the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction must be considered an illegitimate endeavor even for defense, for the use of such weapons entails the inevitability of harming or killing innocents, which makes their existence intrinsically evil and illegitimate in the interest of justice.

Wars are initiated by small groups of men in expensive suits, eager for power and ill-gotten wealth, who often care nothing for their countrymen. Thus, anyone concerned with the cause of world peace should be aware of the unique and pernicious ability of states to externalize their costs in order to think of ways to counteract it. Hence, to serve the cause, it is necessary to unceasingly diminish the power and wealth of states to arm themselves and wage war. History illustrates what theory explains, and the cost in lives and resources offered by statism to promote peace is definitely the wrong way.

Additionally, it is essential to recognize the evil nature of power, advocate the dismantling of all states, and not be fooled by the collectivist ideology of national defense. One should reject the deterrence argument, which is a statist excuse for the counterproductive arms race, the perversion of weapons of mass destruction, and the immoral growth of the military-industrial complex.

Democracy u2013 The Go…Hans-Hermann HoppeBest Price: $24.77Buy New $37.61(as of 09:25 UTC — Details)For a more peaceful future, one should hope for all countries—especially the larger, wealthier and more militaristic-minded ones—to divide themselves into smaller units as much as possible, territorially and demographically, making the amount of funds needed for war increasingly unaffordable and challenged by populations ever closer to home. In short, one should support secession and radical political decentralization. And indeed, what would Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin have done with a tiny economy and population at their disposal? Certainly nothing compared to the events of World War II.

And regarding the start of this century, the denunciation of U.S.-Zionist imperialism, NATO, and of zionism itself is of utmost importance in this great cause for peace. Therefore, a person should denounce his national rulers when they show obedience and partisanship to any of the three. Moreover, apart from spreading the right ideas of freedom and justice, it is also vital to apply them correctly to the most significant issues of the present and the past. To be relevant, one should take sides, or at least try to do so, if only in opinion, by recognizing the legitimacy of various peoples to resist their conquerors or by identifying the degree of guilt for the death and destruction caused in wars by each state and the particular individuals involved. On this basis, historical revisionism is crucial to challenging the narrative of the statist status quo. Theory and history already allow us, without a doubt, to know who are today by far the greatest enemies of world peace.

If one believes in the duty to oppose the evil of statism that destroys the lives of millions, then, in the international scene, one should prioritize efforts in opposing the greatest enemies of peace.

This originally appeared on The Libertarian Institute.

European Union Morphs Into NATO’s Financial War Machine

By Finian Cunningham
Strategic Culture

Two key posts – in foreign and defense policy – reveal the militarist and anti-Russia direction of the European Union.

Two key posts – in foreign and defense policy – reveal the militarist and anti-Russia direction of the European Union.

Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission – which works as the executive branch of the European Union – announced her new team of commissioners for the next five years.

Taking over as foreign affairs minister for the 27-nation bloc is Kaja Kallas who is a staunch Russophobe and vigorous supporter of Ukraine. Kallas has called for more EU and NATO military funding for Ukraine to “defeat Russia” and the break up of the Russian Federation.Freedom Betrayed: Herb…Best Price: $28.84Buy New $49.94(as of 03:15 UTC — Details)

The former Estonian prime minister has led the movement to destroy Soviet Red Army monuments across the Baltic states. (This is while her investor husband continues to profit from doing business with Russia.)

Working closely alongside Kallas will be another rabid Russophobe, the former Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius, who is taking up a newly created EU post as defense commissioner. The creation of that post is an alarming sign of how the EU bloc has transitioned from a trade and political union to a military organization.

But what’s even more alarming is the assigning of such an anti-Russia hawk as Kubilius to oversee military policy.

At a time when relations between the EU and Russia have become so fraught with tensions, the European bloc is giving politicians from hostile Baltic states a driving seat to push relations even further towards conflict.

Indeed, the first announcement Kubilius made as the prospective new defense commissioner was that the European Union would likely be at war with Russia in the next six to eight years. That assessment is shared by Kaja Kallas.

Kubilius said the sole focus during his tenure is ramping up military spending by the EU nations to boost NATO and aid Ukraine. He said that he will be working closely with foreign policy chief Kallas to tap funds.

What this means is that the European Union is moving towards making it mandatory for national budgets to allocate more to military procurement. That’s a breakthrough for all the worst reasons.

Kubilius is reportedly aiming for a budget of €500 billion over the next five years to be spent on the military by the EU.

That increase would represent about half of the projected EU total budget.

His comments indicate the purpose of the massive redirection of finances – to boost NATO. Kubilius noted that “the European Union has instruments to get larger financing, which NATO doesn’t.”

That implies that under his formulation and compulsory directives from Brussels, the EU will make it mandatory for member states to spend more on the military.

NATO and the EU have overlapping membership with 23 members of the EU’s 27 also being part of the U.S.-led military alliance. Non-NATO members are Austria, Cyprus, Malta, and Ireland.

NATO states are expected to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP  on military. That amounts to about $380 billion for European members of NATO in 2024. That is a huge increase compared with what was spent by these members only a few years ago. But what the NATO planners want is more and more going forward. The problem is locking that expenditure in.

The trouble for NATO planners is the 2 percent figure is not mandatory. It is subject to national policy. While most members of NATO are hitting that target currently, there is no guarantee it will continue. Changes in national governments might result in spending slipping back to former levels of 1-1.5 percent of GDP as was the case before the proxy war in Ukraine blew up in 2022.

What the NATO hawks in the EU desire most is to lock in military spending year-on-year. NATO does not have the legal means to enforce such a commitment as mandatory on its members. But the EU can do it through its supranational powers as served by centralized directives from Brussels.

The Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have upped their military spending to nearly 3 percent of GDP when Kallas and Kubilius were in office.

Moreover, Kubilius has previously proposed that all EU members devote an extraordinary, additional 0.25 percent of their GDP to make mandatory military donations to Ukraine to “ensure victory over Russia”, amounting to €100 billion a year.

This is an astounding transformation of the European Union. The organization has its roots in the 1950s as a loose trade federation of Western European nations – principally France and the Federal Republic of Germany – which proclaimed that lessons of the Second World War had been learned and would never be repeated because of commitments to good neighborliness and commercial partnership. In its earlier incarnations, the European bloc sought out friendly relations with the Soviet Union, primarily with energy trade being a cornerstone of cooperation.

The 5-Ingredient Cookb…Kelly, BenjaminBest Price: $4.19Buy New $10.88(as of 05:32 UTC — Details)Since the supposed end of the Cold War in 1991, the EU has expanded in line with the expansion of NATO. Its powers have become evermore centralized and usurping national policy. A striking feature of both NATO and the EU is the hardening of Russophobic policy that has come with the leveraging of anti-Russia Baltic states. Historically, these states were virulent collaborators with Nazi Germany in its genocidal war against the Soviet Union. The Baltic states still harbor fascists who venerate the Third Reich. Hence, the destruction of Soviet-era war monuments and the rehabilitation of public displays commemorating Nazi collaborators.

NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is the continuation of Western imperialist designs on subjugating Russian territory that was previously pursued by Nazi Germany.

The European Union has subverted its earlier ideals of pacifism and cooperation to become part of NATO’s war machine. Crucially, what the EU brings to the war machine is legalized enforced funding, even for nations that are not part of NATO.

Added to that is the EU is being directed by people who drool about war with Russia: Von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and descendant of Nazi ideologues, is aided and abetted by Kaja Kallas and Andrius Kubilius who cannot think of Russia without fantasizing about its “defeat”.

The Nazi specter is resurrected in NATO and its EU financial wing.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.

Copyright © Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal http://www.strategic-culture.su.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Fake Presidential Race

Don’t burn your popcorn

By Donald Jeffries
«I Protest»

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Fake Presidential Race

Don’t burn your popcorn

By Donald Jeffries
«I Protest

BRICS+ Expansion Still Under Debates. “Growing Discontent with The West… More than 30 Countries Want to Join… “: Sergey Lavrov

By Kester Kenn Klomegah

In an interview with Sky News Arabia on September 20, 2024, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed skepticism, but was straight to the point about strategic expansion of BRICS, an association comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Under Russia’s BRICS presidency which began January 2024, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became the second wave of the newest members to join BRICS. South Africa ascended in 2011 under China’s initiative.

Tracking down the history, operations and achievements, Lavrov acknowledged in his interview that the BRICS association is consolidating its positions and cooperating with a number of countries. At the same time, this association is facing certain challenges. It is necessary to promote collaboration based on a balance of interests, and most importantly, BRICS functions on the basis of consensus. The consensus principle primarily aims at finding agreements that reflect the mutual accord of all participants. This is not easy. The more partners, the harder it is to search for accord. It takes more time to finalise any consensus-based agreement than a vote-based solution. 

Accrding to Lavrov, this provides a solid foundation for developing a strategic partnership within the association. Currently, BRICS comprises 10 countries; their number has doubled compared to last year. More than 30 countries have already submitted applications for interaction or membership in the association. At the summit to be held in Kazan in October, one of the main items on the agenda will be the consideration of applications from states that wish to interact and partner with BRICS.

BRICS expansion has sparked debates and discussion these several years, long before Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were finally accepted on the condition of “concensus” by BRICS members during the South African summit in August 2023. Lavrov has already indicated and repeated explained the “suspension” of membership into BRICS+. Instead of membership, Lavrov mentioned that potentical countries can only only be accepted as a “partner group” with simple consideration to support and interact with BRICS association. The prescription is very simple – BRICS is an association based on a respectful attitude towards each other and on mutual consideration to promote collaboration based on a balance of interests and strictly adhere to the principle of the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs. 

BRICS: An Informal Association? Now Under the Chairmanship of the The Russian Federation

According to information monitored, more than 30 countries, with growing discontent against western hegemony, have expressed their readiness to join BRICS. Lavrov has also confirmed this figure in his interview with Sky News Arabia, and even earlier explained that “the modalities of ascension have to be collectively discussed” at subsequent summits in future. 

In practical terms, Russia has suspended BRICS+ expansion, in other words BRICS+ flagship policy of boosting its numerical strength, with unique reports indicating that there were more than 30 countries worldwide – Latin America, Asia and Africa. At South Africa’s 15th Summit held under President Cyril Ramaphosa, several countries had expressed interest in ascending the BRICS association, but only five (5) finally joined. The official documents, as stipulated by the guidelines, set no concrete criteria or rules for admission except using the flexible term “consensus” – a general agreement at the summit which was utilized in the selection process. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin have described (designated) this circle of BRICS+ friends into … what is now referred popularly to as “partner members” which starkly reflected in official documents.

At the Primakov Readings held in June 2024, the extraordinary key point was an announcement by Sergey Lavrov over ‘suspension’ of BRICS new membership. In mid-June 2024, Lavrov hosted the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod. The BRICS Foreign Ministers decided to suspend admission of new members and this step reflected in the final documents.

Local and foreign media reported Lavrov’s statement:

“By the overwhelming majority, the ten members decided to ‘take a pause’ with new members, to ‘take in’ the new members who have doubled the association. At the same time, we are working of categories of partner countries as stages ahead of a full-fledged membership.”

Lavrov said BRICS would use the pause to draw up a list of categories for BRICS partner countries that would serve as stepping stones toward full membership. Understandably, BRICS+ has decided to “take a pause’ in terms of admitting new members. The partner-country model in line with paragraph 92 of the Johannesburg II Declaration.

In a media release after June 10-11, BRICS foreign ministers meeting, noted prospects for promoting strategic partnership within BRICS, including the establishment of a new category of “partner countries”  and suspension of new members from the Global South and Global East. As per the agreements reached at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in 2023, the ministers reviewed the efforts to coordinate the modalities of the new category, BRICS partner countries.

Within the stipulated guidelines, Russia took over the BRICS one-year-long presidency on January 1, 2024. The initial four BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) met in New York City in September 2006 at the margins of the UN Assembly, but held its first full-scale meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on 16 June 2009. BRICS has experienced two phases of expansion. In 2011, South Africa joined the association, which included Brazil, Russia, India, and China. On January 1, 2024, five new members officially entered BRICS association namely Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

*

Click the share button below 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.

Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”! 

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from © Sputnik. Photo host agency brics-russia2020.ru

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Kester Kenn Klomegah, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brics-expansion-debates/5868547

Создайте подобный сайт на WordPress.com
Начало работы